Get Adobe Flash player

APC MEETING – January 14, 2019

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, January 14, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Board Members Present: Charles Anderson, James Annis, Abbey Gross, Ralph Hasser, Sid Holderly, Richard Lynn, Doug Pepple, Stacy Selagy, Mike Smolek, Dennis Sterrett & Brad Ward.

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

Registered visitors were: See attached.

The meeting was called to order by Charles Anderson.

****

Opening Business:

1. APC Appointments – Introduce new APC Members. Sid Holderly was appointed by the Advisory Council of Town Affairs and Ralph Hasser who was appointed as the member from the Brookston Town Council.

2. Appoint APC Officers: Doug Pepple made a motion to retain the current officers to the 2019 APC Board of Directors, with a second from Richard Lynn. Officers include Charles Anderson, President, Mike Smolek, Vice President, and Tina Tiede, Secretary. All in favor by show of hands; motion carries.

3. Appoint Tech Review Committee Members: A motion was made by Abbey Gross to retain the current Tech Review Committee Members as 2018, with a second from Denny Sterrett. All in favor by show of hands; motion carries.

4.

Approval of The Minutes: There was a motion by Doug Pepple and a second by Jim Annis to approve the meeting minutes of the 11/13/18 APC Regular Meeting. Approved unanimously, so moved.

****

REZONES:

1) #1087 – Kaminsky Family Self-declaration Of Trust Dtd 6-5-00: PUD (Planned Unit Development) to A-1 (General Agriculture District) –; S/s Se Frax; 28-26-03; 3.742; Parcel ID # 91-63-28-000-009.000-020 (014-11480-00); Union Township; commonly known as: Vacant Ground along Upper Hambridge Drive, Monticello, Indiana 47960. The proposed rezone is for the purpose of removing the PUD designation due to abandonment declaration by the Area Plan Staff and Directive by the Legislative Body for consideration of rezone to A-1.

Joseph Rogers represented this request for rezone. The abandonment clause states that if construction does not begin within 2 years of plat approval, then the PUD is considered abandoned. There has been activity on this PUD for approx. nine (9) years. The next step is to present the abandonment to the appropriate legislative body, which is the County Commissioners in this case. The Commissioners concurred the abandonment position and determined that the zoning district that the property should revert back to is the original A-1 (General Agriculture District).

Once the Commissioners agreed with the abandonment status, the property owners were sent a certified letter advising them of the conclusion and that there would be a rezone petition initiated and they were invited to attend the meeting and voice their opinion or future plans. Additionally, they were sent a second letter along with the surrounding property owner notifications and the office did not receive any communication from the property owners in response to the notifications they received.

Randy Strong, a neighboring property owner was present and just wanted clarification on the location of the parcels subject to rezone, relative to his property.

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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

President Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows:

11 votes cast - 11 in Favor; 0 Opposed; 0 No Recommendation

Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation: The White County Commissioners at the January 22, 2019 meeting.

2) #1088 – Kaminsky Family Self-declaration Of Trust Dtd 6-5-00: PUD (Planned Unit Development) to A-1 (General Agriculture District); Pt S 1/2 Se; 28-26-3; 1.108; Parcel ID # 91-63-28-000-009.001-020 (014-11480-01); Union Township; commonly known as: Vacant Ground along Upper Hambridge Drive, Monticello, Indiana 47960. The proposed rezone is for the purpose of removing the PUD designation due to abandonment declaration by the Area Plan Staff and Directive by the Legislative Body for consideration of rezone to A-1.

Details of this rezone request are identical to the previous request of #1087 above.

There being no 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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

President Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows:

11 votes cast - 11 in Favor; 0 Opposed; 0 No Recommendation

Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation: The White County Commissioners at the January 22, 2019 meeting.

3) #1089 – Timothy A Terlep Jr. (Darrell Lynn Smith): R-2 (Single & Two-Family Residential District) to an RR (Rural Residential District); W/e N Ne Sw; 16-26-03; 7.00 & Sw Ne .34; Parcel ID #91-63-16-000-002.700-020 (014-07160-00); Union Township; commonly known as: 3519 S Freeman Rd., Monticello. The proposed rezone is for the purpose of bringing the parcel into compliance with the current use and for possible sale.

Timothy (Art) Terlep Jr. was present to represent this rezone request. Joseph Rogers highlighted some history of the parcel’s original zoning of R-5, which became obsolete under the 1995 White County Zoning Ordinance. The R-5 zoning designations were re-allocated under the 2008 White County Zoning Ordinance to an L-1 (Lake Residential District) or R-2 (Single & Two-Family Residential District). Since these were the only two options available, this parcel was designated as an R-2 District, however it is better suited to be an RR (Rural Residential District). Historically, there has always been livestock raised on the property and the rezone just brings the parcel into compliance with the actual use.

There being no 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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 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. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 11 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

President Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows:

11 votes cast - 11 in Favor; 0 Opposed; 0 No Recommendation

Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation: The White County Commissioners at the January 22, 2019 meeting.

SUBDIVISIONS: NONE

AMENDMENTS:

1) #A52 – CH 7 & CH 14: Solar Energy Systems

The purpose of this amendment is to create standards, definitions and allowances for the construction and development of solar energy opportunities for both commercial and private purposes. This amendment addresses industry relevant terms and definitions, utilization of innovative solar technologies, assignment of appropriate locations and conditions for allowing solar energy development. This amendment fills voids and gaps in our current ordinance as it pertains to solar energy opportunities.

Joseph Rogers presented this amendment, which effectively converts the current Wind Energy section of the Zoning Ordinance to a Renewable Energy section and incorporate the solar energy standards within that chapter. The key to the changes made were focused on the practicality of the ordinance, relative to possible proposed plans for solar improvements. The scope includes 5 acres or more if you are producing energy to be sold on the grid, which is considered a commercial aspect of solar energy systems. Additionally, there are solar uses that are considered on-site (personal or residential) which are incorporated into the accessory structure component of the Zoning Ordinance. Regulations to the utilities are left to the property owner and will not be managed by the Area Plan office. The development standards related to screening requirements and the location of solar converters have been specifically structured to meet concerns. Any component of the solar construction installation that is subject to subject to violation of FAA Airspace, must provide FAA approval.

Mike Smolek made a motion to approve, with a second from Brad Ward. All in favor by a show of hands; motion carries.

2) #A56 – CH 3: Vision Clearance & Principal Structures

The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarification and address inadequacies in the vision clearance area requirements of Chapter 3 as well as update application of the principal structure

limitation created in Subsection 3.0.2.

Joseph Rogers presented this amendment consists of a principle structure component and a clarification of the vision clearance area.

Doug Pepple made a motion to approve, with a second from Abbey Gross. All in favor by a show of hands; motion carries.

BUSINESS:

1) 2018 Annual Report – The 2018 Bldg. & Planning Dept. Annual Report was presented to the Board Members. Joseph Rogers elaborated on the staffing challenges over the past year, along with the importance of the amendments that need to be made to the Zoning Ordinance. Additional discussion was had related to the future staffing plans for the department, as previously approved by the Board.

2) Comp Plan Directives-The Board has been provided a list of action items that need to be addressed in the near future. Joe Rogers has suggested that a Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee be re-designated to work on those action items and prepare them for the Board’s consideration.

3) Sign Questions-Portions of the Sign Ordinance have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which led Joe to attempt to reconstruct the ordinance in order to be in compliance. With too many questions, this was put on hold for a time until a very rough draft was handed over to the previous Director. There are still many questions about to sign-related topics that Joe would like some direction from the APC Board on in order to move forward with finalizing an amendment. Joe gave several examples of the sign issues and concerns that he would like direction on from the Board.

With a suggestion by Joe Rogers, a motion was made by Doug Pepple to create a sign sub-committee, with a second from Mike Smolek. Members of the sign-sub-committee are to include: Jim Annis, Ralph Hasser, Mike Smolek, & Abbey Gross.

There being no further business, Brad Ward made a motion to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Abbey Gross. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tina M. Tiede, APC Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Joseph Rogers, 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.”

Signed_______________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE OF REGULAR SESSION

January 14, 2019 – 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):

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approve 11/13/18 APC Regular Meeting Minutes

OPENING BUSINESS:

1. APC Appointments – Introduce new APC Members

2. Appoint APC Officers

3. Appoint Tech Review Committee Members

REZONINGS:

1) #1087 – Kaminsky Family Self-declaration Of Trust Dtd 6-5-00; S/s Se Frax; 28-26-03; 3.742; Parcel ID # 91-63-28-000-009.000-020 (014-11480-00); Union Township; commonly known as: Vacant Ground along Upper Hambridge Drive, Monticello, Indiana 47960. The proposed zoning map amendment involves consideration of a change of the zoning districts from: PUD (Planned Unit Development) to a A-1 (General Agriculture District). The proposed rezone is for the purpose of removing the PUD designation due to abandonment declaration by the Area Plan Staff and Directive by the Legislative Body for consideration of rezone to A-1.

Joe Rogers, Executive Director, was in person to represent the request for rezone.

2) #1088 - Kaminsky Family Self-declaration Of Trust Dtd 6-5-00; Pt S 1/2 Se; 28-26-3; 1.108; Parcel ID # 91-63-28-000-009.001-020 (014-11480-01); Union Township; commonly known as: Vacant Ground along Upper Hambridge Drive, Monticello, Indiana 47960. The proposed zoning map amendment involves consideration of a change of the zoning districts from: PUD (Planned Unit Development) to a A-1 (General Agriculture District). The proposed rezone is for the purpose of removing the PUD designation due to abandonment declaration by the Area Plan Staff and Directive by the Legislative Body for consideration of rezone to A-1.

3) #1089 – Timothy A Terlep Jr. (Darrell Lynn Smith); W/e N Ne Sw; 16-26-03; 7.00 & Sw Ne .34; Parcel ID #91-63-16-000-002.700-020 (014-07160-00); Union Township; commonly known as: 3519 S Freeman Rd., Monticello. The proposed zoning map amendment involves consideration of a change of the zoning districts from: R-2 (Single & Two-Family Residential District) to an RR (Rural Residential District). The proposed rezone is for the purpose of bringing the parcel into compliance with the current use and for possible sale.

SUBDIVISIONS: NONE

AMENDMENTS:

3) #A52 – CH 7 & CH 14: Solar Energy Systems

The purpose of this amendment is to create standards, definitions and allowances for the construction and development of solar energy opportunities for both commercial and private purposes. This amendment addresses industry relevant terms and definitions, utilization of innovative solar technologies, assignment of appropriate locations and conditions for allowing solar energy development. This amendment fills voids and gaps in our current ordinance as it pertains to solar energy opportunities.

4) #A56 – CH 3: Vision Clearance & Principal Structures

The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarification and address inadequacies in the vision clearance area requirements of Chapter 3 as well as update application of the principal structure limitation created in Subsection 3.0.2.

BUSINESS:

4) 2018 Annual Report

5) Comp Plan Directives

6) Sign Questions

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