Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday November 10, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Jay Clawson, Gary Barbour, Charles Anderson, David Scott, Stephen Fisher, Don Ward, Gregory Bossaer, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Harriett Cable, Due Penn, Hal Koekenberg, Kay Knop, Bill Penn, Linda Davis, Dane Davis, Jim White, Travis Pherson, Don Knop, Nancy Downey, Larry Rush, Donna Rush, Don Rush, Delores Rush, John Scheumann, David Applegate, Tracie Applegate and Walt Owen

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson and roll call was taken.


#830 Carl E. & Lou Ann Hites; The property is located on Lot 29 in John C. Karr’s Addition, in the Town of Buffalo at 311 S. State Road 39. This was tabled from the October 14, 2003 meeting.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from R-2 to B-2. This request is being referred back to the Area Plan Commission Board by the County Commissioners for approval of a commitment.

President Charles Anderson asked, do we have anyone here representing this request?

President Charles Anderson stated, I did not see anyone here, so this will be tabled until the next meeting.


#836 Dane R. & Linda C. Davis; The property is located on 4.00 acres, South of Monticello at 3731 S. Freeman Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from R-2 to A-1.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Dane Davis stated, I’m Dane Davis.

President Charles Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any questions about this request?

Jay Clawson asked, what are your intentions?

Dane Davis stated, I would like the land to reflect for what it has been used as far back as I can remember.

Linda Davis stated, when we purchased it, it was sold to us as agriculture and that is what it has been used for. We just want it to reflect what it was used for. There is going to be no change.

President Charles Anderson stated, this one is going from R-2 to A-1.

Director Weaver stated, right.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there any more questions, if not we can go ahead and vote.

Director Weaver stated, we have had several phone calls on this and concerns. I don’t know if there is anyone here opposing the request or not.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here that has questions about this request at all?

Bill Penn stated, we all have questions, I don’t understand why you want to change it back to Agriculture. It is a residential area. We are here to protest it being turned back to agriculture because we don’t want livestock there. My personal opinion is I don’t have an objection to one horse, but I have an objection to pigs, chickens, and whatever. If it goes back to agriculture then it can never be changed back that is my understanding.

President Charles Anderson stated, someone can change it back, but.

Bill Penn stated, all of us here want to know what is going on.

Linda Davis stated, it is not our intent to open up a swine or hog or hen operation.

President Charles Anderson asked, does anyone else want to make a statement or say anything?

John Scheumann stated, I’m John Scheumann and I own the adjoining property and while I wouldn’t necessarily oppose to one horse. The problem is if it is rezoned there is no protection under the zoning ordinance that says this is limited to one horse. Any use that is allowed underneath the agriculture zoning would then be allowed once this is rezoned, as I understand it. Is that correct?

President Charles Anderson stated, yes.

John Scheumann stated, anything allowed then under that would be allowed so what protection do we have as adjoining property owners that some other use does not occur. Frankly there isn’t one anyone can give, so you know we are relying on the existing zoning when we purchased our properties that is was zoned Residential at the time. With the addition of sewer lines now to the area there is the possibility of increased residential uses here. To put live stock in the middle of a residential use, I don’t think is probably good planning. I would think the professional planner would tell you that this in essence would create a spot zone when it is surrounded by residential zoning. Creating a spot zone in a residential zoning would not be something professional planner would typically approve. I guess my other objection is I’m assuming there is plenty of agriculture zones land inside the county to permit this usage. I mean if this was the last 4 acres of ag left in the county I could understand why somebody might say, gee we need to rezone this. I guess there has got to be thousands of acres here in the county where this use could be provided without a request of rezoning or anything. It’s not like there’s not ample land available in the county to provide for horses or livestock or anything else. I guess on that base we would request that you deny the rezone.

Linda Davis stated, there is livestock one property down each direction already.

Dane Davis stated, there are 6 horses in a lot just one lot down from us in a field. There are hogs directly across the road at one time in a barn. Most of the property around there is correct, it is agriculture and been used for agriculture for a number of years. There is a lot of it going from agriculture back to residential, so there is plenty of residential property available too and it is not the last 4 acres, but it is the 4 acres that we happen to have. Have you ever had livestock?

President Charles Anderson asked, do you have that horse on there now or are you just wanting to put a horse on there.

Dane Davis stated, no we would like to put one on there.

President Charles Anderson asked, do we have anyone else in the audience have any questions.

Linda Davis stated, we did have hogs at one time, but we don’t want to do that again.

President Charles Anderson asked, do we have anybody else in the audience with questions?

Don Knop stated, I’m Don Knop and I live in the same area, I do request that we deny this request because of the fact that there is property adjacent to the North of this property that has horses and dogs and other domestic animals that is questionable as far as I am concerned. The properties have problems with pollution to the lake adjacent to Lake Freeman. As far as I am concerned there is no reason we need anymore problems to the area. I want you to vote against this and I wish that you guys on this board would deny this request.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions?

Steve Fisher asked, Mr. Davis would you be willing to provide like some type of letter to us that would say that you would just have a horse on this parcel?

Dane Davis stated, yes.

President Charles Anderson stated, and when the property was sold if it does change then it would revert back to the residential.

Steve Fisher stated, that seems to be what is heard from the audience at least their concern is not necessarily about any single horse, but the livestock.

Dane Davis stated, I don’t think the 4 acres has the capability to be able to support any kind of livestock operation beyond a few pets. I’m a farmer okay from past years and you can’t raise a full swine herd on 4 acres, it is ludicrous to think about it. There are other animals and livestock in the area whether or not they’re causing problems for the lake, I don’t know. Our property does not go anywhere near the lake or any of the landowners directly on the lake itself.

President Charles Anderson asked, does any of the residence adjacent have any problem with a written commitment on this like that where we did change agriculture zoning that they could have a commitment for one or. How many horses do you plan on having?

John Scheumann stated, on the information we had there is a restriction on the number of horses that you can have on 4 acres parcel to begin with.

President Charles Anderson stated, it is 2 horses to every 3 acres, so you can only have two horses. The adjacent property owners would you be opposed to the commitment from them saying for two horses and no more than two horses and if they sell the property it goes back to residential.

John Scheumann stated, I guess my first question would be how do I know if they won’t encroach on my property, if you allow this rezoning to occur. Well I own the other 8 ½ acres so what are you going to do. What is someone going to do?

Several are talking at once.

Linda Davis stated, it would be fenced.

John Scheumann asked, is this commitment enforceable by this commission? Are these commitments enforceable?

President Charles Anderson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, or otherwise, we wouldn’t do it.

Pesident Charles Anderson stated, in the commitment we would put that they have to fence the property before they would put a horse on it. Are there any other questions or objections?

Scott Giese stated, my understanding is that this is zoning is for them to sell the property on the contingent that they get the rezoning. Would this be tied to their ownership?

President Charles Anderson stated, it would be tied to their ownership, if they are trying to rezone.

Scott Giese asked, are they trying to sell the land contingent upon this rezoning?

Dane Davis stated, that might be a possibility, yes.

Linda Davis stated, we wanted it rezoned whether we sell it or not.

Dane Davis stated, whether I sell it or not I would like the property rezoned.

Somebody asked Mr. Davis if he lives there.

Dane Davis stated, no.

President Charles Anderson stated, if you sold the property as an agriculture property it would revert back to the residential. That is what will happen if you sold it.

Dane Davis stated, if it was zoned as agriculture and there is still restrictions no matter who owns the property, I don’t know why it would not be enforceable no matter who the landowner is.

President Charles Anderson stated, then we can not control the second landowner.

Steve Fisher stated, typically what we do when we write the commitments is that we are making commitment with you not with someone else. Most of the commitments that are written are if you were to sell to someone else then it is going to revert back to the previous use.

President Charles Anderson asked, what do the lawyers say about this?

Attorney Altman stated, then they would have to come back in and do the same thing that you did or not get what you might not get.

Linda Davis stated, that is fine.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any other questions?

Greg Bossaer asked, does this satisfy the other people?

Harriett Cable stated, I’m Harriett Cable and I live directly behind it and I don’t see any purpose for rezoning. It is residential and I think it should be kept residential. That is my opinion.

President Charles Anderson asked, let me see a show of hands of whose property is related to this back there. I would like to see a show of hands on who would like to see it left residential.

Linda Davis stated, our property is not in site of any home when you look at it. We are out in the middle of vacant land all around us and an 80 acre field across from us. Its not like we are in the middle of a neighborhood asking for livestock. It is 4 acres.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions?

David Scott asked, can they leave the property residential and get a special exception to raise horses in a residential area?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Charles Anderson stated, at the present time there is no one living in the house.

Dane Davis stated, no.

President Charles Anderson asked, are you guys planning on living in the house?

Dane Davis stated, we don’t have immediate plans do so. It is possible that we might move back here. A lot of my relatives live here.

President Charles Anderson stated, from the board do you guys want to keep the proposal the way it is without a commitment on it or do you want to put a commitment on it and vote on it or what?

Don Ward stated. I think we should put a commitment on it and vote on it.

President Charles Anderson stated, so the commitment would be the property would revert back if they sold it from agriculture back to residential. No more than two horses and it would have to be fenced to have any type.

We can vote on this the way it is or you can bring it back. We would have to table it with a commitment written up.

Dane Davis stated, we will request to table it.

President Charles Anderson asked, do you want us to vote on it the way it is now, or do you want to bring a commitment back. It is up to you guys.

Dane Davis stated, we can table it and bring it back to you.

Attorney Altman stated, he has asked table this request until the December 8, 2003 meeting. Does everyone understand that?


#837 Aylo Matteson, Owner; Laurel Eakin, Applicant; The property is located on Lots 7, 8 and 9 in W.T. Alkire’s Addition, in the Town of Brookston at 903 S. Prairie Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from R-2 to B-2.

This request was withdrawn prior to the meeting.


#838 Donna S. Durflinger; The property is located on .539 of an acre, West of the Town of Monon at 808 W. State Road 16

Violation: None

Request: She is requesting to rezone from A-1 to R-2.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

No one was representing this request therefore it was tabled until the next meeting.


#839 Oak Tree Farm, LTD Partnership, Owner; VMS, LLC, Applicant: The property is located in Prairie Township on 20.05 acres, more or less, on the Northwest corner of County Road 300 East and County Road 850 South.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from A-1 to R-1.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?


Travis Pherson stated, my name is Travis Pherson. I’m the managing member of VMS LLC. We are here to request a rezoning of approximately 20 acres on the Northwest corner of county road 300 E and county road 850 S from A-1 to R-1. Our intentions for this rezoning is to do a subdivision and we feel that the lots size and setbacks of R-1 will better meet the design purpose of the development.


President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here with any questions?


Delores Rush stated, I’m Delores Rush, and our property is across the road from the proposed residential area. We have a veil barn with 162 calves that requires an awful lot of ventilation. A lot of manure spreading on the fields across those houses, and a lot of semi trucks in and out bring baby calves, delivering feed, taking calves to market. We probably will be receiving some complaints and we don’t want that. Our barn was built in 1974. It is special built and especially equipment for a business and that is our income. It is closed temporarily because my husband had to have a knee replacement, but the barn is ready to be refilled at any time. If our age is a problem don’t consider it, we have two younger sons and two grandsons who can take over the building at any time. There are 162 calves in that barn and I’m afraid those people won’t be happy with that.


President Charles Anderson asked, does anyone else have any questions?


Delores Rush stated, I also have some letters from other people.


President Charles Anderson stated, do you want to present them as exhibits.


She gave letters to Attorney Altman and he read them all. See letters in the file.


Mrs. Rush stated, I’m also a Mrs. Rush and we live around the corner from the proposed subdivision. We would like to avoid this type of confrontation situation that just occurred here with this other rezoning. We are very concerned that the potential for our future lively hood could be in jeopardy if a subdivision goes in and then there are multiple complaints about the odor and it is very big one, the noise, we are up at 4:00 a.m. to feed calves. They come in at 4:00 a.m. with the semi’s to load them or drop them off. Unfortunately, they pass prior to shipping them out, they get taken out side until somebody can come and pick up the carcasses, which again can become very aromatic. I’m just not sure how good that type of situation is going to be right across from subdivision. We are very concerned about that.


Don Ward stated, they can go to agriculture subdivision and we really can’t stop them. No matter what we do if they want to switch over they can over ride us. However, it seems to me you have 30 lots in a 20 acres with the roads. We were wondering about sanitation and getting rid of the waste even if it was approved. Wells and whether you have room to do all of that.


Travis Pherson stated, all of the lots are greater than 20,000-sq. ft., which are the requirements for well and septic in subdivision.


??? stated, well that works great if you have good soil and everything works right, but it seems that is kind of crowded out in the country like that.


Jim White stated, I’m Jim White of Vestor and Associates. This is just a conceptual to show maximum number allowed under this. We will have to have soil tests and then that would change lot sizes. Positions are going to change due to the tress, we are going to try to leave buffers trees along the South. 162 heads doesn’t meet confinement requirements in White County.


Attorney Altman stated, it may not, but it sounds to me that it is more then aromatic.


Jim White stated, it is also southeast of the property which would be away from the prevailing winds.


Attorney Altman stated, sometimes.


Jay Clawson stated, one of the things that we have discussed in other subdivisions is, with 300 E being one of the major arteries in the county we are trying to preserve traffic flow and when you are putting, it looks like there are 4 lots that you are wanting to ingress and egress directly off. You want the major road back in to egress and ingress off of 300 and we are trying to when ever we do rezoning to have a minimum of 300’ egress and ingress on to 300. That is the main road that everyone gets to Lafayette here. If we rezone 300 E to where there is a driveway every 50’ to 100’ then no body, it would be just like driving down Illinois St.


Jim White stated, all access from interior and we will put no vehicle access around the exterior. We want the two openings is all, we don’t want.


Jay Clawson stated, that would be one of things we would look at.


Jim White stated, that would be something in the subdivision process that is our intent of a cul-de-sac.


President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any other questions?


Without further discussion the board voted.


The results of the vote were as follows: 3 affirmative and 5 negative. This will be presented to White County Commissioners for their action.


Walt Owens stated, I’m Walt Owens, I was here last month about dual zonings property problem that we have. I went to Lafayette and checked out down there. They have no such ordinance and they know of any County that does and I have talked to Jasper County and Carroll and they don’t exist. The River Market Place down there, the called it PUD. Planned Development. That is how they got around all of this other stuff. As far as the zoning or ordinance there is just no reason to have this as far as I could tell. I also went to the Wolcott town board meeting to ask what their opinion was and they don’t see a problem with either changing or repealing it. John says you can repeal it easier than you can change it. Once you repeal it you automatically throw it back into the Towns and City own hands and let them decide if they want to repeal it, adopt it, or un-adopt it or what ever you want to call it. I need to get this done in order to finish up my theater project. It is a major task.

President Charles Anderson asked, can we do a Planned Development on it?

Director Weaver stated, I have questioned this before with our Attorney.

President Charles Anderson asked, what does the Attorney Altman say about a Planned Development?

Walt Owens stated, John said I could do a PUD and only that location there and nothing else changes as long as I meet all of the requirements. Dave Anderson has been over there a dozen times.

Attorney Altman stated, I think it is possible as long as you structure it.

President Charles Anderson stated, I think that would be the fastest way, I think there is going to be some other changes.

Walt Owens asked, what do I need to do.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get with people who know how to draft and design that. Get hold of Paul Couts in Lafayette and he has done PUD before.

John Heimlich stated, I just wanted to come and see this board in action. I just asked Diann to speak to you a couple of minutes tonight to kind of inform you of something that the Commissioners are beginning to get involved with. I can think of two or three meetings over the last several years where representatives of this board and we have discussed the possibility of looking at our Comprehensive plan and our Zoning Ordinance with the intent to update it. It has been a number of years and we all know that the County looks quite a bit different then it did even 20 years ago. At the strategies meetings 3 years ago I think that came out of the land use and planning portion of that is we needed to take a look at that plan and ordinance and with the intent of updating it. The Commissioners last Monday meet with a consultant that specializes in writing Zoning Ordinances. We discussed with him what we had in mind and he took a copy of our plan and of the ordinance. He is suppose to get back to us with I guess what he would recommend or how he would recommend that we would proceed. I think that would also come with some idea of what it would cost us. When we get that back I think we will probably contact a couple of other firms. I mean we really haven’t gotten much further than that, but I guess I think at that point we will probably bring one or more of those firms, either bring them to you or have your board appoint a couple of representatives that set in with us and talk to those firms before we decide on one for sure.

That is where we are know and obviously if we do go through that process why this board is going to be involved. That is who he will be dealing with the most.

Jay Clawson asked, when you asked for this solicitation, I would like to see some work that these people have done, so that we can all look through this and kind of, when we meet with you then we can say we liked these two people work. I think some people say their plan or developers and then this is what we got.

John Heimlich stated, this individual did have list of work he had done. He was from Northern Indiana. He has done mainly work in Northern Indiana and Michigan. George Loy was getting us the names and this was the first one that he had contacted and I’m sure we will want to talk to a couple of more at least. I just wanted to make you aware of that and if you have any questions or impute be glad to hear it.

Greg Bossaer asked, when that happens and the comprehensive plan is changed, then do we have to publicize all of those changes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, its not like our old ones goes away, that is not it, we work on it like it is a new ordinance and new comprehensive plan. You just start from scratch.

John Heimlich stated, certainly we would want the City of Monticello and the towns involved because one of our goals would be to try to eliminate some of the differences that exist now.

Attorney Altman stated, one of our problems you saw this evening and we have talked about and the board has talked about it.

Greg Bossaer stated, if we could have more control, we are going to control the occupancy and say B-1 or B-2 to one thing and then if you want something else you have got to come back in and get it approved. Most of the complains are people who don’t mind what is going on now, but might now like what is coming in the future. We ask for all of that last time and we didn’t get anything. Nothing that we really wanted was someway to control so we have leverage to get what we want. We have been doing it by commitment all of the time. It takes another month or two, but that is what we do. We ask them for a commitment.

Attorney Altman stated, that is something that you have been sensitive on the Commissioners about asking for it too. It is a good tool and if you have more specifics in the ordinance you maybe wouldn’t have to have the permit so much.

Steve Fisher stated, seems like to me that just lead to more litigation down the road. You are talking about ironing out these little details and saying about a fence here and one horse and you know that is going to continue with the land for how long.

John Heimlich stated, the individual that we talked to discussed the plan and the ordinance that is why he wanted to look at both of them because he said if you are going to overhaul both of them the cost would be approximately doubled. He said in a lot of cases the plan maybe.

We asked, him about estimating cost and I think he really didn’t give an exact figure kind of hem hauled around that part right now. He indicated that his fee would probably monthly and he figure it normally would take a year to a year and half to complete it. That would be the time frame you are looking at.

Several talking at once

John Heimlich stated, I just wanted to let you know what we were doing.

Director Weaver asked, are there any questions about the attorney’s fees? I have sent to you from Hubbard’s Chevrolet the copy of the where he did pay the fine and the copy of the apology that was in the Newspaper. Also I wanted to remind Jay Clawson you are up for reappointment at the end of the year. Don Ward and Scott Kyburz. We will be sending out letters to let you know if you are interested in being re-appointed.

Jay Clawson stated, in this situation we had tonight, like with Greg being involved with agriculture with those people running their livestock real close there with the way things change yearly, you hate to allow something and then something say well you have to be 1000’ within and then all of a sudden they are out of business and they can’t expand to meet the needs of their livelihood and the way livestock market is anymore. We have to be very sensitive to future need of people who are committed to agriculture.

Greg Bossaer stated, they would be non-regulated now from confined feeding operations because they are small.

Jay Clawson stated, yea if they double their herd in 3 years with that subdivision there that might stop them from doing any kind of expansion.

Attorney Altman stated, better be careful, I think we have gone as far as we can go.

Several talking at once about the sewer systems going in.

Greg Bossaer stated, on the other one, I know you don’t want to talk about it, but the Indiana Fence law would come into play with the adjacent landowners.

President Charles Anderson stated, we have absolute no control on subdivisions if, any of them. I think we need to get a little more control of that. If they conform to it we have to pass it.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be something I agree completely when you are talking to these people that we need more control of it. They really do get in and ruin everything.

Director Weaver stated, the Commissioners are talking only about the zoning ordinance.

John Heimlich stated, he discussed the possibility of both and he was looking at the plan and the ordinance. He said in a lot of cases the plan is all right, but he wanted to look at it and go over it.

Attorney Altman stated, it is zoning and subdivision ordinance. Check with him on that. Our subdivision ordinance certainly could stand more.

Jay Clawson stated, I know I was on the strategic plan committee and one of the things that was brought up was people trying to preserve major, because a lot of our regular county roads are more like highways to back and forth to Lafayette. People don’t want to be, that is one of the things now that is nice about the lakes now is we have a lot of people who work in Lafayette and that is because they can get to work in a half an hour and if you make it where they super develop these where you can’t get out and the next thing you know your drive time becomes an hour and it is a less favorable to purchase to commute from Monticello to Lafayette.

Attorney Altman stated, the most amazing thing I can think of in White County right now is 300 from Hanekratt to 18. It doesn’t have a stop sign on it and you know you just think about how many roads we have that are that long that don’t have a stop sign on it.

Director Weaver stated, I have one more thing. We have an appeal I have imposed a fine according to our fine policy and we have an appeal that is coming to next month meeting. The County Building Inspector did do some of the investigating on this when this first started. Does the board feel that we need to ask him to be at the meeting next month or is that not necessary.

President Charles Anderson stated, I think it would be a good idea if he came.


The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Fisher, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission