Get Adobe Flash player

 

APC MEETING MAY 11, 2009

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, May 11, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Jim Mann Jr., Mike Smolek, Donald W. Ward, Dennis Sterrett, Richard Lynn and David Scott. Also attending were Attorney Kevin Riley, Executive Director Joe Rogers, Secretary Gayle Rogers and Deputy Ben Woodhouse.

 

Visitors attending were: Charles R. Mellon, Donna and George Koppelmann, Greg Vogel, Ted and Gretchen Leuenberger, Ralph and Janet Kauffman and Walter Sparks.

The meeting was called to order by Secretary Don Ward (presiding in the absence of President Anderson and Vice President Rosenbarger) and roll call was taken. It was motioned, seconded and unanimously passed to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2009 meeting.

****

#327 White Rock #2; requesting primary and secondary approval of a minor subdivision.

That part of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 9, T27N, R3W of the Second Principal Meridian in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, commonly known as 3537 N Shore Acres Court.

Walter Sparks approached the podium to answer any questions.

Director Rogers gave the results of the Technical Review. There were five points to be addressed:

1. Lot #2: the survey should reflect the building setback line brought back to a distance in which the building line is parallel to the lot line and 250 feet in length.

2. The drawing should include the dimensions of the closest structure points to each property line and right of way line for each existing structure.

3. The legal description should be reviewed and changed for any errors.

4. The street right of way should be 30 feet from the centerline of any road that abuts the property.

5. Upon completion, the house shall be brought into compliance with current setbacks of 50 feet on each side and 75 feet from the front property line.

There are two waivers to address the setback issues. The rest of the points have been corrected. Director Rogers went on to explain that Mr. Sparks had taken care to divide the property such that the nature preserve of pine trees is left undisturbed.

There were no questions from the board to Mr. Sparks and no objections from the audience.

It was motioned and seconded to vote on Waiver #1: Side setback for single family dwelling, southwest side of building, as per the proposed subdivision plat. Motion carried by a vote of 6 – 0.

It was motioned and seconded to vote on Waiver #2: Side setback requirement for existing accessory structure and proposed primary structure, northeast side of building, as per the proposed subdivision plat. Motion carried by a vote of 6 – 0.

APC Meeting May 11, 2009 Continued

The primary ballot was voted and approved by a 6 – 0 vote after a motion and second.

The secondary ballot carried by a 6 – 0 vote following a motions and second.

Director Rogers informed Mr. Sparks that when APC President Anderson returned to town and signed the mylar plat along with Secretary Ward, Director Rogers would call Mr. Sparks to come to the area plan office to take the mylar to the Recorder’s office for recording.

****

#975 Edmond T & Margaret L Fain; requesting a rezone from A-1 to L-1

A tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-one (21), Township Twenty-six (26) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, commonly known as 4788 S Forest Hill Court.

Greg Vogel stepped to the podium to represent the Fains. There was no discussion. This rezoning was simply to bring the parcel into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. It was motioned and seconded to vote on the rezone. It carried by a 6 – 0 vote. Director Rogers informed Mr. Vogel that the rezone recommendation will be taken to the White County Commissioners’ meeting for final approval on May 18, 2009 at 8:30 am and someone should be present to represent the Fains.

****

#974 Theodore J & Gretchen A Leuenberger; requesting a rezone from R-5 to L-1.

A parcel of land out of the North half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, White County, Indiana, commonly known as 4900 N Boxman Place.

Ted Leuenberger was present for representation. This zoning request served to comply with the intended zoning of the Ordinance for lake district properties. No questions from the board or objections from the public. It was motioned and seconded to vote. Motion carried with a 6 – 0 vote. Director Rogers explained that Mr. Leuenberger or a representative should attend the White County Commissioners meeting on May 18, 2009 at 8:30 am for final approval. Once signed by the Commissioners, Area Plan will notify Mr. Leuenberger to come to record his rezone.

****

#329 Kauffman Subdivision; requesting primary and secondary approval of a minor subdivision.

That part of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, commonly known as 5534 E State Road 16

Ralph Kauffman was present to represent the subdivision.

Director Rogers gave the results of the Technical Review Committee:

  1. Must receive drainage board approval at May 4, 2009 meeting
  2. Mylar original plat is required
  3. Highway, fire and health departments have no objections
  4. Soil & Conservation advised that a Rule 5 permit is required before production may begin.

All points have been complied with and no issues are outstanding. The board and the public had no questions for Mr. Kauffman. Motions were made and seconded to vote on the primary and secondary ballots. Each motion carried with a 6 – 0 vote. Mr. Kauffman will be notified to come in and have his plat recorded once it is signed by President Anderson and Secretary Ward.

APC Meeting May 11, 2009 Continued

General Business:

There was discussion as to whether the primary and secondary ballots of a minor subdivision can be incorporated into one ballot. Attorney Riley stated that could be done.

Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance

Lake Front Clarification, Section 14.2 Words & Phrases Defined

The board had been given a copy of the proposed amendment prior to the meeting for their review. Included with the amendment was an edited Appendix B as the amendment proposal affected the Appendix B chart. Attorney Riley stated that the Appendix could not be changed as it had not been publicly advertised. Jim Mann motioned and Dave Scott seconded to place Appendix B on the agenda for the next meeting. The motioned carried with a 6 – 0 vote. Director Rogers pointed out that if proposed amendment 14.2 passed, proposed amendment 4.5.7 would have to be further amended to comply with the new definition of lake area. A motion was made and seconded to accept proposed amendment 14.2 and carried with a 6 – 0 vote.

****

Attorney Riley stated that the remaining amendments on the agenda would not be able to be voted on, simply voted to review at the next meeting as the APC had not yet requested they be reviewed and they had not been a part of the public notification process.

****

Recording of an Administrative Subdivision, Section 6.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance

Director Rogers explained this ordinance change is simply to bring the ordinance into compliance with current practice in the office. The ordinance states that the staff will sign the deed when processing an administrative subdivision, whereas the staff signs the survey, not the deed. Much discussion ensued as to whether this should be standard practice. Can this result in the survey and the deed not matching? Can deeds be recorded with an incorrect legal description? It was eventually agreed that the survey is the document the staff should sign, just as the survey is the document the APC President and Secretary sign for a major or minor subdivision. It was motioned, seconded and passed by a 6 – 0 vote to add the proposed amendment to the docket of the next meeting.

****

Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions

After a short discussion, a motion was made and seconded and carried by a 6 – 0 vote to review the proposed amendment at the next meeting. All agreed that the minor subdivision procedure should be simplified wherever possible, emphasizing the primary and secondary ballots should be combined.

****

APC Meeting May 11, 2009 Continued

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4.5, Sub-Subchapter 4.5.7 Nonconforming Districts

Director Rogers pointed out that this proposed amendment had been reviewed at the last meeting and all the amendments proposed at this meeting had been detailed in a public notice. He added that this is the amendment he mentioned previously would require revised wording to describe the lake area. He went on to summarize the proposed amendment. The R-5 and R-6 zonings are, and have been, obsolete. The previous ordinance did not address this issue. The current ordinance states that R-5 properties utilize RR developmental standards and R-6 use R-3 standards. This is inconsistent with the type of properties in R-5 and R-6 districts. Most R-5’s are on the lake and R-6’s are generally mobile home parks. The board voted at the last meeting to have Attorney Riley draft a proposal for the change to be finalized at this meeting. Following a lengthy discussion regarding the meaning of “lake area” and whether a less vague term could be found, Jim Mann made a motion to accept 4.5.7 as proposed with the exception of replacing the phrase “lake or watercourse” with “lake or river area” with the understanding that the determination would be left to the discretion of the Executive Director, and, that amendment 14.2 reflect the same wording. The motion carried with a 6 – 0 vote.

****

As there was no new business, Secretary Ward adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

______________________________

Joseph W. Rogers, Director

White County Area Plan Commission

 

Document Prepared By: White County Area Plan Secretary, Gayle E. Rogers

“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.”

____________________________________________________________