Get Adobe Flash player

 

APC MEETING JUNE 8, 2009

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, June 8, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Charles Anderson, David Rosenbarger, Gregory Bossaer, James Mann Jr., Donald W. Ward, 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, Wayne A Jurdzy, Steve and Sandra Kenyon

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson and roll call was taken. It was motioned, seconded and unanimously passed to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2009 meeting.

****

#976 Wayne A & Shannon M Jurdzy; requesting a rezone from B-2 to A-1.

That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West and that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, 11.8 acres more or less; more commonly known as 1354 W Broadway.

Wayne Jurdzy was present to represent the request. He stated that they were unable to get a thirty year mortgage on their home because of the B-2 zoning. There was a business on the property run by the previous owner. The Jurdzy’s had no idea what their property was zoned until they applied for this mortgage. The board had no questions. It was moved and seconded to vote. Result: 7 – 0 passed to send a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners for final approval at their meeting Monday, June 15, 2009 at 8:30 am. Someone should be present to represent the Jurdzy’s.

****

#328 Kenyon’s Subdivision; requesting approval of a minor subdivision.

That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 4 West in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana, 8.15 acres, more or less; more commonly known as 9430 S 150W.

Steve and Sandra Kenyon were present for representation. Steve stepped to the podium. Director Rogers read the letter that was sent to the applicant as a result of the Technical Review meeting of May 27, 2009 (see attached) and stated all points had been addressed. Point #6 was addressed with the request of a 5’ side setback waiver for an existing pole barn. The board had no questions for Mr. Kenyon.

APC MEETING JUNE 8, 2009 CONTINUED

It was moved and seconded to vote on the waiver.

Result 7 – 0 passed.

It was moved and seconded to vote on primary approval of the subdivision.

Result 7 – 0 passed.

It was moved and seconded to vote on secondary approval of the subdivision.

Result 7 – 0 passed.

****

General Business:

Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance

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. Since the board had discussed this at their last meeting, there were no questions. There was a motion and second to vote on recommendation of the amendment to the County Commissioners. Result: 7 – 0 passed.

****

Chapter 2, Districts and Boundaries

President Anderson asked if the proposed amendment had received proper public notification. He was informed by Director Rogers that it had. Mr. Rogers explained that this amendment converts the official zoning map to the GIS computerized map. The map will be available online to the public and the area plan office will have a terminal available to the public to look up zonings. The office will also keep and update hard copies of the zoning map in case of computer failure. Mr. Rogers further stated that after review of the proposal by Attorney Riley, Mr. Rogers had incorporated Mr. Riley’s minor changes into the amendment. It was moved and seconded to vote on recommendation of the proposed amendment to the County Commissioners. Result: 7 – 0 passed.

****

Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions

Director Rogers reminded the board that at their last meeting they had asked that the minor subdivision be simplified and the primary and secondary ballots be combined. He went on to explain that Attorney Riley had informed him that the primary and secondary ballots must be voted on separately; they could be on the same form, but each requires a vote. Given this information, Mr. Rogers checked into state statute and the procedures of nearby counties and found the process could be further simplified. The proposed amendment allows for more realistic timing for the applicant and the staff. It outlines the Technical Review Committee meeting and APC hearing scheduling. It allows for the APC to review and vote on the waivers and the primary ballot. The APC options are to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove. If the APC should vote to approve or approve with conditions, the secondary approval then becomes the responsibility of the Area Plan Executive Director or authorized staff. The secondary approval will not be forthcoming until all conditions have been met. This simplifies the procedure not only for the APC, but for the applicant as well. The applicant will not have to wait an additional month (to appear before the APC) if there are conditions to be met. The approved plat will be signed in the Area Plan office and may immediately be taken to the Auditor’s and Recorder’s offices for finalization.

APC MEETING JUNE 8, 2009 CONTINUED

It was moved and seconded to vote on recommendation of the proposed Minor Subdivision amendment to the County Commissioners. Result: 7 – 0 passed.

APC MEETING JUNE 8, 2009 CONTINUED

****

Appendix B, Bulk Use Standards

Director Rogers stated that when the amendment to section 14.2 of the ordinance, the definition of “lot line, front” was passed, it created some gaps in the setback chart. Currently, the only zoning district that allows for a front setback from the waterside is an L-1 zoning district. Mr. Rogers explained that there are many different zonings in the lake areas. Currently these districts require no setback at all from the waterside. The proposed amendment allows for a 30’ setback in all residential zoning districts to match the required setback in the L-1 district. It also adds the footnote regarding a 20’ setback from all roadsides when the waterside is the front. Dave Scott asked why the 30’ did not extend to the business and industrial districts. After some discussion it was agreed that the setback should exist in the business and industrial districts as well and if a business, such as a restaurant or marina, was in need of building closer to the water, the BZA would hear the request and decide if it should be granted. No setback on the waterside should be the exception, not the rule. It was moved and seconded to accept the proposed amendment with the change of extending the 30’ waterside setback in all proposed districts including business and industrial districts. Result: 7 – 0 passed.

****

The proposed amendments listed above will be presented to the County Commissioners at their meeting Monday, June 15, 2009 at 8:30 am. President Anderson asked if there was any new business. There was none. He adjourned the meeting at 8:15 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.”

____________________________________________________________