Get Adobe Flash player

BE IT REMEMBERED, that the White County Board of Commissioners held a regular meeting on November 21, 2011, at the White County Building, Commissioners’ Conference room, 2nd floor, beginning at 8:00 a.m.

In attendance were Commissioner Steve Burton and Commissioner David Diener. Also in attendance was the White County Auditor; Jill Guingrich, White County Attorney; George Loy, and the Commissioners’ Secretary, Donya Tirpak.

Commissioner Heimlich was absent.

Commissioner Burton called the meeting to order.

MINUTES

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting on November 7, 2011, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

PAYROLL

  • Commissioner Burton made a motion to approve the payroll as presented, seconded by Commissioner Diener. Vote: Unanimous

CLAIMS

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to approve and pay the claims as presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

RE-ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Judge Mrzlack appeared before the commissioners saying that the advisory board to the White County Community Corrections proposes to re-organize the Community Corrections Department under the direction of the White County Probation Department. He said that they are hoping that this will allow improvement in communication at all levels, allow for consistent assessment of defendant’s needs, less duplication of efforts, and a better sharing of resources and personnel to such an extent that they will be able to continue to provide effective evidence base programming and services.

Judge Mrzlack said that they do have a code of by-laws for the advisory board and the Community Corrections Department that is approved by the executive committee of the county, which are the commissioners. They are requesting approval from the commissioners to require a director’s minimal qualifications include: a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, and they must be a probation officer or pass a state certification to become a probation officer within 6 months of being appointed to the director’s position.

Judge Mrzlack said that the advisory board is also requesting to appoint a probation officer as an interim director effective January 1, 2012, for approximately six months to assess and re-organize the Community Corrections Department under the direction of Probation.

Judge Mrzlack said that this will result in a change in our current structure with the director and deputy director. The current director does not have a bachelor’s degree nor is she a probation officer. The advisory board has discussed this with her and upon the commissioners’ approval, and after January 1, she will be given the opportunity to serve as an administrative assistant to the director. The deputy director’s position will be eliminated and he will be given the opportunity to stay on as a surveillance officer or another open position. He said that much of the administrative duties (payroll, claims, payment of fees, etc.) will be turned over to the Probation Department. More Probation Departments throughout the state are combining with their Community Corrections Department and they feel that it will be more effective this way.

White County Attorney, George Loy, asked if the eliminated position and the re-defined director’s position will affect the salary ordinance in any way. Judge Mrzlack said that both positions are paid from grants through the Department of Corrections. The grant will cover all the cost and they will not have to go before the council for additional funding. He said that during the six month interim position they will be evaluating whether or not they need a full-time director. He personally feels that they won’t.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to approve the recommendation made by Judge Mrzlack regarding the Community Corrections Department changes that he has presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

AREA PLAN

Joe Rogers, Area Plan Director, presented the following rezoning request to the commissioners.

Rezoning Petition #994

Daniel Mellon, petitioner, is requesting to rezone 6.068 acres from an A-1 (General Agriculture) to an A-2 (Agricultural Industry). The property is located at 10787 N. 650 E., Monticello.

The area plan commission held a public hearing on November 15, 2011, on this rezoning. There were two letters filed objecting the rezoning. At that time, the APC voted to recommend this rezoning to the commissioners by a vote of 8 yes and 0 no.

Commissioner Burton asked if there was anyone present to speak about the request. No response.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to follow the recommendation of the APC and approve Rezoning Petition #994 (Ordinance No. 556-11) for Daniel Mellon, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

Rezoning Petition # 995

Sharon Gerlach (DeFord), Petitioner, is requesting to rezone lot 1 and lot 2 in J.M. Townsley’s First Addition to the Town of Hanna, now Idaville from a B-2 (General Business) to an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential). The property is located at 305 W. Water Street, Idaville.

The APC held a public hearing on November 15, 2011, on this rezoning request. At that time, the APC voted to recommend this request to the commissioners with a vote of 8 yes and 0 no.

Commissioner Burton asked if anyone was present to speak about the request. Sharon Gerlach (DeFord) spoke on behalf of her rezoning request.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to follow the recommendation of the APC and approve Rezoning Petition #995 (Ordinance No. 557-11) from a B-2 to R-2 for Sharon Gerlach DeFord, second by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE – CHAPTER 6

Joe Rogers, Director, presented the following ordinance amending (in red) Chapter 6 – Administrative Subdivisions.

 

AMENDMENT

TO THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE OF

WHITE COUNTY

STATE OF INDIANA

ORDINANCE NO. ___________

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has initiated and prepared this ordinance to amend the White County Zoning Ordinance pursuant to IC 36-7-4-602(c) and IC 36-7-4-607;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it held a public hearing concerning this ordinance on November 14, 2011, after timely notification of the hearing was given by publication in the Herald Journal, Monticello, Indiana on the 3rd day of November, 2011 as required by IC 36-7-4-604;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it paid reasonable regard to the factors enumerated in IC 36-7-4-603 in consideration of the ordinance and determination or a recommendation to be made to the legislative body of White County;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has certified this ordinance to the legislative body with a recommendation by a majority vote in favor of adoption pursuant to IC 36-7-4-603 before acting on this ordinance;

WHEREAS, the legislative body recognizes that certain land uses, by their very nature, require restricted size of signage. Because the restrictions are a necessary aspect of zoning use to the public, it is deemed that such restrictions on signage are not detrimental to the public safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, the legislative body has determined that this ordinance should be adopted without amendment as certified by the White County Area Plan Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-4-607; therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA:

AMENDING CHAPTER 6 ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS

6.0 APPLICABILITY

An administrative subdivision is a subdivision of land that is specifically exempted from the primary and secondary plat approval procedures and requirements of this Ordinance, except that which is identified in this Chapter. An administrative subdivision must be one of the following types of divisions:

A. A division of land into one (1) or two (2) additional tracts from the parent tract of which all tracts are in compliance with the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district classification and with the parent tract remaining ten (10) acres or more.

B. A division of land for the transfer of a tract or tracts to correct errors in an existing legal description, provided that no additional building sites other than for accessory buildings are created by the division;

C. A division of land pursuant to an allocation of land in the settlement of a decedent’s estate or a court decree for the distribution of property;

D. A division of land for federal, state, or local government to acquire street right-of-way;

E. A division of land for the transfer of a tract or tracts between adjoining lots provide that no additional principal use building sites are created by the division and, unless incidental to the area, must have a common zoning district. The lots so created hereunder shall have only one principal use building site each. (See principal use building); or

F. A division of land into cemetery plots for the purpose of burial of corpses.

G. A division of land requested by any local government legislative body or utility operating within the county limits.

H. A division of land for the purposes of retaining two or more previously established zoning districts (split zoned parcel) within a single parcel of land.

6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REVIEW

Following the submission of a properly completed application, original certified survey and any additional information required by staff in accordance with IC 36-7-4-710 as amended from time to time. In the cases of right-of-way acquisition (D), the staff may waive the original certified survey requirement if, at the sole determination of the staff, an acceptable alternative document is provided. The staff shall review the application and associated materials and either approve, approve with conditions, require further review, or deny the application. When applicable to the approval of any lot split of vacant land, the property owner shall provide the staff with the following, prior to review and approval by staff:

A. Approvals from the White County Health Department, appropriate municipality, or the Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District for septic system or sewer hook up.

B. Approvals from the White County Highway Department, appropriate municipality, or Indiana State Highway Department for the driveway location.

 

This amendment was presented to the Area Plan Commission during a public meeting held on November 14, 2011. At that time, the APC voted to recommend the amendment to Chapter 6 – Administrative Subdivisions to the commissioners by a vote of 8 yes and 0 no.

Commissioner Burton asked if there was anyone present to speak about this amendment. No response.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to accept the modifications to the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Ordinance No. 11-11-21-02, Chapter 6 -Administrative Subdivisions, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

AMEND CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12.5 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE

Joe Rogers presented an amendment to the zoning ordinance amending Chapter 12 – Administrative, Section 12.5 Special Exception Use Permit. This amendment was heard at a public meeting held on November 14, 2011. The language changes provide a little more leeway for the Board of Zoning members to make decisions. The APC voted to recommend this amendment to the commissioners by a vote of 8 yes and 0 no.

AMENDMENT

TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF WHITE COUNTY STATE OF INDIANA

ORDINANCE NO. _____

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has initiated and prepared this ordinance to amend the White County Zoning Ordinance pursuant to IC 36-7-4-602(c) and IC 36-7-4-607;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it held a public hearing concerning this ordinance on November 14, 2011, after timely notification of the hearing was given by publication in the Herald Journal, Monticello, Indiana on the 3rd day of November, 2011 as required by IC 36-7-4-604;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has reported that it paid reasonable regard to the factors enumerated in IC 36-7-4-603 in consideration of the ordinance and determination or a recommendation to be made to the legislative body of White County;

WHEREAS, the White County Area Plan Commission has certified this ordinance to the legislative body with a recommendation by a majority vote in favor of adoption pursuant to IC 36-7-4-603 before acting on this ordinance;

WHEREAS, the legislative body recognizes that certain land uses, by their very nature, require restricted size of signage. Because the restrictions are a necessary aspect of zoning use to the public, it is deemed that such restrictions on signage are not detrimental to the public safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, the legislative body has determined that this ordinance should bwe adopted without amendment as certified by the White County Area Plan Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-4-607; therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA:

AMENDING CHAPTER 12 ADMINISTRATIVE

SECTION 12.5 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE PERMIT

12.5.7 Decision criteria

In taking action on all special exception use permit requests, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall use the following decision criteria.

A. Consistency with the Official Schedule of Uses

The proposed special exception use is permitted in the proposed zoning district per the Official Schedule of Uses

B. Consistency with all applicable development standards

The requirements and development standards for the requested special exception use The proposed development, if applicable, conforms to the development standards of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

C. Consistency with the intent of the White County Zoning Ordinance

Granting the special exception use will not be contrary to the general purposes served by the White County Zoning Ordinance, and will not permanently significantly injure other property or uses in the same zoning district.

D. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the character of the zoning district in which it is located and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

12.5.8 Additional decision criteria

The Board of Zoning Appeals shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed special exception use application in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence that the proposed special exception use will:

A. Be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the same area;

B. Not be hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses;

C. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal water and sewer, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;

D. Not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;

E. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be significantly detrimental to any persons of interest, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors or other related factors;

F. Have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares; and

G. Not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance.

Commissioner Burton asked if there was anyone present to speak about this request. No response.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 11-11-21-01 amending Chapter 12 – Administrative, Section 12.5 – Special Exception Use Permit as presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

FEE SCHEDULE

Director Rogers presented a copy of the White County Area Plan Fee Schedule. At the October 17, 2011, meeting, Mr. Rogers recommended adding a $40 fee under the Subdivisions section for administrative fees. At the time, the commissioners wanted Mr. Rogers to present the subdivision changes to the APC board before their decision was made. Now that amendments have been approved to Chapter 6, Mr. Rogers is now bringing it back to the commissioners.

Mr. Rogers presented the following list of the different categories under “administrative subdivisions” in Chapter 6. He recommends not applying the $40 fee to D, G, and H.

A. A division of land into one (1) or two (2) additional tracts from the parent tract of which all tracts are in compliance with the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district classification and with the parent tract remaining ten (10) acres or more.

B. A division of land for the transfer of a tract or tracts to correct errors in an existing legal description, provided that no additional building sites other than for accessory buildings are created by the division;

C. A division of land pursuant to an allocation of land in the settlement of a decedent’s estate or a court decree for the distribution of property;

D. A division of land for federal, state, or local government to acquire street right-of-way;

E. A division of land for the transfer of a tract or tracts between adjoining lots provide that no additional principal use building sites are created by the division and, unless incidental to the area, must have a common zoning district. The lots so created hereunder shall have only one principal use building site each. (See principal use building); or

F. A division of land into cemetery plots for the purpose of burial of corpses.

G. A division of land requested by any local government legislative body or utility operating within the county limits.

H. A division of land for the purposes of retaining two or more previously established zoning districts (split zoned parcel) within a single parcel of land.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to approve the amended Fee Schedule which includes a $40 fee in the Subdivision section for Administrative Fees, section by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

EMA

Emergency Management Director Dean Mullens said that he will be presenting a report to the commissioners every other month to keep them updated.

Mr. Mullens presented a copy of a grant that he received for seventy-three pagers. The pagers were all distributed to various fire departments in the county, except for the Monticello Fire Department. He also said that they were approved for the EMTG 2010/2011 reimbursement grant. This grant reimburses the county for fifty percent of their salary. They also received a bonus from the state of $3,200 to be used for Emergency Management.

Mr. Mullens also presented a sample ordinance from the Indiana Department of Homeland Security for the winter travel advisories. The new ordinance changes the verbiage of the travel levels to match the severe weather advisories on a watch and a warning. Commissioner Burton told Mr. Mullens to circulate the ordinance to everyone (Highway and Sheriff’s Dept.) and we will discuss it at a later date.

Mr. Mullens mentioned that parking will be an issue once the new business is developed in the old McDonalds parking lot. He requested the commissioners to look into the matter.

WHITE COUNTY RECYCLE

White County Recycling Director, Dawn Girard, reported that they have $20,000 in grant funds from the Northwest Indiana Solid Waste District that needs to be transferred over to the recycling funds before the end of the year. She requested permission from the commissioners to transfer the funds to the Recycling Maintenance and Repair fund. If they do not transfer the funds, they will lose them.

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to allow a transfer of $20,000 in grant funds received from the Northwest Indiana Solid Waste District to the Recycling Maintenance and Repair fund, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

At this time, White County Council President, Denny Carter, called the Council members to order in joint session with the Commissioners. Council members present were:

President Denny Carter Gary Hendryx Denny Cain

Raymond “Butch” Kramer Jim Annis Bruce Clear

Kevin “Casey” Crabb

BUILDING INSPECTOR

White County Building Inspector, Dave Anderson, reported that there were thirty-nine permits issued last month; three of them were for stick built homes. Stick built homes is down 50% from last year.

SOIL & WATER

Sharon Watson, Office Manager, read a letter from the supervisors of the White County Soil & Water Conservation saying thank you for passing their 2012 budget and they appreciate the county’s support.

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER

Environmental Officer, Jim Reynolds, presented his environmental report for last month.

ü 19 complaints on various issues

ü Towed one abandoned vehicle

ü 11 landfill inspections

ü 4 inspections at transfer station

ü Attended tactics training & State mandates.

E911

Terri Conwell, Director, reported that she is currently fully staffed. She would like to meet with the commissioners sometime to discuss issues with Jefferson Township in Carroll County.

Terri stressed how difficult it is trying to locate people that call in on wireless phones. Terri presented the number of landline calls that she has received compared to the wireless calls.

Landline Wireless

August 298 844

September 228 659

October 266 601

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic Development Director Connie Neininger presented her Director’s Report for October.

  • Connie has been working with Sublette’s Ribs on their real-estate tax issue. Their assessment was miscalculated and they had to pay back three years worth of real-estate taxes.

  • Vanguard National Trailer now has over 400 employees. They were not able to get CSX to put up a crossing guard so they are now looking at ways to reroute the employee’s traffic out on Quarry Road. She is currently working with INDOT to get these issues resolved.

  • Connie is working with Pulaski-White Rural Telephone on the former Buffalo Elementary project.
  • Working with Jordan Manufacturing on their expansion project.
  • Working with the owner of the old hospital on what would be the best use for the building.

  • Connie said that she is working on the next 9 week leadership program that will start in January 2012. Saint Joseph College has generously offered an intern to assist with the program at no cost to the county.

  • The shovel-ready process on the Monticello Business Park is currently being reviewed and she hopes to have an answer by the end of the year on whether or not it will be certified.

Connie announced that she just finished a three year program from the University of Oklahoma Economic Development Institute.

There being no further business to come before the council, they adjourned their meeting with the commissioners.

NOISE COMPLAINT

Francine Michael, 5920 East Redwood Court in Buffalo, appeared before the commissioners complaining about a neighbor in her neighborhood that is running a business out of his garage and keeping her awake all hours of the night. She complained about the grinding, welding, power surges, and metal hitting against metal noises. She has called the police several times and they do address the problem with the neighbor but after he leaves the noise will start up again.

Commissioner Diener advised her to go to the Area Plan office to file a complaint and also see if they’re zoned properly to have a business on their property.

Attorney George Loy asked what the neighbor’s name was and if they were running a business out of the home. Francine said that their name was Steve and Sherry Stirling, 5938 East Redwood Court, and Steve has admitted that he is running his business out of the garage. She said that they do have a sign on the road that says Stirling Home Improvement.

Commissioner Diener said that they understand what the problem is and they will address the issues with the Area Plan Department and the Environmental Officer as well. Commissioner Burton said that he will make an attempt to help her with these issues.

COMMISSIONERS’ CERTIFICATE SALE

  • Commissioner Diener made a motion to adopt Resolution 2011-1 for establishing a Commissioners’ Sale as presented, seconded by Commissioner Burton. Vote: Unanimous

RESOLUTION 2011-1

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE INTENT TO CONDUCT A COMMISSIONERS’ SALE TO SELL TAX SALE CERTIFICATES FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE SEVERELY DELINQUENT IN PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES

WHEREAS, there are several properties in White County that are severely delinquent in the payment of property taxes, having been offered for tax sales and which received no bids equal to or in excess of minimum sale price. The parcel numbers of those properties being attached to this resolution as “Exhibit A”, and

WHEREAS, there is an assessed value associated with these properties for taxation purposes, but no taxes are being collected, therefore causing a lower than expected tax distribution to those taxing units and taxing districts within which the properties are located, and

WHEREAS, the White County Commissioners desire to have these properties back on the tax rolls with taxes being collected, and

WHEREAS, IC 6-1.1-24-6, et seq. allows for the County Commissioners to acquire a lien on those delinquent properties and receive issuance of the tax sale certificates for those properties, without taking title to the properties, therefore limiting the liability and cost normally associated with taking title,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the White County Board of Commissioners that the County Executive shall acquire liens and receive tax sale certificates of the properties listed on Exhibit A that are severely delinquent and sell said certificates at a properly advertised Commissioner Tax Certificate sale.

There being no further business to come before the board, the commissioners adjourned their meeting.

__________________________ _____________________________ _______________________

John C. Heimlich, President Steve Burton, Vice President David Diener, Member

ATTEST: _________________________

Jill Guingrich, Auditor