Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, White County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Carl Hites, Dave Rosenbarger, Dennis Sterrett, Richard Holmes. Absent: Dave Hall. Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers, WCSD Security.

Visitors attending were: Charles & Brenda Scott, Mark Carter, Jack Buntin, Richard Stoller, Jim Britt, Katryn Britt, Joseph Elliott, Hailey Elliott

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Shaker Hites. First order of business was reorganization. Dave Rosenbarger nominated Shaker Hites for Chairman; Richard Holmes seconded; no further nominations were forthcoming; the vote was 4-0 in favor; Shaker Hites is the new Chairman. Vice Chairman nominations opened with Denny Sterrett nominating Dave Rosenbarger; Richard Holmes seconded; no further nominations; passed with a 4-0 vote; Dave Rosenbarger is the new Vice Chairman. Last was nominations for Secretary; Dave Rosenbarger moved to re-elect Gayle Rogers; Denny Sterrett seconded; no further nominations; motion passed 4-0; Gayle Rogers remains as Secretary. Dave Rosenbarger motioned to accept the minutes of November 17, 2011 as written. Richard Holmes seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Hites informed all present that there was not a full board present, allowing applicants to request a continuance until the next scheduled meeting, in this case March 15, 2012. He also mentioned that an applicant may request such a continuance up to two times. If the board causes the continuance, such as by a tie vote, this does not count as one of the applicant’s requests. After the applicant has requested two voluntary continuances, the petition must be heard (unless the board causes the continuance) or it will be dismissed.

#2857 Joseph Elliott; Part of Lots 55 and 56 in the Original Plat to the city of Monticello, in Union Township, White County, Indiana; more commonly described as 130 N. Main St.

Violation: Abated with this application

Request: The applicant requests a Special Exception Use to operate a tattoo parlor.

Chairman Hites asked Mr. Elliott if he would to proceed or the have his petition

continued. Mr. Rogers reminded Mr. Elliott that this would be his second and final continuance. Mr. Elliott stated he would proceed. Director Rogers read two letters received that day by the office into the record. Both letters were in support of the petition. He further stated that the tattoo parlor has been operating for six months now with no problems or complaints of which the office is aware. It is the opinion of the office that the six month probationary period has been met and the board might want to reconsider making that a condition of the request. Joseph Elliott stepped forward to again apologize for his unfortunate comments on facebook. He also stated that he has no problem if the board chooses to impose a condition of re-examining the petition in six months. No one else was present to support or oppose the petition. Dave Rosenbarger motioned to vote on the petition; Richard Holmes seconded. Result: 4 votes cast; 3 grant; 1 deny

Findings of Fact

  1. Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance does authorize the special exception for this use in this zoning district. 4 grant-0 deny
  2. The requirements and development standards for the requested use as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance will be met. 4 grant-0 deny
  3. Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance. 4 grant-0 deny
  4. Granting the special exception will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same district because of:
    1. Traffic generation. 4 grant-0 deny
    2. Noise production. 4 grant-0 deny
    3. Becoming hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses. 3 grant-1 deny; Young people hanging around premises late.
    4. Destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. 4 grant-0 deny
    5. Becoming detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 4 grant-0 deny

Director Rogers told Mr. Elliott he would need to come to the Area Plan Office to get his Special Exception Use Permit in order to be fully legal.


#2859 Michael A & Marcia K Lewellen; A tract of land out of the North of the Southwest Fraction lying West of the Tippecanoe River in Section Twenty-one (21), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana; more commonly known as 1721 Francis St, Monticello

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a 15’ front setback; a 21’ rear setback; and a 7’ side setback to construct an attached garage. The required setback in the A-1 (General Agriculture) zoning district is 30’ front; 30’ rear and 10’ sides.

This petition was not heard as the applicant requested a continuance to March 15, 2012.


#2864 The Farmers Cooperative Co/Jack Buntin; A part of the South half of the Southeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five (25), Township twenty-seven (27) North, Range six (6) West of the Town of Wolcott; ALSO, That part of Fifth Street in the Fourth Addition to the Town of Wolcott, containing 0.149 of an Acre, more or less; ALSO, A part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 27 North, Range 6 West in the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana; more commonly known as 100 S 4th Street.

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a variance from the 55’ structure height maximum to construct two 110’ grain bins and an 80’ wet tank; plus a variance to change the front setback requirement of 30’ on Market Street to 20.5’ for the two grain bins and 13’ for the wet tank

Director Rogers described the variance request to the board. He also stated that

one concerned citizen came into our office to express his opposition to the request. He

said the employees resort to public urination because of a lack of restroom facilities. Jack

Buntin, Facility Manager, came forward. He assured the board the matter of public

urination would be handled internally. He stated they bought the property for expansion

to speed up wet corn intake. Their current dryer is a tower so the noise goes up making it

possible to have a normal volume conversation standing right next to it. They have

installed silencers on the fans in the bins for the same low noise effect. The wet bin is a

bin for wet corn. The regular bins are for storage of dried corn. Trucks will be routed a

different way so as to spend more time on company property and won’t use the

residential street in front of the houses. One part time employee will be added. Charles

Scott rose to speak to the board. His concern is with drainage. He resides across the

street and his property floods with a heavy rain. The subject property acts as a natural

retention pond in a heavy rain. Once built upon, where will the water go? He does not

want more water directed his way. The town is supposed to be correcting the drainage

problem, but as yet, has not. Jack Buntin spoke and said they will use any drain tile the

town allows them to use. Their surface will be gravel for drainage. Board member

Denny Sterrett informed Mr. Buntin that a drainage permit would be required. Anytime a

plan exceeds 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, a drainage permit must be

secured. Director Rogers suggested to Mr. Buntin that Mr. Buntin inform the

neighboring properties by letter as to the date of the Drainage Board Meeting so they may

be present if they so desire. Mr. Buntin was in agreement. Jim Britt, who lives across the

railroad tracks from the site, explained his concerns with dust. He said it is really bad

now and will only get worse with expansion. He suggested the lot be blacktopped to

reduce the dust. Mr. Buntin stated they will do what they can to control the dust.

Currently they water the parking lot two or three times daily on dry days to control the

dust. Richard Stoller, Company President, stated they will do what they can to work with

the community. The applicant asked that the variance request be voted on one ballot as

all or nothing. Dave Rosenbarger motioned to take a vote; Richard Holmes seconded.

Result: 4 votes cast; 3 grant; 1 deny

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 4-0

2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4-0

3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 4-0

4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. 3-1

5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. 3-1

6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building. 4-0



Variance Amendment

Director Rogers explained he intends to take an ordinance amendment to

the APC and would like the BZA to know about it and give their feedback. One part of the amendment has to do with variances in subdivisions. Mr. Rogers does not believe the BZA has the right to grant variances in a platted subdivision. He is proposing the APC give the BZA the right to grant variances in subdivisions that utilize the county setbacks rather than their own setbacks. The other part of the amendment would state the currently applied requirement that surveys for a variance show all structures within 50’ of the subject property lines and also allow the office staff to deviate from the survey requirement in some cases. The board members had no opposition to these changes.

Meeting Structure

Director Rogers and Attorney Diener would like to see more structure and

professionalism in the BZA meetings. To accomplish this they plan to revise the BZA By-laws. They intend to bring proposed revisions to the next meeting. Attorney Diener added that they also intend to revise the current procedure for Findings of Fact to add to the legality of the process. He would not want to see a BZA ruling overturned strictly because their findings of fact lack legality. Chairman Hites asked about a legal ballot. Mr. Rogers answered that the subject will be addressed with the other procedural changes. He also stated they will expand upon the definition of practical difficulty so the board may be more analytical in their decision making process versus being arbitrary.

Packet Delivery

Secretary Rogers asked the board if they would entertain the notion of

receiving their meeting packets by email rather than postal mail. Hard copies of staff reports, surveys, etc. will be provided at the meetings. All were in agreement.

Ordinance Books

Secretary Rogers asked the board to bring in their Ordinance Books so she

can update them with all the amendments incorporated into the text.


As there was no further business, it was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. So moved.


Respectfully submitted,


Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary

Area Board of Zoning Appeals


Joseph W. Rogers, Director

White County Area Plan Commission