Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, May 14, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Jim Mann, Don Ward, Richard Lynn, Dave Scott, Jim Annis, Denny Sterrett, Greg Bossaer, Mark Bentlage. Absent: Charlie Anderson, Dave Rosenbarger, Mike Smolek.

Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Executive Director Joe Rogers, Secretary Gayle Rogers.


Visitors attending were: Gerald D. Hughes

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jim Mann. There was a motion by Don Ward and a second by Jim Annis to approve the meeting minutes of March 12, 2012 with the corrections pointed out by Commissioner Sterrett that the last line under Rezone #1002 appeared to have been left over from previous minutes and should be modified to reflect the unfavorable recommendation going to the White County Commissioners on March 19, 2012 at 8:30 am; an 8 – 0 vote in favor followed. VP Mann announced that the agenda order would be adjusted to accommodate the only visitor attending, Mr. Gerald Hughes. We will proceed to Appendix B, Bulk Use Standards amendment.



Zoning Ordinance:

Appendix B Bulk Use Standards – Footnote Additions: Director Rogers explained that in the past the BZA has granted front setback variances for structures to line up with the current dwelling, however, the BZA has requested substantiation from the APC regarding this practice. The first footnote which deals with the front setback for properties with a legally non-conforming dwelling. It allows the front setback for future structures to be the setback established for the legally non-conforming dwelling. This allows people with homes built prior to the current setbacks to add on to their dwelling or add an accessory structure no closer to the road right-of-way or property line than the current dwelling, without a variance. Commissioner Sterrett brought up dwellings that are built in the right-of-way. The amendment was adjusted to state that new structures may not be closer than the property line unless right-of-way encroachment has been granted by the appropriate legislative body. Mr. Hughes told the board he would like to build a carport a foot further from the road than the existing dwelling sits. This would still not meet the setback requirement of 30’. He does not believe anyone in Monon could possibly meet that setback. Dave Scott motioned and Greg Bossaer seconded to approve the amendment as modified. The motion carried 8-0.

Director Rogers stated the second footnote was to deal with the front setback of homes in a municipality or recorded subdivision that sit back on the parcel further than neighboring homes. It allows those property owners to add on to their dwelling up to the line established by the abutting properties, without the necessity of a variance. Commissioner Ward questioned what happens on corner lots. Director Rogers suggested that the proposal could be amended so that the vision clearance area must be satisfied which should resolve that concern. Jim Annis motioned to approve the amendment as presented with the modification. Denny Sterrett seconded. The motion carried with an 8-0 vote.


Special Exception Use Chart Review: Director Rogers met with Commissioners Jim Mann and Mike Smolek to formulate the Special Exception Use Chart. Categories were previously laid out. These have not yet been adjusted to reflect the changes in the Use Chart. Director Rogers told the board he is looking for their input as to whether he should proceed with the next step. If the board is agreeable he would proceed to lay out categories and criteria for those categories. His preference is to email the board members as he goes to determine if he is on the right track with the criteria. The board voted 8-0 on a Greg Bossaer motion and Dave Scott second that he proceed.

Director Rogers then broached another subject – gunsmithing vs. gun sales. These are handled on the use chart as the same line item. They are distinctly separate uses as gun sales involves full-blown retail. If they are separated on the use chart, a person could not do both and two principal uses are not allowed on the same parcel. One could be listed as an accessory use, but then it could not stand alone. The director will separate the two in the definitions and the BZA will continue to determine what they will allow on a case by case basis.

Livestock: Commissioner Bossaer reported that he checked with other counties and found that in general they don’t address livestock in residential neighborhoods unless a complaint is lodged, at which time they begin their enforcement process. Usually 4-H season is done and the livestock is gone prior to the completion of the enforcement procedure. It was the consensus of the board that we operate in the same manner, which is what we have been doing.

Outgrowing Zoning District: It has come to the attention of the AP office that many times businesses outgrow their zoning district, then, when they apply to add on to their facility, a problem arises because the ordinance states a non-conforming use may not be expanded. Telling a business owner he must rezone to proceed does not go over well. We do not want to alienate our business community. This is a subject the board should consider for later discussion.


Chapter 12.4 Development Standards Variance, continued: This amendment addresses the fact that the BZA may not grant a setback in a recorded subdivision that states its particular setbacks. If the setbacks are not stated on the plat or in the restrictions and covenants of the subdivision, county setbacks apply and the BZA can vary from the county setbacks. The second part of the amendment deals with the variance application requirements of the dimensional survey. The first part brings the ordinance into compliance with office practice of requiring all structures on adjacent properties within 50’ of the subject property be shown and allowing the office to determine whether or not a full survey is required for a variance or special exception use application. Much discussion ensued as to the merit of requiring a survey for every variance. Not all surveys are staked which limits the inspector’s ability to determine the exact construction location in correspondence to the property line. Surveys are not required for building permits so it is always left to the inspector’s discretion as to whether setbacks are met. The amendment was modified at the request of Don Ward to read: the survey requirement may be waived or modified by the Executive Director in cases where he/she determines “less than a complete legal survey is required” a scaled down survey or site plan will suffice. Richard Lynn motioned to vote on the amendment with the revised wording; Jim Annis seconded; motion carried with a 6-2 vote; Denny Sterrett and Dave Scott being opposed.

Chapter 12.8.2 Zoning District Reclassification: In many cases properties have been rezoned under a previous ordinance for a particular purpose and that zoning district no longer accommodates that purpose in the current ordinance making the use, and, in most cases, the structures legally non-conforming. A legally non-conforming use or structure may not be expanded, so when the owner wants to add on to his structure, he can not. This is by no fault of the owner. He did everything by the book in the beginning. He rezoned to match his proposed use. The fault is per the ordinance. The amendment, 12.8.2 Authority, gives the Executive Director the authority to reclassify the zoning to the use category of the current ordinance. Greg Bossaer motioned to approve this amendment as written; a second by Dave Scott resulted in an 8-0 vote in favor.

Chapter 12.17 Addressing, Street Names & Bridge Dedications: The proposed amendment replaces the County Ordinance Street and Road Names that is incomplete and does not follow procedure. The proposal adds the practice of addressing and street naming to the Zoning Ordinance as the Area Plan Office assigns addresses and initiates the street naming procedure. The County Commissioners asked that the office come up with an ordinance amendment so theirs could be repealed. Dave Scott motioned to accept the amendment as written; Jim Annis seconded; motion carried with an 8-0 vote.

Subdivision Ordinance:

Chapter 7.3 Naming Streets: This proposal simply amends this section of the subdivision ordinance to mirror the requirements of section 12.17 of the zoning ordinance. Don Ward motioned to approve this amendment as written; Dave Scott seconded; motion carries 8-0.


Director Rogers asked the board to rule on a temporary use petting zoo. The ordinance allows

for a 30 day permit for a petting zoo. The operators wish to run the petting zoo all season. The Commissioners agreed to allow up to six 30-day extensions to the temporary use permit.

Greg Bossaer requested that the APC allow for i-pads for the commissioners in the new budget since meeting information is now being emailed to them rather than mailed. Director Rogers to pursue.


There being no further business, Vice President Mann adjourned the meeting on a Don Ward motion and Greg Bossaer second at 9:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted,


Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission


Joseph W. Rogers, Exec. 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.” _________________________________________________