Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, November 13, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

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


Visitors attending were: See Attached

The meeting was called to order by President Anderson. There was a motion by Dave Scott and a second by Denny Sterrett to approve the meeting minutes of August 13, 2012 as written; so moved. President Anderson read the first rezone request.



#1005 Peoples Savings & Loan; requesting a rezone from B-1, Neighborhood Business District to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential District.

All that part of Lots five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), and Eight (8) in Block One (1) which lies on the North side of State Highway No. 24 in the Original Plat of the Town of Sharon, now known as Burnettsville, White County, Indiana; also That part of a vacated alley containing 0.055 of an Acre, more or less; more commonly known as 201 E 2nd St.

Following a summary by Director Rogers, President Anderson asked if anyone was present to represent the request. Daryl Carson stepped to the podium. President Anderson asked if the Commissioners had any questions. As there were no questions, Dave Scott motioned to vote on the petition. Denny Sterrett seconded. Result: 7 votes cast; 0 in favor, 0 opposed

Findings of Fact:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objective, and policies of the White County Strategic Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time. 7 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 6 agree; 1 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comment: Haven’t seen it.

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted. 7 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. 6 agree; 0 no opinion; 1 disagree

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standards for growth and development. 6 agree; 1 no opinion; 0 disagree

The favorable recommendation will be certified to the Burnettsville Town Council to be heard at their December 3rd Meeting at 7:00 pm for final decision.


#1008 Smith Erickson Farms Inc; requesting a rezone from A-1, General Agriculture District to A-2 Agricultural Industry District.

That part of the NW ¼ of the NE ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 3 West in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana containing 7.0 acres, more or less; more commonly known as 4257 E 1000 S.

Director Rogers summarized the petition and requested that two commitments be attached to the

Board’s recommendation: 1. that Smith Erickson Farms be required to cut out the 7-acre parcel if the rezone is approved, and 2. that Smith Erickson Farms be required to expand their proposed buffer to include all four property lines, excluding the driveway.

John Erickson spoke and gave a brief history of the family

Mike Veenhuizen spoke providing technical information

David Krause spoke in opposition, concerned about odor and nitrates in the water

Jerry Thompson spoke in opposition representing the Gunther family farm.

Matt Iunghuhn, Eric Normington and Kim Payne all spoke in opposition. Then Attorney John

Molitor spoke representing the property owners in opposition.

The Board voted unanimously to include the commitments requested by the Area Plan office. Dave Scott motioned to vote on the petition. Chris Post stepped forward to speak in opposition. Mr. Veenhuizen answered. Mr. Molitor spoke and asked for a continuance. The Board voted 5 in favor; 3 opposed to a continuance. The motion did not carry as it takes 6 votes for an official action of the Board. Mike Smolek motioned to vote. No second was forthcoming. Petition is continued to the next meeting (date to be announced). The office will send notices to adjoining property owners and advertise in the paper again since a meeting date could not be announced at the time.



Special Exception Use Chart Review: Director Rogers had several questions for the Board to vote on from the sub-committees.

Vacation Homes:

Would the Board prefer a 50’ or 100’ setback from any structure on a parcel with a vacation home to an abutting residential property line? The Board voted 8-0 for a 50’ setback

Should an abutting property owner be allowed to waive the 50’ setback or should the vacation home owner be required to obtain a variance? The vote was 8-0 to allow a waiver.

Manufactured Homes:

Should the full, permanent foundation (equivalent to that of a stick-built home) requirement be restricted to municipalities or be required throughout the county? The vote was 8-0 to require a full foundation in all R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.

The Ordinance currently requires a manufactured home within a municipality to be installed so its front door faces the street. If this stipulation is to be retained in the Ordinance, it must apply to all homes within a municipality, manufactured homes may not be singled out. The Board voted 7-1 to eliminate the front door facing the street requirement

The committee asks the Board to reduce the minimum square footage of a principal structure requirement in all zoning districts to 950 square feet. Passed 8-0.


The categories will be changed to ‘aerobic’ and ‘anaerobic’, passed 8-0.



ContinuedRules & Procedures: Since the inception of the 2008 Ordinance, the APC has not adopted new Rules & Procedures. The office is still using the 1995 set, however it needs to be updated. Using the 1995 document as a draft, Director Rogers has made changes and corrections for the board’s review. He would like to make an addition - the paragraph at the end of the Definitions for Special Exception Use amendment proposal on the last page stating the source of definitions. Concerns of the board included: 1.F change “may appoint” to “shall elect”; 2.B remove “and a secretary” in the first sentence; 4.E remove “freeholder”, revise to reflect current practice. The board will review, comment and vote on the Rules & Procedures at their next meeting.

ContinuedMobile Home Enforcement: Director Rogers described to the board a situation he has with mobile homes being placed illegally on a lot. He was working with the property owners who have since moved and no longer respond to his correspondence. Does the board want him to pursue having the mobile homes removed from the parcel? The board would like Director Rogers to examine the necessary procedure and cost to have the homes removed and report his findings at the next meeting.

Signs on Agricultural Property (Farms): Section 10.9.5 allows permanent signs on agricultural property, in addition to any billboard allotment, to be 300’ feet apart (one sign for every 300’ of road frontage). There are several areas in the county where several signs are clustered. Should Mr. Rogers enforce the current ordinance or does the board want to change the ordinance? Following discussion, it was determined Mr. Rogers should come up with a proposal at the next meeting – allowing a certain number or square footage of signs to accommodate clusters.


Sign Enforcement: More and more new signs are popping up around the county with no permits. Many apply for their state permit, which requires Area Plan Dept completion of an affidavit, and are told to come in to get their county permit once the state permit is approved. They never return for a county permit. Should the department become more proactive in pursuing illegal signs or should the department ignore them? After much discussion, the board voted 6 – 3 in favor of the department choosing three new illegal signs per month to contact to begin the permitting process.

Neighborhood Facility: Our Ordinance does not currently address facilities in which numerous unrelated activities take place, such as offices, retail, catering, sports, museum, etc. The old Reynolds school building (now owned by the Township Trustees) wishes to do just that. In researching how other counties handle this situation, it was determined they define such a site as a neighborhood facility. The Board voted 8-0 to add the definition to the Ordinance.

Meeting Schedule: As usual, the proposed meeting schedule does not provide for a February or December meeting. It also changes the meeting time to 6:00 pm rather than 7:00 pm. Director Rogers asked the Board to consider having a February meeting in 2013 rather than a January meeting. With the necessary re-staffing, January will be too soon as new staff may not be in place at that time. The Board approved the Meeting Schedule by a vote of 7-1.


Attorney: Our current attorney, Mr. Ben Diener has won the general election for Superior Court Judge of Carroll County. He will begin January 1, 2013. Director Rogers asked that the Board allow him to interview some local attorneys who have expressed interest in the past and email the Board members with his recommendations. The Board will approve/disapprove electronically. This passed with a vote of 8-0.

Administrative Secretary: Our current secretary, Gayle Rogers, has won the GOP caucus for White County Auditor. She, also will leave as of January 1, 2013. Director Rogers asks the Board to advertise, interview and choose a replacement. The Board agreed with a vote of 8-0. Director Rogers went on to say that he intends to go to the County Council to ask for appropriations for training purposes. He would have the new person work from 10 am to 6 pm with the idea that the 4 pm to 6 pm time slot would be utilized for Gayle to train the new person. Additional funding would be required to compensate Gayle. The Board agreed 8-0.

Visitor Concerns: Bob Bonnell was in attendance to ask the Board to consider allowing gun sales in a B-1 Neighborhood Business District. This would be for sales only, no target range. The Board agreed with an 8-0 vote that Director Rogers should submit the change. Director Rogers brought up that ‘antique shop’ is specifically excluded from being a home occupation. He asked the Board to consider allowing a change in the Ordinance to delete that reference. Again, the Board agreed with a vote of 8-0.


There being no further business, President Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 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.” _________________________________________________