Get Adobe Flash player

BODY {text-align: left;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Arial';font-size: 12pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.NORMAL {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} SPAN.PAGE_NUMBER {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;} P.FOOTER {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.HEADER {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.BODY_TEXT {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 6pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.BODY_TEXT_2 {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 12pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.APC {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.HEADING_2 {text-align: left;page-break-after: avoid;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 12pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.HEADING_1 {text-align: left;page-break-after: avoid;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 12pt;margin-bottom: 3pt;font-family: 'Arial';font-size: 14pt;font-weight: bold;font-style: normal;} P.LIST {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 18pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.CLOSING {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 216pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.SIGNATURE {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 216pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P.SIGNATURE_JOB_TITLE {text-align: left;widows: 2;orphans: 2;margin-left: 216pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Times New Roman';font-size: 10pt;font-weight: normal;font-style: normal;} P {text-align: left;margin-left: 0pt;margin-right: 0pt;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;font-family: 'Arial';font-size: 12pt;font-style: normal;}

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, May 13, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Jay Clawson, Gary Barbour, David Rosenbarger, David Scott, Stephen Fisher, Don Ward, Gregory Bossaer, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Howard & Ruby Lord, John & Vickey Wright, Bob & Bonnie Lamb, Charles R. Mellon, Steve Salomon, Donna Geisler, Mike Burke, Paul Wing, Cindy Bixler, Ken Metcalf, Mary Cook, Betty Roder, Dan Hanenkratt, George Green, Dennis R. Turner, John J. Raines, Mike Jaenicke, Brenda Jaenicke, Bea Smith, James E. Smith, Chad Sellmer, David C. & Marjorie Warrum, Harry DuVall, Attorney Don Tribbett, Ben Stefaniak and Martha Stefaniak.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jay Clawson and roll call was taken. Don Ward made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the April 8, 2002 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Rosenbarger and carried unanimously.

Director Weaver stated, I would just like the Board to know that we have a new secretary in the office. She is with us tonight, she will be doing your minutes from now on. Her name is Molly Sage, and we are welcoming her to the office and wishing her luck on the minutes.

****

#785 James E. & Beatrice Smith; Requesting to rezone from R-2 to R-3 on .775 of an acre. The property is located at 5785, 5787, 5789, 5791 & 5797 E. Golden Hills Drive.

Vice President Clawson asked, is someone representing that cause?

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes sir, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I’m sure this Commission recalls that we were here a couple of months ago, on a similar rezoning petition. There was some confusion that arose at that time and I think there were some issues that were raised, that I really don’t think that we were in a position to address at that point. One of the issues that were raised at that time was an issue with regard to whether or not that Smith’s even owned this property. So I brought with me tonight a copy of the warranty deed, which was recorded in White County Recorder’s Office back in 1986, showing their title. I’m not sure what the confusion was, whether or not there was some confusion over the fact that one time they had a

mortgage on the property and has some payments owing but, I think it clear that’s not an issue that comes before this Commission but, I am prepared tonight to present to you that warranty deed…

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, we would be glad to….

Vice President Clawson stated, this will be accepted and put it into the record.

Attorney Altman stated, we will mark that as Exhibit A, and part of the record.

Attorney Tribbett stated, we also presented the last time and we will present it again a number of letters. I don’t know if you refer back to a prior file but we have a number of letters that were favorable to rezoning the petition, I’m sorry.

Attorney Altman stated, Don will pass it.

Attorney Tribbett stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record we’re receiving Exhibit B…

Attorney Tribbett stated, and I think…

Attorney Altman stated, is one of, which is five pages. Go ahead Mr. Tribbett, I’m sorry.

Attorney Tribbett stated, I think one of the, the main concern I think probably the main concern, when we were here before, was the fact that we were asking to rezone from R-2 to R-3 and there was some concern over what might happen in the future. Some concern expressed by a couple of neighbors as to weather or not there would be some effort in the future, to increase the number of dwelling units on this point seven, seven five acres. Just to refresh your memory, when the Smith’s bought this property, there were five units, five residential dwelling units on this property and that has been grandfathered in, as a result as the fact that their use pre-dated the Zoning Ordinance. They have continued to maintain five dwelling units on that property. The issue here that has given rise to their desire to get a rezoning is, that they would like to convert a structure that is originally constructed as a garage storage unit, into a residence and there was some concern that if they did that, they were going to remove a mobile home, from the property that they are currently occupying and there was some concern, that if they did that, that somewhere down the line, somebody might want to come in and put up apartments or whatever. As a result of that concern, and what I think is that makes this petition tonight considerably different than the one that were on here two months ago, is, we have now drafted and I am going to submit to this body tonight, some commitments that we have put in writing with regard to this property and I have entitled that commitment on the use of real-estate subsequent to rezoning so I would submit that at this time and I did bring, I think I have enough copies here. Do you already have it?

Director Weaver stated, I made copies of what you had faxed to me.

Attorney Tribbett stated, oh you’re ahead of me, okay, thank you.

Attorney Tribbett stated, the one that I have submitted to Mr. Clawson is of course the original and is signed by the Smith’s. What that rezoning, what that commitment document says, is essentially this, they have five units there now, if their rezoning petition is permitted and they are then allowed to change the garage into a residential unit that they would remove not just one of the mobile homes but, two of the mobile homes. Meaning that they would end up after everything was said and done, with four residential dwelling units, rather than the current five. So, I would think that would be of some consolation to the neighbors, the fact that they are going to end up with fewer dwelling units, after this done than they currently have but, I think it is important to point out, especially for the benefit of the neighbors, that they have not only agreed to do that but, they have agreed to bind, not only themselves but, all future owners of this property, that would never have more than those four dwelling units on the property and they have put in there that it would be binding upon themselves and also any future owners and the expectation I assume, that this is done fairly frequently over here. The expectation would be, that after everything said and done, this document would get recorded and any future owner then would be bound by the commitments that the Smith’s have made in this document. So again, I think we have addressed those concerns that were raised previously, I hope we have. We would be more than happy to answer any questions any of you might have but, at this time I know in the interest of brevity I would I conclude my initial remarks and then we would respond whatever might be raised by, either the Commission or any of the neighbors.

Vice President Clawson asked, when did we receive this?

Director Weaver stated, the commitment, this afternoon.

Vice President Clawson asked, do you think it would be the Board, to look through this before we act on it?

Attorney Altman stated, oh sure. We received the commitment this afternoon and there is the, it is something that is very, very critical and important in the zoning decision that you have before you tonight. So I certainly would take some time and review this commitment, and anyone that wants a copy of it to look at that from the members of the public, I would be glad, I have one here at least but, I…

Attorney Tribbett stated, I have several extras because I was refrained from passing them out?

Attorney Altman stated, very good, I bet we can see if anybody Mr. Tribbett wants to read this the one in public. We would be glad, anyone here wants to see a copy of this? You may have to share and double up on this in a little bit, certainly have in, Ordinance to take some time. Any body else? Please read it.

Vice President Clawson stated, do you need more, I would like to ask the Board if they want to review it now and act on it tonight or to review at length at home and act on it next meeting. If we want, we will take the time to read it then.

Attorney Altman stated, I think you should to look at it and then certainly I don’t think it is anything, you certainly want to take your time. I’ve marked this for the record, Exhibit C, the commitments that Mr. Attorney Tribbett has replied and I certainly think it’s very important so that I would have no trouble about taking some more time to review this. A motion to do that is certainly in order at anytime. For the public and people that are concerned about this, a commitment is a written document, that would go without saying but it is that. That refers to a specific matter before the Area Plan Commission and we have several commitments coming up so that this applies to any of you folks that are here and this says, if it is rezoned, certain things that could happen will not happen. Now I think Mr. Tribbett has fairly well set out in detail what will happen, and what cannot happen. In other words, it would be four dwelling units on this piece of property and no more than that even though the square footage would allow for more than that okay, or may allow for more than that and this is controlling verses the rezoning of the R-3. This would control the amounts of units that would be on there, rather than the Ordinance s’ square footage, which would allow them for more than four units on this property.

Donna Geisler stated, I have a question, who enforces that?

Attorney Altman stated, well obviously, it sits out in here but it would be enforced by the Commissioners of White County.

Cindy Bixler stated, well in the last meeting you had mentioned something about a document that was already signed before about turning the barn into….

Attorney Altman stated, that is a variance that is a variance.

Vice President Clawson stated, for the record if you speak, could you give us your name first, please.

Attorney Altman stated, that was the variance that was involved in this, with this the garage that they are now trying to complete into a dwelling.

Cindy Bixler stated, well I think you had mentioned, I’m not sure exactly how you stated it but, I thought you said something about they would not turn into anymore than a storage unit and they already have.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what variance restricted them not to do and I think..

Cindy Bixler stated, but, they did, this is my question.

Attorney Altman stated, I think the evidence is fairly is before the Board as to what they have done. I think they have said in here, that they have done some of that and the evidence last time said they had done quite a bit on that and I think that is the record without the deciding facts.

David Scott asked, have you had a chance to read this document before now?

Attorney Altman stated, I have but, I did so about, I think that it was about 1:00 this afternoon and the truth is, I haven’t had a chance to study it very carefully.

Steve Fisher stated, I have a question for you. I think you mentioned to the people or whatever but, it seems like with the R-2 as it is and we because acted on that already, isn’t this something that really should be before Board of Zoning Appeals, I mean it seems like they’re trying to get us to do the R-3 with their exceptions and that almost seems like something they should be bring before that Board to get an exception to that R-2 to do what they want to do, instead of changing it to a R-3. See what I mean?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that would be called what is a used variance, and quite frankly, are Ordinance, excuse me, State Law prevents our Board of Zoning Appeals from granting a use variance. Now I think they have issues with the Board of Zoning Appeals but, to have more units on this lot, they must have a different zoning.

Steve Fisher stated, but I take it that they are supplying information that they are not going to do that.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, not going to have more than four units, is what they are saying.

Director Weaver stated, but in order for them to be able to do anything, they have to bring the property to compliance first.

Steve Fisher stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, and this is the first step in doing that. They do also have to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals, they do realize that but, this is their first step.

David Scott stated, they want four units plus the detached garage?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Attorney Tribbett stated, no, no it would be four units.

Attorney Altman stated, four total units, four total dwelling units.

Attorney Tribbett stated, five there now and they would be going four. They would get rid of two of the mobile homes in exchange for being allowed to convert the garage storage unit into a residential unit.

Vice President Clawson asked, and this is…

Attorney Tribbett stated, there is a three-car garage that is separate.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know, that is a good question.

Director Weaver stated, that is a duplex, I have been in it…

Attorney Tribbett stated, this is a garage that you’re talking about, this one is. This was a garage storage unit.

David Scott stated, that’s what I’m saying, these two units, is a duplex…

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes.

David Scott stated, this one, this one and this one would stay.

Attorney Tribbett stated, that’s a garage.

There was discussion among Attorney Tribbett and the Board members.

Vice President Clawson asked, 1, 2, 3, 4, each place that people can live is classified as a unit?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, they won’t be able to come in and put 8 units duplex in there and call that a unit.

Director Weaver stated, right, this is a two-unit structure.

Don Ward stated, these all exist, this is the only one right now that is not being used as a dwelling unit although, they had started to make changes to it.

David Rosenbarger asked, which one did they get the height variance on?

Attorney Tribbett stated, that is this one. That is the one now that they are now asking for the rezoning so that they would then be in a position to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals in an effort to get their original permission changed so that they can now revert that into a residence.

David Rosenbarger asked, what happens if that doesn’t happen?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not sure, I’m not sure…

Dave Scott stated, if the zoning changes it has to go back to the…

Attorney Altman stated, they would have to get approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals also, yes because that original variance required that they could not make that into residence…

An audience member stated, but it is.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what it says. Okay I hear some people adding evidence and we will give you that chance to do so directly will we will not interrupt you, if you don’t interrupt us. Okay?

Vice President Clawson stated, I have one question for Mr. Tribbett and then we can take some questions from the audience. In here we wanted to have this to come from your mouth that the four, when your talking of a unit, that would be a sleeping, you’re trying to say is a sleeping unit for one specific family. Not as a unit to where it is a six place unit would be.

Attorney Tribbett stated, it wasn’t really defined.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes, I want that clarified from your…

Attorney Tribbett stated, I tried to put in, and I was concerned about the definition of what we were talking about so I put in there the specific units that would remain after.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Attorney Tribbett stated, everything is said and done, if they are granted permission tonight and then granted favorable permission from Board of Zoning Appeals…

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Attorney Tribbett stated, so yes they would be looking at one unit per one, you know, one single unit not….

Vice President Clawson stated, right, because I wanted that clarified.

Attorney Tribbett stated, anytime you get a place where you’ve got beds in and a bathroom and you know separated from everything else by walls or whatever that’s a unit.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay, where a duplex would be two units…

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes and that’s the reason I called a duplex in this one, two units.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Attorney Tribbett stated, if you look at both of what I stated there to where as clause is the currant condition. I talk about the duplex being two units….

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Attorney Tribbett stated, and when I talk about later on, the four units would remain, I talked about the duplex being two units.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay. We just wanted that clarified for the record, thank you.

Director Weaver stated, I would like for the Board to know too, that I do have more pictures of the property, if you would like to look at further pictures they were from the hearing. I did not copy them for Board but I do have them here, if anyone would like to see them.

Vice President Clawson stated, Okay.

Betty Roder stated, I have a comment, how far is this…

Attorney Altman asked, Betty, would you come up please?

Betty Roder asked, this so called storage unit is suppose to be…

Attorney Altman stated, into mike please, come up to the mike…

Betty Roder asked, away from the next…

Attorney Altman stated, you get in the back and we just don’t have a good record. We can hear you but, it doesn’t go on the tape very well.

Betty Roder asked, how far is this so called storage unit suppose to be away from the next property line?

Director Weaver stated, currently under this Ordnance right now, it’s six foot from a side property line….

Betty Roder stated, three feet.

Director Weaver stated, under the old Ordnance that is what was allowed, was three feet.

Betty Roder stated, so it’s right next to, and they are going to make this into a home.

Steve Fisher asked, so does that change, if this goes through?

Director Weaver stated, yes it does.

Attorney Altman stated, yes they would need to have a variance on that to.

Director Weaver stated, it does not need to setback, requirements for a home...

Betty Roder stated, we know that we’ve got to go the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, so this is a project?

Attorney Tribbett stated, it answers your question, you asked what happens, what you will notice is, in what I put in there that these are conditioned upon the granting of the rezoning and then also, the issuance of the location improvement permit, a building permit and their not issued a building permit unless we satisfy all of these requirements.

Attorney Altman stated, precisely, we cannot issue it, so this conditioned on the whole thing working.

Steve Fisher stated, but our R-3 would be in place though correct, or not, the way that reads on the end.

Attorney Altman stated, it certainly could be in place, yes sir, yes…

Steve Fisher stated, these commitments will not be, if he doesn’t get his approval by the B.Z.A. it still may be R-3.

Attorney Altman stated, but, it would condition and modified by that commitment, it would require it. In other words, he can’t do what he wants to do, even if he gets quote an R-3, it is totally controlled by this commitment.

Director Weaver stated, that’s not how I read this commitment. I read this commitment that their not held to these conditions, that they will remove those units, unless rezoning goes through and a variance is granted. That’s the way I read it.

Don Ward stated, that’s the way that I read it too.

Attorney Tribbett stated, Mr. Altman, what I intended was this, their living in one of those trailers now and their not permitted and I know there’s going to be comments about what they’ve done previously to start renovation of that other but, it is not livable and I think Mrs. Weaver can tell you that because she has been out there but, if they are not allowed then to move over into the garage that they want to convert into residential they’ve got to have someplace to stay, so they are not intending to remove the trailers, unless they get an improvement location permit, building permit to make the changes to the garage storage unit.

David Rosenbarger asked, but, if the R-3 is okay and none of this other stuff meets, how does it go back to R-2, just because of the commitment or does it, do they have to…

Attorney Altman stated, they could…

David Rosenbarger asked, automatic?

Attorney Altman stated, the R-3 zoning is modified and controlled by the commitment whatever they are going to do in there they must do with the commitment.

Vice President Clawson asked, are you asking if they don’t live up to the commitment, would it revert to the R-3, or back to the R-2?

David Rosenbarger stated, no…

Director Weaver stated, that’s not the way that I read this commitment. The way that I read this commitment…

Steve Fisher stated, we can make ours contingent upon, on them getting approval from the B.Z.A. and then it falls back to R-2 again.

Attorney Altman stated, again, I have had a chance to read this once and make a glance at it this evening twice, or would be a total of 2 times.

Don Ward stated, I think that there should be a time limit.

Attorney Tribbett stated, we wouldn’t have, we wouldn’t have any problem making modifications to this. We wouldn’t have any problem with it if we don’t get what we need in front of the B.Z.A. to have it revert back I mean you’re right it doesn’t say that the way that it was drafted and something that didn’t occur to me as I was drafting it but, we wouldn’t have any problem and I certainly think this commission in entitled to make amendments to this you know make the rezoning contingent upon amendments to this commitment and we could certainly get the commitment amended when we went back before the Commissioners. We went to the Commissioners the last time even though we had an unfavorable recommendation from you folks and we told them then, we are willing to make commitments and they weren’t even interested in hearing anything in light of the action that you took and said go back to the Plan Commission, and see what they say with your commitments and get those ironed out, and then we will consider it again, so that is what really happened but, we’re not now totally wedded to these commitments, we would certainly make reasonable agreements to make reasonable agreeable changes to these if you want to put in there that zoning would revert to R-2 if we do not get the building permit within and even in some sort of a reasonable time, we are not planning on sitting on this and we don’t get it in some certain period of time, then I guess were all back to square one, the neighbors have five dwelling units neighboring them rather than four and we are back to square one, if that’s the pleasure of the Commission, I wouldn’t have any problem with it.

Steve Fisher stated, I think that’s reasonable but, I guess I would like to see if you can maybe define, like Jay said about the units, what an actual unit is. I know what you’re saying but, it doesn’t seem to be in there I mean where you said that it was in there as far as your aware, as clause but, couldn’t you just say a residential, single residential unit instead of, because in my mind I can see a unit as being a building that would house four different apartments in it.

Attorney Tribbett stated, well and again, I will be willing to look at any, you might suggest. I think that if you look at commitment number one on the third page it says that upon the conversion of the garage, storage units or residents the Smith’s will remove the two mobile homes resulting in 4 residential dwelling units remaining on the real estate and then I list what they are. We’re really not trying to play games with this, we’re trying to address concerns that were raised here and obviously they have a goal in mind or we wouldn’t be here but, we think with these commitments this is a win, win situation and the lifetime of the road, the number of people that live back there and we get rid of a dwelling unit.

Vice President Clawson, asked, ma’am.

Donna Geisler stated, I do have a few other…

Vice President Clawson asked, name again.

Donna Geisler asked, my name is Donna Geisler, do you want me to come up there?

Attorney Altman stated, please Donna.

Donna Geisler stated, since my mother sold these people this property to begin with I still feel that I have an obligation even though they have paid off our contract and they do own it now but, I do have some concerns because I do know that there have been some things as they have attested to that have gone on without the approval of the Board and without the variance needed. Another thing that has been a problem with the neighbors and with the neighborhood down there is the fact that Mr. Smith has changed the draining in that property the water drains were specifically in there for the different places and I have a copy of, which I don’t really want to give up because this is my original but, my grandfather’s draining system which has been all changed. There was never any toilet or anything in this little shop that is only 3’ from the neighbors property. There was never any water that was in that little shop from there when by grandfather had it. This has caused a problem with the neighbor that’s the 3’ away, Mrs. Cook and I know that she has talked to different people about this property, I know that maybe this isn’t the place to put this but, I think that someone needs to know about it. There has been a problem with the draining and with the places that have been filled in, I do believe that those need to be corrected before this can be approved. Thank you.

Paul Wing asked, I would like to say that the commitments listed in here seem reasonable and agreeable by myself anyway, the one question that I do have about the commitment proposal itself is, is this a binding indefinitely or can it be changed in the future and how would that be changed if someone in the future wished to do so?

Attorney Altman stated, it would come before a Board like this with a similar document, get approval from the Board like this and then ultimately get approval from the County Commissioners of White County to approve a modification of a commitment.

Paul Wing asked, would there be notice posted for residents to know about something like that or would it just something that can be done?

Attorney Altman stated, since we have had zoning in White County since 1972, it is required notice before we have something modified like this I can’t say indefinitely in the future what kind of Ordinance might be adopted, you just never know but, I would be surprised if anything were adopted that wouldn’t require notice.

Paul Wing stated, okay, thank you.

Director Weaver stated, just so you know too a commitment on a rezoning like this, is recorded along with their, there is a Rezoning Ordinance that is recorded in the Recorder’s Office and the commitment is recorded right along with that Ordinance.

Paul Wing stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, and where is your property, in relation to…

Paul Wing stated, it not directly in adjacent, it’s just down the road, 5692 Golden Hills Drive.

Attorney Altman asked, but you’re on the road?

Paul Wing, stated, yes, I am directly on the road.

Vice President Clawson stated, on this number one that you were just talking about, when everything is done you will be down to 4 residential dwellings as follows for the apartment above the garage, duplex garage storage unit into a residence, what happens if one of those are destroyed what size can they put back in because right here it is stating a garage storage unit so if something happened to that building is that what you’re going to put back? Is that binding with this because of the way that you just stated that?

Attorney Tribbett stated, well, you know anytime anything would happen we would have to get a building permit we would have to go back through the Area Plan…

Vice President Clawson stated, but, the way that this is written, that’s the only thing that you can put back in because your stating that is the only 4 units that will be there.

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes, and I’m looking at this in your point. I think that we have an issue to have it looked at, at that time I’m not sure what we would be able to do obviously, you could put something back similar to what was there before whether it be identical or not, I’m not sure.

Vice President Clawson stated, I’m just going by the way that you read these up that you’re stating that is going to be the only 4 units in there period.

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes right, those would be the four units that would remain after and yes, I first pointed that out because we called that duplex two units.

Don Ward stated, well, as soon as it is converted it won’t be a garage storage it will be…

Vice President Clawson stated, a residence.

Don Ward stated, a residence and they can replace a residence with a residence but, they will probably have to go to their setback lines.

Donna Geisler asked, I have one more question, I want to know if the county received my mother’s, mother’s protest.

Director Weaver stated, I was going to ask you if that was your mother…

Donna Geisler stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes, we did receive that and the Board members do have a copy.

Donna Geisler stated, and I also want to know if you were also bringing back the people who did protest before too or do they have to make other protests?

Attorney Altman stated, tonight is the evening that we are hearing evidence on this.

Donna Geisler asked, tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, yes and of course it will go, as you know, to the County Commissioners assuming that the applicant takes it there and they will of course hear what evidence that they wish to hear before they vote and make a final decision on it.

Donna Geisler asked, so if any of the other neighbors would have a protest they should come tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, if they have that or if they an agreement with them, they should tell us this evening. On your point about replacement, I can tell you that this commitment doesn’t exactly resolve that, it says in numbers there, it doesn’t talk about the size. You could make the argument that it would be no more than since this is a limiting document. The only thing that I can tell you is when it comes to the Board of Zoning Appeals, they would limit that to whatever they decide. In other words, they do get into business of limiting it to certain sizes. I don’t bring that up to give you comfort about that, your question I’m telling you that the Board, B.Z.A. does do that, does limit things like that but, this doesn’t exactly do that and that might be something that Mr. Tribbett is talking about modifications is this commitment, that might be something there would really be helpful all the way around, to have that clause saying something like that and define that.

Vice President Clawson stated, we are accepting properties….

Bea Smith stated, excuse me my name is Bea Smith and I am one of the owners of this property and I would like to ask the Board to take a look at the pictures that they see now. Would you rather have that continue as it is, or would you rather have it cleaned up and have full residence there that looks like a decent living place because if it doesn’t then we revert back to the other and they stay as is.

Vice President Clawson asked, where this is, they are calling this an apartment above the garage but can we accept this? Are there any requirements to these like for fire and safety? Do we have anything as our Board to look at to the structures that are there, that do we need to inspect them to make sure that it is acceptable before we can rezone these properties? Do you see the jest that I am getting at?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, since there are modification, however, I presume that it would be, usually that is resolved by the Building Inspector, that the, however, again in this commitment it doesn’t indicate that the work to be done, or the modifications be done would be inconsistent with those standards. However, he talks about a permit applied for and obtained, and he’s not going to get that. Nothing can be done, it doesn’t meet those standards.

Vice President Clawson stated, I agree. This is the one he wants to remodel…

Director Weaver stated, right,

Vice President Clawson stated, but, there is existing apartment above the other garage, with the dormer on it and I’m just, asking Attorney Altman, if we had to, this isn’t anything that was brought up that these apartments are at least at a minimum, meeting a minimum code to, when we change the residential zoning on this, is this a safe property, an apartment above where, that we are approving, we don’t want to approve something that could be out of compliance or non-safe issue. I don’t know if we need to have these properties inspected before the, before you are actually granted from our Building Inspector to make sure that there are no, I’m just asking our attorney is that something that we need to do to make sure that there is no grave…

Attorney Tribbett stated, I guess my response to that would be that what you’re asking for the numbers and I didn’t hear everything that Mr. Altman said but it certainly seems to me that if there, in Logansport we have an Inspection Ordinance that all properties inspected every so many years. I don’t know if you have that here or not….

Vice President Clawson stated, we don’t have that…

Attorney Altman stated, once, when construction Mr. Tribbett.

Attorney Tribbett stated, okay, well, I don’t think that would be any different than any other, if you don’t approve it you still have 5 units there which are, two of which are considerably older and probably more obsolete than the one that you are going to have if they are allowed to approve it.

Vice President Clawson stated, I understand that…

Attorney Tribbett stated, still, you’re getting a better situation than what is currently there.

Director Weaver stated, the one that they are wanting to convert will have to have a building permit…

Vice President Clawson stated, I understand…

Director Weaver stated, if approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, it will have to go through the inspection process. Vice President Clawson is more questioning the one where the apartment above the garage, that is the one that he is questioning more than anything.

Vice President Clawson asked, is this a full time residence that is used there or is it just something that is used…

James Smith stated, summer…

Vice President Clawson asked, someone comes there and wants to stay for the weekend, in the summer. The only thing is for current code if you are having people up there is it fire accessible, I mean are they able, you know more than one entrance and exit out and things like that which, now is the time since we don’t have that inspection, yearly inspection to address these, I feel that we need to address the things like that, that are going on.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree, however it is, you’re going to have to write it up and make your proposal, your modifications to whatever you want to do Jay but, I agree, I’m saying it’s a legitimate issue to look at.

Vice President Clawson stated, we don’t have anything for the Board and it’s….

James Smith stated, it’s a policy that you have….

Vice President Clawson stated, well, a lot of the time when we do a rezone and stuff like this there usually not properties that we’re trying to grandfather, grandfather in and we’re starting to look at property, and if we are, we need to have some kind of minimum requirements I think at some time and we can’t set the precedence on you I was just asking Attorney Altman a legal question that we need to address this and if it’s not the wishes of the Board that this not even be done, this is just me thinking out loud.

David Scott stated, I think that would be the job of the Building Inspector when he goes out to inspect the property to make sure that it meets all of the codes and has the fire alarms or the fire exits or whatever, I don’t think that would be our position.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

David Scott stated, I mean because, I’m not an engineer…

Vice President Clawson stated, I’m not either…

David Scott stated, and someone smarter than me needs to figure that out.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay, I mean if it’s not anything that we need to put in the commitment, and if it’s not the Board’s wishes, then we don’t really need to add that then. Just a question. Are there any other questions from the audience? Are we ready?

Don Ward stated, I think that I will make a motion that we allow them to revise this commitment addressing the replacement of the building size and so forth, time limit for the conversion, inspection of the building by the Building Inspector to make sure that everything is right and that the rezone to R-3 is contingent on approval of everything else so that it doesn’t’ go up it reverts back to R-2 and possibly the inspection of the drainage, if there is a drainage problem, I don’t know. That would be the Drainage Board I don’t know that is our problem.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s certainly the Commissioners problem.

Don Ward stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman stated, what I would like and I understand not wanting to give your original map…

Donna Geisler stated, I can make you a copy…

Attorney Altman stated, we would like to have a copy of that if we could so that we can have that of record and Mr. Tribbett I’m sure would like to have a copy of that and I’m sure that the County Commissioners would, which is the Drainage Board, would like to have a copy of that also so that we can see and they can address Mr. Wards concerns. We have had a motion to table this with those adjustments Mr. Ward?

Don Ward stated, yes.

Dave Scott seconded the motion.

Vice President Clawson stated, we have a motion and a second to table the rezoning request contingent upon the attorney getting back with us the changes of the commitment that Mr. Ward asked or and he can get with you after what, if you need the specific things that we need there.

Attorney Tribbett stated, I want to make sure that I follow everything…

Vice President Clawson stated, okay, we will make sure that you get a written paper of all of the things that we want on there and then we will hear this at the next meeting or when this comes back to us.

Attorney Altman stated, the vote is to table.

Vice President Clawson asked, okay, can I have vote for tabling this, from the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, all of those in favor signify by saying I…

The Board stated, aye.

Attorney Altman stated, all of those opposed the same sign, ayes have it. This will be tabled until when Director Weaver, when is the next meeting?

Director Weaver stated, if we get the information in time it will be June the 10th.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, June the 10th that means that you have to get the information to us 15 days before right?

Director Weaver stated, I think that is right, this next week or maybe later this week, or next week, that is coming up real quick so I don’t know that we can make it for the June 10th meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure that Mr. Tribbett can, I bet, we need it 15 days before June the 10th. Anyone that wants a copy of that, like I say we are suppose to have it 15 days before the 10th so that would be like the 25th I guess, just quickly it should be in our department then if you want to get a copy of that, stop in and pick up a copy from the Area Plan Department okay folks, the modification. Does everyone understand that? June the 10th right here, same time. Thank you.

Attorney Tribbett stated, I would like to get copies of it, I have now come in here twice and had things sprung on me like we didn’t own the property when we clearly did and we had some confusion over that now there is no mention of drainage and now I hear them talking about drainage issues. If there is some way that I could get some of this stuff…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you, please get that to me tomorrow so I can copy that so I can get that faxed to Mr. Tribbett tomorrow, you bet, that’s only fair.

Director Weaver stated, I will be happy to go make copies right now.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to go with Director Weaver, she will run a copy and Mr. Tribbett can walk out with her.

Attorney Tribbett asked, are you, will get it to me on the nature of what we are being asked?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, just as soon as, I will get Mr. Ward’s notes here and we’ll get those to you.

****

#786 Excel Co-Op. Inc; Requesting to rezone from R-2 to B-1 in Lots 75, 78 & 81 in W.J.R. Addition, containing 17,276 square feet more or less. The property in the City of Monticello at 210 W. Harrison Street.

Vice President Clawson asked, do we have anyone representing that?

Steve Salomon stated, yes, my name is Steve Salomon and I’m the Safety Coordinator for the company, and I have been asked to represent the company tonight. Intent on this is to rezone the property from its existing residential classification to a B-1, Business. Their intent of doing that is to look at a couple different options of which management has informed me in the last couple days that the predominant option is at this point to look at the addition opportunities to increase the size of the existing office space, from it’s current status. We also have some other information, if people so request this evening, if the Board would request in terms of setbacks and Director Weaver has some of the information she may be able to share with you also, we’ve been in some conversation. The existing building was built right after the tornado and it’s current side, which is across from the Miller - Voorhis Funeral Home in the City of Monticello. Questions?

Vice President Clawson stated, the business is going to maintain the same type, not going to any kind of retail or anything there….

Steve Salomon stated, no, there’s no attempt going to be what so ever on the retail end. What we are doing is expanding the office space for our administrative services. The way we are currently setup, several of us have been in the Administrative office have been sent out to adjoining branches and now we want to bring those people back into that location from a communications standpoint. We also want to have a larger board room, our current board room is to small for some of the training sessions that I do, for example and also for some of the functions that we have within the company. You might also note that Mr. Altman called me on Friday, requesting a letter, in which I have provided to Director Weaver earlier this evening.

Director Weaver stated, it’s in the file.

Steve Salomon stated, that one of the concerns, expressed by Mr. Altman was that we not divide those three lots in the commitment basically states for the duration of the ownership Excel Co-op or any subsequent others that we will occupy that lot. In fact part of our plan will revolve utilizing all three lots where as the majority of the property is currently in a paved parking, as compared to the building size.

Vice President Clawson asked, what is the strip there along Railroad Street.

Director Weaver stated, Steve can fill you in on that.

Steve Salomon stated, there is a 20-foot strip, which extends directly West, from the West property line that we own, and it runs, there is actually three lots four feet wide that are owned by CSX Railroad. We cannot answer for why that is that situation we currently use that portion of the property for parking. One of the things that we did not have which we do now have is a dimension survey of the property so we have a much clearer understand of that 20’ strip that goes across there, a very unusual situation.

Vice President Clawson asked, is there anyone in the audience that has any questions or any response to this? If not, I say that we should go ahead and vote on this.

Director Weaver stated, I just have, I have one thing that Attorney Altman and I have discussed this today and I question this on this commitment and I just want to mention it to the Board to see if this is what they want. The one statement on here that Excel further understands that if it ceases to use the property for general business the zoning will revert back to an R-2. Now, I discussed this with Attorney Altman this is in a business area I didn’t know if that was a necessary step in the commitment but I wanted to bring that to the Board’s attention and see what they thought on that.

Steve Salomon asked, do you have the most recent copy that we gave you Director Weaver? The one that we just gave you this evening?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know.

Steve Salomon stated, the one that I gave you earlier this evening…

Director Weaver asked, have you omitted that?

Steve Salomon stated, it says that the zoning will be retained.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Steve Salomon stated, that’s why I wanted to make sure that you had the correct copy because you had a draft and I have it…

Director Weaver stated, well, I made copies of the first one, so it is off of there Attorney Altman.

Steve Salomon stated, the copy that she has in her possession indicates that the B-1 classification will be maintained so…

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Steve Fisher stated, if they change it even if they change it…

Director Weaver stated, what it would be is if they sold the property then it would revert back to the R-2 zoning…

Attorney Altman stated, no, no, if they stop the, if they used it different, if they used, if they didn’t keep all three together…

Steve Salomon stated, the intent was that the lots would not be divided for different uses. That is my understanding of the commitment.

Attorney Altman stated, and you’re continuing that and that will be controlling and all three will be effectively, joined together from now on.

Vice President Clawson stated, we need that because if they add on to this to stay in conformance of parking requirements there, you wouldn’t be able to sell off a lot because then you would be a non-conforming use…

Steve Salomon stated, we understand that.

George Green stated, in fact, my name is George Green, I am General Manager for Excel Co-op. the first draft on that was nearly the opposite of what we felt we intended and what we felt that this Board intended in fact because it is an office building if it reverts back to residential in case of a sale then it is of almost no value to anyone so we wanted to make sure that first of all we are committed to keep it as, keep the three lots as functioning as one with administrative offices only and then secondly it needs to stay business so that we, it has value to it.

Director Weaver stated, that’s exactly why I questioned it.

Don Ward stated, that easement along there is probably where the depot was.

Steve Salomon stated, yes it was, currently use that portion of the property for parking. One of the things we did not have, which we do have now Commissioners survey of the property. So we have a much clearer understanding of that 20’strip that goes across there.

Vice President Clawson asked, is there anyone in the audience that has any questions or any response to this? If not, I say we should vote on this.

Director Weaver stated, I just have a one thing… Jerry and I discussed this today, and I question is on this commitment. I just want to see if the Board see if this is what they want. The one statement on here that, excel further understands that is to use the property for general business. The zoning will revert back to an R-2. Now I discussed this with Jerry, this is in a residential business area, I didn’t know if that was a necessary step in the commitment, but, I wanted to bring that to the Board’s attention and see what the thought on that…

Steve Salomon stated, you know those recent copies I gave you Diann? The ones I gave you this evening?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know…

Steve Salomon stated, the one I gave you early this evening states….

Director Weaver stated, to Mr. Salomon, have you omitted that? Okay.

Steve Salomon stated, that’s why I wanted to make sure that you had the correct copy, because you have a draft…

Director Weaver stated, well I made copies of the first one…

Steve Salomon stated, yes, the original copy that she has in her possession indicates the B-1

classification will be retained.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, well what it was, what it would be is if they sold the property, then it would revert back to the R-2 zone.

Attorney Altman stated, if they used a different… If they didn’t keep all three together…

Steve Salomon stated, if that wasn’t, the loss would not be divided for different uses. This is my understanding of the….

Attorney Altman stated, and if you’re continuing that, then that will be controlling that all three will be affectedly joined together, from now on…

Vice President Clawson stated, we need that, because if they add on to this to sustain performance of the parking, you know the requirements. Then you won’t be able to sell off a lot, and then you will be in non-conformance use.

George Green stated, I’m general manager of Excel Co-op, the first draft on that was nearly the opposite of what we felt like we intended, and what we felt this Board intended. In fact because it is an office building, if it reverts back to residential on case of a sale, it is almost no value to anyone. So we wanted to make sure that we are committed to keep it as, keep the three lots functioning as one with the administrative offices only and then secondly it needs to stay business so it has value to it.

Director Weaver stated, that’s exactly why I questioned it.

Don Ward stated, that easement that was on there was probably where the depot was.

George Green stated, yes it was, that’s what the…

Don Ward stated, they probably needed the extra land because it use to be, it was pushed back, I remember because I surveyed this once.

Steve Salomon asked, other questions?

Attorney Altman stated, I was going to check, you don’t have anything to do with this tonight, but were they deeded that property or do they have an easement on that property?

Steve Salomon stated, we cannot find quite honestly and we have not taken the time to look at this point any information about the use of that property. The best information that we have is basically the way that the riding of the property lines and everything we don’t know, if there is any information we are not aware of it but we haven’t really taken the time to look for it either.

Director Weaver asked, don’t you have that paved as part of your parking lot?

Steve Salomon stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, that 20’?

Steve Salomon stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I thought so.

Steve Salomon stated, and we will revert it back to when the building was originally put in I’m assuming because that parking lot has been that way since 1974 or 1975. There may well, when the railroad was operational there would have been a handshake agreement or it may have been at the time there may have been an error and it was assumed that, that was part of the property, I don’t know, I honestly don’t know.

Don Ward stated, you could check with the railroad.

Steve Salomon stated, we have tried to make conversation, their interesting identities, yes.

George Green stated, we purchased our three lots from the railroad so at some point they surveyed and cut that off and decided to keep that I guess Don because it was the depot.

Vice President Clawson asked, do any other Board members have any questions? Do you think now that we should vote?

Don Ward stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The results of the vote were as follows: 8 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the City Council of Monticello for their action.

Attorney Altman stated, this will be forwarded with an affirmative recommendation and that will be heard next…

Vice President Clawson stated, Monday.

Attorney Altman stated, Monday at 7:00…

Vice President Clawson stated, in the evening.

Attorney Altman stated, in the evening. They have the final say.

Vice President Clawson asked, do you know where the council chambers are on the back side go through the alley, Mayor’s City Building

****

#787 Kenneth E. & Jane M. Metcalf; Requesting to rezone from A-1 to R-2 on .87 of an acre. The property is located East of Monticello at 6273 E. U.S. Highway 24.

Vice President Clawson asked, representing that is?

Ken Metcalf stated, yes, my name is Ken Metcalf and my wife and I have owned that property since 1975 and we have lived there for about 25 years and it has been empty for the last two years. It’s about two houses North of the Animal Hospital, over looking the river. The house has about a little over six thousand square feet, the upstairs and the downstairs are almost identical. It already has utilities that separate the two and we just want to make it into a duplex.

Vice President Clawson asked, and this was a duplex before you, or was it used as two separate….

Ken Metcalf stated, well it was a duplex at one time, yes.

Steve Fisher stated, the only question I have is, that encroachment the way that it is drawn on the map there, where it’s over lying the…

Director Weaver stated, those don’t lay…

Steve Fisher stated, okay, I was just making sure.

Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you that.

Steve Fisher asked, do you know, is that building lying across the property line? On our drawing it kind of shows that it is.

Ken Metcalf stated, I can’t see where it could be on either direction, North or South.

Steve Fisher stated, that’s the South side of the house it really doesn’t show on this map.

Ken Metcalf stated, between Crutchfield and us and I don’t, there’s no way that it could be.

Steve Fisher stated, it’s just showing it overhanging a little bit.

Vice President Clawson asked, is there anyone in the audience with any questions? Anyone on the Board have any questions for Mr. Metcalf? I think that we are ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The results of the vote were as follows: 8 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the County Commissioners for their action.

Attorney Altman stated, their meeting next Monday morning 8:30 and they will have final say of this.

****

#788 Hanenkratt Grain Company, Inc.; Requesting to rezone from B-2 to I-1 on Lot 47 in the Original Plat of Idaville. The property is located in the Town of Idaville, at 109 E. South Railroad Street.

Dan Hanenkratt stated, owner of the Hanenkratt Grain Co., and we are proposing to rezone this lot, it’s a bare lot, right East of our existing feed mill. We own all the property to the West of it there, we’ve got operations and we don’t have any immediate plans for this property but, we would just like to get it rezoned you know as a step for the future.

Attorney Altman asked, so it would be just joined with the other lots that you own there, Mr. Hanenkratt?

Dan Hanenkratt stated, right, it’s joining on the East side, there will be five lots there altogether and this lot is the Eastern most lot.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to mention to Board, this property was a part of a rezoning that was heard in August of 2000. The request was heard by A.P.C. and was given favorable recommendation, it was then forwarded on to the County Commissioners and the County Commissioners passed it also. In September of 2001, that rezoning was repealed by the County Commissioners, the original Ordinance rezoning Ordinance was never recorded it has therefore not been recorded. So there is no record that this has ever been rezoned in the Recorder’s Office but he is trying to come back now and get this one piece, there was additional property with this in the first request and this time he is coming back for this one lot. That adjoins his existing business.

Steve Fisher asked, you said that it’s a bare lot but showing some type of building, previous building?

Director Weaver stated, I think there was a home on the previous.

Dan Hanenkratt stated, the home has been demolished so it’s a bare lot right now.

Vice President Clawson asked, someone in response to his request?

Harry DuVall asked, yes, my name is Harry DuVall. I own lots #47, #48 in the Town of Idaville, that’s right East of that plot. I’ve already got high bins over there right now that does interfere with some of the roof on my house, it doesn’t dry out all the time. I would like to know what his intentions are, if this is rezoned to I-1 is that going to allow him to do about anything he wants and I don’t know what the setback requirements are for there right now.

Attorney Altman stated, it would allow him to do whatever I-1 would allow him to do. That’s about the only way you can figure out what it is, you have to look to what Ordinance would allow him, and he could do that, weather he would or not, we don’t know.

Harry DuVall stated, what I’m looking at is more bins over there close enough to, if you put a skyscraper or a 100’ bin up there, if the rain was coming down or the snow was close enough to my house…

Dan Hanenkratt stated, anything that we would do in the future on that lot I’m sure that we’re going to have to have a variance for so we’re still going to be…

Harry DuVall stated, I’m concerned about my property and I don’t know what you’re, if you get it rezoned, you have some idea of what you want to do and if you’re going to say anything tonight I don’t know but that’s what I’m…

Attorney Altman stated, please understand he can have an idea today and change it tomorrow or sell it and someone else could have that idea. The only really control is what the Ordinance would allow, that’s the only real control that we have at all and the only real shall we say picture that you can form and know so we don’t generally talk about specifics like that because it doesn’t matter.

Harry DuVall stated, I might get in another specific here okay…

Attorney Altman stated, no, no, what the specific of what he wants to do. We certainly listen to your specifics.

Harry DuVall stated, I don’t know if you know but they wanted to put the grinder from the septic system in-between that lot and they were going to join my house with yours…

Dan Hanenkratt stated, yes, I didn’t know that…

Harry Duvall stated, yes, and I don’t know I would have to check my easement see if the septic tank for my house is on lot #47…

Dan Hanenkratt stated, okay.

Harry DuVall stated, you know what I’m, were you aware of that?

Dan Hanenkratt stated, no.

Harry DuVall stated, because of what Mr. Schlegemilch owned both of those properties at one time. He put the septic for the house that was there to the north but he put the septic for mine right straight East out at about the middle of my house and see mine, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that still wouldn’t have anything to do with the rezoning. It really wouldn’t.

David Rosenbarger asked, does I-1 require a fence when it’s against residential?

Director Weaver stated, yes, that was something that I was going to bring up the residential protection clause states that any business or industrial use that abuts an area zoned and used for residential purposes must have a fence or barrier at least 8’ in height. The visual obstruction must be provided and perpetually maintained by the owner of the commercial or industrial property and may be in the form of a solid fence or natural vegetation.

Vice President Clawson stated, to answer your question, you asked about how close he can build to your side, there’s a, one of the requirements in an industrial zoning is the setback has to be equal to the height of the building that he is putting up.

Harry DuVall stated, so if he’s putting up…

Vice President Clawson stated, a 50’ building it has to be 50’ from the property line.

Harry DuVall asked, is that from my property line or…

Vice President Clawson stated, from his property line, yes. Between you two, that’s what it states in here.

Harry DuVall asked, are you sure that you don’t want to hint what you want to do?

Dan Hanenkratt stated, I don’t know.

Vice President Clawson stated, something that I wanted to get on with the Attorney is, we ran into trouble with this before with not having the square feet requirement by being able to group these as all contingent lots we are able to come up with enough square feet to legally get by and say this is…

Attorney Altman stated, and this is why I think that it is so important that they come before us and defectively join or unite all of these lots that they own, 43, 44, 45, 46 and presumably 47 if it is rezoned would all be one unit and have the square footage that makes sense and is required of this I-1 zoning. I believe that is appropriate and is correct law to allow that. Now whether you vote for it is your own business but I think that it is legal.

Gregory Bossaer asked, why was that repealed before…

Director Weaver stated, there was some question about the size of the lot and it also included property across the street.

Vice President Clawson stated, which was too close to, some reason that they found, I don’t know what the legal finding was exactly and that’s why it was repealed.

David Scott asked, did someone bring it tot heir attention?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, there was a lawsuit.

Attorney Altman stated, there was a lawsuit filed but, if it went to court of if there was a judgment on that, I never got a copy of that.

Director Weaver asked, Dan, did that go to court?

Dan Hanenkratt stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, they settled it prior to it going to court, that’s what I thought.

Vice President Clawson asked, are there any other questions from the Board?

Director Weaver asked, do we want to enforce the residential protection? I’m assuming that we do…

Attorney Altman stated, sure, has to without a variance.

Director Weaver asked, I guess that’s what I’m getting at, do we want to require a fence, do we want to let them choose between the vegetation and the fence?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that comes to, that’s the Directors business, enforcement.

Director Weaver stated, well, I know at some points in some situations we have required fence, not vegetation. That’s why I’m asking and I have no problem with that the Ordinance does say either or. Do you understand that Dan?

Dan Hanenkratt stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, you will have to put either a fence or vegetation on that side.

Dan Hanenkratt stated, okay.

Don Ward stated, they won’t have to unless they do something though.

Attorney Altman stated, yes they have to.

David Rosenbarger stated, as soon as it is rezoned.

Don Ward asked, why do they have to now?

David Rosenbarger stated, because it’s not industrial.

Dennis Sterrett asked, what if the neighbor doesn’t want that?

Director Weaver stated, it does say any business or industrial use that abuts an area zoned or used for residential purposes.

Vice President Clawson stated, but, it’s been grand fathered for all of this time and now that there is request on it, it has to be brought into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, I think so too.

Don Ward stated, so they have to build it now.

Director Weaver stated, I mean at what point do you determine they are using it for business when they park a truck there? With the enforcing it now, we don’t have to worry about that.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree with it needs to be done with the, if it’s allowed, if it’s voted on and allowed, it needs to be in compliance right then and there, directly.

Dan Hanenkratt stated, I need to understand I guess just what you said.

Don Ward stated, you have to build a fence.

Dan Hanenkratt asked, I have to put up an 8’ fence or an 8’ high vegetation barrier?

Vice President Clawson stated, right.

Dan Hanenkratt stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, and if you put a fence up you will need a building permit.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The results of the vote were as follows: 8 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to County Commissioners for their action.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, this will be forwarded to County Commissioners, next Monday morning 8:30am right here with a positive recommendation.

****

#789 Howard & Ruby A. Lord; Requesting to rezone from A-1 to B-2 on 3.335 acres. The property is located West of Burnettsville at 13577 E. U.S. Highway 24.

Vice President Clawson asked, representing that request is?

Howard Lord stated, I’m Howard Lord, I have owned that property since, the last 30 years I guess, I’ve lived there the last 30 years, back in 1995 we built a new home out there but, like I said, I have been in the tractor business there sales and so for the last 30 years, and we had the house and one acre plus surveyed off for residential, and this would be used for tractor repair, service, sales and part and also John Wright would like to put some cars out there to sell. There will probably be 3 or 4 at the most?

John Right stated, the state requires 10 so I have to show more than 10, but, I would never have that many out there all the time.

Howard Lord stated, change this from zone A-1 to B-2. Any questions?

Vice President Clawson asked, any questions from the audience? Any questions from the Board?

Don Ward asked, does this have separate driveways?

Howard Lord stated, yes, but, this house, the acre is off in the middle, Mr. Milligan did the survey sometime ago, there is 3.3…

Don Ward asked, so this is what you want to rezone?

Howard Lord stated, this the ground and this is where…

Don Ward asked, this is where the house is?

David Rosenbarger asked, is this your driveway here and a driveway down here?

Howard Lord stated, yes, there is a driveway here and a driveway here and then this all behind the same property but, that has been, I have been there in business but then I was before the Zoning Board, I went in there, if I wanted to sell this then it would be a business property. I’m 75 years old I’m not going to keep it forever.

Vice President Clawson asked, but, the new home is subdivided off on this?

Director Weaver stated, it is separated from the other, yes.

Vice President Clawson asked, can we bring this to a vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The results of the vote were as follows: 8 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the County Commissioners for their action.

Attorney Altman stated, will be forwarded to the County Commissioners next Monday morning 8:30am right here, for a final say on this matter.

****

#790 Michael D. & Brenda J. Jaenicke; Requesting to rezone from A-1 to B-2 on 2.032 acres. The property is located North of Lowe’s Bridge on the Southwest corner of West Shafer Drive and Lake Road 52 West.

Michael Jaenicke, stated, I have put together some information here that will hopefully clarify my intentions on this rezoning of this lot, or partially zoning of this are that, anyone need…

Attorney Altman stated, please.

Vice President Clawson asked, will you state your name for the record?

Michael Jaenicke stated, I am Michael Jaenicke. On this property that we want to get rezoned, on page one of the hand out that I showed you, there is highlighted in yellow, there are 4 residences immediately within visual sight of the property that is going to be rezoned, and those residences are approximately over 200’ away from the area. On page two, this shows the full residential property and as it is highlighted shows to be rezoned just the two front acres, adjacent to West Shafer Drive and again, this is not the full residence, its just partial two acres up front. Then going to page three, this is orientated top facing North just as the area to be rezoned is on page two, with this highlights it shows an area an entry way separate from residential which would be to the East side, it shows a, in yellow, it shows a building that will be strategically placed to help aid in blocking some of the view of what would be contained within the property. Just back behind the building there, well to the West of the yellow building will be the four residences, so that is why I have figured to place the building toward the West side of the property to display that lot to the right side if there are any boats or anything that would be in that area that would blocked by the building. Then back towards the South part of the lot there is a white area, which would be approximately almost 400’ into the property surrounded by vegetation, which would give me an area to place some boat lifts, things that not nesasarily need to be cut up for parts or whatever, to give me an area to store away from the visual for the passer by also, on this map, it shows the large brown circles are existing trees across the front side and then down the whole East side of the property on the right. Those are mature trees at this time of the year, when they are grown in, it would also act as a natural barrier and help to cover up anything that’s pertaining to the property or within it, and also on the West side, you will see that there are quite a few trees scattered throughout, that would help act as natural barrier. Then the last thing on that would, as far as approval of rezoning, to some highlighted points to, as far as, if the zoning is approved to, improvements to the property, such as consistent maintenance of the property, additional landscaping, shrubbery, the use of a building as I said as visual barrier to help some what visually contain of what’s on the property and everything is done, not with a blind eye but, also to try to take in consideration of the neighbors, to try somewhat develop the property, to make it a little bit more visually appealing.

Like I say, everything is done. Not with a blind eye, but, to try to appease everybody to some degree. By approving the rezoning of the property it will also enhance the property where as right now it’s just in a raw state, with vegetation, shrubs and everything growing kind of wildly and I have started clear a little bit, but, I didn’t want to put to much excessive effort in organizing or cleaning up. What’s on the property just if it does not get rezoned. It can just remain a natural state which is, in my opinion would be more of an eye sore than if it was developed in landscaped and then maintain on a regular basis.

Attorney Altman asked, does anyone in the public want to see a copy of this?

An audience member stated, yes, I sure do.

Attorney Altman asked, anyone else?

Director Weaver stated, it was brought up in my office this afternoon that there is some question if all of adjacent property owners were notified of this. I believe maybe the owner to the West of this property was omitted.

Michael Jaenicke stated, everyone should have been notified about the zoning.

Attorney Altman stated, do you think they were not notified?

An audience member stated, we weren’t.

Michael Jaenicke stated, which would be…

Director Weaver stated, Lamb is who I was believe from my understanding was omitted from, and they own property directly to the West.

Attorney Altman asked, so their adjoining property owners?

Vice President Clawson stated, we cannot hear this now.

Attorney Altman stated, stop right now.

Vice President Clawson stated, we will have to take this up at the next meeting.

Director Weaver stated, Lamb’s are you here?

An audience member stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes, Bob Lamb.

Director Weaver stated, okay, see they were not on the list to…

Attorney Altman stated, this matter…

Director Weaver asked, were they any other adjacent property owners that were not notified of this?

Brenda Jaenicke stated, well, I, because of the person that lives next door to me, I, you know, I gave you their name but, he actually owns it, but, he doesn’t live there.

Director Weaver stated, there is no home on this property.

Brenda Jaenicke stated, well that is adjacent to it I guess that…

Director Weaver stated, that’s what we need.

Brenda Jaenicke stated, that land with that home I assumed was all together. He’s kind of like me where there is a lakefront home and then it extends back 3 acres.

Attorney Altman stated, we certainly would like to, we can take information about people who weren’t notified and anything else like that but that’s all we can hear.

Brenda Jaenicke stated, well they’re here though.

Attorney Altman stated, doesn’t matter.

Brenda Jaenicke stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, sorry, must have the official note…

Brenda Jaenicke stated, well if he is a relative of his though or of Ryan, so I don’t, like I said I don’t know who owns what property.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sorry we have to…

An audience member stated, I don’t see an easement here.

Attorney Altman stated, we have to notify the property owners.

David Rosenbarger asked, the front area is being rezoned is not adjacent with your property?

Michael Jaenicke stated, I beg your pardon but it is right on the same line.

Attorney Altman stated, I’ll tell you what, if you want to talk about this, why don’t you step outside and talk about this, it would be a good idea.

Brenda Jaenicke stated, I have no problem with that.

Attorney Altman stated, but, we just can’t continue, this will be reheard and you will need to get the information about everyone to Director Weaver, it is your duty to do that, and we are going to help you but, we need to know that and get that to us right away, so we can get sent out to everybody and then we can hear it next month, at what time Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, it would be June 10th at 7:30…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s at 7:30. Thank you folks.

An audience member asked, this is going to be reheard when?

Director Weaver stated, stated, June the 10th.

****

#271 Bronislaw Stefaniak; Requesting approval of a 2 lot subdivision on Lot 7 & part of Lot 8 in Hughes Addition to be known as Stefaniak Subdivision located in the City of Monticello on the Northwest corner of Main Street and St. Mary’s Avenue.

Vice President Clawson asked, representing that request?

Ben Stefaniak stated, I want to put a single dwelling home on that corner, it’s has been empty ever since I bought it for 20 years all that I do is mow the grass. There is a, the lot is 40’ x 49’, the home unfortunately is 28’ x 50’, I thought that it would be very easy to get a 1’ variance but, it’s got to have, I didn’t now that the overhangs counted as part of the building itself so it’s going to have to have a 3’ variance on it. That’s what I want to do, I want to put a home on it and here it is it’s a Heckaman Home form Nappanee.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Ben Stefaniak stated, it is a modular, it is not a manufacturing home, it’s a two modular, it will not have the garage as it is on the picture, I think that it will make a excellent home for, I will use that as a rental.

Director Weaver stated, just so the Board is aware, there has been a variance that was granted on this property for the lot width. There’s been also a variance granted for the setbacks and the minimum size of the lot. I take that back, the variance on the lot width is okay, with zoning, after that they did rezone this, where it is a residential zoning.

Vice President Clawson asked, but in the jest of our Subdivision Ordinance it doesn’t meet as our Subdivision Ordinance as written, meet any requirement that is in our Subdivision Ordinance?

Director Weaver stated, without the variances, right.

Vice President Clawson stated, taking into consideration when we are doing this, it’s suppose to have 6, 000 square foot minimum lot size, this lot size 54’. The front setbacks on a normal lot should be 32’, they are asking for 20’ minimum rear setback, it should be 30’ and they are asking for, is that a 10’?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, because it’s the same as the other and in here it shows no, when you’re subdividing city lots in the city, we have run into certain situations where single lots have been subdivided where they can’t get where there is no direct access to the sewers run in the alley behind the property and I see no way of getting…

Ben Stefaniak stated, I own the properties, incase if…

Vice President Clawson stated, well if you’re subdividing the properties they can be sold off at anytime and then how do the people who, when there separate 10 years from now…

Ben Stefaniak stated, you can have an agreement…

Attorney Altman stated, you need to have that on the subdivision…

Vice President Clawson stated, it is not on our plat at all and how do you get water, seeing how the water is running down the front of the…

Ben Stefaniak stated, the water comes from the street…

Vice President Clawson asked, on Main Street, right?

Ben Stefaniak stated, on Main Street, right.

Vice President Clawson stated, it shows no easement here for the lots….

Attorney Altman stated, in the back…

Vice President Clawson stated, because you’re asking for a subdivision, you’re not just asking to put two different things on one lot, these have to be shown when your subdividing because we have had, I have several, I have one in my jurisdiction to where same kind of situation was done where they sold off the older house in the front and built a small house behind it, was sold off well, the sewer collapsed and the people behind would not allow the people in the front to come through their yard, too close to their property to dig a sewer 12’ deep or whatever for a deep sewer and the people have no, they are trying to find a way of getting sewer to this…

Ben Stefaniak stated, like I say, there can be an agreement written up changing to take care of that I don’t see any problem there.

Vice President Clawson stated, but, in our whole Subdivision Ordinance when we when you’re developing things for subdivisions the, it’ asks that, they are asking that corner lots instead of being buried and it says that when your designing a subdivision all corner lots should be wider than normal to permit for appropriate setbacks from both streets. You’re asking us to go totally against what our whole, in another 4.1304 it says that widths and areas lots shall not be less than provided by the White County Zoning Ordinance for single family dwellings for the district in which the subdivision is locate. You’re asking for a lot of things, I mean it’s not, once lots are laid out in the city I don’t think that it’s good that you come back and try to subdivision something that’s smaller than normal to put, this is just my opinion.

Ben Stefaniak asked, let me ask you this, what could I do with that corner besides mow the grass? Is there anything, it was zoned B-2 and there was so many remonstrators here that the traffic would be so horrendous that they couldn’t get out into that street, I put it back into R you know but I can’t do anything with that corner but across the street I wanted to buy that lot over there, I was going to put on two duplexes I says, I’m an engineer, Industrial Engineer and I said there is no way on Gods Earth that anyone could put two duplexes on that corner above the street but that got passed.

Vice President Clawson stated, and it’s bad zoning.

Ben Stefaniak asked, well, would you say that this would be bad zoning to put that house on that corner. I think it would be an attribute to the city, there is some little old lady that could come across the street and go across the street to Arni’s and eat and walk up town but here we have, we have our rules and regulations that we have to abide by because the rules and regulations but it seems like with those duplexes…

Vice President Clawson stated, but they are not, that’s not a subdivided lot, those two duplexes he’s owned by one thing. When they sell, they sell as one property too. His property up there is not subdivided into two different lots, those are two separate….

Ben Stefaniak stated, I understand…

Vice President Clawson stated, duplexes on that one lot…

Ben Stefaniak stated, but I couldn’t figure out…

Vice President Clawson stated, and to have this as another two, to have another duplex on this lot without subdividing that, would be more of an positive than to try to subdivide, because that way you would have control of if something happened in using both lots as to where if they are sold off to two individual people the lot size is so small and being able to…

Ben Stefaniak stated, well all right then, what if I sell, make it a stipulation that if someone buys it, they have to buy the whole subdivision. Is that all right? That would solve your problem there it wouldn’t be two separate owners.

Vice President Clawson asked, then why subdivide it?

Ben Stefaniak asked, can I put it on without subdividing? You know I get confused, I have worked on this for two years Jay, I have spent a lot of money and I still haven’t go any answers, all that I do is get more confused. Like I say, I was a manager for Industrial Engineering at Ray and Incorporated in South Bend, Indiana. I had 700 people working in that plant under me and I was never so confused as I am on this thing here. It seems like we go down one avenue, the avenue is closed, you go down another avenue, that avenue is closed. If I don’t have to subdivide, I can just put that house on there without subdividing right?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s R-2 and he’s already got 2 family on.

Vice President Clawson asked, so unless he went to an R-3 or whatever.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, unless he goes to R-3 the only way that he can put more than that on there is to subdivide.

Steve Fisher asked, is there still a business on lot #8, is there still a business in that building?

Vice President Clawson stated, they are still running it as a business…

Steve Fisher stated, at some point…

Vice President Clawson stated, zoned back to residential but they are still using it as a commercial.

Steve Fisher stated, at one point though I remember…

Vice President Clawson stated, they are running, what is it a home interior business out of it, it’s a distributor. They get semis in there and deliver.

Steve Fisher asked, what I was saying is that at some point I thought that, didn’t we approve that based upon the parking being available on that lot #7?

Vice President Clawson stated, well, that’s what the whole thing was suppose to be but that was to be run as a business, they needed this front half of this lot as the parking and to make the lot #8 into compliance with the, as a business and supposedly he rezoned that back to…

Director Weaver stated, residential.

Vice President Clawson stated, residential and then the guy that lives there now told me that he specifically rented that house so that they could run their distributorship out of the back part of that thing as a business.

An audience member stated, …told you that…

Vice President Clawson stated, that’s what he told me.

Ben Stefaniak stated, his lease is up about 2 weeks I have that to take care of, his business, so okay he’s done.

Director Weaver stated, okay, an R-3 zoning if he would rezone to an R-3, it’s required to have 7,000 square feet per unit….

Don Ward stated, doesn’t have it.

Director Weaver stated, for a single story structure.

Attorney Altman asked, Jay do you think this could be required for one owner on both lots, does that meet your, plus the easements through there, does that meet your objections?

Vice President Clawson stated, would have to direct that to the whole Board, I mean…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, I’m just saying out loud that if the restrictions of the subdivision required that these both be owned by the same entity that was….

David Rosenbarger asked, in that case, why don’t you just put the easements in?

Attorney Altman stated, well obvisoly he has to have the easements.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes, you can’t get much farther.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to have the easements in.

Vice President Clawson stated, and it shows no sidewalks or if you’re improving this, there should be sidewalks shown that are part of the, your coming in compliance with the…

Attorney Altman stated, that would maybe on secondary.

Steve Fisher stated, we also denied a parcel that we got sued on very similar this over on Chestnut or Walnut, or one of those Lenny…

Attorney Altman stated, Lavin’s…

Vice President Clawson stated, yes, Lavin’s….

Steve Fisher stated, he was doing the exact same thing and we denied that and we got sued on it, remember.

Vice President Clawson asked, what happened to it?

Director Weaver stated, he never filed.

Attorney Altman stated, he never filed.

Director Weaver stated, he talked about it but didn’t do it.

David Rosenbarger asked, does Monticello have a Subdivision Ordinance themselves?

Vice President Clawson stated, no we do not.

Director Weaver stated, they follow our Subdivision Ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we are part of White County Area Plan, if we had our own Subdivision Ordinances, it wouldn’t be heard here, we would take care of it and we don’t get to hear it after it leaves here either.

Don Ward stated, right.

Vice President Clawson stated, and that’s why we, at our meeting we had short discussion because we have ran into different troubles in town with utilities not fronting lots, with subdivided property.

Attorney Altman stated, Well I think number one, no matter what, he must have those easements there for water, sewer and electrical or cable lines, that sort of thing, that can go through there.

Vice President Clawson stated, all easements.

Attorney Altman stated, all easements and the other thing sidewalks, it needs those shown on there and what else do you have down Jay? The parking lot should be nominated in there, for that lot, it’s so close to Main Street, it’s got to be done off of the street.

Vice President Clawson stated, … questions that I didn’t know what all easements he had at the time I was writing all of this down.

Attorney Altman stated, well there not on there and then with one ownership, obviously we don’t have to vote on this tonight, we can think about that, if that makes it better.

Steve Fisher stated, what I see though, that if you approve this, then Lavin’s or whatever was talking about suing us, he sure does have a good case and coming back and saying you’re approving this when it didn’t meet.

Vice President Clawson stated, right because that is exactly the same situation that he was in then.

Steve Fisher stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, trying to develop to subdivide single lots because the whole aspect we laid out the lots in the city, it was like a major subdivision that was done one hundred years ago, they didn’t, if they intended the lots to be, single lots to be split they would have done it.

Steve Fisher stated, it’s unfortunate that that house, that apartment got built at the backside of that lot when it did, obviously, it was after the tornado.

Jay Clawson stated, and someone at one time our old Ordinance might have allowed the building that the two units on one lot…

Steve Fisher asked, inspired that build after the tornado stuff that went on, wasn’t it?

Director Weaver stated, I believe it was built with the variance was approved in 1978 that I’ve got noted on your staff report. I can’t swear to that but, I believe that’s what that was.

Ben Stefaniak stated, well if you gentlemen can tell me what to do, I would love to comply, I have 5,000 dollars down on this house, it is suppose to be in here the latter part of the month. I assume, that, I have gone the avenues it’s like a mouse in a maze that is trying to figure out something and every time I come back, it seems like it’s a stop situation, I don’t know what to do, does anyone have a lot for sale somewhere to put that house on? All I do is mow the grass there and I do keep up with it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what a lot of people do with their ground.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes.

Ben Stefaniak asked, pardon me?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what a lot of people do with their ground, is just mow the grass. I mean I do with some of mine.

Ben Stefaniak asked, you mow your grass?

Jay Clawson stated, yes, I do.

Ben Stefaniak stated, there’s a corner that I think is, should be utilized, be to the advantage of the city.

Vice President Clawson stated, well it doesn’t meet any of the requirements of, you’re asking us to totally go against that in everything that is our book of any requirements that are specifically written for a subdivision, it doesn’t mean any of them. I mean sure, you’ve got variances, but in our book if somebody came in, with some other lot that we want to build this as a subdivision, it doesn’t meet any requirements, none of them does it meet.

Ben Stefaniak stated, then why have I been spending all this money, why hasn’t someone told me this before?

Attorney Altman stated, should of.

Ben Stefaniak asked, who, you know it’s just like…

Vice President Clawson stated, I mean this is my opinion, it’s not, and Jerry is our Lawyer, I mean we need a…

Ben Stefaniak stated, I am just completely mystified.

Martha Stefaniak stated, the last time we were up here, we were approved to put a house on this lot, but we was to come back before we build it.

Director Weaver stated, you were approved for the setbacks…

Martha Stefaniak stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, on a proposed subdivision, if the subdivision….

Ben Stefaniak asked, why wasn’t we told…

Director Weaver stated, if the subdivision does not pass…

Ben Stefaniak stated, it isn’t going to fly, forget it, don’t put down 5,000 dollars, I am going to be out five thousand dollars on a house.

Director Weaver stated, we can’t tell you that until it comes to our Board.

Ben Stefaniak stated, oh, okay.

Director Weaver stated, the Board is the one that makes that decision.

Vice President Clawson stated, I mean we can bring this to a vote, that’s just my opinion, we have seven other guys on the Board that can vote.

Ben Stefaniak stated, well just like you say, it should be sold as one property, I’ll put that in the stipulation that both of those places have to be sold together, so they can be sold.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t understand why you would subdivide it, if you’re going to do that.

Attorney Altman stated, subdivided he can, he has two lots, and on two lots….

Vice President Clawson stated, he’s skirting the R-3 requirement of having 7,000 square foot per lot. That’s all and again is another skirt of a requirement of what is on the books, having zoning.

Attorney Altman stated, precisely.

Vice President Clawson stated, I mean either way that you look at it you can’t divide this property or have this without varying from our plan in some certain situations. Are there any other questions from the Board? Okay, we shall vote.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously the minimum has to have these easements, sidewalks.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Primary Approval Request for a 2 lot subdivision to be known as Stefaniak Subdivision located in the City of Monticello, was denied by a vote of 1 to 7, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have not been met.

Ben Stefaniak asked, thank you gentlemen, do you have a lot that I can put that house on?

Attorney Altman, stated, I don’t have an answer.

Chris Sellmer asked, did you change your leadership?

Attorney Altman stated, no, he’s just Vice President.

Vice President Clawson stated, no, I am just Vice President, Charlie Anderson is President.

Chris Sellmer asked, did I hear you say also that Area Plan has a new secretary?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Chris Sellmer asked, and her name is Molly Sage?

Director Weaver stated, yes, Molly Sage, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, Thank You for coming.

****

Vice President Clawson asked, is there any other business that needs to be brought up?

Director Weaver stated, Attorney fees, any questions or comments? Is there any question on the, or any discussion on the one that I submitted for the Building Inspector? My understanding is this should be a one-time thing. He doesn’t have the appropriations to pay this bill? So he has asked me if we would cover it for him, I do have the money there.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the bill for?

Director Weaver stated, Solcum that was something we pursued for him but, then he found out that he didn’t have any money to pay you.

Attorney Altman stated, okay I see what you mean. I didn’t realize that was mine. One thing we talked last time, about the height violations and the one we’re in court on. We’ve settled that matter at least to the point that they have admitted that they violated the height ordinance of our subdivision, or of our Zoning Ordinance and they have, or trying now to get it into compliance by asking for a variance to unify the home, and do accordingly a side setback ordinance. The other thing that maybe meets a little positive all the way around is the sewer system is out there now, so it will eliminate that much of a health problem out there.

Director Weaver stated, we also had some discussion in the B.Z.A. meeting along the same line that, the way the maximum height is worded in our Ordinance. The B.Z.A. would like to amend that, where it just simply says to the peak. That is something that I am going to try to get ready and if there are no objections here, I will go ahead and I will advertise it bring it to you the next meeting and…

Vice President Clawson stated, let us look at it.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson asked, and let us look at it, do you want to look at height first, before you advertise it?

Director Weaver stated, yes, that would be fine.

David Scott asked, what does it say now?

Director Weaver stated, it goes into great detail, depends on the type of roof that you have as to where you measure, if it’s gable roof or mansard roof or, it’s very complicated and for your everyday person makes no sense. Tippecanoe County’s, I have looked at their Ordinance, it does say simply to the peak, which I think is the easiest, easiest for everyone to understand. The Board of Zoning Appeals agreed with that. They would like a…

Attorney Altman stated, easy is good.

Vice President Clawson stated, do we need to amend the heights, have you found any of the heights that are required too low or, well that’s like I was asking you about a commercial building, when you said, was it seventeen foot with the highest and I don’t know…

Director Weaver stated, 15’ is a maximum height.

Vice President Clawson asked, for a commercial building?

Director Weaver stated, for accessory building. No matter if it’s in commercial or residential area. The only exception to that is a farm building. Now if it’s a main structure then it does have a different setback, or a different height requirement.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, a home obviously has a different height requirement, a commercial main structure has a different height requirement as well but, if it’s a building used just for storage as a accessory structure, then it has to meet the 15’ height requirement.

David Scott asked, they will also have to change the footings along with it because, now where the rafters meet he, it isn’t measured to that point?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Scott stated, so you would be limiting your height Ordinance, and I mean if you go to the peek, you have to also amend the height itself.

Attorney Altman stated, sure, it will have to be different, because…

Director Weaver stated, well, I think the old Ordinance had it as 15’. The thing is to, I think the concern comes in is the people putting living quarters upstairs above a garage and I think that was the intention of it, to limit the height. So you want to be real careful how high you do let them go so they don’t do something like that.

Attorney Altman stated, and it’s impossible to police that.

Director Weaver stated, well, it’s easier now that we have a Building Inspector, that does help. Give it some thought and I will try to get something ready for next month.

Vice President Clawson, stated, it doesn’t need to be brought to me, in my neighborhood my neighbors are up in arms about outside storage or a bunch of cars and our City Attorney sent the property owner a letter and he said for us to stick it. Well, he has approval from another higher authority he said that he had okay and we, so something needs to be clarified. Someone told him at your office that it was okay at one time so he feels that gospel.

Director Weaver stated, not for outside.

Attorney Altman stated, you better have that in writing.

Director Weaver stated, not for outside.

Attorney Altman stated, or you tell your City Attorney, I would like to join him in a lawsuit and see the…

Vice President Clawson stated, well, George wanted me to ask you about how you felt about that…

Attorney Altman, stated, I am ready to proceed.

Director Weaver stated, we have set up several things about that.

Vice President Clawson, stated, I wouldn’t have a problem with him storing, if he builds the building and store things inside the building.

Director Weaver stated, and I believe that is what he was told that they had to be in the building. I would….

Attorney Altman stated, tell George if he is ready to go, I am too.

Vice President Clawson asked, any other business, any of Brookston or Wolcott or Monon?

Attorney Altman stated, we finally got that commitment finally on…

Vice President Clawson asked, oh, on AGRB?

Attorney Altman stated, AGRB and we’ve looked at that and want some feedback on that. That’s the cabinet place down by the old Briney's, they finally gave us, got the commitment in there so that will be...

Vice President Clawson stated, gas station, slash, and marina slash, whatever it has been.

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman has just sent out a letter, to Dave Flora regarding his fence. His fence has never been put in and it was a condition with is rezoning so Attorney Altman has sent a letter out to him giving him until the 30th to get it in.

Attorney Altman stated, the commitment says chain link.

Steve Fisher asked, they bought the snow fence, remember?

Dennis Sterrett stated, what property is that on?

David Rosenbarger stated, Flora’s.

Director Weaver stated, Chalmers, Flora’s property.

Attorney Altman stated, what the commitment says is, on the North and the South side, he puts in a 6’ chain link fence.

Director Weaver stated, and the East.

Attorney Altman stated, and then all along the East to 80’ in except in front of the, the office there, it just hasn’t been and that’s all that I want him to do.

Vice President Clawson asked, I say we adjourn this meeting, can I get a second?

Don Ward seconded the motion.

****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission