Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Area Plan Commission met Tuesday, October 15, 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, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Area Plan Secretary, Cindy Hall.

Visitors Attending were: Charles B. Roth, James L. Stonebraker, Pete Sorensen, Ruth A. Sorensen, Charles R. Mellon, Kit Schafer, Steve Schafer, Shirley Hanslow, Ray Hanslow, Michelle Mathew, Brenda & Mike Jaenicke, Bob Wrede, John Coleman, Cecil Calloway, Dale Herrington, Patricia Herrington.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Clawson and roll call was taken. Don Ward made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the May 13, 2002, June 10, 2002 and July 8, 2002 meetings. Motion was seconded by Steve Fisher and carried unanimously.

****

#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. This was referred back to the Board for approval of a commitment.

Vice President Clawson stated, we have a written commitment back from the, I guess back from the Commissioners.

Attorney Altman stated, this is from the applicant.

Vice President Clawson stated, from the applicant.

Attorney Altman stated, correct.

Vice President Clawson asked, is there anything?

Michael Jaenicke stated, you had so many points at the prior meeting that was addressed and it was rewritten with specific time frames that you were looking for and legal description was the other issue, that’s been corrected.

Vice President Clawson asked, any of the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Don, a few of them are reading over it.

Attorney Altman stated, from a procedural point of view to the applicant, you do need to put on the last page, who prepared the document. Otherwise, it’s not able to be recorded and this is required. Now this is very, very simple all it has to say and you need to amend your request, or you commitment to say this instrument was prepared by and if it’s you Mr. Jaenicke or you Mrs. Jaenicke, if it’s both of you put your names in and that’s all that you have to say, it’s not real hocus pocus it just has to say.

Michael Jaenicke asked, can that be done in time of recording?

Attorney Altman asked, I would suggest that it be, if this, that I would entertain a motion from you that you indicate that you will by hand insert that on this commitment to after the meeting or tomorrow morning but, that we consider that done, is that correct?

Michael Jaenicke stated, sure, that’s done, not a problem.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, with that amendment we do have the commitment before us, ballots, we have done this orally as we did the last time, just a request for a show of hands, yes or no whether they do or don’t approve the, the only matter before us is whether we are or aren’t going to amend the commitment, vote yes or no on the commitment.

Don Ward asked, after they get their building rezoned, it would be 30 days after, it will take effect after the 30 days?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Secretary Hall stated, the County Commissioners sent this back because, they wanted more of a time frame of when the building was going to be done and the business was going to start so, that’s why this is coming back.

Vice President Clawson stated, I think that we’re ready to bring this to a vote. All in favor raise you hand.

Attorney Altman stated, we have 4 hands in the air.

Vice President Clawson stated, all opposed.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record 2 opposed. Did I count wrong, whom did I miss?

Secretary Hall stated, yes, David Rosenbarger.

Attorney Altman stated, excuse me, 5 yes, thank you very much for correcting me, 2 no, as required this is considered a no vote and it will be forwarded to the County Commissioners with that because, you have to have a majority vote for a yes vote in this matter, you may proceed.

Michael Jaenicke asked, I’m confused on the hands. It was a 5 to 2 vote and isn’t that the majority in favor?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s a majority, it has to be a majority of the whole Board.

Michael Jaenicke stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, the whole Board, the whole Board.

Michael Jaenicke stated, okay.

****

#274 Robert A. Mathew; Requesting approval of a 1 lot subdivision to be known as Little Pine #2 on 1.157 Acres. The property is located Southeast of Brookston on the South side of Creekside Court.

Vice President Clawson asked, representing that would be?

Michelle Mathew stated, owner, Michelle Mathew.

Secretary Hall stated, to let the Board know, you did get a copy of the drainage waiver with your pictures tonight. There are no improvements to be put in and to the best of our knowledge this is ready for primary and secondary approval.

Attorney Altman asked, the access is 58.37’ to the, from the road to the lot and there is obviously a 20’ utility easement on there, that I have not seen but, I gathered it’s not going to effect the access. People drive across the utility access, that utility easement right ma’am, along both sides of it?

Don Ward stated, that’s a road, a built up road.

Attorney Altman asked, it’s a built up road?

Don Ward stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, people drive across that right?

Don Ward stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you can’t tell for sure what the utility easement is…

Don Ward stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, but I think it’s just for high lines and that sort of thing right? Correct?

Don Ward asked, I think that it’s a road, that’s the only access back there isn’t it?

Michelle Mathew stated, Creekside Court is a road off of the country road…back to…

Don Ward stated, yes, that’s the only access back to all of those houses, period.

Michelle Mathew stated, right.

David Rosenbarger stated, but it shows the 20’ utility easement…

Don Ward stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, on the survey, that’s what I’m talking about.

David Rosenbarger stated, the road is 22’.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, they could go across the utility easement, that’s the only thing and people drive across the utility easement.

David Rosenbarger asked, well, they have a 22’ access and then an additional 20’ utility?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it looks like that’s what it is.

Don Ward asked, where is the 20’ utility?

Attorney Altman stated, right on the plat.

Don Ward stated, oh, you mean in front of hers but it doesn’t show it anywhere else.

David Rosenbarger stated, it shows electric line and underground cable, that’s just barely off of the road.

Attorney Altman stated, right, I think so.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Attorney Altman stated, it shows it at the road diagonally…

David Rosenbarger stated, it has to show on the lots…

Attorney Altman asked, 58’, it does not tell us what the width of it actually is, a good engineer could tell us what that is, since that’s a right angle, do you have your best guess what the actual width of the easement is Mr. Ward?

Don Ward stated, well, it says 20’.

Steve Fisher stated, yes, it does say 20’.

Don Ward stated, so I would assume that it’s 20’, now that would only be in front of her property.

Vice President Clawson stated, no the one back to the lot.

Attorney Altman stated, no, I’m talking about this distance from here to here.

Steve Fisher stated, oh, you mean the width of it.

Don Ward stated, well, it’s 200’ minus, about 50’ or close to it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I would guess too…

Vice President Clawson stated, that meets our requirement for a road back to it…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know why I didn’t ask you Denny about that too, your guess.

Don Ward stated, yes, it’s very close to 50’ but that utility easement I doubt if it runs along the rest of that 22’ easement access which is actually a private road.

Attorney Altman stated, I just wanted to make sure that it was a set utility easement…

Don Ward stated, just set in front of her property I don’t see it on here where it states.

Vice President Clawson asked, do we have any questions from anyone here in the audience on this property?

An audience member stated, yes, a few.

Another audience member stated, a bunch.

Kim Calloway stated, I have live in this addition for 29 years we have a problem out there with drainage, it is not a road, it is a private drive serving just our subdivision.

Attorney Altman asked, the 22’ easement, access is a private road?

Kim Calloway stated, it is a private road.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, thank you, I just wanted to make sure what we’re talking about, thank you, go ahead ma’am.

Kim Calloway stated, I have a couple letters from people that could not be here. The first one is from Dottie, Dorothy Smith who developed, she and her husband developed the addition it says: “to whom it may concern, my husband and I purchased this land in 1971 and after subdividing it and building several homes we were told that there could be one more home built and that was on the property where the barn sits, he died in 1982 and I sold my house in 1992 and was planning on building, I was informed at that time also that there could only be a house built there along with the barn because of bad drainage”. The other letter is from Kosanovich and they say: “we are unable to attend the hearing to consider the proposed subdivision, Little Pine #2 however; this letter will serve as our viewpoint on this matter. We are opposed to any separation of land that will result in business or commercial property, I’m concerned with dust and road deterioration due to truck traffic as well as the safety of our children. Another concern is for the appreciation of our property values should a business be located across the road from our home we would like to keep our private drive private”. We have, there is poor drainage as I said when we get a hard rain it washes out the road and we have to replace the stone on it. I have some pictures that shows that, the concrete that’s been dumped out in that field and all since June that has affected the drainage and the road cannot handle more traffic. Like I said, nothing has been, each time something is added to, another house is added out there, it makes the drainage even worse.

Steve Fisher asked, Mrs. Mathew, is this an existing house on that Lot 1, that is already there?

Michelle Mathew asked, it exists now and we’re trying to subdivide it so that our son and daughter-in-law can purchase that. Obviously, the tract isn’t large enough off of another parent tract that we can split that in half, that’s why we have to go through the subdivision process. The pictures that she is referring to would be where the pole barn is, we’re trying to, because it was such a ramble, we’re trying to repair the inside of that, is that what you’re talking about?

Kim Calloway stated, no, these are down in the drainage, which is the natural lay of the land where the runoff from the farm goes. There has been concrete hauled and dumped down in the drainage ditch where the natural lay of the land runs so the runoff can’t get out now because of the concrete…

Michelle Mathew stated, I haven’t been out there to see this, I’m just…

Vice President Clawson stated, if you give those to us, we need to keep those for public record.

Steve Fisher asked, is there somebody that is living in that residence now?

Michelle Mathew stated, yes.

Steve Fisher asked, and you folks realize that this is a 1-lot subdivision, that they are not adding any more houses…

An audience member stated, there is potential to add more houses.

Another audience member asked, can they open up another subdivision…

Attorney Altman stated, wait, you have to identify whom you are, talking…

Cecil Calloway asked, I’m Cecil Calloway, I live at 1244 E. Creekside Court, and we have been there, we were one of the first houses but it’s my understanding that if they get this done and for one reason or another it would sell the barn and that property someone else could potentially build another house. For the last 20 or 30 years we have been told there could only be one more piece of property, one more house built in that area, because of poor drainage.

Steve Fisher asked, where is this barn located that you’re talking about?

Michelle Mathew stated, it’s on….

Steve Fisher stated, I mean on the plat…

Cecil Calloway stated, I can show you.

Michelle Mathew stated, it’s right by the road, it would be…

Attorney Altman stated, please someone come up and show us where it is.

Michelle Mathew stated, the Southeast, or the Southwest side of that lane.

Steve Fisher asked, see, this is where we’re at, this is the one house, where is the barn?

Cecil Calloway stated, over here.

Michelle Mathew stated, but that’s existing there, I don’t know for how long…

Cecil Calloway stated, there is the barn right there.

Steve Fisher asked, where is the house?

Cecil Calloway stated, the house is right about in here, on this part. We were told at one time since this was 5.62 acres we needed 3 acres per house and the county…

Steve Fisher stated, if it’s zoned as an agricultural…

Cecil Calloway asked, is that what it is?

Steve Fisher stated, yes.

Cecil Calloway stated, okay but anyway, the county said that only one house could be built there because when we get a rain we get all of the run off from all of this land, from all of this land here and it doesn’t just come a little bit, I put in the last rain I put in 12 tons of gravel in one hole.

Don Ward asked, who dumped all of the concrete that she is talking about?

Cecil Calloway stated, when they took the floor out of the barn to put…

Michelle Mathew asked, I’m trying to picture where this is, where is the lane that come down through here?

Cecil Calloway stated, a new floor they had a jack hammer on a backhoe, bobcat and they took it out and dumped it in the natural run of the land, where it drains normally through there.

Kim Calloway stated, here’s the barn, the lane is up here, this is the ditch that runs behind our house and down towards their house, okay.

Don Ward asked, why did they do that just to stop erosion or just to get rid of it?

Cecil Calloway stated, just to get rid of the concrete I’m assuming.

Don Ward asked, did you do that?

Michelle Mathew asked, I’m sorry what?

Don Ward asked, did they do that, did the Mathew’s do that?

Cecil Calloway stated, yes.

Michelle Mathew asked, do what, I didn’t hear that.

Don Ward stated, he’s talking about dumping the concrete from the floor of the barn into a…

Michelle Mathew stated, that is beside the barn, when they are done that will be cleaned out of there, they are trying to repair the floor now.

Cecil Calloway stated, that’s beside the barn, the others in the runoff area.

Michelle Mathew stated, due to the lack of time with our business, Todd hasn’t been able to take care of the landscaping.

Attorney Altman stated, I have a question, from your point of view.

Michelle Mathew stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, you originally have a lot, is that what you have?

Michelle Mathew stated, we bought, 5 point some acres.

Attorney Altman asked, so you have a meets and bounds description by that? Do you know what he original tract of ground was?

Secretary Hall stated, this coming out of the 5.624-acre tract, the proposed lot is 1.157.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand…

David Rosenbarger stated, it doesn’t show the whole 5-acre tract.

Attorney Altman stated, so this isn’t subdivided on 5 some odd acres, is not a lot it’s a…

Steve Fisher stated, it’s a piece of ground, that’s what he was showing me on that overhead…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, it’s not lot number 3 of this subdivision?

Michelle Mathew stated, no and like I said, the only reason that we went through a subdivision was because of the acreage…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I guess…

Michelle Mathew stated, can’t split in half and remain 3 or however that rule goes.

Secretary Hall stated, with the splits, you can split 1 up to 3 acres one time only from 1972 to date, anything after that has to be 3 acres or more plus the remaining tract has to remain 3 acres. They don’t have enough acreage to split two 3-acre tracts.

Attorney Altman asked, so they have to subdivide.

Secretary Hall stated, that’s why they have to subdivide and the minimum that they can go with is a 1-acre tract in an A-1 zoning.

An audience member asked, Jerry…

Attorney Altman asked, just a second, I have a question, I think the Board, how much ground do you have left then when you are done?

Michelle Mathew stated, whatever the 5.6 minus the 1.1….

Attorney Altman stated, so it’s roughly 4.3 or something like that left.

Michelle Mathew stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, and is it all around this tract of ground?

Michelle Mathew stated, it’s between where the house sits to the West of where that pole barn sits on the South side of that road, on Creekside Court.

Vice President Clawson stated, Jim should put on here the setback requirements…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not in there, it needs to be…

Vice President Clawson asked, does this house even set, probably subdivided this property…

Attorney Altman stated, can’t tell that, can’t tell that from the plat that’s presented.

Vice President Clawson stated, we can’t really act on this until we have specific…

Attorney Altman stated, it should be on there especially…

Vice President Clawson stated, because, we can’t subdivide…

Steve Fisher asked, what are you asking?

Vice President Clawson stated, I mean if you’re drawing up a new subdivision with an existing house why would he not draw a subdivision with the existing…

Attorney Altman stated, setbacks on it…

Vice President Clawson setbacks on it…

Steve Fisher stated, well because he’s probably, he’s not conforming to the A-1 sub…

Vice President Clawson stated, he is showing…

David Rosenbarger stated, all that he’s showing is the front the 60’…

Steve Fisher stated, he’s showing the 60’ off of there…

Vice President Clawson stated, he’s not showing any sides or rear or…

Steve Fisher stated, I mean where that, it looks like the house is going to be all right, as far as where it’s at.

Vice President Clawson asked, I know but, if that house burns in an “A” subdivision is there even enough build able, with 61’ and how far is it setback?

Secretary Hall stated, 60’ front, 100’ rear and 15’ on the sides.

Don Ward stated, it will fit there.

Steve Fisher stated, if they put it back in the same spot.

Vice President Clawson stated, is there enough room to build a house on there, well, if it’s out of compliance you can’t…

Dennis Sterrett stated, it would leave 64’…

David Rosenbarger stated, 54’…

Dennis Sterrett stated, 54’…

Steve Fisher stated, 44’…

Vice President Clawson stated, so if you’re drawing a subdivision you need to leave a little more…

Attorney Altman asked, what is it Denny?

Dennis Sterrett stated, 44’…

David Rosenbarger stated, more on the side…

Dennis Sterrett stated, left yes, to build a house on, you take 160’ which, is the front and the rear together and subtract it from the 204’, which I didn’t do very good, leaves 44’.

Attorney Altman asked, but, you got it and then the side is what?

Secretary Hall stated, 15’ on each side.

Attorney Altman asked, 15’ on each side, so it will meet the 15’ on each side. The other thing is the dimension the width dimension to the road is not on there. That would probably be a good idea to have on yes, the very least. Anything else, that should be on there? What is the, does anyone know what exactly what the, how the 22’ easement access is created. Do you have a copy of the access, the document that creates it sir?

Cecil Calloway stated, I do have but, I don’t have that with me.

Don Ward asked, was that done as part of the subdivision, the old subdivision.

Cecil Calloway stated, that was stripped out as a private lane and the big problem that we have there, that was stripped out, that’s 22’ you need 40’ for a county road but, you know…

Don Ward stated, right.

Cecil Calloway stated, okay but not only do we have 22’ but the 22’ is not even in the right place.

Don Ward stated, you’re right.

Cecil Calloway stated, they just backed up and dumped gravel.

Don Ward stated, I noticed that.

Cecil Calloway stated, so we have a lot of things that are going on in that area that none of the people that own the house and the land there have any control over and one is the drainage which, a member of the soil conservation came out and talked to me about and he gave me 2 things that he recommended and one was a retention pond. I didn’t think very much of that idea and the other idea that he had was he came back and he said okay, he came back with we had the rain that we get the runoff he said okay you really do have a problem, now I can see it. The first time he was there it was dry and he couldn’t see it but he came back and he said what you need to do and he showed me, you need three 8” tile ran to the creek, to Moots Creek. Now, all of that was going to be at the expense of the homeowners so, no one was real anxious to do that but we will, he told me he said that road acts like a dam and all of your drainage comes up to it and in the spring and when it’s real wet, that road is just spongy and every time that a house is built over there, we notice a difference in the drainage, some sort of difference. We are just afraid of additional houses or house being put in there beside the one that Todd built because we were always under the assumption only one more home could be built.

Attorney Altman stated, you can have an agricultural subdivision with 1 acre lots so that if you…

Cecil Calloway asked, how many of those can, how many of those are possible to have?

Attorney Altman stated, an acre per lot so, that’s if you properly do it if you have 6 acres, you can have 6 lots assuming that you don’t need road service.

Cecil Calloway asked, okay, answer this, I understand what you’re saying but what’s legal to do, now let me ask you this, when that road that we have is destroyed or impassable are you people going to come and help us repair it, no, I already know the answer.

Attorney Altman stated, no, it doesn’t…

Steve Fisher stated, but that egress access is really about the only thing that I see, as a hold up on the subdivision itself because I mean, if that was a 50’ roadway through there I think we would have a hard time not approving that.

Don Ward stated, if it was a new subdivision with new roads…

Vice President Clawson stated, it doesn’t even meet the minimum standards for an old county road.

Steve Fisher stated, because the road way is not…

Don Ward stated, there’s no road there….

Steve Fisher stated, that is…

Don Ward stated, it’s private…

Steve Fisher stated, that is an issue, the other issues are…

Cecil Calloway stated, the engineer that came out told me that in order for that to become a county road, he said that you have a lot of trouble here because you don’t have the ballast in the support. So he said that the whole thing has to be stripped out the ballast put in, I don’t understand what he’s talking about…

Attorney Altman stated, built up…

Don Ward stated, what you really need is 40’ of right-of-way or more and get some drainage in the road…

Cecil Calloway stated, absolutely…

Don Ward stated, that’s the key to get rid of the water.

Cecil Calloway stated, because I said, how about blacktopping this just with black top…

Don Ward stated, it wouldn’t do any good because the underneath is no good.

Cecil Calloway stated, that’s what he said, he said it won’t do you any good and you will be wasting money.

Don Ward stated, what you need to do is, you need to get together and get yourself more right-of-way and then you can get the road taken over by the county but really, with more right-of-way you can get some side ditched and get some drainage.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, back to the issue of the matter before us, I do believe that I would like to see the legal document created the access, the 22’ access easement before we act on this.

Vice President Clawson stated, I agree too…

Steve Fisher stated, because you have some people that are saying it’s an easement some people saying that it’s a private road.

Attorney Altman stated, and I think that we really need to see that actual character of that so if you would get your either your title insurance or your abstract and bring it into my office and then, so that we will continue this until the next meeting so I can see that and I can get the Board members a copy of all of that. Then we can, then we know exactly what it is and what the status is and then we can act on that. We’re in a position where we, if it’s approvable we must approve it, that’s all and that’s all that I can say and as to the objectors I would like, if you have something that you want to have reviewed from a legal point of view, I would be happy to have that presented right away.

Cecil Calloway asked, do you want the abstract? I own the lane.

Attorney Altman stated, sure.

Cecil Calloway asked, do you want the abstract of that piece of property?

Attorney Altman asked, that would be excellent yes, you get that right to me I can look at it and get a copy and so that Board members could have it next meeting. When is the next meeting?

Secretary Hall stated, November…

Don Ward stated, 11th….

Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Ward said November 11th

Don Ward stated, that wouldn’t work because it’s a holiday.

Secretary Hall stated, it will be on the Tuesday…

Attorney Altman stated, is that the 12th then?

Secretary Hall stated, I don’t have that in front of me. Yes it will be the 12th.

Attorney Altman stated, November the 12th, so you will be first on the agenda 7:30 and if you want also to get that to me I will accept the objectors…

Michelle Mathew stated, I was going to say, I looked at her funny because for the last 5 months we have been working on this paperwork with Milligan and everything was suppose to be, I talked to Director Weaver, this morning, everything was suppose to be in order so…

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can tell you is I need that, have the base document that created the access in there because that is the big question here whether that is an approvable lot.

Michelle Mathew asked, just the drive into the house is that…

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Vice President Clawson stated, no.

Don Ward stated, that access…

Vice President Clawson stated, the access to the subdivision itself because, that is the big hang up now is you don’t have, you have no proof that you have adequate road back to be able to subdivide that because you normally need a minimum of 50’ road to access to your, to get to your subdivision or at least a minimum 30’ road that’s been platted in the county for the last 100 years or whatever…

Attorney Altman stated, you only have 22’ access easement and I want to know exactly what the legal character is there ma’am…

Michelle Mathew stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, and the documents in the abstract, tells us that so this matter is continued until next meeting 7:30.

Charles Roth stated, wait a minute…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sorry we’re…

Steve Fisher stated, it’s really over until…

Attorney Altman stated, we’re really over until then, we want you to know that okay.

Charles Roth stated, Attorney Altman, I’ve still got to ask a question, I’ve been trying to ask one for some time now, two questions in part, one, if they split this out as subdivision and you’re left with a little over what is it about 4 acres…

Vice President Clawson stated, right.

Charles Roth asked, can that be subdivided again later on?

Attorney Altman stated, sure can.

Don Ward stated, yes.

Charles Roth stated, next question…

Attorney Altman stated, if it meets the subdivision Ordinance at that time, yes.

Charles Roth asked, how do you handle the problem of the easement that you have located on your maps that you are looking at…

Attorney Altman asked, the 22’…

Charles Roth stated, the 22’ easement that you have on your maps is not where that road is.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what the surveyor is suppose to be putting on there…

Charles Roth stated, that’s not where the road is, that much I can tell you…

Vice President Clawson stated, that needs to be added to the…

Attorney Altman stated, then that needs to be…

Charles Roth stated, …major problem because that road is not along those easement lines.

Attorney Altman stated, then I would quite frankly, like to have that evidence presented to us as to where it really is okay because, it’s demonstrated to be here…

Charles Roth stated, I think that the other point that will have to be made and Don is well aware of this, and that is as they look at replacing that bridge there, that is going to effect where the drainage is going to be coming down to 100 East. If you raise that roadbed through there then right now a lot of the drainage goes straight across 100 East…

Steve Fisher stated, you’ve got to stop it…

Vice President Clawson stated, we’re not talking drainage, that should have been, if there is a drainage problem, I need your name sir.

Charles Roth stated, Charles Roth.

Vice President Clawson stated, Charles Roth.

Steve Fisher stated, all valid points we have to do it at the next meeting that’s all.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes, this will be heard next month at the next meeting.

Charles Roth asked, now, you say that you don’t have anything to do with drainage, has the drainage plan been approved?

Vice President Clawson stated, we have a document from the Drainage Board that they don’t need to address any of this it’s not creating any drainage problems.

There was laughter from several audience members.

Vice President Clawson asked, that’s what the Drainage Board, do you want to see the document? They have it right here?

Kim Calloway asked, have they ever been out there?

Charlie Mellon stated, no, they never said a thing about it.

Vice President Clawson stated, exemption from the Drainage Board.

Steve Fisher stated, read it to them.

Attorney Altman stated, on October 7, 2002…

Steve Fisher stated, 9th

Attorney Altman stated, White County Drainage Board approved an exemption from the drainage Ordinance for the Little Pine #2 Subdivision. This is 1 lot with an existing home that has, that was subdivided so the owner could sell the lot. See copy of Surveyor’s statement enclosed.

Charlie Mellon asked, who signed that?

Attorney Altman stated, the Surveyor.

Charles Roth asked, who is the Surveyor?

Attorney Altman stated, you have to go the Drainage Board to do that.

Charlie Mellon asked, who signed that Drainage Board.

Attorney Altman stated, the Surveyor did…

Charlie Mellon asked, who!

Attorney Altman stated, the County Surveyor! I didn’t stutter.

Charlie Mellon stated, that wasn’t brought up the 7th.

Attorney Altman stated, sure it was.

Charlie Mellon stated, well, there’s your problem right there, people.

Steve Fisher stated, lets move on.

Vice President Clawson stated, you’re out of line too Charlie.

Charlie Mellon stated, that’s all right, you’re a little slow of getting things a going here too.

Vice President Clawson stated, well, I had no idea that I was going to be stuck to the run of the meeting tonight and I am sorry but, I just figured that I was going to have to sit on the Board, I’m not the normal President of the Board and if you have any more outburst and you’re out of line Charles, I will ask you to leave the meeting.

Charlie Mellon stated, okay.

****

#275 John D. Coleman; Requesting approval of a 3 lot subdivision to be known as North Wolcott Prairie on 4.859 Acres. The property is located North of Wolcott on the Northeast corner of County Road 900 West and County Road 200 North.

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

John Coleman stated, I’m John.

Vice President Clawson asked, do you want to state your purpose for subdividing this property?

John Coleman stated, yes, I have had the estate of this for 4.859 acres. I currently, I currently bought that from the existing owners about 10 years ago and currently have one home and a detached garage on the property and tenants occupy that and I wanted to basically split off. I tried to sell it in the past and keep it, I certainly don’t want that much acreage so, my goal was to make it less acreage around 2 or 2 ½ acres and sell the remaining 2 ½ or 3 acres, whatever shows on the plat as to new lots to build new homes on.

Steve Fisher asked, you’re living on lot #1, is that correct?

John Coleman stated, no, I have tenants…

Steve Fisher stated, tenants, okay, you understand that that house is outside of the build able area?

John Coleman stated, yes…

Steve Fisher stated, if it were destroyed by fire, it wouldn’t be able to be rebuilt in the same place as it is.

John Coleman stated, yes, but there will be room on the existing lot 1 and 2 certainly.

Steve Fisher stated, as long as you know that.

John Coleman stated, yes, yes, it is close to the road.

Vice President Clawson asked, this subdivision will not create, is there any confinement, hog operation or anything close to this property?

John Coleman stated, the nearest one would be the Furrer Farm, which is 3 miles East of that.

Vice President Clawson stated, okay, because we have a quarter of a mile limit, which we can’t do any action about subdividing anything that is closer…

John Coleman asked, a quarter of a mile within an existing hog operation…

Vice President Clawson stated, confinement.

John Coleman stated, confinement building that would be the closest one that I’m aware of. It is on a county corner so it’s easy access there has been in the last 5 years a fair amount of development between my property and town so it seemed to me like a logical place for someone to possibly want to build a home.

Don Ward asked, is that the old Joe Troxel place?

John Coleman stated, yes, it is. I have put a well on each of the lots, if this is approved to show that we can put a good quality water there that’s not sulfur, currently I have two wells on the property, one is sulfur and one is not. So as long as you stay shallow we will get good water and I won’t have to get a variance on the lots.

Vice President Clawson asked, it appears that most easements are shown, the building lines on, the lots meet the requirements, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman stated, the rear ones aren’t on there.

Vice President Clawson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, and the sides ones aren’t. They should be shown at very least on the final plat.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, access will be through the road…

John Coleman stated, yes the existing county, 100 and 900.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s an ebullient of a mini string situation.

Vice President Clawson asked, you’re on a corner lot, Attorney Altman, what do they deem as, how they situate the house is that then deemed what would be the front setback and what would be the rear setback.

Attorney Altman stated, double front…

David Rosenbarger stated, yes, frontage is always the road that’s when you live on a corner lot.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, so it actually pushes you back, that’s why it’s so that it’s building on both sides, on the…

David Rosenbarger stated, the corner you have two fronts a side and a rear…

Attorney Altman stated, incoming fronts and the side.

John Coleman stated, right, I believe that’s why the corner lot is somewhat larger than the lot 3…

Don Ward stated, yes, that’s probably right.

John Coleman asked, because we need setbacks because of the corner road right?

Secretary Hall stated, with them being zoned A-1, they would have to have 60’ from front property line or road right-of-way off of County Road 900 and off of 200 and then the Ordinance allows them to flip flop what the call the side and the rear. So off of one of those, they would have to be 15’ and off of the other they would have to be 100’ and the Ordinance will allow them to decide which one they want to use as 15’ and which one as 100’, on the corner only.

Vice President Clawson asked, so this lot will not have to be varied to build a house on right off of the bat because, I don’t like, you’re saying that they can set it and they won’t have to get a variance…

Secretary Hall stated, if they go, they have to be 60’ and 60’ and then if they go 15’ off of this side then they would have to be 100’ off of here.

Vice President Clawson asked, so they actually can achieve situating the house…

Secretary Hall stated, depending on what size of a home they put in…

Vice President Clawson stated, because I don’t like subdividing to where we have to automatically get a variance to build any kind of a house.

John Coleman stated, exactly, yes.

Steve Fisher stated, it looks big enough…

Vice President Clawson stated, yes it’s a nice size lot but, with it being a double front, I wanted to make sure…

John Coleman stated, I was there when Jim measured everything, we covered everything thoroughly on that.

Don Ward stated, move it South, this way because of the 100’ setback, I don’t think that they have enough room here so you have to allow 60’…

Vice President Clawson stated, I think that we are ready to bring this up for primary.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Primary Approval Request for a 3-lot subdivision to be known as North Wolcott Prairie located in Princeton Township, was approved by a vote of 7 to 0, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met.

Attorney Altman stated, because of the size of this and there are no improvements required with the subdivision, it is now ready for a secondary ballot if the Board, and I will distribute that if the Board see fit.

Steve Fisher asked, you want us to vote on the secondary correct?

John Coleman stated, yes, sir.

Attorney Altman asked, no improvements are required right?

Secretary Hall stated, no, there are no improvements and they did get a waiver from the Drainage Board.

Attorney Altman asked, and this is, ready for subdivision, secondary ballot?

Secretary Hall stated, to the best of our knowledge.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Secondary Approval request for a subdivision to be known as North Wolcott Prairie located in Princeton Township, was approved by a vote of 7 to 0, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met, primary approval has been granted and the Subdivision is in compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, your 10 days, there is a 10 day appeal right before you can proceed for the balance of your formalities of your subdivision.

John Coleman stated, yes sir, you mentioned one question or something that needed to be done on the final plat, part of the voting and I’m not sure what…

Steve Fisher stated, he was talking about putting the other setbacks on the plat for the other side.

John Coleman stated, okay so Jim Milligan…

Steve Fisher stated, if you can do that, yes the rear and the side at best.

David Rosenbarger stated, on the corner lot it can be either direction.

Don Ward stated, well he doesn’t have enough room really, he’s going to have to face the house to the South I think.

John Coleman stated, yes….

David Rosenbarger stated, that 100’ yes.

Steve Fisher asked, he brings that to your office for recording?

Secretary Hall stated, actually he has to sign the Mylar first and there is a waiting period.

Steve Fisher stated, so you need to check their office.

John Coleman asked, okay, thank you, are you finished with me now?

Steve Fisher stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes.

****

#232 Stone Hollow LLC; Requesting Secondary approval of 37 lots to be known as Stone Hollow – Parts 3 & 4. The property is located South of Monticello on the Northeast corner of Freeman Road and Pierce Road.

Vice President Clawson asked, representing that property would be?

Bob Wrede stated, Bob Wrede.

Vice President Clawson asked, and we gave primary approval of this 2 or 3 years ago?

Bob Wrede stated, that is correct. The project is laid out in phases. You have already approved Parts 1 and 2, and Part 2 has a few lots left in it, but we’re about out of lots in Part 2 and we’re going on to Part, we’re asking for approval for Parts 3 and 4. We will actually develop all of the infrastructure for all of the market lots and we wanted to get the final approval done in 3, so it would be out of the way, and I talked to both the County Inspector and Area Plan about doing that so only, lots will be marketed in Part 4 this time around because, that’s the only places that some of them will take.

Vice President Clawson asked, I know that we gave you primary approval and something, since you’re developing involved in a lot of developing we as a Board has, would like to see is in the future on major arterial roads we’re trying to limit the amount of frontage lots ingress and egress points off of these because we foresee over the 20 or 30 years if we develop the frontage of all of these roads like the people traveling to and from Lafayette that would be too much, too dangerous in people slowing traffic to much, we’re trying to either approve 2 or 3 lots to use at one point….

Bob Wrede stated, I understand what you’re saying…

Vice President Clawson asked, I mean we can proceed with this because we gave you primary but when you’re looking at a development, if it’s on a side road we can do that, gravel…

David Rosenbarger stated, that’s sort of what he’s doing…

Bob Wrede stated, right that would be what we are doing in Part 3.

Vice President Clawson stated, right.

Bob Wrede stated, where all of those lots can actually ingress off of the cul-de-sac but, it will have really only 4 lots if the end lots on Chandler and Pierce Road ingress and egress off of the other. So, I see exactly what you’re saying from developer standpoint because, you already have a road there so they are they aren’t cost effective lots but, I understand.

Vice President Clawson stated, there are certain roads that doesn’t really matter on, they aren’t heavily traveled but we’re trying through sitting on the strategic plan the one that they had a Reynolds, a lot of the peoples concerns was in development in the county as to maintain certainly arteries from traffic flow in the county for the future and that’s the different. Freeman Road in my opinion is one of the major roads, another road is Range Line, 300 East for people that travel to Lafayette, very heavily traveled and they really do need to pin point those roads and mark them with us at Area Plan to try to preserve those roads because we had one on North 300 that we asked him to limit his access.

Bob Wrede stated, I really have a total of 60 plus lots, I think that it’s a 60 plus lot subdivision and we really only have 4 lots that have an ingress and egress off of the primary road which isn’t bad but, in a development plan we could have actually pulled those off too with these roads coming into it.

Attorney Altman asked, is that possible at this time to limit?

Vice President Clawson asked, the way that he’s got these, did you feel that now that they have sewers out in there that you could, you could change, this is just the original, could you change anything at all?

Bob Wrede stated, I would have to go back through the Drainage Board, and do the detention area, all of my infrastructure, my lines and when I start doing that and smalling up the lots then you have more hard surface area and you would have to go back and recalculate for drainage and to be honest with everyone, I already have 100,000 dollars in the drainage that I built out there to this day. So if I would have known that the sewer district would have been there eerily absolutely, because we don’t need, people don’t need 6 and 7 tenths acres lots and really it’s in the best interest of the community to keep those lots in subdivisions to the 4 and 5 tenths acres, that’s still comfortable, it’s not on each other. At this time when we developed this, it was on site sewage disposal systems and we needed that much real estate to get the well, septic and home all located on it. We kind of before the sewer district gets done it’s going to hit over 100 lots in 3 different subdivisions that I have, it’s really kind of an owie because like this, it would have been better if we would have known it. We had said on the Sewer District Board and I didn’t think it was their intent to come down Freeman until hey got Shaffer done, if I’d considered that at the time, it wasn’t even dreamed of being in the works and then all of a sudden it jumped for some reason but today, if I had to go it all over again, I would back up, regroup plat it out there if I would have started from scratch but, monetarily it’s just not feasible now. I have met with the Sewer District we’re about…with NIPSCO from the gas and electric, we already have the plans developed for it, the drainage plans that we have are just carried over so the whole entire drainage plan was developed before we started 1st phase, there is a 3 point 4 cubic foot acre retention pond on there, this plan here in phase 4 that will be going on will include 260’ of 24” HV pipe, a couple of 4’6” storm manhole sets over 1,000 feet of 8”. Every single lot in the subdivision will have a minimum of a 8” drain tile coming to the property for drainage, the roads will be not chip and sealed but, asphalt with the 8” of 53 base for the county standard with 2” of that hard basin with the cap coat on the top the roads will have drainage ditches to them. The Sewer District currently has sewers around Pierce Road and Freeman Road that as the developers are going to require that we put their infrastructure in on the interior lots that you see there and be feeding 8 lots. Again, it seems like monetarily the home owners are almost trading off for, is it a 5,000 dollars septic or a 5,000 dollar sewer pump station you know, the time that we get done with our infrastructure put in, they pay for the pump station you know their cost for them being 4,000 to 5,000 dollars to even be connected to the Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District pump station, we are trying to be efficient with the pumps and l hooked up except for what you said the comment out the 4 lots that are going to ingress and egress and off of Pierce Road, or Freeman Road, it was about as good of a plan at the time that we could develop.

Vice President Clawson stated, I say that we bring this to a vote.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, the minimum…estimate here really needs to be approved by the jurisdiction…post a bond so you need to have that approved by Mr. Sterrett…

Vice President Clawson stated, we will vote first on the Stone Hollow Part 3, after that its Stone Hollow Part 4.

Attorney Altman stated, this is only for Stone Hollow Part 4…

Bob Wrede stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, so I need both of those.

Bob Wrede stated, that’s correct.

Attorney Altman stated, so I need both of those and set up so Mr. Sterrett can approve them so we then can figure out what your letter of credit should be.

Bob Wrede asked, I was going to say, you are still allowing, to revoke you letters of credit, verses a fine?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Secondary Approval request for a subdivision to be known as Stone Hollow Part 3 located in Union Township, was approved by a vote of 7 to 0, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met, primary approval has been granted and the Subdivision is in compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, the subdivision is in compliance with the secondary approval. I think that we’re ready for Part 4 to vote on Part 4.

The Secondary Approval request for a subdivision to be known as Stone Hollow Part 4 located in Union Township, was approved by a vote of 7 to 0, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met, primary approval has been granted and the Subdivision is in compliance.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the subdivision is in compliance with the secondary approval. You need to get your estimates in and approved obviously we have the 10 appeal period no matter what, you just need to do that and get approval of the engineer and get me a copy of the letter of credit and then you need to record it and proceed.

 

Bob Wrede stated, very good.

 

****

Vice President Clawson asked, also to the Board I want to apologize for not being prepared to run the meeting. If I would have done my homework and seen that their access lot wasn’t working on the first subdivision people wouldn’t of…

Don Ward stated, I think that you should have been notified prior to this so it’s not his fault.

Steve Fisher stated, it doesn’t matter, what if he would have got sick right before he came, it would be the same situation…

Don Ward stated, yes, but…

Steve Fisher stated, so don’t worry about it.

Vice President Clawson asked, can we get a…

Secretary Hall stated, no, not yet.

Vice President Clawson asked, not yet, there’s some business?

Don Ward stated, we have some business here.

Secretary Hall stated, Director Weaver, had given you an amendment to the Ordinance for the building height, she just wanted you to look over that see if there is any changes that you want done, you can’t vote on it yet because it’s not been advertised, so she just wondered if you had any discussion on it.

Steve Fisher stated, it looked okay to me.

Don Ward stated, yes, I don’t know how else to…

Secretary Hall asked, everything looked okay…

Don Ward asked, the only thing that I questioned was the towers. If you have a height, what do they consider a tower?

Secretary Hall stated, what this would just be, what this amendment is for is just accessory buildings, it’s for storage sheds and that sort of thing.

Don Ward stated, oh, I see.

Secretary Hall stated, pole barns…

Steve Fisher stated, no, I thought this was talking about the over all figuring of the roof height for…

Don Ward stated, yes…

Steve Fisher stated, the over all construction, before it was talking about from the curb level and we wanted that changed so this wasn’t just accessory buildings…

Don Ward stated, no, I think that you’re right Steve, it’s was…

Steve Fisher stated, all…

Don Ward stated, all buildings.

Steve Fisher stated, yes, it is.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, this is for all buildings…

Don Ward stated, the spires are churches and that’s obvious, that’s in the Ordinance that churches can build their spires and stuff but, a tower, I’m not quite sure what we call those.

Secretary Hall stated, I don’t know to be quite honest with you.

Don Ward asked, if you put a tank, a big tank on top of a building, lets say that a building is already near maximum and they can put a big tank up there, it’s going to be a lot higher than the regular, is that going to still apply?

Steve Fisher stated, that would be considered a water tower.

Don Ward asked, I guess it would, wouldn’t it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that’s probably exactly there…

Don Ward asked, a water tower?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, just wanted to see if there anything that…

Don Ward stated, it looks like this should be different for different zoning, industrial should have one and housing another.

Attorney Altman stated, it does not define tower in here so you would actually go to Webster’s Dictionary and look at the definition of towers what the Ordinance has the default….

Dennis Sterrett asked, all that this is, is redefining a definition right?

Secretary Hall stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it’s redefining the building height, one could, one way that you could do this and is just have residential building height because I think that’s what this is really going to is to residential building height.

Don Ward stated, I think so too.

Attorney Altman stated, and that would be a suggestion to but we might get to, cut to the chase and that’s just what we’re doing.

Steve Fisher stated, this may come into play a little bit, remember the school is talking about putting that tower on top of their building but then they switched back but that is, that is a cable tower or whatever it was, a metal tower.

David Scott asked, that was a, wasn’t that a structural problem though?

Steve Fisher stated, yes, so they didn’t do that but they were trying at first so that wouldn’t be considered in the height of a new construction building if someone were trying to do that, the way that it’s worded now.

Don Ward stated, also it says, I like the fact that it goes to the ground but, at the wall, curbs can be 10’ below the building but the, it says that the average of the ground level at it’s two furthest corners which to me I think it should say the two furthest front corners because the back of the lot can be way lower than the front of the lot.

Dennis Sterrett stated, it says most parallel to the front line, lot line.

Steve Fisher stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, well, maybe your right.

David Rosenbarger stated, so that would be your front corners.

Steve Fisher stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, yes, you’re right it would automatically be wouldn’t it.

Steve Fisher stated, and it does say when they are talking about the tower thing, it does say to the top of the roof and that wouldn’t necessarily be considered, the tower wouldn’t be part of the roof, it’s the roof, that’s where they are talking about measuring from so, I guess it really doesn’t matter what’s on top of the building.

Don Ward asked, a sign apparently should be included in calculating the height? It says that some chimney spires, towers, elevator penthouses, tanks and similar projections other than signs shall not be included in calculating the height. So a sign must be…

Secretary Hall stated, how it’s defined now is to find out the height, there is a 15’ height limit. You have to go from the mean level so you have to figure up the walls and the pitch of it. To where this would put it from the peak so you would measure everything from the highest point…

Don Ward stated, right.

Secretary Hall stated, down and signs are measured the same way, because you have, I believe, it’s a 45’ height limit on signs so you would measure from the top of the sign down.

Don Ward asked, so if you have a sign on top of the building, the top of the sign is going to be the controlling…

Secretary Hall stated, if you have a sign on top of a building, it couldn’t go any higher than 6’ above the roofline of the building.

Don Ward asked, and it will control the height of building then.

Secretary Hall stated, the Ordinance will, the Ordinance does that now.

Don Ward stated, okay.

Vice President Clawson stated, something that I, are we done talking about this?

Secretary Hall stated, yes.

Vice President Clawson stated, because I wanted to bring on new business after this, it’s not on the agenda but, I just want something, brought to Monticello to our City Council for approval was for a off premise sign, the big thing now is they are wanting to erect these double decked billboards around. We need to know from the Board and from certain cities in the county, do we need to amend our countywide Ordinance? We need to know how, Monticello just revamped their own City Ordinance to ban a lot of off premise signs, I mean pretty much everything but, that is the new way that we’re coming in is they are putting two full sized, well it’s a four sided, two sided with 4 billboards that they are wanting to build, not just a billboard with two on, now it’s like if any, if you want to see what they look like go North of Dairy Queen and head towards the Beach. I have not seen them in any other cities or any other counties that I can remember around here but it’s becoming a norm, for asking for them. We have nothing to regulate against it as far as square footage in the air or anything. People that are on Boards with other cities, you might bring it up at your Board meetings and see how everyone feels about it there because I know several people had said that they were mad at me for, why did you guys, the city approve the billboard going, well, that’s not in our jurisdiction I mean I just came to Area Plan and got a permit because it was so many feet from another off premise sign and that’s the only regulation that they have against it, pretty much.

Don Ward asked, what is it 60’ is all that they have to be or something like that?

Vice President Clawson stated, no, 1,500’ from another…

Secretary Hall stated, 500’ from another off premise sign.

David Scott asked, there’s no height requirement or anything.

Vice President Clawson stated, these fit whatever their plan on…

Secretary Hall stated, yes, I can’t remember what that’s zoned…

Vice President Clawson stated, on doing but, I don’t know if we can put a regulation when they put those up or how much square foot, I mean there are several, there are different things that we can do to regulate it with, but I don’t want, I myself, am not conducive to any kind of these signs being the normal around. I just think that it’s too much in the air at one time, they are way too busy, they take up a lot of viewable space, I mean billboards are bad enough but these are just a massive, can’t miss.

Gary Barbour stated, I think billboards are meant for interstates, I’m sorry.

Vice President Clawson stated, I am too, I don’t like them in any kind of urban setting, we have way too many of them here in Monticello and I don’t know, if that’s going to be the norm all of the way, like along U.S. Highway 24 all of these people coming to the Beach and here and there I don’t know if the mark us because our Ordinance is so vague you know but I don’t see them in Lafayette. I don’t see them in, I know, I went to Indianapolis the other day, I didn’t see them on the way to Indianapolis but, I know that the people weren’t too happy when we announced it to them.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it’s pretty significant and I think it’s an area that would be reasonable to regulate.

Steve Fisher asked, can’t you just make it simple, I mean no double billboard signs allowed?

David Rosenbarger stated, or deduct the size restriction period.

Steve Fisher stated, I mean if it’s a single, I mean you’re unless you’re talking about limiting what else they can do already and just make it a no double sign ordinance or something like that unless you are thinking of restriction the size s of future building you know make them smaller in some diameter or whatever.

David Rosenbarger stated, I would think that you would almost have to restrict the size because if you said no double billboards, they would just put up more massive one and make more…

Steve Fisher stated, oh, I see what you’re, I wasn’t thinking that way…

David Rosenbarger stated, it would be one board but, it could have 3 adds on it, it would just be humongous.

Vice President Clawson stated, how many square feet of advertising and that is one of the things, I don’t want any action, I just want you guys to think of it, think of certain ways that we can get a decent handle on it because regular billboards are not I really don’t think, I think it just clutters up the view of our surroundings.

Don Ward stated, in the State of Vermont, the State puts up the signs for the businesses and they are about that big and then the rest of them can’t put any up, so when you drive down the road there you don’t see, you see a sign it’s about 1’ square, you get use to it though and you know what you’re looking for and they may put them out where their prominent but that’s all the bigger that they are.

Vice President Clawson asked, do you have something else?

Secretary Hall asked, Attorney Altman’s claims, does anyone have any questions?

Don Ward stated, I really think that they don’t want you to know where you’re going out there.

Vice President Clawson asked, does anyone have any problems with Attorney Altman’s claims this month?

Don Ward stated, no.

Vice President Clawson stated, he needs a new pair of shoes so, I guess that we had better approve them.

Attorney Altman stated, I hope so.

Secretary Hall stated, the last thing that I have is reappointments are coming up for Gary Barbour, David Rosenbarger, Charles Anderson and David Scott. Director Weaver would like for you to let us know as soon as you can if you decide, let us know if you want to be reappointed or not so we can get those out to the Towns.

Attorney Altman stated, and you should get a hold of your jurisdiction, generally what happens, you go see them and make claim to reappoint and just so we don’t wind up at January’s meeting with 4 people that are qualified to be on the Board.

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

Secretary Hall stated, no.

Vice President Clawson stated, now I make a motion to adjourn.

David Rosenbarger made a motion to adjourn.

Steve Fisher 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