Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, June 9, 2003, 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, Charles Anderson, David Scott, Don Ward, Gregory Bossaer, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Todd Bell, Lenette Bell, Charles R. Mellon, Greg Jacobs, David Downey, Betty Downey, Herb Hunt, Herbert Hunt, Dwayne Hunt, Victoria L. Stearns, Linda Freeman, Donald Freeman, and Doug Howard

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson and roll call was taken.


#815 Robert Teumer; The property is located on 2.571 acres, Northeast of Buffalo, the last house at the East end of Red Maple Court on the North side of the road. This was tabled from the May 12, 2003 meeting.

Violation: None

Request: He is requesting to rezone from A-1 to R-2.

President Charles Anderson asked, do we have anyone here representing this request?

Robert Teumer stated, I’m Robert Teumer.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions about this request? Do you have a commitment for drainage?

The board is discussing where each other copies are.

Attorney Altman stated, what I received from Mr. Teumer was a document I think that is before you. I said if he had the surveyor locate where the 15” tile or pipe would be on his tract of ground, I thought would be satisfactory with what we were requesting. What I have does not locate that on the map. That is different than what I have in my hand.

President Charles Anderson stated, there are 2 pages, do you have the 2nd page. The 2nd page has it on there.

Attorney Altman asked, does the board have that in front of them with a proposed 15” tile on it.

I think the concern was the drainage, there was a recommendation from the board to put in a 15” pipe or tile across the real estate. What I just understood is that it had to be located. I don’t know, Denny maybe you can tell us better as to whether or not that is proper location for that.

Dennis Sterrett stated, I have no idea.

Attorney Altman stated, I know some of the neighbors are here and had some concerns about that. Maybe some of you want to come up and look at this.

Attorney Altman is showing the neighbors the survey and where the tile will be going.

Dave Downey stated, I’m Dave Downey.

President Charles Anderson stated, that is a 15” drain in that is probably where it should go on the property that we are trying to rezone. Your question was?

Robert Teumer asked, I want to know if they are going to come up with half of the expense on that because the water is draining off of his property on to mine property and are they going to go half on it.

Attorney Altman stated, no the expense is yours, it was your commitment to put it in. That’s just the way it is.

Dave Downey stated, I have a couple of questions. Is there a time limit on the amount of time he has to put it in and what happens if you approve his rezoning and then he doesn’t put it in?

President Charles Anderson stated, it would have to be reverted back to the original zoning.

Attorney Altman stated, that is something that I’m not very pleased about the commitment. I’m going on the record and give him until September of this year to have it in and if it isn’t the rezoning would revert.

Robert Teumer stated, I plan on putting it in right away as soon as you approve it.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, but for the record that would be the limit and if you didn’t the rezoning would revert. That is what we customarily do Mr. Downey with anyone of these commitments. We do put that in there, the deadlines and the consequence of not doing it is that it reverts back to the old zoning.

President Charles Anderson stated, we have a question out here. Would you state your name?

Herb Hunt asked, my question is, and if he gets the rezoning can he start any building?

Attorney Altman stated, he can start his building as long as he understands that it is contingent if he doesn’t do it.

Herb Hunt asked, will this be enforced? It will come off?

Attorney Altman stated, yes sir.

Dwayne Hunt stated, my name is Dwayne Hunt and I’d like to know if this commitment would be in writing?

President Charles Anderson stated, yes, we have it right here.

Dwayne Hunt asked, is it a legal document?

President Charles Anderson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, it will be recorded too.

Dave Downey stated, I do have one more question. Mr. Teumer here puts 15” tile here to the river, maybe he should have a flapper on the end because if the river comes up, it will feed right back out into the field. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Robert Teumer stated, the water is higher in the back of my property than at the river.

President Charles Anderson stated, if the water comes up that high it will go across the road anyway. You can’t stop the river, if you are going to live on the river you got to expect that river is going to run. Anyone else have any questions about this in the audience?

Do the Commissioners have any other questions? We have the commitment and we are giving him until September to put it

Robert Teumer asked, I have until the end of September?

Attorney Altman stated, yes sir.

Robert Teumer stated, I’m going to do it right away, I’m not going to wait until September.

I’m not going to build anything else on the property.

President Charles Anderson stated, I would put it in when it was dry.

Robert Teumer stated, it’s just to be subdivided because I have a trailer on there and I’m going to sell the trailer off.

Jay Clawson asked, have you added the time constraint on the commitment Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, it is not in writing, but it will be recorded.

Herb Hunt stated, I have one more question. Would it be possible for us to be notified when that is going to be put in, so we could go down and watch the operations?

President Charles Anderson stated, you would have to ask him. That would not be up to us.

Robert Teumer stated, you could come help me if you want.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 1 negative. This will be presented to County Commissioners for their action.


#823 Todd M. & Lenette N. Bell; The property is located on Lot 8 in Countryside Subdivision, West of Monticello at 564 & 566 S. Country Lane.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from B-2 to R-3 to bring the house into


President Charles Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any questions on this?

Do we have anyone here representing this request? Please state your name.

Todd Bell stated, I’m Todd Bell.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone in the audience with any questions about this requested rezoning? What are you proposing to do with this?

Todd Bell asked, have you seen the property, it was grandfathered in a business when that subdivision was put in. We were told that if a natural disaster or a fire occurred we could not build back what we have now. Actually the front house we would like to make into an apartment and living in the back of the house. That is why we are asking for a R-3.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions about this?

Todd Bell stated, I do have the okay and signatures from people in the neighborhood because there is a neighborhood covenants.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there a restricted covenant in the neighborhood.

Lennette Bell stated, there is no business, everything has to be single dwelling and I guess because it had been done they grandfathered it in so they could actually live there and have it zoned B-2.

President Charles Anderson stated, so eventually it will be better for them to zone it away from business.

Jay Clawson asked, do you have copies of the covenants?

Todd Bell stated, yes.

President Charles Anderson stated, Diann this is #823 and have you had anyone call in on it.

Is there any actual covenant in this?

Lennette Bell stated, I don’t know it was a subdivision rule. When they put the subdivision in, I think I have a copy of it.

Attorney Altman stated, this is a waiver restricting covenants release of the violation and the undersigned all being owners of lots 1-8 in Countryside Subdivision, Monticello, IN do hereby agree as follows: 1. 2 separate houses connected with a common garage exist on lot 8 in Countryside subdivision. 2. Lot 8 in Countryside subdivision maybe in violation of the restrictive covenants for Countryside Subdivision recorded November 3, 1976, plat book 2, page 40 White County Recorders office. 3. Restrictive covenants and enforcements of the covenants and the same are violated. 4. The undersign owners of lot 1-8 in Countryside Subdivision hereby agree that the existing building on lot 8 maybe retained on said lot even though the existence of 2 homes on said lot maybe in violation of the restrictive covenants. The undersign hereby waives all rights provided to them to enforce the current violation existing on lot 8 in Countryside Subdivision. 6. The undersign agree that the existing structures on Lot 8 may remain and be used for more than one family. We affirm under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing representation are true and corrected. It is dated April 22 of this year by Charles McManis, as lot 1, Sue Hickman lot 2, Todd L. Maiden lot 3, all on the same date and Jody D. Maiden on lot 3 and it appears that all the lots have apparently signed this. It was prepared by Delling, Dellinger, & Smith. All April the 22nd of this year.

President Charles Anderson asked, you say it is a legal document according to the record?

Attorney Altman stated, it sure is. It should be recorded.

Dennis Sterrett asked, is there 11 lots or 9?

Attorney Altman stated, it says 8 here, I don’t know how many lots there are.

Todd Bell stated, there are 9 total.

Director Weaver stated, there are 11 lots in the subdivision.

Todd Bell stated, the current lots as told to us were exempt the 9, 10, and 11. Which is Doctor Armstrong is in front of us and 9 and then 10 is the farm. The other one is where they tried to get a muffler shop in there, which is across the street from us.

Director Weaver stated, 9, 10, and 11 are exempt from the restrictions, and I’m looking at the subdivision that was recorded.

Attorney Altman stated, they may be exempt from the restrictions and they may have the right to enforce the restrictions. The lot is not subject to the restrictions, but that doesn’t mean that they can not enforce those restrictions and Diann is right. 9, 10 and 11 shall not be subject to any restrictions under the zoning laws. It doesn’t say they can’t enforce restrictions. So I think I would get them to sign on that. If I were you folks just to protect yourself.

President Charles Anderson stated, we could change this to be contingent.

Attorney Altman stated, I think you want it contingent on them getting this done. I think you would. At the vary least make it contingent on them getting those folks. Their folks are trying to apparently getting this remedy. They don’t have it remedy yet, you need those folks to sign also.

Todd Bell stated, we were kind of under the understanding that is why we didn’t get their signatures.

President Charles Anderson stated, they are exempt from this ordinance, but they could come after you and say hey you did something that we didn’t agree to. That is the only reason to get them on there. The likelihood of that happening is very slim, but it could happen.

Todd Bell stated, yes I understand.

President Charles Anderson stated, I think we could rezone this with the contingent that they get the signatures or some representative of those lots.

Todd Bell asked, do we know who is in lot 11? I have no idea.

Director Weaver stated, you have to get that information from the Auditors office.

President Charles Anderson asked, what do the Commissioners think making it contingent for their own safety.

Director Weaver stated, they should have been one of their adjoining property owners.

We should have notified them of the meeting. It’s right across the street.

Attorney Altman stated, it still doesn’t release them from the restrictive covenants.

Director Weaver stated, no, but I’m saying they shouldn’t be that difficult to locate because they should have been notified of them meeting already.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I see what you are saying. They should be there.

President Charles Anderson stated, let's make it contingent on this. Does anyone in the audience have any questions on this at all?

Without further discussion the board voted.

President Charles Anderson stated, this would be contingent on a release from 9, 10, and 11.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it will be similar to the one they got on 1-8.

That’s what they gave us and it will be exhibit A.

Todd Bell asked, so we need to bring those into Diann?

President Charles Anderson stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, it needs to be in before Monday.

Director Weaver stated, that is up to the board, but I would think so.

President Charles Anderson stated, you need to try to get them before Monday.

Director Weaver stated, if you could get it to us by Wednesday, then we can send it out to the County Commissioners before Monday.

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


#824 Robert Scott & Victoria L. Stearns; The property is located on .30 of an acre, in the Town of Burnettsville at 302 W. Eastlawn Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from R-2 to B-1 to have a beauty shop in the home.


President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?


Victoria Stearns stated, I’m Victoria Stearns.


President Charles Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any questions about this request?


Director Weaver stated, we have not received any calls on this. She is currently running a Beauty shop out of the home as a home occupation. Under the home occupation regulation she can not put a freestanding sign up on the property and therefore she wants to rezone, so that she can do that.


President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone in the audience with any questions?


Without further discussion the board voted.


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


#825 Ronald W. & Linda K. Freeman; The property is located on Lots 27, 28 and 29 in Amos Oak Crest 3rd Addition, in Monon Township on the East side of West Shafer Drive and North of Lowe’s Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from B-2 to R-2.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Ron Freeman stated, I’m Ron Freeman.

Director Weaver stated, again we have not gotten any calls on this. The Area Plan Commission to the B-2 zoning rezoned this a few years ago in 1998. There was a business that was going to go in on this property, but it never went any farther than the rezoning.

President Charles Anderson asked, so they want to change it back to the original rezoning?

Director Weaver stated, yes. There is a mobile home park to the North of them.

President Charles Anderson asked, does anyone in the audience have any questions?

Without 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.


#03-3 Gregory A. & Jerrielyn Jacobs; Requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Windward on 3.97 acres. The property is located South of Monticello and Richey Lane off of Oakdale Road on the White County – Carroll County Line.

President Charles Anderson asked, do we have anyone here representing the request?

Greg Jacobs stated, I’m Greg Jacobs.

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions on this request?

Attorney Altman stated, we had several requests for information that was presented and we should start out with your responses to those Mr. Jacobs.

Greg Jacobs stated, one of the concerns was Carroll County approval for the public roads that services this property. Also one of the concerns was that Carroll County right away only allowed 40’. We went back, we looked at the situation, and we learned a couple of things. One that we were able to increase it to a 50’ right away and in trying to address one of the Carroll County concerns that the parking we tried to figure, I guess the most economical allow for parking on street or off street parking. One of the other things that we discovered is that curbing gutter as we had originally proposed requires a 26’ pavement. Quite frankly the lots probably are not going to come in enough for the investment of the 26’ curb and gutter, and still allow us really parking on one side of the street with restriction for the land. What we got approved there is, this doesn’t address the drainage, but we are working on the drainage. What we have done is gone, Carroll County asked for 1’ off of the right away would be the property. They asked that the side walks be 1’ off of the right away, so we come in 1’ and then we have a 4’ walk and then we have a 10’ grass area on the shoulder, that is an area 10’ wide that would count as off street parking. We also have, even though it is not shown here because I’m sure the utility right away is one of the primary concerns with a 40’ right away. We also have an additional 15’ of utility right away ??? 50’, so we feel we have addressed the right away issue. This is what we have approved here this street design right here in Carroll County. This is a 20’ road and I believe Don asked about a 22’ road. Carroll County, we looked at it and the cost we hope we could get approval with a 20’ road, we went to White County and the Highway Department says that 20’ is the minimum in White County, and 18’ is the requirement in Carroll County. We propose a 20’ road there. The only argument I can say is living on a street with very similar type of set here. I know it force vehicles to slow down when they meet each other. I know that is probably the only good thing about it. I realize that 2 big trucks would be passing it might cause it to be tight, we are asking for 20’ road service.

One of the things that was brought up was, we were asking for 12’ setback or side setback between buildings on the property in lieu of the 18’ and one of the concerns was the building materials on the side of the building. What we would propose is that at least one of those structures if they fall under that 18’ requirement is at least one structure would have 100% brick or noncombustible material on it.

Fire protection Steve had brought up that a dry hydrant would be nice and we don’t show on the plans we would make the development contingent on having that dry hydrant. We will have a dry hydrant centrally located on the property so fire service can draw off of the lake.

We don’t have drainage, we are asking for a waiver, the county’s engineering consultant has not had a chance, we are hoping to hear next week at the drainage board, so we haven’t gotten the waiver on the drainage.

Attorney Altman asked, are you talking about Carroll County or White County?

Greg Jacobs stated, White County. We are asking for a vote contingent on that approval. I feel that we have a good case for a waiver, but if it is not approved we have an excellent on site way, we are not counting on the pond to the South on the Carroll County side. We have a large ravine that can contain the water and release it per the requirements. On site storage if required will be minimal as it sets on top of a 40’ hill.

Sewer has already been approved, we have a permit in place that allows for, actually we have approval from our permit 72 new dwellings from the sewer district. The cushion we have on Cedar Crest we would actually have capacity for 84, so sewage is in place as well as the permit for our development.

Water approaching, we currently have a public water system and it services Cedar Crest Mobile Home park and in lieu of having wells on every lot which is permissible we are seeking approval to run a 3” water main through out the development services from the existing public water system. We do have a back up well, we have a well that is capable of actually what would be considered a large volume user, which is a 100,000 gallons a day. This development fully matured would never approach that. That was one of the concerns that was address at the Carroll County meeting which would have some what of impacy making sure that those concerns are addressed. We have meet with a well driller and spoken twice with the Department of Water. The DNR and in fact they are scheduled to come up Thursday to do a test, although, according to Belden Brothers well driller should absolutely have no concerns in terms of drying up wells based on their knowledge of the area. Even though it is not a requirement in Carroll County just for our own satisfaction we are going ahead an evaluating what the effect would be on the aquafer is after a long period of drawing out of a well. Both DNR and Belden Brothers think there is absolutely no reason to be concerned. Any other questions I can answer?

David Rosenbarger stated, I have one Greg. On the sheet that Diann gave us per your request it has a maximum of 16 units with to be located in structures containing as many as 3 dwellings. On your prints you say could be up to 4.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes 4 is correct. I pretty sure that is what the prints say.

David Rosenbarger stated, your prints show….

Director Weaver stated, the prints show a triple unit. It is on page 3 and it says single family or triple family units.

David Rosenbarger stated, the big prints is says single, double, triple or quad.

Director Weaver asked, where is that?

David Rosenbarger stated, page 305 in the notes.

Director Weaver stated, I looking at the legend. The legend only shows the largest.

David Rosenbarger stated, well that is another thing where he has these and what they are doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Greg Jacobs stated, right that is not representative to try to get 16 units on there to show you what the density might look like, it probably will still have the semblance of that as every unit will have at least a garage and most will have 2-car garages. From a density stand point that probably is well represented? Speaking of the density, I might add base on square footage and the current zoning and L-1 allows for 2 Family dwellings, technically we have 4.8 acres with that 25’ strip, but for the sake density we didn’t include that to play games with the density issue. It’s really not buildable, so we took that 25’ road access off of our acreage and represented it as 3.97 acres. Basically, that is about 172,800 square feet or 10,800 square foot per dwelling. Well over the 7,500 square foot density requirement in the L-1. From a density stand point that will allow 23 and we thought 16 was reasonable in considering we have primary approval from a 7 lot subdivision access by that 25’ with the entrance there, which really isn’t wide enough. That would allow us to have 14 lots just remaining in the L-1.

David Rosenbarger stated, that 25’ that you were talking about from your subdivision deal. Is that in Carroll County or is that in White County?

Greg Jacobs stated, that is White County that was back in the 1940’s when Richey Park was subdivided. This was the tail end of it.

David Rosenbarger stated, depending on where you put these Greg, what kind of road, I don’t see anything as far as… I see Carroll County, but once you get to White County there is nothing written anywhere. I see about road widths. You got parking to I see some here. One County garage. In a plan development I’m assuming that everything needs to be written out and planned out. My question is anywhere you would have to put a road to get to a dwelling what is the width, the driveway once it leaves that road what is the minimum it needs to be. Because really the only… Are there any setbacks in the plan development unless you state them, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, that is the purpose of the planned development.

David Rosenbarger stated, that’s what I’m talking about. I don’t see anything as far as other than a 12’ between buildings. I don’t see anything for road sizes. In Carroll County, well no not according to this. He could put it anywhere he wants. I understand what you are doing Greg, I’m trying to get it where you can put these where ever you want as long as you put in or if you have to have a road to it and it needs to be a certain size agreed upon, the driveway. I don’t want to get into a point where you end up putting a house and the driveway is only 12’ long.

Attorney Altman stated, that needs to be laid out.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is what I’m kind of looking at.

Attorney Altman stated, that is not laid out.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t know if that is something.

Director Weaver stated, I had requested that information before it even came to the board.

David Rosenbarger asked, do you see what I’m asking for Greg? Because of what I’m understanding on a plan development you start from scratch and between you and us we lay all of the ground rules. I don’t see that.

Attorney Altman stated, things like utilities are to be shown how they’re to go back there to, to all of these properties.

Greg Jacobs stated, isn’t that a final thought, it’s a good point and what I would suggest is, unless it is servicing one unit like on the South, North end. There I could see where there could be an access drive and I would suggest 20’ for multiple units stating the road service.

David Rosenbarger stated, well my own opinion is, it needs to match what ever is going in there its just like had to have it laid out its going to go by 3 buildings to get to one on the left side. If you where to put it just like this, you literally will have road that starts in Carroll County and go to the Northeast corner because you passing 2 sets of buildings.

Attorney Altman stated, if it is a private road, it is not big enough, the snowplows will never go in there. The process can have trouble getting kids in and out of there.

Greg Jacobs stated, they wouldn’t be going in there anyway, it’s not be designed for through traffic or bus traffic. They would pick up at the Carroll County, right at the line where the public road is. We don’t want it to be public.

Attorney Altman stated, the bus wouldn’t go on C Street.

Greg Jacobs stated, the bus would not go in White County. There is no provisions being made for it to go on through or cul-de-sac.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m saying C Street hear won’t go in there at all, they will be setting out on the highway waiting to be picked up.

David Rosenbarger stated, no, C Street is in Carroll County. We are talking about White County.

Attorney Altman stated, I know that, I guess what I’m saying is are the kids going to set out on Carroll County Road.

David Rosenbarger stated, they are going to have to walk to C Street to get to the bus.

Greg Jacobs stated, right now in the subdivision, I can show you on the master the entire subdivision from lower Hambridge, but now this is C.R. 1250 and C.R. 775. Right now the bus pulls up hear and backs in here in the mobile home park and the kids from down in the lower area and over in here walk over to here. That is the only place that the bus picks up kids right now.

David Rosenbarger stated, once they get pass here they can’t turn around anyway.

Greg Jacobs stated, it’s all the way down to the bottom of the hill, it’s a 16’ one lane road.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I’m worried about.

Greg Jacobs stated, but if you the proximity of Street C to where we are at, I mean you can see the bus. There is no great distance to the bus.

David Rosenbarger stated, in Carroll County you did away with part of this in your initial plan.

Greg Jacobs stated, we got primary approval on here.

David Rosenbarger stated, actually the Carroll County streets A, B, & C are still there.

Greg Jacobs stated, it is a cul-de-sac.

They are currently looking at the map at the streets.

Don Ward asked, are these kids in White County got to a go to a different school?

Greg Jacobs stated, no it is all Twin Lakes School District.

Attorney Altman stated, when you said County Road, I thought they would be setting out there.

David Rosenbarger asked, is this going to turn over to the County.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes this is all.

David Rosenbarger stated, A,B, & C will all be county roads.

Attorney Altman asked, all Carroll County, to be plowed and everything.

Greg Jacobs stated, I have a copy of a letter with primary approval.

Dennis Sterrett asked, could I get a copy of that to show our engineer.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, here is a copy.

Dennis Sterrett stated, they are to take a look at that tomorrow.

Attorney Altman stated, what the applicant has forwarded to us is approval of lots 1-53 approved.

Greg Jacobs stated, actually some were taken out. Lots 1-23 and lots 27, 28 and lots 41-53.

Attorney Altman stated, has been approved by the Carroll County Area Plan Commission on primary. The letter is exhibit A and he has forwarded a letter from Dale Huffer that is exhibit B, and Mr. Jacobs just read to us about the lots that are apart of his primary approval on the Carroll County Tract.

Dennis Sterrett asked, was the drainage approved in Carroll County or do they even do that?

David Rosenbarger stated, they don’t have I don’t think.

Greg Jacobs stated, they did ask about it. I do have a drainage accounts I could get to you. We actually have improved the situation 100% over what we were going to do.

David Rosenbarger asked, when you put a new drain comes out here at the top of C.R. 775 where it drops over the hill.

Greg Jacobs stated, well we will have to use a machine, what I mean is with the way we designed the subdivision put these ponds, which are not required by Carroll County. We basically taking now part of this over here. When we get done this will be the only area. (he is going over the map with Dave and pointing things out on it.)

Jay Clawson asked, is it going to be like a wear pipe where you raise it so high and it releases from there stand pipe of some sort. Is that what it is going to be?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, there is a pipe that let's the water, its going to be functioning pond. There is a pipe that connects the ponds that keeps the water level at the same level and then when it raises so far there is a pipe that restricts the flow and it will go out this way and then there is a release to go this way.

David Rosenbarger asked, this one is going to head towards the bayou or what they call the inlet?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, you were talking about the dry hydrate where was this proposed to be on this?

Greg Jacobs stated, the dry hydrate would come right down the county line.

Dennis Sterrett asked, how far above the level water of the lake is that going to be there?

Greg Jacobs stated, 611 somewhere around 660.

Dennis Sterrett asked, will it have 50’ lift

Greg Jacobs stated, no, what we are proposing is a self, what we think would is pulling from the pond. We will keep the ponds full with a pipe so…

Jay Clawson stated, I think Steven was asking too on the property in the bayous if they could put a dry pipe there where they could transfer water. You need to talk to him about that.

Dennis Sterrett stated, if they put they hydrate down here by the lake, so they could set a pumper.

Jay Clawson stated, right, set a pumper there and run tankers back and forth to the subdivision, I think that is what Steve is trying to accomplish because like what he was saying, if you get it to high they will never suck a ton of water up it. If they have someplace that they can access to or close by, so they could have a truck there that pump into the tankers and then transfer it back.

Gary Barbour stated, they have to be able to get down there though.

Jay Clawson stated, yes, but the roads in Carroll County road that is actually down there, then you have a pretty good access down at the bottom of the hill or is it barricade.

Greg Jacobs stated, only over here. He is showing Jay on the maps.

Jay Clawson stated, down at the bottom where the creek comes in to that bayou that is what I’m talking about.

David Rosenbarger stated, I’d like to see roads, I mean I can see coming off the streets C anytime you would have just one dwelling. But anytime you are going from road C to a second it has to be a road. We got to have you come up with this even if it is private, you still need it wide enough for 2 cars to pass.

Don Ward stated, he has a surface there like a 30’ right a way and 20’.

Several are talking at once.

Dave and Greg are talking and going over a map. Jay, Diann and Jerry are having a conversation.

David Rosenbarger stated, I want something that states that the house can only be so close to give you room to put that driveway in and pull your car in close carport or garage and the its not hanging out I the roadway. I have seen some developments in Tippecanoe County that is doing that. They park across the sidewalk. That just ruins the whole thing.

Dennis Sterrett asked, well it doesn’t have to be 20’ does it.

David Rosenbarger stated, that would be a side, I would say. In all things he showing it as 6’ now, but this would have to fall under the 12’. I looked at that and I know you have just a certain area to build. I think there is plenty of room. I want to see the stuff written down and make it easier to draw it up. Does anyone else have anything?

I don’t know what else this plan development, are you planning on no sidewalks at all?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes

Don Ward stated, you don’t have room for sidewalks.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t see room for it, but.

Greg Jacobs is showing them on the maps where the sidewalks are.

Several are talking at once again.

Greg Jacobs stated, hopefully there is some flexibility in that respect, I guess.

Attorney Altman stated, the problem is that we have turned them down.

Greg Jacobs stated, well that is why we have plans for a planned development.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is why it is so important to have this.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand we considered that pretty inflexibly. Not because we didn’t think there isn’t flexibility somewhere, but as far as that we have been very inflexible and in requiring it. I say we have turned this down for 1 lot subdivision.

David Rosenbarger stated, I’m just going by the way you have it drawn out here that would mean also, to get to this one, either this one or this would have to have a 50’ right away because it would be crossing. Am I right in stating that?

Don Ward stated, he could work the design so that it would be separate or each one could come out.

David Rosenbarger stated, I see here that he drew this one up to have the additional parking. I’m assuming just the way it is drawn up.

Attorney Altman stated, Greg, I guess I’m saying is, if you have the flexibility there has to be a reason for it and I haven’t heard, other than you want to and I understand why you are saying that. I don’t see a reason for flexibility here that we haven’t considered in turning down one lot subdivisions that didn’t have it. That is where I’m coming from, not being hard nosed about it that is the board’s position.

There is discussion among the board members regarding the size of the roads and whom they have turned down.

Greg Jacobs stated, I still have a 20’road, I mean what we are doing first is what we have primary approval for is far better we are accessing another 5’ right now. I understand I guess in this situation I don’t understand what we are gaining by the 50’ right away, as long as we have a 20’ road way. I realize what you are saying as far as if being one home or not, but basically driveways.

Several are talking at once again.

President Charles Anderson asked, so where are we blocked?

David Rosenbarger stated, well we are back at the 50’.

President Charles Anderson stated, we obviously have some problems here and we either solve them some way, we are not getting very far this way, so we need a list of things we think that we need on this. I don’t know whether go head with passing a primary contingent on those things or evidently we have some problems here.

Greg Jacobs asked, is it just the road?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s the roads and the distances between the structures.

David Rosenbarger stated, now you are saying this is the front, so you want a back.

Greg Jacobs stated, right now it is 20’.

David Rosenbarger asked, 20’ front and back?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, 30’ front, which is the lake.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is the back, this is the one I’m concerned about.

Greg Jacobs stated, that is the back, and that is 20’.

David Rosenbarger asked, the street is the front right?

Director Weaver stated, no the lake is the front.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is this zoned?

Greg Jacobs stated, L-1. Right now it is 20’ on this side, but it could be argued.

Technically the way the primary was designed all of those lots where down at the lake. Legally the whole lakefront is the front.

David Rosenbarger stated, in a planned development you have to set the setbacks on all four sides. If I’m understanding that. You just through away all your setbacks. He is doing this to get away from having to file variances, he has it automatic this is what it is. This is the only part right now, with that ravine he is not going to go clear into the water, so that is not a problem. The problem is the driveway, that I want a certain depth.

They are going over the map again and several are talking at once again.

David Rosenbarger stated, I guess my concern is if this line and this line is always going to be the back of the house, the way the lake sets. If he sets the house this direction even though the lake is clear down here.

Greg Jacobs stated, what we were asking for was 20’ minimum setback and 30’ over here and then we would have to increase this here.

Gary Barbour stated, it is basically a 6’ per dwelling, if you have 2 dwellings next to each other it is 12’.

Dennis Sterrett stated, but no control of this lot here.

David Rosenbarger stated, this 30’ setback, in other words you could build a house right on the line the way you have this written up.

Greg Jacobs stated, you are 32’ from there right now.

Attorney Altman stated, you are servicing though, I mean you can say you can combine them or what ever, but with your photography here, you may not be able to do to much different laying those dwellings in there, than what you tentative set it up Greg. That is what I’m really saying here. I know you are not tied to that.

Greg Jacobs stated, this is flexibility, these are laid out as ??? units. The pictures I showed last month are more representing of, but if 5’ or whatever it is going to be. It’s just a matter of a truckload of dirt.

President Charles Anderson stated, let's go ahead and make a list of concerns and then go from there. We are not getting very far just setting around staring at the dam photo. We have a problem with setbacks, we have a problem with street sizes, or private drives. Do we have anything else on there?

Attorney Altman stated, the distances between dwellings.

President Charles Anderson stated, so we have….

Attorney Altman stated, the structure of the dwelling.

President Charles Anderson stated, the 12’ is that 12’ just between the structure or the setback.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what he is proposing.

President Charles Anderson stated, so right now he wants 12’ between these.

Jay Clawson stated, that is what we approved for Northbrook, but they have their specs are fireproof materials on both buildings.

Attorney Altman stated, and they are closer to the fire department.

President Charles Anderson asked, but you want 12’?

Attorney Altman stated, he said only one building would be fire proof. I’m just telling what I wrote down on the list Doc. I think he needs both for what we are saying. The amount of the road required.

President Charles Anderson stated, okay, part of these are apartment complexes right.

Greg Jacobs stated, well I would say they are condominiums, they don’t rent them, they buy them..

President Charles Anderson asked, so is this basically the way you want these planned then? Is this going to be what you are finally going to put in there, or are you proposing something else and then later on.

Greg Jacobs stated, no we are asking for flexibility to lay the structures in there as we determine what the market is.

President Charles Anderson asked, is this coming off your… The right away that is coming in here and through around here, you have a cul-de-sac turn around is 6th street and C street. C street is proposing to be 50’ right away through there, so we are coming off it into condominiums, so you are going to put, you are wanting down on the one end here away from the gully you are wanting 9 units.

Greg Jacobs stated, where those 3 are they may vary well be single family dwellings and the tri’s could be back here.

David Rosenbarger stated, or this could be a 4 unit or a quad.

Greg Jacobs stated, that is right.

President Charles Anderson stated, so we need to tell you exactly what we want as far as setbacks.

David Rosenbarger stated, we need to tell him what road sizes, side and rear setbacks.

President Charles Anderson stated, we need to have a discussion on the road sizes. Everything that we have done so far we have been trying to keep it 50’, if we can. What did we do on that subdivision, or was that a planned development to?

Jay Clawson stated, it was a 20’ road and 5’ curves. They show here just a minimum building line. They showed like 35’ to the….. They are going over the map again.

They are discussing the curves and the lines.

Attorney Altman stated, under the old one it looks like the setback there is rear 20’. The front is 30’ and the sides are 9’ on each side. That is where he got the 18’. I guess for the Board this is his old subdivision here. Just so you see where it was approved coming in on that 25’ that is all he had. Just to give you an idea, now if he just didn’t do anything here beside, he could come off of his C Street and have this.

The board is going over the old subdivision maps.

Attorney Altman stated, it is only feeding one unit or one lot verses the way he has. He has the right to do he could feed 3 or 4, so that is the difference, so it isn’t like we are stopping him if we decided to do what you are saying. He has this option right now. He could do the 14 units or 7 duplexes. That has been approved a long time ago.

Greg Jacobs stated, waiting for the sewer shortly after.

Attorney Altman stated, exactly right, at least you are not limited to doing something right now, if you didn’t like what we have to say.

Several are talking at once again.

President Charles Anderson stated, we need to move this along, we have to decide our selves what kind of setbacks, and we need to decide. We are actually giving him something he can take and mold anyway he wants to. We need to give him some guidelines at the moments. Our basic problem right now is to give him those guide lines. Here is the first planned development we ever did in White County this is under the old ordinance. Our main problems are setbacks and road size or private drives going into the subdivision, and distances between structures. I think we need to work on those 3 things right now and see if we can get those solved. We need to start at a small size and work our way up when we get enough votes then we can stop right there.

Greg Bossaer asked, what if we allow this to be 40’?

President Charles Anderson stated, well we could bring that up first.

David Rosenbarger stated, I would say at 40’ right away with a 20’ pavement on anything that goes to anymore than one home.

Attorney Altman stated, with 5’ sidewalk.

David Rosenbarger stated, no walk, but I don’t know how? What I’m looking at is the road would have to be center in the 40’, but we need on the West Side would need a setback from the edge of the pavement to the house.

Dennis Sterrett asked, what are you going to propose that to be?

There is discussion among the board members.

President Charles Anderson stated, all in favor of 40’ right away going back into this planned development off the 50’ access road raise your right hand. We have 8 in favor and 0 negative.

Okay now setbacks we are going with setbacks from the road or setbacks from where?

David Rosenbarger stated, well on the South line you have the county line as the point and that has to be considered setback because everything faces towards the lake.

President Charles Anderson stated, so the back setbacks are 20’. Everyone in favor of 20’ raise your hands. Now the front setbacks?

David Rosenbarger stated, we still need a back setback for the private road.

President Charles Anderson stated, okay from the private road back setbacks.

Jay Clawson stated, we need a minimum of 15’ from the pavement to the….

President Charles Anderson asked, who is in favor of the 15’ setback from the pavement from private drives raise your right hands. 8 in favor and 0 negative.

Don Ward stated, we also want to make sure about any driveways have at least a minimum of 20’.

President Charles Anderson stated, any driveways off of private roads have at least 20’ surface. All in favor.

Now we have Lake Fronts, they are already set, no we have to set those too because of it being a planned development. Normal lakefront is what?

Director Weaver stated, 30’.

President Charles Anderson asked, 30’ and that would not affect you. Okay 30’ front setbacks on the lakefront. All in favor. 8 in favor and 0 negatives.

Greg Jacobs asked, what about eliminating the variances for boathouses?

President Charles Anderson asked, is that up to us?

Jay Clawson stated, that is up to SFLECC.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, but when you start putting roofs over it, does that get into variances?

Director Weaver stated, if it is going to be on the property, which you have already gone through a variance for a boathouse on this property.

Greg Jacobs stated, we are going to put in piers with covered roofs.

Attorney Altman stated, Greg let's go ahead with the rest of this and then we will talk about that.

The next thing was the setback between buildings.

President Charles Anderson stated, and he wants it as close as 12’ and if it is as close as 12’ do we want both fire rated for.

Attorney Altman stated, here in town we put 12 and we have fire coded, just to tell you what we have done.

President Charles Anderson asked, both sides?

David Rosenbarger stated, well if you do that, is there a distance then that becomes no fire proof.

Attorney Altman stated, no, excuse me maybe I don’t’ understand your question.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there a distance where you don’t have to have a fire code.

Several are talking at once again about the side setbacks needing fireproof.

Jay Clawson stated, I would say if we do this we should go to 12 to 18, which is what the minimum between buildings anyway. I mean on the old one and then after that if they are farther apart then there shouldn’t be any restrictions at all.

President Charles Anderson stated, 12’ to 18’ both fire codes. Everyone in favor of that? Over 18’ no restrictions. Now we have that done what else?

Attorney Altman stated, now do you allow him to go the 12’, you may say you voted on that, but you didn’t exactly do that.

David Rosenbarger stated, I would say 12’ to 18’.

Attorney Altman stated, you allowing him to go 12’, is that the boards understanding of that.

So if you do 12’ and you are between there you got to fire code both sides.

President Charles Anderson stated, if you go over the 18’ then you do not have to. What is next?

Attorney Altman stated, he has told us where the dry hydrant is and that was one of the of the concerns.

Director Weaver asked, do we want a drawing or do we want that showing on here.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Charles Anderson stated that would be on the secondary, or we have to have it all on the primary plat. Everything we have said so far. Does all of that have to be on the primary plat?

Director Weaver stated, it gets this approval which is basically a rezoning approval then it goes to the County Commissioners and it comes back and we did on Wards a primary and secondary again. There will be two more votes from you yet, after tonight.

President Charles Anderson asked, so do we need this and what he presents? We need all of this for the Commissioners. We don’t actually need this on our plat.

Attorney Altman stated, on the plat is what we really need in writing.

President Charles Anderson asked, so you need this for the Commissioners?

David Rosenbarger stated, I have one more suggestion, that 12’ minimum will that also go back to 6’ per dwelling on side setbacks.

Director Weaver stated, you don’t have a property line.

Greg Jacobs stated, we have 2 property lines. I would just suggest that I could live with 8’.

President Charles Anderson stated, let's go with 8’ setback form the property lines. All in favor of that. 8 approved and 0 negatives. Okay now where are we.

Attorney Altman stated, okay what he has is the contingent of drainage approval. I think he is getting a waiver.

Greg Jacobs stated, I’m getting approval or a waiver.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to have it no matter what.

President Charles Anderson stated, drainage contingent on his waiver or approval of some type of drainage plan. All in favor raise your right hand. 8 approved and 0 negative. Have we covered everything?

Greg Jacobs stated, I like to no have to get a variance for covered roof structures over the piers.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anybody neighbor that is going to involve close to you, other than the people in the planned development.

Greg Jacobs stated, we have permission from, I mean the permit to do the piers from SFLECC, but the question is whether or not a variance has to be approved for a structure over those piers.

Director Weaver asked, is it on your property? Is it going to be on the property or is it going be on SFLECC?

Greg Jacobs stated, it would extend across the property line.

Director Weaver stated, then you will have to have variances unless this board grants you other wise.

President Charles Anderson stated, if a variance is need to for covers on these structures, do we want to grant him that? All in favor granting him a variance, if a variance is needed for the covers on the docks and piers can we do that.

Director Weaver asked, could you do that with it not being shown on the plat.

Jay Clawson stated, no, each one is going to have to be looked at differently. I mean if you are going to have one blanket boathouse and have one design then maybe we could approve one design up to so many.

President Charles Anderson stated, some of these covers could be two-stories with an apartment on top.

Jay Clawson stated, someone could make it three-stories and then you have a variance to do what ever you want. I think if you come up with a design of what you want, we could do that at the secondary. I think we will look at that then.

President Charles Anderson stated, we are passing this contingent on everything Jerry writes up for us to put on this. What ever we said on this tape.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m writing it up.

President Charles Anderson asked, we are rezoning and a primary?

Director Weaver stated, no, just a rezoning.

President Charles Anderson asked, what are we rezoning this too?

Director Weaver stated, to a planned development.

President Charles Anderson asked, do you have a question?

Don MacOwan stated, I’m Don MacOwan and I was told I could present my case in front of you tonight. On all of these setbacks that you are doing. We have got some farm ground that is near some more of these residential and I’m asking that you look into the situation of 15’. When people put up their houses between them I don’t care, but along the farm fields. The first thing people want to do is put their flowers down there and all of that. I’m asking that you look into the situation to keep them back no less than 15’ away from the farm field, gardens and all because you got not only us. The first think they want to do is go right out there and put those little trees and the least amount of drift kills them and then they are mad. I really think that this is a situation that needs to be looked into and see if we can’t corral some of this. The insurance companies and the chemical companies…..

Greg Bossaer asked, are these in Residential areas Don? Are they residential zoned or agriculture zoned?

Don MacOwan stated, well they are how ever you want to call it. It was agriculture zoned when it started and there are ag fields all on the side of it, but they all want to come clear out in these housing additions and plant everything right out against it. They won’t mow the grass along the thing.

President Charles Anderson stated, I don’t know how we would address something like that because then they will come back and say well now that we have this housing addition out here then those farmers shouldn’t be able to plant within 15’ of the edge of the field.

Don MacOwan stated, so in other words if we go over here, its like in one case, my son tore an old barn down, and put one right back in the same position and it had to go through the whole nine yards it had to be 15’ from that property line and all that, so what is the difference.

President Charles Anderson stated, for a long time here we have tried to seek a happy medium or tried to get the farmers to help us on keeping the ground from going into large subdivisions too. Anytime the public and the farm meets there is going to be a few problems. I don’t think there’s anyway we can legislate how close someone can plant within the edge of a property line or anything like that.

Attorney Altman stated, well it is a thought and let me do some thinking on this and see if we can.

Don MacOwan stated, okay, per say that she has, if we had him come out there and survey that property we know where our property lines are. We are not supposed to be on the other side of that. We would naturally be in trouble. We stay where we belong.

President Charles Anderson stated, somebody plants something on your side of it, then you can spray it anytime you want.

Don MacOwan stated, some of those people come to darn close and then that is when everyone is mad. That’s just the way it is.

Dennis Sterrett stated, but what they are trying to say is if it weren’t for you to keep them back 50’.

Without further discussion the board voted.

Attorney Altman stated, contingent upon the votes that were previously made on the record we have rezoning PUD 8 votes affirmative and 0 negative. This will go before the County Commissioners next Monday morning.

President Charles Anderson stated, next on the agenda would be business. We have some business. Do we have any questions on the red color indicators?

Dennis Sterrett stated, I was just looking at were it says trucks. The last page what is the difference then auto trucks. I see what you are saying.

Director Weaver stated, the only they I could figure out Denny, this is not something new that was added, the only thing is this is referring to large trucks, semi, dump trucks, commercial.

Jay Clawson stated, shouldn’t that say that, instead of just truck sales.

Director Weaver stated, we did put it so it is in the same zoning as auto and small truck sales. So it is allowed in the same zoning.

Attorney Altman stated, I have a question on the front page on the auto body detailing special exception.

Dennis Sterrett stated, it says auto body repairing.

Attorney Altman stated, auto body repairing, I’m sorry if I said that wrong in R-3. I just had a question whether that was what we wanted to do or not.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think that is correct. It is auto detailing and it should be a R-2. Some people try to do it as a home occupation that was my thought on that. They could do it on the lines of home occupation with a special exception.

Greg Bossaer stated, I think one other point on the research agriculture are they talking about a company that has 40 acres and does research for there own. Or a test plot for his own benefit.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that might need to be covered in a definition section. I think Greg you may have just did it by what you said. I think it is appropriate that does get discriminate out. The catering business on special exception in A-1 and R-2. I know what you are shooting at Diann, I guess I wondered about those whether that is really right.

President Charles Anderson stated, they want to be able to bake cakes in their houses.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I know they do. Jane Decamp out here has done that for a long time.

Don Ward stated, you have animal shelter in a B-2.

Director Weaver stated, Don the way I did that I kind of refer to a kennel and it is allowed in a A-1, B-1, or a B-2 all with a special exception. I dropped the B-1 and I left the B-2 that is what I based that on. Whatever the board sees fit. This is an animal shelter not a kennel.

Don Ward stated, that would be enough. I wouldn’t want it next to my business area.

Attorney Altman stated, that is probably a good point.

Director Weaver asked, then do we want to change the dog kennel to where it is the same.

There is a discussion among the board about the zoning for kennels.

Leaving the kennel as is it, but leaving animal shelter in A-1 with special exception.

Director Weaver stated, I have one I added because we have been having some problems that we need to address. John Raines said I would be better off leaving this one completely out. Pasturage and I have it as Business use and Agriculture. We are having a real problem that we have got to address where live stock can be located in conjunction to a residence and our biggest one is not with cows, or pigs, but with horses, and it is growing. We have 4 problems.

President Charles Anderson stated, there use to be a 3 acres minimum what happened with that.

Director Weaver stated, 3 acres consist as a farm, but no where does it say you have to have a farm to have live stock.

President Charles Anderson stated, about 10 years ago we did.

Director Weaver stated, let me do some digging in the ordinance we have got to do something with this. The only thing that I’m aware of in the ordinance we restrict that you have to have 3 acres for every two horses, which really is that fair. Some people stall their horses and leave them leave in stalls all the time. Why do they need 3 acres?

Dennis Sterrett stated, I’m with Don, if you live out in the country and you have to put u with the country stuff.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with some of that.

David Rosenbarger asked, Diann on the Nursery plant materials, you are only allowed that under an A-1 with special exception only.

Director Weaver stated, because it is a business type, to me a nursery is more your actually do the growing.

David Rosenbarger asked, then what is Musall’s? Wouldn’t that be a nursery?

Director Weaver stated, we also have garden shops.

Greg Bossaer stated, it is to late to look at but a nursery could be planting or bedding plants you are going to grow them.

Director Weaver stated, we have a green house commercial, which is an A-1 with a special exception of B-2 or I-1. Garden supply shop is in a B-1 with a special exception or a B-2.

Greg Bossaer stated, its just supplies.

Director Weaver asked, okay, what do we want to change this too?

David Rosenbarger stated, I think it needs to be in a business.

Director Weaver stated, okay, so B-2 with a special exception.

Greg Bossaer asked, open sales lots, is that like where you might have a car sale.

Director Weaver stated, auto sales need to be under auto sales zoning. Open sales lot to be is more like a….

Jay Clawson stated, like flea markets, or sell trailers.

David Rosenbarger stated, open sales markets means you can sell anything you want.

Dennis Sterrett stated, that is right.

Greg Bossaer stated, what she is saying is you bring something in for the day or temporary.

President Charles Anderson stated, but in the same token you could have a temporary auto sales too.

There is a discussion among the board members.

Attorney Altman stated, Diann you have a red box under newspaper print facility. Is that really what you meant for nursery plant materials?

Director Weaver stated, I was trying to bring our newspaper into compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, okay that is fine you didn’t make it newspaper-printing red, that is why I wasn’t sure it was on the right thing.

Director Weaver stated, no because it is already in the ordinance. I just added the B-2 zoning.

President Charles Anderson asked, the sign that has gone up for the farmers market what is it. I didn’t understand that. What is the farmers market? Is it one we are going to have here under the sales deal.

Director Weaver stated, they are in a B-2 zoning. It would be an open sales lot.

Jay Clawson stated, I wouldn’t step on any toes there.

President Charles Anderson stated, I’m not going to step on anyone’s toes, but who build the signs?

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t realize they were going up and staying up. That is where the problem is.

Jay Clawson stated, they would be taken down when the summer is over. They are temporary signs. Just like election signs.

Director Weaver stated, they are bigger than most.

Don Ward stated, the grain elevator is only in A-1, it should be in I-1 or I-2.

Director Weaver stated, okay my big question is back to the pasturage. Do we want to leave it in an A-1 zoning or take it out completely? Jerry what are we getting into by doing that?

Greg Bossaer asked, are you trying to keep horses out of the R-2 or something?

Director Weaver stated, yes, exactly and away from residences.

David Rosenbarger stated, I didn’t know you could have a horse in residential.

Director Weaver stated, they are doing it because the ordinance does address it. It doesn’t address it well enough.

Attorney Altman stated, and we are getting a lot of that in there and a lot of complaints.

President Charles Anderson stated, I would look at the old ordinance and see what it said.

Greg Bossaer stated, why don’t you do that for now and then we.

Director Weaver stated, okay take it out and I will get the old ordinance out and research it.

Director Weaver stated, I do want to let the board know that Jaenicke that had the Marina that was rezoned last year North of Lowe’s Bridge. They had a commitment that they had to have a building up approximately up by May 31 and the property cleaned up. The County Commissioners had granted a 30 day extension on that and I’m just trying to keep you posted on what is going on.

Jay Clawson stated, I noticed that he had building materials lying there, like he was going to construct this building himself. Wasn’t it suppose to be built to a standard that was passed by a Stated release?

Director Weaver stated, it does have a state release and it will have to have inspections.

Dennis Sterrett asked, wasn’t it supposed to be a certain size?

Director Weaver stated, it was to be approximately 6,000 square feet and it does not meet that, but the County Commissioners have allowed it.

President Charles Anderson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I do not have anything else.

Greg Bossaer made a motion to adjourn.

David Rosenbarger 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