Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, March 8, 2004, 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, Scott Kyburz, Gregory Bossaer, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Richard Turbin, Mary Turbin, and Charles R. Mellon.

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson and roll call was taken. Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the January 12, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by Don Ward and carried unanimously.

****

#294 Richard Turbin; Requesting approval of a 2 subdivision to be known as Turbin’s Addition #1 on 1.703 acres. The property is located West of Lowe’s Bridge at 4021 E. Monon Road and 4023 E. Monon Road.

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

 

Richard Turbin stated, I’m Richard Turbin.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, do any of the Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Turbin?

 

David Rosenbarger stated, I was looking at the paper and I’m not sure which one it is, but I don’t know if this is a problem or anything. I was looking at the soil and I see serve wetness everywhere. Is that a problem? Is that anything that the board addresses?

 

Attorney Altman stated, it is certainly something that we address. We always require before a building permit, that the Health Department reviews the soil and that it complies with their requirements. Is this on the sewage?

 

Director Weaver stated, yes.

 

Richard Turbin stated, it is also on pure sand. We have never had a water problem.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, I just see here where it says severe, severe, and severe.

 

Richard Turbin stated, before we went to the sewer we had the original septic that we had 30 years ago. That is how well the soil absorbed the water.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, are you on the new sewer system?

 

Richard Turbin stated, yes, we were one on the first group through. Everything that has a building on it has hook up to it.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, are there any more questions about this?

 

David Rosenbarger asked, what is this zoned?

 

Richard Turbin stated, the end lots are zone B-2 and the other is Residence.

 

Director Weaver stated, we just did a rezoning on this last month.

 

David Rosenbarger asked, what is lot 5 and 6 then?

 

Director Weaver stated, lot 5 and 6 are B-2, to the North is also R-2.

 

Dennis Sterrett asked, is that big building gone?

 

Richard Turbin stated, yes, it is gone.

 

Attorney Altman asked, is the small building still there?

 

Richard Turbin stated, yes. I’m in the process of selling that end lot and they are going to put a storage facility and his office there.

 

David Rosenbarger asked, on which lot?

 

Richard Turbin stated, the end one lot 6.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, has all of the subdivision ordinance been meet on this?

 

Director Weaver stated, for primary approval yes, but no drainage.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, are there anymore questions? I don’t think we have any questions from the audience.

 

Without further discussion the board voted.

 

The Primary Approval Request for a 2 lot subdivision to be known as Turbin’s Addition located in Monon Township, was approved by a vote of 8 to 1, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met.

President Charles Anderson stated, we have a secondary on this, but everything isn’t ready for the secondary.

 

Director Weaver stated, they do not have the drainage approval yet.

 

Attorney Altman stated, obviously that is secondary to hooking up to thew sewer system.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, so we can’t vote on the secondary than.

 

Director Weaver asked, Denny do you have any impute on this?

 

Dennis Sterrett stated, the engineer and I went out and looked at it and we didn’t think the contours on the primary match what is existing out there. We sent it back to Jim.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, so Jim has to look at it again.

 

Dennis Sterrett stated, it has to go to the drainage board and it meets next Monday and there will be two drainage board meetings before the next Area Plan.

 

Richard Turbin stated, there is one next Monday and when is the other one.

 

Dennis Sterrett stated, the first Monday of April.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, can we do this with?

 

Attorney Altman stated, if there are questions, you should not do it now.

 

Several talking at once.

 

Don Ward asked, what is wrong with the contours? Are they running the wrong direction?

 

Dennis Sterrett stated, well, on lot 5 several contours in there that are not shown. There are two pits in there.

 

Attorney Altman stated, we certainly need to see that before we approve this. The drainage board approval also.

 

Dennis Sterrett stated, well he is asking for a waiver from the drainage board.

 

Several talking at once.

 

The secondary has been tabled until the April 12, 2004 meeting.

 

 

President Charles Anderson stated, okay next on the agenda would be business. We have ordinance here changing some things. Commissioners have any questions about these changes?

 

Director Weaver stated, there was a group to get together.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, we didn’t make it.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, on page 3 table 1. I think that A, B, and C should all still be special exception. You are opening up amusement park, playground, and parks. The copy I received in the mail had wrote Special Exception on B. Campground should be permitted, shall be a special exception in a B-2 district.

 

Director Weaver stated, that was probably something that I noted last month.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, I still think that all 3 of those should be special exceptions.

 

Attorney Altman asked, all three of them?

 

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, when you get down to #2 below that. 3.204 A, B, no use should cause hurt vibration beyond the lot line in such quantity as to endanger the public health safety and welfare. What is that? Why put it in if you can’t enforce it.

 

Attorney Altman stated, well you can you have to determine, that is what a judge does. Does endanger.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, I was under the impression that this whole thing that Mr. Spackman brought this to our attention was to avoid court. If you are going to write such an ordinance shouldn’t you, that is just my opinion. If we are going to write an ordinance isn’t that to keep from going to a judge to decide this for us. I mean if you are going to put that in there, I guess what I would look for. Somebody who can’t stand the smell of popcorn is that dangerous to your health. As I read through this I know what they are after, they are trying to keep from going to court again. To me this just opened it up for two lawyers to just have a hay day.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I won’t argue with you.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, that’s what I mean, why adopt something that isn’t going to do anything.

 

Don Ward stated, the noise and vibration both. It would take a lot of vibration to endanger your house. To me they shouldn’t have any vibration beyond their property line. Why should they be allowed to keep their rides back away from the property lines so that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, we all know that is not the general through out a subdivision or ordinance, but we do allow vibration.

 

Several talking at once.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, like D you can have spot lights flashing in your bedroom window, but if it is not effecting your health, its okay to do it according to this.

 

Director Weaver stated, I think there should be something in here about screening. I didn’t see anything about that. If there are residences beside it there needs to be a screening in between.

 

Attorney Altman asked, a screening would be like?

 

Director Weaver stated, vegetation, fence, something. There is nothing in here about that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t take out what is in the ordinance.

 

Director Weaver stated, there is nothing in the ordinance now. Not in this situation because it has a B-2 zoning.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, the more I have read through this, the more vague it seems.

 

Jay Clawson stated, are they aware that we have different zonings our old ordinance would be in effect like we had B-2 to Residential then they would have to put screening. The people who have built and most of them any more there are no residences really left. Most of them are businesses that are opened up to rent out to people coming to visit the park. Those are the people that want to be in that atmosphere. They are not taking a vacation away from it all.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the noise and the vibration doesn’t bother them that much.

 

Jay Clawson stated, if you had a tendency of having more residences there in a new situation where somebody wants to develop it. It has different zonings close to it, then it should be very restrictive. They should have, if someone has a chose of having a 1000 acres of ground developed, yeah they should be made to develop that as far. Have the parking lot be a buffer between residential and the park. When Indiana Beach is stuck where it is now, it is a 60 year park that all these people have come and squatted and business right on their door step, how can you say all of sudden say we are going to be come real restrictive with it. The only way to do that is to buy all of that property and bull doze everything.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I think that is what your BZA really said in the decision.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, that is my other thing, is every piece of property that butts up to Indiana Beach business or commercial zoning.

 

Director Weaver stated, none of it is zoned Residential or Lake Property. When you turn onto Indiana Beach road all of that property from there on is B-2.

 

David Rosenbarger asked, I mean to the South and the North? Everything to the South?

 

Director Weaver stated, the property across the bayou is probably residential. You’ve got the water in between.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, with the water in between them.

 

Several talking at once.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, that is my concern and to be the way it is written it just opens the door and it means nobody can complain or file anything against them. If the order gets to strong, or the lights glaring in really bright, if they decide to just go in there and light it up like day light there is no stopping them. The way that it written. I agree with the people who move into that area and want that atmosphere.

 

Several talking at once.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, they could go even brighter, even louder, even without any consequences what so ever.

 

Don Ward stated, I was thinking more of them, I was thinking of one moving into the area and everybody around it trapped. What happens in the long run is like Indiana Beach the property all goes way up in value. They make money out of it and they can sell it for a good price.

 

David Scott stated, if you made them all special exceptions, can’t you make it so you have to look at each one individual. I mean you can look at the whole picture this way and keep from setting an amusement park next to subdivision or something like that. Make it all special exception.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, right I think that is what everyone is agreeing on that? My question is on the performance standards.

 

David Scott stated, I guarantee it if you are within 200’ of that roller coaster, you are going to feel the vibration of it. I don’t know how you would rate that.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, with the water all the way around it, the vibration I’m thinking big deal, the noise, the lights, the odors.

 

David Scott stated, once again if you live on the main lake there, I mean speed boats go by there just like limos.

 

Don Ward stated, I think the lake is the most logical place we think of, but 6th St. is also a place that will develop that way eventually.

 

Attorney Altman stated, we have one now that has a hold on it.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, how will the people around here feel if he puts in Stadium lights and just lights it up like day light around here. That is the thing that concerns me. The way it is written anybody who wants to get that amusement park or campground, or playground the way this is written, you could put up unlimited amount of lights.

 

Attorney Altman stated, probably not unlimited.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, the way this is written.

 

Don Ward stated, how do you stop it, look at McDonalds. I mean we’ve got enough light there to light up half of the town. I’m sure they did it for security.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that is a good example of what he is saying. I’m just saying there is a limit, however, it is how.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, I’m going by what I saw Kokomo’s ordinances they have luminary limits on all of that. Residential, Commercial, everywhere.

 

Jay Clawson stated, with new technology now they have shields and you can have bright lights the illuminate the area underneath and not pass that.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, their ordinance is written that way.

 

Jay Clawson stated, if we could find that kind of standards and add and put that kind of things in.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that sounds like a good idea.

 

Jay Clawson stated, lighting, the noise, so many decibels and the lights. That wouldn’t be bad if you could find where someone else has written it.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, they are out there. I guess that is what I’m looking at. I don’t want to adopt something that is going to haunt you. I’m looking at that light deal. I have seen the lights like you are talking about that they put the shades in them just brighter as all get out straight down. If you go to the lot line a 100’ away and it is almost dark.

 

Attorney Altman asked, why don’t you bring a copy of that ordinance in?

 

President Charles Anderson stated, why don’t you see if you can get that group together, and see if you can figure anything out or do you want to take extra time at a meeting.

 

David Scott stated, it will be hard to make standards since Indiana Beach is already there and something else that is not there.

 

Dennis Sterrett asked, what happens if somebody comes into Diann’s office and says that the noise is older between the BAH what does she do then?

 

Director Weaver stated, I think you would have to handle that like we do with a fence complaint being on the property line. You would go and they would have to provide us proof. That is what we have been doing with fences if it is on their property. They get the survey.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I think at 110 it becomes uncomfortable and I think that is what I have read. I’m a poor person on that.

 

Director Weaver stated, I have a problem that they have made for the off street parking. They have taken out on the parking that it has to go to the BZA for anything that doesn’t meet the parking requirements and they have changed all of those to the Director and I don’t agree with that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I think that all you guys remember what I sort of said to start with. I thought due to height restriction I thought that if we allowed it to go up to a height that would be sufficient to have modern rides for these regulated amusement devises as they have defined on page two. I thought that would address a lot of the comparative noncompliance that they have with our present ordinance. It seems to me to allow them to have their operations comply without all of this other. I’m not telling you that the other is okay. I think it needs some study and some figuring out. I guess what I’m saying is I agree with you, but I think that we could do the other and he said he needed 140’ for those devises. Put that in as a, look under ordinances, it says height restrictions. Put it in at I think a s or j that would allow them to be there in this B-2 zoning. We could move on, but with that and this is something that I think we need to study more.

 

Jay Clawson asked, doesn’t there need to be any restrictions on height to property line. Say that they want to build this outrages tall ride that, does it need to be set back a certain distance from.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, so that it doesn’t fall

 

Jay Clawson stated, somebody else’s, or off the park boundary. If there is ever a catastrophe that needs to be set back. There can’t be any margin of error if something happens.

 

Don Ward stated, it should be 50% of the height of the structure away from the property line.

 

David Rosenbarger stated, they would probably help on the vibration too. If you build a big roller coaster right on the property line, when it goes around it you have a structure supporting it right there on the property line and there is a house you are going to have vibration at that support.

 

Don Ward stated, actually if you have B-2 zoning right next to it, then the restrictions don’t only have to be quite so tight, if you have a residential area. You have a mix.

 

President Charles Anderson asked, what if you are doing this next to the water, how are you going.

 

Jay Clawson stated, if you put it next to the water, it is an open buffer there, where it is not really a house or structure.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, but it is still a property line.

 

Attorney Altman stated, on our present ordinance there is no setback on the rear.

 

Director Weaver stated, it is 10’ or whatever zoning is adjacent to it. You can’t meet that either because a lot of those rides go into the water.

 

Attorney Altman stated, as I understand it they get consent to encroach from SFLECC.

 

Director Weaver stated, that still doesn’t let them go around out setbacks.

 

Attorney Altman stated, not necessarily.

 

David Scott stated, if someone puts a 150’ structure in on 6th St. then they have to have a 150’ of on each side of them?

 

Several answered 75’ on each side. Several talking at once.

 

Don Ward stated, I just threw that out as an idea. It ought to be some distance depending on the height. I realize the skyscrapers are built right to the property lines, but there are very solid structures.

 

David Scott asked, what if someone doesn’t want a 150’ structure out on 6th St.? It doesn’t make any difference they are going to get it whether they want it or not.

 

Don Ward stated, I think that is where if they are next to a B-2, or next to R-2 then that wouldn’t make a lot of difference on the height.

 

Director Weaver stated, this is saying that they are exempt from the height requirement.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, but.

 

Several are talking at once.

 

Attorney Altman stated, what if I prepared an amendment to the ordinance and stuck in a figure and I would have to check Mr. Spackman’s testimony to see exactly what he asked, for in the way of a height of a regulated amusement device. I think that is a fairly good definition in here that they have in their ordinance. Put down if it is next to an R district or other or an L. Really what I’m going to say is any district except B-2 that it be 50% of the height. B-2 I was going to put 25% figuring.

 

Don Ward stated, 25% or a minimum of 25’ or so.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, that would exclude the lake. The lake wouldn’t be considered.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m thinking and this will take a little drafting and all. 50% next to any district other than a B-2 and 25% or 25’ whichever is the larger.

 

Don Ward asked, what do you think about it?

 

Director Weaver asked, why are you exempting the B-2 and but not an industrial. I could see that the height could be just as detrimental to a B-2 next door as it can be.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I’m looking, I hear what you are saying, but I hear everybody saying that the people next to the Indiana Beach go there and there they to prosper.

 

Director Weaver stated, we are not just dealing with Indiana Beach.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, we are dealing countywide. Can you do that with a special exception to get closer?

 

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m saying is I’m not changing the special exception requirement Diann.

 

Director Weaver stated, I realize that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not doing anything except the height.

 

Director Weaver stated, I think an industrial use would care less about those than a B-2 would.

 

Jay Clawson stated, a change of variance and zoning. If you go to an I-2 to a B-2 or an I-2 to an R-1 whatever it is as a buffer to the different types of zoning that is where the height should apply.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I will add B-2 and I-1 and I-2 to that.

 

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know what is right.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t either except I’m trying to prepare something that is closer to what I hear that the conversation is here.

 

Don Ward stated, I think it would be easier to go the other way and say when next to an “R” zoning and then if it is not an “R” zoning then it would fall within. It still should be back away from the property line no matter what the zoning is. For emergency vehicles and things like that.

 

Several talking at once.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not saying except it, I’m just writing something up. I hear some real monumental problems that Dave is talking about. Everyone saying yes, those are issues. To get something else done. I was thinking at least get it so that the height is more conforming with the practices and they are going to have to get special exceptions.

 

David Scott stated, the bad thing is I suspect that the roller coaster is several feet high and it is right on the property line and he doesn’t have a choose because of the situation down there. Are we going, I think what you guys just stated is correct. We need setbacks for all of these things. Then what are we going to do to him the next time he comes in here with a ride and once again he is in a fixed area again. He can’t go anywhere and he has one spot and it is going to be right on the property line.

 

Don Ward stated, he will has to ask for a special exception.

 

Several talking at once

 

Jay Clawson stated, they are going to have to go with a special exception to put this type of thing in any way. If they design as if it is setting next to a residence. If they want to build it farther to the right they are going to have to builder farther in. They are going to have to change the boundary of the rides to where they are going to need any kind of height. Or go on the backside where it is on the lakeside. If the zoning is going to be a hazard to somebody off of the property you would have to restrict it.

 

Gary Barbour stated, I agree with what you are saying, but in some point and time how big is he really going to get, unless he goes and buys more ground around him to go bigger.

 

Jay Clawson stated, he only has two places in that situation where they have any change in the property that they have to keep. If someone else wants to build a new amusement park, you can regulate it more because they have more acres to design and build this thing. I doubt if it would ever happen, but you can restrict it a lot more.

 

Greg Bossaer asked, is that the height restriction right next, if you are doing a roller coaster and you have 75’ on one side or on one edge and 10’ on the other, where is the measurement going to be taken?

 

Several answered closes to the property.

 

Greg Bossaer stated, that is not indicated. Should that be written in, if you are looking at a building and a structure I mean where is the highest point?

 

Don Ward stated, what you have to look at is any point on that structure would have to be 50% of that height from the property line. So if the thing goes up it is a 100’ tall, you have to be 50’ from the property line. The closest part would have to be 25’ or 25% of the height at that point.

 

Greg Bossaer stated, on some of the rides, the ride goes up higher than the structure. I mean the fix structure may be here, but the thing slings.

 

Don Ward stated, that is the height that you have to go by.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, you can’t go by the height of the car, you have to go by the fix structure.

 

Don Ward stated, you have to consider it.

 

Several talking at once.

 

Attorney Altman stated, at least let me do something and I think what Dave’s issues are more critical.

 

Don Ward asked, what about holding them to the 100% of the height on an R?

 

Several talking at once.

 

Jay Clawson asked, should that not be the same on signs? We are running into with the bigger tall signs. You have a 30’ setback from the right-of-way, but if that sign is 55’ or 60’ tall. If something happens that would be right out in the middle of the roadway. Should it be if the sign is 30’ tall it should be 30’ away from the road and it won’t fall into the road? The higher the sign is over a certain amount the sum of the setback it should be back higher than the other should? Does that need to be changed in our ordinance also?

 

David Rosenbarger stated, the off street parking should not be up to the Area Plan.

 

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

 

President Charles Anderson stated, that is something that we are going to have to address.

 

Don Ward stated, this one sentence here says where as a legislative body recognizes a certain land use by their very natural produced by vibration and glare, but never the less promotes the public interest to such an extent as to out way any private inconvenience.

 

Several talking at once.

 

David Scott stated, do we need to address any permits for buildings inside the property or is that addressed some where else. Setback so many feet?

 

Director Weaver stated, the buildings are already addressed just like any other building.

 

Everyone talking at once.

 

Discussing if they are going to get together and discuss the amendments.

 

****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Fisher, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission