Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, April 12, 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, David Scott, Stephen Fisher, Gregory Bossaer, Robert Thomas. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Jim Saylor, Richard Turbin, Charles Mellon, Gerald Armstrong, and Susan Wiseman.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jay Clawson and roll call was taken. Greg Bossaer made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the February 9, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Rosenbarger and carried unanimously. David Rosenbarger made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the March 8, 2004 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

****

#853 Town of Burnettsville; The property is located on 1.72 and 1.66 acres, more or less, in the Town of Burnettsville at 703 S. West Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to rezone from R-2 and A-1 to B-1.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, do we have a representative for this?

Jim Saylor stated, I’m Jim Saylor, President of the Town Council.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, please step to the mic please.

Jim Saylor stated, Jim Saylor, President of the Burnettsville Town Council. Are there any questions? We want to put in a building for our Police Department and that land is currently and has been since 1950 used as the Burnettsville Town Park. There is an equipment shed and a pump station for the sewer system. The building would be 12’ x 24’ and 12’ x 20’ of that would be actual office space for the police department.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, the park will remain as is?

Jim Saylor stated, exactly as it is.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, do any of the board members have any questions?

David Rosenbarger asked, this doesn’t affect that park that is there?

Director Weaver stated, it doesn’t even take it out of compliance. We looked at this and I don’t remember, but it will still be in compliance.

Director Weaver stated, a part of the playground can go in a B-2, it needs a special exception. It is still a zoning that is possible.

David Rosenbarger asked, what about B-1?

Director Weaver stated, the same as.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, so he is going to have to come back for the special exception for that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes they should, it would be good to do.

Director Weaver stated, only if they enlarge it.

Attorney Altman stated, correct.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, what is there is grandfathered then.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Rosenbarger asked, do you understand that, if you add anymore playground equipment you would have to have a special exception.

Jim Saylor stated, if we replace existing, is that an issue.

Director Weaver stated, no, you are allowed to maintain it.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, if you were going to expand where you need to build more pavilions or whatever, you would probably have to go through that exception period at that time.

Are there any questions from the crowd? I say that we take it to a vote.

Attorney Altman stated, this is obviously in the middle of town and a service area for your Fire Department, central location and along the major artery of the community.

Jim Saylor stated, yes, this is only for a police department.

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the town of Burnettsville for their action.

****

#294 Richard Turbin; Requesting approval of a 2 lot 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. Tabled from March 8, 2004 meeting.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, a representative for that is?

Richard Turbin stated, I’m Richard Turbin, owner of the property. I tabled it because I didn’t have a drainage report, which I now have.

Director Weaver stated, that is correct.

Richard Turbin stated, I got an exemption from the drainage board.

Director Weaver stated, we did send the board a copy of that letter that we received regarding the drainage.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, weren’t the contour lines, they were not sure if they were right. Did Milligan redo that?

Richard Turbin stated, that all has been redone and they wouldn’t give me the drainage exemption until that was done.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, okay because Denny is not here tonight. So that were the two main issues that were holding it up. Are we going for primary approval?

Director Weaver stated, no we all ready did the primary, we are on the secondary.

Attorney Altman stated, so the evidence is that the contour maps have been rechecked by Mr. Milligan.

Richard Turbin stated, yes they have.

Attorney Altman state, the ones we had before us and I’m talking about the one received on the 18th of February of this year and signed by January 8, 2004 by Mr. James L. Milligan are the correct contour maps.

Richard Turbin stated, yes, I mean I’m not sure.

Attorney Altman stated, they are the only ones we have.

Richard Turbin stated, I know that the surveyor has the current one you requested. It was hand walked over.

Director Weaver stated, the only condition that we put on this was that it needed a drainage approval.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I think Denny was concerned about the contour lines. We didn’t make our approval conditional.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right, but I know he asked about it.

Director Weaver stated, it must have satisfied him or they…

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, I know it must have been right because he is on the drainage board.

Richard Turbin stated, they said that if I ever put a building on there I had to put a fence up or a screening.

Director Weaver stated, that is not something that needs to be at this time.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, is there any more questions?

The Secondary Approval request for a subdivision to be known as Turbin’s Addition #1 located in Monon 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.

****

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, next on the agenda is business. First item of business is an appeal between Gerald Armstrong and Wiseman’s Seal Coating. Is there anyone here representing this?

Gerald Armstrong stated, I’m Gerald Armstrong, and I’m the one who owns the property and I really had nothing to do with the business what so ever. The business was not a business that was operated at the house. This is a mobile business and it is no different then someone driving a semi truck or something else. I don’t want any conflict over this. The day I received this, the next day this was moved away from the property. We had no idea that this was against the law because like I said they had to go out to the place or to the people’s place to bid the jobs and all the work is done away from the house. We didn’t feel that this was against the ordinance. We just didn’t know. If it is against the law we still don’t know.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, it is against our zoning laws. There are certain business that can be ran out of the home.

Gerald Armstrong asked, a semi can be run out of the home?

Attorney Altman stated, no, you can park your semi in front of the home. What is your phone number sir?

Gerald Armstrong stated, 583-9930.

Attorney Altman stated, 583-9930 and is that the only phone number that existed at your home.

Gerald Armstrong stated, I don’t live there. This was not my place of business. My daughter had the house, her and her husband.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, and what was their phone number?

Gerald Armstrong stated, my phone number.

Attorney Altman stated, no their phone number.

Gerald Armstrong stated, 583-6076. This is my daughter.

Attorney Altman stated, 583-6076 and that is the number that shows in the pictures on the back of the Seal Coating business.

Susan Wiseman stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that is where you had the phone, even though you did the work somewhere else.

Susan Wiseman stated, it was business and residential phone.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, that is what I thought. The evidence would be the business phone was there and you also and you took business there. Did you take phone calls there.

Susan Wiseman stated, phone calls and that was it.

Attorney Altman stated, probably not much more to the business.

Director Weaver stated, there, as you can see in the pictures there was equipment setting outside and I think that is what initiated the complaint was the equipment that was setting outside.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right.

Susan Wiseman stated, it took 3 years for them to notify us and when they did, it was moved the next day.

Director Weaver stated, and they were good to work with.

Susan Wiseman stated, I called here.

Director Weaver stated, they did remove it, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I just want to make sure that phone number was tied to the, where you lived.

Susan Wiseman stated, right, but it was my home phone also and it wasn’t just for the business.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, are there any questions from the board or anything.

David Scott stated, does it specifically say you can not run a seal coating business in a residential area, or the amount of employees, or what is the regulation. I don’t have my book with me.

Director Weaver stated, the new schedule of uses that we adopted, which I don’t have with me either. I believe it says it has to be in a B-2.

David Rosenbarger stated, it mainly says you can’t have business in a residential area. Phone number at that residence.

Director Weaver stated, which this wouldn’t have qualified as a home occupation either because it did have the equipment setting outside.

Several are talking at once.

Susan Wiseman stated, it would have been moved that day. The truck was broke. The u joint was out and I had to wait until the next day. The business doesn’t exist anymore. I don’t have it therefore I don’t have the money to pay the $500.

Attorney Altman stated, Mr. DeMoss is he, he is mentioned in the report from the Director. Is he running the business?

Susan Wiseman stated, it is his equipment now, I took it back to him.

Gerald Armstrong stated, we took it back to him.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, you bought it off of him.

Susan Wiseman stated, we were buying it off of him and then when I got this letter I just said take the equipment back, I don’t want it anymore and he pretty much voided out contract and went ahead and took it back.

Attorney Altman stated, I just wasn’t sure how Mr. DeMoss was associated here.

Greg Bossaer stated, the problem has been resolved as quickly as they could.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right, I don’t see a problem with amending this.

Steve Fisher stated, I make a motion that we don’t have a fine.

Greg Bossaer stated, I second that.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, let's bring this to a vote. Show of hands. It is voted that the fine be removed.

Gerald Armstrong stated, thank you very much.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, next on the order of business is the amendments to the zoning ordinance. Diann do you want to bring us up to speed on this or Jerry.

Director Weaver stated, actually I think Jerry.

Attorney Altman stated, I will have to look at them, I don’t have a copy here. I’m looking at the one here that talks about amending chapter 7. Let me get to that. The reason this, I did this was because there are question and in this Board and through BZA then through Area Plan. There was a question in a lawsuit that we had about whether we still had an improvement location permit and a certificate of occupancy permit allowed and authorized by our ordinance. Even though it was amended and in my opinion taken out of effect by the inspection ordinance adopted by the County and that is what Mr. Anderson is now administrating. I thought well just to make it plan and clear we would just take those two sections out of the ordinance and that is what the first part of it #1 is intended to do and there is no #2. That is what that is intended and the reason why I prepared that. Just to make plan, plan and pull that out of the ordinance. Any questions?

Director Weaver stated, I commented to Jerry though, where he has these numbers should be renumbered. I don’t advise that, my opinion they should just be deleted and the numbers not reused. I think this will cause confusion on down the line.

Attorney Altman stated, okay that is to the section of temporary use.

Greg Bossaer stated, temporary use will still be 7.3.

Attorney Altman stated, real easy to just take out and leave it with the unsequential number if you wish to do so. I...

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, and then you do not have to reprint the books?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, you would just keep it that way.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, is this just discussion?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I have not advertised this at all.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, more or less on this tonight and then we can advertise.

Attorney Altman stated, it has not been advertised.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, we will have votes on these next, later down the road.

Attorney Altman stated, I thought the temporary use is something that we use intermittently, it is still a valid zoning decision by our administrator to allow that sort of thing, as it says on a temporary bases. I left that alone. I was just going to renumber it was all I was going to do. I don’t have any trouble leaving it totally alone and just not renumbering it either.

David Rosenbarger stated, on the improvement location permit, you say that is handled by the building inspector now.

Attorney Altman stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I was going to bring up.

David Rosenbarger stated, his ordinance written to take care of what this is for.

Director Weaver stated, no, no and that is one of my concerns too. Is this going to eliminate us from issuing any permits? We still regulate and we can still issue a permit for setback purposes only.

Attorney Altman stated, well they still have to meet setback requirements.

Director Weaver stated, the building department does not do that, but if we take this out of the ordinance do we have the right to do that.

Attorney Altman stated, so you want to leave what in.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not telling you what I want left in, I don’t know.

David Rosenbarger stated, my biggest concern is, if you are taking something out, what is in place to enforce it. Are we doing away with it and it is open game.

Attorney Altman stated, what I envisioned was taking its place would be the ordinance that the Commissioners adopted for the Building Department and inspector. If that doesn’t….

David Rosenbarger stated, and if it meets our requirements that we did years ago. I’ve not seen it. I don’t know. I have not seen their…

Attorney Altman stated, I think so.

Director Weaver stated, I question, I don’t know.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that is something that is real valid.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t mind giving it up, but give it up to another entity, but I don’t want to give it up.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, yes.

David Rosenbarger stated, does that make sense Gary?

Attorney Altman stated, yes it does. The control is needed.

David Rosenbarger stated, somewhere.

Attorney Altman stated, I just felt like they used this ordinance quite frankly to I would say to abuse the system, and I was trying to take it out to avoid that abuse.

David Rosenbarger stated, my comment would be as legal counsel to look at that their ordinance and convince us that you feel confident that ordinance protects what we envision.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, again this is critic time and quite frankly right now I don’t think there is any hurry on this at all except I think we need to be doing something.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right.

David Rosenbarger stated, right.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right, you can report back at the next meeting on the status of their ordinance to see if we are covered on that.

Gary Barbour stated, what replaces it and what maintains it and what polices it.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right, to whether we need to change it or not. The next thing is.

Attorney Altman stated, okay this is on the signs that I’m looking at here. Quite frankly this is exactly the one that caused the problem and one that is some what reoccurring, and I essential just set down and took the page 41 and amended the area of the sign as it reads. The area of signs, off premise signs shall not exceed 300’ per advertising face. We had something similar to this a little larger, advertising face and I went on there. I kind of took it out of Lafayette’s ordinance or Tippecanoe’s ordinance and said that off premises sign shall consist of a single structure having either one or two advertising face, or two back to back advertising faces and no more. There shall be no double-deckers, stacked or side-by-side off premise signs.

David Rosenbarger stated, I have a question on that one. It is suppose to mean 300 square foot or 300’ long.

Attorney Altman stated, 300 square feet.

David Rosenbarger stated, it doesn’t say that.

Director Weaver stated, no it doesn’t say that.

Attorney Altman stated, square feet. I will put in the square. This is exactly why I want these critiqued. That 300 is came exactly out of their ordinance.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, we talked about this 2 or 3 years ago, when it first went through.

Attorney Altman stated, I have talked to George Loy and he was aware of your guys hat and the county’s hat and he was very, very interested in something like this being done.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, also the 2500’ of separation is a little more than what we had before.

Attorney Altman stated, I have increased it.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it was 500.

Attorney Altman stated, no it was 1500.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, no it was 1500.

Attorney Altman stated, again there I just thought, they always come in and want a variance. BZA members here always will know that. If you expand it a little bit and then you will always come back a little bit. They think they’ve got something. We’ve got more what the board would have had before. That is why I went up, that is why I went up.

Greg Bossaer asked, Jerry why did you delete section 4.70 which is on wet land?

Attorney Altman stated, it is not used in enforcement of any part of the ordinance. It is in there and it is great section, but when you try to follow it through the ordinance it is not used at all. It doesn’t go through our ordinance and that is why.

Greg Bossaer stated, the wetlands.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, the wet lands or part of it. In other words where it should be, it should be in the subdivision ordinance more. That is where it really ought to be or ought to be. It ought to be….

David Rosenbarger stated, the drainage board controls that in our subdivision ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, or well it could be in here to in our subdivision, but it could really be a condition that we look at for rezoning, if there were wetlands, and it would be a condition of maybe not rezoning and it doesn’t do that. I was going to delete it. If you don’t want it I will certainly mark it off. I gather you would just soon leave it in.

Greg Bossaer stated, I was just questioning it.

Attorney Altman stated, that is why, I didn’t see it as being beneficially used through out the ordinance, so I took it out.

Gary Barbour stated, it was in there for a reason at some point and time.

Attorney Altman stated, oh yea was, sure it was. They just didn’t put the rest of the ordinance in there. In other words what we got was a trimmed down version of what the originally was in some ones ordinance.

Gary Barbour stated, which we hope to fix.

Attorney Altman stated, which we hope to fix, but I’ll tell you what it is going to be a while.

Gary Barbour stated, it is going to be a while.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m doing this as Abe Lincoln would say by the littles.

Gary Barbour stated, I guess right now I would say let's leave it for now. That would be my suggestion.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I don’t have a problem with that.

Gary Barbour stated, unless you can come back and give us more information to why we should take it out.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

David Rosenbarger asked, on the separation between off premise signs, what is the definition of an off premise sign?

Attorney Altman stated, my place of business can have a sign, that is not an off premise sign. If I want to advertise on your home, that would be an off premise sign.

David Rosenbarger asked, right, I guess my question is if someone puts up a 4 x 4 sign, is that an off premise sign?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Rosenbarger stated, so the next sign would have to be 2500’ away, which is almost a half of mile.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right. Off premise.

David Rosenbarger stated, anybody out here along the highway that puts up a little sign on a county road advertising business.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, you will have to get a variance.

David Rosenbarger stated, I understand that, they are going to have to get a variance…

Attorney Altman stated, this is off premise signs only.

David Rosenbarger stated, I was wondering is there a little 2’ sign is that.

Director Weaver stated, there is no size and I feel that there should be.

David Rosenbarger stated, any sign that advertise a business off of their premises is an off premise sign.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, in a legal…

David Rosenbarger stated, with billboards going up you can put up a little 2 x 2 sign every 2500’ and you would never have a billboard.

Director Weaver stated, there is nothing though, there is nothing in the ordinance either like these entrance and exit signs that says they don’t have to have a permit for those. Those are on premises, but there is nothing in there that says they don’t have a permit for it.

David Rosenbarger stated, an off premise sign is strictly advertising.

Attorney Altman stated, almost by definition a sign is advertising.

David Rosenbarger stated, the 4 x 8 sheets advertising for elections.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, those are exempt.

Director Weaver stated, those are exempt.

Several talking at once

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, anything that is advertised on something that is not owned by the property is an off premise sign.

David Rosenbarger stated, if there is one there is 2500’ apart is someone wants to put one it he middle they have to have a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, they have to have a variance.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, they would have to go to the BZA to have those done. We are looking in Monticello. These people want as many as they can get on 6th St.

Attorney Altman stated, sure.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, any kind that they can do. They found a loophole that they could put a double stack sign even though they block so much view. We just felt as the City, they asked me to ask Jerry along time ago can we do something about toughing up our ordinance as stop gap thing. After they came to us, we passed an ordinance they we are not allowing any more off premises signs in the City limits.

David Rosenbarger stated, period or flat out.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, nope none. We passed an ordinance, we have enough. There is enough in the town already that we don’t need anymore. If they want to have them in the county, even the county I don’t think the county needs hundreds of double stacked…

Attorney Altman stated, George Loy said, he was also seconding this and I told him what hat are you wearing. He said both.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, both. I’m a resident of the city and the county and I feel, I mean, the bill boards, a single billboard at a far enough distance is fine, but when you start putting them up and you can’t see the horizon past, that is when they become obnoxious. That is one thing that Johnson in the 1960’s had this big deal about eliminating billboards all across America. There is some kind of federal regulations on billboards.

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t effect county roads like 6th St.

David Rosenbarger stated, it’s in the town, isn’t it.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, part of it. Once you get past the dairy queen, to the North that is all county.

David Rosenbarger asked, both sides of the road?

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, for now, yes. Then 6th St. South once you get passed…

David Rosenbarger stated, so right now it is the 300 square feet and leave 4.7 in there.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I understand. That is what I hear.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I have noted.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, you got this 300 square feet from the Lafayette Ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, I was wanting to talk to someone from Burkhardt to find out what their standard billboard sign encompasses.

Attorney Altman stated, I got it straight out of there. I figure it was okay.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that is fine, if that is what it is that should be good because the 3rd on is suppose to be our committee. Do we have a committee report?

David Rosenbarger stated, not yet. We need a new leader.

Several talking at once.

Attorney Altman stated, the 3rd one is the amusement device.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, oh.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the one that raises and what that, if you open up. I think it is on page 35 of your ordinance. What I have done there is I have just put in the definition of the regulated amusement device. This is the one that Indiana Beach Attorney has set forth as, I guess on letting them name there own poison. Define that. All I did in section 1, so you understand where I’m coming from and what in the world that paragraph is that starts with Regulated Amusement device and ends with the end of time. The next thing I did is I went to 2 on the mini table 2 and adding B-2 column beside the number 45. Adding the number 9, I’m just taking the same sequence that you see. Then adding 7 down at the bottom in the notes.

David Rosenbarger asked, what happened to 6?

Attorney Altman stated, 6 is in there.

Director Weaver stated, 6 is in there.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, you must have an old book.

Attorney Altman stated, you must have an old book because 6 is in there. Then I added that definition that the height should be 250’.

David Rosenbarger asked, read that again?

Attorney Altman stated, if a regulated amusement device is constructed in a B-2 district amusement park, the height for saying maybe 250’ in height.

Gary Barbour stated, in front of it, it says if they regulate an amusement device. Shouldn’t that be regulated?

Attorney Altman stated, put a “d” in there, thank you.

David Rosenbarger stated, so in other words they can go 250’ with out a special exception.

Attorney Altman stated, that is right, variance is what that would be.

David Rosenbarger stated, a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, a variance is what that would be. Again, it is a bit like this lady, I told her tonight we are pro-business and but we want them too…

David Rosenbarger asked, where did they come up with 250’?

Attorney Altman stated, that is what Mr. Spackman said is testifying that is what he thought that they needed to have modern rides. Not all of them, obviously the one the one they are doing right now I think is 95’ high. I think they are thinking more of the roller coaster type things.

David Scott stated, the future.

Attorney Altman stated, that Ferris Wheel.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is that going to do about the setbacks?

Attorney Altman stated, nothing.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is the setback on one now? Maybe that is one we are supposed to be working on.

Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t do that.

David Rosenbarger stated, it is my understanding, and since we haven’t done anything what is the setback.

Attorney Altman stated, Diann sorry, the setback is…

Director Weaver stated, you need to flip one more page.

Attorney Altman stated, the setback is B-2. Front yard is 60’, along county roads is 40’, along municipal streets is 25’, rear yard is 10’, side yard is 0’.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is the front, sides, and rear?

Director Weaver stated, the Indiana Beach, their front would be the roadside.

David Rosenbarger asked, which road? The North or the West?

Director Weaver stated, all roads.

David Rosenbarger stated, you don’t like that remember. There is only one front.

Director Weaver stated, as of right now I still say it is all roads.

David Rosenbarger asked, with those kinds of setbacks, do we want to increase from 45’ to 250’ in the air without any say so what so ever. I’m asking I mean that is high.

Director Weaver stated, that is high

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, well that where we come in with that regulations that we are working that we were talking about at the last meeting, where we have that structure set at half the distance from any setbacks.

Director Weaver stated, but isn’t this the place to have those, I mean are we going to do more than one amendment, are we going to do one amendment.

David Rosenbarger stated, if we do this amendment now that clears the way for them to go right now. We can’t stop it.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, or we could add this height amendment into this amendment that we are working on, the committee is supposable working on and have that all as one.

David Rosenbarger stated, that has been my whole question all along.

Gary Barbour asked, what is the tallest right now?

David Rosenbarger stated, what is it about 90’.

Director Weaver stated, I think it is 110’, which sticks in my mind.

David Rosenbarger stated, so we would be doubling the height of the Ferris wheel.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, the Ferris wheel is probably the biggest thing out there, isn’t it Steve.

Steve Fisher stated, I think so.

David Rosenbarger stated, I personally don’t have a problem with the 250’, but there needs to be something changed on the setbacks. To give them a green light period. There has got to be something in there that is just.

David Scott stated, surely not 250’ for another amusement ride or something is it.

Several answered, no.

Greg Bossaer stated, if do that other amendment the half.

David Rosenbarger stated, well the way it is written if it is on the back they can put a 250’ ride on the property line.

David Scott asked, right on the property line?

David Rosenbarger stated, 0’ setbacks.

Director Weaver stated, if there is another zoned business property beside them, which in Indiana Beach situation it all is.

David Scott asked, what are you going to use, or what is our reasoning, I agree it shouldn’t be right on the property line. What is the problems that you are going to be looking at, what are you going to make the setbacks and what are you going to make the setbacks and why? I don’t think we can just draw up a number and say…

David Rosenbarger stated, I agree with you and that is the problem I’m having, with just saying okay you can build 250’ with the setbacks that we have now. Something there just doesn’t sound right.

Steve Fisher stated, I think it is important when you are talking about the rides, you are trying to dream up what this thing is going to look like and that kind of stuff. I don’t have a problem with them building almost to the lot line, it is that access that someone would need to get in I guess for a safety point to get to. If there is a worker entangled somewhere or whatever, so you have a way to get into that area. It isn’t so much whether or not to build on the line for me. I don’t care about that. As long as it is egressible on safety matter.

David Rosenbarger asked, is there someway to put that in ordinance stating that. The way I look at it, now they can build them side by side right on the property line and you couldn’t get anything in there and you can not stop them.

Gary Barbour stated, there is a lot to that because we are talking a beach area, is this going to be a building structure that is going to be 250’ high that is going to throw shade on everybody else.

David Rosenbarger asked, what was their issue with having to come for a variance? They just don’t want to? Why did they ask for the 250 instead of 45’ and not come in a lay their…

Attorney Altman stated, obviously whenever they asked they have kicked up a lot of dust from some neighbors that think they can, like this last cast, as I understood it they used it as a vehicle to sell their lot to the Indiana Beach.

David Rosenbarger asked, why should the Indiana Beach be any better than my neighbor having a special deal from keeping me from protecting my property.

Attorney Altman state, again, I’m not…

David Rosenbarger stated, that is my thing.

Attorney Altman stated, businesses have better deals on lots of things then I have at home and that is all I can say.

Greg Bossaer stated, we discussed this at one meeting that most people that live around the beach want to live there because of that beach

David Rosenbarger stated, I agree with that.

Attorney Altman stated, a lot of people quite frankly said the exactly the same thing at the meeting.

David Rosenbarger stated, they like that.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Rosenbarger stated, it only takes one.

Attorney Altman stated, that is why they were there. All of those things increase. It was one person particular.

David Rosenbarger stated, if we give them the green light to build 250’ without coming in for, does that just release them and put on all of the pressure back on us, when those people complain.

Attorney Altman stated, they have no place to complain. There is no forum. I’m not telling you that they can’t come in a bend your ear, but the ordinance would say…

David Rosenbarger stated, I have a problem giving them a green light with that much height. I mean you are going from 45’ to 250’ that is a lot of height.

Gary Barbour stated, you are going from an ordinance of 45’ but actual rides being…

David Rosenbarger stated, no, no, rides having the potential to go to 250’ without any kind of.

Gary Barbour stated, I understand that, but are not really starting out at 45’, you are really starting out at 110’.

David Rosenbarger stated, no you are starting at 45’. Anything over 45’ they had to get variance.

Greg Bossaer stated, they got it apparently.

David Rosenbarger stated, I understand, I don’t see why…

Director Weaver stated, just recently, they got it.

Greg Bossaer stated, if they got it, the board here was saying that we don’t have a problem with that.

David Rosenbarger stated, if this board doesn’t have a problem with a 250’ green light, why don’t you still have them go through the…

Gary Barbour stated, the board didn’t have a problem with current rides at 110’.

David Rosenbarger stated, right, but that is our thing here is are we going to automatically okay 250’.

David Scott stated, we need to leave it like it is and make them come for special exceptions any time they want to go over a certain height so we can look at each individual.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, if they had a new park where they were going out someplace on 600 acres and were not in any kind density. As high density as Indiana Beach is, not only with their own structures and neighboring structures, there needs to be some kind of regulation to make sure that, some kind of check. We just can’t give them an open book to do what they want, there ought to be some sort of regulations on what we can allow them to put in there. Mr. Spackman wants it, I think there needs to be…

David Rosenbarger stated, there has got to be some kind of limitation just for all of the neighbors. I mean business or not, I understand listening to him that night that his concerns where his business, but you start playing favoritism to that business, then you open it up for every other in White County. Whether it be. That is my concern.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, what if we added that height, that part of the ride, that the height of 250’ would have to have a 100’ setback. The reason I said it that way and I haven’t drafted it is this. Obviously the roller coaster isn’t all that high. In fact most of them start out at this height and then they go down and around and whatever. I’m not an expert on roller coasters. I have ridden on it. The first one once and that was enough for me. Don’t get me wrong, but what I’m saying is that any part of the structure that is say over 110’ would have to have a setback of 100’ from the sides.

Director Weaver stated, I tell you what you are creating a heck of a job for the person in my seat.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, he is trying to get a setback in there.

Director Weaver stated, and I agree with that.

David Rosenbarger stated, I’m trying to get a lot of stuff in there.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree.

David Rosenbarger stated, setbacks is one I brought up and another question is how much land is in the Indiana Beach name is classified as amusement ground. Are we just talking about what is on the water or.

Attorney Altman stated, mainly what is on the water and the island.

Director Weaver stated, that is what went through special exception.

David Rosenbarger stated, the way you have written this ordinance, it says an amusement ride in a B-2. What is the campground, what is the parking lots?

Attorney Altman stated, the…

Director Weaver stated, yes, what is the waterslide.

Attorney Altman stated, the amusement district. A B-2 district amusement park.

David Rosenbarger stated, a B-2 with a regulated… Another thing I thought about Jerry is everybody keeps talking about the island as Indiana Beach. What is in this wording that would keep him from moving that to the South parking lot and the campground or anything that says Indiana Beach and then you are in a wide open area that needs the restrictions. Now it becomes not a space limitation, but we have Okayed this. Or is his only district the island?

Director Weaver stated, the campground has the waterslide, I mean is that waterslide…

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, it is in a B-2.

Director Weaver stated, but it hasn’t went through a special exception either to be in an amusement park. I have here and I will get you a copy of this out of the State Codes. The definition for the amusement device and amusement park.

David Rosenbarger asked, so this special exception had specific boundary lines drawn.

Director Weaver stated, he gave us legal descriptions.

David Rosenbarger stated, of the island and that is the amusement park.

Attorney Altman stated, the lower part and the island.

David Rosenbarger stated, so in other words put anything anywhere else other than the lower island. He would have to have a special exception.

Attorney Altman stated, I not affecting that I’m just saying is when you got one. I don’t have any trouble adding to that something that would say that the setback would have to be for that additional height as an example.

David Rosenbarger stated, so they don’t fall under the guidelines between buildings. I can’t build a garage right next to my house.

Director Weaver stated, well that is something I have recently discussed with our Building Inspector and I don’t find that separation requires in our ordinance. I think that is a State Building code that we have been enforcing.

David Rosenbarger stated, I know he needs to be some on right on top of each other. I just have a problem with green lighting that height period. I don’t know why. I know what 250’ is. That is a nasty structure.

Director Weaver stated, on the other hand anybody that wants to put up a tower in the County has to go through a special exception.

David Rosenbarger stated, for a variance.

Director Weaver stated, for a special exception. So what is the difference between a 300’ tower and a 300’ ride, why are we going to let one go without a special exception when the other one requires it.

Attorney Altman stated, the Indiana Beach has special exception and that is what we are talking about this can be and only there.

David Rosenbarger stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, I just don’t mean Indiana Beach, I’m saying any place that has a special exception for an amusement park. We ought to have some place else that really could be there.

David Rosenbarger asked, is Dwayne’s World an amusement park?

Director Weaver stated, we have granted a special exception for Dwayne’s World.

David Rosenbarger stated, so you can have a 250’ structure on Sixth Street, right next to the street.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, if we okay this.

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

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I’m saying is, what I have envisioned is adding that the part that is above, I’m just thinking out loud guys, the part the is above the 45’ shall be not closer than 100’ from any lot line.

David Rosenbarger asked, what is the Indiana Beaches lot line down there on the island? Is it the water?

Attorney Altman stated, it is the water.

David Rosenbarger stated, so in other words they couldn’t build it up without a setback.

Attorney Altman stated, that is probably right.

David Rosenbarger stated, down there at the Taco Shop it isn’t 100’ across. So if you okay this they are still going to have to, is that going to change anything in the way the neighbors take them back to court.

Attorney Altman stated, probably not.

David Rosenbarger stated, you are still going to give them a special…

Attorney Altman stated, although, they may, again.

David Rosenbarger stated, again I don’t understand what is the reason behind this, if we okay a 250’ will that stop the law suits against the Indiana Beach.

Attorney Altman stated, it would have eliminated the last one, it certainly would have eliminated the last one.

David Rosenbarger stated, because of the height, is where they got them and not on anything else.

Attorney Altman stated, the basically went at BZA and said that BZA didn’t properly run the meeting and do all of this and that and the other and didn’t properly grant a variance and didn’t properly grant the special exception.

David Rosenbarger stated, so really it wasn’t Indiana Beach’s fault, it was ours. BZA is what they were trying to say.

Attorney Altman stated, they used that as one of the liebers to try to let Indiana Beach have what they wanted, which is sell their lot. They also brought a nuisance statue lawsuit against the Indiana Beach, a second count.

David Rosenbarger stated, so you are going back to if you put setbacks with this 250’, you still run the same risk because BZA is going to have to okay the setbacks. If you put a 100’ on there, there aren’t too many places they can build in there that they are going to have to go through BZA. Instead of height we are talking setbacks.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it maybe and I agree and I’m just trying to build in what I hear you talking you want Dave. It isn’t that I, it is a devil in deep blue sea always with this.

David Rosenbarger stated, I agree with you 100%, I’m just having a hard time with 250’ that is tall, with no….

Attorney Altman stated, okay, if I brought it down to 200’, I brought it down.

David Rosenbarger stated, it is still tall.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, I still think they need to come before some board when ever they want to build this and set it on the table and say this is what we are planning on doing. There needs to be some kind of BZA look at the thing,

Attorney Altman stated, I will tell you that the County Commissioners don’t….

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, they don’t want to see that.

Director Weaver stated, County Commissioners don’t want us issuing permits.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, well then why do they want to dump this in our laps to say that we are the kings and.

Attorney Altman stated, you have got to understand.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, every situation is different. I mean for safety and stuff we are trying to look, I know the fireman complain that everything they build in there is all under loop and they want us to come in. How are we going to fight a fire or rescue someone if somebody gets hurt? This is all for public safety that we are looking at with a lot of this and until you see what goes on, you can say, if you look at the ride and you can say well you move this over 10’ and set this back 10’ then maybe we can live with it, but for them to sit there.

Attorney Altman stated, I hear you. All I’m trying to say however, I will advertise it anyway you guys want or leave it alone.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, okay, do you want to digest it until the next meeting?

Attorney Altman stated, I will proceed and advertise in reference to the signs.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, can I have a motion to adjourn?

Director Weaver stated, no, you told me you wanted to discuss the definition of a fence.

David Rosenbarger stated, oh yes, thank you. I want a definition of a fence in our ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, you do want it.

David Rosenbarger stated, I do not want a plastic construction snow fence designated as a fence.

David Scott stated, it has happened twice now hasn’t it.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, where did this happen at?

Director Weaver stated, the Town of Chalmers.

Attorney Altman stated, the little lift station there at the end of town.

David Rosenbarger stated, we have talked about this and there is no definition of a fence and I never wanted to get there. We had the thing with Juanita Waugh in Brookston and.

Steve Fisher stated, wouldn’t it be better to define what it is not and say a plastic snow fence is not considered a fence and then because you don’t know what they may consider a fence.

David Rosenbarger stated, I understand, there is something here that is just.

Steve Fisher stated, to me that would be the easy way.

David Rosenbarger asked, can it be stated that way Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, could you put in there that plastic snow fence or construction fence can only be up for so long.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is the other one, I want to see a definition of temporary.

Director Weaver stated, oh yes, we need that one really, really bad.

Attorney Altman stated, temporary fence.

Director Weaver stated, no temporary in general

David Rosenbarger stated, the word temporary. Not what Webster says everyone in this room and everybody else can understand what temporary is?

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

David Rosenbarger stated, if you have to put so many days, that is temporary.

Director Weaver stated, we need that terribly.

Attorney Altman stated, I will get to work.

Director Weaver stated, I called this what they have down at Chalmers a snow fence and I was corrected by the builder it is a construction fence. Basically they are saying.

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, if we really wanted to get really tax about it, we could have subsections of like we do in out maps for the roads and say you know have industrial approved fencing. You can have details of chain link, details of 4 or 5 approved fencing for here. If you really want to regulate it and not have any doubt and then go residential these are the types of fences that are approved and then go down.

David Rosenbarger stated, it just blows my mind.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, I mean then there is no, if someone comes in and say city of Monticello here is 6 different types of fencing that is approved in any kind of residential.

Director Weaver stated, that may not be a bad idea either because I can tell you of one situation and it is something I can’t do anything about, but live on a lake property and they put up a hot wire. Is that a fence or isn’t it.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, or industrial where they pull junk semi’s around the perimeter and say it is a fence.

Attorney Altman stated, we have that in Monticello.

David Rosenbarger stated, my biggest thing is that they are classifying plastic snow fence as a permanent fence.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, there needs to be something done about it.

David Rosenbarger stated, the idea of a plastic fence being considered a permanent fence, if it is a plastic snow construction fence whatever it should be classified.

Attorney Altman stated, there are some plastic fences that are. There is vinyl. There is vinyl between here and Reynolds on the left-hand side. There are nice plastic fences.

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, Charlie do you have something to say.

Charles Mellon stated, I mentioned to Dave a couple of times and I have talked to Diann and she said if you have a permit. There is a house being built on 16, right off of 16 on the Monon ditch and they are about done digging pretty soon. They are going to clean everything off of the East side and they are going to cut up logs that are on the West side as high as the water has ever been. Dave you know how high the water has been. They would be coming up 4’ or 5’. That waste on the West side is going to have to be thrown on the West side and that house up there is, I bet not 30’ from top of the inside bank.

Director Weaver stated, Charlie what I have tried to explain to you before, it doesn’t have anything to do with us. You have to talk to the surveyor’s office.

Charles Mellon stated, surveyor’s office.

Director Weaver stated, they are the ones that setback from the ditch and they are the ones who granted the variance for them to be closer to that. That is who you need to talk to about that. It is the surveyor’s office.

Charles Mellon stated, that guy is going to be in trouble. That is the same operated that owned that strip of land down through there.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Charles Mellon stated, I didn’t think so. I said something to Dave and he doesn’t want to say anything.

Director Weaver stated, he is talking about Ron Pollock’s property.

Charles Mellon stated, another thing 75’ right-of-way, I don’t know if that is in the middle of the creek or ditch or not, I thought it was from the bank.

Director Weaver stated, you need to talk to the surveyor’s office.

Charles Mellon stated, someone had to issue a permit to build there.

Director Weaver stated, I did, but they are meeting our setbacks and the surveyor granted them a variance from the ditch.

Charles Mellon stated, I don’t see how the county excepted that from the surveyor.

David Rosenbarger stated, the county regulates the ditch.

Attorney Altman stated, by the way congratulations for your second bronze start.

****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Don Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission