Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, May 10, 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, Don Ward, Dennis Sterrett. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors Attending were: Charles R. Mellon, Tom Spackman, Rodney Tatman, Gene Tatman, Jack Martin, Rex Hendryx, Ron Schmierer and John Heimlich.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jay Clawson and roll call was taken.

****

#295 Jack C. & Fern H. Martin; Requesting approval of a 6 lot subdivision to be known as Apple Acres on 6.904 acres. The property is located Southeast of Brookston on the Southeast corner of County Road 1100 S and County Road 200 E.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, who is representing this request?

Jack Martin stated, I’m Jack Martin. My wife and I own the orchard and we were here at a previous meeting. Taking your recommendations, suggestions, and incorporated it in o the design. Would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Director Weaver stated, as far as I know it does meet all of the subdivision requirements.

David Scott asked, is this on city sewer?

Don Ward stated, no it is not.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, are there any questions from the board?

Don Ward stated, I have a recommendation it could you another 5’ of right-of-way along this road. It needs to be 25 instead of 20.

Attorney Altman stated, tell us what you are thinking Don.

Don Ward stated, well we have a 40’ road right-of-way according to this, 20’ on each side of the section line, which is the property line. It would be nice if we had 25’ on each side of the section

line. I think there is room, well the acreage is right on the money. You might have to do a little changing to get it. That is up to the board, that is a recommendation on my part.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, eventually those roads out there will be widened and it would be nice to have it.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously this is going to add to the use of the roads.

Don Ward stated, 700 S is a very busy road, very busy has lots of traffic. The other one is not as heavily traveled. Except for the one lot, there really is no room, there is only a 100th acre more of the required one acre.

??? stated, you would have to move the back lot line back.

Don Ward stated, yes you would.

Attorney Altman stated, do you understand what we are talking about. I guess what we are trying to say is when you have access off of the highway on all of your lots on a very busy road, that is what we are talking about here. Rather than having say one access for your subdivision we have this with subdivisions, you are having 6 lots here and 6 on and off. Mr. Ward is suggesting that you increase the side, the easement for the road and that would compensate somewhat for the so much of an egress and ingress on to the county roads.

Jack Martin stated, I was under the impression that there would be no entrance on 1100.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that is not what the plat shows.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the first time we have seen this.

Rex Hendryx stated, I’m working with Jack on this and we didn’t know anything about this.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the first time we have seen this.

Rex Hendryx stated, this plan, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, we can give any impute with it not being here.

Rex Hendryx stated, are you talking about 1100 and 200?

Don Ward stated, 200 is less important, but it shows a 40’ right-of-way total, which 20’ would be out of the subdivision and dedicated to the public and the same way on 1100 S. 1100 S is a really heavily traveled road.

Rex Hendryx stated, yes it is. 200 isn’t, but 1100 is.

Don Ward stated, the most important one would be 1100 S, which if we had more right-of-way for the future because eventually that road will get widen out and need drainage and now is the time to get the 5’ before we have to take off of every lot.

Rex Hendryx stated, yes and I don’t see why we can’t do that because we would just have to move these lots on 200 to the South.

Don Ward stated, yes,

Rex Hendryx stated, and increases the other and moves the others to the South.

Don Ward stated, yes and make the other ones work out. It would be nice to have 30’, but.

Rex Hendryx stated, it can be done.

Don Ward stated, 25’ is better than 20’.

Rex Hendryx stated, we have a lot of room there because everything back of that is a 3-acre lot.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that would bring it into compliance with our new ordinance. Do we want to go all of the way and ask for the 30’?

Don Ward stated, you can ask.

Attorney Altman stated, what I guess I’m saying is, and board correct me, if we have a proposal here on primary and we, since we know you have the land, and board just listen to me and jump as soon as I get done if you don’t like what I’m saying. If he moves those lots inward so he retails at least one acre lots and gives us on his side full required easement of 30’. Then I would suggest that we consider possibly improving this based upon that amendment this evening without them have to come back the next meeting for a primary. Does that sound like something the board would consider. I wouldn’t do this if I didn’t know he didn’t have the acreage to get all of that and comply with what I’m saying. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, Don, he has this 10’ extra, he has 40’ from the road and it shows and extra 10’ for utility easement that is already drawn on there. Are the setbacks set already from the utility easement.

Don Ward stated, the setbacks are probably are from the property line.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, the property line, so actually they just have to re-shoot that from where they put that 10’ utility easement. Right?

Don Ward stated, they would have to move that back.

Rex Hendryx stated, we see no problem with that at all.

Don Ward stated, that would help because eventually that other side would probably subdivide too.

Attorney Altman stated, then we get that from them and then you have the full dimensions.

Don Ward stated, we have more room to build road and do things like drainage. More houses go in there you will need more room.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, then the county doesn’t have to negotiate with homeowners about buying easement off of them.

Rex Hendryx asked, if this does pass tonight do we need to sign a paper saying that we are going to do this or what?

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, we are doing primary approval tonight and then the surveyor can change for the secondary for the secondary plat he can have all of those changes on that plat and then we can approve it with those changes already made. We can give you primary approval with contingency of having those setbacks on the final plat.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand what we are saying and that is what the applicant agrees too. Does everyone else understand that?

Don Ward asked, do you think that county road 200 would become important?

Rex Hendryx stated, I don’t know.

Several talking at once. There is discussion among the board members.

David Rosenbarger asked, how far is the East side of lot 1, how far is it to the Tatman line?

Rex Hendryx stated, I believe there is to be 27’ left

David Rosenbarger stated, there will be 27’ on the East side of the orchard that is not in.

Rex Hendryx stated, that is what I was told by Mr. Milligan.

David Rosenbarger stated, okay, I just see it has, I can’t tell if that is a line or what, it looks like it is further off East.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, it is just a scratch above.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I thought that it was the Tatman property line.

Dennis Sterrett stated, I think that is off of the copy machine.

Attorney Altman stated, it is 27’. The East boundary of lot 1 is 27’ from your boundary between yourself and Mr. Tatman.

Rex Hendryx stated, that is what I was told by Mr. Milligan.

David Rosenbarger asked, is that on here?

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, it should be on the final plat.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I’m puzzled by the 27’, for this reason.

Rex Hendryx stated, I said 20 sum, not 27.

Attorney Altman stated, 20 sum or anything like that, I guess it is not sufficient to get ingress and egress for the rest of the potential subdivision back there. I guess I’m puzzled.

Rex Hendryx stated, it will all come off of the South end of 200.

Several talking at once.

Don Ward asked, why do you want to leave that strip?

Rex Hendryx stated, we probably wont’ now, we will probably stretch each lot out.

Don Ward stated, okay that makes sense.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I’m saying that right now since this is the first time we have seen your subdivision and we talked before, but we haven’t seen this. I want you to know that if it was 20 some odd feet or 29.999 it isn’t enough to get egress and ingress there, if that is what you are figuring on. You will have to do your subdivision some other way. If you are coming in off of 200 East then that not much relevance, I just want it on the record today.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, do we have any questions about the subdivision?

Gene Tatman stated, I’m Gene Tatman. What are we going to do about that ditch? We have an open ditch through there. It is 100’ off of the road goes, it goes catty corner through me to the orchard behind the orchard building down there.

Discussion among the board while looking at the plats.

Gene Tatman stated, are they going to put a bridge over that ditch, are they going to change the ditch.

David Rosenbarger stated, the ditch is below.

Don Ward stated, it doesn’t show.

David Rosenbarger stated, it is on the back page of the front page.

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, Denny is that a regulated ditch or is that just an open drainage.

Dennis Sterrett stated, not to my knowledge.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Tatman do you have any further information about the status of that ditch. I understand that you indicate that it is there, but is it regulated water or is it just a private one.

Gene Tatman stated, it is regulated, it comes across all of the drainage on the North side of the road, underneath the road, and then there is an 8 or 10-inch tile that comes up that flows underneath the road there.

Don Ward asked, is that on your property?

Gene Tatman stated, yes and no. It is the county. The open tile that comes, the water comes up out of is on the county line and it flows over through me and down there. At times the water is 4’ or 5’ deep through there.

David Rosenbarger asked, Denny is it?

Dennis Sterrett stated, I don’t know.

David Rosenbarger stated, if it is then there are 75’ setbacks on each side of it.

Attorney Altman stated, you have seen this map that shows that swell on it or what I presume is Mr. Tatman. It shows it being South of the subdivision is that what you think it is.

Gene Tatman stated, that is what I think it is.

Attorney Altman stated, so it really is not quite part of this subdivision but it is a part of your grounds.

Gene Tatman stated, his ground and the drainage comes off of other people through there.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, yours and other people.

Gene Tatman stated, well North of there. Are we going to dig it up or change it?

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, no the development is not over this ditch.

Gene Tatman asked, how close are the septic going to be?

Don Ward stated, they will have their own septic systems.

David Rosenbarger stated, the only thing that I would question with that is if that is a county waterway or tile or whatever they classify them. There is a 75’ setback on each side that could affect lot 1.

Don Ward stated, I doubt that it is a regulated drain.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t either. A lot of times…

Don Ward stated, Denny is the man.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, can you get us more information about this?

Several talking at once.

Gene Tatman asked, how many lots are they putting in?

Attorney Altman stated, 6, have you looked at this.

Gene Tatman stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, well maybe you should. Why don’t you come up here and look at this. So you can see exactly what it is.

Gene Tatman asked, what happened to the 5 acres lots minimum.

They are looking over the plat for this subdivision. Discussion among the board.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that the line be scribed between, when you redo the lot sizes that the lot, the property line be shown you were not sure if it was 20 and when you redo the lots, just make sure that it on the final plat. Denny is going to get us any county information on the tile or ditch or whatever it is there. I say that we bring this to a vote.

Attorney Altman stated, obvious this shows there is an easement drainage easement there. That would have to modify the subdivision.

Dennis Sterrett stated, make it subject to the right-of-way.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, if there is a right-of-way we will have to bring that up.

Dennis Sterrett stated, no I mean the extra right-of-way.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, yes, contingent with a 10’ right-of-way on the 1100 S.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Primary Approval Request for a 6 lot subdivision to be known as Apple Acres located in Southeast of Brookston, was approved by a vote of 6 to 0, based on a finding of fact that the Standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance have been met.

Attorney Altman stated, upon additional conditions required by the Commissioners. 1. An additional 10’ of right-of-way is to be granted from county road 1100 South. 2. Set forth all of the land adjacent to the Tatman property. Obviously Mr. Sterrett is going to check and make sure that there isn’t a county drainage easement there that you will have to comply also. I did notice while we were talking that your land #11 of your convenants and restrictions indicates that the owners of the lot or parcel will have to comply with the drainage plan. This would be part of that.

****

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, next on the agenda is business, we are through with rezoning and subdivisions for the day. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would be amending Chapter 4.0, which is General Restriction. The amendment has to do with the 4.60 Signs. Does anyone on the board have any questions about the proposals in front of you.

Director Weaver stated, I did correct this where last month when we looked at this it said 300’ and I changed it to 300 square feet on item A. That is corrected, I think that was the only correction.

Dennis Sterrett stated, I don’t have any idea about 300 square feet.

Attorney Altman stated, that is 30.

Dennis Sterrett stated, is that like the sign North of the Dairy Queen.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that is 2 of them.

Dennis Sterrett stated, that is 600 square feet.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, yes, 10 x 30 is the standard billboard sign size. Burkhardt would use or Zakian.

Attorney Altman stated, it is exactly what we lifted, quite frankly out of Tippecanoe’s ordinance.

Tom Spackman stated, I’m Tom Spackman from the Indiana Beach. The sign amendment that you are speaking about that is not this particular document about amusement.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, no, you are next.

Director Weaver stated, no

Tom Spackman stated, on the signs that you are modifying the ordinance I would also suggest that you consider the signage within an amusement park and consider that ought to be exempted.

Attorney Altman stated, this is off premises.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, right this is a billboard.

Tom Spackman stated, we are not going to confuse the two.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, this is off premise signs completely. Only I should say.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, is there anymore impute, or anything else, does anything need to be added to this or do we think that it is ready for a vote.

Without further discussion the board voted.

Amendment to Chapter 4, Article 4.6002 “Business Signs, Off-Premises”, Items a. & c., of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

The amendment to the ordinance was granted by a vote of 6 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, the next item on the agenda is Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for White County and this is, we would be amending Chapter 2 Rules and Definitions. Mostly it would be regulated amusement devices and amusement parks.

Attorney Altman asked, was this advertised Diann?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, this has not been advertised, we are just talking.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I thought, we are just discussing.

Director Weaver stated, this is still in the discussion stage.

Discussion among the board members.

Don Ward stated, go down to the end of the first page and it says #7 regulated amusement device, it says regulated, if constructed in a B-2 District amusement park the height for the same maybe 150’ in length.

Attorney Altman stated, okay I will strike length and put height.

Don Ward stated, the height per same maybe 150 height.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that is what I prepared.

Don Ward stated, you don’t really need that, you just need to say that the height or the same maybe 150’.

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, okay. The second thing of course that I added after the and was the discussion last month several people were concerned about height close to the boundary, adjoining boundaries and that is why I put that in there. Those numbers are in a sense pulled out of my head except for the 45’ that was the number that was already in the ordinance on other buildings in that zoning classification. The 20’ I just pulled that out, more than and maybe the board and the people will just have to tell me what you want there.

Don Ward stated, didn’t we discuss this 3 months ago?

Director Weaver stated, yes. We have been discussing this for a while.

Attorney Altman stated, this has been 3 meetings that we have discussed this.

Don Ward stated, we were talking about making it half of the height.

Attorney Altman stated, that has been mentioned and I just add that and then also since fair amount of the property on the boundary with SFLECC or our Amusement park and they want quite frankly to put things right on their boundary. I just took that 20’ out they don’t seem to care and that is why I put that in, that exception in for that. I know in a particular area there are several that are in right against that boundary and I sent them a copy of this for their impute and I have not heard anything back and I don’t think Diann has either. I will ask her in just a minute.

Don Ward stated, this wouldn’t be retroactive anyway.

Attorney Altman stated, no this is not retroactive.

Don Ward asked, why can’t we have, if they are going to build right on the property line, have permission of the property owner next to?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously that is what I presume they quite frankly have otherwise, they with this particular owner because that is what has happened out there. Therefore I felt that since that was so I put that in and I sent them a copy of this that being SFLECC. Otherwise, if it were adjoining property person other than SFLECC this would say you can’t be higher than 45’ or 20’ away.

David Rosenbarger stated, over 45’ you have to be 20’ away. Up to 150’.

Attorney Altman stated, up to the 150’. That is where you guys just have to.

David Rosenbarger stated, we are looking, in my opinion we have 2 issues at hand here. We are working with Indiana Beach, talking about it because kind of brought this to us. What I look at is Dwayne’s World on Sixth Street is an amusement park. We can put a 150’ ride 20’ from 6th street. Is that what we want?

Director Weaver stated, Dwayne’s World.

Don Ward stated, there is a minimum setback.

Director Weaver stated, Dwayne’s world did go through a special exception like an amusement park.

David Rosenbarger stated, it is opening it up that if it is an amusement park in a B-2, I understand the Beaches concerns. My concern is the rest of the County. I mean there is no guarantee that Indiana Beach will be the only amusement park around in White County.

Attorney Altman stated, exactly, in fact there not.

David Rosenbarger stated, my question has been not so much the beach because it is its own little world. They have been there and they are established and everything else, if we open this up too broad what are you opening yourself up to as a county. That is my concern. We can’t just leave one.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is what I brought up two meetings ago.

Attorney Altman stated, precisely and that is why I plugged that phrase in. Obviously that may not be the only amusement park that would be on or adjacent to SFLECC property one of these days.

David Rosenbarger stated, personally I don’t have a problem with it being right next to the water.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand and that is exactly why I put that in.

Tom Spackman stated, we have reviewed this particular document. Our opinion is there are additional changes that need to be made to it for example. An amusement park is not defined any where in the ordinance. It is referenced but not defined. There issues regarding the height of the rides. It is 150’ is a pretty normal ride these days as far as a lot of the roller coasters are concerned. We have several proposals presented in front of us for 180’ and higher. Some of the towers standard height of those now is 250’. So 150’ certainly helps, but it is hard to tell where the industry is going in the future. That is obviously a concern. We don’t have a problem with the setback from the boundaries, I’m assuming that is on an external boundary to the park, not.

Attorney Altman stated, setbacks

Tom Spackman stated, since we have over 67 parcels that make up the park.

Attorney Altman stated, as long as you own those parcels they do not figure in as a setback.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, we had talked at a previous meeting about on an adjoining property line anything, not regulating so much the height inside the park anytime that you are close to a property line that anything over 100’ would have a scale where everything over 100’ would have to go so much farther back from a property line for public safety sake. Not to the lake, but say towards the front of the park, like the parking lots, things like that.

Tom Spackman stated, that is fine we don’t have a problem with that.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, okay, we were trying to come up with some kind of formula about trying to…

Tom Spackman stated, one of the things to keep in mind when you deal with a coaster the main part of the height is usually around the drop hill. Then the rest of the coaster depends down in and out type of coaster like the hurricane is, as it runs down along the lake and then comes back you will notice the height never gets anywhere near the 100’ drop hill. That is one of the things to consider. In the cornball issue the height there along the property line except in a couple of places was actually under 45’. The track was 20’ off of the property line. Some of the other things, we had an issue with definitions as far as the end of county right-of-way, like where a road ends. Is there a right-of-way at the end of the road?

Don Ward stated, it depends on the road.

David Rosenbarger stated, a dead end road.

Tom Spackman stated, a dead end road.

Don Ward stated, a dead end road wouldn’t have anything beyond it.

David Rosenbarger stated, looks to me if it is a dead end it stops there.

Don Ward stated, that is the end of it.

Tom Spackman stated, the ordinance is very unclear and we had an attorney make a hell of an issue out of that.

David Rosenbarger stated, really.

Tom Spackman stated, yes.

David Rosenbarger stated, most of them make an issue out of anything.

Tom Spackman stated, well this guy can do a real issue. I brought up the issue about signs within the park. Usually the rides come with signs on them and ticket booths have lighted signs. Through out the park we have signs everywhere. We try to keep the property lines as dark and environmentally friendly as we can within the park. They have lights and something to attract the patrons to the attraction.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, the main reason for amending this ordinance was the changing of the double stack signs plus the proliferation of extra off premises signs through the county. We just wanted to have a little bit better handle on regulating them.

Tom Spackman stated, I understand that. Section of 4.6001 dealt with signs and depending on how you read that we could have a nightmare within the park. That is why that proposed change was in that document that I passed on to you. There is an issue about structures and buildings. You can put a structure like a pier in flood plain, obviously you wouldn’t put a building in a flood plain. I think section 3.2003 needs to clarify that particular point. That is also in that document that we passed on.

Attorney Altman stated, what you are saying is that you want to put an amusement device in the flood plain.

Tom Spackman stated, basically you build a pier and you set the device on it.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I understand.

Tom Spackman stated, section 4.7004 should also be, that get into the structure verses building as well. Probably should be modified to be consistent with any change to the previous. Then section 8.1002 has a real tricky clause in it. Judge Smith basically threw it out the variance on the height, which says “not limited to”, this should be removed from the ordinance. This is on notifying people 300’ away from the property. This gives a grand exception so just about anybody can come in complain either though they are not a neighbor or a resident of the property. We listed 4 sections that had incorrect cross-references that should be changed. Those are also brought up by council and a couple other issues. Then 10.1003 the variance standing should be exceed the State standards. Right now the White County ordinance does. We really need to look at changing that as well to be consistent. All of those basically, those were listed in here and there were some others that we weren’t nearly as concerned about such as the parking issue and some of the minor points that are in that document. I don’t think on the performing standards that would be nice to have, but not really necessary. Most people understand that an amusement park make some noise, you’ve got lights, things of that nature.

Attorney Altman stated, again I think Dave’s comment is a real concern to the board as to how it applies to your situation is that we have others and there much more potentially problem. That is the concern about many of these other things and I’d be glad to set down and work with you on working up these issues and bring them back to the board. If we would like to do that, but on the, I guess on the principal is a little bit better than none. What we have before us is something that would raise the height and of course just limit the setbacks to within 20’ of a boundary-adjoining boundary. What is your thought on this, isn’t this better than what our present ordinance is?

Tom Spackman stated, I agree that it is better and you just need to take a couple more steps and round it out. Keep in mind that when the height goes up the cost goes up. You just don’t go out and put a roller coaster in without probably, if it is over 150’ you are going to drop 4.5 million or more, so you are not going to find roller coasters going up on every corner especially over 150’. The ones under that cost usually run about 1 to 2.5 million. That is usually standard pricing on those. 200’ would be nice to have in there, that gives you clearance and we certainly can live with some setbacks on that.

David Rosenbarger stated, question on that. Since you brought that up. Say that he has a 200’ drop and the rest of the coaster is 45’ sprawled all out. Is that setback anywhere on the coaster or just for the highest point.

Attorney Altman stated, anywhere on the coaster.

Don Ward stated, whatever the height is at the point.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, in other words if he is higher than, he can’t be higher than 45’ or 20’ within an adjoining boundary.

David Rosenbarger stated, right, but a lot of our setbacks like on a building is the complete building. Well that is what I’m wondering on a complete roller coaster. The 20’ setback is anything over 45’ of that structure. Is that what you are trying to say.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, right.

David Rosenbarger stated, I didn’t read it that way. I was going under the impression.

Attorney Altman stated, so if it gets closer than 20’ to, well it can’t get closer than 20’ if it is over 45’ high.

David Rosenbarger stated, right, but if the roller coaster the back half of it is only 44’ high it can go

Attorney Altman stated, 20’ away.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, 20’ from the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, from an adjoining property owner. That is the way I tried to draft that, if it doesn’t do that now and if we step that up to the 200’ as Mr. Spackman and I’m just figuring in here as Mr. Spackman indicated. This would…

David Rosenbarger stated, according to this if it is less than 45’…

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, 20’.

David Rosenbarger stated, no, if it is more than 45’ shall not be closer than 20’.

Don Ward stated, this needs to be re-worded totally.

Attorney Altman stated, you bet.

Don Ward stated, any part of the structure adjacent to the property line over 45’ has to be 20’ back.

David Rosenbarger stated, but if it is 44’ it can be on the line according to this.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what our present ordinance does.

Director Weaver stated, only if business zoning adjoins it.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, but if it were, we would go to 0’.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that is why I did not mess with that area. You guys tell me what you want me to do and I’ll.

David Rosenbarger stated, if it butts a B-2 it can go to 0.

Director Weaver stated, or a B-1.

Tom Spackman stated, keep in mind the area is all B-2.

Attorney Altman stated, if it were an R however, that wouldn’t be allowed to be on the property line.

Director Weaver stated, they would have to be 8’ back.

Dennis Sterrett stated, so you are not messing with the setbacks we have now.

Attorney Altman stated, we are adding more for this kind of use only is what I envision as I draft it up.

Don Ward stated, I think on any place where you are against a subdivision, like a B-1 or a B-2. The setback ought to be half of the height from the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, there isn’t anything else, any other use on a B.

Don Ward stated, I’m talking about if it is against the subdivision not against the B zoning but against the subdivision. So if it is 45’ high it needs to be 22’ away from the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, so what you are saying a non-business.

Don Ward stated, residential.

Attorney Altman stated, residential zoning or an L-1 zoning, it would be half of the height setback.

Don Ward stated, yes, that is a start.

Attorney Altman stated, this doesn’t affect them because they are not there.

Don Ward stated, right, but it would effect a new place out here.

Attorney Altman stated, right it would affect a new place out there if it is a residential area. This would give us some safety for those kinds of immature areas. This is what I’m hearing you say.

Don Ward stated, we wouldn’t do that on a building, it would be the normal setbacks, but on a ride.

Attorney Altman stated, as I review what I’m amending here is on a regulated amusement device. It doesn’t have anything to do with Indiana Beach actually. That proposal.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is the whole on this whole thing is the Indiana Beach.

Attorney Altman stated that is true.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is my biggest concern.

Attorney Altman stated, it still doesn’t get out of the area of the rest of the county.

David Rosenbarger stated, right.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, I have a question for the Commissioners. Before we go real extensive in changing this ordinance. How close are you guys, you were speaking about a year ago about changing, getting us a different book to work out of. I mean would those changed be better incorporated into our new plan. How far out is that.

Ron Schmierer stated, I think it is out far enough, I think that you need to give him what he needs now.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, okay, I wouldn’t want to go through 100 hours of changes to come up in a year and change the whole book again.

John Heimlich stated, we have interviewed one consultant. We had one guy back out and we are trying to get another to talk to. The one we talked to said it would be an 18 month process.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, so we really need to move on this.

David Rosenbarger stated, my question Ron is, from the Commissioners standpoint I understand what Mr. Spackman needs. Have you thought about what he needs, how it will affect the rest of the county? It pretty well open doors it.

Ron Schmierer stated, I think you have got to realize to it is like Dwayne’s World out there, I don’t, I know what you are saying. I’m probably thinking ahead. I don’t think that you are going to have a 4.5 million-dollar ride go in and I don’t think you are going to have anybody come in and try to compete.

David Rosenbarger stated, I don’t either and I understand the 4.5 million-dollar nice roller coaster or what about a lesser swing set pole setting out here.

Ron Schmierer stated, well

David Rosenbarger stated, those are things that I’m trying to look at.

Ron Schmierer stated, I know what you are looking at. I understand.

Gary Barbour stated, those are the ones you really need to protect yourself against.

David Rosenbarger stated, right and I guess I don’t understand, my biggest question is if there is a problem with a special exceptions.

Attorney Altman stated, there sure is. That is the one thing that the Judge so far has not, he granted the special exception, he agreed with them on that. On the height, he essentially said you have got to amend the ordinance.

David Rosenbarger stated, for that.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what your lawyers have told you right Mr. Spackman.

Ron Schmierer stated, are you amending the ordinance enough if what Mr. Spackman is telling you. I was setting here listening and you say the next coaster could be 250’. Is there away, if you do not amend the ordinance to cover that, how are you going issue to him without a special exception. Then you are going right back to court.

Attorney Altman stated, he has the special exception, it is the variance and the variance is what the judge said couldn’t be without changing the, actually the ordinance.

Ron Schmierer stated, so then if you give, I’m just asking, if you give you 150’

Attorney Altman stated, or 200’

Ron Schmierer stated, well about 150’ or 200’ and he comes in here Labor Day weekend and says look we are ready to build another amusement ride 250’.

David Rosenbarger stated, you are going to have to re-do the ordinance.

Ron Schmierer stated, you will have to rewrite the ordinance again.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what the Judge said.

David Rosenbarger stated, that does not look good to me.

Ron Schmierer stated, so why wouldn’t you want to put it at 250’ while you are writing the ordinance? That is my questions and if you don’t know the answer, I don’t know the answer.

Don Ward stated, if we have a minimum setback from the property line, it wouldn’t matter what height it is. If we said it has to be a certain percentage of the height back from the property line, we would need to worry about the height. You could have any height.

Ron Schmierer stated, I didn’t know that.

Attorney Altman stated, you can write it that way.

Ron Schmierer stated, he could be 250’ in the middle of the property or where ever he wants it as long as it is 45’ from the property line.

Don Ward stated, well what ever we set, that is just speculation.

Ron Schmierer stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so in other words, let's just assume we just make an ordinance that is 250’ and we say he can do that, so long as that is further than say half the distance half of that would be 125’ from an external boundary.

Ron Schmierer stated, that would probably be that wouldn’t it, if it is in the middle of the property. That would give you something you need and you can go ahead and work with and that is what you need to give him so we don’t have to come back or we don’t get a suit again or get us sued again. That is what I’m suggesting and I’m not on your board, I don’t know anything about it. That is what I’m saying put it up enough to start with that you have it covered, then if you go out here and someone wants to put one in then you are covered.

David Rosenbarger stated, I like that part.

Ron Schmierer stated, see what I’m saying.

David Rosenbarger stated, that is what I’m trying to get after and the other one is hopefully I hope someday Mr. Spackman gets big enough that his amusement park comes across the bridge into the big parking lot. Then…

Ron Schmierer stated, then he will buy the county farm property….

Several talking at once.

David Rosenbarger stated, I hope someday we grow into a Kings Island. He needs more land and to do that he will move and start encroaching on someone.

Ron Schmierer stated, yes, but I think…

David Rosenbarger stated, I like the idea of half the height when you get that tall.

Ron Schmierer stated, it will still come down to 45’ so he could have that one within 22’ of his property line. Won’t that work for you Tom?

Tom Spackman stated, that will work fine.

Ron Schmierer stated, that is what you need to give him. You need to give him something to work with, he is telling you that the industry is going that way.

David Rosenbarger stated, sure, I agree with that.

Ron Schmierer stated, we see it all over. Drive by some of these parks.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, it would work at other places too

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that way if someone did buy Dwayne’s World and they wanted to come close to sixth street it would have to be setback.

David Scott stated, you are saying that you can live with half of the distance of the height.

Don Ward stated, we also talked about an emergency and that was one of the reasons for leaving a corridor next to the property line so there would be a way for emergency vehicles to get in.

Attorney Altman stated, put 20’ in there and he has the corridor.

Don Ward stated, that was for emergency vehicles.

David Rosenbarger stated, the height thing is what you are really leaning on Tom.

Tom Spackman stated, the height is the most important.

David Rosenbarger stated, the most important one.

Attorney Altman stated, if we went 250’, where you are presenting would be more than.

David Rosenbarger stated, let's not go 250’. Let's go anything over 45’ has to be half the height away from the property line. He could go a 1000’ if he wants because you will have 500’.

Attorney Altman stated, which way would you want that.

Several talking at once.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, did we set at any minimum on, what is it on an adjacent property.

Attorney Altman stated, it is 20’, that is the minimum.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that is the minimum…

Attorney Altman stated, other than SFLECC.

Discussion among the board members.

Attorney Altman stated, the problem is see we think of terms of the rest of the things.

David Rosenbarger stated, you have got to put that in there because if it is 30’ he can’t build it on the line, then it becomes 15’.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I’m having the thing for B-1 and B-2. So what I have is essentially is 45’ next to a residential or L-1 since it is a little bit different will be 20’ or less. If it is B-1, B-2 it would be 0 setback and anything over 45’ then it is half of its height.

Vice President Jay Clawson asked, should we put if we are going with an amusement ride that they have approval that they are going to go to a 0 lot, even if it is, that they have approval from the adjoining lot.

Director Weaver stated, that is my thing you are taking away ??? if you let them go 0 lot line, plus in the situation that he ended up in, yes he had a business zoning beside him that would allow him to go to the 0 setback, but that business zoning was a home.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand.

Director Weaver stated, it was grandfathered and there are several out there. That whole area once you turn on to Indiana Beach road that whole area is B-2. All of those homes.

Attorney Altman stated, the only reason I kept the 0 for B-1 and B-2 because that is what the ordinance is now.

Director Weaver stated, yes, but we are in the process of amending it.

Attorney Altman stated, I know, but from the point of view from the administrative enforcing it that is why I kept it in there.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, this is just for regulating.

Attorney Altman asked, would you rather it be 10’ for B-1 or B-2 with a corridors.

Director Weaver stated, you are saying that you want a corridor around these structures, but if you let them go 0, then you are doing away with it.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand,

Director Weaver stated, I don’t care what the figure is, I think there should be a figure. I don’t think it should be 0. If you are wanting corridors around there.

Tom Spackman stated, keep in mind we do have to maintain for lane for ambulance lanes so we can get emergency equipment into any of those locations.

Vice President Jay Clawson stated, that is part of the State regulations that you have to go through.

David Rosenbarger stated, so in your drawings it will show, you have to have a core a door.

Tom Spackman stated, typically any of these rides you’ve got to be able to get a crane in there as well and the challenges of working with that. I should point out, I think it is on Mohegen Drive, which is the South fork of the Indiana Beach Road. The original name, at the present time I think that there is one home residence left in the area now. Everything else is being rented as vacation rentals. The one home uses his front yard as a parking lot and he charges more for parking than we do inside the park. I don’t know if you can really classify that as a residence or not.

Attorney Altman asked, if we do, what I just read effectively does that sound like we are being consistent with the industry and requirements and what you think that you will probably need? Like Commissioner Schmierer had tried to give you something so that you can remain competitive and yet keep the regulation within.

Tom Spackman stated, that would work very well with us.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I just want to make sure while we are all here

Tom Spackman stated, I think that would clear up that point very well. I would like to encourage addressing a couple of the other issues. Since we have an opportunity to maybe clean up some of the.

Attorney Altman stated, tell you what let's do that, but let's maybe you and myself setting down and work that and let's get this. That is what I’m just hearing. We have study this and I know the Commissioners have study this and you guys have and I think that we are ready to do this much. I would rather get half loaf within a month of two rather than right now we have something else come up.

Tom Spackman stated, I don’t have a problem with that and I would like to keep the ball rolling if we could.

Attorney Altman stated, why don’t you give me a call and we can set down and talk.

Don Ward made a motion to adjourn.

David Rosenbarger seconded the motion.

****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Don Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission