Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, June 11, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Jim Mann Jr., Donald W. Ward, Dennis Sterrett, Greg Bossaer, Robert Thomas, and David Scott. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Charles R. Mellon, James White, George W. Loy, Brian Crisp, Brad and Lora Brim, Rick Williams, Harold D. Myers, Connie Neininger, Robert Hickman, Ruby Garrison, Dick Secrest, Betty Secrest, William Misenheimer, Kim Brown-Creigh, Don Pauken and Kevin Ward, Deputy Sheriff. Also attending but not signed in is Gary Creigh.

The meeting was called to order by Don Ward and roll call was taken. Greg Bossaer made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the May 14, 2007 meeting. Motion was seconded by Jim Mann and carried unanimously.


White County Redevelopment Commission is requesting approval of an Order of the White County Area Plan Commission determining that a Declaratory Resolution & Economic Development Plan approved and adopted by the White County Redevelopment Commission conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.

Don Ward stated, the second, the first real order of business is the White County Redevelopment Commission is requesting approval of an order of the White County Area Plan Commission determining that a declaratory resolution and Economic Development Plan approved and adopted by the White County Redevelopment Commission conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Is there anyone here representing that motion?

George Loy stated, I’m County Attorney George Loy, I’m here on behalf of the White County Redevelopment Commission, which on May 29 approved a declaratory resolution establishing as a first step towards creation of a tiff district establishing that approximately 281 acres located in the Reynolds area, the Vera Sun property, as a tax increment financing redevelopment area, or a tiff district. I think this is maybe the third tiff district you may have considered the most, most recently. I think you considered the Wolcott corridor tiff district in January. This would be the second step of a multi-step process the White County Redevelopment Commission on May 29th established this district approved a redevelopment plan, before you tonight is a proposed order that would declare that a redevelopment plan does not conflict with your comprehensive plan or any other rules that Area Plan may have for White County. Commissioner John Heimlich’s here and Connie Neininger, Director of White County Economic Development will answer any questions you have and further explain the project if you’re not familiar with it, but after, assuming Area Plan approves the plan it will next go to the White County Commissioners for a resolution approving your plan and then it goes back to the White County Redevelopment Commission for a full hearing. This process takes awhile, but this is the second step of, in that process. Tonight your consideration under Indiana Law is to determine, hopefully, that this Redevelopment Plan that’s been proposed in the infrastructure development is proposed under the plan does not conflict with your comprehensive plan. I don’t know if John or Connie wants to elaborate on that.

John Heimlich stated, I might just add a couple things, Commissioner John Heimlich, as George said, what you’re doing tonight is stating that this doesn’t conflict with your overall plan and since you did rezone that property I assume that that’s the case. The one thing that I would point out, there is a slight difference in what you did rezone back in January and what is included in this tiff district. After that rezoning there was, what is it, little less than an acre, that was added that Vera Sun bought off of Zarse's there for the connection from the rail spur to the TP&W Railroad. They did inquire I think Diann at that time whether that needed to be rezoned. We were told that it did not, but in talking with them actually the other night when they were here at the meeting they talked to Connie and I and indicated that they do want to start the process of rezoning that other, whatever it is, .9…

Connie Neininger stated, .861.

John Heimlich stated, .861 acres that is part of that little sliver that the rail spur, where the rail spur connects to the TP&W. But that is the only difference between the legal on this and the legal of what you rezoned back in January. The other difference between this tiff district and the one you approved for Wolcott, this tiff district is self contained. It applies only and will apply only to the Vera Sun property. There will be no other business that will be affected by this. Vera Sun is going to buy the bonds themselves. The company will buy the bonds. So in other words what they’re going to be doing is fronting the money so that we can put in the infrastructure, the road improvements that will be needed to serve that plant. So it’s more a self contained tiff rather than the other 2 that you have been involved in in the past. I don’t know, Connie you got anything else to add? We’d be glad to answer any questions about it.

Don Ward asked, members of the board have any questions? Anybody from the audience? Guess not, we’re ready to vote.

Greg Bossaer stated, one thing Don, our attorney did point out that this is, I think the middle of it, it’s got planned by the Fishers Planning Commissioners it should be White County.

George Loy stated, that was a prior draft that had that typing.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah, unfortunately it was carried thru here and Mr. Loy, or Don Ward showed that to me and Mr. Loy provided us with a corrected ordinance in order so that we have the correct ordinance that would be White County where it says Fishers, it says White County now.

George Loy stated, yeah, and it will be known as the Vera Sun Economic Development Area.

Attorney Altman stated, and from a legal point of view this is very consistent with what we’ve done several several other times it goes back further than Mr. Loy indicated like when we had the tornado here we did that sort of thing and approved to that our comprehensive plan is consistent with this kind of financing and this kind of language. So this is not even close to a new thing that we’ve done before and I believe that this is consistent with the law and what we need to do. However we do need 6 votes and that’s how many we have.

Don Ward stated, yeah.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question. Does Doc still sign this even though he’s not here? It asks for the Presidents signature and the secretaries. I don’t think Don can sign both.

Don Ward asked, hmm?

Director Weaver stated, I said I don’t think you can sign as both.

Attorney Altman stated, he could, he could sign as acting and as acting.

Don Ward stated, that is interesting.

Attorney Altman stated, let me think on that just a minute.

Don Ward asked, why can’t I sign it as acting president?

The results of the vote were as follows: 6 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, and a question raised, was just raised by the fact that we have our secretary here this evening and neither president nor vice-president. Mr. Loy, do you want Mr. Ward to sign as acting president and as secretary or can we wait?

George Loy stated, Don you’re the secretary as well?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, yes, he’s the secretary and we don’t have the president or vice president here.

George Loy stated, that’s fine, he’s the acting president and he is also the secretary.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought but I didn’t know whether you wanted this done tonight or not.

George Loy stated, if possible, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Don Ward stated, okay, I need a black pen. I’m going to put acting?

Attorney Altman stated, put acting, yes.

George Loy stated, Don if you could sign 3 of them I’d appreciate it.

Attorney Altman stated, one for us.

George Loy stated, one for you.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, otherwise we’d sign…

George Loy stated, thank you very much, we are excited about the project and appreciate your support.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s sure moving isn’t it?

George Loy stated, it is.


#938 Harold Myers; The property is located on 7.149 Acres, Out NE FRAX 21-27-03 & NW NW 22-27-03 7.84 Acres, in Union Township, located North East of Monticello on the South East corner of East Shafer Dr and County Road 200N at 1995 N. East Shafer Dr.

Violation: None

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

Don Ward asked, is there anyone here representing this request? Please come forward, state your name.

Harold Myers stated, Harold Myers.

Don Ward stated, okay. You are the owner?

Harold Myers stated, yeah.

Don Ward stated, okay. I only have one question and that was why are you changing from R-2 to A-1?

Harold Myers stated, I went in to apply for a permit to put 3 cabins and a pavilion on the property and in order to…

Don Ward asked, and a what?

Harold Myers stated, a pavilion, a picnic pavilion.

Don Ward stated, oh, okay.

Harold Myers stated, and in order to do that they told me I had to have the campground rezoned.

Don Ward stated, okay. Are there any questions or comments from the audience? Alright, come up and state your name.

Robert Hickman stated, I’m Robert Hickman and I’m an adjoining property owner to the Norway Campground. I do have some concerns about the rezoning. I certainly have no objection to the effort these folks are trying to make to improve the property. They have really done a good job of cleaning up and it looks better than it’s looked for years. The cabins they had brought in were certainly an improvement over some of the junky old trailers that had been sitting there. The concern I have though is the rezoning to agricultural use. I think that leaves the land wide open for any future uses to include livestock yards or livestock containment facilities. That’s smack dab in the middle of a residential area, it straddles Pike Creek. I think there’d be concerns with the run off of any sort of livestock in there into Pike Creek which would lead directly into the Tippecanoe River. Being down in the Valley like it is I know with the Campfires and things they have over at the Campground the smoke just holds in that valley and does not leave. Now, I know that the Myers have no desire in trying to put any kind of livestock operation, but the concern I have is that when it gets rezoned any future owners would have all kinds of things open to them that I would not be very happy to see happen across the road from me. It’s my understanding that you can put stipulations on things. I guess it has to be rezoned agricultural in order to be a campground, but my understanding is that you can put stipulations on it that would bar certain uses from that if there were means to prevent any future type of livestock operation that property, I would have absolutely no objection to what they are trying to do.

Don Ward stated, alright, someone else?

Brad Brim stated, I’m Brad Brim and I also own some lots to the South of this property and I stopped and talked to Harold today to try to be a good neighbor. A group of us go up to Wisconsin and it’s the same exact scenario of a valley that we stay in with some log cabins and they’ve got some ponies for people to ride, llamas, donkeys, and some geese. And we turkey hunt there, we go up on the hills above, and when these animals wake up in the morning it’s quite a ruckus. And with talking to Herald he’s got no intentions of doing anything like that, but you know, I guess, I’m a little confused why a campground shouldn’t be zoned commercial or something like that, why it has to go agricultural to leave open these questions and also Harold told me he’s so positive he’s not interested in doing anything like this that if we could put addendums on there that their never could be livestock on that property without it being rezoned again, that he’d be willing to do that to solve any worries or problems the neighbors have. That’s my main concern is making sure that we can’t end up having livestock in that area. Thank You.

Don Ward stated, thank you. Mr. Myer would you like to talk to that?

Director Weaver asked, can I clarify something? A campground can go in an A-1, a C-1, a B-2, or a B-3 zoning, but they all must have a special exception along with the zoning. So A-1 is not the only option. That’s all I have, go ahead.

Harold Myers stated, yeah, I just want to reassure them that you know there are no plans to ever put any animals or livestock on the property. My plan is just to make it a better campground than what it has been in the past years that’s our only intentions, so…

Don Ward asked, would you be willing to give us a letter?

Harold Myers stated, yes sir.

Don Ward stated, a written statement to that effect.

Harold Myers stated, yes I would.

Don Ward stated, so that would be a condition on our approval if we approved it.

Harold Myers stated, certainly.

Don Ward asked, what about the board members?

Bob Thomas stated, I agree.

Don Ward asked, any comments?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s called a commitment, okay. Just so we speak the words that are usually associated with this. It basically says that if the rezoning is approved that you contract and agree that you will not have, in this case, livestock in there, and that if you did, that we, the board, the area plan can sue you and have that stop, and it would then revert back to the old rezoning also, okay, and you would also have to pay the attorney fees to the board in getting it done. So it is a fairly tight box if you will, however as I understand, that’s not a problem for you.

Harold Myers stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, but I just wanted to make sure you understood this okay. And it’s something that you would clearly need to do before this went to the Commissioners so that doesn’t give you very much time, although I understand you’re willing to do that right?

Harold Myers stated, yeah, I’ll do it right away. Yeah.

Bob Thomas asked, now Jerry, if he ever decides to sell this property will these conditions go along with…

Attorney Altman stated, carries on thru, carries on thru with the zoning. So long as the zoning is used thus way, it would be restrictive on him and anybody else that would have it in the future.

Don Ward stated, so you have to put that condition on there.

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly would write on the ballot…

Don Ward stated, on the ballot…

Attorney Altman stated, that he’s agreeing to do that and that you need to basically have your attorney get a hold of me immediately so we can get this ready because this will be next Monday to go to the Commissioners which have the final say, and everybody’s going to hear me say that in a little bit. That doesn’t give you much time to get this done.

Harold Myers stated, we’ll get it done.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I agree, but I want you to know that you don’t have much time.

Harold Myers stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s all. Everybody understand that, what he’s saying he’s agreeing to do? Okay, just want you to hear this.

Attorney Altman stated, the applicant has agreed to submit a commitment that will modify his request for rezoning that there will be no farm animals on this property at any time in the future without a rezoning that would allow that, based upon that commitment being tendered

The results of the vote were as follows: 6 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, this will be presented to the County Commissioners for their action next Monday morning, at 8:30, right here, and they have the final say, okay, so I would always recommend anybody be there and I want you to understand I want to see that commitment oh say by Wednesday or something like that, we can do this okay. Anybody have any questions? Thank you.


#313 Richard L. Williams; Requesting approval of a 5 lot subdivision to be known as Richards Subdivision, on part of the SE ¼ SW ¼ 5-27-3 containing 1.354 Acres in Liberty Township, located South of Lowes Bridge and off of East Shafer Drive. On the South side of Lake Road 36 E. Tabled from May 14, 2007.

Don Ward stated, we’ve had this before and it’s a subdivision that is not to have any housing on it, it’s to be and used and sold to the adjacent land owners for garages and storage and so forth and it came before us last time, we revised it, revised the road in front, and you were allowed to change the lot size and it looks like you have done that. I think everything is basically is according to what we agreed to, is that not right?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so, yes.

Don Ward stated, anybody on the board have any differences of opinions? Anybody in the audience have anything to say? We changed the road from a total of, we did have it at 50 feet, but since there will be no houses we reduced that to…

Attorney Altman stated, 37 feet.

Don Ward stated, 36 feet, so…

Attorney Altman stated, and because it’s also a dead end.

Don Ward stated, yes, it’s a dead end road. So it’s a lot bigger road than it’s been there for a long time. This is the secondary ballot, so were ready to vote.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann, do you believe that, are there any more improvements number 1 to be added to this improvement?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, no. So this would be something that wouldn’t need to be bonded and as far as the requirements that the board has asked the applicant to do, this secondary plat conforms with that right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, to the best of your understanding.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I think our engineer on the board agrees with that.

Don Ward stated, yeah, I agree. I had mine drawn up, my old one and he matched that.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s all non-residential, no residences ever on this and it’s for garages and storage areas. Right Mr. Williams?

Richard Williams stated, nobody would want to build there anyway. No access to the lake or..

Don Ward stated, what we should say here that the conditions are that it’s…

Attorney Altman stated, conditions are that…

Don Ward stated, been absolved.

Attorney Altman states, that it meets the requirements…

Don Ward stated, of the primary approval.

Attorney Altman stated, of the primary approval. If you want to go on…

Director Weaver stated, this is sec…

Attorney Altman stated, that there is no residential be put on there Don.

Director Weaver stated, secondary approval.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah, this is secondary. And everybody has secondary ballots I believe Diann.

The Secondary Approval request for a subdivision to be known as Richards Subdivision 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, primary approval has been granted in the Subdivision it’s Compliance for secondary approval and that 6 votes voted that, that it has met the approval of the primary that no residences be built on the lots and that the road be 16 foot off of this property.

Attorney Altman stated, that concludes you and you have 10, there’s a 10 day appeal period and then it can be recorded.


#314 David Wagner; Requesting approval of a 2 lot subdivision to be known as Fernway, on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, containing 1.022 Acres, located in Liberty Township. The property is located East of Silver Camp and South of Lake Road 37 E. at 4538 E. Lake Road 37 E. Tabled from May 14, 2007.

David Wagner stated, I’m David Wagner.

Don Ward stated, okay, you represent the…

David Wagner stated, right, last time I was here there was some question about the right-of-way dedication for road 38 E and you were looking for a 50 foot right-of-way because it was coming before as a subdivision. On the GIS survey they show that the right-of-way is dedicated from the property owner to the north gate on to the east, I’m sorry to the west and that gate is approximately where this land is or this acre, I intend to, or I hope to split it. Now, going to the east of that it shows nothing. So basically you have a 20 and a 20 foot dedicated for half of this area already to the west, the west half of this property approximately and then to the east half you have a 20 foot right-of-way dedicated, and then the 38 road, designated as 38 E but not showing either on the tax rolls or as a right-of-way or any other way. In other words it acts like a road, looks like a road, it’s just not shown as a road, as a dedicated right-of-way. The property owner that, that 38 E serves agreed, told me that he would not have a problem dedicating that as a right-of-way, as long as there were no legal ramifications involved and he’s still waiting for his attorney to answer him, however if you saw the plat that 38 E once it’s dedicated at the beginning of his property it’s 20 foot right-of-way goes all the way down to the lake and then theirs a triangle in the middle and then theirs a 20 foot right-of-way that splits his property in half north and south roughly. That’s the way it goes on from there. Again, the, as 38 37 E runs into Silver Camp, Silver Camp dead ends around, makes like a horseshoe around and dead ends over here and 38 E is shown to dead end as well but you know that could change down the road, I have no idea but it does go on down to the water as well. And the question we left it as, is that should I be dedicating 30 feet as of right-of-way, well in effect, you have 40 feet now for half the property length, I have a dedication 10 feet shown on the easement, and the only question is what happens from about halfway from the property to the west, I’m sorry to the East. You know which is along the North side along the cornfield basically is just north of that 38 E. So, you know, for all practical intensive purposes there are 40 feet there it’s just not shown in the County records. And the question I have and the question maybe that I couldn’t get answered is, is it really a right-of-way and somebody just neglected to record it? Jim Milligan couldn’t find any evidence one way or the other and so he showed it as a right-of-way because that’s the way it is being treated now in actual use. So I’m asking that I not have to give 30 feet of right-of-way on half of that property because A, I don’t think it makes a whole lot of sense and B, it presents a bit of a hardship because it makes the house and garage a non-conforming, but current use if you were to do that. You know he shows the 32 foot setback from the edge of right-of-way and it building will envelope, which it all fits now, but add another 20 feet on that and you’re at his front door, so he’s probably, I mean it’s still probably going to building envelope. The reason I want to do this is I want to sell this house, but I don’t want to sell all the land. And I’m not intending to build another house on this property. I’m intending just to keep it as it is and plant some trees and bushes and vegetables and stuff on it and I just don’t want to give away the property when I sell the house off. And I have the house for sale now and I can’t sell it until I settle this issue. If you been out there and seen it, you know the right-of-way makes sense as it sits in my opinion. Any questions from you all?

Don Ward asked, board members, you have any questions? Anybody in the audience? Okay, come forward.

Dick Secrest stated, Dick Secrest, I own property out there on that, at Silver Camp. That’s a 20 foot road, it’s a public thoroughfare. Everyone out there has to put gravel on and help take care of it. I have the names of the people that own property back there that want it refused. That other lane he’s talking about 3.8 was given by Katie Hinshaw back in the 1920’s. Dick and his boys all owned that property at one time. That other I believe its 208 and 209 sections up there, we’ve been told that it was sold to people in Remington, people in Chicago, so we don’t know who owns it. But according to my plat and it goes all the way back to the Spanish Land Grant, that was all Hinshaw property. And Silver Camp was Silver Camp and what he’s talking about was supposed to put in roadway to help on the west side to help so they could get out to the main road. Now you want the names of all the people we got this weekend that own property back there with the refusal to get it, let him have anything down there?

Don Ward asked, you mean you don’t want, you don’t want that 20 feet of Lake Road 38 E included and combined with…

Dick Secrest stated, no. If we do…

Don Ward stated, it would be to your advantage in a way because once it’s a full 40 feet width the county would take it over.

Dick Secrest stated, if we put the 8 inches of gravel on it.

Don Ward stated, well once you fix it up they will take care of the maintenance of it, snow removal and all, get rid of it, plus liability on it.

Dick Secrest stated, well how am I going to straighten up my deed and abstract then?

Don Ward stated, I don’t know, I worked back there when I was a kid on Silver Camp, I think we laid out those lots, that was a long time ago. That was a sand road at that time, I don’t know what it is now…

Dick Secrest stated, yeah, it was at that time. When I bought out there in 56 we put on gravel. We had it good, but when you have people coming in and out of there 50 and 60 times a day it wears it out. The last time there was gravel put on that road, Robert Clem put it on and he put ??? gravel on instead of regular road gravel and the snow plow just plowed it off.

Don Ward stated, as far as your list there. Attorney?

Attorney Altman stated, anything you want to present we will…

Don Ward asked, call it a petition or not?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know.

Dick Secrest stated, well we didn’t have time to write up a petition but that’s, there’s 2 names on the back.

Don Ward stated, now these are people that live out there right?

Dick Secrest stated, they’re lake people. They’re up on the weekend and stuff like that. But if we keep having this kind of stuff going on, you guys put it down as a subdivision that’s when everybody says no because they can move in and do whatever they please then.

Jim Mann asked, sir, did everyone out there, all your neighbors understand Mr. Wagner’s desire to use some of the land for basically trees, gardening, nothing would be built on that other piece? Did they understand it that way or how…?

Dick Secrest stated, well they understood that away but they want proof that he’s not going to… He wants it signed so that he can’t do anything.

Jim Mann stated, well I just, I just thought I’d ask that question just so you know we all understand. Well my question was, with regard to Mr. Wagner and his, what he’s just stated with what he’s looking to do with that plan and that’s what I was…

Dick Secrest stated, well he can put all the trees and stuff because Spackman down there has let the trash grow up in that pasture along side of E 3.7.

Betty Secrest stated, it’s a fire hazard.

Dick Secrest stated, it’s a fire hazard.

Jim Mann stated, do you think your neighbors would be more accepting of this if Mr. Wagner made some type of commitment that he would leave it…

Dick Secrest stated, no.

Jim Mann asked, no, you don’t think so?

Dick Secrest stated, no.

Jim Mann stated, okay.

Dick Secrest stated, no, I say stop it.

Attorney Altman stated, well the problem we have…

Don Ward stated, but I don’t understand why their, why the subdivision upsets them so much. It’s the only way you can do anything anymore.

Dick Secrest stated, because their driving in on our road. According to my deed and abstract that’s my road. It’s a public thoroughfare.

Betty Secrest stated, Betty Secrest, and the way it’s been, it’s Silver Camp Road and they were allowed to use Silver Camp Road to get to their property but they had to give up 30 feet at the fence on the west side and they were supposed to turn that into road, they didn’t, nobody did. And since it’s a bunch has sold out and changed hands so much these people don’t even know what the deal is, and they will. Well he just made the statement he wouldn’t put any gravel on it.

David Wagner stated, pardon me, no I didn’t.

Betty Secrest stated, you made the statement.

Don Ward stated, no, he didn’t say that I don’t think.

Betty Secrest stated, well we’ve got pictures here of it, I don’t know if you want to see them or not, I don’t care one way or another.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s up to you.

Betty Secrest stated, hmm?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s up to you.

Betty Secrest stated, if you want to see the pictures and have them explained okay.

Dick Secrest stated, also on that E 3.8 when the sewer system put the sewer through they went thru a county tile and there’s a 4 foot hole in this north side of that road.

Betty Secrest stated, you can’t tell, that’s the whole. It shows better, but this was the section that they were supposed to turn into a road and they’ve never done it and people are parking everything on it that you can see. But it would’ve made a 60 foot road thru that area and then...

Dave Scott asked, are you talking about Silver Camp Road or this E 37 and 38?

Betty Secrest stated, I think that’s another picture of that hole.

Bob Thomas stated, okay, that would probably be a drain, a tile.

Denny Sterrett, I think our office was called on that and it’s not a county regulated drain.

Dick Secrest stated, that’s what they said before, they said it was Hinshaw’s ditch and who’s supposed to fix it?

Betty Secrest asked, who do we get to fix it?

Dave Scott stated, who owns the land?

Dick Secrest stated, Sollar's owns the land next to that road.

Dennis Sterrett stated, if it’s on him he’s, he would fix it.

Betty Secrest stated, well it’s not really on him, it’s on that road deal where you’d have to give 20 feet to the woods.

Dick Secrest stated, I don’t know, I tried to sell my property, I can’t sell, so I just put the $500,000 up on it. I got 4 ½ lots out there. 95 feet of water front, $500,000, and I was born here but I’d sure as hell leave Indiana.

Don Ward asked, do you have any comments about it, anybody else have…

Dick Secrest stated, I’m 79 years.

Ruby Garbison stated, I’m Ruby Garbison and I live on 3.7 and what I didn’t understand, I mean, we didn’t get letters, the only ones that got letters was this couple here and we didn’t get letters about the meeting or anything, but what I understood and upset everyone else is on the list was we didn’t realize on the road. We need help on the road, we need something done because the road is terrible. The rainy season and the winter months, there’s only 3 of us that lives out there in the winter months and it’s hard to get out, especially if you have a straight vehicle. So, just like, it’s progress if someone, if someone is going to come and fix that road so we can have the county come in and maintain it, I’m all for it. But what they were, what the letter said was, and got everyone so upset was, he was going to build something on that, which is right across from me.

Don Ward stated, you mean on lot 1. On the lot that has no house on it.

Ruby Garbison stated, the one story was that a relation was going to in a year or so was going to build something on that and then bring in like a greenhouse. Well that’s, it’s not zoned for business. Unless they were using it for their own use, which evidentially isn’t the case. So…

Don Ward stated, well it would have to be the case.

Ruby Garbison stated, well you know what I mean.

Don Ward stated, they’re not allowed to do it otherwise.

Ruby Garbison stated, right, it would have to be rezoned if she had a business. But then I questioned him about that and he said no, he wasn’t building that, but he had told another neighbor that to that affect he was going to do this. But as far as making the road wider and having the county maintain it, I’m all for that. But to have a house with a business across from me, no.

Don Ward stated, well I don’t think that will happen.

Ruby Garbison stated, okay.

Don Ward stated, certainly wouldn’t happen without a rezoning and unlikely were to get it, very unlikely.

Ruby Garbison stated, well like I said, you can mark my name off of that, that’s the only thing I was questioning.

Don Ward stated, alright Mr. Wagner, you can…

David Wagner stated, well I guess the rumor mill worked a little crazy, I don’t know what it was, I don’t remember anybody talking about a greenhouse but there’s 3 of us, there’s 3 families that own the property to the south and maybe my brother told my neighbor and the neighbor, I don’t know, but that’s not the intent whatsoever, Id be willing to put a covenant in there that there to be not a house built on that for not 10 years. I don’t want to make it in perpetuity but you know, just limit 10 years, and when that expires they you know, if they decide to put a house on there you got to get a building permit and anything else that goes along with it, but certainly I don’t want a house there either. Nobody’s going to build a house on it if I own it, for at least 10 years.

Don Ward asked, what about, it seems like they are looking for help to maintain the road or fix the road up, what about…

David Wagner stated, it’s kind of interesting nobody’s ever asked me, you know, I live right there and nobody comes over and says hey Mr. Wagner, you know, we need help. Ruby mentioned it today and I, you know, no problem. I’m sitting here, I’ve got a private drive to the east of all this, okay. Just east of this property right along the side of that garage there’s a 20 foot right-of-way that comes back to my property back here. I own it and I pay taxes on it and then there’s a right-of-way that I own it goes from the west side of my house down to meet that other piece. So, technically I’m using half of that road, I don’t care. I got 3 pieces, I got 2 pieces of property on this road, I’ll put in twice, what everybody else does to maintain that road. I want it maintained as well and if the county is going to take over the maintenance of that road just by combining them I don’t see what the problem would be what so ever. I’m all for that.

Don Ward stated, you’d have to bring it up to standard once you combine it to a 40 foot right-of-way.

David Wagner asked, what’s standard?

Don Ward stated, when we subdivide we want 50.

David Wagner stated, well again, and theirs 40 there already.

Don Ward stated, well I…

David Wagner stated, but I can’t talk to Mr. Spackman about it because he’s not coming in here with anything. You know. And then, it’s it’s, you got, you know, there, if, if you look there when 37 turns into Silver Camp right along the very west edge of my property there’s a fence. Then there’s 20 -30 feet it varies in width, I think it starts about 30 and narrows to about 20, that’s shown as a dedication for a right-of-way, but the road is to the west of that yet. The gravel road. So whether that gravel road is infringing on someone else’s property I don’t know, but if I have to dedicate 10 feet on the west side of my property for right-of-way, that’s fine to, I just want to do what’s right out there. I plan on being here awhile, making improvements or whatever. I haven’t been there since 1907 or 1920 or nothing but I am a property owner with the same rights as somebody who moved in yesterday as they did 30 years ago or 50 years ago. I just don’t want to sell the whole acre. Now the only other way I could do this, I’m sorry to say, is I could cut it the other way and sell it to myself. Transfer the property to myself and then I’d have half an acre back here without a subdivision. Or I could take lot 1, sell it to myself, then come in and try to remove it from my property, subdivide my own property which included that piece then I wouldn’t be worried about the 30 foot right-of-way on lot 2, would I? Id be only worried about the subdivision and property that I own, but that’s not the right thing to do and I appreciate what you’re trying to do because it’s the same thing as everyone else. I think I told you this, 13 years on a plan commission up in the suburbs in Chicago, I understand this, but the stumbling block seems to be the 50 feet, and hopefully we’ve answered that question. Bring that road up to snuff, the county takes it over. I guess that’s everybody back there responsibility. Somebody’s going to have to get together an ordinance.

Don Ward asked, board members, what do you think about having him dedicate 10 more feet which would give 30 foot for lake, 30 foot roadway for 37 E and that would make a total of 50 feet thru there if we included the other road?

Bob Thomas stated, there’s 10 feet on there, right. There’s 10 feet showing his utility easement on there.

Don Ward stated, oh that’s right, you do have 10 feet. We talked about that someday it will eventually go together, someday it will combine I’m sure, what day, I don’t know. So, what do you guys think?

Bob Thomas asked, so right now, what is the total?

Don Ward stated, well it’s the 20 and the 20 and he’s willing to give 10 more which will make a 30 and a 20 would make it 50 feet in front of his property and he’s willing to give 10 feet along the west edge if necessary which will give 40 feet from Silver Camp Court which he probably doesn’t need to because he’s probably not going to face the house that way anyway, even if they built someday in the future. Because the setbacks are in the front.

Jim Mann asked, are we clear about what 3.8, is 3.8, what is 3.8? Is it privately owned, public, I mean…

Don Ward stated, we don’t know.

David Wagner stated, nobody knows.

Don Ward stated, undoubtedly it’s privately owned.

David Wagner stated, but nobody’s paying taxes on it.

Don Ward stated, nobody pays taxes, nobody knows.

David Wagner stated, it’s not separate, I, it’s not a separate lot, it’s to use a legal term if I may Mr. Altman, a defected road. You know, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it’s a duck, it looks like a road, it’s used like a road…

Dennis Sterrett asked, does anybody use it?

David Wagner stated, I do.

Dennis Sterrett stated, the north road...

David Wagner stated, yeah, because it’s full of grass and it doesn’t kick up as much dust as the other one does, and so does my brother and several other people, I don’t know if everybody does it, but, some of us do.

Director Weaver asked, it’s actually barricaded at one point isn’t it?

David Wagner stated, well that’s it, that’s at the, his property line is where they have the barricade.

Dennis Sterrett asked, is that the woods there?

David Wagner stated, yeah, right where the woods start and that’s roughly about halfway past my property as I said. There’s a big old tree in the middle and there’s another one down right on the very end of it but apparently the trees are in the right-of-way.

Dave Scott stated, I don’t really see a point in taking any more land off the front of his when this, from his property ease, its, it’s a, only 40 feet wide or something, I mean your going to have an offset there, I don’t know what the point is taking more of his property is?

Don Ward asked, what do you guys think? Do we accept that? I might tell you, there are only 6 members here tonight, so, you can…

Greg Bossaer asked, could we accept the additional 10 feet?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you can,

Greg Bossaer stated, to make it 50.

Attorney Altman stated, and he’s, he’s proposed it, so yes you can.

Director Weaver stated, that’s the way he has it plotted.

Attorney Altman stated, so that is, that’s the way it’s presented.

Jim Mann asked, that’s that utility easement?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Dennis Sterrett stated, it’s not really platted as a right-of-way, it’s a utility easement.

Don Ward stated, it’s not now, but we would have to make it that way. We’d have to make it…

Director Weaver stated, I thought he showed it, it’s been awhile since I’ve looked. I thought he showed it to be dedicated.

Don Ward stated, he did somewhere because I read it too.

Director Weaver stated, that’s what I thought.

Don Ward stated, I thought he said it was to be dedicated to the public. Or are we looking at a different one?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I’ve looked at so many.

Attorney Altman stated, we’ve got primary here.

Don Ward stated, right now it’s the utility easement, would you be willing to dedicate it as the roadway, to the public, 10 feet.

David Wagner stated, yeah and you can have 10 feet of utility easement after that and if you want to do it conditionally, Jim will redraw it and have it in here, you know, approval based on making those changes. It’s not a problem.

Attorney Altman stated, we could do that with the secondary.

David Wagner stated, just don’t need to have the right-of-way come up to the guys’ front door.

Attorney Altman stated, he just do that and have it corrected on the secondary.

Don Ward stated, okay, so this is the primary.

Attorney Altman stated, this is primary vote anyways, so…

Don Ward stated, we won’t to vote on the secondary tonight then?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Don Ward asked, you understand that?

Director Weaver stated, yeah, I have...

Don Ward stated, we won’t vote on the secondary tonight, you have to have primary and secondary approval.

David Wagner stated, so I have to come back again in a month?

Attorney Altman stated, um-hum.

David Wagner stated, okay. I can do that.

Don Ward stated, and then we would put conditions on it, on the approval.

Attorney Altman stated, on the front. On the primary.

Don Ward stated, on the primary, they have to have 10 feet of additional right-of-way for…

Attorney Altman stated, road.

Don Ward stated, Lake Road 37 E.

David Wagner asked, you want 10 foot right-of-way dedication and then a 10 foot utility easement correct?

Attorney Altman stated, yes please.

David Wagner stated, not a problem, absolutely.

Don Ward stated, that would be nice to do that. Should we go 10 or 5?

David Wagner asked, do you want me to give you a…

Don Ward stated, you may not ever get it on the other side right.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re right, you’re right.

David Wagner stated, do you want me to have them, as long as he’s doing it, to give 10 foot utility easement along the west side just in case.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I think that would be a good idea.

David Wagner stated, okay, I’ll do that.

Attorney Altman stated, with that, basically, it conforms to the subdivision regulations right Diann?

Director Weaver stated, to the best of my knowledge, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and for the folks here, that is the standard, if he conforms with that, we can’t stop it. Okay.

Dick Secrest stated, he don’t own that property though.

Attorney Altman stated, he owns what he’s dedicating. You got to come up to the mic okay. It just doesn’t pick up.

Dick Secrest stated, Beeson’s own that, and it’s turned into 4 different places back there now and Pinky Anderson had trouble finding who was supposed to be paying the tax’s on that section on the west side of his property and it also is showing down in the assessors that all of those places had to pay the taxes on that piece of property. It was up for a tax sale, and they stopped it because they finally went thru the assessor’s office and found it.

David Wagner stated, I’m not dedicating anything I don’t own.

Attorney Altman stated, understand.

David Wagner stated, it will be east of my property line.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right. We understand.

David Wagner stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what you’re offering and we’re accepting.

Jim Mann asked, can we clarify the conditions please?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s going to dedicate an additional 10 foot on the north side as right-of-way, road right-of-way, and 10 more feet as utility, just drop it back in 10 foot, Jim. And then on the west side he’s dedicating 10 feet in addition to that 30 foot.

Jim Mann asked, is that right-of-way or utility?

Attorney Altman stated, right-of-way. Utility.

The Primary Approval for a 2 lot subdivision to be known as Fernway Subdivision 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, the primary approval shall be granted upon receipt of additional conditions as required by the commission, this consists of a 10 foot strip of land off the North side of the subdivision for roadway right-of-way and 10 foot additional foot for a utility easement off the north side on the west side of the subdivision. Get your secondary approval or plat in here and we can vote on that.


#315 Mitchell A. & Renee C. Juris; Requesting approval of a 6 lot subdivision to be known as The Pines, on 2.632 Acres, part N ½ 16-27-3. The property is located in Union Township, North of Monticello, west of East Shafer Drive and on the north side of Neininger Drive.

Don Ward asked, anyone here representing them?

Mitchell Juris stated, I’m Mitchell Juris.

Don Ward asked, now we rezoned that didn’t we?

Director Weaver stated, yes, you rezoned all but the property on the water.

Don Ward stated, okay, we don’t have a 50 foot road on that one either, but there is a, there’s the 10 foot dedicated. Any questions from anybody in the audience, comments, board members?

Attorney Altman stated, you might have your surveyor when he presents the secondary plat indicate that that’s for a road right-of-way, the dedication, okay. Just to clear it up.

Don Ward stated, yeah, it’s not shown, it’s dedicated to the public, but not shown as a roadway.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be the one comment I could see to that.

Don Ward asked, hey Diann, everything okay?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, are these all going to be on the sewer line?

Mitchell Juris stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought.

Mitchell Juris stated, I’m going to build 2 homes there probably in the next year there. On lot 2, 3, and 4 I’m going to leave those, there won’t be any homes there for awhile.

Don Ward asked, you have any questions, board members? Ready to vote? This is primary.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it is coming for primary only.

Attorney Altman stated, so he can have the secondary and we just take care of it next meeting.

Don Ward stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, without change. So if this meets the requirements of the subdivision control ordinance best of your knowledge right Diann?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Mitchell Juris asked, is there any way we can have a secondary tonight?

Director Weaver stated, no, there’s too many lots. You have too many lots. The ordinance requires anything that has more than 4 lots, I believe, has to go to 2 meetings.

Mitchell Juris asked, and that’s June 9th? I mean July 9th?

Director Weaver stated, July 9th, yes. I know you’ve been a long time waiting to get this done.

Mitchell Juris stated, well my builder just informed me if I don’t pull the trigger this month, the 2 homes I’m building are $70,000 more. So that month just cost me a lot of money.

Attorney Altman stated, alright.

The Primary Approval for a 6 lot subdivision to be known as The Pines Subdivision 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.


#316 Don Echterling, Echterling Builders, Inc; Requesting approval of a 14 lot subdivision to be known as Echo Lane Estates, on 5.87 Acres, part N ½ 32-28-3. The property is located in Monon Township, North of Lowes Bridge and on the South side of West Shafer Drive. Between Lake Road 51 W. and Lake Road 52 W.

Don Ward stated, the drainage board has approved it, it has restrictions on the lots. Anybody in the audience have any questions or comments?

Attorney Altman asked, a 50 foot roadway?

Don Ward stated, yep. Board members, do you have any comments? If you take a look at the second page it gives you the road, the grade of the road, cross section of the road, it’s going to be a 20 foot pavement with 3 inches of blacktop on 10 inches of compacted ag with side ditches. The grade’s going to be 1% from the north to the south and have a cul-de-sac at the south end. So, it has all the utilities, it’s going to be on the sewer? I don’t remember.

Jim White stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, it’s going to be on the sewer system.

Dennis Sterrett asked, is this the primary?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Don Ward stated, primary.

Jim Mann asked, is there a utility easement noted anywhere?

Dennis Sterrett stated, utility and drain easement down both sides.

Jim Mann stated, okay, that’s also shown by the cross section isn’t it. On the road.

Jim White stated, probably not if it’s outside the right-of-way, the easement, the utility easements outside the right-of-way.

Don Ward stated, well on the drainage, the drainage’s obviously is going to go from the north to the south and it will run down the side ditches of the road probably in, even in from the lots would be drained from the road ditch.

Jim White stated, correct.

Don Ward asked, and then is that a pond, in the, on lot 7?

Jim White stated, there’s not a pond requirement, but there will be one there to slow it before it goes on into the lake.

Don Ward stated, okay, and you, you’re going to put in a storm sewer to,…

Jim White stated, there will be a….

Don Ward stated, tile…

Jim White stated, pipe underneath the cul-de-sac…

Don Ward stated, to get rid of the…

Jim White stated, to transfer from the one side over to the pond and then over to the lake.

Don Ward stated, okay.

Dennis Sterrett stated, the drainage has been approved.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Dennis Sterrett asked, did you get a letter?

Director Weaver stated, we have a copy of their permit in the file.

Don Ward stated, your surveyor, your surveyor of Vester and Associates needs to respell Shafer everywhere. It's s h a f e r.

Jim White stated, you think a home town boy would spell check his surveyors work wouldn’t ya. I represent Vester and Associates, the guy that did that’s from Carmel, so we’ll, I’ll have him respell Shafer.

Don Ward stated, well it’s no big deal, it’s just, you might as well get it right.

Dennis Sterrett stated, I think some of the old subdivisions did have two f’s in it.

Don Ward stated, yes, I’ve seen it before.

Dennis Sterrett stated, you got Echo spelled right.

Attorney Altman stated, they didn’t have spell check at that time. You happy with it Don?

Don Ward stated, looks good to me.

Attorney Altman stated, alright, that’s what I thought. Diann, does it meet or exceed the standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance to the best of your knowledge?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

Attorney Altman stated, alright, I think we’re ready to vote Mr. President.

Don Ward stated, ready to vote. Okay.

The Primary Approval for a 14 lot subdivision to be known as Echo Lane Estates Subdivision 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.


#317 Gary A. Creigh, Kimberly L. Brown-Creigh, and William Misenheimer; Requesting approval of a 6 lot subdivision to be known as KGB Estates, on 7.373 Acres, part NE NE 4-26-3. The property is located in City of Monticello at 504 & 506 Tioga Rd.

Don Ward asked, anyone here representing that request?

Bill Misenheimer stated, Bill Misenheimer.

Don Ward stated, okay. So you have restrictions, lets see if, after everything’ okay. They have a 50 foot strip. I believe they did. They have a cul-de-sac with a 50 foot radius. Let’s see. They’ll be on sewer and water, city sewer city water. They’ll have all the utilities. Tracts A and B are non-residential parcels. What are they, green space?

Bill Misenheimer stated, what, correct.

Don Ward stated, let’s see, lots 1 and 2 no buildings shall be erected, placed, or altered until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by KGB Estates Subdivision Committee. That’s going to be the people that move there, or, you are going to be that…

Bill Misenheimer stated, we are it.

Don Ward stated, you are it. Okay.

Bill Misenheimer stated, we just wanted to have some say of what happens back there. It’s a very nice area so we want to be able to have somewhat of say on it.

Don Ward asked, any questions from the audience? How about the board members?

Attorney Altman stated, just sort of as, a, it’s kind of being fussy, but I think that maybe on your access to lot number 4 you might want to draw a line of, and complete that line, otherwise you might have an argument somebody’s dedicated to driver further on lot number 4. You might want to.

Bill Misenheimer stated, yes. Okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think it means anything to us, but I think it might mean…

Don Ward asked, what are you talking about?

Attorney Altman stated, well there’s no line there.

Director Weaver stated, right here.

Don Ward asked, oh, you mean for the lot line?

Attorney Altman stated, yeah. The lot line.

Don Ward stated, oh okay, I see. Yeah, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, I think you’d want that…

Don Ward stated, tie it, close that.

Attorney Altman stated, close that.

Dennis Sterrett stated, isn’t that, if you close it, isn’t it part of lot 4 now with it being open.

Don Ward stated, wait a minute, yeah you’re right. Maybe that isn’t, that’s part of lot 4. Is that part of the acreage of lot 4?

Bill Misenheimer stated, yes

Director Weaver stated, it is.

Bill Misenheimer stated, yes it is, yeah.

Attorney Altman stated, and so that won’t be access to lot number 1, nor tract A.

Bill Misenheimer stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, then, then you’re alright if that’s where you’re coming at.

Bill Misenheimer stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I was presuming that that wasn’t part of lot number 4, but…

Bill Misenheimer stated, it is, it is theirs.

Attorney Altman stated, so theirs no dedication, a public dedication of the 50 foot line that connects lot number 4 with the dedicated roadway.

Don Ward stated, no because that’s just going to be lot…

Director Weaver stated, because that is part of lot 4.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I’m just saying for the record, I think that’s understandable.

Don Ward stated, I wonder what the perpendicular width of that is.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s a good question.

Don Ward stated, hmm, it is, that ought to be on there.

Attorney Altman stated, the perpendicular width.

Don Ward stated, yeah, yep, looks like about 30 feet.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah…

Director Weaver stated, and you’re saying on that lane here.

Don Ward stated, yeah.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Don Ward stated, because that’s really going to be a driveway is what its going to be.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah, it’s your driveway.

Don Ward stated, in case they, but they can come down onto Tioga Road. So, he can do that.

Attorney Altman stated, if you have a mountain goat.

Don Ward stated, well, he can do it. If you got enough money you can do it.

Attorney Altman stated, yep you’re right. If you got enough money you can do it, so…

Bill Misenheimer stated, you can see the old road still there. Where they used to ???

Don Ward asked, board members you have any questions, comments?

Attorney Altman stated, I think this will allow the access you were talking about and yet restrict the access in ways that I think you’ll like, everybody will like in the future verses what you were thinking of in the future, or the first time.

Bill Misenheimer stated, yes. Yes. Good council.

Don Ward stated, okay, we can go for the primary approval, ready to vote.

Director Weaver asked, you do realize that’s going to change your addresses don’t you?

Bill Misenheimer stated, yeah, somebody asked me today and I’m like, Ill give you the one I have right now.

The Primary Approval for a 6 lot subdivision to be known as KGB Subdivision 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.


Don Ward stated, alright Diann. Business meeting, you’re the boss.

Director Weaver stated, actually we have an Amendment that we need to discuss. An amendment to our Zoning Ordinance. It is for item 3.0007 it is the definition of the B-1 zoning business district and also the amendment for the B-1 zoning on our table 1 which is our official schedule of uses to allow 1 single family residence in the B-1 zoning. This is coming to you, it is a proposed change in our upcoming ordinance and I have been requested by the county commissioners to go ahead and present this amendment to you tonight for us to go ahead and change our ordinance currently now for this….

Attorney Altman stated, and what it will do is allow for a 1 family residence in a B-1 zoning…

Director Weaver stated, in the upstairs.

Attorney Altman stated, in the upstairs.

Jim Mann asked, only in the upstairs?

Attorney Altman stated, we have a lot of people who want to do that and it’s been kind of a problem really. The prior ordinance it was allowed.

Director Weaver stated, it does state second floor. I believe I sent a copy of what we have currently to the board and what is proposed in the upcoming ordinance so you could compare to what I have done here.

Don Ward asked, do you want to say 2nd floor or above? Some buildings might have 3. Skyscrapers, you never know.

Director Weaver stated, that’s true, skyscrapers in White County.

Attorney Altman stated, well was it advertised as this way Diann?

Director Weaver stated, it is advertised as second floor…

Don Ward stated, well we’re stuck with it then.

Director Weaver stated, that’s what the proposed in the new ordinance it states also, but that’s a good point.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s a good point but the second one, but I think now were stuck with this, and I think that it will be mostly okay.

Don Ward stated, it will.

Attorney Altman stated, but it, but it wouldn’t hurt if in the new ordinance it didn’t say…

Don Ward stated, second and subsequent.

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah, it wouldn’t hurt because 3’s not too high for some things.

Don Ward stated, now if we were like France, you see, the first floor is premier.

Attorney Altman stated, um-hum.

Don Ward stated, so, second floor would be the third floor. All kinds of ways around it.

Director Weaver stated, John, did you have anything to add on that?

John Heimlich stated, as Diann said, I know that there’ve been 2 or 3 people that have approached us I think. Probably have approached Diann concerning this, as she said, there, there are, it’s being done in areas now where they’re grandfathered, but, I think if it was vacant for 6 months then the grandfather was done. Had there been any concern or controversy about it, I wouldn’t have suggested it, but when we, and I think several people here were in on the discussion of the steering committee when this was discussed and it was unanimous, everybody thought that this was the proper use for the downtown area and it looked like something that was going to pass in the new ordinance without any problem. And with the delay in getting our new ordinance adopted, I had just asked Diann if we couldn’t, couldn’t put this amendment thru on its own and address some of those concerns that were being raised about it. So yeah, the commissioners have no problem with it, we’re supportive of it.

Don Ward asked, that man from Wolcott was counting on that wasn’t he? That built the, or was rebuilding the Wolcott theater and some of the other buildings?

Director Weaver stated, yeah, he was one of them.

John Heimlich, yeah, I knew it came up in Wolcott. There’s at least a couple of instances currently in Monticello where it’s an issue.

Don Ward asked, ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, we have an amendment to the ordinance ballot and on that ballot we have a yes or no as to the approval of the amendment to Chapter 3 and the vote on that is 6 votes cast, 6 votes vote yes on that, it will be forwarded to all the jurisdictions within our county for their vote on that with a positive recommendation.


Director Weaver stated, while Mr. Heimlich is sitting here too, I have a conference call set up with HNTB tomorrow morning at 9:30 to discuss what were going to go over at the meeting and their going to give me dates of when they think they will be coming so.

John Heimlich stated, good, I was talking to Connie about that awhile ago that I needed to call him this week to get a meeting set.

Director Weaver stated, if you would like to join on that, it’s going to be a conference call in my office.

John Heimlich stated, I’ll try and be here...

Director Weaver stated, next on the agenda I have the update on the Newkirk/VanDeWalle kennel. Refresh your memory this is the kennel that was in Headlee, came to you last month for a rezoning. She at that time had I believe 28 dogs on the property. The board had denied that rezoning and the County Commissioners likewise denied that rezoning. She was told at the time she met with you that she had 15 days to remove the dogs off the property, she called me, which her 15 days were up on June the 4th, that was her last day to have the animals removed. She called me June 4th asking if she could get an extension to remove the dogs, and I in turn called several of the board members and talked to you about this and we had agreed that we would discuss this this evening. I was to have an update from her as to the status of the dogs. Doc Anderson also wanted me to inform her that the fine was going to stay in place and she may still be fined but we would discuss it this evening. So she called me this afternoon, as requested, gave me an update, she says that she still has, or she has removed 16 of the dogs and there are none left outside of the structure. She believes she needs approximately 2 more days to get the rest of the dogs removed. All of the outside kennels are down, there is still some fencing up, but no kennels. She currently has 12 dogs in her basement and has kennels set up and waiting for 4 of those 12 dogs to go into. She did not come this evening, she said she did not want to spend her time here in a meeting, she wanted to work on getting these animals relocated, she also told me that she would call every day with an update of the status on these animals.

Don Ward asked, what do you think board members? Shall we give her 2 more days?

Greg Bossaer asked, Diann, remind me, how many can she have?

Director Weaver stated, 4.

Greg Bossaer stated, 4, okay, so she’s got 8 more to go.

Director Weaver stated, the first letter went out to her in March. She received her first letter in March.

Dennis Sterrett asked, so their in the basement?

Director Weaver stated, the ones that are left at this time, yes.

Mike Smolek stated, what’s 2 more days.

Bob Thomas stated, a thousand some dollars.

Don Ward asked, what would the neighbors say?

Director Weaver stated, I haven’t heard anything from the neighbors currently.

Don Ward stated, they’re not too unhappy then apparently.

Director Weaver stated, I think their being patient. Now when she called me on June 4
th she told me that 2 of the dogs had been poisoned and she lost 1 dog, 1 dog died from the poisoning. So I don’t know if that was a neighbor, somebody being vindictive, somebody just, who knows.

Jim Mann asked, should we give her 2 more days, and the dogs are still there and then we can remove the dogs? And get her back into compliance?

Don Ward asked, we can fine her, can we not?

Director Weaver stated, well we already told her that the fine would be in place.

Don Ward stated, we can fine her till she gets them out of there, everyday.

Director Weaver stated, we can fine her at this point.

Jim Mann stated, so we have no roll in getting the dogs out of there?

Director Weaver asked, can we remove, have the dogs removed, Jerry?

Jim Mann asked, do we want the roll of having the dogs removed?

Don Ward stated, we’d have to go to court to do that I think.

Attorney Altman stated, I think we’d need to go to court to actually get an order to remove them, but I’d sure be ready.

John Heimlich stated, be careful about that, I know we’ve had a couple other cases where that’s been done, ends up the county pays for boarding those dogs.

Attorney Altman stated, sure don’t want that.

John Heimlich asked, Diann, that was a couple months worth of boarding bills?

Director Weaver stated, I wasn’t aware of that one.

John Heimlich asked, you weren’t involved in that one?

Director Weaver stated, no, I didn’t know about that one...

John Heimlich stated, so yeah, I’d want her to be a little careful about that.

Don Ward stated, we want her to do it.

Attorney Altman stated, yeah, yeah I agree.

Bob Thomas stated, she said she would.

Don Ward stated, we don’t want to touch the dogs, we don’t want to hurt the dogs, they’re good people.

Attorney Altman stated, so my recommendation would be give her the 2 days.

Greg Bossaer stated, 2 days, then start fining.

Don Ward stated, all in favor of that say aye.

Members of the board stated, aye.

Don Ward stated, opposed. It’s been moved, and seconded, voted on, that we give her 2 more days.

Director Weaver stated, okay, I will inform her of this.

Don Ward stated, why don’t we give her 3 days? In case she doesn’t make it. One more day might be...we don’t have to argue about a fine that way.

Director Weaver stated, do you have to vote again?

Jim Mann stated, we voted for 2.

Director Weaver stated, you voted for 2.

Jim Mann stated, we voted for 2.

Don Ward stated, were stuck with 2.

Dave Scott stated, just don’t start enforcing it until the 3rd day.

Don Ward, she gets them out in 3 just don’t tell us okay.

Jim Mann stated, she’s actually gotten an extra week.

Don Ward stated, next on the agenda.

Director Weaver stated, next I just have for Jerry to update us on a couple Lawsuits. We have a lawsuit with Michael Spear and Borys.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s, it’s to dog gone long and complicated to talk about. Spears had his dad, what have you, as I understand had a 2 lots out on by Indiana Beach. They did what a lot of people did, probably before an ordinance. Started selling or excuse me, renting small cottages about, some years ago they decided they’d get cute and use a condominium in there, devise, without getting any rezoning done, so now they have about 14 or 15 units they say that they have tried to condo out on one lot that’s zoned L-1, one family residences. I’ve talked to Mr. Blair about this being a violation of the zoning ordinance because this is zoned for 1 or 2 family 1 family residences there and he ought to get a planned unit development done there and they just have gone straight ahead and so we’ve filed suit against them about a zoning violation and then just recently they’ve tried to record a deed if you will that for unit number 11 I think it was and I got a phone call today from a Mortgage Company wanting to know why that deed cant be recorded and I sent him a copy of this Lawsuit that we filed against them and I said it was really wasn’t for the Area Plan Department or myself as Attorney for that to decide whether Deed would or wouldn’t be recorded in White County but that we had a lawsuit against this unit and that the resident agent for this unit was this Michael Spear and he’s the one that’s trying to buy this unit in what I would suggest is a violation of our zoning or zoning, no, yeah our zoning ordinance okay

Director Weaver stated, yes

Attorney Altman stated, and the guy kind of chuckled and said that he noticed that. That is the gentlemen from the title company so I don’t know exactly where were going on this, I think were going to hit heads and be in court again, where we ought to be with this matter.

Director Weaver stated, that’s why I thought the board should be updated because it is getting to be long and drawn out and difficult.

Dennis Sterrett stated, did they get that plat recorded?

Attorney Altman stated, well it was entered for taxation.

Director Weaver stated, it was not entered for taxation.

Attorney Altman stated, it was not entered for taxation, but it was recorded, but it wasn’t entered for taxation.

Director Weaver stated, so therefore the legal description that this deed is coming thru with the auditors office doesn’t acknowledge being a legal description.

Jim Mann stated, so it’s an illegal cut.

Attorney Altman stated, yep, yep, basically right. Now the problem is, a condominium is not controlled by our Subdivision Control Ordinance, however it is still a violation of the zoning ordinance. Because there's no treating it like it is a separate unit. And it’s only zoned for 1 family residence on the whole lot and they’ve got at least 15 on there. So were trying to get under, correct, zoning ordinance, zoning classification, which would be a planned unit development, so far that hasn’t happened, but that’s what were working toward to get the control of that. And with this other one it is basically where they had 2 campers, which is that a fair statement?

Director Weaver stated, R.V.’s.

Attorney Altman stated, R.V.’s on this lot and they hooked them up to the sewage system and they hooked them up to the water system and they hooked them up to the electricity and when that happened we tried to send them again, notification, Diann did, not we, I don’t have a mouse in my pocket, Diann did thru the department and tried to get them again to come into compliance because our ordinance says that that is a campgrounds, is that right the words and that requires a different zoning classification. There again, nothing heard, nothing heard, so we filed suit and now we’ve received an attorney whose filed his appearance and were in the process of again trying to get them to do what they ought to do and I trust that where it will come out, but I don’t know that for sure. And that’s about it, that’s about it.

Director Weaver stated, one other violation that were dealing with right now is we have a church that is local, that is selling fireworks and their zoned residential. The current ordinance doesn’t address where fireworks can be sold but when you read the definition it appears that it should be sold in a B-2 zoning. We have sent notice to the Church last week, they have, we told them to cease and desist immediately, they have not done that, we believe that they have received their letters we sent one out regular mail and one certified mail and we believe that they at least received the regular mail letter and they are still continuing to do business, so we will be taking the appropriate action on that as well. So.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s about it, any questions?


Jim Mann made a motion to adjourn.

Greg Bossaer seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission