Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Ray Butz, Carol Stradling, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending was Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Joe Bumbleburg, Ball Law Firm (Attorney for Centennial Communication), Constance Bumbleburg, Randy Williams, Charles Coter (Centennial Communications), Rich Isom, David Johns, Don Sprunger and Mark Ceasar (Centennial Communications).

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken.

President Thompson stated, we do not have any minutes from the past week. I’m not pointing blame here but we have some catching up to do on some minutes here sometime. I don’t know how far behind we are.

Ray Butz stated, not too far.

President Thompson stated, yes we are but, we will hopefully have to deal with that next month.

Director Weaver swore in all Board members and audience members.

President Thompson asked, backing up a little bit on the minutes. Where do we stand on the minutes?

Director Weaver stated, I’m not sure, she has a note here August & September is what I have here.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that’s what we have, we got them last meeting.

Director Weaver stated, you did get those at the last meeting but they are not signed so they do need approval tonight. They are here but they are not signed.

Carol Stradling stated, there are few little things that I found. I don’t know if you want to do that now.

Director Weaver asked, do you have those written down?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, I just kind of circled them when I went through if you want to take them back to the girls and have them checked.

Director Weaver asked, do you want to hold off and approve them at the next meeting?

Carol Stradling stated, that would be fine.

****

 

#1019 C. B. Westerhouse, Inc.; Owner; Centennial Communications, Applicant; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on 0.147 Acres. The property is located south of Buffalo on the Northeast corner of C.R. 800 N. and State Road 39. The variance sign has been posted on the property and adjacent property owners have been notified by mail of the variance hearing. The vote at the June 22, 1999 meeting was not a majority, therefore at the applicant’s request the variance has been placed back on the agenda.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Joe Bumbleburg stated, I’m here with representatives of Centennial together with my partner Randy. I would like to make one observation and I don’t know if Jerry has actually explained to you how this thing has popped back up without a filing of a new petition and I’m prepared to do that if he has not done so.

President Thompson stated, it’s been a month so if you can kind of highlight it.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, the provision and this is one that slips by all of us even if we deal with this all of the time. Under the State Zoning Code there is a provision that says that a quorum consist of the majority of the entire membership of the Board not just who is here but the entire Board. That one is easy but then the next section is the one that occasionally sneaks up and grabs us because it says action of the Board of Zoning Appeals is not official unless it is authorized by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, which means that peculiar quorum controls. So, the first vote that you had last summer the 2 to 1 vote was in fact not an official act and because of the way that the statute works you have to have that quorum of the whole body to have an official act which means that if you’re either going to reject or accept, it has to be done by that magic number. What happens that if you don’t have that magic number I guess that night you would have had an unanimous vote to do that and if you don’t have that then it just carries over and carries over until you get that and it can last a long time sometimes. That’s how we get where we are here that we are in fact a continuation, if you will, of that meeting of last summer which means then that the record, all of the documents that you got back then are in fact effect before you for your consideration and review. That’s the peculiar nature of the law which is why we’re back here in the form that we are and now I will turn it over to Randy.

Randy Williams stated, I don’t have all of the technical information, we have representatives for our client who drove in from Fort Wayne tonight and hopefully we can get him out of here tonight before the storm comes through and I’m not sure if he is heading back tonight. Mark Ceasar will be presenting the technical information because I have gone back through the minutes, we obtained the minutes from your Director from last May and June and we have gone through those minutes and a lot of those questions were technical in nature. I think from the first meeting to the second meeting a lot of technical questions were answered but there still remain some and what we hope to do tonight is to educate you a little bit more, enlighten you about what we’re trying to do.

I believe and again, speaking with Director Weaver earlier this week, the exhibits that were submitted for prior meetings you may have in your individual packets and just so I can reference those there was an Exhibit A, it was an aeronautical study from the Federal Aviation Administration which said that this site was okay. It’s a determination of no hazard to air navigation and I think that you would have that in your packets. There is also an Exhibit B, generally showing the proposed site and we’re going to be able to develop that a little more through some computer generated documents tonight. Exhibit C, was a Township map of White County and it was shown at the time not only the proposed tower that we’re talking about up by Buffalo but also all of the towers that I believe that were existing at that time. It was my understanding again, going back through the minutes that there was one question that came up about a tower up near the Buffalo area that had been approved by special exception over a year prior. It’s my understanding that under the ordinance if you don’t act on the special exception within that one year time you loose your special exception so that’s no longer a concern in that we’re talking about too many towers in one close proximity. I do also understand, again speaking with Director Weaver, there has been one more tower approved in the county and I don’t know where that was but I think that she indicated to me in the last 6 months or so there has been one other tower approved while this application has been we believe pending during that time.

If you look at the, if you follow the ballot items, which you vote on this evening the Ordinance does authorize this particular special exception. It’s clear that it does, you have several towers already, you have other towers already in the County so it’s clear that this is something that is authorized by your Zoning Ordinance. It’s our position, again going down through the ballot items, that the requirements and development standards for further use will be met by this special exception. This is provided for the special exception, the development standards will be met by this. This will not subvert general purposes of the Ordinance. Again, we’re looking to the Ordinance and looking at what is allowed and approved under the ordinance. This will not materially, permanently injure other property. I’m not sure if anyone here this evening is here to speak against this but going back through the minutes no one spoke against this at the prior meetings. I think that the majority of the concerns were questions raised by you the members of the Board.

I have done a little bit of background search, again Mr. Ceasar is going to be able to address the number of, I think this is going to be the second tower site in White County. He also has a map showing where another Centennial Towers area in the surrounding counties. They don’t serve Tippecanoe County, I know on the way up tonight I had to get a babysitter to come up tonight so I have the phone on and you get to a certain point in White County and then it turns on to Centennial. I’m not sure what that means but it turns on to Centennial but there are no Centennials down in Tippecanoe County. What I did do is I called our Area Plan Commission just by comparison of sorts and I was told that there were 19 applications granted for special exceptions for these towers in Tippecanoe County. The difference in Tippecanoe County unlike White County, these towers are allowed as a right in the Industrial Zones so they don’t have any records of that. With speaking with the staff down there in Tippecanoe County, they said that there are probably more than 19 which we approved by special exception but if they haven’t requested any variances or any other changes from the ordinance we don’t know about them, they just get their building permit and put them up.

One of the concerns of course with I-65 going through Tippecanoe County, I-65 going through White County, you’re going to have a lot of towers. One of the other concerns here is, we want to try to avoid the dead spots and I think that again showing the computer generated maps that we have it shows where the dead spots are for White County. We will show you, based upon our computer design showing that the Buffalo area without this is one of these dead spots. State Road 39 goes up through Buffalo, I-65 is obviously the major thoroughfare but State Road 39 is an important State Highway and it avoids that dead spot. The questions again and I think the technical questions, neither Joe or I were engineering majors so, I think that the technical questions we can leave to Mr. Ceasar who is going to be able to present to you new information that you didn’t have last summer. I think that once you have all of the information in front of you that it would be appropriate to grant the special exception for this location in the county.

Mark Ceasar stated, as mentioned earlier, I’m with Centennial Communications. I’m going to hand out some maps or diagrams, I guess as a representation of what we currently have in the county. If you look at this map, there are other counties included, this is the surrounding counties to White County. The blue dots indicate sites where we are currently located outside of the county, the green dot down in the lower left is our site down by I-65 and the Southern part of White County and obviously, the yellow dot over Buffalo is our proposed location and the reason that we need to have a site there.

What these dots mean and this overlays or matches the overlay for this map so in order to make some sense out of it, if you notice the yellow circles and what this represents is signal strength density. Yellow being the highest and blue going the lowest. If you notice where Buffalo is in the center, we have what we call a hole there even though that’s a non-technical term. It’s an area where you might get coverage if you’re standing outside with your hand held phone, that’s what driving this whole design process is the fact that everyone is utilizing their handheld phones which only put out 6 tenths of a watt. In the old days when you had a phone in your car that put out 3 watts, we didn’t need all of the towers but what’s driving this is the customers demands to be able to utilize the handheld phones no matter where they go, whether they are in the car or in the house. Many people do use their cell phone within their homes so we determined that based on the highway coverage and I guess there is a fair amount of population density comparatively up in the Buffalo area. This is where our propagation tools determine this is where we need our tower to provide coverage for our customers. Again, we are getting complaints from our customers that we’re not providing adequate coverage so that’s why we need a tower. If we didn’t have to believe me, these things cost to build the tower, and equip it approximately 350,000 dollars.

Our design criteria for these towers is to, obviously, to offset some of our capital expenses to allow these towers to be co-located for other carriers. Typically, the tower would support 3 additional carriers similar to our installation so if they would happen to need coverage in the same area they could obviously locate on it also.

Carol Stradling asked, why would Winamac's signal be so much larger than Camden’s?

Mark Ceasar stated, there are two things that really effect signal strength and one is topography. The Winamac site might be slightly higher than the surrounding area with the river that cuts through especially down in Buffalo that tends to be a low area. The other thing would be foliage surrounding the area. Now, this propagation tool doesn’t take foliage into account, this is strictly based on the topography of the surrounding area so that is really about the only thing that would effect why Winamac is so much stronger.

Carol Stradling asked, so there is not a way that you could increase the equipment that is there to expand those strengths?

Mark Ceasar stated, no, we try and do that when we can but unfortunately there are limits to what we can do as far as broadcast power. These sites typically only put out 140 watts and if we go any higher than that it causes interference with the surrounding towers. They are low power, we have to keep it down that far. It’s not like two way communication where you could put 1 antenna up 1,000 feet or 500 feet and pump 1,000 watts out of it and it covers the White County. Based on our operating perimeters and limitations placed by the F.C.C., we can’t do that.

President Thompson stated, I have asked others that have asked for towers and I don’t want to sound like a smart aleck but what I don’t understand and maybe you probably just answered it as well as anyone yet because no one has answered it, we can talk to an astronaut flat footed on the moon but we have to have these towers poke-a-dotted throughout the county. Now something does not add up to me.

Mark Ceasar stated, let me clarify something, I’m not an engineer but this is what I have heard and the engineers talk about and this question has been asked before now. We can talk to airplanes up in the sky why can’t we talk to everyone with one tower in the whole county? What drives that again is power output, the signal that was focused to the astronaut was from a parabolic dish, it was focused into a pencil beam extremely high powered. We can’t do this, this is what we call an Omni directional coverage and it covers the whole area surrounding the tower. The physics of the allopatry are a signal are that if you go a mile coverage around your tower you can do that with 10 watts and to go 3 miles you need 100 watts. It’s exponential when you try and achieve more coverage and you get to the point that you just couldn’t put out enough power to make it a 360 degree coverage area. That’s just one of the limitations of physics that we run into.

President Thompson asked, but this will be, what about number 20 for us?

Director Weaver stated, close to that, yes.

President Thompson asked, you mentioned 19 in Tippecanoe County?

Randy Williams stated, 19 which have been approved, there are some others that have probably not gone through the process.

President Thompson stated, there is roughly 40 in two counties.

Randy Williams stated, that’s not unusual. Again, what is driving this is the customer demands, they want absolutely perfect coverage and we have to supply those towers to achieve that.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening?

Ray Butz asked, what did they do about that dead spot between those on the other map that we use to have here?

Mark Ceasar asked, was this presented at a previous meeting?

Ray Butz stated, yes, it was from a previous meeting. I think that he had it there, there was an area in there…

Randy Williams stated, it might have been a tower that turned on recently.

Director Weaver stated, that’s the one that I made up Ray, showing the towers.

Ray Butz stated, I know that at the last meeting they were talking about one going up at I-65, there is a dead spot there and they had to jump it someway.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, the only dead spot that I know is the one that when you leave Clarksville you drive into a black hole and then magically another 10 miles farther it reappears. As a customer those things get very distressing but that’s the technology.

President Thompson asked, have we received any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not heard anything. We did notify the neighbors again just like we did the first time and there was also a sign posted on the property again.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Carol Stradling asked, when you have customer’s call to say I can’t get service, do you log where those customers are coming from?

Randy Williams stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so is it residents of Buffalo or is it the people going through?

Randy Williams stated, it’s going to be a mixture of all of that and also our own testing. When we drive around we test the signal and determine what the coverage is for a certain location. If we find based on complaints that these complaints are definitely valid, we come up with a search area like this. There is obviously a need there so we need to put a tower up.

Carol Stradling stated, I think what we try to balance here is the effect on the area, part of that is visual, part of that is seeing the towers.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If not are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.

2. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is for a Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a portion of the lands of C & B Westerhouse, Inc. as described Deed Record 76, Page 978 in the Office of the White County Recorder and being a part of the South half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 3 West of the Second Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter, said point monumented by a P.K. nail found; thence North 00 degrees 52 minutes 28 seconds West (Geodetic Bearing and basis to follow) along the East line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 1190.17 feet to a Mag nail set; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 205.51 feet to a 5/8: rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence South 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distances of 20.00 to a 5/8” rebar set the “Bauer” identification; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 20.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, said point monumented by a 5/8” rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to a 5/8” rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 80.00 feet to a 5/8” rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 80.00 feet to a 5/8” rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 80.00 feet to a 5/8” rebar set with “Bauer” identification; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.147 Acres (6,400 square feet), more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located on the Northeast corner of C.R. 800 N. and State Road 39, South of Buffalo.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

#1081 Ronald & Vonda Kirkham; Requesting a special exception variance to place a 1980 New Moon Mobile Home in White County. A special exception is required as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

With no one representing the request the Board moved on to the next request.

****

#1085 David L. & Sandra S. Johns; Requesting a 14’ front setback and a 4’ setback from an existing detached garage to build a new home on .21 of an acre. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 733 S. Maple Street.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to represent this request?

David Johns was representing the request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to present to us tonight sir?

David Johns stated, no, just to answer any questions that you might have.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received any calls on this and I don’t know if the agenda did say that he wanted to go back on an existing foundation.

David Johns stated, yes, I’m not expanding anything, just using the existing foundation.

Director Weaver stated, the house that was there previously was a 2 story home right?

David Johns stated, a story and a ½.

Director Weaver asked, is this going to be the same?

David Johns stated, the same, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, what happened to the house that was previously there?

David Johns stated, I started out to remodel and the further that I got into it the worse it got and it just got to the point where I ran out of house and it wasn’t really feasible. There wasn’t any good point to start remodeling other than just start at the foundation and that’s how I ended up that way.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, are you extending beyond the existing foundation at all?

David Johns stated, no, we’re using the exact same foundation.

President Thompson asked, there was no response from anyone you say?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have anything? If not let’s go ahead and vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

 

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

 

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

 

6. That the request is for a 14’ front setback and a 4’ setback from an existing detached garage to build a new home on a tract of land commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot Number twenty-five (25) in T.W. O’Connor’s Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, and running thence South fifty (50) feet along the East side of Water Street in said City; thence East one hundred fifty (150) feet; thence North fifty (50) feet to the South line of said T.W. O’Connor’s Addition; thence West along the South side of said, T.W. O’Connor’s Addition to the place of beginning; and a tract of land commencing at the Southwest corner of the following described tract, to wit:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot Number 25 in T.W. O’Connor’s Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, and running thence South 50 feet along the East side of Water Street in said City; thence East 150 feet; thence North 50 feet to the South line of said T.W. O’Connor’s Addition; thence West along the South side of said Addition to the place of beginning and running thence South ten (10) feet; thence East one hundred fifty (150) feet; thence North ten (10) feet; thence West One Hundred Fifty (150) feet to the place of beginning in Monticello, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 733 S. Maple Street.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Director Weaver stated, you need to come in and get your building permit, do you have your City permit already?

David Johns stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, okay, you just need to come in and see us.

****

#1086 Richard Isom; Requesting a 31’ front setback variance to build a roofed deck onto the existing home on Lot #3 in L.D. Wert Subdivision. The property is located in Norway at 210 W. Norway Road.

President Thompson stated, I assume that you’re Mr. Isom.

Richard Isom stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional for us on the description?

Richard Isom stated, no, but, if I ever build again, I’m going to read that book of yours about 3 or 4 times.

Director Weaver stated, we have not had anyone call.

President Thompson asked, no correspondence?

Director Weaver stated, no, nothing, I will just refresh your memory a little bit, he had come to you a couple of months ago. He was re-doing a room on the front of the home and was enlarging it a little bit, he had his home damaged by fire so he has now done that addition. I do have new pictures that I have given to you showing the new part and he is now wanting to put a roofed deck on the front of the home.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, that front door is going to look pretty funny isn’t it, without the deck, without the roof over it.

Richard Isom stated, yes, 1,100 dollars worth of doors and I found out that we have to get a permit before I can build the porch to get in it.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Nothing? Let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is for a 31’ front setback variance to build a roofed deck onto the existing home on Lot Number Three in L.D. (Bill) Wert Subdivision in Norway, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Norway at 210 W. Norway Road.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have any business, I just want to let the Board know that we are working on getting the notification to the adjoining owners remedied. We did pass it at the Monday night A.P.C. meeting, we did pass the amendments to do that so our next step is to go the town councils and the county commissioners. That’s all that I have.

Jeff Saylor stated, the thing about the majority is something that I didn’t realize until tonight’s meeting. If we have a meeting and there are 3 members present and we conduct business and we have a similar situation does that automatically table that until the following meeting?

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is no, if it is an unanimous vote.

Jeff Saylor stated, no, if we have 2 and 1.

Director Weaver stated, if you have 3 approving it or 3 denying it then no, but if it’s a split vote then yes that will continue it on, that is not a decisive vote.

Jeff Saylor asked, so that should have been on the following month’s agenda?

Director Weaver stated, right, which Carol questioned that all along, she wasn’t quite sure. Mr. Bumbleburg met with Attorney Altman, and this was a result of that so that’s why it was just now going back on the agenda.

Carol Stradling stated, this was better than a lawsuit.

Director Weaver stated, you’re right and that was what they were talking.

Jeff Saylor asked, so what will happen now?

Director Weaver stated, what happened there was our ordinance did not agree with the State Statute so as part of these amendments that was in the same paragraph as who is notified on the variances so I have amended that and it does agree with the State Statute now.

Jeff Saylor asked, if there are 4 people here, like there is tonight, and it’s a split 2 and 2?

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is it has to have a minimum of 3 votes….

Jeff Saylor asked, so if it was a vote of 2 and 2?

Director Weaver stated, that would continue it on as well.

Jeff Saylor stated, what would be announced then is that we do not have a decisive vote and it’s tabled until the following meeting.

Director Weaver stated, that’s my understanding, yes.

President Thompson stated, that was the way that he read it yes.

Jeff Saylor stated, he just said continued and I didn’t know if that was like to some unspecified date or just automatically to the next month.

Director Weaver stated, I guess that we could specify what date if we wanted it at the next meeting or maybe 2 months after that. I would think that would be up to the Board’s discretion.

Jeff Saylor asked, I guess that’s my point is that the Board’s discretion or is that…

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that is clarified in the statute from what I have read. I don’t think that it goes into that much detail, I think that it just basically says that it’s a non-decisive vote. I guess that’s something that we need to ask Attorney Altman. I can’t answer your question, we should have asked Mr. Bumbleburg.

Ray Butz stated, it has never been explained to us.

Director Weaver stated, I’m sure that he could have told you. He’s very knowledgeable with Area Plan.

Ray Butz stated, down there in Lafayette, you had better be.

Director Weaver stated, I did want to mention one thing, Ron Kirkham, this is the second time this has been on the agenda. After the last meeting I did send a letter out to him telling him that he did need to be in attendance at tonight’s meeting. I am now going to request that Attorney Altman send him a letter because he does have 2 mobile homes sitting on this property illegally. They are both older mobile homes so I’m going to request Attorney Altman to send a letter to him.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, when you do that do you let the County Commissioners know?

Director Weaver asked, do I let them know that Jerry is sending a letter out?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I’m just thinking that if we send a letter out if you don’t have…

President Thompson stated, someone to back it up.

Director Weaver stated, we can’t penalize them but he definitely has to get those trailers out of there, they’re illegal. He pulled them in without any permit of any kind.

Ray Butz asked, couldn’t the trustee fine him?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Ray Butz stated, if they’re illegal.

Director Weaver stated, at Monday night’s meeting I did also ask Attorney Altman to get us a penalty ordinance drafted up because we need one. I made the attempt to get one passed without any luck so I think that there needs to be more research done. I don’t know what the solution is but I have turned it over to Attorney Altman to figure it out.

Carol Stradling stated, hopefully Mr. Kirkham can show up the next time. No, this is it isn’t it?

Director Weaver stated, it has only been to 2 meetings, 3 is usually what we allow.

Carol Stradling asked, if he does show up then we don’t have to take it any further but if he doesn’t show up then what do you do, get a tractor and haul it off?

Director Weaver stated, we have already been out there with a deputy.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Butz, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission