Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, Ray Butz, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Heather & Jason Cottrell, Matt Schafer, Bill Gerhart, James Pinkerton, Randy Stearns, Marilyn Young, Jake Hall, Charles R. Mellon, Jeff Ward, Rick Shear, Roger Mitchell, Jerry McCoskey, Darryl Miller, Jill Allgood, Steve Carter, Corey Allgood, Lonnie Spires, Red Pierce, Klaudius Mirkowski and Barbara Backe.

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

President Thompson stated, before we begin tonight we have a guest, Matt Shaffer, Matt would you stand please. He is a boy scout member of troop #303. He is here tonight to help earn his merit badge, correct me if I’m wrong Matt, for citizenship. Is that right?

Matt Shaffer stated, yes.


President Thompson stated, this is part of his requirement so we’re glad to have you Matt and hope you achieve your award. Thanks for coming tonight.

Matt Shafer stated, thank you.

No minutes were available to approve.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1097 R & J Properties, Inc.; Requesting a 105 space parking variance for a retail establishment on 2.31 acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that they have 180 spaces and they are requesting to have 75 spaces. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of North Sixth Street, approximately 1 block from Fisher Street. Tabled from April 20, 2000.

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

Roger Mitchell stated, I’m President of R & J Properties and I’ll answer any questions anyone might have.

President Thompson asked, I’m kind of in a bad position here, I did not attend the meeting in April, how should I…

Attorney Altman stated, we did not receive any evidence so you are on an even key with everyone else.

Director Weaver stated, they were not in attendance so we tabled this.

Attorney Altman stated, so you can proceed. It’s new for everyone.

President Thompson asked, nothing new to present tonight I assume?

Roger Mitchell stated, no this is our first presentation. Essentially, we’re just asking to put in fewer parking spaces than what was originally asked for because what we feel what we have proposed there is more than adequate. There will be additional parking in the rear for employee parking. I think that it says 74, whatever you have in front of you there but it will be closer to 80 plus everything across the back of the building for employee parking. Only the businesses will be serviced by the primary lot which will run the distance of the building North and South but, 160 parking spaces is a lot of parking places.

Director Weaver stated, retail buildings, this again is one of he areas that we have had problems with in the past with meeting the requirements on parking.

President Thompson asked, where did this come from?

Director Weaver stated, that is what they gave to us at the time of application. Angie has just sized it down for the Board members.

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

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything on this.

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

Attorney Altman asked, the businesses that will be in there, what type of businesses are they going to be?

Roger Mitchell stated, well, obviously we don’t know all of the businesses that will be in there but they will all be B-2 businesses.

Attorney Altman asked, retail?

Roger Mitchell stated, retail type.

Attorney Altman asked, sales business?

Roger Mitchell stated, exactly, similar to what we have over on Fisher Street. That’s a good mix, we intend to do the same thing.

Attorney Altman stated, Fisher Street, tell me the address on Fisher Street.

Roger Mitchell stated, it will be just around the corner, it would be the 800 block of Fisher Street. Nails 2000 is in there, Fiesta Hair, Quality Copier and Fax, Corporate Staffing, Industrial Federal Credit Union and the White County License Branch.

Attorney Altman asked, so it will be that type of business that you anticipate being in there?

Roger Mitchell stated, yes, I’m assuming that there will be 8 or 9 businesses in the new building. There are 6 businesses on Fisher Street. That type of a mix, obviously, we don’t anticipate replicating what we have exactly but that gives you the flavor of what will most likely be out there but it is zoned B-2.

Attorney Altman asked, is this amount of parking spaces that you have on the place on Fisher Street?

Roger Mitchell stated, yes, essentially it’s the same thing exactly.

Attorney Altman asked, same proportions, reduction?

Roger Mitchell stated, yes, it has the same flow and the same setup. There will be a row of parking next to the building and then a row of parking facing West to the Street with employees parking in the rear.

Attorney Altman asked, have you had any trouble with not having enough parking spaces for your businesses?

Roger Mitchell stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, the businesses have been busy and active?

Roger Mitchell stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and fully occupied as I understand, right?

Roger Mitchell stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, again, just trying to make the record.

Roger Mitchell stated, we think that it will be adequate based on what we have seen with the other two buildings.

Attorney Altman asked, especially with the employee parking in the back?

Roger Mitchell stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Gary Barbour asked, this is part of what we are looking at amending with the parking in APC, right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I move that we go ahead and vote.

President Thompson asked, does the rest of the Board feel the same?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, we will vote then.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is zoned B-2, General Business

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 all adjacent property owners.

6. That the request is for a 105 space parking variance for a retail establishment on 2.31 acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that they have 180 spaces and they are requesting to have 75 spaces. The property is located on

part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwestern corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28; thence North 50 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds East for 38.67 feet to the eastern right-of-way line of Sixth Street; thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 41 seconds West along the said right-of-way of Sixth Street for 385.75 feet to the Point of Beginning, said point being the southwestern corner of Lot 1 in the Mitchell Subdivision; thence continuing North 0 degrees 05 minutes 41 seconds West along the said right-of-way line for 412.02 feet; thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes 19 seconds West along the southern line of said Lot 1 for 244.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.31 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of North Sixth Street, approximately 1 block from Fisher Street.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1100 Heather Cottrell; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a 1966 mobile home in White County.

Heather Cottrell stated, I will answer any questions that you may have.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that the Board has a copy of the inspection done by Bob Braaksma, I have also made a couple of copies of the pictures that were submitted by him. There are more in the file that shows the interior of the mobile home as well.

Attorney Altman asked, has it been upgraded to the 100-amp service yet?

Heather Cottrell stated, no, not until we move it. Bob told me that we could move it and he would come back and do another inspection after we have that done.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that all of the things that Mr. Braaksma has requested that you do we would require that would be done before you could live in it?

Heather Cottrell stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so if it is approved based upon this you still have to do everything that Mr. Braaksma is requiring like 100 amp service, before you can get an occupancy permit.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything on this. Mr. Braaksma told me that for the age of the mobile home that it is in very good condition.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Does the Board have any questions? If there are not comments then I guess that we are ready to vote.

Attorney Altman stated, while they are voting let me give you just an idea what is going on here, before someone can site a mobile home in White County that isn’t a new one, they have to have it inspected and then they have to get a permit through the Board of Zoning Appeals that it’s okay. We don’t want the real bad ones here and we are trying to keep that from happening so if you happen to notice or see one coming in and there isn’t a sign out front let Director Weaver know. We don’t want kids in fire traps and that’s really what we’re trying to stop.

Director Weaver stated, this is your new ballot, this is the mobile home ballot that you adopted last fall.

Jeff Saylor stated, but the things that we’re being asked to answer aren’t done yet so, I need some direction here.

Director Weaver stated, what our intention was with this ballot was to do away with the second inspection.

Attorney Altman stated, but with this we have to do away with the second inspection to make sure that it’s right. As an example of whether it’s in good working or at least 100 amps the answer is no but it will be required to be set is the best answer that I can give you there .

Director Weaver stated, this ballot is pretty cut and dry if there is a negative mark on it then it’s denied.

Gary Barbour asked, can’t we mark it as is if we wanted to accept it, can we mark it and then put an amendment on at the end of it with the special exceptions?

Director Weaver asked, conditions?

President Thompson stated, in order or second inspection.

Attorney Altman stated, I would certainly put that on there, I would say that it…

Gary Barbour stated, if we say no because of that 100 amp service then it is not in good working condition then you have good reasons but if you mark it is not then according to the draft then you’re denying it. I don’t think that’s necessarily what we want, I don’t think.

Attorney Altman stated, I would put is and required that it be so before a permit is issued.

Director Weaver stated, is, but, with conditions in other words.

Attorney Altman stated, is, then with reasons with conditions. I don’t see a very easy way to tell what I’m saying but that’s the best that I can do, giving the phrase on the ballot and I understand…

President Thompson stated, it’s all according to the second inspection.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to get a second inspection.

Director Weaver stated, you need to supply us a copy of that second inspection.

Jeff Saylor asked, can I just put it subject to second inspection?

Attorney Altman stated, yes I think so.

Attorney Altman stated, so your authority will be if they improve it to be sited then to get it corrected, inspected, and get it to Director Weaver and then we can give an occupancy permit with all of that.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1966 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the variance herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, 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 section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, the indication is that the ordinance does authorize it subject to the second inspection on the smoke detectors, wiring and the plumbing also. You need to get those checked out and a letter back to Director Weaver before you can in fact occupy it, and also get a building permit. Do you have any questions?

Heather Cottrell stated, no.

****

#1101 New Hope Baptist Church; Requesting a 22’ front setback variance and a 20’ rear setback variance to build a new church on part lot #17 in Lake Addition. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott on Market Street, take Range Street to Market Street, turn to the right and the property is located approximately 3 blocks on the south side of the road.

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

Randy Stearns stated, I’m a member of the deacon Board of New Hope Baptist Church and my counterparts and me will try to answer all of your questions that you have.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to the description right now before we go any further?

Randy Stearns stated, no I do not.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this, they have gone through a rezoning and rezoned to R-2, which is appropriate for a church. This lot is very wide and very shallow, it is only 90’ deep so that is the purpose of this variance.

Attorney Altman asked, what will it be, just a church?

Randy Stearns stated, right, just a church.

Attorney Altman asked, no school or anything like that?

Randy Stearns stated, no, right.

Attorney Altman stated, also this is obviously on municipal water and sewage.

Randy Stearns stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, and you’re going to hook up to that?

Randy Stearns stated, we have been okayed to do that by the Town of Wolcott.

President Thompson asked, do you have anyone here representing the Town of Wolcott tonight?

Randy Stearns stated, no.

President Thompson stated, that’s okay. Is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any comments or concerns from the Board?

Jeff Saylor stated, that project seems to be awful close to the railroad.

Randy Stearns stated, actually, the building itself would still be approximately 40’ from the railroad, from the center of the track.

President Thompson asked, is that 10’ from their right of way?

Randy Stearns stated, right, this is just 10’ from the right of way, not the track itself. The 10’ is not the track.

Jeff Saylor asked, so the track would be from the line that is shown from here how far?

Randy Stearns stated, from their property line probably around 40’, I assume that the track would be back yet.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? If there is nothing else, are there any concerns?

The Board stated, no.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote. Where are you operating out of right now?

Randy Stearns stated, the old Thayer building, the church you mean?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Randy Stearns stated, in the Legion Hall, we’re conducting church from there. It’s a couple of blocks down the street from us.

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 22’ front setback variance and a 20’ rear setback variance to build a new church on Lot #17 in the Lake Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana except 20.00 feet of even width off the entire east end thereof.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott on Market Street, take Range Street to Market Street, turn to the right and the property is located approximately 3 blocks on the south side of the road.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed, and you need to get a State permit and all of that which you have probably already started on.

Randy Stearns stated, thank you very much. Thank you for your help Director Weaver.

****

#1102 Condo Salvage, Inc., Owner; Zakian Communications, Inc., Applicant; Requesting a separation variance of 331’ from an existing off-premise sign. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that an off-premise sign have a separation of 500’ from any other off-premise sign. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the West side of Sixth Street, just South of the railroad tracks.

Tom Brooks stated, I’m the attorney for Zakian Communications and I have with me Klaudius Mirkowski, President of Zakian Communication. We are requesting a variance from the 500’ distance between off-premise signs. What we have now is, we have a sign right now at Casey’s General Store that Zakian Communications entered into with Max Sherry back in 1996 and then Mr. Sherry sold that to Casey’s General Store. When Casey’s came in they put that canopy up and the canopy is now blocking part of our sign, the sign coming into town. Consequently we have been having a lot of trouble getting that sign rented and no one wants to rent that sign because you can’t see it. We have a lot of people interested in renting sign space, local people renting sign space but they don’t want to rent this particular sign because they can’t see it. What we want to do is move the sign on the other side of the railroad tracks, just on the other side of the railroad tracks, on property belonging to Condo and Sons. Put up a new structure there so we’re moving it 112’ is what we’re doing from where it is at the present time. Are there any questions? I would be happy to answer them or Mr. McCoskey would be happy to answer them.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Comments from the Board? Questions?

Attorney Altman asked, as I understand the sign that is presently at Casey’s will be removed?

Tom Brooks stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, there would be no sign there?

Tom Brooks stated, correct, it will be removed.

Attorney Altman asked, and your proposed sign location is as Mr. Milligan has located on this survey?

Tom Brooks stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, then the sign will be of the specifications as….

Tom Brooks stated, as stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, as indicated near the north arrow sign on this survey also?

Tom Brooks stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, in other words, 20’ in the air, 10’ x 28’ sign and…

Tom Brooks stated, 10’ x 20’ sign.

Jerry McCoskey stated, 10’ x 28’.

Attorney Altman stated, 10’ x 28’ is what it says.

Tom Brooks stated, I can’t, my bifocals don’t work all of the time Jerry.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, just again trying to establish the record. The other thing is for the record, you have submitted 3 Polaroid photos showing where the old sign was and really showing both and almost all 3 and the location of the area.

Tom Brooks stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m marking them applicant’s Exhibit #1, #2 and #3.

Jeff Saylor asked, Jerry, could we make the removal of the existing sign a condition?

Attorney Altman stated, I think so, clearly.

Jeff Saylor asked, do we need to make a motion?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that I would mark it on the ballot. That would be the very best place to do that although a motion is certainly in order.

President Thompson stated, I would like that myself on the record.

Jeff Saylor stated, at this time I would like to make a motion that any approval of this variance would be contingent on the removal of the existing sign.

President Thompson stated, we have a motion on the floor from Jeff Saylor, that approval of this variance would be contingent of the removal of the existing sign, correct?

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, do I hear a second to that motion.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded. All signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed the same. Motion carried. Is there any other discussion on this? If not is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the site is properly zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial.

2. That the lot is a portion of a larger tract and is not of record or 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 separation variance of 331’ from an existing off-premise sign on property commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana; thence South along the section line and the centerline of Sixth Street 693 feet; thence West 57 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 5 feet; thence West 30 feet; thence North 5 feet, thence East 30 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the west side of Sixth Street, just south of the railroad tracks.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the conditions set by motion and seconded unanimously in adoption the same, the special exception has been granted. You need to get a building permit also.

Director Weaver stated, you do have to get a city permit prior to getting our permit.

Tom Brooks asked, City building permit?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

****

#1103 Jill Allgood; Requesting a special exception to have a dog kennel in an A-1 zoning on 3.716 Acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that a dog kennel go in an A-1 zoning with an approved special exception. The property is located in Liberty Township at 9346 N. 650 E.

Jill Allgood stated, I would answer any questions that you may have.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything extra to present to the Board this evening?

Jill Allgood stated, I have some pictures if you would like to look…

Attorney Altman stated, if you give them to us, they’re ours.

President Thompson stated, we keep them.

Jill Allgood asked, you keep them?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Jill Allgood stated, then I don’t want to give them to you. I can give you this though, this is just a floor plan of what we’re looking at.

Attorney Altman stated, she has submitted a floor plan of the proposed kennel. Jill why don’t you come up and tell the Board what that means.

Jill Allgood stated, what we have in mind is boarding dogs for people that are on vacation. We have 20 runs there. This is going to be a concrete building, insulated, all of the runs are inside, there will be no dogs outside. There will be exercise runs outside that we can take them to. We’re also looking at doing a grooming, where we can groom the dogs also.

Ray Butz stated, I know that around the holidays it’s hard to find a place to board a dog.

Jill Allgood stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman asked, the 20 kennels would be 20 dogs, that’s essentially what we’re talking about here?

Jill Allgood stated, yes, and then the cats are in a separate area.

Attorney Altman asked, how many kennels?

Jill Allgood stated, I don’t know yet, however many that I can get in this one area I guess.

Attorney Altman stated, what is your proposal if it were allowed to be in there?

Jill Allgood stated, I would imagine 7, 7 cats, kind of depending on how many crates that I have. The area is going to be 10’ x 19’.

Ray Butz stated, it doesn’t take near as much room for cats.

Jill Allgood stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, we will mark that as petitioner’s exhibit A.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response on this?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received any calls on this. I did want to clarify one thing to the Board. She is not asking for the variance to be on the whole entire property. She does own additional property where the home is located. The home is on further back from what she is requesting this on, I just want the Board to be clear of that and understand that.

Attorney Altman asked, so this is just 3.71…

Director Weaver stated, this is the front of her property, am I quoting that correctly?

Jill Allgood stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what we advertised.

Director Weaver stated, right. She had a special legal description drawn up for that.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any concerns from the Board?

Jeff Saylor asked, in granting a special exception, am I correct in understanding that is granted to the property itself and continues even if there is a change in ownership?

Attorney Altman stated, it can continue for this use, for the kennel and one approximately this size.

Jeff Saylor asked, for my own information could that be amended to, in case there is a sale of the property, by a motion if it is approved by the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, you mean if it could be limited to a person?

Jeff Saylor asked, the special exception would end if there were a change in ownership and the Board voted in favor of that?

Attorney Altman stated, you could certainly vote on that.

Jeff Saylor asked, is that legal for that to happen?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s legal, you can restrict special exceptions, yes.

Ray Butz stated, as long as it stays a dog kennel you can’t…

Jeff Saylor stated, it wasn’t that necessarily, this is a special exception is my question.

Director Weaver stated, I was thinking that the Board had done that one other time over by Idaville, with the animals.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m trying to remember exactly what the structure was on that but that was limited to that owner, it is a little bit different because it was for big animals there.

President Thompson asked, now do what again, Jeff?

Attorney Altman stated, he was just asking.

Ray Butz asked, they were wild animals weren’t they?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, they were wild animals.

Jeff Saylor stated, it was a question regarding the special exception…

Attorney Altman stated, can you limit it to….

Jeff Saylor stated, if we vote that something could happen then as long as that particular business or activity continues it doesn’t make any difference how many owners there are. My question is, if there is something, an issue that comes up where I would perhaps want to limit it if there is a change in ownership, then I can make a motion to that effect.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you certainly can and we get that, and we did that with the big animals. We were satisfied with the gentlemen’s expertise but we did restrict that to just him being able to do it, not someone else coming in. They would have to get that approved if someone else came in.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t want to make it a motion.

President Thompson asked, you don’t want to?

Attorney Altman stated, he was just asking.

President Thompson asked, you don’t want to make a formal motion?

Jeff Saylor stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there any other comments or questions? If not let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.

2. That the lot is a portion of a larger tract and is not of record or 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 special exception to have a dog kennel in an A-1 zoning on property commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana; thence South along the quarter section line 584.44 feet to the point of beginning;

thence South 215.92 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes West 265 feet; thence South 131.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes West 70.00 feet; thence South 85.00 feet; thence West 200.00 feet; thence North 407.70 feet; thence North 86 degrees 55 minutes 07 seconds East 535.74 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.716 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 9346 N. 650 E.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1104 Barbara Ann Backe & Lonnie & Jennifer Spires; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to build a new home on .17 of an acre. The property is located in Monon Township at 3902 E. 1st Road.

President Thompson stated, your name please.

Lonnie Spires stated, I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

President Thompson asked, do you have additional information?

Lonnie Spires stated, the lot is just narrow and we just need that. We have mature trees down the private lane, which is East First Road, so we were just trying to get it to fit in appropriately.

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

Director Weaver stated, I have not received any calls on this. I tried to show you in your pictures that they do have, behind the property, it is narrow but there is also a drop off at the back of the property. There are big trees on the front side of this lot, it’s very quite and peaceful back there.

Lonnie Spires stated, yes, thank you.

Attorney Altman asked, it’s a pretty small lot.

Director Weaver stated, there again, very shallow especially with the drop off on the backside.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s .17 of an acre, have they got septic approval and well approval?

Director Weaver stated, I think so and I believe that it is in the back of that file.

Red Pierce stated, they have the new town sewers going in, I’m the builder. I have dealt with your septic bud that is putting in the new town sewer and he said that they would let him work off of the existing septic and by August they would have the new town sewer in. We’re doing all of the stubs and the preparation work to do the hook up to the new proposed lift station.

Attorney Altman asked, you don’t mean town do you?

Director Weaver stated, the county sewer that is going in.

Attorney Altman asked, it would be sewer, would be on mechanical system.

Red Pierce stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, but the well would still be a dug well right, drilled well?

Red Pierce stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, would they actually put in a septic system here?

Red Pierce stated, there is an existing septic system that, he removed a structure that was there, that was a living space.

Attorney Altman asked, so he will hook to the other system of the, Twin Lakes Regional Sewer will hook on to this and he will hook on to that?

Red Pierce stated, yes, we will prep them to be hooked up and what ever it takes when the time comes.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest with the size of this lot that we make a condition that when it’s there he has to hook it up.

Director Weaver stated, my understanding too for the Board’s knowledge is that the Health Department is not going to allow them to occupy these homes until they are hooked up to this system. He is also making that known to them that they cannot occupy the home until it is hooked up.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, that is just a further condition of it, that’s fine. That takes away a lot of problems with this proposal.

Director Weaver stated, we are getting several situations like this.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand the condition?

Lonnie Spires stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, the conditions, the limitations about being able to occupy and all until you can hook on to the Twin Lakes Regional Sewer.

Lonnie Spires stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, then that would be a condition of the vote tonight, that you can’t do that, but you can build your own if they approve it.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone opposed to the variance? Does the Board have any questions?

Ray Butz asked, is it one story?

Lonnie Spires stated, yes, one story.

Attorney Altman asked, how many bedrooms?

Lonnie Spires stated, it will be a two bedroom and a two bath.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions or comments from the Board? 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 the 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 10’ front setback variance to build a new home on a tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-One (31), Township Twenty-Eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at an iron pipe on the Section Line which is North Eighty-Nine Degrees and Fifty-Four Minutes West (N 89º 54’W) Four Hundred Twenty-Two and Seven Tenths (422.7) feet from the Northeast corner of Section Six (6), Township Twenty-Seven (27) North, Range Three (3)  West and running thence North Eighty-Nine Degrees and Fifty-Four Minutes West (N 89º  54’W) along the Section Line Ninety (90) feet to an iron pipe; thence North Zero Degrees East (N 0ºE) Eighty-One and Forty One Hundredths (81.41) feet to an iron pipe; thence South Eighty-Nine Degrees and Forty-Eight Minutes East (S 89º 48’E) Ninety (90) feet to an iron pipe; thence South Zero Degrees West (S 0ºW) Eighty-One and Twenty-Six Hundredths (81.26) feet to the point of beginning, containing seventeen hundredths (.17) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 3902 E. 1st 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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the condition that the improvement cannot be occupied until it is hooked up to the Twin Lakes Regional Sewer. You need to get your building permit first. You can proceed, you can’t occupy it, but you can proceed.

****

#1105 Ronald A. Schmierer; Owner; Perry & JoAnn Cain, Applicant; Requesting a special exception to have a truck terminal in I-1 zoning on 2.00 acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that a truck terminal go in an I-1 zoning with an approved special exception.

President Thompson asked, are you Mr. Cain?

Rick Shear stated, no, I’m representing the applicant.

President Thompson asked, in what compacity?

Rick Shear stated, I’m brokering the deal and have filed for his file change and special exception.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add this evening?

Rick Shear stated, I don’t’ believe so.

Director Weaver stated, they have recently gone through a rezoning. This had a grand-fathered use on the property, it’s been used for business for many years. They have just recently rezoned it to an I-1 and then this is their second step to do this.

President Thompson asked, just curiosity, truck terminal?

Rick Shear stated, in actuality, this gentlemen is a private carrier and he has 4 trucks, I should say 4 semis, and 7 trucks and it’s more about repair facility. They won’t be doing any terminal work in terms of off loading any inventory. I might add that this has been a truck terminal in the past, in it’s prior uses.

Ray Butz asked, are they going to leave that house trailer there?

Rick Shear stated, no they are not. They are going to require that it be moved.

Attorney Altman stated, good that was my next question.

Rick Shear stated, let me tell you that everyone is happy to hear about that.

Director Weaver stated, where is it going?

Rick Shear stated, the tenants actually own that, they just pay a land fee.

Director Weaver stated, is it going out of White County?

Rick Shear stated, if they don’t take it with them, we have disposal in mind.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that they may have trouble sighting that any where else in White County so you need to tell them that. They can’t just buy some place or rent some place and put it in White County. As you have seen with the young lady that had a very spiffy looking trailer and that’s what the report said but it still wasn’t good enough to meet the ordinance and this one doesn’t look like it’s going to…

Rick Shear stated, we would let them know that. I’m kind of hoping that they abandon it so that we can tear it up.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything.

President Thompson asked, no response of any kind?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Any comments from the Board members? If nothing, we will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

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 special exception to have a truck terminal in I-1 zoning on a tract of land out of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 25 North, Range 4 West in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana, described as follows, to wit:

Beginning at a point which is 563.75 feet West of the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 28, and running thence North 01 degrees 50 minutes West 348.48 feet; thence North 90 degrees West 250 feet; thence South 01 degrees 50 minutes East 348.48 feet; thence South 90 degrees East 250 feet to the point of beginning containing 2.00 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located south of Brookston at 145 W. 1150 S.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to that mobile home being removed, action on BZA #1105 was approved, as testified to. There will be no building permit right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, not at this time unless they are going to build something.

****

#1106 William O. & Glenda R. Gerhart; Requesting a 6’ East side setback variance and a 6’ West side setback variance to replace an existing detached garage on lot #58 and Lot #58A, also, 1’ off the West side of lot #57 and out NW 27-26-3 in Gingrich Addition. The property is located South of Monticello at 5244 S. Gingrich Court.

William Gerhart stated, I will be happy to answer any questions.

President Thompson asked, do you have any other information that you would like to present to us tonight sir?

William Gerhart stated, no, not really.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this in the office. The pictures that I did take are showing the garage that he is going to remove.

President Thompson asked, no response?

Director Weaver stated, no, none.

President Thompson asked, I just wanted to make sure I hear you right. Is there anyone opposed to the variance this evening? Are there comments or concerns from the Board?

Gary Barbour asked, the garage is going to be the same size and everything?

William Gerhart stated, the new garage would be bigger, it would be 22’ x 36’. The present garage is 22’ x 24’.

Attorney Altman asked, this won’t be on the septic area above it?

William Gerhart stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, the only thing that I would like to let you know is the new garage can not exceed 15’ in height. We do have a maximum on that, just so that you are aware of it when you come in for your permit.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing is since this is 0’ lines you must be very sure that you’re right. We can’t allow even though, I guess this says that it goes there, if it doesn’t we haven’t said that you can encroach on anyone in any way shape or form. Even if we approve that and assuming that they vote to approve that 0’ lot line, we are not allowing it to encroach.

William Gerhart stated, I understand, Dennis Sterrett surveyed and I have my red flags and it is well marked so we shouldn’t have any problems.

Attorney Altman stated, 0’ is awful close.

President Thompson asked, are there any comments or concerns? If not we shall vote.

With on further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned L-1, Lake District

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 6’ east side setback variance and a 6’ west side setback variance to replace an existing detached garage on a tract of land known as Lot 58 in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana, described more fully as follows:

A small tract of land out of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 26 North, Range 3 West, in White County, Indiana, beginning 1401 feet North and 1314 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township and Range aforesaid, and running thence North 81 degrees East, 148 feet; thence North 81 degrees East 122 feet; thence South 85 degrees East 62 feet, said point last named being the Northwest corner of the tract hereby conveyed; thence South 85 degrees East 71 feet; thence South 97 feet; thence West 52 feet; thence North 45 degrees West 25 feet thence North 84 feet to the said Northwest corner of the tract hereby conveyed. ALSO, a tract of land known as Lot 58A in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana, described more fully as follows;

Beginning at the Southwest corner of lot No. 57 as recorded in said Gingrich Plat in the Recorder’s Office of White County, Indiana, thence North 51 feet and 6 inches; thence West 23 feet; thence South 51 feet and 6 inches; thence East 23 feet to the point of beginning, containing .027 of an acre, more or less being out of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 26 North, Range 3 West, in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

ALSO, a small tract of land out of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 26 North, Range 3 West in White County, Indiana, beginning 1401 feet North and 1314 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township and Range aforesaid, and running thence North 81 degrees East, 148 feet; thence North 81 degrees East 122 feet; thence South 85 degrees East, 62 feet; thence South 85 degrees East 71 feet; thence South 97 feet (this point last named being the Northeast corner of the tract hereby conveyed); thence South 10 feet and 6 inches; thence West 43 feet and 8 inches; thence North 45 degrees West 13 feet and 4 inches; thence East 52 feet to the place of beginning.

ALSO, 1 foot of even width off the entire West side of Lot 57 in Gingrich Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana a plat of which is recorded at Deed Record 129, Page 513, White County Recorder’s Office.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located south of Monticello at 5244 S. Gingrich Court.

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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit before you proceed.

William Gerhart asked, do I need a permit to tear down the old garage?

Director Weaver stated, you need to notify the Assessor’s Office and there is a form that I believe that they have you sign.

President Thompson stated, they will take that off of your tax roles before you start over.

Director Weaver stated, yes, that’s right.

****

#1107 Darryl Miller; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a 1979 Fairmont Mobile Home in White County.

Darryl Miller stated, I will answer any questions that you might have.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything more to add to the description?

Darryl Miller stated, not really, I think that there are pictures. The home is in very good shape.

President Thompson asked, is there any response of any type?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything on this. I did want to point out to the Board again, there are more pictures than what you have received, there are interior pictures in that file as well. If you look at Mr. Braaksma’s inspection on this one, he did take the Board’s ballot and kind of ran through it and made comments on a copy of the ballot for the Board.

President Thompson asked, it is where now? In Idaville?

Darryl Miller stated, no, it’s between Reynolds and Monon on Jeff & Shelly Steinkamp’s property. They had lived in it while they were building a house.

President Thompson stated, I had Idaville on the paperwork.

Director Weaver stated, that’s Darryl’s address on there that is what that is.

Darryl Miller stated, yes, we didn’t want to move it until we got it approved.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? If there is nothing I guess that we are ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1979 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the variance herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, 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 section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit before you proceed.

****

President Thompson stated, we have discussion on July’s meeting, up coming July’s meeting.

Director Weaver stated, we had briefly touched on this at one other meeting. I will not be in attendance, it’s the last day of the fair. I’m not sure if some of you would be in attendance and it was indicated that we might want to change the date of that meeting.

Jeff Saylor asked, it’s when again?

President Thompson stated, that Thursday, that falls in the week of the county fair.

Director Weaver stated, July 20th.

Ray Butz stated, we’ll have the meeting July 20th.

Director Weaver stated, no, that’s when it’s currently scheduled which is the last night of the fair, which will be the night of the sale. Actually, we will be showing horses but it is the night of the sale. Gary indicated that the 13th would work for him. If we want to leave it on the 20th I will see if one of the girls can be here in my place, I feel like if they do then we need to compensate them somehow. I don’t know Jerry, do you normally attend the sale at the fair?

President Thompson stated, I would like to attend. I don’t know anyone else involved other than nephews and nieces but I still like to go.

Director Weaver stated, I know that Carol’s children are involved. Jerry do you still have children involved?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Thompson asked, what if we go to the last of the month, would that be a problem?

Director Weaver stated, that would be the 27th.

President Thompson asked, would it be better to move it back or move it ahead?

Director Weaver stated, we have plenty of time that we can notify people so I don’t think that either way it’s going to cause a problem.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t know that the applicants would mind if we moved it up, they might prefer it to later.

Gary Barbour stated, what we’re especially meaning is that if it’s in the same week as what we have the Area Plan Commission meeting that way I can attend for the whole week.

President Thompson asked, do you know when that is?

Gary Barbour stated, yes, it’s the week before.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m flexible.

Attorney Altman stated, it sounds like the 13th is it.

President Thompson asked, sounds good.

Jeff Saylor asked, would this room be available then?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so, I believe that we checked that, I will confirm that and if not I will get back with the Board.

Attorney Altman stated, if not, we have held it other places.

Director Weaver stated, yes, we might be able to get the Council Room.

Ray Butz asked, July 13th now?

Director Weaver asked, what is your opinion about the mobile home ballots? Do you want to leave them that way? I told Jerry that if we want to revise them somehow it’s not a problem. I have the forms in the computer and it’s not going to be a problem to make amendments or changes to that form if we’re not happy with it. That was our first one that we have used it on.

President Thompson stated, they’re different, I don’t know that I can say one way or the other.

Jeff Saylor asked, if the second inspection hasn’t been done the way that it’s formatted it almost wants to make you answer to turn it down.

Director Weaver stated, right and the reason that we did that was because people are not getting that second inspection to us.

Attorney Altman stated, you know what you should do on the permit is say that Mr. Altman will come and see you through court in a month if you don’t get your inspection there. I will do that if you give them to me I will get them.

Gary Barbour asked, why don’t we do a first and second inspection just like you do on a primary and secondary on a subdivision?

Attorney Altman stated, we have been but they haven’t been getting them back to her.

Director Weaver asked, are you saying bring the second inspection back to the Board?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, I feel like I’m inspecting.

Gary Barbour stated, that way you’re insured that yes they are doing it. You’re forcing their hand out.

President Thompson stated, I feel like when I’m filling it out that I’m inspecting it too.

Jeff Saylor stated, the catch 22 in all of this is someone may not want to go to the expense of moving it into White County on the chance that it’s not going to get approved.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and that certainly could be.

Ray Butz stated, slow it up.

Jeff Saylor stated, I really want to agree to that if they want to take the chance to fix it up and get it approved…

Gary Barbour stated, it puts the burden back on them if that’s what they want to do and then we’re not having to, well do we place that or not.

Director Weaver stated, that’s just it right now with these second inspections, we have to follow up.

Gary Barbour stated, we have some pretty old mobile homes that have come through here tonight. I was surprised that they were in as good of shape as what they were. I’m glad that they are in good shape but you can’t guarantee all of them are, the majority are not.

Director Weaver stated, probably the ones that are not going to be that way you’re not getting inspections on anyway. They’re coming in but you do not know it because we have a lot of that going on.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s kind of why I said my two cents, I thought that maybe someone might just hear it and help us police it a little bit, anything might help. Do you want to go back to the old ballot or do you want do this ballot?

Director Weaver stated, see, we really didn’t have an old ballot. Carol had requested that we make a ballot because the only one that we had was a special exception so we didn’t really have a ballot. We can try it a couple more times and see if we like it.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver asked, special exceptions Jeff, do you want us to possibly amend the ordinance to where those are only for that owner, to where if they sell the property they have to come in and get a new special exception?

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t have a problem with leaving the ordinance the way that it is as long as the Board has the option…

Ray Butz stated, we can always turn it down.

Jeff Saylor stated, I just wasn’t sure myself and before I voted on this I wanted to clarify that. Once we voted on it, that it was basically the business for the activity and not the owner. I know that there will probably be instances where I would if someone, it might be okay with that owner but the thing that I didn’t know with the…

Attorney Altman stated, lions and animals.

Jeff Saylor stated, the guns have bothered me ever since and I really don’t know that we addressed that.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that he ever started doing that.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t either but I think that when we voted on that, that there weren’t any motions made that that special exception would end with his ownership or if the ownership would change.

Attorney Altman asked, which one is this?

Director Weaver stated, the one with Cougar Valley, the one with the animals.

Attorney Altman asked, he was going to do what?

Director Weaver stated, he was going to sell guns.

Ray Butz stated, and ammunition.

Jeff Saylor stated, I should have saved the question until after the meeting. If we can make a motion that any member of the Board can move that the special exception would end if there is a change of ownership and if the Board voted on that then that’s fine by me.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would suggest is, if you can peg that to a special skill of the applicant or a special condition of the applicant that helps a lot in making it more solid.

President Thompson asked, if there is nothing else, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Butz, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission