Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, Ron Pollock, Carol Stradling and Jerry Thompson. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Hubert Hyten, Terry Smith, Mike Simmons, John James, Charles R. Mellon, B.J. Mursener, Terry Saunders, William R. Krintz and Nancy Downey.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the December 28, 2000 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Ron Pollock made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the January 18, 2000 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

President Anderson asked, first on our agenda is, White County Area Plan Commission vs. Hubert H. Hyten and Nancy K. Hyten. Director Weaver, do you want to take over from there?

 

Director Weaver stated, all that I would want to mention is that one of the Board members did request copies of the minutes from the October 19, 2000 meeting and the December 28, 2000 meeting. Copies of the survey from the variance, copies of the pictures that I had taken for the variance and copies of the final permit that was issued on October 24, 2000.

 

Attorney Altman stated, unless, the Board sees fit not to do so, they would be accepted into the record and part of the evidence of the matter before us tonight. Additionally, I have to present for the record, into evidence, the notice of the hearing which all of the Board members have received. The complaint of violation with exhibits that are attached to it, some of which are duplicated. I believe with what Director Weaver has just indicated, would also be part of the evidence of the record and unless there are any objections by anyone, those would also be considered by this Board. Considered evidence to be considered when you decide what you are going to do about the violation that’s alleged, in complaint that is, here before you this evening. That would be part of the evidence of this evening. The other thing that I would tell you is, by


rule and regulation that you would be entitled to review automatically your minutes of our prior meetings. Those are your official way that you speak to one and all, and it would be part of the evidence, I think that’s duplicating. The file as you said, is part of the record of this alleged violation. Is there anything else that you want to put in the record?

 

Director Weaver stated, no.

 

Attorney Altman stated, from a point of view from the department, the parties are represented by Mr. Smith, his appearance is duly noted. As attorney for the parties, at this time, I think that I would like to recognize Mr. Smith too.

 

Terry Smith stated, if I may, I do represent Mr. & Mrs. Hyten in this case as well as the subsequence case, which is, against Mr. Krintz, kind of run together. I’m not going to attempt to tell you that a violation didn’t occur, a violation did occur, a technical violation occurred. I assume the purpose of this particular hearing, or the complaint that has been filed, is determined whether or not you are going to assess a penalty. I would assume that you are not going to request that Mr. & Mrs. Hyten tare their house down and the only reason that I assume that is because, you could have done that at a prior meeting. When you issued the grant of the variance and in essence, stamped what had been done incorrectly and made it correct at that point. I appreciate that and understand that the question becomes, I think, who is at fault if anyone is at fault.

I wasn’t here at the meeting, I believe that was in October, when you heard the evidence before. Mr. Hyten assumed he was responsible because, he owned the property and technically again, I grant you he is, he is the owner of the property. As many owners of property do, they hire someone to build for them, I just went through the process myself however, I knew enough to get my own building permit. I came up and I got my building permit and went through it with Director Weaver. Mr. Hyten hired Mr. Krintz to do construction work, Mr. Krintz came and got a building permit I believe, that it was signed February 19, 1999, it was the first one, there was another one was issued in May. What happened in February and May of 1999, I honestly don’t know. I know that permits were issued probably not issued for what was being done, who’s fault was that obviously, that is your determination. Again, if any fault should be assessed and the reason that I keep saying, if any fault should be assessed because, as soon as Mr. Hyten found out that something was amiss, or incorrect, he came to Director Weaver. I think that Director Weaver was the first one to tell him that something was wrong here, we have to do something and he did everything that he could, as rapidly as he could to bring this into conformity. For that reason, I would ask that you be lenient on Mr. Hyten. The common person doesn’t know what to do when they are going to build, they honestly don’t and they hire people to do that for them, they trust those people just as people come to me, trust me and hire m. They expect me to do what I do and they don’t take it upon themselves to go to the governmental bodies and make sure that everything is done correctly.

So, from they Hytens’ standpoint, I would ask that if you feel it necessary to impose a penalty, that it be a small penalty. Now, I don’t represent Mr. Krintz but, I know Bill very well and I’m not sure that Bill meant to do anything incorrectly and I’m sure that’s what he’s going to tell you. I just don’t know that this is the case where a heavy fine should be levied, just to make a point because again, I don’t think that anything was done intentionally. When the problem was found, he did everything in his power to get it remedied and I think that has been done. Thank you, if you have any questions.

 

Attorney Altman asked, do you have any evidence that you want to put into the record?

 

Terry Smith stated, I really don’t.

 

Attorney Altman stated, other than his prior testimony, meetings and what have you.

 

Terry Smith stated, I think that everything that Mr. Hyten testified to is correct. A mistake was made, no one intended to make a mistake, it happened. Thank you.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, I have nothing further to say, other than what I initially said at the variance meeting. I have responsibility in the matter and as Director Weaver will tell you, that we did very diligently tried to get it corrected as soon as possible and I think, I know, that we’re in compliance now.

 

President Thompson asked, Mr. Krintz do you have any response?

 

Attorney Altman stated, before we do that, I guess what I would like to say is, I agree with Mr. Smith. I think that these two matters are very similar and they clearly have similar facts. Accordingly, I believe that it would be quite appropriate before we make any determination, if you decide to make a determination tonight, that you should probably incorporate here Mr. Krintz’s matter also. I will open that to the record, the matter before White County Area Plan Commission, and that is us, in legal advance and that’s 010-02. I would also incorporate into the record all of the matters that have just been incorporated into the record for evidence, for Mr. Hytens alleged violation and that is in 01-01. Now, I think that your question is appropriate to ask Mr. Kintz.

 

President Thompson asked, do you care to address the Board?

 

William Krintz stated, I’m not very good talking in front of a crowd. When Mr. Hyten came to me and asked me if I wanted to work on his house, it was still septic, the sewer system in that area had nothing done with that. So, we decided, I decided that we could build it in stages and I could start with the basement, which was under the original house and it wasn’t changing anything. I talked to the sanitation people and he said that he couldn’t tell me, probably in a years time we will have something well, that was in 1999. So, my idea was to build it in a couple sections so, I got a couple different permits and done what we could do. By that time the sewer people would be around, you people would have a way that we could have a paper that we could sign saying that yes, we’re hooking up and that we can go ahead and get a permit to do the rest of it. Well, essentially this happened when Mr. Hyten finally found out that he wasn’t on compliance and I wasn’t there at the time, I was building another house. Well, the whole fault lies with me when it comes right down to I, if only we had some way that the people on the lake could have done some work without having to wait on all of the sewer people to put, I have got a lot of permits before and I have not had any problems. Had the sewer system taken a year, the same thing, what Mr. Hyten done to get everything taken care of, could have been done in that years time and then I could have went on and finished building. Well, it turned out that here I am sitting now, I have us this far along and I can’t go any further because, the sewers don’t match and the guy said that he can’t give me a sewer permit and Director Weaver can’t give me a permit. So I was between a rock and a hard place, which, was my fault, so if anything is to be assessed it’s my fault.

 

Carol Stradling asked, was your original understanding of it, that it would be extended beyond the original foundation?

 

William Krintz stated, I knew that it was going to be yes ma’am but, the basement wasn’t. What I worked on was under the original house.

 

Carol Stradling asked, so, at what point, did you realize that…

 

William Krintz stated, when I got to the point to where we got the second permit, we still had furniture and stuff in there so, we got the new roof put on the old part and then I thought, what am I going to do.

 

Carol Stradling asked, the second permit, I guess, we were looking at one permit to finish the basement, I believe.

 

William Krintz stated, no, to put a basement in it wasn’t to finish it.

 

Carol Stradling stated, unfinished basement will be full and then another permit to change the roof line.

 

William Krintz stated, right, at that point it was in my mind that the sewer would be far enough along that I could go ahead and before we moved and changed the outlay of the house on the lot to where we had any variances or anything that we needed, we’d be to that point that we could go ahead and get that then.

 

Carol Stradling asked, so changing the roofline, help me out here a little bit. If you’re not adding on an area to the home then, it should not affect the sewer?

 

William Krintz stated, right, that was my intention.

 

Carol Stradling asked, so in saying that you’re not adding on to the home then, you don’t have to look at the sewer but, when changing the roofline, was that the permit that you are referring to when you extended it beyond?

 

William Krintz stated, no, we never had a permit, when I extended it I say that we got to that point, we put the roof back over the top of the old part is what we did. In the basement, we had to tare, there was a room on the front that we had to take off because, you had to get a bobcat down in, to dig everything out.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, he did leave the job and build another house during this period of time for an essence on….

 

William Krintz stated, Morgans on Hunter Ridge.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, Morgans on Hunter Ridge so, I can attest to that.

 

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that when you talked to us in October, I thought that the job had changed. I thought that you had this idea and you decided to do something different but, from what I’m hearing tonight the plans for the completed house never really changed from the building permit.

 

William Krintz stated, it was a picture, we really didn’t have any footage or anything, what we did was just go by what was there. The guy that drew up the plans did a wonderful job drawing the plans but, it wouldn’t fit in the house.

 

Carol Stradling stated, Terry, you had indicated that he came in as soon as he realized that something was amiss. I guess that you realized that something was amiss when your bank told you when you went to refinance and that things were out of order.

 

Terry Smith stated, until that point, I don’t think that Mr. Hyten knew that there was something wrong.

 

Carol Stradling stated, because, he explained what he wanted to do to Mr. Krintz and Mr. Krintz filled out the building permits.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, I think that the thing is, which we forgot to get the final building permit, when he came back to the job. That’s the bottom line, I take responsibility for not making sure that was done.

 

Carol Stradling stated, I think that the bottom line is, if you knew what the overall project was going to be, you could have filed for the building permit originally, instead of doing it in two phases to avoid the sewer problem.

 

William Krintz stated, I couldn’t get it because, of the sewer.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, they wouldn’t give permits.

 

Terry Smith stated, obviously, I wasn’t there but, if I put it together they come in with the total house project….

 

William Krintz stated, which, I did.

 

Terry Smith stated, there was no way to get it because of the sewer being built. So, they went back and decided that we can do the roof line, it won’t be effected by the sewer, we can do this and the basement won’t be effected by the sewer and by the time that we get ready to do the rest the sewer will be here and gone and it won’t be a problem. Well, it got to that time and no one came back in to say here we are. I think that’s what happened.

 

Director Weaver asked, but, why would they have gotten a permit to change a roofline on a house that they were not going to keep?

 

Terry Smith stated, don’t ask me.

 

William Krintz stated, the house we wasn’t going to keep there, the house is still, the original house is still there.

 

Director Weaver asked, how much of the original house?

 

William Krintz stated, enough it would fall down if we took down what was there.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, at least 20’.

 

William Krintz stated, yes, at least 20’, you have to realize that that house is only 34’ long to start with and if you have 20’ left…

 

Carol Stradling stated, in the October meeting, I asked Mr. Hyten, is there anything left from the original home. “Hubert Hyten stated, no, the fireplace in that general area where we tried to preserve that.” I asked, “but no walls”, and he stated partially the ends.

 

Hubert Hyten stated, that area where the fireplace is, is what we kept right?

 

William Krintz stated, on the other side, we kept until we got that flood that day and it washed the wall all out because, there wasn’t any foundation under it, so that took out the rest of it.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that what I’m hearing tonight is kind of a series of events to move forward without the proper, side stepping the proper permits, I guess. When you knew, the other thing was, I thought that he wanted to do something originally and the plans were changed after you started but now, I’m hearing that the overall effect was always in place, it’s just that you decided to do it differently because, you couldn’t do it the way that you wanted to legally the first time.

Hubert Hyten stated, I don’t agree with that characterization, no, or that description. The plans did change, I had an architect draw up some plans and we basically tore the house down and started digging out by hand the basement and progressed that the final permit as I acknowledged many times, was not requested and that’s the violation.

President Thompson asked, do we have to reach a decision this evening on this?

Attorney Altman stated, no you don’t, the Board can certainly can table this under advisement. You do have to render an opinion on the record as a meeting, a regular meeting, so that obviously, all that you have to do is decide, hear the evidence. If you conclude that and then you, in your own way, review the evidence and do the findings of fact but, you do this all in a regular meeting and then you impose or you decide no violation.

Hubert Hyten stated, once again, I’m saying mistakes were made but, not intentionally. I don’t feel, I take the responsibility of being the homeowner I don’t know what more that I can say. Mistakes were made, the house didn’t have the correct permits as we progressed along at the end we didn’t have the final permit. I worked to get that done and I think that we have accomplished that.

President Thompson asked, can we set aside, we are short Jeff Saylor, can we set aside a few minutes next month to discuss this with a full Board?

Director Weaver stated, I haven’t had my cut off yet to know what we have on the agenda. As of right now, I don’t think that there’s not much on there but, we still have a few days to establish that.

President Thompson stated, I’m not trying to make this less than what it is but, I know that Jeff was here on the other, I guess that all that I have to say to this is, I don’t know how many years that I have been on the Board, too many maybe but, we have never had a problem with Mr. Krintz, I do know that. It’s not like we have had to have him here repeatedly. As the Board knows, we have had problems in other areas, I can only suggest to the Board that we confer with Jeff and have a full Board next month and make our decision on how we want to hand this, is that fair?

Attorney Altman stated, you can motion that.

Carol Stradling asked, does that require these folks to come back next month?

Terry Smith stated, I think that if they want to come back they can, if it’s okay with the Board, I can probably come back.

Attorney Altman stated, they are not required to be here, no, but I think that it would be a good idea.

President Thompson stated, I hate to put it off another 30 days but yet, I think, that you can understand where I’m coming from.

Terry Smith stated, sure.

President Thompson stated, and be right with everyone.

William Krintz stated, it’s a tough decision.

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to make that in form of a motion, or maybe the Board doesn’t agree with me.

Attorney Altman stated, you can make that a motion.

President Thompson stated, what are your thoughts? I want to hear your thoughts as well.

Ron Pollock stated, I’m fairly new at this so, I wouldn’t be in a position, I need to study it and I would like to see the 30 days.

President Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I agree.

Carol Stradling asked, can we guarantee that Jeff will be here next meeting? So we don’t have to drag it on again.

President Thompson stated, he doesn’t have a habit of missing many.

Carol Stradling stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, he has a better attendance record than normally the rest of us. I guess that I’m allowed to make the motion, we have more or less tabled this matter until the March 15th meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, I understand the posture of this matter, have presented into evidence, the department has presented evidence to the Board, Mr. Smith for his clients and Mr. Krintz for himself have presented evidence. As the evidentiary position right now, that it has not been concluded, no one has been arrested that is a cordoning, that we are just continuing it so that we have a full Board the next time. Is that everyone’s understanding? Very good, I just wanted to recite that.

****

#1168 Gutwein Historic Real Estate LLC; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow apartments in the upstairs of an existing retail building and to allow off-premise parking for the apartments on lot #2 in Cornerstone Addition and lot #22 on Market Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon. The property is located at 330 N. Market Street.

President Thompson asked, Mr. Gutwein, do you have anything to add to that?

Brad Gutwein stated, that covers it.

Ron Pollock asked, the question that I would ask, do you have parking?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes sir, right behind the adjacent building. The building that the department is going to be in runs toe to toe to the entire lot but the building next to it, we own also.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, the building that you’re talking about apartments is lot #1, is that correct?

Brad Gutwein stated, I will come up and look.

Attorney Altman stated, please, again, I’m just trying to make sure that our record is more precise. I presume that is the one that you’re talking about?

Brad Gutwein stated, this is the one on the corner and I don’t own this building. This is the building that the apartment is going to be in and this is the lot that has the parking area in the back. This is actually the stair case is going to be the upstairs.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, the testimony and the evidence is on lot #2 is, back 10’ is where the stair casing is going to be to be to get upstairs in the brick building. That is the apartments that you are talking about Mr. Gutwein and the parking area is on lot number, the West side of lot #22. There are 20’ times 35’ so, we’re talking about the parking to answer your question. Again, just making it on the record, it would be in the lot #22.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything. I do have question though, Brad is the parking going to be behind the other building that you requested a variance on for apartments?

Brad Gutwein stated, no.

Director Weaver asked, it’s not the same building?

Brad Gutwein stated, they’re not adjacent.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, they would be further South?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes, the other building that I applied for a variance in is the old Coca-Cola bottling plant.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, there are a couple common lots to the South?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

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

Terry Saunders stated, my home sits right behind where these intended apartments are and the only reason that I’m here, I was here the last time when he was going to do the other apartments at the far end of the alley. This variance that he is asking for right now is, right directly my house, right there on the alley, we face each other and the last meeting when I talked to Mr. Gutwein about it, he informed me that he was making one apartment due to the restrictions of the doors, stairways and other things. When I’m reading this variance request it states apartments and additional parking and that tells me that there is going to be an awful lot of vehicles right in that area and that area is not set to accommodate that kind of traffic, I’m sorry. That’s narrow and people coming on and off of that area, they are going to be driving into my parking area as well, just trying to get back and forth. So my objection is just because, there is an “s” added on that apartment.

President Thompson asked, I recall your face, your lot number is what?

Attorney Altman stated, come here and show us.

Terry Saunders stated, my lots are….

President Thompson asked, are you on lot #19?

Terry Saunders stated, I’m on lot #19 and lot #21.

Attorney Altman asked, so yours is the closest red square….

Terry Saunders stated, yes, I’m right directly behind.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, on the lot #19 actually part of lot #19 and part of lot #21…

Terry Saunders stated, the legal description, I don’t know how much are a part of what.

Attorney Altman stated, I talking about what is shown on this.

Terry Saunders stated, I have 30’ x 75’ of lot #21 and then 75’ x 90’ of lot #19. So the main part of my property is on lot #19 and I have part of lot #21.

Attorney Altman stated, to supplement the witnesses testimony, I was asking her to identify her tract that is on this staff report that the Director has forwarded to all of us, just again to be precise.

Terry Saunders stated, I have 75’ behind where he is, I have 90’ and 30’ and then the 75’ goes this way and that’s a size of a chunk of my one line is where he’s asking for this apartment. Other than the fact that he had just told me one apartment and then this reads plural that’s what bothers me.

President Thompson asked, would you like to address that?

Brad Gutwein stated, there is only one apartment if they sent you something that said plural, they were in error, there is only one.

Terry Saunders stated, it says plural.

Brad Gutwein stated, I know that it says apartments but, there is only…

Terry Saunders stated, I know that you can get variances for the future but, apartment is what he expressed to me.

Brad Gutwein stated, and that’s all that it’s going to be.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record then and I’m looking at, the request application for variance it does have the word apartments I here so that should be stricken and it’s one apartment.

Brad Gutwein stated, one apartment.

Attorney Altman stated, because, that comes in close we can amend that and by the request of the applicant and can improve that if the Board sees fit to do so.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else here that cares to address this variance?

Director Weaver stated, I just want to clarify something with the Board, since it’s only going to be one apartment we are talking 2 parking places. We require 2 parking places per unit.

President Thompson stated, okay. Is there any questions or concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, that’s a residence right? Not a business?

Terry Saunders stated, unfortunately, yes, it is a residence right in the heart of down town.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would side with the request that, if you approve this that they enter in a written lease or a written dedication of this area for parking for this variance that you need to do that. We have done this in the past when we have had matters like this and it just makes it of record for sure that it is dedicated to the particular variance or special exception that is requested. The applicant has no objections to that and so that would be a condition upon this special exception.

Carol Stradling asked, do you also own lot #22? Where the parking is going to be?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, will they, whatever your plans are for that building, will they need that area for parking?

Brad Gutwein stated, we bought the adjacent empty lot on taxes, I personally don’t think that it’s going to be redeemed so, we will end up with that also. So, we will have plenty of space back there for the business owners and the renter.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I’m saying is, this is explained precisely, that two parking spaces will be dedicated for this special exception. It’s a bit like on the other side of the street where we put in a apartments in. They entered in a lease and a dedication of those areas for that variance or that so that would be required that way.

Terry Saunders stated, for the record on that lot that you’re talking about, is that the one that is in-between you and the School Corporation?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Terry Saunders stated, that is not a through area, he would be knocking off curbs or something if anything went the other direction.

Brad Gutwein stated, no, we’re not going to go out there…

Terry Saunders stated, at the backside.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, it’s only the backside.

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote? Let's vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-1, General Business.

2. That the lot is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.

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

4. That 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 variance to allow one apartment in the upstairs of an existing retail building and to allow off-premise parking for the apartment on Lot 2 in Cornerstore Addition and Lot 22 on Market Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 330 N. Market 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 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes 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, subject to the lease and the condition of dedicating the two required parking places for this requested special exception. You need to begin that within 1 year or it’s gone.

Brad Gutwein asked, what do you actually want?

Attorney Altman stated, a lease and let me look at it and approve it, that dedicates the space and I would just draw it on.

Brad Gutwein asked, you mean for the lease for the apartment that says that there are two places right there.

Attorney Altman stated, right there and we record that and it goes on it’s a commitment that will be that way so long as the special exception is in existence or used.

Brad Gutwein stated, okay, we can do that.

Attorney Altman stated, if you will just get that to me, I can approve that and you can be done.

Brad Gutwein stated, okay.

****

#1169 Todd & Wendy Amos; Requesting a 23’ front setback and a 3’ front setback variance from Amos Drive to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #75 & part of lot #73, #74 and #76 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 4493 E. Amos Drive.

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

John James stated, I sold them the house. Do you want me to start at the beginning?

President Thompson stated, yes.

John James stated, let me pass these out, Exhibit A.

Attorney Altman stated, we have a copy of this in the record.

Director Weaver stated, actually, he is revising…

John James stated, I had a contract to put in a crawl space, and it was kind of windy and snow, the flags, there were stakes here and here. Jim came and put flags here also so that we would know that road is there somewhere, that’s not there. We had a problem with children crossing the street and pulling flags out and what I think happened was, when the gentlemen went to put the crawl space in, these flags were missing and he measured from this in here. If you think about it, that’s a 25’ road plus 19’ which will give you 31’ to be off of that side but instead, he went off of the wrong thing.

Carol Stradling stated, I see.

John James stated, I believe that is what happened and as far as the front setbacks go, measure from the road instead of property line.

Director Weaver stated, if the Board will notice there is a revised survey with the packet that I gave you tonight showing the actual road surface, I requested this be added to this survey so it would make the picture a little more clear for the Board.

John James stated, over the years, it’s not a county road, it’s just moved over, and they put stone down it’s the neighborhood that takes care of it, it’s just moved over the years.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything?

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

Carol Stradling asked, when he changes these surveys that he labels them either A or B or change.

Director Weaver stated, usually Carol, when we get them after the application is given to us you will see a received date on them where the original survey does not usually have that.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver asked, does that help?

Carol Stradling stated, that helps because, the dates are always the same.

John James stated, the other homes back here along, what are actually back yards but, we’re going to go ahead and vacate that road.

Carol Stradling asked, this road will be vacated?

John James stated, it’s just people’s back yards.

Director Weaver stated, the road is not there, it’s never been put in.

John James stated, I want to put up a two-car garage and get the house in compliance to put the garage up.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. James, looking at the photographs taken, the bottom one here and I will turn this around to show you, is that where the road isn’t?

John James stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, the bottom photograph right here is where the road isn’t. That’s where he’s too close and that’s where the road isn’t, there is a road dedicated…

Director Weaver stated, it’s platted but, it’s not there.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not developed as the survey says. It probably runs right about that tree I would guess…

John James stated, yes, just on the other side of that tree.

Director Weaver stated, that’s why I took that picture to show that.

Attorney Altman stated, good picture, that why when you brought that up I thought that picture showed it precisely.

Carol Stradling asked, how many houses….

John James stated, one…

There was discussion among the Board members and John James.

Carol Stradling asked, this is the road…

John James stated, this road does exist.

Carol Stradling asked, the house is actually sitting here.

John James stated, this road doesn’t exist.

Carol Stradling stated, this road doesn’t exist, and this now probably never will.

John James stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, what is over on this side of the roadway?

John James stated, just vacant land, it’s owned by the people that…

Director Weaver asked, is that Baker’s?

John James stated, I think so, yes and then just a lot.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I think that is Bakers.

President Thompson asked, I think that I asked but I’ll repeat it, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening that would like to speak in favor or against?

Carol Stradling asked, so, they had all of that to build on…

John James stated, see that’s the thing, the contractor knew that so, why would he short something up. I think that it was just an error that he made and even Milligan says, when he came out and originally staked it, he said that this is going to be a little bit confusing because, there are so many flags around there. There was actually, I don’t know how many lots were there that we had to combine to put a building on it. You can see that they are all split up and it was a mess, there were flags here, here and here and across the street here and he actually told me that this road should be moved over a few feet.

Carol Stradling asked, so what you’re saying is that this road is actually built closer on his property?

John James stated, right, and it seems that the years that go on, they pour stone and do their thing that it keeps moving over a couple of inches. That’s not a county road they won’t maintain it.

Director Weaver stated, it’s barely a road.

John James stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so, the 23’ that we need is here with this 9’ and the 3’ that we need is here with the 32’.

Director Weaver stated, right.

John James stated, we could have just set the house in the center of the lot.

Carol Stradling stated, that would have been good.

John James stated, yes.

Ron Pollock asked, the only question that I would have, I’m trying to figure out what road this is.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s just a dedicated road…

Ron Pollock asked, that’s the one that you’re talking about?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but, it hasn’t been developed in any way and not been used in any way.

Gary Barbour asked, on this map right here, this is the one road that is right here right? That’s not developed?

John James stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, and these are empty lots?

John James stated, right, there is a gentleman, he applied last year for a variance to have a road coming off of West Shafer Drive, that you guys approved. He was going to put storage buildings up there last year, I don’t know if you remember that anyway, he decided to sell the property now but, they have access off of here, West Shafer Drive.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, you have to figure that the road is there and it will be used someday, maybe not but, there are roads there and they have not been vacated, you just have to assume that it’s there.

John James stated, right, I talked with all of the neighbors, we are going to try to vacate this there is no question about that…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but we can’t assume that. Obviously, if you dedicate this as approved then this whole tract which is part of 4 lots must stay together forever.

John James stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so you are in the process of vacating?

John James stated, no, we wanted to get this approved before we contact these people, I guess that I have to talk to the Commissioners is it to vacate the road?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I believe so.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that I would like to see the variance go through contingent upon vacating that roadway. If that road is not vacated we’re awfully close to it but, if it is, then I don’t have any problem with it.

John James asked, would it be possible to vacate this road just to this point and leave this here?

Carol Stradling stated, this is the road that I’m concerned about.

John James stated, okay, I see.

Carol Stradling stated, because, you’re right on it.

John James stated, pretty close.

Director Weaver stated, the other adjoining owners do have access to their property from other means right?

John James stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I thought so.

Carol Stradling asked, these owners have…

John James stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, Bakers intended to access from West Shafer Drive.

John James stated, I own this anyway, I just can’t make a deal with the guy.

Carol Stradling asked, that’s a long process isn’t it, to vacate a roadway?

Director Weaver stated, it could be.

Attorney Altman stated, the last time that I vacated a street in Burnettsville it took about 80 days and that with no objections and that was advertisement.

Carol Stradling asked, do you see where I’m going? I would hate to have you tare it down for a roadway that is not there and may never be here but likewise, I don’t feel comfortable giving permission for it to stay when there may be a road that needs to go there.

President Thompson stated, we can do that, we can vote on it like you, with a condition.

Carol Stradling asked, what are you thinking Gary?

Gary Barbour asked, what is on the other side of these open lots over here?

John James stated, a creek, sewer project is up in that area and that water is going to be running down this way. I own all of that property on this side anyway.

Attorney Altman asked, you own lots #28, 27, and #26?

John James stated, no, the property that buts right up against it, towards the water.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought that you said that there is a drive that goes down here.

John James stated, no, this is West Shafer Drive and there is an access that you guys approved last year that this guy can use this as an entrance if he was to put a house there.

Carol Stradling stated, but, you can’t get to all of these lots from there, not if this is a creek.

John James stated, this road comes around like this, the creek is further down because here, would be those lots and the creek would be back here.

Carol Stradling asked, how do you get to lot #23 from West Shafer Drive?

John James stated, you can’t, you have to come off of West Shafer Drive onto Amos Drive and here is lot #23 but, it will have to drive up this way. The only lot that is accessed off of West Shafer Drive I think would be these 3 lots here. That’s from this point here.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, I have something here, this is their property, all of these lots are owned by this one person, all of these lots are owned by this person, so he will have access from, this is the existing road. He has access off of West Shafer Drive.

Carol Stradling asked, but, lot #25 could be split from lot #24 and #23 correct?

John James stated, you couldn’t build on it because, it’s just not big enough. You would have to combine 3 of these lots to put up a house, that’s what we had to do, correct?

Director Weaver stated, yes, to get the septic in and everything that’s what they had to do, and meet setbacks.

John James stated, it’s dead property, actually.

Director Weaver stated, but, this is under one ownership, at this time.

John James asked, they own a house here too don’t they?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I just remembered looking this up for you in the office.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns or questions? Nothing? Is the Board ready to vote on this matter?

Carol Stradling stated, we never really decided on the contingence.

President Thompson asked, do you want to do that?

Carol Stradling asked, is that an issue or not an issue?

Gary Barbour stated, if they don’t get that vacated and turn into a road it’s still to close to that house and I know that you have empty houses there, it’s still an issue.

Carol Stradling stated, if it’s not vacated, does he need to come back to us then? What else do we need to do if it’s not vacated?

John James stated, that property has been there probably 80 years and the way that people have built things back in that new subdivision, if you’re going to put a road in there you’re going to be pulling out people’s garages and people just took it over. Personally, I didn’t know that road was there to tell you the truth, I had no idea that was there so it’s…

Carol Stradling stated, but that’s my hesitancy when I sit on this Board to say okay, sure do it and then someone goes to build something later and they cant’ because….

John James stated, there is access without a problem for the lots you have Amos Drive for the variances that you gave this guy last year to pull into here. I was up here fighting that because, it’s on a curve and he was talking about putting in huge storage buildings in here and stuff. Now he has a “For Sale” sign and it has lake easement marked on it and it doesn’t because, I own the property right next to it. So, I’m sure that I will probably end up with it but, I have to convince him what it’s worth. He wants a fortune for it. I made an offer for a few thousand dollars apart…

President Thompson asked, Carol, do you want to put a clause in this?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, I don’t think that I can approve it without it being contingent up that and if it doesn’t go though, then I guess that he needs to look at something soon.

John James stated, I don’t have any problem with that.

Attorney Altman asked, I have one question, who are you trying to buy a lot off of?

Director Weaver stated, Baker.

Attorney Altman stated, so Baker owns…

John James stated, he owns up to here.

There was discussion among the Board members and John James.

Carol Stradling stated, I move that we vote on this contingent upon vacating the never developed roadway particularly the one on the East side of lots #74 and #75.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded, with the condition on variance #1169, all in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed the same. Motion carried. Is the Board ready to vote on this matter?

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 23’ front setback and a 3’ front setback variance from Amos Drive to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 75 and part of Lots 73, 74 and 76 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at an ½ inch iron pipe at the Southeast corner of said lot 75; thence North 68 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West (plat bearing) 155.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe on the South line of said lot 76; thence North 22 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 135.50 feet to a ½ inch pipe on the North line of said lot #74; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 27 seconds East 51.41 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe on the Northeast corner of said lot #74; thence South 16 degrees 22 minutes 24 seconds East 88.59 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe on the Southeast corner of said Lot #74; thence South 09 degrees 32 minutes 06 seconds East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 4571 E. Lynnview Drive.

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 authorizes 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, subject to the vacation of the roadway East of the variance request on the East right?

John James stated, right.

****

#1170 Monon Farm Services, Owner; Tillett Engineering, Applicant; Requesting a 7’ height variance to build an accessory building. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that maximum height for an accessory building is 15’ and they are requesting to build this building at 22’ on 11.58 Acres. The property is located in Monon Township at 1462 W. State Road 16.

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

Mike Simmons with Tillett Engineering was representing the request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to add?

Mike Simmons stated, I guess that the only thing that I would like to do is find out exactly what the Board’s, and Director Weaver kind of explained this to me but I still don’t quite understand, what your definition of an accessory building is because in my mind the definition that she gave me any farmer that builds a pole barn over 15’ would have to apply for a variance. Is that true?

Director Weaver stated, an agricultural building is exempt from the height.

Mike Simmons stated, okay, this is an agricultural building.

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s a business building. This is something that when I looked at I don’t know, we have a 15’ height requirement for an accessory building but commercial is not exempt from that. I looked through the Ordinance to see if I could find anything where they were and they are not and that’s why they are needing this variance. It definitely does classify as an accessory building because it’s for storage but a commercial property is not exempt from that 15’.

Ron Pollock asked, is this a new building?

Mike Simmons stated, yes, there is already 3 buildings, there are 3 buildings there that are way over 22’ height, I don’t know if there was ever a variance applied for those or how that was done.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I didn’t research that.

President Thompson asked, you’re with the engineering firm right?

Mike Simmons stated, yes. I just want to know this for my own future reference.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Any comments or questions?

Carol Stradling asked, what are the other dimensions of this building other than it’s going to be 22’ tall?

Mike Simmons stated, it’s not a very big building, 30’ x 40’.

Carol Stradling asked, and it’s storage for?

Mike Simmons stated, basically it’s storage and it’s chemical, farm chemical, fertilizer and pesticides that those store and mix in there and fill their, like a Big A or something like that would be loaded out of this building.

Carol Stradling asked, do you know if Monon Farm Service has had it rezoned to I-1?

Mike Simmons stated, I don’t know.

Carol Stradling stated, if it were an A-1 it would be okay or no?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, no, the use wouldn’t be okay in an A-1.

Director Weaver stated, this is a commercial building and it had to go though State for State approval, it is definitely a commercial building. A regular or agricultural building does not have to do that for a private farmer or something like that.

President Thompson asked, are there any other comments? Is the Board ready to vote?

Ron Pollock asked, are you the contractor?

Mike Simmons stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site 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 7’ height variance to build an accessory building on that part of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 20; thence South 79 degrees 25 minutes East 410.63 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes East 39.64 feet to a point which is 33 feet from a perpendicular to the centerline of the main tract of the I and N Railroad; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 768.88 feet; thence South 55 degrees 46 minutes East 226.30 feet; thence South 63 degrees 31 minutes East 699.99 feet; thence South 26 degrees 29 minutes West 155.32 feet; thence North 64 degrees 13 minutes West 1616.95 feet; thence North 199.83 feet; thence North 64 degrees 13 minutes West 22.70 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.85 acres more or less.

ALSO, That part of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by; Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the above Section 20; thence South 79 degrees 25 minutes East 410.63 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes East 39.64 feet; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 768.88 feet; thence South 55 degrees 46 minutes East 116.56 feet; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 808.79 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes 822.66 feet thence South 01 degrees 03 minutes East 201.71 feet; thence North 64 degrees 13 minutes West 915.91 feet; thence North 26 degrees 29 minutes East 180.00 feet to the point of beginning containing 3.59 acres, more or less.

ALSO, That part of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 20; thence South 79 degrees 25 minutes East 410.63 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes East 39.64 feet; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 768.88 feet; thence South 55 degrees 46 minutes East 116.56 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 808.79 feet; thence South 26 degrees 29 minutes West 24.68 feet; thence North 63 degrees 31 minutes West 699.99 feet; thence North 55 degrees 46 minutes West 109.74 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.35 of an acre, more or less.

ALSO, That part of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by; Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 20 thence South 79 degrees 25 minutes East 410.63 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 64 degrees 13 minutes East 22.70 feet; thence South 199.83 feet; thence North 64 degrees 13 minutes West 244.81 feet, thence North 104.56 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes East 200 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.79 of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 1462 W. State Road 16.

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.

****

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else tonight Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes, just a couple of little things. One, I think that you just got it tonight, we intended to mail them out with your packets but, I did like a little newsletter and I’m going to try to continue to do this, if the Board would like this. Just to try to keep the Board better informed of what is going on in the office and if there are any questions about any of the expenses or anything, then that way the Board knows what is going on, so they can ask questions.

President Thompson stated, that’s a good idea.

Carol Stradling asked, is this, I see Jerry over here and then the legal services for 825 dollars, is that what it is costing us for the Hyten thing?

Attorney Altman stated, no, that is mostly as you look at that, it was to…

Director Weaver stated, I have that with me here, I brought it.

Attorney Altman stated, Dino Antionelli which, is an enforcement that we have against him. He has an alleged junkyard and a business on an “R” zoning. Hyten’s bill is to do the preparatory, which is 350 dollars of it. Then we have an involvement with him in corporation in Idaville and I did research on that. We have a lawsuit against us for Leisure Acres and Mitchell and this is right up…

Director Weaver stated, Highland Cove.

Attorney Altman stated, Highland Cove right South of Indiana Beach parking lot, the South parking lot area and a permit was issued. Director Weaver has taken a position that we done it correctly and I believe that she did. One of the lot owners is objecting to that. It’s about 4 different things here, what this is for.

Carol Stradling stated, I just wondered if we were to recuperate, when we assess the fines for Hyten.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what you have to…

Carol Stradling stated, they should be responsible for…

Attorney Altman stated, I really can’t, I see where you’re going now. I thought that you were questioning my billing, I think that would be inappropriate to discuss right now but, next meeting when they are here, it’s completely appropriate to discuss. It’s just, I think that the process would require that discussion to occur while they are here.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I do have something that I wanted to talk to the Board about and while I’m talking to the Board, I’m going to pass this picture around. I had a gentlemen come in to my office the other day to file a variance. While he was in the office, he asked me if he needed a permit to change a roofline on a building….

Carol Stradling asked, did red flags go up?

Director Weaver stated, yes, especially when….

Ron Pollock asked, where is that?

Director Weaver stated, out by Range Line Road, on Hanawalt Road, Division Road actually. I went by and checked this property. The work was already being done which, he did admit to me he did not realize that he needed a permit to change a roof line. So, he was up front with me about that but, I questioned this and I’m not quite sure how to issue a permit for this. What it originated, as is a quonset hut, a quonset building. I did request a drawing of the finished product when this building is done, it is not going to appear as a quonset building, it’s going to appear as a pole building because, they are going to put metal all of the way around this building.

Nancy Downey stated, I have seen it too, the roof line it’s not just a regular roof line its going to be a fancy little thing.

Director Weaver stated, my concern is they’re also like wrapping the sides, I don’t know how to issue a permit for this, I don’t know how we want to do this.

Attorney Altman asked, do they need a variance?

Director Weaver stated, the existing quonset, is not in compliance with the setbacks.

Attorney Altman stated, so they need a variance.

Director Weaver stated, they already requested a variance for a new structure, we can easily include this, in on that variance to bring it into compliance. My concern, that wasn’t even my concern, my concern is, do we issue this as a remodel, do we issue this as a new building.

President Thompson stated, remodel, that thing has been there for years.

Director Weaver stated, it’s definitely going to be an improvement.

President Thompson stated, just coincidentally, I went by there this last week and yes, it’s going to make a major difference of the appearance of that building.

Director Weaver stated, but I have never had someone raft, an existing building with another building.

Nancy Downey stated, they’re building a building over a building.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, basically, yes they’re recovering it.

Carol Stradling asked, the quonset is going to stay?

Director Weaver stated, that’s what we’re being told and in the picture, there is bracing right now coming off of the quonset to these boards. Now, once it’s up I guess that all that we can do is rely on our new building inspector to maybe keep and eye on it and he did go out to the property and looked at it with me.

President Thompson stated, there’s framing work completely outside of the quonset building. They are just like building a building over the top of it, it’s unique what they are doing.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that if you put layers of insulation in there…

Ron Pollock stated, build a pole barn around it and sneak it in.

Director Weaver stated, the thing is if he does take the quonset out, and the building inspector has also indicated that it’s awful expensive to remove these quonsets but also, if they do remove that quonset then I think that it would probably change everything on the interior. It’s going to change their electric and their walls.

Attorney Altman stated, so, this is really a cosmetic thing.

Director Weaver stated, yes, and that’s why I’m asking the Board, how do we want to issue a permit for it, I know that we need to issue a permit but, what do we want to call it?

Gary Barbour stated, the construction is virtually a new building, no matter how you want to look at it.

Carol Stradling stated, but, if he’s not changing the inside, is that a new building.

President Thompson stated, he’s changing to outer walls.

Attorney Altman stated, from a point of view, I guess looking at this what it is, is it’s a new building.

Gary Barbour stated, no matter how you look at it, it’s a new building.

Carol Stradling stated, if he’s not wiring, heating and a new furnace, he’s not doing new guts….

President Thompson stated, it’s complete new framework outside of the existing building.

Gary Barbour stated, it’s just like building a new building on the corner.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I think of is, I think that how that would be handled, the thing is, the estimate of cost would be less because, he is not doing those things.

Nancy Downey stated, it would probably be a pole construction because, that’s your cheapest in accessing. When you do a pole construction, you can remove the floor and add floor, you can remove electric, you can add electric so that can be broken down very well. I would put it as a pole building and whatever he puts in it that’s what it will be accessed at so, if he doesn’t put all of that in then the assessment will stay the same for the quonset but, he has a new building there.

Ron Pollock asked, like someone changing the roof structure of the roof.

President Thompson stated, he is, new roofline.

Director Weaver stated, he’s doing a little more than a roofline.

Ron Pollock stated, people do that because, rather than put an old roof on it they go right over the top and leave the old inside.

Director Weaver stated, he said that’s what started this because, it leaks.

Ron Pollock stated, I would think that he would need a building permit for new construction.

Gary Barbour asked, is that going to be over the 15’ in height?

Director Weaver stated, their office is in here so, it would probably be considered their main building which, would not have the 15’ height. Now, this other building is probably for storage and would need to meet that 15’ but, this one actually has their office space in it. So, it would be considered a principal building.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver asked, a building or remodel?

The Board stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, but, which?

Attorney Altman stated, new building, and get it now, before they proceed any more.

Director Weaver stated, and do not proceed until the variance is granted.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, that’s all that I have.

*****

Ron Pollock made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission