Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, March 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, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: George Loy, Rod Pool, Steve Hooker, Robin Whitaker, Eldon Sizemore, Patrick & Denise Leonard, Sam & Cindy Mul, Kathy & Jerry Lombardi, Tom Fee & Company, Alan M. Osowski, Pat Dekker, Don Rollheiser, Dean Huseman, Craig Knies, Fred & Shirley Boessel, Chery Helderle, David Cofman, David Gillman, Charlie Mellon and Sam Burl.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Ron Pollock made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the February 15, 2000 meeting. Motion was seconded by Jeff Saylor and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1171 Rangeline Properties, Inc.; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing building into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance and a 10’ side setback variance to build a new building and to renew the existing special exception variance to allow a trash removal business on lot #2 in Korpita’s Corner Subdivision. The property is located in West of Monticello at 3054 E. Division Road.

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

Steve Hooker was representing the request.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Steve Hooker stated, President of the Corporation.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to present to the Board tonight?

Steve Hooker stated, just trying to cover that old building to get it to quit leaking, that’s basically what we’re doing.


President Thompson asked, do we have pictures, yes, we do. Has their been any response?

Attorney Altman stated, no, there are no responses from objection either a positive or negative in this matter, in the file.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed or in favor of this variance? Director Weaver, have you received anything?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, are there any comments from the Board?

Director Weaver stated, I did give the Board a copy of the minutes from the first time that the special exception was requested on this property, just in case they wanted to refer back to those minutes.

Attorney Altman asked, in essence there isn’t any real change in your special exception use right? You’re not changing your special exception use right?

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman, he is not the person that requested.

Attorney Altman stated, he should know what the use is.

Director Weaver stated, I know, I just wanted you to know that we’re not dealing with the same person as we were the last time. Same type business but, not the same person,.

Attorney Altman asked, so there isn’t any change of what you’re doing?

Director Weaver stated, are their 2 companies operating out of that location?

Steve Hooker stated, two companies in there on the same location.

Attorney Altman asked, are they doing the same, I guess what I’m saying is, you’re either confined of what the special exception, you are essentially confined to the old special exception even though we’re reconfirming it. Whether it’s you or 3 companies in there, it really doesn’t matter as long as you know and understand that.

Steve Hooker stated, yes, same exception.

Attorney Altman asked, the use, the recovering of that Quonset that you got in mid stream, it isn’t a change it’s just trying to make the at building functional?

Steve Hooker stated, yes, it leaks very bad, we’re just trying to seal it up.

Ron Pollock asked, are we talking, I see a proposed building here and then I see the Quonset, is it two buildings?

Steve Hooker stated, two buildings.

Director Weaver stated, they are requesting a variance on each of them.

President Thompson asked, if there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote?

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 is a lot of record and properly divided.

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing building into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance and a 10’ side setback variance to build a new building and to renew the existing special exception variance to allow a trash removal business on Lot 2 in Korpita’s Corner Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Monticello at 3054 E. Division 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 and 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, the variance is granted and also the special exception as previously granted for this particular site, you need to get a building permit, apparently two, before you proceed.

****

#1172 Alan Osowski; Requesting an 8’ North side setback variance to build an addition between the existing house and garage on lot #26 and part of lot #27 in Clarence Fee’s Subdivision of Frank’s Lodge. The property is located in Union Township at 4369 N. West Shafer Drive.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone representing this request?

Alan Osowski stated, my wife and I moved here she had always been coming to Shafer Lake area as a kid and when we found the opportunity that we can move here next to her parents and they could be grandparents to our 3 daughters, we thought that would be a great opportunity. Unfortunately, we moved into a 2 bedroom home with 5 of us so, we thought that we would have the room to do an addition to accommodate all of us so, we have enough space.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this although, when I went out to the property I was a little concerned when I saw how close the two garages were. So, I spoke with our new building inspector about this concern and he did have a couple of suggestions. Number one, he suggested that the wall between the addition and the existing garage be at least a 1 hour fire wall and any door that would go from this addition into the garage can not have a window in it of any kind. He also did suggest, that there be drywall put on the North wall of the existing garage to help with fire hazards.

Gary Barbour asked, is that State code?

Director Weaver stated, no, but, it was safety factors that he was looking at. From my understanding no, it is not State Code but, when he looked at this also had the same concern because, he felt like if the garage to the North went up in flames it would take his garage as well because, they are very close.

President Thompson asked, did you get any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

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

Director Weaver stated, may I add to that, this is in an area that is going to be hooking on to the sewer system.

Attorney Altman asked, do you know when that will be?

Alan Osowski stated, no, I do not.

Attorney Altman asked, is there a proposed completion time?

Alan Osowski stated, the only thing that I have heard is, the end of March to the beginning of April but I have not received anything in the mail otherwise.

Attorney Altman stated, you would want to make sure that they are aware of this addition so that the lines that they put in will handle your proposed addition, assuming that it is approved this evening.

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman, we also require a letter from the Sewer Board before we will issue that permit. Do you have that letter by any chance?

Alan Osowski stated, no, I don’t.

Director Weaver stated, because, I don’t have a copy of it either.

President Thompson asked, are there any concerns from the Board?

Gary Barbour asked, will we make it a condition that he follow the recommendations of the Building Inspector?

Attorney Altman asked, you sure do. I thought that I heard him agree to that, is that your agreement?

Alan Osowski stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, that you stipulate and modify your proposal to include, let me make sure that I have it down right Director Weaver, a one hour fire wall be installed along the, it would be the North wall, that the door there have no windows….

Director Weaver stated, it would be the East wall.

Attorney Altman stated, East wall.

Director Weaver stated, one hour fire wall should go on the East side of the existing garage.

Attorney Altman stated, no windows in the door.

Director Weaver stated, no windows in the door.

Attorney Altman stated, and drywall.

Director Weaver stated, drywall on the North wall of the existing garage and he did suggest fire alarms also.

Alan Osowski stated, yes, absolutely.

Attorney Altman stated, that should be the kind that are installed in with the electrical connection and with the battery in case the electricity goes off, that’s what that would be requiring.

Alan Osowski stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that he has modified that so, I don’t think that you need to put that down but, it’s clearly a condition of this request at this time.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 8’ North side setback variance to build an addition between the existing house and garage on Lots 26 and 27 in Clarence Fee’s Subdivision of Frank’s Lodge in Union Township, White County, Indiana except that part of Lot 27 described by: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 28 in said Subdivision; thence South 16 feet; thence South 85 degrees East 285.5 feet; thence North 06 degrees 30 minutes East 45 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 27; thence West 285 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 4369 N. West Shafer Drive.

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, you need to get a building permit before you proceed. You probably should contact the Building Inspector also and let him know that he can come out and check that out for you too and help you out on that.

Alan Osowski stated, okay, thank you very much.

****

#1174 The City of Monticello; Requesting a 22’ front setback variance from Marion Street and an 8’ front setback variance from Bluewater Drive for a filter building and a 12’ front setback variance from Bluewater Drive for a reaction basin on lots #135 and #136 in John Barr’s Addition to the City of Monticello. The property is located at 214 Bluewater Drive.

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

George Loy stated, I’m the Attorney for the City. I have brought with me Rod Pool, our Water Works Superintendent and Craig Knies with Bowen Engineering, one of the supervising engineers. As you may know, we are constructing a new 2.8 million-dollar water facility at the same site as the old facility at the East end of Marion Street, adjacent to the river. It’s built on the same site as the present facility and our State requirements call for the setbacks that we are asking for and I will let Rod and Craig answer any technical questions that you may have about why we need the variance.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information that you would like to present to us before questions?

Rod Pool stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, why don’t you give us a good idea just why these requirements, these setback requirements are needed if you would.

Rod Pool stated, the reason for the setback is a 22’ off of Marion Street is because the size of this complex and what we have to work with we are just a little bit short. The 8’ off of Bluewater, after the tornado the two buildings that were there, the two homes that we destroyed, the city at that time bought those lots. So basically, yes, that is still called Bluewater Drive but that has been nothing more than a driveway for the Monticello Water works since that time. So as far as a setback from there, I guess officially and legally it is but, it’s been no more than a drive for the last 25 years because, we are the only thing in that whole block right there.

Attorney Altman stated, you just didn’t get it vacated, the alley.

Rod Pool stated, it was a road at one time.

Attorney Altman stated, I mean legally.

Rod Pool stated, no. I don’t remember but, someone around here might. It use to go right up the hill there to the bridge.

President Thompson asked, have we received any correspondence on this?

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any comments or concerns from the Board? If there is nothing, are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-3, Multiple 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 from Marion Street and an 8’ front setback variance from Bluewater Drive for a filter building and a 12’ front setback variance from Bluewater Drive for a reaction basin beginning at a point which is 269.5 feet East of the Southwest corner of Lot Number One Hundred Thirty-six (136) in John Barr’s Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana; thence East One Hundred Seventy-five (175) feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 136; thence North Forty-five (45) feet; thence West One Hundred Seventy-five (175) feet; thence South to the place of beginning.

Beginning at a point which is 269.5 feet East of the Northwest corner of Lot No. 135, in John Barr’s Addition to the town, not City of Monticello; thence South 120 feet to the South Line of Lot Number 136 aforesaid; thence East 175 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 136; thence North 120 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 135; thence West 167 feet to the place of beginning, being the East end of Lots 135 and 136 in Barr’s Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, except the following; Beginning at a point which is 269.5 feet East of the Southwest corner of Lot Number 136 in John Barr’s Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, thence East one hundred seventy-five (175) feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 136; thence North Forty-five (45) feet; thence West One Hundred Seventy-five (175) feet; thence South to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 214 N. Bluewater 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, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1175 Don Rollheiser; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance from the eave to build an addition onto the existing detached garage on lot #33 in Tippecanoe Forest Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1120 N. Arbor Court.

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

Don Rollheiser was present to represent this request.

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

Don Rollheiser stated, not really, it’s going to be approximately in the middle of the property. I bought that as a swamp, I built 10 duplexes and I have a house there. So, it’s really to the middle of the property, I’m not close to the neighbors at all except my tenants and we need the addition for the storage of our lawn equipment. We own an apartment building next door so we need our mowers and things like that to be stored and we’re just running out of room for storage.

Director Weaver stated, we did receive a letter, Exhibit A, on this. The Board members do have a copy of that letter from Vickie Menzer and Janet Stiglitz, it’s with the papers that I gave you tonight.

Attorney Altman stated, let me read that, I will read the body of it and it is signed by the people that Director Weaver had just mentioned and that’s all just to get it in the record. The letter was read into the record.

President Thompson asked, where is she in conjunction to this property?

Attorney Altman asked, it doesn’t say that. Do you know?

Don Rollheiser stated, I don’t even know the people unless, they are here and I don’t know it.

Attorney Altman stated, they give a box number of Monticello so, I can’t even check, to give you an answer. The envelope even gives the same box number.

President Thompson asked, who are your adjoining property owners?

Don Rollheiser stated, the closet ones would be Vogel’s. They own the duplexes along Beach drive, I really don’t know anyone else. I own the apartment building next door, and I go all of the way over to Williams Street. Director Weaver looked at it, it’s right in the middle of there, I don’t have anyone next to me and that’s certainly not one of my tenants.

Attorney Altman stated, just for the record, Director Weaver just showed that they are one of the two people that were given notice required as an adjoining property owner. There is no address here and we can’t tell you, or the Board, which particular tract of ground is theirs.

Ron Pollock stated, it doesn’t say what they are protesting.

Attorney Altman stated, no, I think that you have a copy of it and it says no more than their protesting the variance.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here for or against the variance?

Attorney Altman stated, this will obviously, be hooked up to city water and city sewage?

Don Rollheiser stated, no, there is no sewage or water in the building.

Attorney Altman stated, I see, the building will not be….

Don Rollheiser stated, it’s a garage.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s only the garage that you’re…

Don Rollheiser stated, yes, all of the rest of it is hooked up to city and water, everything else.

Attorney Altman asked, single story dirt garage?

Don Rollheiser stated, yes, I believe that Director Weaver took pictures of it, you should have pictures up there.

Attorney Altman asked, it will match right into the line?

Don Rollheiser stated, yes, same size.

Attorney Altman stated, same size.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns or comments from the Board?

Ron Pollock asked, just an addition to the garage?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, 8’ x 24’.

Gary Barbour asked, is this going to be right on the property line?

Attorney Altman asked, lot #31 is yours, right?

Don Rollheiser stated, yes, I’m right in the middle there.

Attorney Altman stated, so that you understand, that you can’t sell off lot #31….

Director Weaver stated, he can’t join them Attorney Altman, he can’t join them together. He has a duplex on each lot so, he can not join these two lots together.

Gary Barbour stated, you tell me if I’m wrong but, he’s going right to the property line.

Director Weaver stated, he can go to the property line if he is granted this variance but, he can not cross that property line because, these two properties can not be joined together. We would create a violation.

Ron Pollock asked, so, they don’t need any setback for that then?

Director Weaver stated, that is what he is requesting tonight.

Attorney Altman stated, a 0’ setback.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

There was discussion among the Board members.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote? Then we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 20’ front setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance from the eave to build an addition onto the existing detached garage on Lots 31 and 33 in Tippecanoe Forest Subdivision in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1120 Arbor Court.

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, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1176 Dean J. Huseman, Owner; Crown Castle, Applicant; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a 10,000 square feet parcel. The property is located on the Southeast corner of State Road 18 and Interstate 65.

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

David Gillman stated, I’m with Land Development Services representing Crown Castle, office is at 333 E. Ohio Street, Suite 120, Indianapolis, Indiana. We have on your agenda tonight the next 3 items. These are wireless communications tower facilities. The first one that we are going to present is on, as mentioned, Mr. Huseman’s property. This particular tower and all 3 towers actually, this tower and the third one are on our agenda are going to be 250’ self support communication towers on a 10,000 square feet leased area with a 75’ x 75’ fenced in compound. The need for these particular towers was brought up in the summer and we withdrew these petitions because, there was competing towers in the area that we thought that other carriers could co-locate on. Crown Castle is not a wireless phone provider, we are a tower builder and we lease our tower space to other wireless providers. As a matter of fact, all of them, both licensed in Indiana and then any unlicensed provider that needs service in this particular area. We also lease space to emergency personnel for their 911 apparatus, when I withdrew these particular tower sites it was in good faith. It was the fact that there were other towers that had one carrier on and we felt that it was not in our best interest to build a tower on these particular pieces of property until we had a need for a carrier. So, we went back to our client and we asked them to look at these other tower sites.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, I would like to note that our 5th member has now setting at the Board, for consideration of this matter.

David Gillman asked, would you like for me to start over?

Attorney Altman stated, no, go ahead and proceed.

David Gillman stated, and we asked our client in this particular instance, for this particular tower as Singular we asked, is there any way that you can co-locate on these other towers? They looked at what they call their radio frequency network, their existing structure and how it was built and programmed. They needed to go at a 250’ elevation, both of these towers and the towers around the Round Grove site had already carriers at 250’, that’s why we re-filed these petitions. Since then, there is a sense of urgency for Singular. They have a license that has been issued to them to cover this area by the FCC and the FCC has certain guidelines in which, you have to comply with to keep your license valid. One of those guidelines is to provide clear and quality service. The second guideline is to be competitive in your rates and that’s why you keep seeing the prices of the cell phones going down instead of going up. The third one is to have coverage a certain percentage of coverage in the geographic area in which a license is issued. Singular, which use to be Bell South has a deadline of 2001 and they need to have 80 percent coverage in this area by the end of this year. We have zoned 4 towers in Jasper County on I-65 for them, those towers are erected and operational their coverage presently with their licenses go to Lake County. So, they have to bridge that gap for Lake County to White County, they need to have these two towers built immediately in order to keep their license valid with the FCC, that’s why we re-filed them. They need to go at a 250’ elevation and that’s where the other towers already have antennas on them.

Now, the Crown Castle tower that we built is not designed for a single user. Our towers are designed and I do have certified engineered documents here we can carry up to 5 sets of antennas and possibly 6, it just depends on what type of an array each antenna is designed at but, at least we can carry 5 antennas. Crown Castle has won 3 awards in the year 2000 in the telecommunications industry, the best in the business, the best in the business and in tower design, as far as being able to co-locate multiple carriers on their towers. The best in the business for marketing watch because, they are very aggressive of loading up their towers very quickly and they are the best in the business for community and public relations.

We have attended many meetings for a lot of different interest groups, conservancies, sierra clubs, to try to work with them because, you do see cell towers popping up in a lot of areas but, Crown Castle is proactive in trying to work with these different types of groups. I personally, since I have been involved with Crown Castle, have helped Miami County, Newton County, Jasper County, Bartholomew County and Indianapolis and write wireless ordinances. It’s a lot easier for us when we come into a community and we know exactly what is expected. It’s easier for us to comply with that and it’s easier for the Board members to hold us to what we say at the meetings. I can assure you, should we get approved, we will have these towers built, we have a deadline to have these towers constructed 2 of them by the end of June and the third one by the end of July. So, they will go up immediately and we will have carriers on them, once we have still in the air, it’s a lot easier for us to market that tower to get the second, the third and the fourth carrier on that tower. The other towers that are there, there is a 345’ tower on Mr. Husemans’s side, there isn’t a tower that is actually competitive to the Crown Tower that we’re proposing but, further up the road when we get to the next site, there are a couple of towers. I will discuss that when it get to that particular piece of property but, that’s basically where we stand. I can answer a lot of questions that anyone may have, we have studied this area, these have been on the docket. Like I said earlier, we withdrew them, we ask our client in good faith trying to keep the tower count down to re-evaluate. They came back to us and said no, we have to go at this level on these sites. We need to be able to commit to building them within the next 90 days and that’s why we’re back here tonight.

Ron Pollock stated, it looks like in Round Grove, you have already two other towers there, the way that I understand that.

David Gillman stated, Round Grove will be the 3rd agenda item, Mr. Huseman the one that we are talking about right now, in Grove Badger I will get to that.

Ron Pollock asked, that’s the only tower in that area?

David Gillman stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, did you provide the map? Where did they come from?

Director Weaver stated, these maps were provided by them.

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

Charlie Mellon stated, I’m not really opposed to it but it seems like a couple of years ago White County had, what was it 18 or 20 towers already? The same talk back then was they thought that they had too many towers the way that it was but, listen to him, maybe the technology and everything has changed I don’t know but, it looks like those 3 towers are going to be awfully close together.

David Gillman stated, there are a couple of reasons for the number of towers. I have been involved with zoning all of my life but in-particular cell towers, aggressively in the last 5 years. In the early 90’s when all of these cell phone companies started getting their licenses issued, they all were out there in a frenzy of who could be out there the first and get the biggest coverage area and get on television to watch the pin drop, buy from us. Well, what they went out, did, they went out, and built all of their towers to get the networks up and running but, they designed their towers with their signal, self interest in mind. So, many of these towers that were built in the early 90’s were not designed like super structures to carry 4 or 5 different carries. So everyone has their own little individual towers out there, then the typical family now may have more than 1 cell phone. It use to, a lot of people that had a little extra money to spend or had an urgency for it, had cell phones. Now, that the price has dropped, cell phones are more available.

People are buying cell phones for their parents or their children, just to keep in touch. So the number of users has increased, the towers that were originally built are not structurally sound to carry the different types of carriers that are demanding the service. White County, you have a large break out there, Lake Shafer, that attracts a lot of tourists, there are a lot of people out on the boats. Well, when you’re out on a boat, you use your cell phone and everyone that has a boat wants to be able to communicate, “are you coming up?” “Where are you on the highway?” “How close are you to the lake so that we can come back and pick you up?” So this little geographical area, the demand is a little bit atypical from just the regular highway through a country atmosphere.

You have a tourist attraction here and you have a big demand for it, right here at this particular area of the county but, the number of cell phones has increased tremendously. What has happened then, all of the cell tower companies have gotten a start in a way, what they are doing is they’re saying we were out spending all of our money building towers and now all of a sudden we have to have the smallest phone. The most high technical digital service to be competitive. So, they quit building towers and took all of that capital money and started investing it into technology. The smallest phone, the clearest voice, all of the gadgets and gismos that you can have on it. So what they have done is, they have looked up companies like Crown Castle and there are a half of a dozen others like Crown Castle, they tell us we need sites for this coverage area, you go build the tower. What that allows them to do is, save that money and advance their technologies so that they can be competitive from that end of it. It has helped a lot of the communities because now, Crown Castle will petition for a tower site and we make written commitments. We file all of the documentation that is requested of us that the if the tower is abandoned for any reason what so ever, say that they become obsolete we take it down. We have been asked to put up a bond to make sure that the money was there to take it down. We put commitments and covenants on our approvals that we absolutely, will co-locate subject to, our standard lease agreements. We will not discriminate, we are not competitive, we are not competing with any phone provider, we welcome them all and we are in the business for that. We have a large vertical apartment building and we need to fill it up as quick as possible that’s how Crown Castle makes their revenue. So it’s in our best interest to co-locate as many people on our tower, as many carriers on our tower, as possible.

Ron Pollock asked, maybe I didn’t understand you but, you can’t use any of the other towers that are in existence already for yours?

David Gillman stated, there are none, on this particular case that I’m discussing right now. Later on I will discuss that but, the towers and the networks, it’s like Tarzan swinging from tree to tree they have to hand it off. As you drive down the road, your signal gets handed off from one tower to the next and to the next. Along Mr. Huseman’s, there is a gap there or a void. What does that mean when you’re actually talking on your phone? You may have a hang-up, you may have static, and you just may have bad coverage. Part of their license requires that you have to provide the highest quality service to a given certain area at a competitive rate. So what they have to do is, because these phones are now digital, instead of cellular the antenna and the structures themselves have to be relatively close to the highway instead of further away so that gap can’t be as near as wide as it use to be with cellular.

Ron Pollock stated, this gap doesn’t look like it’s much more than 8 or 10 miles.

David Gillman stated, yes, and the gap right now for digital is about 3 ½ to 4 ½ miles. I hate to say it but, you’re going to see more towers. The kind of towers that you want to see are the towers that can co-locate a minimum of 4 or 5 antennas at any given time and I think that you will see that. I don’t think that you will see very many individual cell tower companies that provide wireless service coming in and asking for their own towers. They are going to send Crown Castles and other companies like that in to put up their structures and once again, we did withdraw our earlier petitions and asked our client, “why can’t you just go on these other towers?” They came back and said we have a problem, we have to be at 250’ and those towers, they have carriers at 250’, we have to be up and running by June 30th.

Ron Pollock asked, have you already been approved by the F.C.C?

David Gillman stated, yes, F.C.C. issues the license, F.A.A. also approves us and F.A.A. has approved us as well.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, are there any questions from the Board? We have to deal with this one at a time?

Gary Barbour asked, these green dots that are on here, are your towers that you already have aside from the 3?

David Gillman stated, no, those are just identified as being there.

Ron Pollock stated, Gary, also on I-65 there are about 4 towers in a bout a 10-mile radius there. You don’t interfere with any other by putting that with any of the other towers?

David Gillman stated, no, what happens is the FCC will issue a frequency and they have what they call gaps in between each frequency, just to make sure that you don’t overlap or interfere.

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

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, for the record, we do incorporate the offers of the applicant that with abandonment removal of the bond and co-location 4 to 5 antennas. Subject to of course, to the required lease and then being compatible with requiring someone that….

Ron Pollock asked, is this land leased or purchased?

David Gillman stated, leased, it’s a long-term lease.

Attorney Altman asked, but, I’m talking about leasing to other antenna users on the tower. His lease is required that’s what they filed that they have the lease for the property in question. What I was talking about is, what he was mentioning about leasing it to other company users.

President Thompson asked, is everyone ready to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a 10,000 square feet parcel on a part of the East half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 25 North, Range 5 West, White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Commencing at the northeast corner of said quarter section; thence North 88 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds West 386.59 feet along the North line of said section; thence South 01 degrees 08 minutes 41 seconds West 51.43 feet; thence South 78 degrees 54 minutes 05 seconds West 547.26 feet to the point of beginning of this description: thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 100.00 feet thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 100’ to the point of beginning and containing 10,000 square feet, more or less.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located on the Southeast corner of State Road 18 and Interstate 65.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed and please get the documentation that we’re talking about.

David Gillman stated, we will file that with the planning office prior to getting the building permit to make sure that it’s acceptable.

****

President Thompson stated, I’m going to call on our Vice President to address this due to the fact that this is my property. Jeff Saylor.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record the President Jerry Thompson has just excused himself from consideration on this matter for the obvious reason that he is the applicant.

#1177 Jerry Thompson, Owner; Crown Castle, Applicant; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on the property. The property is located in Prairie Township on the Southwest corner of C.R. 700 S. and C.R. 300 W.

Vice President Saylor asked, would you like to address this request?

David Gillman stated, yes, thank you. Again, I’m representing Crown Castle and Jerry Thompson Land Development Services Inc. our office is at 333 E. Ohio Street Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. Thompson has a piece of property, between 2 to 2 ½ miles East of I-65 North. Instead of Singular, who has the need to keep their license validated with the FCC GTE, Verizon has requested that we construct a tower at this location. This particular tower will be a 300’ guide tower. The reason that it is a little bit taller is, because the coverage on I-65 for GTE or Verizon is adequate. What they are looking at doing is bridging the gap between I-65 and Lake Shafer. We will be back and I think that we will be back in this county probably on your next April or May agenda to ask for a tower to be constructed at Lake Shafer. The Brookston tower is actually going to provide the service from I-65 all of the way across the low part over to the lake. So, we will be asking for that, probably at your April, May agenda the other pink spot that you see, that’s in Monticello. We have that currently to cover the geographic area of Monticello and this tower it’s not marked on the map that we’re proposing. It will actually be down near the lake just a little bit due South and the Brookston tower, it is actually going to cover all of the geographic area we need between I-65 and the lake. The higher that you go up on a tower, the larger your coverage area and so we’re able to put up a 300’ guide tower. Mr. Thompson has plenty of farmland there available which, allows us to construct a taller tower and allows us to stretch that geographic coverage area out and gets us further East to the lake. In the lake, the tower constructed there, the two service area ranges will actually match, they may overlap some but, in our instance that’s necessary for a digital coverage. There is an existing tower, probably about, I’m going to say 600’ West of the tower that we’re proposing. This is, I believe, that it’s identified as Indiana Public Service. I do have a photograph of the base of that tower, if you know the property, that tower is very loaded. It’s got all kinds of microwave dishes on it and antennas and the compound area which services that tower is completely full of I.P.S’s equipment and their equipment sheds.

This tower is not usable for the purpose of putting up our antennas. We would have to extend it, we would have to increase a compound area and I don’t think that we have any interest from I.P.S. in doing that. They would just assume to keep the two issues separate, so other people can build a tower next to them, they don’t have a problem with that but they have to co-locate on their existing tower that is not a viable option. In addition to having an existing tower there, there are also large transmission overhead lines that cut right through the property. As a matter of fact, the piece of property that we have located to put the tower on is sort of cut off by a drainage ditch so it’s not really a valuable piece of farmland. It does serve a purpose for us, it gives us a big enough area to put up this tower. There’s an existing tower there, there are no homes in the immediate area that I think would be negatively impacted by the addition of another tower. When you consider the overhead power lines that already transverse that part of White County and the existing I.P.S. facility that is there. It does serve a valuable purpose of getting complete coverage between I-65 and Lake Shafer. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions, Board members or members of the audience may have.

Director Weaver asked, this tower is going to come all of the way to Lake Shafer?

David Gillman stated, no, half way.

Director Weaver asked, so you’re going to have another tower….

David Gillman stated, at Lake Shafer coming back yes, we will be back to get a tower near Lake Shafer right on the East side of the lake.

Director Weaver asked, how tall is this tower compared to the tower next to you?

David Gillman stated, this will be 300’ that tower next to it 250’.

Carol Stradling asked, you’re saying Lake Shafer, Lake Freeman?

David Gillman asked, is it Lake Freeman?

Carol Stradling stated, Lake Freeman is the Southern lake.

David Gillman stated, Lake Freeman, okay, I apologize, I haven’t been there.

Carol Stradling asked, does that mean that Verizon, GTE and when you’re heading South towards Delphi, wouldn’t you flip over to Logansport? As soon as I cross the green bridge, I have a long distance call because, I’m in a different zone. Another tower there, will that be able to pick up the calls so it doesn’t flip me over to Logansport?

David Gillman stated, obviously, GTE, Verizon intent is to prevent that from happening. I do not have the radio frequency maps saying where this particular area is going to drop off and pick up again. That tower, we’re just now getting what we call, a search range, finding a leasable property in this geographic area. Once we find that property they run it through their network to produce what we call radio frequency map and when I come back with that particular tower I will be able to answer that question with a lot more confidence. Right now, I can not answer that question but, that is the intent to bridge that gap.

Carol Stradling asked, related to that, I don’t know what the service is in Logansport, will they be extending so that they don’t, I don’t know how to word it, it seems like I have the state wide calling plan. I’m calling from Delphi to Monticello and it’s long distance so, I don’t know how that works.

David Gillman stated, I can answer that, just not right now.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess that I’m just kind of wondering whatever Logansport’s company is, will they be extending out too? Would that possible be their goal, of course you can’t answer for them.

David Gillman stated, well, I can whenever we get this, whenever I come back with this particular tower I will be able to answer those questions and I will make a point of that. Right now, what they are trying to do is get the coverage from I-65 and half way over to, I guess that’s a 12 mile stretch but, the higher up you go a little bit more coverage there we can absorb.

Ron Pollock asked, Director Weaver, what does this do as far as a building concern we get so many towers up that…

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I’m a bad one to ask that, I live out there.

Ron Pollock stated, I’m just saying, on tonight’s TV program on the news there is a big issue about towers being put up.

Director Weaver asked, I was sitting here thinking the same thing, if they are trying to go to the lakes then what is going to keep us from having them scattered all over the county. It’s bad enough that they are all along the interstate now but, how soon is it going to be before the whole county is covered?

David Gillman stated, what drives the towers is demand for usage. If no one in that geographic area uses cell phones obviously, there is no interest or reason for us to build one in areas where there is a lot of usage. You’re going to have a lot of towers, not necessarily hap hazardously, they all have, sophisticated Design Engineers do a lot of research into trying to pin point down where these towers need to be in order to minimize the number of towers that they have to build. Crown Castle is in that business, we take all of the RF models from all of the phone providers that give us applications here, we would like for you to start looking for sites in White County along this corridor or near this geographic area Lake Freeman or Lake Shafer. When we get enough of this, telling us this is where we need to call the common hits and at that point we’re like we really need to be looking at this and we predict in plan up to the year 2004 or 2005.

Right now, the towers that I’m bringing to you tonight is immediate builds, 2001. They are basically stating that the demand is there and it’s so high that we’re getting complaints from our customers. We’re responding to a complaint that service is not good, “I have state wide coverage but yet, it is a long distance roam call for me, it’s not fair, I don’t like it and I’m going to switch over to Singular.” As a result of that, they say get it and get it done now, so we can get it built so we can get rid of this. They also plan well in advance and they go ahead and produce their sites that they think that they are going to need in the future. Then they put them on a schedule this would be a 2001 bill, 2002, 2003, 2004 but, when we have 4 or 5 individual wireless phone providers asking us to get towers for them and they pick the same geographic areas that’s good news for us. We can build a single tower because, we don’t discriminate amongst any of the carriers they can come on to our tower we want them to we welcome them. If I’m Singular and I really wanted to avoid this because, I don’t like saying that they do this but, if I’m a competitor with you, I’m not going to be as interested in allowing you to go on my tower, so you can be directly competitive. If you don’t like my service then you can drop and go to this other service. We don’t do that, we open it up to everyone and that’s how we make money. Some of these other towers, they may be able to go on them but, how soon oh, you’re going to loose your license in 2001 you know we’ll just juggle it around for 6 or 8 months and then we will see where you are.

Ron Pollock stated, you say that these things carry 3 ½ miles, does that mean that every 3 ½ miles for a tower?

David Gillman stated, digital service has to be closer to the highway, they have a coverage area of 3 ½ miles but that’s 7 miles, that’s a 3 ½ mile radius a 7 mile span. You can get up to 10 miles, you just get a little bit, the engineers are very comfortable at 7-mile coverage. It just depends on the strength of the signal and the antenna ray that they put up some of them can go as far as 10 miles which, is a 5-mile radius. So yes, you have a 5 mile radius here and you have another tower bringing out a 5 mile radius so, it could be 10 miles or 7 miles between towers and that’s pretty much what you have. If you drive I-65 either to Chicago or back to Indianapolis you will see them about every 6 or 7 miles and some times you will see them on each side of the road, one on the inside of the highway and one on the other.

Ron Pollock stated, don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to being able, when I was in the University of Chicago, I tried to call the lakes up here on my pager and I had all kinds of problems. The thing that I’m concerned with is, I can see out on the highways here where people need communication but, you’re going to move over here to the city area where homes are going to be built. No one wants to build a home, I don’t see any problem with the farm land all of the farmland some day will be cities down the road.

David Gillman stated, valid point, when we look at sites, we looked at this particular property with more interest than others because, what is already there. A tower at this particular location is not going to adversely impact that area any more than what is already there. You have large transmission lines which, are literally 200’ in one direction. You have the 250’ PSI substation 200’ to 300’ in the other direction, we’re right in the middle. So if you’re going to have a tower anywhere to service this geographic given area, this is the place that we recommend it because of what is already there. People that want to build there wouldn’t have built there before this was built because, of what is already there if that was going to distract them.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone else that would like to address the variance request?

Gary Barbour asked, what is the directed life span of this tower?

David Gillman stated, 25 years.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything else from the Board? Are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, this is being considered upon the same conditions as the last one about abandonment, co-location as indicated and a condition of the last application subject to approval.

David Gillman stated, and we would agree to them as well.

Director Weaver asked, I have one concern, if we allow another tower to go this close to this tower, are we setting a precedence?

Vice President Saylor stated, say that again.

Director Weaver asked, if we allow this new tower, to go that close to N.I.P.S.CO.’s tower, are we setting precedence?

Attorney Altman stated, the bottom line is, anytime that you do something you set some kind of precedence. That’s what the Board has to decide, if that’s something that they want to do and they decide that by the vote.

Director Weaver stated, I just don’t want the Board to get into a situation that they will regret later.

Attorney Altman stated, the American tower, ATT, that was approved after it was built but, it was then expanded the approval was expanded Marcus Cable tower did not go through.

Ron Pollock asked, do we notify other companies, if they have a tower right next to them? Do we notify them?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Ron Pollock stated, it would be too much competition for them probably.

Director Weaver stated, it’s too difficult for us to keep track of how to get in contact with them.

Jerry Thompson asked, Director Weaver, did you get any response from N.I.P.S.CO. either way?

Director Weaver stated, N.I.P.S.CO. was not notified.

Jerry Thompson stated, I will say one thing and not because this is mine, I should have said this earlier on the first one you were talking about the number of towers. I have been spending this winter hauling beans to central Illinois and some of the nicest farm ground there is in the country in Springfield and Bloomington. I noticed when I went over there, I have been over there 17 trips this winter, I have noticed a lot of towers. So I asked the fellow there at the plant “do you have any idea how many towers that you might have in this county?” Now, it just so happens to be, that it is the largest county in the State of Illinois but he said that the last that he had heard they had 48 towers.

Carol Stradling stated, hopefully, if this gentlemen can co-locate, what did you say 4 or 5?

David Gillman stated, that’s correct.

Carol Stradling stated, that should eliminate 4 or 5 towers somewhere else.

David Gillman stated, once again, you will see that, what will happen is and you have already starting see it is, Crown Castle and tower builders are coming to the Zoning Boards instead of the phone people. They are too busy making the phones work nicely but, this is our typical self support tower and the certified tower design that we do but, it allows 5 antennas to locate on it and that’s if everyone uses what we call a 12 panel antenna. Most of them only us 3, instead of the 4 so, that makes us 6 antennas open. The problem that you have is trying to get everyone on there at the right level where it’s functioning to them instead of the 80’ and the 120’ towers, 150’ towers you’re going to see fewer of the 250’ or 300’ towers.

Ron Pollock asked, do you think that the F.C.C. would get involved in that a little bit to neutralize it, because you’re one competitor and there are other competitors, and put some kind of restriction or some type of regulation. Like you say 48 in one county, there could just be towers every place.

David Gillman stated, I know that there are 6 licensed providers in Indiana, whether or not the FCC will continue issuing licensing to further make the market more competitive to give us a better value on our phones. When I signed up with a phone last year people are now getting a better deal than I did. It’s actually irritating, you would think that if they get it just keep dropping mine but, they don’t. It has served it’s purpose, the FCC issued competitive licenses and the cost of having a cell phone has dropped drastically that was their main objective.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on part of the Fractional Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 25 North, Range 5 West, Prairie Township, White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Commencing at a PK nail marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 1; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 47 seconds West (bearing based on Geodetic North) on the North line of said Northeast Quarter, 1134.86 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 463.58 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 30.00 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 76.11 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 422.84 feet; thence North 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 42.43 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 20.87 feet to the South right-of-way line of County Road 700 South; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 47 seconds East on said South right-of-way line, 30.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 33.21 feet; thence South 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 42.43 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 380.42 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 46.11 feet to the Point of Beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Prairie Township on the southwest corner of C.R. 700 S. and C.R. 300 W.

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, President Thompson has reclused himself from the consideration in this matter. You need to get a building permit, subject to the restrictions.

****

#1178 Chrisie D. Helderle, Owner; Crown Castle, Applicant; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a 10,000 square feet parcel. The property is located in West Point Township on the North side of C.R. 500 S and approximately ¼ of a mile West of U.S. Highway 231.

David Gillman stated, once again, representing Crown Castle office is at 333 E. Ohio Street Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana. This is our last petition this is a tower that has more than one tower in its immediate area. This is what actually provoked our withdrawing our petition previously. When we went back to our client and said look at these other towers, why can’t you co-locate on them they are so close to where we want to build, they came back and said the area that we need on the tower is loaded up. I do have a photograph of the tower that 345’ spectra site, I believe that’s how it’s identified. This tower, you can see the apparatus that is on this existing tower now, this tower even though it has the height that is necessary it’s completely loaded up with a combination of cellular antennas or microwave dishes. That particular structure is not capable of handling an additional antenna ray at a 250’ elevation. The other tower that is in there and I think that it’s on the next page, if you flip that page over, that’s a self support tower, very similar to what we’re going to build. It also has an antenna right at the 250’, which is the very top. If the tower was taller or that antenna was higher or lower it would have worked. That particular spot is used up unfortunately, this tower could handle more antennas on it. Our tower will be the same, they will be next to each other or very close to each other and both of them will be able to service probably more than 2 or 3 carriers hopefully, ours will service 4 or 5.

There is some good to having towers close together. As far as setting a precedence, if you’re going to have a tower, there are towers there, people are concerned about where the towers are located if it’s already there, one more tower that serves a similar purpose is no added harm. However, in the cellular industry or the telecommunications industry if singular has so many users so many people in White County like to sue that particular phone provider that one tower can only handle 60 calls every given minute. If more calls come in than what that particular antenna can handle or that tower structure, then people get missed calls. So what they need to do then, is look for what they call a capacity site. A capacity site, two antennas same height, twice as many calls. So they could possibly feed back on one another, if one tower gets loaded up the other tower can double the output with the same users loading up the both towers. So if one tower loads up in the next year and the other tower has our Singular on top then, whoever is on this tower could double their capacity by going on our tower and that’s why you have some of these towers that are side by side. It doesn’t make sense but, if you need the same height and you have that many calls coming in, you go from 60 to 120 and so everyone can double their capacity. You will see this more common in highly traveled corridors or more urbanized areas but, it’s not going to be a tower that is going to be a ghost. Our tower will load up, their tower will load up our tower can feed back and forth off of them. If spectra site does not do the job that they are or they need to in marketing, their tower we certainly can. If we don’t, then they have another option, they have 2 people to choose from so, you know the towers are going to get loaded up, it’s just a matter of who is going to get loaded up first. Whether it’s going to be for capacity purposes or allow new users to come on line but, the two spots that are the one height that we need for singular.

Once again, this is a very critical site for singular because, if they do not get this coverage area by the end of this year, they will loose their FCC license to cover this geographic area. So, they have a huge interest in getting this tower along with the tower that was just approved on Mr. Husemans property. We would commit to building this tower with a carrier on this tower within the next 90 to 100 days. As a matter of fact Mr. Huseman’s tower and this particular tower would be built at the same time and then the Brookston tower would fall within the next 30 days after that. We have a deadline of June 30th, on the two towers along I-65, we have a deadline of July 30th on the Brookston. All of them will immediately have carriers on each tower. The 345’ tower even though it’s there it should be disregarded as a viable tower because, it’s completely loaded up. So, if we’re going to have another tower instead of spreading them out and our tower is serving a purpose, I would rather have it put next to a tower that is already loaded than having it any where else. If you’re going to look at one, looking at 2 is no different especially, if 1 is no longer usable, it’s maxed out, at it’s capacity. That means that it has served its purpose and now you are ready for a second tower. Hopefully, ours will fill up just as quick.

Carol Stradling asked, can you make it bigger now, so that it doesn’t fill up so soon so that we’re looking at another tower. Can you do that?

David Gillman stated, 250’ is the optimum now our towers are extendable to 300’ but we have built them to 250’ because we found out that at 250’ that’s the perfect height of a tower to get the maximum number of users on it as quickly as possible. It wouldn’t do us any good to build 150’ and then go back and stack another one on. We have a user at 250’ so we will build it to 250’ because that user needs to go at 250’.

Jeff Saylor asked, isn’t that what has happened here?

David Gillman stated, yes, that’s exactly what has happened across the street.

Ron Pollock asked, is the party here that you’re leasing the property from?

Chrisie Helderle stated, yes, my husband is not here.

Ron Pollock asked, looking at the map here, you’re close to a highway. Do you realize that is probably going to effect if you want to subdivide or something someday?

Chrisie Helderle stated, yes, it’s closer to I-65 than it is.

Ron Pollock asked, but, you’re aware of that?

Chrisie Helderle stated, yes, it’s farm ground. I don’t foresee it, maybe our kids will someday but, we won’t.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Has there been any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, is it reasonable to think that if you get more providers at Round Grove and they all seem to want to, they all seem to have the same radius, you can get more providers at Round Grove on one tower and someone is going to need another tower somewhere else? Then we can get more on that tower so, we have fewer towers throughout the county. Is that a reasonable assumption?

David Gillman stated, that’s very reasonable. As a matter of fact, if you looked at a coverage map, there is no reason why along where I-65 transverses White County, there is no reason why 2 or 3 towers could accommodate that corridor but, what happens is you get different users the 345’ tower. For example, was built for a very specific purpose and it’s completely loaded up so not counting that one but, you can cover like I said, about 10 miles with 2 towers. That’s what we’re trying to do and there are in some instances where there are existing towers built by other people back in the early 90’s that were designed for one interest in mind. We just have to deal with that. When you drive down the road it looks like there is a tower there but, when you engineer it and you put your construction people out there to inspect it, it’s just not capable of handling the number of antenna rays that we need to have. So, the tower really needs to be torn down and rebuilt. You may see that and there’s an incentive, we have an incentive to co-locate because, that’s our business. Some of the other towers that have a single user on them for their single purpose, they don’t have the incentive but, it does get a little more complicated than that but, I really don’t want to go into it in too much detail. Some of the earlier phone providers do not have the section of their company that can enter into contracts, accept leases and monies from other companies. They are like we never thought that we would have to do that we don’t have that system set up, some do and some don’t, so we run into that often.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions? Nothing? Are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a 10,000 square feet parcel on a part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 26 North, Range 6 West, White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Commencing at the southwest corner of said quarter section; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 17 seconds East 7.82 feet along the South line of said section; thence North 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West 20.01 feet to the point of beginning of this description:

Thence continuing North 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds West 100.00 feet to the point of beginning and containing 10,000 square feet, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located on the North side of C.R. 500 S and approximately ¼ of a mile west of U.S. Highway 231.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed. For the record, I forgot to say this, on all 3 of your special exceptions, our ordinance required you must essentially put this into existence within a year or it decays and is no longer.

David Gillman stated, we understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, I just wanted you to hear me say that.

****

#1179 Fred H. Jr. & Shirley Boessel; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a campground on part of lot #1 in Boessel Subdivision. The property is located at 6464 N. Bedford Bay Court.

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

Fred Boessel was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to that description tonight sir?

Fred Boessel stated, the main thing was we want to sell this house here and that’s where the 90’ lot is.

Director Weaver stated, he is referring to the North 90’ of his property. If you look with your pictures that I gave you tonight, there is a new survey showing this 90’ the special exception that they are requesting tonight is excluding that North 90’ they are wanting to continue a campground on the rest of the property.

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

Attorney Altman asked, it hasn’t been subdivided though has it?

Director Weaver stated, no, this is first…

Attorney Altman stated, he can’t sell it.

Director Weaver stated, it’s his first step towards being able to sell this home on it.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I just wanted to make sure he didn’t think by doing this he would have separate lots.

Director Weaver stated, he realizes that this is his first step. They came to the Board last year.

Fred Boessel stated, many times.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this.

President Thompson asked, no response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, are there any comments from the Board? Any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, what did we do the last time that you were here?

Director Weaver stated, we did a special exception for the campground, he broke off two lots to the South where he has the campground now and he sold those two lots off.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought that we did that already, so now I’m….

Director Weaver stated, yes, you did have a similar request but, it was for more ground, he’s cutting off the 90’ on the North end of this now.

Carol Stradling asked, so did you act on the variance that you got the last time?

Director Weaver stated, yes, they actually did a 3 lot subdivision last year, to break 2 lots off to the South. The campground has previously been on that property as well. So, they had to have a special exception last year to change their campground from including those two lots to what you see on this drawing tonight. Now, they are wanting to sell off the North 90’ so, they have to ask again for a special exception to continue this campground on this property.

Carol Stradling asked, because the property is changing?

Director Weaver stated, because the size of the property is changing.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else?

Ron Pollock asked, now, are you saying that you will not have a business on that property anymore?

Fred Boessel stated, no, it will be a residence.

Ron Pollock asked, yours?

Fred Boessel stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, because, it was B-1 or B-2.

Director Weaver stated, B-2.

Attorney Altman stated, it is still B-2.

Director Weaver stated, it is still B-2, currently. That is the next step is to rezone that R-2 to residential.

Fred Boessel asked, how many more steps do we have after tonight?

Director Weaver stated, 2 more after tonight.

Carol Stradling asked, will you explain that Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, in order for them to subdivide this North 90’ off, they have to do a special exception to be able to put the campground on a smaller piece of ground from what they have now. They are also going to request to rezone the B-2 area to a residential zoning which, it will be an L-1 because, you can not have a dwelling in a business zoning. So their next step is to request to rezone. If they are granted the rezoning then their following request will be for the subdivision and that would be their final step then.

Carol Stradling asked, are you going to continue to have campers there?

Fred Boessel stated, yes, in the balance between.

Carol Stradling asked, after you subdivide, are you going to continue to have the campers there?

Fred Boessel stated, if we subdivide the whole thing we can’t no but just in that area there, we will still, we had 20 campers to begin with but now, we will have 10 campers. I don’t know how long I will be here, I think that I’m the oldest one here anyway. We’re down to 10 campers now.

Ron Pollock stated, he had lot #33 and lot #32 we’re taking off, now he’s back to lot #31.

Fred Boessel stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, well, it’s no longer called lot #31 it’s now lot #1.

Ron Pollock asked, it’s just lot #1, oh, I see.

Attorney Altman stated, just 10 campers and two dwellings, on the tract of ground, they want to have it approved, as a campground. I don’t know exactly what this one structure is, it doesn’t say what it is.

Director Weaver stated, it’s storage, Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman asked, storage?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Fred Boessel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, the 12’ x 26’ x 12’ is storage?

Fred Boessel stated, yes, it’s been there since 1957 or something like that. That’s all that we use it for is storage.

Attorney Altman stated, I have a couple of things to suggest to the Board. Number one, it would be first requirement that all dwellings be hooked up to the sewers that is going in there.

Fred Boessel stated, they have already put the grinders in.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, everyone of them campers and all the next thing that nothing be built in the setback lines to the East of there of all less. I think that this lot is getting very loaded and the third thing would be, that there be no other campers or any other dwellings added to this parcel.

Fred Boessel stated, that’s what we figured.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I’m just saying that of record. I think that this one is, you actually, if you approved it the way that it is, you have a setback line square, actually a trapezoid that would allow for a significant building area to the East there. I think that this also should be limited to, there shouldn’t be any development in the setback areas to the North setback area to the East of all of these campers.

Fred Boessel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I hear the applicant agreeing to all of that. I’m just trying for the record. It’s not that I’m trying to put anything in there bad, I just think that it needs to be put as part of this approval so that we don’t have more on this lot than, right now, it shows that you could actually put something in the setback area.

Fred Boessel stated, we’re not going to though, we’re done. The only reason that we had 10 trailers there, we have 8 that we have to pay taxes on.

Attorney Altman asked, the dwellings, is that single family dwellings? The two there?

Shirley Boessel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, they are?

Shirley Boessel stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, the use is not changing, nothing is really changing from the last time that he was here except that you’re wanting to take off some of that property that was originally put in with the last variance.

Fred Boessel stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions?

Attorney Altman stated, the fourth thing that I think is, the campers that are in a flood fringe area should be removed, if they are ever destroyed they should not be allowed to be approved.

Carol Stradling stated, I think we made some conditions at the last variance and I would expect those to apply with this one also. It concerns the flood plain and setbacks and I think that the idea was that they remain where they are there will be no additions.

Fred Boessel stated, there’s no room for additions or anything. I don’t want to, I’m doing enough the way that it is.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote on this?

The Board stated, ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is currently zoned B-2, General Business and L-1, Lake District.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a campground on Lot 1 in Boessel Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 6464 N. Bedford Bay Court.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the conditions that were on the plot, on this particular tract of ground at the prior special exception still being valid, in full force, in effect, the 4 restrictions that I recited and were accepted by the applicant.

Fred Boessel stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#1180 Tom Fee; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance and a 2’ East side setback variance to build an addition on the front and back of the existing home on part of lot #11 and part of lot #12 in Bass Riffle Park Subdivision. The property is located at 5149 Quiet Water Court.

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

Tom Fee stated, I’m here requesting a variance to put a room addition on the back of the house and also put a bathroom on there. It’s an older home and it doesn’t have a bathroom, it has an outhouse out back and then we want to put a deck on the front of the house. It’s not an addition it just a deck and I need a bedroom and I definitely need a bathroom. The front is 47’ x 550’ deep by 33’ at the back where you park and the house is already existing there. To the North of me, we need a variance of 3’. Right now, if we went on with the addition the house will be cocked a little bit but it will stay 3’ from the fence, which puts me 26’ away from the neighbor on the North and 12’ on the South.

An audience member stated, East and West, I’m East.

Tom Fee stated, yes, East and West. Single story and that’s where I’m at. My neighbors are here.

Sam Burl asked, I just have a question. I just live to the East and I was wondering is that going to remain a deck? The reason is because, is alternating the view of the lake is my concern, to be real honest.

Tom Fee stated, yes.

Sam Burl stated, I don’t know if you deal with that I would take that is a big reason but, I was looking at the view of the lake it’s a very expensive home.

Tom Fee stated, I’m still 10’ back, it says on there 10’ back and it’s high, I don’t know how much structure….

Attorney Altman asked, have you seen this sir?

Sam Burl stated, yes, I have but, the homes are offset already. I’m not against it I would just like to clarify some things.

Tom Fee stated, there are some trees there, I’m clearing the trees.

Mrs. Tom Fee stated, we have been wanting to get those evergreens down too, so you could see the view of the lake. We’re trying to clean it up so you can see the lake.

Sam Burl asked, from my standpoint, can I also ask another question?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Sam Burl asked, are we guaranteed that that remains a deck if you get a variance?

Tom Fee stated, there is no foundation under it…

Attorney Altman stated, the requirement is that it is. As he is proposing and if that is, if it were more than a deck, he would have to propose it as more than a deck. Since it’s not, it must be just that. If he was going to change it he would have to come and get another request…

Sam Burl asked, get another variance?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Sam Burl asked, but, you’re just granting a variance for a deck at this time?

Attorney Altman asked, yes, single story deck. By single story there is nothing on top, just the deck, right?

Tom Fee stated, correct and I’m not even going to build anything high. So all that you’re going to look at is…

Sam Burl stated, I’m just trying to clarify.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s better to do that now, than after he sets the building in there.

Tom Fee stated, we’re up so high that he may be looking through….

There was discussion among the Board members and the audience members.

Tom Fee stated, one or two post and not close it or anything so, I’m not going to be…

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing is he said that he would take along the line there the evergreen and those trees out of there to improve your view too.

Tom Fee stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s also a condition, if we granted the variance that we do that.

Ron Pollock asked, is he going to be far enough away from the lake?

Director Weaver stated, that is part of his request, 10’ he is asking for a 20’ front setback.

President Thompson stated, we have someone else that would like to speak.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, we’re on the West. There is a discrepancy in that survey, in the two surveys and right now Mr. Milligan and Mr. Stein are discussing this. They didn’t come to any conclusions today but, they should get back with me in a few days but, there is a discrepancy with different parts of the survey, the two surveys.

Tom Fee stated, but, the survey is surveyed and it’s 47’ in the front 33’ to the back and the property that we own, was also owned. They sold it to them so they did subdivide the lot at one time and he came out and staked it.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, probably is not totally correct but, this is our survey and you have theirs. There is a discrepancy between the house, theirs says 12’ and ours says 17’. Mr. Stein did say that there may be a 3’ difference but, 3’ from 17’ is not 12’ so, how Mr. Milligan came up with 12’, we do not know. They are the discussing that but, this property is very close. We’re not against anything that their doing in fact, it’s been such a eyesore, we’re not objecting but I want to know what my boundary line is. I don’t care if it is 3’ it’s my 3’ and I don’t care who is right Mr. Stein or Mr. Milligan, I just want it to be right because, if we would want to sell that survey has to be right. That’s my opinion.

Tom Fee stated, I agree, that’s why I had it surveyed.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, it doesn’t match, like I said, I have these two and they have been out there they were out there Wednesday, both of them. So Mr. Stein was in touch with Mr. Milligan and Mr. Milligan didn’t get back in with him today. He said hopefully tomorrow he will have an answer but until, we’re not against anything that they are doing because, it’s such an eyesore.

Tom Fee stated, even despite if she is concerned with 3’ or whatever, I’m still far enough away from the property line where we’re putting the house it’s still legal. What I’m trying to propose is not illegal, it would only be with him on the 3’ I guess that you’re suppose to have 6’.

An audience member stated, she just wants to know what her rights are.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, I just want to make sure about the line, I don’t have a problem with what they are doing, I just thought that it was information that you should know that the line, I don’t know but, it’s got to be one way or the other.

Tom Fee stated, one way or the other the property is still there, I’m not building on it so there is no, she’ll just know where she’s at and I will know where I’m at.

President Thompson stated, that’s right.

Tom Fee stated, maybe it’s right, maybe it isn’t, I’m not judging that but as far as this guy is saying, Milligan, he’s been in this town and he knows his business and he says that this is correct.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, our survey was done in 1988 when we purchased this so that’s why we had a question about this.

Ron Pollock stated, it’s probably the same one that did the survey in 1988, that did his survey.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, no, Mr. Milligan did their survey and Mr. Stein did our survey, it’s just different.

Attorney Altman asked, do you have anything else that you want to present?

Kathleen Lombardi stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, Director Weaver, to get this to where we can do something, as I understand to the East side which, is toward the other part of lot #12 on both surveys, the survey that we had presented that side isn’t part of the variance is it in any way shape or form?

Director Weaver stated, not as drawn here on this survey no.

Attorney Altman asked, would it be that if it were 5’ short if that were….

Director Weaver stated, if it was 5’ shorter, it would still be okay but, if it was any more than that then we have a problem.

Attorney Altman stated, what I see with her survey and she is saying that there might be a 5’ difference and she’s not sure, no one is sure. What I’m saying is, if it’s 5’ it wouldn’t make a difference but, if it’s more than 5’….

Director Weaver stated, if it’s more than 5’, it would.

Attorney Altman stated, the Board has to basically make up their mind on here as to whether they do proceed but, it looks to me like with what the Director saying, the evidence that we have and both surveys, gives the applicant enough room on that side. Even if he looses the whole 5’ and I’m not suggesting that, you aren’t and she isn’t either, she just wants to know.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, I just want to know my boundary lines.

Attorney Altman stated, I would believe that we can proceed with a vote on the application of the applicant, even with the worst of all worlds, that’s not relevant to this variance.

Director Weaver stated, unless, they would be more than 5’ then they would have to come in and request a new variance if we vote on it tonight.

Attorney Altman stated, they are more than 5’ they have to have it.

Director Weaver stated, they have to have a new variance.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, if we table it though, then they would not have to and say there is a 6’ difference then we could amend this request…

Ron Pollock asked, would we be better to table it then?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that we can amend it that far, it wasn’t advertised that way is what I’m suggesting.

Director Weaver stated, but we could re-advertise.

Attorney Altman stated, you could re-advertise and they would at least save an application.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right and that is my thought. That was my concern for the applicants.

Attorney Altman stated, so, what we’re really saying is, if you went further than the 5’ you might be better off by letting the surveyors give you an answer before we proceed or you can…

Tom Fee asked, can we go ahead with it and approve it, I won’t start the job until I know what the deal is? That way I won’t have to come back.

Director Weaver stated, the thing is, if they find that there is a 6’ discrepancy….

Tom Fee stated, then I won’t start.

Director Weaver stated, you will have to completely re-file. That’s why I thought that you should be aware….

Tom Fee stated, I know that we’re not that far off, we’re off but, I just don’t want to, I come all of the way here from Chicago tonight, I have to work tomorrow and no one works on the weekends.

Attorney Altman stated, I just wanted you to know what you’re gaining or potentially loosing.

Tom Fee stated, I believe that they’re right but, I’m going to let them hash it out and like I said, if I get approved tonight, I will wait. They are going to find this out pretty quick like tomorrow and then I can proceed, but I won’t take the permit out until we are all satisfied.

President Thompson stated, that’s fair.

Tom Fee stated, this way, I won’t have to come back.

President Thompson asked, is there any discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to approve this contingent upon the property line being at least….

Attorney Altman stated, not that Director Weaver says, not on the variance because, if it isn’t…

Carol Stradling stated, if it’s out of variance you will have to come back in…

Tom Fee stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, because, we can’t approve it if it is.

Director Weaver stated, it wouldn’t be in compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, so we can vote on this but, we voted and the survey is wrong, really wrong, then they would have to come back but we can vote on this. When are they going to hook up the sewer out there?

Tom Fee stated, I don’t know.

Kathleen Lombardi stated, we have been out there 13 years and nothing has ever been said to us.

Tom Fee stated, the line yet, they are still up there by the lake pantry, the Pit Stop.

Director Weaver stated, they aren’t even running….

Attorney Altman asked, no idea? No proposals yet?

Kathleen Lombardi stated, we, in 13 years we have never heard one word about it.

Tom Fee stated, it might be 2 to 3 more years.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, we would require you to hook up to it.

Tom Fee stated, I’m going to, they already said that they are going to make you, plus I can’t get a mortgage on the house because, I don’t have a bathroom. That was my problem of selling out I had to put a bathroom in and a floor to get a loan.

Attorney Altman stated, you obviously, have to get a Health Department permit.

Tom Fee stated, we have all of that.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.

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 20’ front setback and a 2’ side setback variance to build an addition on the front and back of the existing home on that part of Lot Number eleven (11) in Bass riffle Park Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the above said Lot Number Eleven (11) which is the point of beginning; thence Southeasterly along the West Line of said Lot Number Eleven (11) One Hundred fifty (150) Feet to the Southwest corner of said lot Number Eleven (11); thence North seventy-four degrees East Three Feet; thence Northwesterly parallel to the West Line of said Lot Number Eleven (11) One Hundred Fifty (150) Feet; thence South seventy four (74) degrees West Three Feet to the point of beginning.

Also, Lot Number Twelve (12) in Bass Riffle Part Plat, being out of the South half of the Southwest quarter, West of the Tippecanoe River in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West, EXCEPT: Beginning at a point Thirty (30) feet West of the Northeast corner of Lot Number Twelve (12), running thence West along the public road for a distance of Seventy (70) feet, thence South a distance of One Hundred Fifty (150) feet, thence East Ninety-six (96) feet, thence North One Hundred Fifty (150) feet, to the place of beginning, containing about two thirds of said Lot Number Twelve (12) in Bass Riffle Park Plat.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 5149 Quiet Water Court.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the conditions that was just said forth, before you get your building permit, do provide an up to date survey.

Tom Fee stated, yes, we have all of that.

Attorney Altman stated, I mean the one that…

Tom Fee stated, right, I will have either this amended or it will be correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

****

White County Area Plan Commission vs. Hubert H. Hyten and Nancy K. Hyten

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to represent…

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Smith.

Terry Smith stated, I represent Mr. & Mrs. Hyten and I have nothing to say, all of the testimony was given at the last meeting. I’m just here to find out…

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Krintz is not here then?

Terry Smith stated, Mr. Krintz is apparently, not here.

Attorney Altman asked, and you don’t represent Mr. Krintz?

Terry Smith stated, I don’t represent Mr. Krintz.

Carol Stradling asked, Jeff, have you had a chance to read what was discussed last meeting.

President Thompson asked, what is our legal move here?

Attorney Altman stated, in essence our Ordinance allows for 10 to 300 dollars per day and each day is an offence. It would be considered as a separate offence just to give you the options. I don’t mean that is what you should do, I’m just saying that those are the parameters. That’s really the circumstances, I think that Director Weaver has went ahead and figured out the expense involved in this matter and that was something that you were wanting to report Director Weaver.

Director Weaver stated, I was just going to let the Board know that we have incurred expense of 570 dollars in legal fees on this.

Attorney Altman stated, again, that isn’t necessarily not positive either obviously, the applicant is incurred to legal fees too.

President Thompson asked, no particulars on why Mr. Krintz isn’t here. You have had no response?

Director Weaver stated, I have not heard from either one of them.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, Mr. Smith is here and willing to respond fully for his client so as to Mr. Krintz I have not heard from either one.

Ron Pollock asked, didn’t he say at the last meeting though that he thought that he couldn’t get this completed in 30 days? Didn’t they mention…

Director Weaver asked, couldn’t get what completed in 30 days?

Ron Pollock stated, a builder, whatever he was trying to agree upon.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think that there was ever anything that was requested from him.

Ron Pollock stated, I thought that I understood…

Terry Smith stated, I think that everything is done, I think that all of the permits are done now.

Ron Pollock asked, supposed to do it tonight.

Terry Smith stated, no, you’re deciding whether or not you want to fine us.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that your right Mr. Smith, everything else has been…

Terry Smith stated, all of the permits now I believe are in order, correct me if I’m wrong Director Weaver, I think that everything is finally done correctly.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that you’re right, I think that we have everything in order.

Attorney Altman asked, so this was, I think, tabled to let the people have a chance to think over what they wanted, what the Board members wanted to do in the way of response.

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, do we know when the sewer, they were waiting to file the final building permit until they heard that the sewer was going though so they would know it.

Terry Smith stated, no, the way that I understand it.

Director Weaver stated, I tried to find out when they had contact with the sewer and I was not able to contact anyone to find out.

Terry Smith stated, my understanding Carol, from Bill, and I may be totally wrong but Mr. Hyten asked Bill to build basically….

Attorney Altman stated, a house…

Terry Smith stated, on an existing location and retain some of the walls that was not going to get approved because, of the sewer system. Bill thought that he could do certain additions without getting a permit for the entire house until the sewer came through. Well, the sewer isn’t there yet, the owner wanted the house and didn’t understand why the house wasn’t getting done so they went ahead, and Bill built a house, is that right Director Weaver?

Attorney Altman stated, it sounds like what I thought that happened with them….

Director Weaver stated, Carol, I do have a copy of the their letter from the Sewer District and one of the building permit files. The date on it is, well the date that it was received in our office, that’s the only date that is on it, June 22, 2000.

Carol Stradling asked, at what point did we find them about done?

Terry Smith stated, I’m not sure that you found them.

Carol Stradling stated, mortgage company.

Terry Smith stated, what actually happened was they went to get a mortgage, a survey was conducted, and they found out that they didn’t have the right permit. Then they started, the owner started doing the permit process.

Director Weaver stated, the variance was filed September 25, 2000.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s when it was filed and they came to you?

Director Weaver stated, they came to us because…

Carol Stradling stated, the Mortgage Company…

Director Weaver stated, when their appraiser called to see if there was a building permit, we found it then.

Attorney Altman stated, the survey is July 20, 2000, that’s when like Mr. Smith said that they came, that’s when it hit the fan, that they were wrong and they couldn’t get a mortgage.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess with Mr. Krintz’s testimony, when he said, “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.” “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.”

Terry Smith stated, I’m not sure that I understood any of that.

Carol Stradling stated, what I pick up on is that, when Mr. Hyten was first here, my impression was that he started something without a plan and that his plans kind of grew or they changed. He asked Mr. Krintz to do one thing, then changed it, and then got him the plans and then it ended up being more than what Mr. Krintz originally had the plans for.

Terry Smith stated, I understand what Mr. Hyten said. Mr. Hyten didn’t say that I don’t think at the first, I think that Mr. Hyten wanted to take the blame because he owns the property. The building plans that I think that Mr. Krintz verified that at the testimony at the last February that he had his set of blueprints to build a house and that was not going to give a building permit to build that house the current system…

Carol Stradling stated, he couldn’t have gotten one.

Terry Smith stated, that’s correct, he thought that he could do something different and still build the house.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, the first building permit, just so you’re aware, the first building permit was issued February 16, 1999.

Terry Smith stated, it was my understanding that was supposed to change.

Director Weaver stated, that was the beginning of all of this.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what it was for, what happened is….

Director Weaver stated, no that was for a basement.

Terry Smith stated, that was for a basement the second for changing the roofline.

Director Weaver stated, second one would have been the change of roofline.

President Thompson asked, what are everyone’s thoughts?

Ron Pollock asked, so what do you want to hear from the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, what you have to do is make a proposal on both particular applicants. What you wish to do, what the Board wants to do and find a consensus’s among the Board, whether that’s zero or whether that’s whatever. Obviously, I think that you have to find both violated the Ordinance and if you do, find that then, you impose a monetary fine. Whether that’s zero or whatever. I don’t know, which one is first, Hyten?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, Hyten is the first one on the agenda so, that is part of the first one that you need to consider. I know that the Board is not use to working in this way but, you essentially make a motion and you vote on whether you agree on the motion the motion, would be that Mr. Hyten and Mrs. Hyten violated the Zoning Ordinance and you vote on that. Three votes mean yes it did, three votes yes means they did, 2 votes means that they didn’t, 3 votes no means that they didn’t violate the Ordinance. I’m talking this through so you understand this sort of thing. So, I think that the most useful thing now would be to make a motion and your motion would be whether you believe that they did or that they didn’t. Then have a vote on it and then you go ahead and ask for a motion on the fine if we get that far and do the same thing.

President Thompson asked, if there is no other discussion, do we entertain a motion?

Ron Pollock stated, my impression, just from the last meeting and I don’t know much about before that but, I really didn’t feel like they intentionally wanted to violate anything but, they did. I guess that depends on how you want to look at it, as far as whether they intentionally….

Attorney Altman stated, we need to make a motion, we can set and talk about that.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess as I look back at what Mr. Krintz said, this is from the October meeting, “I should have followed up and made sure that the final plans were on file.” I guess when I heard him say that, I thought that there wasn’t really a full plan in the beginning that they changed. Then when I heard Mr. Krintz talk, it sounded like their were final plans from the beginning, it didn’t change and the reason that the building permits were requested was because, they couldn’t get the final building in with the septic system the way that it was.

Terry Smith stated, I think that you’re absolutely correct, I guess and I’m representing Mr. Hyten obviously, and I look at it from this standpoint. Mr. Hyten didn’t get the building permits, he is the homeowner a lot of them should, people should be charged with that knowledge that they have to do that but most of them don’t know that is a practical thing. Most of the people in White County, Carroll County or Jasper County, if they go to build something they hire someone to build it, they expect that person to do what it takes to build it. They don’t know most of the vast majority, don’t know that they should come up here and make sure that it gets done. I remember we built the new addition on the hospital, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring architects, engineers and construction managers, contractors and none of them got a building permit. I got a call one day, I don’t think that Director Weaver was here at that point and we were getting ready for final occupancy and they said well, I can’t give you final occupancy because, you never got a building permit and I said what? You trust all of these people to do it.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand what you’re saying but, the fact of the matter is that the contractor came in to get a building permit, in fact, he came in to get two building permits.

Terry Smith stated, but, he got the wrong one.

Carol Stradling stated, well he, I guess maybe I’m wrong….

Attorney Altman stated, you need to make a motion.

Terry Smith asked, my question is who should be charged with that fault?

Carol Stradling stated, that is a big question.

Terry Smith stated, and that’s what you have to decide.

Carol Stradling stated, and neither one of them are here tonight.

Terry Smith stated, and they wouldn’t add anything, they gave their testimony at the last meeting.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that they are both probably at fault.

Terry Smith stated, they probably are.

Carol Stradling stated, my motion would be that they are both at fault because, I do believe at some point and time, well actually, I believe from the beginning that the contractor knew what the final project was going to be. I believe that in the beginning that Mr. Hyten, knew what the final project was going to be and they did not file for the building permits the way that the project was originally going to be because, they would not have gotten it.

Terry Smith stated, I guess the issue from my standpoint is, whom do you want to charge with that responsibility and if it’s the homeowner, then it’s the homeowner.

President Thompson stated, let's make the motion and like Attorney Altman said, we will determine who is going to be fined or maybe both.

Carol Stradling asked, do we deal with this one at a time?

Attorney Altman stated, no, you may motion for both.

President Thompson stated, in a sense, you made a motion for both and I think that’s whether you realize it or not, maybe you don’t want to do it that way.

Carol Stradling stated, then I would move that we find both parties at fault in this and assess fines appropriately.

President Thompson asked, do I hear a second to that?

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

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

The Board stated, I.

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m going to abstain.

Attorney Altman stated, abstain is a positive vote, an abstained vote is a positive vote.

President Thompson stated, let's start over here…

Attorney Altman stated, so that you know.

Jeff Saylor stated, I wasn’t at the last meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, I’m telling you by law that’s so.

President Thompson stated, all in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all oppose the same. Motion carried.

Carol Stradling stated, so now we need to assess a fine.

President Thompson stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, and you need that by motion again, you make a motion and I’m not trying to make you make it but, you can make a motion for zero you can make the motion for 300 dollars.

President Thompson stated, once again, didn’t you say that you have five….

Director Weaver stated, 574 dollars is what we have.

Ron Pollock asked, both parties?

Director Weaver stated, that is what we have, the total fees for attorney.

President Thompson stated, that pertains to this variance, it’s not really per party.

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s not per party, it’s total.

President Thompson stated, pertains to this variance.

Attorney Altman stated, you can make a motion too Mr. President.

President Thompson asked, I can?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, sir. People think that the Presidents can’t but, they can.

President Thompson stated, I feel like we should get our costs back at least.

Carol Stradling stated, I would second that.

President Thompson stated, I don’t know whether to share this down the middle or what. What do you think Jeff?

Jeff Saylor stated, I abstain.

President Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I think that it should be shared equally also.

President Thompson asked, you do?

Gary Barbour stated, they both are equally guilty in the whole situation. The owner is ultimately…

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t mean guilty….

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t mean guilty…

Carol Stradling stated, responsible.

Gary Barbour stated, aware of the situation.

Attorney Altman stated, violation, make a motion then Mr. President.

Gary Barbour stated, I think that ultimately the owner is going to end up paying all of it but, that’s up to them.

President Thompson stated, I will move that we fine the Hyten’s 300 dollars and Mr. Krintz 300 dollars.

Ron Pollock seconded the motion.

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

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed.

Attorney Altman stated, one abstention.

President Thompson stated, 4 in favor.

Terry Smith stated, so, if I understood it right, it’s 300 dollars apiece right?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

****

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else?

Director Weaver stated, since we’re on violations, I would first like to ask our Attorney where Terry Babka’s situation stands. This is the one that built the detached garage, a two-story detached garage and had requested a variance and we told him that he had to tear the second story down. Where does that stand?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m trying to find out how much that he had to tear down.

Director Weaver stated, we need to be getting this resolved, this has been since August.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s still there?

Director Weaver stated, it hasn’t been….

Carol Stradling asked, where he had it?

Director Weaver stated, yes. The second thing that I have is, and this was brought to my attention this morning. In 1992 there was a variance granted for living quarters above a detached garage. I was just told this morning that, let me back up a minute, in 1992 there was a permit issued to build these living quarter above this detached garage, they were going to add a dwelling is what the permit states. That was never built. This Township Assessor was out that way yesterday and they have now built a dwelling without a permit, not above the detached garage, beside the detached garage. There was a setback variance granted on this plus, the variance to put the dwelling up above. They did not do what the variance was granted for. How do we want to proceed with this situation?

Attorney Altman stated, just failed to get a building permit completely.

Director Weaver stated, it’s changed owners too, the original variance was granted to Patricia Kennedy the original permit was granted to Paul Sibo and I believe that the person that owns the property now is, Sloan.

Jeff Saylor asked, it was granted when?

Director Weaver stated, 1992.

Jeff Saylor asked, isn’t there a 1-year expiration date?

Director Weaver stated, back then it was probably 2 years but regardless, he didn’t build what the permit was granted for anyway.

Jeff Saylor asked, what I mean is what it was granted at the time in 1992, is expired right?

Director Weaver stated, right and he didn’t even build what the variance was approved for.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that if you want, either you send a letter or you give me a copy of the file…

Director Weaver stated, that’s why I came to the Board.

Attorney Altman stated, or I’ll proceed with a letter and 10-day to remove it.

Director Weaver asked, does the Board have a preference, do you want me to handle this or do you want to turn it right over the Attorney Altman and let Attorney Altman handle this.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t care which we do, I would say that they have a removal.

Carol Stradling stated, now, wait a minute, Mr. Hyten was just here and he built outside of his building permit and he didn’t have a building permit and he got off with 600 dollars. Now this person is going to have to tear their house down. I can’t do that Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, what happens is, they come right in and get it into compliance, that’s what really happens.

Director Weaver asked, so does the Board want me to send out a letter telling him that he has violated the ordinance and needs to come in and file a variance?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Ron Pollock stated, or there will be a penalty.

President Thompson stated, there could still be a penalty.

Director Weaver stated, there is probably still going to be a penalty.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Motion to adjourn?

****

Ron Pollock made motion to adjourn.

Jeff Saylor seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission