Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Ralph Sloan, Dennis & Connie Garman, Jim & Jamie Buntin, Toni Hancock, David Gilman, James & Nancy Beckner, Dr. Karen Lehe, Earl Hornback, Jeff Misch, Marvin E. Johns Jr., Timothy Virkler, Stan Virkler, Dave Dicky, Freddy & Eve Spencer, Newman Auer, Bruce Furrer, Lindy Karberg and Gerry Waibel.

The Board received the minutes of the March 15, 2001 meeting tonight. Carol Stradling made a motion that the Board postpone approving these minutes until the next meeting. Ron Pollock seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.

****

#1181 Robert & Carol Hardebeck, Owners; 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 0.23 of an acre. The property is located on the West side of North Sixth Street, just West of 1110 N. Sixth Street.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Toni Hancock stated, I’m representing Crown Castle International address is 333 E. Ohio Street, Suite 120, Indianapolis, Indiana.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information that you care to present to the Board this evening?

Toni Hancock stated, yes, we are asking the Board’s permission to grant a special exception for Hardebeck Trucking. On April 9, 2001, we came before the Planning Commission for a rezoning and it was recommended at that time that we go, it was approved to go to the County Commissioners, which we did. We got that approval on April 16, 200,1 we rezoned it from I-1 to I-2, I-2, we needed to change it over because, I-1 does not allow a special exception. There were no remonstrators at any of the meeting that we have been to prior to this state. We need to build this tower in order to work through our telecommunications facilities. Are there any


questions?

President Thompson stated, just a moment while we look this over.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Toni Hancock stated, I have a larger map, if you would like to look, at it.

President Thompson stated, that’s okay, I think that we have the same thing that you do, just a little smaller.

Director Weaver stated, yes, we have copied part of the map that you had supplied us.

President Thompson asked, any response?

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not had any.

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

Carol Stradling asked, who will be using this tower?

Toni Hancock stated, we have, right now, Verizon Wireless that has a commitment on this tower. This tower is designed to hold up to 6 carriers and obviously, we are going to make it as many carriers as possible.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have that map of the other location of towers?

Director Weaver stated, no, I did not bring that with me, I can go to the office and get it from the previous file, is that the one that you’re talking about, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, I just wondered where the other towers are in the area.

Ron Pollock asked, didn’t you supply us with a map the last time of the other towers?

An audience member asked, do you want to explain where they are?

Toni Hancock stated, one is in Round Grove, one is in Badger Grove, on is the Crissie Hurdilie and David Huseman. There is one on the Thompson farms in Brookston, this one will be in Monticello and this will provide 3 ½ to 5-mile radius of the City in Monticello.

David Gilman stated, I’m also representing Crown Castle. There is an Insight communications tower on probably 1,000’ South of this site, we have contacted them about co-locating on that tower and we have not had any success getting them to return our calls. There may be a history of that in the past but, we have met with the people there and they are simply not interested in allowing our carriers or other carriers to go on that tower. That’s the information that we received from the people at Insight. There is another tower probably about the same distance to the East…

Toni Hancock stated, that is correct.

Davie Gillian stated, and that tower is structurally unsound to handle the types of antennas that the new carriers want to put up there and obviously, as many of the caries that we need to go on this particular tower. That tower is very, very old in fact the number on the compound, I believe, is disconnected.

Toni Hancock stated, that is correct.

David Gilman stated, there is another tower right in downtown Monticello, I believe, that Sprint owns that facility….

Toni Hancock stated, correct.

David Gilman stated, and that tower, as you can see is completely loaded up with microwave dishes and other antennas.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, this would be similar in design to the other towers that Crown Castle is constructing?

Toni Hancock stated it will be a self support tower, the other ones that are being constructed are in the county and those are guide towers, this one will be because, of it being closer to town, it will be 250’ self support. It will look similar it may be a leaner structure but, similar to the Sprint tower that you can see here downtown.

Jeff Saylor asked, I guess at this point, we should request some documentation from Insight Communications as to why they don’t allow other people on their towers. I don’t know that I need to table this but, maybe provide some information that you have received from Insight as to why you can’t locate on their tower.

Toni Hancock stated, it would be wonderful if we could get them to return our calls. We just can’t get a response. The people that I have talked to at insight on the property are the people who worked there. Their field engineers, I had the numbers for the Corporate Offices which I’m doing this from memory, I don’t know if it was Forte Wayne or Lafayette and I have the gentlemen’s name and number that I have attempted several times and no response.

David Gillian stated, in those situations about the best that we can do, Insight, they are not really going to want to take the time to write a letter for us to tell us what they have told us before. What we have done is wrote certified letters letting the Board members know that we have actually wrote the letter, that they have received it and they are just not responding. I think that’s about the best that we can do with Insight.

Ron Pollock stated, we asked them the last time, if they were aware of it and she said that they are aware of it.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-2, Heavy 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 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 Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Commencing at a PK nail marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 29; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 49 seconds East (bearing based on Geodetic North) on a line produced to a railroad spike marking the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 29, a distance of 2666.60 feet to the intersection of said line and the Easterly extension of the North line of real estate described in Document 99-12-7208 (parent tract) in the Office of the Recorder of White County; thence North 88 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West on said Easterly extension, 630.57 feet to a ¾” diameter pipe marking the Northeast corner of said parent tract; thence continuing North 88 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West on the North line thereof, 50.65 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 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 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.23 acre, more or less, and subject to easements and right of way of record.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located on the west side of N. Sixth Street, just west of 1110 N. Sixth Street.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing else, you need a building permit and the only thing else that I would caution you, with a special exception it must be done within a year or it is no long valid.

Toni Hancock stated, thank you.

****

#1182 James Beckner; Requesting a 35’ East side setback variance to build a new home and attached garage on lot #4 in Spring Valley Subdivision. The property is located East of Monticello on the South side of Spring Valley Court.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

James Beckner stated, 111 N. George Court, Monticello, Indiana 47960.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information other than what I read?

James Beckner stated, the reason of the variance, was to put in a septic system. I didn’t want to put it on the other end of the house because, I would have to cut down most of the trees that are there to put it in.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

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

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I’m a little confused, you have other streets, are you bordered by 3 streets?

James Beckner stated, there is 2 streets and one street in back and the one that is in front.

Carol Stradling asked, you have Spring Valley Court?

James Beckner stated, right.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s here.

James Beckner stated, there is a circle drive here….

Carol Stradling asked, so this is a circle?

James Beckner stated, yes, a circle drive.

Carol Stradling asked, so you enter in off of Spring Drive?

James Beckner stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, are there very many houses back there?

James Beckner stated, mine would be the first one besides Earl Hornback’s.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, Earl Hornback has a home on Lot #1 and there are no other homes on lots 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Carol Stradling asked, to the East of that, over here…

Director Weaver stated, I believe that it is vacant ground as well. I think that Earl Hornback owns that as well but, it’s not developed or anything.

Ron Pollock asked, you’re not going to build that, you’re just going to put in a septic system?

James Beckner stated, I’m going to build the house that’s why I need to move it.

Ron Pollock asked, oh, you’re going to build a house?

James Beckner stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, the extra….

James Beckner stated, I need the extra room and see there is only a 20’ set off of there and I need 55’ to put in a septic system.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Any questions from the Board? 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 is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.


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


4. That 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 35’ East side setback variance to build a new home and attached garage on Lot 4 in Spring Valley Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Monticello on the South side of Spring Valley 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, of course subject to getting a building permit and getting a septic permit.

James Beckner stated, I already have the septic permit.

****

#1183 James D. Buntin; Requesting a 7’ front setback from Argold Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance and a 7’ front setback from State Road 18 and a 4’ East side setback variance to build an addition to the existing garage.

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

James Buntin was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional that you would like to present to the Board?

James Buntin stated, only to come within 4’ of the property line on the East side, which is next to the alley. The front of the house is already in compliance with the house already. So, I would not be going any farther South.

Director Weaver stated, this subdivision that he is located in, is an old subdivision that was platted before Area Plan and that’s why it shows, on this drawing, different setbacks than what we require and that’s why he is requesting a variance on those.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does anyone want to speak in favor or against this variance? If not, are there any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, is says that you’re 4’ from the property line?

James Buntin stated, it will be the overhang that’s including the overhang.

Carol Stradling stated, then the property line, how wide is the alley out there? Do you know roughly? Is there a little bit of room between your property line and the edge of the alley?

James Buntin stated, yes, there is enough room where they can go back and forth, just one vehicle can go the alley.

Ron Pollock asked, how about a garbage truck or something like that, that’s wider?

James Buntin stated, no problem, garbage truck never goes down through there, yes, a garbage truck can go down through there, snow plow or whatever.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman asked, when was the home built?

James Buntin asked, I think that it says 1972, date of lot of record was 1972. Do you know when the house was built?

Attorney Altman stated, it just barely beat the ordinance.

James Buntin stated, I think that it was one of the first houses built in that addition.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns? Nothing? If not 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-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 7’ front setback from Argold Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance and a 7’ front setback from State Road 18 and a 4’ East side setback variance to build an addition to the existing garage on Lot 1 and the South Half of Lot 4 in Ball’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 210 W. Fowler Road.

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


****

#1184 John Freeman; Requesting to change the platted setback requirements for Meadowbrook Subdivision #2 so that lot #7, #16 and #17 can be transitional. The property is located South of Monticello on Sheridian Road, Chalmers Road and St. John’s Avenue.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

John Freeman asked, when we originally plotted this one Director Weaver, does the word transitional mean face two ways?

Director Weaver stated, to where it can face either way.

John Freeman stated, when it was originally plotted, these houses are all corner lots, these 3 lots. So, they only faced the side streets, this change in the dotted line for where they can set would allow them now to face the houses across the street. So, that’s merely what we’re doing there it was not done in the original plot in error.

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

Director Weaver stated, we have not received any calls on this.

Ron Pollock asked, so the setback does not change then?

John Freeman stated, no, just where the house, the house instead of facing this way can face this way….

Ron Pollock stated, turn it….

John Freeman stated, which makes sense because, the people across the street probably don’t want to see the side of your house, they would rather see the front of it and those are all existing houses across the street. We just blew it when we did the original plot.

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

Lindy Karberg asked, just a question, this subdivision has been going on for 2 or 3 years now. If you look at the plot he has a couple of roads where that house was suppose to face and my question for Mr. Freeman is, or the board, why isn’t he putting in those roads so those houses can face as planned and approved the first time?

President Thompson asked, where are you?

Lindy Karberg stated, my address, Chalmers Road separates his property from my driveway. I live on Taylor Trail.

John Freeman asked, and what was your name?

Lindy Karberg stated, Karberg.

John Freeman asked, and you live where?

Lindy Karberg stated, 5950 E. Taylor Trail.

John Freeman stated, I don’t even have that in….

Lindy Karberg stated, you threatened to sue my wife the last time.

Ron Pollock asked, are you saying that he should be putting in roads?

Lindy Karberg stated, if you look at the plot that’s approved he has 2 roads planned in there where this house is suppose to face so why not follow through with what is on the records.

Director Weaver stated, he does have a letter of credit on file with us.

Lindy Karberg stated, I understand but, when do you start that, change it here and change it there.

John Freeman asked, I guess my question Director Weaver, is my letter of credit, am I current with everything that I have committed to on this subdivision?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that your letter of credit is current.

John Freeman stated, thank you, so I’m current, when I build the road, is depending upon the developers time wise as long as he remains current with his letter of credit. Is that correct?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

John Freeman stated, Attorney Altman is nodding yes.

President Thompson asked, there is a time frame involved though, isn’t there?

Lindy Karberg stated, this tower that you put up had a 1-year time frame and now we’re 2 or 3 years down….

A Board member stated, that’s a variance.

Director Weaver stated, that’s a different situation.

Attorney Altman stated, we have a letter of credit valid and it’s been approved and is sufficient in proceeding without the improvements in. That’s all that I can really say, so it isn’t the same time line involved in these matters.

Lindy Karberg asked, so what is the time line?

Attorney Altman stated, as long as the letter of credit is approved and it’s effective it’s allowed to be substituting for the improvements. Obviously, if it’s a home in there, he has to have the improvements in there. It isn’t quite the definite answer that you wanted. Obviously, the Board can look at that and say that it needs to be in before they use it, if they wish to do so as part of your, if you approve this request. Area Plan and its approval of the subdivision and the Director approving the letters of credit in lieu of improvements is allowed to do that. That’s the best answer that I can give you. In other words, it doesn’t have to be in as long as there is a letter of credit.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Freeman, it appears from the survey that the distance from, even if you change the position of the homes, it doesn’t really change the distance from either roadway, it’s just a matter of repositioning the house on the lot. What it does though on lot #16 and #17, I’m assuming that you want to turn it to Sheridan Road?

John Freeman stated, yes, they want the option, these have not been sold but, they want the option and if I was the neighbors across the street, I would rather have the house across the street facing me than have their side yard which is what the original plot had.

Carol Stradling stated, I was just looking at the distance between those two properties, it looks like there is an easement going between lots #16 and #17.

John Freeman stated, we have provided a utility easement, I think, between all of the lots whether it be cable or whatever might happen in the future.

Carol Stradling asked, how wide is that easement?

Ron Pollock stated, it doesn’t show on here.

John Freeman stated, I think that it’s probably 30’.

Director Weaver stated, it’s 20’, I have the original plat here Carol, if you would like to see that.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s 20’ wide?

Director Weaver stated, it’s 10’ on each lot.

Carol Stradling stated, okay because, I was thinking then if the houses, if built, were repositioned on lots #16 and #17 would be very close together but, they are going to be at least 20’ apart.

John Freeman stated, they would be…

Director Weaver stated, they would have to be at least 30’.

John Freeman stated, they would be more than 30’ apart.

Ron Pollock stated, at least 20’ because, of the easement.

John Freeman stated, right, correct, the easement is 20’ that you see, they are off of the easement.

Director Weaver stated, and the setback is 15’ for each lot so the minimum, the closest that they could be would be 30’.

John Freeman stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, so the drawing that we have, either isn’t to scale or because, it certainly looks like the setback is closer to the easement than the easement is to the…

John Freeman stated, the difference between the easement and the new, the proposed setback is that would be 5’ so there is your 30’.

Carol Stradling stated, alright.

John Freeman stated, so, it would be to scale.

Lindy Karberg stated, this new sewer line is coming through that we will all be requiring to tie into and where does that fall into this? Does that effect those roads that aren’t there yet? This housing and that’s coming through pretty soon too right? The way that I understand it, we’re the next phase.

Attorney Altman asked, do you know where these are going to be on that new sewer system?

John Freeman stated, well, they haven’t even bid this section.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, once it’s proposed weather they do or they don’t go on that.

John Freeman stated, well, they will have to go on it. when the sewer comes by, you’re on it whether you want to or not.

Attorney Altman stated, so the answer is, they go on when the sewer goes by.

President Thompson asked, but, he was asking where, right?

Lindy Karberg stated, right.

John Freeman stated, well the Reynolds people have the contract, the current contract and were just awarded the second contract which goes down Airport Road and that area which is the next phase that they will do this summer. That generally goes at the front of your property and then you have these what do they call it that chews it up….

An audience member stated, sewer disposal….

John Freeman stated, grinders, they are on your property so, it would likely go on any of these properties down one side of the road and then under the road. In some cases, with this subdivision it, assuming that the roads are built and they would go down the center of that road or the edge.

Ron Pollock stated, if you turn those buildings it will be in your front yard.

John Freeman stated, it will be in most people’s front yards.

Ron Pollock stated, yes, it is right now.

John Freeman stated, yes, right.

Ron Pollock stated, right along Sheridan Drive.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any other questions? Is there anything else? If there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would like to make sure of is that the applicant is aware that these lots are set up to be transitional so it can go one way or the other but, it isn’t set up so that they can go both ways.

John Freeman stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, only one way but, this allows them to choose.

John Freeman stated, correct.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is to change the platted setback requirements for Meadowbrook Subdivision #2 so that lot #7, #16 and #17 can have transitional setbacks in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello on the southwest corner of Sheridan Road and Chalmers Road.

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


****

#1185 Indiana Animal Health, P.C.; Requesting a 10’ front setback from Pierce Street (unimproved) and a 33’ front setback from U.S. Highway 24 to build an addition onto the existing business on lots #16, #17, #18 & #19 in John B. Pierce Addition. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 706 N. 4th Street.

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

Terry Smith stated, I’m representing Indiana Animal Health. Also present is, part owner of Indiana Animal Health, Diane Builder, if the building is approved and we get the building. What they are doing is adding on to an existing business. As a result of the proposed addition which, on the survey on the plat that you may have in front of you, to the North of the existing building it brings the existing building out of the grandfathered stage requiring us to apply for a variance on the existing building. Plus, at Highway 24 we’re not quite within the current setbacks so we’re requesting that we be granted a small variance there so, we can get a building permit and build. If there are any questions, either I can answer them or the owner and the builder.

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

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

Ron Pollock asked, so this whole structure is on 4 lots?

Terry Smith stated, yes, and it looks like a 90’ addition is being added, the South part is already there and has been there for a number of years. The variance that we’re requesting now, on the South part, is on an unimproved roadway or actually it’s an alley I think, as originally platted. That is a grassy waterway and it’s never been used for automobile traffic or any type of traffic.

President Thompson asked, is anyone here opposed to the variance this evening or speaking in favor?

Attorney Altman asked, how many stories?

Terry Smith stated, 1 story.

Carol Stradling asked, it appears that the front, I don’t know what is going to be required but, the North end that will be facing U.S. 24, will be in line with the other houses and the house to the West.

Terry Smith stated, I believe that is true. There use to be and if you’re familiar with Wolcott this is where it use to be called the Curve Inn was located right on the, there is a little curve right there on US Highway 24. They bought that property and that building has been taken down and essentially there adding where that used to be.

Attorney Altman asked, it used to be a business?

An audience member stated, it’s setting back farther than the restaurant.

Terry Smith stated, it’s setting back farther than the restaurant.

Attorney Altman stated, was an existing business.

Terry Smith stated, yes, it used to be a restaurant.

Attorney Altman stated, different business.

Terry Smith stated, and it does show an existing business, right.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any other questions?

Attorney Altman asked, it’s going to be a veterinary business?

Terry Smith stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, just like the present business, obviously.

Terry Smith stated, the present business, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, just obviously, larger.

Terry Smith stated, they are just adding warehousing and office space, I believe.

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

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the 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 10’ front setback from Pierce Street (unimproved) and a 33’ front setback from U.S. Highway 24 to build an addition onto the existing business on Lots 16, 17, 18 & 19 in John B. Pierce Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 704 N. 4th Street.

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

****

#1186 Marvin E. Johns Jr.; Requesting a 40’ front setback variance to allow the building site to be located closer to State Road 16 on 1.55 Acres. The property is located in Liberty Township on the South side of State Road 16, just west of C.R. 700 E.

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

Marvin Johns Jr. was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to present tot he Board this evening?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, the reason that I’m asking for this is there is a building on the property right now that I wish to save. I have been told that it was built before 1920 and I would like to save the building. Right now, it’s 75’ off of the front of the property line. If I build anything on that it’s going to be back behind that building and I feel that it’s not going to look right. I have applied for a subdivision because I have 6 ½ acres total there. I’m trying to get that acre and a half divided off so that I can sell 5 acres and the house that I’m living in now and build on this lot. If I build on that lot now, the building, the house will set back behind this building and I would rather it set towards the front of the building.

Ron Pollock asked, what is this, the older building here?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, this building here.

Ron Pollock asked, this is the older building?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, yes.

Ron Pollock asked, built when?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, 1920.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, he is talking about the upper right hand building.

Carol Stradling asked, left?

Attorney Altman stated, left.

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, there were 3 buildings on the lot, on the piece of property. I tore down 2 of the buildings, this buildings and is still square and the inside of the building is in very good condition, it’s hand hewn logs and pinned together, drilled and pinned together. That’s why I would like to save it because, it’s an old building and it’s in good shape. It needs siding and it needs a new roof which, I’m going to do if I can get this done but, if not then I’m going to have tear the building down.

President Thompson asked, has there been any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Ron Pollock stated, I’m a retired industrial art teacher and I love those old buildings.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed or in favor of the variance? Does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, you mentioned a subdivision, where is that going to go?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, this right here, this faces the North….

Carol Stradling stated, and here’s the highway.

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, right now, I own where this line is clear back to the county road. There is 1 acre on this corner that I do not own I believe this white house right here, yes this white house right here sits on this corner. I have 5 acres here and I’m dividing this acre and a half from the 5 acres. I have 6 ½ acres total. So what I want to do is sell the house and 5 acres and build on this acres and a half and I would like to save this building. If I can not get the variance then I will have to tear the building down in order to build because, it’s 80’ setback right now, I believe right?

Director Weaver stated, because you’re on a state highway.

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, so, if I build a house on this, that building is going to be setting out in front of my house and I don’t want that, I would rather the house set in front if it. I’m starting to put a new roof on the building but, I stopped because, I don’t want to put any more money into the building, unless I can get this passed.

Carol Stradling asked, where were the buildings that were removed from the property?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, there was a building behind this, to the South, to the South of this building and there was a building up in this area here.

Carol Stradling asked, was it a house?

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, no, it was just an old farm building and it was deteriorated very badly. There use to be a house trailer sitting here and it was approximately 40’ long to the property line. I removed it the house trailer when I put the house in back there on the county road.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, on your staff report the drawing the on front side the squares that are shown on the property, that’s where the buildings use to set.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so this white square here represents the white house that is in the picture. So if he builds, he wouldn’t be in front of that.

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

Marvin Johns Jr. stated, actually this house right now, they have a front porch on that house and the front porch is 10’ off of the State Highway marker. There is a right-of-way marker on the corner of that county road and it’s 10’ off of that right-of-way marker but it was built years ago.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Nothing? Is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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

6. That the request is for a 40’ front setback variance to allow the building site to be located closer to State Road 16 on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:


Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 15; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West (bearing from previous surveys) along the section line 153.21 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 23 seconds East 350.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds West 502.38 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds West 30.31 feet; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 9.38 feet; thence North 84 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds East 92.40 feet; thence North 01 degrees 14 minutes 57 seconds West 301.72 feet to the section line; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 14 seconds East 157.81 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.550 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township on the South side of State Road 16, just West of C.R. 700 E.

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

****

#1187 Ralph Sloan; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #2 and #3 in Norway Heights Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 2202 Norway Trail.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone present to represent this request?

Ralph Sloan was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information for us?

Ralph Sloan stated, no, other than what has been stated. I think a picture is being passed around of the property.

President Thompson asked, do you care to describe it a little bit more for us?

Ralph Sloan stated, the property was originally owned and a variance was applied for and Mr. Paul Sibo, who is now deceased November 16, 1992. That variance, I’m not sure how this document reads but, a Certificate of Occupancy was granted. A new sewage and disposal system was put in I had it reviewed by Godlove Enterprises on March 20th of this year and the condition came back satisfactory that the well was adequate in distance from the septic. I have dressed the home up, it use to be pink.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, have you had any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this but, as Mr. Sloan was saying there was a variance granted in 1992 on this piece of property. That variance was granted for them to put, I have the report right in front of me and I will read it, they were requesting a 26’ front yard variance and a 55’ rear yard variance to construct living quarters above an existing garage.

Ralph Sloan stated, that’s the existing building now.

Director Weaver stated, in November of 1992 Paul Sibo did receive a building permit to add a dwelling on top of a garage. From my understanding, Mr. Sibo never did any building of any kind….

Ralph Sloan stated, that is for the better part true but, yet incorrect. He did complete the well and the septic, he did complete in part the interior of the dwelling.

Director Weaver stated, but, he did not…

Ralph Sloan stated, he did not build the second story.

Attorney Altman asked, and you’re not asking to build a second story.

Ralph Sloan stated, just to bring the property into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, he is trying to bring this into compliance because, it is now a home with an attached garage.

Ralph Sloan asked, pardon me?

Director Weaver stated, because, it is now a home with an attached garage.

Ralph Sloan stated, that’s correct.

Carol Stradling asked, did it start out to be a garage?

Ralph Sloan stated, it started out as a garage.

Carol Stradling asked, where was the home?

Ralph Sloan stated, there was no home, the home was the garage for Mr. Sibo. I have taken the garage and turned it into a home.

Director Weaver stated, I will pass this staff report from the original variance, maybe that will help clear some questions for the Board.

Attorney Altman stated, what they are looking at is the part of lot #3 right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so he lived in his garage?

Ralph Sloan stated, yes, Mr. Sibo lived, that is basically correct. He had washer, dryer, kitchen and bathroom facilities, yes if you want to call it that he lived in his garage. I just used the structure to make a home out of it.

Ron Pollock stated, you did a nice job.

Ralph Sloan stated, thank you.

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

Carol Stradling asked, is this part of the home garage, there when you took it over?

Ralph Sloan stated, no, here only.

Carol Stradling asked, that you added?

Ralph Sloan stated, this was here and this was here, this one and this one and I put this section in-between the two.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, because, this one section isn’t on the original survey at all.

Ralph Sloan stated, no, it is not, it shows on the new and improved survey that I have from Milligan.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, so that we make the record looking at the pictures, notice pictures, Director Weaver has a new camera. The part that was there, we’re looking at the middle photograph on the left-hand side, the 5 photographs that Director Weaver passed out. The part that was there is the structure to the right and to the left that has the roofs facing toward Norway Road and he added the part…

Ralph Sloan stated, that’s in the middle.

Attorney Altman stated, the garage area?

Ralph Sloan stated, there was two structures on the property. I added what was in between.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any other questions?

Ron Pollock stated, ready to vote.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, 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 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home in compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on that part of lot #2 and lot #3 in Norway Heights Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 2202 Norway Trail.

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 and I would suggest you update the building permit on the whole thing. I think that would be implicit in this, granting a variance but, the whole improvement, I guess the improvement now, since you have put them together the property permit, the building permit.

Ralph Sloan asked, would Monday be soon enough?

Director Weaver stated, that would be fine.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be okay.

****

#1188 Constance L. Garman; Requesting an 8’ front and a 14’ front setback for a room addition, a 2’ front setback for an unroofed deck and a 29’ front setback and a 3’ South side setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #8 & #9 in Lakeries Addition.

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

Constance Garman was present to representing this request.

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

Constance Garman stated, nothing.

President Thompson stated, nothing, okay. Director Weaver, have we received anything?

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

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

Ron Pollock asked, so you’re actually going to go over the deck too?

Constance Garman stated, just part of the deck, the existing deck that is there now, approximately 3’ or 4’ of that will be taken off and that will be moved out.

Ron Pollock asked, that is going to be removed?

Constance Garman stated, no, just about 3’ or 4’ of it which, would be the West side basically and then moved out as far out towards the East that we can go before we get to the SFLECC line.

Ron Pollock asked, you are still quite a bit of a ways from the lake area, right?

Constance Garman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, does the Board have any questions?

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition, is it going to be bedrooms?

Constance Garman stated, no, family room and dining area.

Attorney Altman asked, this will also go on the sewage system that’s going in, the new sewage system.

Constance Garman stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and we will expect you to do that, so you know.

Constance Garman stated, I don’t know when the sewer is going to be put down there.

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman, the last time that I talked to someone the soonest that it was suppose to be was 2002.

Attorney Altman stated, so, it would be there and it relieves any problem on density that it may create on this particular lot relative to a sewage system.

Director Weaver asked, do you know where your septic system is located at now?

Constance Garman stated, yes, the septic is on the South side of the house behind the garage area, which is, do you see where the garage is? It’s back in there and then it leaches across the road and down the lot, across the road so, the leach is across the road on the other side.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Constance Garman stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, similar in structure and architect as the present structure?

Constance Garman stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there any other concerns or questions? Nothing? If not, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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

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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 8’ front and a 14’ front setback for a room addition, a 2’ front setback for an unroofed deck and a 29’ front setback and a 3’ South side setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lots 8 and 9 in Lakeries Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 810 E. Terrace Bay Court.

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

****

#1189 Apostolic Christian Church; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a soap distribution center in an A-1 zoning on 3.227 acres. The property is located North of Wolcott on the East side of C.R. 900 W., approximately ¼ of a mile North of U.S. Highway 24.

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

Stan Virkler was present to represent the request.

President Thompson asked, what is your relationship to the church?

Stan Virkler stated, I’m on the committee that’s designing this building and currently it’s farm ground and we’re buying this acreage. Actually, there are 3 uses for the building, soap distribution means we’re going to actually manufacture soap to send to third world countries plus, we put together kits for third world countries and we also warehouse food for local food pantries. That’s primarily what the building is going to be used for. Then other groups like, for the most part it will be church people working there but, also boy Scouts, Girl Scouts different groups can come and use this building for the 3 purposes.

Attorney Altman asked, put together what?

Ron Pollock asked, is it zoned A-1?

Director Weaver stated, it’s zoned A-1, food pantry is not addressed in the Ordinance. We went into quite depth discussing this and gave them several options of what they can try since it wasn’t addressed in the Ordinance. Since it is for a church and it is just for a food pantry type of a thing, we thought possibly a special exception might be the best way to go on this.

Ron Pollock asked, but, it would be considered a business right?

Stan Virkler stated, it’s all non-profit.

Director Weaver stated, it’s non-profit.

Stan Virkler stated, what this is going to be used for, for the food, what we do is we get distressed foods, let's say damaged cans, rice crispies and those kinds of things. We repackage them and then give them to the food pantries so, it’s all non-profit, and it’s all volunteer.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be called business like, it certainly has aspects of that, and it just may not have the profit.

President Thompson asked, this site plan, who is this? Is this a company name or is this off of a set of blue prints?

Stan Virkler stated, FBI Buildings approved this.

President Thompson stated, Director Weaver, all of the others we have an actual survey right? Or do you have a copy of this on something else?

Director Weaver stated, this is a full set, but, it is done by FBI Buildings and I believe that the Ordinance does allow for an engineer to do the drawing. We also have a survey here of the property that they are purchasing.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, across the road to the West is farm ground and that’s owned by who sir?

Stan Virkler stated, I’m not sure who it’s owned by but, I believe that Witko is moving in there. Is that right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, it is currently farm ground but, that is part of a property that has just been rezoned to Industrial to the West.

President Thompson stated, we have also a letter, Exhibit A, here from the Town of Wolcott, Attorney Altman, do you have that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, from the Town of Wolcott dated March 20, 2001 addressed to the department, Director Weaver. The letter was read out loud to the Board and the audience members. So, this would have City water and City sewage for it.

Stan Virkler stated, correct.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Have we had any correspondence of any kind?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, you would be manufacturing the soap?

Stan Virkler stated, yes, what we will be doing is, there are actually molds and it’s molded so you can make bars of soap. The bars are 5” to 6” by 2” by 2”. What we will do is pour them one night and two or three nights later we will get a group of 20 to 40 people to come in, they will package them in bags of about 3 or 4. They then get sent to these different…

Ron Pollock asked, you don’t actually manufacture them you just pour them into a mold right?

Stan Virkler stated, I guess that you can say that. It’s real simple, soap is lye, water and lard.

Carol Stradling asked, so you will be making the soap out of the lye and the water and the lard?

Stan Virkler stated, that’s correct.

Carol Stradling stated, the old fashioned way.

Stan Virkler stated, the old fashioned way.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any other questions?

The Board stated, ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is 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 allow a soap distribution center in an A-1 zoning on That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana, containing 3.227 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Wolcott on the East side of C.R. 900 W., approximately ¼ of a mile North of U.S. Highway 24.

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

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


Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed. The other thing is I noticed on the large plat provided for us that there is a future building to be used with a special exception if it is not commenced within 1 year the special exception would not be allowed for that. So you want to do what you’re doing on the lot within 1 year.

Stan Virkler stated, our intention is to build the one building and the others may be 10 or 15 years down the road, if that.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s approved now but, if you wait more than 1 year you will probably have to come back and re-apply.

Stan Virkler asked, for a variance also.

Attorney Altman stated, a special exception probably or a variance depending on what the Ordinances are then.

Stan Virkler stated, thank you.

Carol Stradling stated, this special exception only applies as long as the church is upgrading there. If you were to sell it….

Attorney Altman stated, non-for profit just like he described it.

Carol Stradling stated, if you were to sell it to someone else the special exception would not apply.

Stan Virkler stated, for a business that would not apply, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, this is specific for what he just described being a church.

Stan Virkler stated, thank you for clarifying that.

****

#1190 Evelyn Kendrick; Requesting a 13’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home and a 6’ front setback variance to bring the existing pole barn into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on 3.454 Acres. The property is located North of Buffalo at 6911 E. Maple Bend Drive.

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

Evelyn Spencer stated, I was Evelyn Kendrick but, now I am Spencer.

Fred Spencer was also present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to present to us tonight?

Fred Spencer stated, this just simply started out as a room addition and the pole barn kind of fell in after we got the survey.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this but, I do want the Board to be aware that this pole barn is an illegally constructed building within the last year. The home was constructed prior to Area Plan being in jurisdiction in Liberty Township.

Carol Stradling stated, I take it then that you didn’t get the permits for the pole barn.

Fred Spencer stated, our contractor done it.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they did get the permits for the pole barn and the permits showed that they were meeting the setback requirements. Their contractor did this.

Fred Spencer stated, Doug Barnard, Barnard Construction out of Chalmers.

President Thompson asked, but, it complied at that time?

Director Weaver stated, according to his drawings and his information submitted it complied.

Attorney Altman asked, so, it wasn’t drawn according to the permit?

Director Weaver stated, it’s wasn’t built….

Attorney Altman stated, built, I should have said built.

Director Weaver stated, according to the application and I had questioned if it had met the setbacks at that time that it was being constructed.

Carol Stradling asked, did you own the property at that time?

Evelyn Spencer stated, yes, and I know at this point it makes no difference but, we’re trying to buy the property on the East side of us. There is another acre over there its another 60’ wide. It’s tied up in an estate right now. After Dick Linback’s death it’s been tied up but, it was surveyed off to be sold to me, and I know that it’s still sitting but, whoever ends up with it is going to have to be the person that sells it to me if they in fact do. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t because, it’s only 60’ wide they can’t build on it, it’s of no use to anyone else but me.

President Thompson stated, classic example for the Building Inspector.

Director Weaver stated, just so you know Doug Barnard was in the office yesterday and I did show this survey to him.

Attorney Altman asked, what did he say?

Director Weaver stated, he was quite shocked actually because he did, I do have to admit in his defense he did go back out and supplied me with a new drawing and I just don’t think that he realized where the front setback was because, that’s where I questioned.

Fred Spencer stated, he was probably thinking more parallel rather than at an angle.

Evelyn Kendrick stated, because, the property sits at an angle, it’s not straight.

Director Weaver stated, after I questioned it to him he supplied a new drawing and still showed that it was meeting the requirements and he was shocked when I showed him the survey.

President Thompson asked, nothing from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here with any questions? Concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m just looking at the drawing and trying to picture where the pole barn is on the survey and, I don’t know. On the survey, it’s only 6’ between the pole barn and the new addition?

Fred Spencer stated, right, that’s actually kind of right at the corner, it will only be 6’.

President Thompson asked, any other questions from the Board?

The Board stated, let's vote.

President Thompson stated, let's vote.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can say is looking at this survey that we have here, March 27, 2001 survey of Mr. Milligan, it would appear that this is probably 2 different tracts of ground and have been joined together.

Fred Spencer stated, it is 2.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that I want you to understand that when it was two tracts you could sell them separately and if this is approve tonight this joins them together so longs as the use is continued, effectively forever. I just want the applicant to know that is so they can’t sell it off and I don’t know how you would do that with your proposed addition on there but, I always like to know that’s on the record and that you understand that.

Fred Spencer stated, right.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot 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 13’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home and a 6’ front setback variance to bring the existing pole barn into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on that part of the North half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at a railroad spike at the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 10; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East (bearing based on Maple Bend Subdivision) along the quarter section line 2170.54 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East 157.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 05 degrees 34 minutes 28 seconds West 764.94 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 62 degrees 30 minutes West 138.70 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 02 degrees 47 minutes 56 seconds East 825.98 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.507 acres. Also, that part of the North half of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at a railroad spike at the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10p; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East (bearing based on Maple Bend Subdivision) along the quarter section line 2327.54 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East 60.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 06 degrees 18 minutes 21 seconds West 738.23 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 62 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 60.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 05 degrees 34 minut5es 28 seconds East 764.94 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.947 of an acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Buffalo at 6911 E. Maple Bend 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 and I suggest that you update that building permit for the pole barn and get it right too.

****

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

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so.

President Thompson stated, you just told me so they will know, we will get getting the information for…

Director Weaver stated, yes, Angie is going to mail you packets out next week, she was intending to have them ready for you tonight but, we didn’t quite make it.

President Thompson stated, Ron had a question earlier about maybe having some time for the Board to have a little discussion, I guess that I can let him speak for himself.

Ron Pollock stated, what I was saying next week when we just have those 5 unless we get more added to it, it will be a short meeting. I would like to have a short meeting so that I can ask some questions, you can’t ask them with all of these people out here but, why we do some of these things and so we all have a better understanding of variances and I know….

President Thompson asked, could we do that without it already being on the agenda?

Director Weaver stated, I would think that would fall under business.

Attorney Altman stated, yes it does, that would be no trouble at all. Truly you can talk about just about anything as long as you’re not talking about a specific matter. You can use examples even but, as long as you are not talking about a specific example that you may be making a decision on later.

Ron Pollock stated, what I would like between you Attorney Altman and Director Weaver what guidance we need to have on some of these things. In other words, I’m sure, I get the impression a little bit that if it’s sent out to us that Director Weaver, her people and Attorney Altman have gone over this. If there was any real strong objections to it legally I mean, in other words, if there was an objection to the fact that it didn’t pass codes that we would know about it ahead of time.

Attorney Altman stated not necessarily.

Director Weaver stated, not necessarily on codes.

Attorney Altman stated, but, we can certainly discuss that next week.

Ron Pollock stated, but, what is in this manual we can the different interpretations of things. You can read something and we can interpreted it 4 ways. I would really like to see the interpretation so that we all have, we don’t have to interpret it exactly the same but, have some guide lines. That’s the same way with Area Plan, I would really like to see that done in there also because, those guys are way over my head most of them.

Director Weaver stated, they have a lot more people in there too. Twice as many people

Ron Pollock stated, sometimes I go away not really, I wait until I get the minutes and then I can absorb them a little bit. Those things happen so fast when you have people out here I would like to sometimes, I’m a person that likes to ask questions and that’s how I learn.

Attorney Altman stated, good, ask more.

Carol Stradling stated, and I’m thinking that it wouldn’t be appropriate sometimes, when you ask if we’re ready to vote sometimes, I know on some sticky ones I don’t have any more questions but, I’m still trying to… There are times that I walk out of here and think I wish I would have waited a little bit, not that there was any more to ask….

Director Weaver stated, just to absorb it.

Carol Stradling stated, so it may not be inappropriate to say to take, just a few more moments to think about it.

Ron Pollock asked, it’s just like when I had to teach school, I use to say to people, ask the questions. A lot of people set back with the idea that if I ask it I’m going to sound stupid or its irrelevant but, sometimes I do the same of what you’re saying. I go away from here with the idea of what did, we really approved something like that. My personal thought on this thing and with this thing, you don’t get any objection from the crowd from people. They all sit back and don’t say anything and you’re not going to get a lot of people, unless people are really up in arms about it. Then later on, if you see people, then they condemn you. I bet that Director Weaver must get calls from people like that where they say why did you do this or why did you do that because, they know that you’re on the Area Plan Board, don’t you people know that you’re putting too many subdivisions, like towers. I would like to go a little farther with this tower but, I think that we asked all of the questions the last time that my person opinion, I’m sure that competitors that he is competing with must know that these things are going up ahead of time. I’m sure that they don’t all of a sudden see a tower go up next to them but if they had any objection they would probably be here, wouldn’t they?

President Thompson stated, you would think that they would.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that the competitors know.

Ron Pollock stated, you know there are people that competitors will say your interfering with our wavelength.

Director Weaver stated, but, that’s all regulated thought the FAA or the…

Carol Stradling stated, FCC.

Director Weaver stated, FCC, there you go.

Ron Pollock asked, so, when they come to you, do you ask those questions if the FCC has approved that already?

Director Weaver stated, no, I do not.

Ron Pollock stated, see, that’s what I’m saying.

Director Weaver stated, I do have a handout on towers that I give them, I will bring a copy of that with me next week so that you can see and I suggest to them that they have these documentation or documents or areas addressed.

Ron Pollock stated, those are guidelines that you go by, I would really like to know what guidelines that we are really going by on some of these things.

Director Weaver stated, these are guidelines that I have made up from past meetings. I will bring a copy of that.

President Thompson asked, is that all?

Attorney Altman stated, it sounds like a good suggestion. A workshop like that is always needed, it really is and it’s always a real good idea. Like you said, you always get people out there that gets to be 9:00 and you hate to take too much longer.

Ron Pollock made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission