Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 26, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, Ron Pollock and Jeff Saylor. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Charles A. Wainwright, Mary Jo Wainwright, Marie Pack, Paul Horn, Harold Benich, Penny Benich, Karl Allen Jr., Denise Denton, Dennis Denton, Jim Hook, Attorney Jim Brugh.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Saylor and roll call was taken. Vice President Saylor motioned to with hold the approval of the minutes until the next meeting.

****

#1191 James Hook; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on .83 & 3.12 Acres. The property is located in Union Township at 8255 E. U.S. Highway 24.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone here representing Mr. Hook?

James Hook was present to represent this request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything to add?

James Hook stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I have something that I want to add to this. In the pictures that I have given to the Board you will see that there is construction going on already. I just want to clarify they are also doing a room addition that did not require a variance and they are already starting on that. What they are working on is not what we are requesting, the variance for tonight.

James Hook stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, so, we don’t have a violation?

Director Weaver stated, no, we do not.


Attorney Altman stated, for the record.

Vice President Saylor stated, this shows proposed addition.

Director Weaver stated, that is what they already have a permit for and are working on.

Vice President Saylor asked, have you received anything on this?

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

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any questions from the Board?

Ron Pollock asked, you’re having an attached garage and then another attachment?

James Hook stated, we’re building an addition right now to the West and the garage will come out to the South.

Vice President Saylor asked, Attorney Altman, do you have any questions?

Attorney Altman asked, single story garage?

James Hook stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, essentially, carrying the roofline of the present house through it?

James Hook stated, with the addition.

Attorney Altman asked, with the addition and with the proposed garage it will, the addition carries it to the West and then this of course carries it to the South?

James Hook stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, it will similar in appearance, similar in size, similar in height and that sort of thing?

James Hook stated, yes, the main part of the house will be higher because, it’s 2 story.

Attorney Altman asked, so this is single story?

James Hook stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, no bedrooms or anything like that?

James Hook stated, no.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone that would like to address the request? Are there any other concerns from the Board? We shall vote then.

Attorney Altman stated, one thing that you know is that this shows that it’s 2 tracts of ground by a survey. You understand that if you get a variance this in effect marries the two together. There is no way that you can ever sell off part of this for any other use so long as you use it this way.

James Hook stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, just like to hear you say that on the record.

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 10’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on a tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-five (25), Township Twenty-seven (27) North Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is South One Thousand Fifty (1,050) feet and South 89 degrees and 43 minutes West One Thousand One Hundred Seventy-one (1,171) feet from the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the above said Section Twenty-five (25) and running thence South 89 degrees and 43 minutes West One Hundred Sixty-five (165) feet to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence along said line North 1 degree and 20 minutes East Two Hundred Seventeen and Eight-tenths (217.8) feet; thence North 89 degrees and 43 minutes East One Hundred Sixty-five (165) feet; thence South 1 degree and 20 minutes West Two Hundred Seventeen and Eight Tenths (217.8) feet to the point of beginning, containing .83 Acres more or less.

Also, that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-five (25), Township Twenty-Seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the above said Section 25; thence South 1050 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes West 1171 feet; thence North 01 degree 20 minutes East 217.8 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 01 degree 20 minutes East 822.2 feet; thence North 89 degrees 48 minutes West 165.00 feet; to the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 01 degree 20 minutes West 823.6 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes East 165.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 3.12 Acres, more or less

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 8255 E. 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 10.10 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed on this garage. I heard Director Weaver said not to come in until after noon.

****

#1192 Karl Allen, Jr.; Requesting a 5’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on lot #57 in Tippecanoe Country Club Fairways Addition. The property is located in Union Township at 4371 Arrowhead Road.

Vice President Saylor asked, are you Mr. Allen?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, that’s correct, I have a couple of reasons for asking for the variance. One is that I was going to change the complete roofline of the house and at the present time it has a carport. I don’t know that there is anyway that I can design that carport to meet the specks for a gabled roof and it’s currently a flat roof. I would like to put a 2 car garage on that and by doing that, then I would be infringing into that 25’ zone and I would like to have the variance because, of that.

Ron Pollock asked, you said that you’re going to change the roofline.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, yes, it’s got a flat roof on it.

Ron Pollock asked, but, not on the garage?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, there’s no garage, it’s got a carport on it now.

Ron Pollock asked, but, you’re proposing a 2-car garage right?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, I’m going to take that car port out and make it into a 2 car garage.

Ron Pollock stated, okay, I see.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, it comes close to the 25’ but, it doesn’t go into it but, I would just infringe into it if I did.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this in the office but, I do want to mention to the Board that this subdivision has special setbacks. Instead of it being our typical 32’ front setback it has a 25’ setbacks.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, and I also I comment that there are at least 3 and I think 4 but, I know that there are 3 that are already into that area about the same distance that I would be going. If the Board would like, I brought pictures just incase you want to look at them.

Attorney Altman stated, we will certainly look at them but, they are ours.

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t get out there to get any.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, I just took pictures of the other houses and I wrote the house address on each one and you could go look at them.

Attorney Altman asked, so you have 5 photos there?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, let's go with 3.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, well, let's go ahead and put all 5 in.

Attorney Altman stated, why don’t you give them to me in order and on the record tell the record what the first one is.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, the first one is my home that I bought, 4371 Arrowhead Road.

Attorney Altman stated, first photo of course is circulating among the Board, keep them in order please.

Karl Allen Jr. stated, this one is the next house dew West 4143. The next one is 4297, wait a minute, that one goes before that one, it’s 4297 then there that one 4065. I took another picture of 4297, the light pole or the utility pole in front is on the survey stake on all of them so it shows you how close most of them are, they are about 18’ to 20’ in that area. Mine would be about 22’ to 21’ so, it would be close to that. I verbally asked the neighbors all around if it would bother them and they didn’t have any objection. That’s all that I have.

Attorney Altman asked, there will be no additions of bathrooms or anything like that?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, no, it has 2 bathrooms now and I wouldn’t be changing those.

Attorney Altman stated, we have received into evidence photos numbered 1 through 5 and are marked as exhibits accordingly. Would this be going on the septic system when it comes by there?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, probably.

Attorney Altman asked, when is that expected?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, minimum it’s at least 2 years away.

Attorney Altman asked, but, it will go on of course when it goes by?

Karl Allen Jr. stated, yes, we expect to do that whole Country Club area.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought, I just wanted to make sure.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any concerns from the Board? Would any one else care to address the variance request? 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 5’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on Lot Number Fifty-seven (57) in Tippecanoe Country Club Fairways Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 4371 Arrowhead Road.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit for your roof and you garage before you proceed.

****

#1193 Charles A. & Mary Jo Crowe Wainwright; Requesting a 30’ front setback variance and a 10’ side setback to build an addition onto the existing home and to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #11 in Gingrich Addition. The property is located at 5523 S. Salisbury Court.

Charles Wainwright asked, I think that I have submitted everything that I need to submit I believe.

Vice President Saylor asked, are you Mr. Wainwright?

Charles Wainwright stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, did you have anything that you would like to add at this time?

Charles Wainwright stated, I don’t believe so.

Attorney Altman asked, do they have the waiver Director Weaver?

Director Weaver asked, from the SFLECC, Joe Roach came into the office yesterday and talked to the girls in the office, he is from the SFLECC. What I have noted here is he talked to the property owners and he will not consent to encroach however, they do not have a problem with them building up to the property line which is what their request shows here.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I would say then is, before you put pretty much anything in the ground, you had better have it surveyed.

Charles Wainwright stated, we have, it’s been….

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I’m talking about the improvement survey so that you’re not on the wrong side of that line and have to remove it.

Charles Wainwright stated, I guess that I’m not following you, we have had it surveyed.

Attorney Altman stated, I would have the foundation surveyed too, to make sure that it doesn’t accidentally encroach.

Director Weaver stated, have a surveyor stake out your foundation so you don’t encroach.

Charles Wainwright stated, the existing porch is there, I want to add a second story, and the existing porch is already there.

Ron Pollock asked, so you’re adding a story above the porch?

Charles Wainwright stated, yes, I want to put a second story above the porch area in the West.

Attorney Altman stated, the proposed addition is for a second story above the porch.

Charles Wainwright stated, yes, and around to the West side of the house too which, is not a porch area there around to the West.

Ron Pollock stated, you’re awful close to the line there.

Attorney Altman stated, again I say, I’m not trying to immense words and I’m not trying to split them, I’m saying that if your that close you still can go up but, you can go the wrong way. I have seen walls that have gone up and they had to remove them. I would just make sure you don’t error and be in the wrong person’s error. That’s all that I’m trying to say.

Charles Wainwright stated, okay.

Vice President Saylor asked, have we had any response?

Director Weaver stated, no, nothing, other that what we received.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any concerns from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, this would also go on the sewer system when it comes around?

Charles Wainwright stated, I just put a new septic system in and I just found out that they are going to put a sewer system in.

Mary Jo Crowe Wainwright stated, we had to move a well.

Charles Wainwright stated, moved the well, put in a new septic and now they are going to put in a sewer system.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone else that would care to speak? At this time we will take the 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 a 30’ front setback variance and a 10’ side setback to build and addition onto the existing home and to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Number Eleven (11) in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 5523 S. Salisbury 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#1194 Robert L. & Sue A. VanDyke; Requesting a 30’ front setback and to encroach on the S.F.L.E.C.C. property and a 3’ side setback on each side to enclose a 20’ x 16’ deck which is existing on lot #7 in Shady Point Park Addition. The property is located at 5147 S. Shady Point Drive.

Vice President Saylor asked, are you VanDyke?

Harold Banish stated, no, I’m with Smith Brothers Builders. The VanDyke’s are on a fishing trip. We found out, I guess, since we applied for the variance. Mr. VanDyke tried, since the deck was existing over the line for the lake, we have to pull the room back and they didn’t want to give them permission to build over that line. So, we’re going to cut the deck off in essence and shrink the room down to 16’ x 18’ instead of 16’ x 20’ which, would bring us inside of the lake line.

Ron Pollock asked, you are talking it back off of the lake property?

Harold Banish stated, yes, it has been on there probably 30 years and the deck needs rebuilt anyway so, we’re going to cut it off and keep it off of the lake property.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with him I have documentation from Joe Roach that said that they were not going to give him the right to encroach.

Vice President Saylor asked, this was a request to encroach.

Director Weaver stated, right, they will not be doing that.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess just for your information we really can’t give you a right to encroach on anyone. I understand that they are not but, I’m just saying is for your information. They can allow you to encroach but, we can’t permit anything to encroach on anyone else’s property. We just don’t have the authority.

Harold Banish stated, sure.

Vice President Saylor asked, so, this is just in essence, a request to go closer to the property line?

Director Weaver stated, up to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, and removal of the existing deck to the property line.

Ron Pollock stated, if I’m reading this wording right, they are asking to encroach.

Director Weaver stated, they are right now but, they can not do so because, the SFLECC will not give them a grant to do that.

Ron Pollock asked, so how do we handle it here?

Director Weaver stated, they not asking now to go on their property, their asking to go up to the property line, they are revising their request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any concerns from the Board? Would anyone else like to speak, Attorney Altman, how about you?

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition will it be single story?

Harold Banish stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, this also, I believe, is going on the new septic when it goes by, is that right?

Harold Banish stated, right.

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

Harold Banish stated, Bob had indicated to me that he felt it was in the near future but, he said that it’s pretty up in the air.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess my comment, I just spoke to the gentlemen before you about that I think that I would really have an engineer there that can locate that line and improvement because you get on the wrong side, you remove it.

Harold Banish stated, yes, we hired Mr. Milligan here in town, he did the first set of surveys and he was going to check because, it kind of curves right through there. So, we need to make sure that the whole deck is back off of that line.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Saylor stated, if there are no other concerns, 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 L-1, Lake District


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 30’ front setback and a 3’ side setback on each side to enclose a 20’ x 16’ deck which is existing on Lot 7 in Shady Point Park in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 5147 E. Shady Point 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, and as modified today is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Harold Banish stated, we sure will. We don’t have to do that tomorrow do we?

Director Weaver stated, no, you don’t have to.

Harold Banish stated, could we do it next week?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

****

#1195 Joey Stiltz & Denise Denton; Requesting a 42’ front setback variance from State Road 16 and an 8’ rear setback variance to bring the newly built home into compliance on 3.330 Acres (lot #1 in the proposed Wanda’s Acre Subdivision). The property is located on the Northeast corner of C.R. 500 W. and State Road 16.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, I’m a lawyer and I’m just kind of going to say a few words on behalf of my client who are the people doing the application here, it’s Denise Denton and Joey Stiltz. I’m a lawyer over in Logansport and I visit your Courthouse here from time to time. This case is a little bit different from the others, first because they already got a building permit and the reason that they are asking for variances is, what happened after they got the permit. This application will be a little different too because, I think, that you may hear some opposition from some neighbors that’s going to require different attention. What you have is Joey and Denise, even though they are not married, they live as a family and as a couple with like 5 kids in the home is that right?

Denise Denton stated, 6.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, 6 and one on the way so, that counts. They bought this 3.3 acres together and then they bought a modular home. I don’t know if it’s in your packet but, I have a copy of the building permit, improvement location permit which, they obtained from the Area Plan Commission January 2, 2001. They bought a modular and the seller of the modular, the builder is Patriot Homes and right here on the permit it says what your setback rules are. So Joey and Denise got the building permit, with the setback rules on it. They got their sewer installers sketch of where he installed his system and so Joey and Denise gave your building permit and with the setback rules and the sewer installers sketch to the builder, Patriot Homes. They have a contract with Patriot Homes, not just to sell it to these two but, to set it in place for these two including putting in of the foundation. The problem and the reason for the request for the variance is that Patriot Homes is foundation installer, put the home too close to the road. There is a real nice drawing that you have, that shows that to fit within your setback rules, they need to ask for this variance. They are 38’ from the road as to the front of the house and 92’ from the road as to the back of the house. I’m not sure what conformity there may already be in the neighborhood, as far as other homes. I think that one house out there to the East may actually be, an older place which is too close to the road from the setback rules, with the age of that home may have been how that happened.

So, this is not a case where Joey and Denise are asking for a variance in a sneaky way going out there and building something and say whoops, please forgive us and give us a variance. There saying that in good faith they went out bought a home, bought the land the home has been set really in the wrong place by Patriot Homes. So now, in order to mediate, try to correct this error and comply with your rules their asking for the variance and permission to leave the house where it sits. Otherwise, they are going to have to sue Patriot Homes, if they have to move it because, Joey and Denise would then say that they had to move the house because the Area Plan Commission did not give us the variance to place it closer to the road. Now that’s pretty much the way that I understand it but, I would ask for Joey or Denise to add anything that would help make your decision and any questions that you have is really better addressed to them because it’s their home. I’m just sort of like a communicator and that’s my summary. Joey do you have anything that you would like to add for the decision-makers here?

Joey Stiltz stated, yes, really you know it’s going to be hard on us to move it. I know, we already know that, it’s in the wrong spot and everything else but, it’s not like we can get out of paying for it, it’s already paid for and it’s already tore up.

Denise Denton stated, there is a lot of damage in it right now.

Joey Stiltz stated, so, we have to go get that all fixed and that’s just going to tear it up worse. I guess that we’re just asking for a chance, that’s all.

Ron Pollock asked, how did they miss it that far though?

Denise Denton stated, he didn’t take the building permit or the sketch out there.

Joey Stiltz stated, we have been through hassle after hassle with these people.

Denise Denton stated, we bought the home in November and we’re still not living in it.

Joey Stiltz asked, we’re paying rent, when we own. Do you know what I’m saying?

Ron Pollock asked, they don’t want to reset it?

Denise Denton stated, they say that it’s not their fault.

Joey Stiltz stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, is Patriot Homes from Lafayette?

Denise Denton stated, yes, they are from Lafayette.

Joey Stiltz stated, not only that, I know another person personally, that lives on the county line and the same man that set ours did the same thing there and had to move it. I couldn’t give you an address but, I can guarantee you that I know them personally did the same thing. It was on the Jasper County line and White County line.

Denise Denton stated, he did another one in Morocco, he got fined 500 dollars for it too, didn’t go by the guidelines.

Joey Stiltz stated, it’s almost like he went out there and put it anywhere to be off that far you know and surely he went out there and measured it I mean, come on…

Denise Denton stated, we still don’t have access to our actual blue thing that you guys gave us. It’s not even on our house, we don’t and first she said that we didn’t give it to her then a month later, oh yes we have it up here.

Ron Pollock asked, she, that would be?

Denise Denton stated, Toni.

Joey Stiltz stated, the seller.

Denise Denton stated, the seller that I bought it from.

Attorney Jim Brugh asked, a representative from Patriot Homes. We understand this is a variance question and part of their difficulty is whom they bought this from and we know that it’s a zoning question that you’re dealing with.

Ron Pollock asked, you’re asking for a variance so that you can leave the house where it is?

Denise Denton stated, yes, so we can move into it.

Attorney Altman asked, have they closed on this?

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, yes, they paid cash for this place. It’s not like they can resend a contract.

Joey Stiltz stated, we’re stuck with what we have.

Director Weaver stated, the one thing that I want to clear up for the Board, I’m not sure that it’s been made clear. The property is right now acreage, it’s 3.333 acres and they have already filed with me a subdivision plat to subdivide that and that’s why your drawing shows lot #1 and lot #2. I just want to clarify that to the Board. It has not yet gone through the subdivision process I halted that process until we got this cleared up first but, that’s where the drawing is from.

Gary Barbour asked, how do we find out that it wasn’t in compliance?

Director Weaver stated, from the subdivision plat.

Gary Barbour asked, so, if they wouldn’t have subdivided, no one would have…

Director Weaver stated, probably wouldn’t have ever known it other than I’m up in this area quite a bit, I might have noticed it.

Gary Barbour asked, who is subdividing? You own the property and you’re subdividing?

Denise Denton stated yes.

Joey Stiltz stated, we were going to move her mom out there with us.

Denise Denton stated, she’s disabled and wants us to move her out there.

Ron Pollock asked, so there is another house on lot #2?

Joey Stiltz stated, no.

Denise Denton stated, not yet.

Joey Stiltz stated, there’s nothing there yet.

Denise Denton stated, I’m just more concerned about my own.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else like to address the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, where do you live sir?

Paul Horn stated, right next door.

Attorney Altman asked, which way?

Paul Horn stated, East.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Paul Horn stated, they are beyond their variance, they put in a septic tank, they went out towards the road and they ran the fingers down. The State Highway has a little place there when we get rains the water is up to the edge of the road, if they go to use the septic tank, it’s wet it would be across State Road 16. They may have to notify the State Highway.

Attorney Altman asked, you have seen the survey on it?

Paul Horn stated, I had seen the one upstairs. There is a low place on the road and they cut this out here and the fingers run right here and here is the low place right here and this water when they go to using that…

Attorney Altman stated, just a moment, the low place that you’re pointing to is…

Paul Horn stated, State Road 16.

Attorney Altman stated, in essence here where it says the word “State” on the survey just North of it, is that right?

Paul Horn stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, just trying to locate….

Paul Horn stated, there is a low place there when we get those spring rains, it comes right up there. Sometimes there is about that much on State Road 16 and if they go to use the septic and this is all wet there that’s going to go across State Road 16…

Ron Pollock asked, you say that the laterals run out to State Road 16?

Paul Horn stated, they are running this way…

Ron Pollock asked, parallel?

Paul Horn stated, East and West and here is the low place over here on State Road 16. I would imagine they will have to check with the State Highway too because, that will force water across the road.

Ron Pollock asked, if the lateral is out there, where’s their tank at then?

Denise Denton stated, I had the Health Department out there when they put the trench beds in and the system…

Joey Stiltz stated, it’s no where near a low spot….

Denise Denton stated, the man from your building, from here was out there to okay the system.

Attorney Jim Brugh asked, and where’s the tank at?

Joey Stiltz stated, it’s on the highest part of the property, the tank is right next to the end of the modular, it’s on the highest part of the property. I don’t know where he’s getting this information but it’s totally wrong.

Attorney Altman stated, where at the end of the modular is….

Denise Denton stated, its right here.

Attorney Altman asked, are you talking about the East?

Denise Denton stated, here is my septic that is from the septic.

Attorney Altman stated, let the Board circulate a copy of the sketch, Exhibit A, that the applicants have just present to myself and is an exhibit in this matter showing the tank.

Ron Pollock stated, so, they have actually built their lateral in to the 80’.

Vice President Saylor asked, did the same company install the septic system?

Denise Denton stated, no, Jerry Sparks.

Joey Stiltz stated, out of Monticello here.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone else that would care to address the Board?

Paul Horn asked, are they supposed to give out registered letters out when these come up from all around the neighborhood?

Director Weaver stated, no registered letters, first class mail.

Paul Horn stated, we received nothing.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, there was a notice posted.

Denise Denton stated, your sign was there.

Director Weaver stated, yes, there was a sign and I had seen the sign when I was out there but there should have also been a letter sent to you.

Attorney Altman stated, the certification indicates that we sent it to Todd Angle,

Paul Horn, John Strama and Steve Strama. You address is 4869 W. State Road 16? That was sent by this department.

Paul Horn stated, I didn’t get one of those.

An audience member stated, Todd Angle did not either.

Paul Horn stated, her son did not get one either.

Ron Pollock stated, that letter would have been sent out before they put the house on the property.

Paul Horn stated, I never got one.

Vice President Saylor asked, when was that done?

Director Weaver stated, no….

Joey Stiltz stated, the house was already on the property.

Ron Pollock asked, no?

Director Weaver stated, it would have been 10 days ago.

Denise Denton stated, I posted my sign the day that you told me.

Director Weaver stated, they did a sign posted up…

Denise Denton stated, my sign was out there with the meeting date and the time.

Ron Pollock asked, are you the only ones effected by it? Are you effected by it? You’re the only ones effected by it then?

An audience member stated, yes.

Paul Horn asked, why would they let them have it out past the variance?

Attorney Altman stated, you’re using the wrong word.

Ron Pollock stated, yes, their asking for a variance now.

Paul Horn stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re not going to, in assuming that they vote that way Mr. Horn, we would not be letting them have the modular out past the variance. Now, the septic system and all can go out and is often times is placed out in the areas beyond the setback line it just must be on either property. In other words, what I’m saying is, their modular can not be more than 38’ from the lot line but, they can put their bogs and septic system out in the area closer to the road than that. Obviously, they can not put that on something that they don’t own, as you have seen on a couple that was right before this. We can’t permit that and we don’t permit that but, what they are asking for is only of the modular and that will be 38’ from their lot line. They can go further with the box and the septic system and the fingers, they can go into that area of their lot and still be permitted properly permitted.

Marie Pack stated, I’m Todd Angle’s mother we want to make sure that we’re setting a double wide there too across the street from these people and they told us 32’ from the road.

Director Weaver stated, you are zoned differently than they are zoned.

Marie Pack stated, that’s what I was wondering.

Director Weaver stated, 32’ is from the county road.

Marie Pack stated, theirs is going to be a subdivision and ours is a subdivision.

Director Weaver stated, excuse me, 32’ is from the county road not from the State Highway.

Ron Pollock stated, there’s a difference.

Director Weaver stated, there is a difference and there is a difference when you have different zonings.

Marie Pack stated, okay, they are facing this way and we’re facing this way.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Marie Pack asked, I just want to make sure that we get ours on, so it is 32’ from the road for us?

Director Weaver stated, from the county road.

Marie Pack stated, from the county road, okay, that’s all that I wanted to know.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any comments from the Board?

There was discussion among the Board members.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have any thoughts on what direction that you want to go with this?

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that I can summarize in testimony, we clearly have a violation and the evidence that we don’t have the builder in here. We certainly would expect the builder to have the general responsibility for location of this. It certainly sounds like that, location of the improvement on the lot, I believe, that we certainly need to hear from that builder and that doesn’t resolve what we do this evening of course we don’t have them here or noticed up.

Ron Pollock asked, could we table it then and request the builder?

Attorney Altman stated, we certainly could, that certainly is a possibility.

Gary Barbour asked, if we act on this now though what happens in a later date? Is there a way that we can still go talk with the builder?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you can, it’s just that if you prove it you’re not going to have the same….

Gary Barbour stated, leverage….

Attorney Altman stated, leverage to have the builder remove the home because you prove it, you prove it, didn’t eliminate the initial violation.

Vice President Saylor stated, I guess that my biggest problem is with the professional contractors that set this thing up.

Gary Barbour stated, I agree but, on the other side of that they have suffered now since November, I mean, we table this they continue to go on suffering.

Attorney Altman stated, there is not a good middle ground of quote approving and then they go the other way. It doesn’t eliminate the issue. I certainly would require that the applicant furnish me, and I’m sure that their attorney would furnish me, with all of the information about the details of this application. The address, names and that sort of thing, so that we can properly notice them up next week. I’m sure that Mr. Brugh would get that for me and to me so that we can notice them up the next time on this apparent violation based on the testimony and evidence that we have before us tonight.

Gary Barbour asked, is our building inspector aware of this?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you that, I don’t know that. He has not been certified by that State yet. That will be done approximately the middle of next month.

Vice President Saylor asked, from the stand of your office, if we act on the variance request this evening does that in any way prohibit us from addressing the issue with the contractor at a later date?

Director Weaver stated, not as far as I’m aware of, no.

Gary Barbour stated, but, as Attorney Altman says though we loose our leverage.

Attorney Altman stated, you loose your leverage to require them to remove it. I guess that you’re just probably at the position that the applicants have put you, either approve it or don’t. As their Attorney, Mr. Brugh said, if they don’t they will have to remove it and sue the builder to have them remove it and properly site it like they obviously are saying that they paid to have.

Vice President Saylor stated, I’m really leaning towards tabling this and requesting that the contract be present at the next meeting.

Gary Barbour stated, I agree with that. That’s where I’m leaning. I hate to do this to them but, we’re between a rock and a hard place just like what they are.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address the Board at this time?

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, it’s interesting to watch you talk to each other and deliberate as a judging body as you are. I think what you’re talking about is a good idea to get the builder in here. Joey and Denise appreciate the fact that you see that they are still not living in their home and if it takes a little bit longer to participate in your proceeding they will just make due. They are willing to go along with the tabling and return after Patriot Homes has been noticed up to come and address this and I will supply you with any information that will help your lawyer make this happen. I didn’t bring my calendar with me as far as when the next meeting is. To answer your question they will corporate with you idea of coming back with the builder being present.

Director Weaver stated, if this were tabled the next meeting would be May 17, 2001.

Attorney Altman stated, at the same time Mr. Brugh.

Attorney Jim Brugh asked, what day of the week is that?

Director Weaver stated, Thursday.

Attorney Altman stated, if you can get me the information, what I would really like to have is the names of everyone that you have dealt with. It probably wouldn’t hurt if we had a copy of the contract, a copy of your payment on that home, even though it isn’t real critical of what you paid since you have it, it wouldn’t hurt to know that and have that down in black and white. Obviously, it makes a little bit of difference with a cash deal because, the finance company, or bank would have seen this and warned you not to do this and the name of the actual identity that bought it from.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, I will send you a copy of the contact and all of the names of the people that Joey and Denise have dealt with I will give you some proof of the purchase to show their ownership of this modular and if anything else comes up. Do I send it to all of you?

Attorney Altman stated, just me.

Vice President Saylor stated, we’re going to need that in a form of a motion.

Gary Barbour stated, I make a motion that we table it until next meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, we have to tell them to notice them up.

Attorney Jim Brugh asked, when do you need that?

Director Weaver stated, 10 days prior, we would have to have everything by no later than the 5th of May.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, you will have that the middle of next week.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be fine.

Denise Denton asked, do I have to leave that sign up there?

Attorney Altman stated, I sure would.

Denise Denton asked, since it’s tabled.

Attorney Altman stated, it sure would, it would be appropriate so everyone knows that it’s still before us.

Denise Denton stated, okay.

Vice President Saylor asked, we have a motion on the floor that variance request #1195 be tabled until our regular meeting on May 17, 2001 with the additional request that the contractor involved in this case be present at that meeting.

Ron Pollock stated, second.

Vice President Saylor stated, all in favor.

The Board stated, I.

Vice President asked, all opposed? Motion carried.

Attorney Altman stated, especially, if you know who actually put the home there, the foundation there.

Denise Denton stated, yes, we know.

Attorney Altman stated, that name would be very interesting to us.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, we will give you the name of that person. Do you have that address as well?

Denise Denton stated, no not an address.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, on your contract it says Patriot Homes agrees to set this so then they have hired that….

Director Weaver stated, they have probably sub-contracted that.

Joey Stiltz stated, they knew that we were having this meeting, we told her the time and everything verbally before.

Attorney Jim Brugh stated, that’s not as good as a letter….

Joey Stiltz stated, right but I’m just saying that they knew that we were coming.

Attorney Altman stated, you folks understand that it’s the 17th of next month right here. If your interested in coming please be here and tell anyone else out there that we would like to hear from them.

****

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any further business for the Board?

Director Weaver stated, yes, Ron wanted to have some discussion. On the back of your pictures Ron, what that was, was a copy of what we give to companies that come in wanting to file variances for towers and I told you that I would bring you a copy of that. That’s what that handout is.

Ron Pollock asked, when they for what variance to get this?

Director Weaver stated, actually, I give that to them usually prior to them filing.

Ron Pollock asked, did you get any calls about the tower going up in back of the dealership? That last tower that we voted on?

Director Weaver asked, the one back behind Rudy Owens Welding, the one here in Monticello?

Ron Pollock stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, nothing.

Ron Pollock asked, nothing, have they started on it?

Director Weaver stated, no, they don’t have their permits yet but, it did all pass, the rezoning passed and so did the variance.

Ron Pollock stated, okay so it all went through.

Director Weaver stated, it all went through.

Ron Pollock stated, the Commissioners and everything. What I had asked for is examples when people come in, ask for variances and why do we get so many different setbacks?

Director Weaver stated, because of the different zonings, each zoning has different setbacks.

Ron Pollock stated, but, a setback is a change from the…

Director Weaver stated, no, a setback is allowed….

Ron Pollock stated, I mean a variance is a change.

Director Weaver stated, right, a variance is a change.

Ron Pollock stated, but, it seems like we vote on a number of setback distances. One is 5’, one is 10’, one is 40’, does that mean that if they have a setback of say 30’ and they want to add something within that 30’ say they want to add 5’ they have to have a 5’ variance is that…

Director Weaver stated, if they want to go into that setback 5’ then we ask for a 5’ setback variance.

Ron Pollock asked, where do we draw the line?

Director Weaver stated, that is for the Board to decide.

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

Jeff Saylor stated, sometimes right at the property.

Director Weaver stated, well, we did tonight.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s what I never really figured out.

Director Weaver stated, I think that is hard to draw a line and stick with that. I’m not on the Board but, you have unique situations, not all situations are cut and dry you have like the one, VanDyke’s, tonight. There, you allowed them to go to the property line but they are not going to any closer to the water than their adjacent properties.

Ron Pollock asked, I think that maybe I asked once before, is it not right for you or Attorney Altman to give us some guidelines on some of these things that you know as an example if we voted to approve something in what, would we be violating something?

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly try to do that, information. I guess what it really amounts to is the description is yours and the final decision is yours to make and how close is too close is yours or how far is just far enough is yours to make. The Ordinance talks about the guidelines and you look at the public health, safety and general welfare and that’s a big umbrella. It covers a lot of things and I talk about septic systems, bedrooms and that sort of thing because, that adds burdens to septic systems. When I talk about adding them to public sewer systems and that sort of thing. So that we get all of that on the record, so that is not going to be a burden to public health, safety and general welfare or there is less of a burden. That’s why I’m talking about that a lot but, as to how close is too close, is something that you have different opinions at. Jerry has a different opinion and I have a different opinion, even though I don’t vote. I have an opinion and you have to vote that and you have to vote your conscious, your experience, your feelings and ability the best that you can and if it comes to 3 votes they have approval. If it’s the other way they have disapproval. So, it really is a matter of opinion and it’s very subjective and it’s based upon these real principals is what it comes down to.

Ron Pollock asked, now, when they apply for a variance, is there any time that you may say to them that they can’t get a variance?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have the authority to do that.

Ron Pollock asked, you don’t?

Director Weaver stated, I can give…

Ron Pollock asked, your opinion?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t give them my opinion but I can advise them if I see something that I know that the Board will not like or something then I will let them know that. If there has been a similar situation where something similar has been requested and turned down, I will let them know that, that type of thing.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s what I was wondering, whether some of these people come with outlandish…

Attorney Altman stated, turn them down.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, honestly, just because I ask you for 50 dollars, you don’t give me 50 dollars.

Ron Pollock stated, no I know but….

Attorney Altman stated, what I’m saying is a variance is a very discretionary act on the Boards part, it’s based upon, if you read the things that you are voting on, there it’s line by line it’s talking about the general health, welfare and public safety.

Ron Pollock asked, but aren’t you setting precedence by approving…

Attorney Altman stated, of course you are, therefore you vote, I guess what I’m saying is you have to decide when you vote one way or the other. Of course you’re setting a precedence by yes and your setting them by no’s, anything that you do you’re setting a precedence. They have to show they have the burden of approving, let me get out of that legal language. They have to give us evidence that this is not violating the public health, safety and general welfare and that the Ordinance puts a necessary hardship or practical difficulty on it and they didn’t create it themselves and this is a problem with a lot of them. They are creating it themselves.

Ron Pollock asked, who makes the sketches or the drawings?

Director Weaver stated, the surveyors.

Ron Pollock asked, so in other words, when you, what we see on the back of our paperwork here…

Director Weaver stated, has been done by a registered surveyor.

Ron Pollock stated, done by a registered surveyor and brought in by the people….

Director Weaver stated, to us….

Ron Pollock asked, that are making this request?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, if they did that before they did the problem, they probably wouldn’t have a problem and that’s the problem here.

Ron Pollock asked, so as an example, tonight with this one here, that drawing that we have tonight was taken after the building was put on the wrong spot?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Ron Pollock stated, but, he was saying didn’t they have to get a, to the Area Plan permission to put that building on that property?

Director Weaver stated, they did get their permit, but, when they requested their permit, their drawing showed that they were meeting their setbacks.

Ron Pollock asked, they were what?

Director Weaver stated, their drawing that they did showed that they were meeting their setbacks.

Jeff Saylor asked, was it a survey?

Director Weaver stated, no, that’s just it, when they come in for a building permit they don’t have a drawing done by a registered surveyor. That drawing can be done by anyone.

Ron Pollock asked, they just make a sketch?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Gary Barbour asked, and it shows where their setbacks are going to be?

Director Weaver stated, they showed that they were meeting their setbacks.

Ron Pollock stated, and it was probably their responsibility to see that the builder didn’t put it on that foundation.

Director Weaver stated, but, the builder on the other hand is supposed to know what he is doing too.

Gary Barbour stated, ultimately the homeowner is the responsible one.

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s the same catch 22 that we always get in to.

Attorney Altman stated, and you have to realize then, that’s where again you look at them and call them the way that you see them as to who it is or fundamentally at fault here.

Ron Pollock stated, we’re like a jury.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, no, you’re like a judge.

Ron Pollock stated, yes, a judge, you’re right.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re like 5 judges.

Ron Pollock stated, we have to take the information to whatever is available and make a decision.

Attorney Altman stated, again, I will tell you because, you asked the other day of variances and stuff. A variance is discretionary you say no, it’s very hard for someone to take you to court and reverse it because, it is discretionary. You’re proceeded by law to be the experts in this deal, from the point of view of land use. If you mess it up you will be upheld and they have to prove that it is an unnecessary hardship, to conform with the Ordinance and that like the ballot says you go through.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s the next thing that I was going to ask you on the ballot. On the ballot if you where ever there is a star and you vote against it for any reason, the thing is denied.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Ron Pollock stated, every one of those has to be approved.

Attorney Altman stated, it has to be against.

Ron Pollock asked, if you deny it, I’m sure there are sections that you approve but, if you deny one but, when we turned it over to you should they all be answered?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Ron Pollock asked, I mean the negative ones as well as the positive ones?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, I wouldn’t consider that a complete ballot vote, that’s why I turn them back to you.

Vice President Saylor asked, in the times that I have voted against, there are certain areas where I think that it has met the qualifications. I just circle the answer but, I get to the section that I find something that I don’t agree with and I’m going to deny it then I will fill in an answer in that section.

Ron Pollock asked, you fill in your response?

Vice President Saylor stated, right but, what I have done in the past is just circle the affirmative ones but, then give a written explanation for why I’m deny it, if that helps.

Ron Pollock stated, see that was new to me when I came in here.

Director Weaver stated, yes, you’re used to those, yes/ no ballots aren’t you?

Ron Pollock stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, change that to recommend. The other thing that you can do is you can impose reasonable conditions on a variance and on a special exception. In other words, you can say single story as an example and this is all and that’s why I get them on the hook. That’s why I ask them those questions that they name their poison.

Ron Pollock asked, but you can approve it and then add.

Attorney Altman stated, you had better do it before add.

Ron Pollock asked, before you add?

Attorney Altman stated, you add them before hand. Once your approval is done its done, it’s the right.

Jeff Saylor stated, what you do is you make a motion to, subject to the approval of the Board the following condition needs additional condition needs to be met.

Attorney Altman stated, so and so needs to have a septic and leach bed system that is approved by the White County Health Department.

Ron Pollock asked, do I write that down or do I just make a motion to that?

Vice President Saylor stated, if you want….

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to do it you had better do it.

Vice President Saylor stated, if you have a special condition and this happens frequently, before we take the vote you just make a motion that you would like this special condition to be met. Then it’s usually seconded and then we vote on it and then that becomes part of the requirements of meeting the building permit.

Attorney Altman stated, sometimes you make it so that it’s only for you, Mr. Applicant, if you sell it we don’t want anyone there that way. As a good example of what we do quite frequently.

Vice President Saylor stated, as I said that happens very frequently. The Board will generally have a feeling that we’re going to approve something but we’re going to approve it on the condition that you do something else.

Ron Pollock stated, see, I have a problem, if you have people in the audience that are opposed to it and they have a good realistic answer to this thing, it’s when there is no one out there.

Attorney Altman stated, you just have to use your judgement.

Gary Barbour stated, if you have a concern and you make a motion and regardless if anyone seconds it or not at least starts the dialog so that there is discussion over the situation.

Attorney Altman stated, otherwise, it just gets approved. You see something that they are not seeing you have to sing out. A lot of times Carol….

Gary Barbour stated, she’s good for it and I appreciate the fact that she is that good for it because, she brings up some good things that I don’t necessarily think of.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s what I like because I learn from that. You learn from other people like in our Area Plan meeting there is a lot of discussion in there and you learn from there because you have competent answers and people and then you start thinking.

Director Weaver stated, I will tell you something too with our new building inspector, I think that something that will be helpful to this Board especially him knowing the codes and we’re going to start supplying him with the staff report. He does not necessarily want to attend our meetings which I understand that. I’m going to start supplying him with the staff report like we do the Board members so he can look at that request, see, and if he sees areas for concern he can let us know. There are situations that he as mentioned to me that in the past maybe we have violated his state code.

Ron Pollock asked, could that be passed on to us then?

Director Weaver stated, yes, if he gives it to me then I will pass it on to you or if it’s something crucial enough then I will ask him to come and attend the meeting.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s really what I’m saying if we know a little bit of background behind some of this stuff it would be helpful.

Gary Barbour asked, didn’t we at one time discuss having the Ordinance amended for the side setbacks on certain properties so that we didn’t go right to the property lines?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t remember that one.

Gary Barbour stated, I thought that we discussed that a couple of different times.

Director Weaver asked, the side setbacks?

Gary Barbour stated, especially when you get into a lot of these places…

Director Weaver stated, I know that it has been mentioned about having a minimum green space.

Gary Barbour stated, that’s what I mean.

Director Weaver stated, yes, and I just haven’t got it done which I need to do but, we also need to give us an idea of how much green space that we want to see.

Vice President Saylor stated, that’s what has been a concern with me that if you approve something that comes right up next to the property line it would be difficult to deny that request from an adjacent property owner.

Gary Barbour stated, pretty soon you have them built right on top of another.

Director Weaver stated, but, this is where our state codes come in, I have learned a lot from this building inspector….

Vice President Saylor asked, there’s a fire issue isn’t there?

Director Weaver stated, but there is a minimum requirement of how close 2 buildings can be to each other.

Gary Barbour asked, so we can violate that?

Director Weaver stated, if they go closer they have to have a firewall they couldn’t have windows there is just a big list of things.

Gary Barbour stated, so we may have violated that and not realized…

Director Weaver stated, I know that we have.

Ron Pollock asked, is that for an industrial building?

Director Weaver stated, any building.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s what I always thought because, you were saying that you can go right up to the property line what if the other guy goes right up to the property line too?

Director Weaver stated, see that will give you leverage if this guy ask for it and this guy ask for it you can say sorry we can’t go any closer.

Vice President Saylor stated, so ideally you don’t grant it right up next to the…

Ron Pollock stated, I appreciate the time…

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing on special exceptions they’re different than a variance. A variance is discretionary, again what I mean by that is, we can say someone out there, we don’t like the color of your hair so we’re turning you down. If you’re halfway smart and halfway figure it out, you can have some very easy to support your turn down or to support your approval. This is why some of my questions come in and if you have something and you’re reasonable then your discretion will not be reversed as using discretion. With a special exception however, they must prove, again they must prove this is why we require them to be her they must prove that they qualify. In other words, on the list of uses here they have to have a special exception star and if they don’t have their out completely. The other thing that they have to prove is they are similar enough to fall within and the fact that they aren’t similar enough doesn’t hurt the health, welfare and safety of the community at large. The local specific community, there and the fire codes and everything would be a real good thing to factor in here. Where they said that you can’t do that because if you do that you have to have a firewall or no windows and all of these sorts of things or you can’t get that close because you we can’t get emergency vehicles through there.

Director Weaver stated, we have denied them before because of that too.

Attorney Altman stated, so, I guess what I’m saying to you is this is what a special exception is, is if you qualify we have to give it to them a variance even if they qualify we can have reason to say no and the reason is discretionary.

Ron Pollock asked, do we make the final decision?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Ron Pollock asked, it doesn’t go before the Commissioners or anything?

Director Weaver stated, this is the final decision.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the final decision.

Vice President Saylor stated, so the only thing that happens and it did happen once with since I have been on the Board was Liberty Landfill is that the Board can vote to approve or disapprove and I believe in that case, we disapproved.

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

Vice President Saylor stated, yes, we didn’t allow a variance and their, the one recourse that an applicant has is to basically sue the Board which…

Director Weaver stated, and they did.

Ron Pollock asked, get an attorney and sue then?

Vice President Saylor stated, and we did.

Ron Pollock asked, has that happened very often?

Attorney Altman stated, not very often.

Vice President Saylor stated, once since I have been on the Board.

Director Weaver stated, and that was a special exception I believe.

Vice President Saylor stated, but, they don’t have any, there is no higher Board that they go to this is it and if someone doesn’t like the answer the only recourse is to be sued for it.

Ron Pollock asked, so when they sue do they sue the whole Board?

Attorney Altman stated, they sue the body, they don’t name you.

Director Weaver stated, they don’t name you individually.

Attorney Altman stated, not individually but again, those factors are on the ballots because they are legitimate things to do. It’s like he’s saying, sure they’re all qualified, some of it but, the guy qualified for all of it and put down why you don’t like it and again he works for a consensus and is excellent at doing that. Trying to get so you have an objector and he figures out what maybe will satisfy both of them working towards this local health welfare and general safety within the community. That’s what they are normally talking about and when someone is here objection what they are saying is he’s too close to me and you have done this many of times.

Ron Pollock stated, but, it may not be their health, it may just be that they don’t want that guy too close to them.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but that’s health. It has to do with getting an emergency truck down there. They may not hit upon that as the reason but that really is part of it if you can’t get a fire truck down there…

Ron Pollock stated, but, what I’m saying is there are neighbors that have conflicts.

Attorney Altman stated, oh yes.

Director Weaver stated, oh yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m saying to you is you have to see through that and see whether there is enough of a genuine objection or they just don’t like the way that they part their hair. We’re not talking about turning those down we’re talking about when they come up with something that really goes to our policing ballots and that’s what we are, we’re a policemen here.

Ron Pollock stated, I see, thank you for your time.

Director Weaver asked, I have a couple of things that I want to touch on just real quick. I have a question for the Board. When the Board has a height variance come to them, when you look at the height of a building where at what point are you looking at? Are you considering from the ground level to the peak? Am I asking this in a good way?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, except for it’s a trick question it’s defined in the Ordinance.

Vice President Saylor stated, to me that would be how I would.

Director Weaver stated, that’s the way that I thought that the Board was looking.

Ron Pollock stated, from the ground up….

Vice President Saylor stated, from the ground to the peak.

Ron Pollock stated, that’s the way that I would think.

Attorney Altman stated, but that’s not the way that it’s defined in the Ordinance.

Gary Barbour stated, let's fix it then.

Director Weaver stated, we do need to fix it because we have a very complicated definition for the height.

Attorney Altman stated, in essence it says you take the height of the eaves, the height of the top, you divide it in half, and then you add the distance from the eaves to the ground.

Vice President Saylor asked, why?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what it says.

Director Weaver stated, that’s what it says and I’ll tell you, I have seen Lafayette’s and it says to the peak which is what I think ours should say. I also wanted to mention to you I just, I’m pretty proud of Area Plan I think that we had a victory in court the other day. Pursuing improper use for about 3 years now and we took it to court and I feel like we won. I just want to share that.

Attorney Altman stated, he’s on probation.

Director Weaver stated, he’s on probation for a year.

Attorney Altman stated, he’s limited on the number of vehicles.

Vice President Saylor asked, who is this?

Director Weaver stated, Dino Antionelli, he was doing car repair out of his property and had several junk vehicles, parts, the whole nine yards on his property. We did take him to court, it took us a while to get him there but, I feel like we were successful in getting it resolved so I wanted to share that with you.

Vice President Saylor asked, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Ron Pollock made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission