Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Mike Cruz, Mary M. (Peg) Jay, Betty Ferdinand, Kenneth & Rose Pilatte, Linda Patterson, M. Landrum, Bob & Eva Smith, Teri Holderfield, Lucille Lawson, Kenneth Lawson, Mr. & Mrs. Jesse Elizalde, Vicki Logan, Daniel & Nancy Logan, Rex & Cindy Whitemore, Lexi Meyer, Robert C. Brown, Larry Minter, Dean Anderson, Denise Denton, Joey Stiltz, Tressa Quasebarth, Gary Quasebarth, Bob Gregory, Ruth Gregory, Becky White, Nora Andrews, Mary Rynard, Jim Brugh, Judy Wooldridge, Larry Wooldridge, William J. Mower, Emily J. Moore, Brad Gutwein, Steve Boehling, Charles E. Wise, Sandra Wise, Marie Carter, Donald Sprunger, Gail Armstrong, Don German, Kathryn Krintz, Scott Elizalde, Brenda Elizalde, Don & Pat Kremer, Richard & Nancy Wilken, Phil Vogel, Pat Voorhis, Harry Voorhis, Jann Flora, Phil Flora, Cor T. Dinniah, Steve Fihe, Jeff Raltso, J. Andrew Durby, Denny Byers, Dean Stark, Pat Stark, C. Wisley Brckshire, Perdue Powlen, Helen Powlen, Glen Haskell, Jill Haskell, Ike Donnelly, Mabel Gluth, Jan Jualkenbush, Nancy McBride, Macy Zuefus, Jan Kraud, Jeff Robertson, Stuart Boehning, Glen Haskell, Bill Moore and Court Emich.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. No minutes were approved, they will be addressed at the next meeting on May 24, 2001. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#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. Tabled from April 20, 2001.

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

Jim Brugh stated, this is Joey Stiltz and Denise Denton.

President Thompson asked, and your relationship to them is?


Jim Brugh stated, I’m a lawyer representing their interest although, they will speak to the Board.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Jim Brugh stated, the question here was first presented at your last meeting and you will recall, or I will summarize it so that we’re all up to speed. Denise and Joey are family even though, they are not married. As a couple, they purchased a modular from a manufacturer also, the seller, Patriot Homes. They did this according to a contract and one of the things that happened at the last meeting, after by void of communication is, I sent your Attorney, Mr. Altman a copy of the contract between Joey and Denise and Patriot Homes. What I pointed out, if you don’t have it I will give you a copy but, it is part of the contract that the dealer, that would be Patriot Homes A; will deliver set, block and level the home. What effects you from the zoning point of view is the word set. Patriot Homes made a contract to set Joey and Denise’s home on the land that they own. The zoning question arises because, the home got set in the wrong place. Well, the common sense thing to do, you have a copy of your rules, you know that it’s suppose to be 80’ back from the road and the drawing shows that it’s 38’ back. To subtract those numbers and you see these two people asking for a 42’ variance to basically give approval to that home where Patriot Homes set it.

There is one of two things that I think that you can do tonight. You table this request for a variance from the setback rules, the last time plan A is you can grant this variance motion leaving the home where it set granting the variance and that’s the end of the zoning question. Plan B has to be considered because, if you assume in your package that you got a copy of the complaint that you have now filed against both Joey and Denise as the owners and Patriot Homes. Paragraph 6 of your complaint points out that, there is a contract between the homeowners and Patriot Homes as the seller. Based upon the contract, your complaint says that it’s up to the seller to locate the home for the buyer. So, when I was standing up here the last time, we said this is a violation, this is not one of those cases where someone goes out and builds and then comes back and says oops, now can we have a sideline, can we have your approval. Joey and Denise got their site plan ahead of time, your setback rules were written right on that site plan. Joey and Denise gave that site plan to Patriot Homes and who under the contract had the duty to properly set the home. Patriot Homes will tell you that it’s not their problem, that this place got put in the wrong place. But, if you look at the contract it says under section A, it’s the duty of Patriot Homes to set it, paragraph of your violation complaint says that it’s the sellers duty to set it in the right place for the buyer. Patriot Homes sent some local person, what I mean is somewhere closer to here and up there where they knew their business around Elkhart and the fellow arrives to set the place and he has no site plan. Well Joey being a common sense guy and in a minute, I’m going to have Denise explain that she delivered the site plan to Patriot Homes and Joey explained what happened when he was out there meeting this agent of Patriot Homes. The agent of Patriot Homes shows up on the scene to set the place up with no paper, he didn’t have your site plan, he didn’t have anything like you would expect for a professional person to have like a ruler to measure it with the site plan. So what happened is the guy says, what is his name Buyers?

Joey Stiltz stated, yes.

Jim Brugh stated, Mr. Buyers says, “well, where is it supposed to go?” Joey being the helpful person says well, it should be in this area and Joey used a couple pieces of firewood to say generally where it should be. Well, Patriot Homes is going to say well, we as a corporation are relieved of all responsibility because, the homeowner told us exactly where to put it. Just a minute, this is a contract, the seller took on the responsibility of setting up this home, Denise delivered, your site plan with your setback rules to Patriot Homes. It’s their duty to show up with that site plan and the measuring device to set it up in the right place, that’s the problem, this place is clearly in violation. Plan B would be, if you did not grant the variance, I’m suggesting Mr. Altman somehow these two things have to be considered simultaneously. Either A, you grant the variance and you don’t have to listen to this dispute between the homeowner and the builder, Patriot Homes or plan B. If you’re not going to grant the variance since this place is clearly in violation of your setback rules, I’m asking you that if you simply go for the violation approach. Plan B, that it’s Patriot Homes under the contract of who you should enforce and give deadlines to for moving the place where it should have been put in the first place. Moving the home, if you did that, I would ask that you give Patriot Homes a reasonable amount of time. There was a meeting this afternoon, at the home at 3:00 p.m., this is not your problem but, there is some defect questions and I will not bore you with that. Today was a good meeting, I wasn’t there, between the homeowners and the sellers about defects but tonight’s question is zoning. So, I would ask for you, if you have any questions to ask me but I did it as quick as I could and as consistently as I could, a summary of what I think that the shape of the question is. I know that you have a lot of business on your list tonight but that is the position of the homeowners here. So I would ask that if Denise and Joey can briefly say what their experience was so you hear it from their personal point of view and I will just step back and in effect you will receive a description of their request for the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, please testify in the narrative.

Jim Brugh stated, okay, go ahead.

Joey Stiltz stated, really they called me to be out there, the day that they come out and did the foundation actually, they wanted me to remark because, if you look at our paper, the house is at kind of an angle, not just like straight across. They wanted me to be out there to show them how we wanted it, exactly how we wanted it to set in there and that’s exactly what I did. They wanted to know, which way, the front door, which way we wanted the back door. I put some pieces of wood out there, fire wood, camping wood, no stakes or lines or nothing. We did all of that and I discussed what I wanted with him. Surely, I thought that he would measure it. We wanted it between two trees, that’s how we wanted it if we had room to do it there, I mean by the building permit. We’ve got plenty of space for it to be there, I figure that when you put a foundation in, you look at a building permit and see that there are guidelines that you have to go by surely, I thought anyway, I don’t know. I did the day that he was out there, I did go get my own copy that had the picture of it, the guidelines and everything for him because, and he didn’t have his. I did give him that so, I don’t know how it got that far off, and I don’t understand it.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Like is General Council for Patriot Homes and he is here. Mr. Like do you have any cross-examination that you would like of this witness?

Steve Like asked, am I to understand that this is the beginning of the evidentiary hearing?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that they are both mixed together quite frankly, right now.

Steve Like stated, I intended to speak in favor of the variance application.

President Thompson asked, could we have your name again please?

Steve Like stated, yes, I’m Steve Like, I’m General Council for Patriot Homes and I would like, even though we are in disagreement on the fact of the situation, our contractional obligations. One thing that we are in clear agreement on is, the variance application is consistent with the character of the neighborhood out there. I was there this afternoon and the residence that we’re discussing is at least 20’ farther from the right-of-way, from the highway than the adjacent property. In addition if you look at the, I have been given a drawing that was attached to the complaint and if that is to be believed there is only 30’ of buildable area depth.

Attorney Altman asked, are you talking about this one here?

Steve like stated, yes, which essentially, would prohibit that property from being used as a residence with a garage unless it was parallel to the street. There is absolutely no design opportunity there for an attractive residence with it on an angle or anything other than just parallel to the right-of-way to the highway. So, given the existence of the adjacent property with the closer improvement to the right-of-way and the limited buildable area that the current zoning ordinance would permit, I think that it would be in the best interest of the county to allow the variance and allow the homeowners to build their home, or leave their home the way that it has been constructed. It’s a very attractive appearance right now, I think that it would actually detract from the neighborhood for it to be moved.

Attorney Altman asked, do you have any questions of this witness?

Steve like stated, no I have not.

Jim Brugh stated, could Denise Denton make her narrative?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Denise Denton stated, I did deliver the blue building permit with the setbacks in black, marker. I think that they are on the left-hand side, to a Toni down there at Patriot Homes. I still do not know where my building permit is. We took it all of the way to Lafayette and it did have the sketching and the blue building permit, I had all of my permits and I left it down there with Toni.

Attorney Altman asked, and who is Toni?

Denise Denton stated, she was a sales representative.

Attorney Altman asked, for?

Denise Denton stated, Patriot Homes.

President Thompson asked, but you gave these to them roughly how many days ahead of time?

Denise Denton stated, I gave it them between the 13th and the 16th of January.

President Thompson asked, and the house was set when?

Denise Denton stated, after February the 26th.

Jim Brugh stated, could I make this part of the record, a subpoena, Exhibit A, that I issued to Patriot Homes. Asking them to bring to this meeting, the building permit and site plan that Denise just testified that she delivered to Patriot Homes’ agent, Toni McClurg around January 13, 2001, related to the sitting of the modular home which, they sold to Denise Denton and Joey Stiltz, if I can give you this here.

President Thompson asked, as a company, do you, is that a common practice to place a home by any marker that is placed on the ground? Do you not go by a little bit more official markings than that?

Steve Like asked, if I might, could I conduct a cross-examination of the witness? I do have two witnesses of my own but, we can present testimony about the factual issues. I can make an opening statement that would….

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to cross-examine her that would be fine.

Steve Like asked, the document that you delivered to Toni McClurg can you tell me what it was? It was the building permit? Is that what you testified to?

Denise Denton stated, yes.

Steve Like asked, was there a drawing or anything attached to that?

Denise Denton stated, it wasn’t attached, there were two different things and there was a sketching on the white piece of paper and the blue building permit.

Steve Like asked, do you have a copy of that sketch?

Denise Denton stated, I don’t have it on me but I’m sure that someone here has it. It’s what they have that they are looking at with the septic guy had drawn up so, I could actually get my building permit.

Steve Like asked, so, it was something that should be attached then to the building permit application?

Director Weaver stated, I have the building permit here.

Steve Like asked, could I examine the commissions file?

Attorney Altman stated, you sure may.

Steve Like stated, I’m going to show you a drawing that is attached to the application for the improvement location permit. It appears to be a hand drawn sketch of the house on the site. I’m going to ask if that is the document or copy of the documents that you gave Toni McClurg.

Denise Denton stated, I’m pretty sure that it is, I gave her a drawing, I only had one person do a drawing.

Steve Like asked, do you believe that is what it was, this document?

Denise Denton stated, it was a drawing, I’m not going to swear that it was that one.

Steve Like asked, but, you do not have a copy of what you gave her?

Denise Denton stated, no, I gave it to her, the blue building permit and there was a sketching.

Steve Like stated, I have no further questions.

Jim Brugh stated, I have a re-direct.

Attorney Altman stated, very good.

Jim Brugh stated, Denise get up here please. So you just told the members of the Board that you delivered two pieces of paper to Toni McClurg at Patriot Homes, right?

Denise Denton stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, one of them is this drawing that was down by the septic guy right?

Denise Denton stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, but, there was a second piece of paper correct?

Denise Denton stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, which piece of paper had the setback number on it?

Denise Denton stated, the blue one the building permit and I will swear that I took that one down there.

Jim Brugh asked, and who did you obtain that permit from?

Denise Denton stated, the Area Plan.

Jim Brugh asked, the lady that sits at the end of the table?

Denise Denton stated yes, I got it from that department.

Joey Stiltz asked, it was her, wasn’t it?

Denise Denton stated, it might have been her, I remember seeing your face.

Director Weaver stated, it would have been one of my secretaries or myself.

Jim Brugh asked, did you expect them to use those setback rules and put your modular in the right place according to the contract and the commissioner’s rules?

Denise Denton stated, yes, they told me that they couldn’t even start laying the foundation until they had the building permit and all of my permits in their hands so, that’s why I took them.

Jim Brugh asked, and who said that?

Denise Denton stated, Toni.

Jim Brugh asked, so, did you relay upon Toni from Patriot Homes to put your place in the right location in compliance with the rules?

Denise Denton stated, yes, I did, that’s who I left it with.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Like, do you now want to present argument and then witnesses?

Steve Like stated, alright, we certainly will.

Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Like is filed and I just have one copy of it, response from the Patriot respondent on complaint for violation. In essence he said to attach a copy of the purchase agreement which, everyone has and he makes reference to page, section 10 on the reverse side of the contract where it says that building buyer assumes responsibility for preparation….

President Thompson stated, excuse me a second, we need order in the room. If you have need to visit we would like to ask you to go out in the hallway otherwise, this is serious business and it’s hard for the Board to take care of this in a proper order when there is extra commotion in the room, we appreciate you cooperation.

Attorney Altman stated, and it indicates that they make reference to the section 10 of the contract on the reverse side and paragraph 11 and I think that you have copies of that in front of you. Assert that the buyer has responsibility for these matters and this is in essence what they are saying is that it’s buyers to do.

Steve Like stated, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight although, I’m sorry that we have to take up so much of your valuable time about this matter. Let me say again that although there is a dispute about the fact and the respected obligations with regard to this matter, we do in fact support the variance petition and hope that it would be granted. With regard to the allegations that were in the complaint, our response has been filed and noted. There are constructional provisions in the contract itself that read the buyer assumes all responsibility for the proper preparation of buyers’ property to both receive and locate the unit purchased. Also, in that same contract, it reads buyer understands that that dealer is not responsible for obtaining health or sanitation permits nor for any local, county or state permits required because, of restrictive zoning. Our belief is that the buyers were the general contractors here, we were responsible for certain portions of the contraction of the house but there were also many portions or the home that we were not responsible for. Essentially, our responsibility was limited to the construction of the foundation using an out side contractor and the actual set or installation of the house on that foundation. The contract provided for the buyers to have sole responsibility of obtaining the building permit, they put in their own well and septic, they have made their own electrical and plumbing connections, did their own driveway, any final grading that was necessary and the landscaping. There are many parts of the project that we were not responsible for and our normal, you will see this in the testimony that we provide. Our normal process, a project where we’re not solely responsible for, all aspects that the buyer assumes responsibility for the building permit and the placement of the house on their property. There is also a hand written provision in the contract that makes the buyer responsible for the utility hookups and all improvements. Improvements in this case would include the construction of that foundation. So, our feeling is, that the buyer assumed responsibility to be the general contractor for the construction of their home. We had responsibility for certain aspects of it and as a result we were not responsible to verify that the location selected by the homeowner was in fact in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Now, I can, at this point, supply some testimony. I would like to call Mr. Jeff Robertson to witness.

Jeff Robertson stated, good evening.

Steve Like asked, Jeff, could you tell me what your position is with Patriot Homes?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, I’m the General Manager for Patriot Homes in the Lafayette location.

Steve Like asked, have you met Joey Stiltz and Denise Denton?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Steve Like asked, are you in fact the person that sold them the house?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, I was.

Steve Like asked, your signature that appears at the bottom of the purchase agreement, is it not?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, it is.

Steve Like asked, I would like to introduce an exhibit, it has been attached to our response as Exhibit A, this is the contract, a copy of the contract that was signed with the buyers?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes sir.

Steve Like stated, if you will receive that please as evidence.

Attorney Altman asked, do you have any objections?

Jim Brugh stated, no objections.

Attorney Altman stated, there are no objections. We have received in evidence and marked respondents Exhibit A.

Steve Like asked, can you explain for the Commissioners the standard procedure for siting a house? Is this something that Patriot takes responsibility for or how is it normally done in your business?

Jeff Robertson stated, normally what we do is, always what we do is and we require the customer to acquire the building permit. Upon acquiring the building permits we ask the customer that they stake out the property so, when our contractor shows up it is staked and ready to go.

Steve Like asked, do we ever conduct a survey to determine the boundaries of the property?

Jeff Robertson stated, no.

Steve Like asked, do you ask, require a copy of the site plan before you begin construction?

Jeff Robertson stated, no.

Steve Like asked, so essentially, it’s the buyer’s responsibility to show you where they want the house on the property?

Jeff Robertson stated, correct, all that I ask for is the building permit itself.

Steve Like stated, I have no other questions.

Jim Brugh stated, so, as far as tonight’s meeting I did a subpoena to Patriot Homes for you to bring the site plan with you, do you have it with you?

Jeff Robertson asked, a copy of the site plan?

Jim Brugh stated, all that I have is a copy of the hand drawing.

Steve Like asked, did you receive a subpoena?

Jim Brugh stated, just a minute.

Jeff Robertson asked, did I ever receive a subpoena? No.

Jim Brugh stated, Mr. Altman, I think that I just put a subpoena into evidence.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you did.

Jim Brugh asked, could I see it please?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, are you aware of when this home for Joey and Denise was actually set up?

Jeff Robertson asked, could you repeat the question please?

Jim Brugh asked, are you aware of when this home for Joey and Denise was actually set up?

Jeff Robertson asked, are you referring to a date?

Jim Brugh stated, yes, well, a month like February. How about February of this year?

Jeff Robertson stated, I believe that it was February.

Jim Brugh asked, were you an employee of Patriot Homes in February of this year?

Jeff Robertson stated, no sir.

Jim Brugh asked, are you an employee of Patriot Homes today?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes sir.

Jim Brugh asked, are you aquatinted by a person by the name of Steven K. Like?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, I am.

Jim Brugh asked, here is a subpoena, I will show this to you I guess. Does Steven K. Like, Patriot Homes, Elkhart Indiana right?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, is he your boss?

Jeff Robertson stated, no.

Jim Brugh asked, what is Mr. Like? Mr. Like is the fellow that has been talking.

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, and what is his position for Patriot Homes?

Jeff Robertson stated, he is the Corporate Attorney for Patriot Homes.

Jim Brugh asked, this subpoena asked for him to bring with him, a building permit that Denise Denton delivered to an agent Toni McClurg around January 13, 2001 relating to the sitting of the modular home which you sold to Denise Denton and Joey Stiltz, correct?

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Jim Brugh asked, and you are the person that was employed at that Patriot Homes when this home got sold right?

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Jim Brugh asked, and you just told the Board that you do have a procedure that you do require that you be handed a copy of the building permit, isn’t that correct?

Jeff Robertson stated, that’s correct.

Jim Brugh asked, are you referring to that as the sketch that has been shown this evening that was drawn by, the septic person?

Jeff Robertson stated, no sir.

Jim Brugh asked, no, it isn’t?

Jeff Robertson stated, it’s not the sketch. What I asked for is the actual blue building permit. I make copies of that and give the copies to the subcontractors such as the foundation contractor.

Jim Brugh asked, you just heard Denise Denton testify that she gave that blue building permit to Toni McClurg right?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, does Toni McClurg still work for Patriot Homes?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, she does.

Jim Brugh asked, what is her position?

Jeff Robertson stated, she is a housing consultant.

Jim Brugh asked, do you have that blue building permit with you?

Jeff Robertson stated, no sir, I do not.

Jim Brugh asked, do you know if anyone of you people from Patriot Homes this evening have that blue building permit with you?

Jeff Robertson stated, no, I do not.

Jim Brugh stated, I ask the Board to draw an inference from that. If this document is not produced, since it was last in the possession of Patriot Homes that from that failure to produce the document that you inferred that they did not bring it because it would make them look bad.

Steve Like stated, I will object to that influence.

Attorney Altman stated, we will receive the evidence and draw inference as they are.

Jim Brugh stated, thank you, I can present, well in that point of evidence.

Attorney Altman stated, very good, do it then.

Jim Brugh asked, did you tell either Denise or Joey Stiltz to stake and lay out exactly where this modular was to be put?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes, I did.

Jim Brugh asked, who did you say that to?

Jeff Robertson stated, I said it to Denise, as a matter of fact when I sold the home, Joey left I don’t know for what reason but, in the process of writing the contract, Joey left and came back to pick Denise up. During that time when I was writing the contract, when I was done writing the contract, I go over everything with the client. I also stated in there that the client is responsible for acquiring all permits i.e.; building and septic permits and after acquiring that at the time that they bought the home they did not have the property yet and it was going to be a long drawn out process. I told them that when they acquire the property make sure that the home can be set on the property and after they bought the property make sure that it was staked for when we build the foundation.

Jim Brugh asked, and you said this to Denise?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, what instructions, who did you hire to set this up?

Jeff Robertson asked, to set the home?

Jim Brugh stated, yes.

Jeff Robertson asked, or to build the foundation?

Jim Brugh stated, all of it.

Jeff Robertson stated, we used a contractor by the name of Denny Byers, very reputable to do the foundation work.

Jim Brugh stated, you say that he’s reputable. How many jobs does he do for you?

Jeff Robertson stated, oh, he does every home that we do, every home, 50 to 60 homes a year for us. Not to mention the other dealerships in the area.

Jim Brugh asked, the information that you had from Denise told you what the setbacks rules were, didn’t they?

Jeff Robertson stated, I did not ever see any of the…

Jim Brugh asked, didn’t you see the blue site plan?

Jeff Robertson stated, no, I did not.

Jim Brugh asked, did Toni McClurg?

Jeff Robertson stated, I believe so.

Jim Brugh asked, did you hear Denise say that she delivered this plan with the setback rules to Ms. McClurg?

Jeff Robertson stated, I heard her say yes, she delivered the building permit along with a drawing.

Jim Brugh asked, and it had setback rules on it right?

Jeff Robertson asked, the permit or the drawing?

Jim Brugh stated, well, whatever she said, the blue piece of paper had the setback rules for this commission on it.

Jeff Robertson stated, I don’t know, I didn’t see it.

Jim Brugh asked, your contract says that you will deliver, set and block and level the home right?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, doesn’t set the home mean set it in the right place?

Jeff Saylor asked, does a building permit actually show the setbacks?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it does.

Carol Stradling stated, I have a couple of questions also.

President Thompson stated yes, Carol.

Carol Stradling asked, is it the responsibility of this Board, if we say that this must be moved can we decide who needs to pay for moving it?

Attorney Altman stated, you can decide who might be fined for violating the Ordinance. Who is at fault, that would be up to a court of law and they would have to file legal action to decide that.

Carol Stradling asked, so if this testimony is establishing, who we fine, if we choose to fine?

Attorney Altman stated, because we have a violation before us, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, alright, and we also need to decide if that home is to remain where it is, or if it needs to be moved.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Gary Barbour asked, did Patriot Homes receive a copy of the building permit?

Jeff Robertson stated, they would have to in order to deliver the homes and put it on, well in order to even start the foundation.

Ron Pollock stated, then they didn’t really, the setback for that on a main highway is 80’. Right now it’s only 39’.

Jeff Robertson stated, yes sir.

Ron Pollock stated, so, it hasn’t followed the setback ordinance.

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, what do you do when you receive that building permit, do you just look at it and say I have a building permit and file it away?

Jeff Robertson stated, what we do is we make a copy of the building permit and we do give a copy of the building permit to the subcontractor so that when they are out there on the job site, if they are ever questioned they have the building permit.

Carol Stradling asked, whose responsibility is it read the building permit and be aware of what is permitted?

Jeff Robertson stated, it is the customer’s responsibility.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s the customer’s responsibility?

Jeff Robertson stated, yes ma’am. It is standard operating procedure with our company that our customers stake out their boundaries of where the home is going to go.

Carol Stradling stated, I heard you say that earlier but, I guess what I’m asking is you require a building permit.

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, alright.

Jeff Robertson stated, and the only reason that we require the building permit is so that we know, in order to do the work, we can’t put a home anywhere without a building permit.

Carol Stradling stated, and what you’re telling me then is, once you receive the building permit your company puts it wherever the customer tells you to.

Jeff Robertson stated, stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, no matter what is on that building permit.

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

President Thompson asked, why?

Jeff Robertson stated, why is because again, it’s our customers responsibility, it’s the customers responsibility it’s right there when we’re selling the home. We’re not a builder like you would have other dealerships that build garages and do the whole bit, we are a factory direct retailer.

President Thompson stated, but, you have a document that states that it is to be set here no matter who says what, it came from the Court House and it says that it’s going to be set in spot A.

Steve Like stated, can I comment on that remark?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Steve Like stated, the building permit does not say that, it’s my understanding that it has the setback requirements listed but, it does not have a drawing, that house where, there is no survey or anything attached to it that shows the exact site plan for that lot. It would be impossible for us without a surveyor to actually accurately determine the distance from either, the centerline of the road or the edge of the right-of-way whichever, it is that you’re using as the marker. So, that’s the point of reference that we come to and I know that I want to explain that when that building permit is issued it does not show the location of the house on the lot. All that it shows is what the parameters might be and how close to the boundary it might be allowed to set.

Ron Pollock asked, your subcontractor though is a builder and he is the one that built the footings right?

Jeff Robertson stated, stated, he built the foundation, yes sir.

Ron Pollock stated, then he is the one that should have known where it should be located.

Jeff Robertson stated, the reason that we require the client to stake the properties is because, we put homes all over the state and all of the counties, I think that they vary as far as what the setbacks area and what the reasons are and in town as well. So we ask that the customer get that information and stake out the property for us because, many different counties that we work in they are all different.

President Thompson stated, I understand that but, I can’t believe that you would accept a couple pieces of firewood as the official markers. What if he lays it down on a sidewalk.

Jeff Robertson stated, well, no of course that would have been questioned but, when we’re there at the site, the home is a pretty good ways off of the road. Actually, it looks okay and it’s further back from the road than the house right next door so with that in mind and the customer assumes, again assuming that customer took all of this into consideration, we started the foundation. It looks great and it’s back further than the home right next door and we assume that the customer…

Steve Like stated, let me tell you also that, I do have Denny Byers here that constructed the foundation and will give testimony and some of these questions might be better addressed with him.

Carol Stradling stated, I have one more questions because, these are comments that you have made. You have indicated that one you require a building permit.

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, on that building permit are the setback requirements. I don’t have a real good sense of distance but, I can understand that there is a big difference between 80’ and 38’ and I do believe that I could notice that.

Jeff Robertson stated, sure.

Carol Stradling stated, and one more comment and that is you indicated that you require that the customer stake the location.

Jeff Robertson stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, do you consider two pieces of firewood to be a stake location?

Jeff Robertson stated, when we refer to stake, it can be any type of marking at that location. I would like of it to be a stake but, if they, they can use a marking of whatever they can take orange paint if they just want to paint on the ground that’s fine.

Carol Stradling asked, does your contract with the client state that they need to locate it or does it state that that it needs to be staked? How does your contract read?

Jeff Robertson stated, it states on the contract that the customer is responsible for the location of the home and it also states that, that’s all that it states on there. It states on there that they are also responsible for acquiring all permits.

Director Weaver stated, I have something that I would like to tell the Board. When a building permit is issued from our office, we do inform the person that picks this permit up that the blue copy the permit itself is suppose to be posted on site. So, I don’t know what happens to that blue copy why it goes to your office and stays there because, it is suppose to be onsite.

Jeff Robertson stated, I have no idea, I was not employed with Patriot Homes at the time that permit was issued or brought to the store.

Steve Like stated, we will call Denny Byers as witness at this point. State your name please.

Denny Byers stated, Denny Byers.

Steve Like asked, where are you employed?

Denny Byers stated, I’m self employed, Byers Construction out of Attica, Indiana.

Steve Like asked, can you give the members of the Board here some idea of your experience or background?

Denny Byers stated, I have been self employed for 30 years, I do between 80 and 100 foundations for stick built houses and modular homes in a year, also wells, septic and driveways.

Steve Like asked, in your experience with other manufactured housing retailers, have you been responsible in the past for the location of the foundation on the building site?

Denny Byers stated, no, it’s usually up to the customer to set 4 stakes where the house is suppose to go. I work in 10 different counties, I don’t know all of the, the person goes out and buys 10 acres, I have no idea where his property lines are. So, I ask Patriot Homes or whomever I’m working for to tell the customer to set me 4 stakes where the house goes. It doesn’t have to be square, I will take care of getting it squared but, give me a general location of where you want it.

Steve Like asked, can you also, from your experience tell the members where there are ordinances that measure the setbacks from the centerline of the road adjacent to the property verses the edge of the right-of-way? Do you know that? Are there some Ordinances that measure from the centerline verses some that measure from the right-of-way?

Denny Byers stated, yes, there is.

Steve Like asked, so in this case, do you even know what the White County Ordinance provides in terms of the standard, does it measure from the center of the road or from the edge of the right-of-way?

Denny Byers stated, I do not know.

Steve Like asked, and neither do I, by the way. Were you involved for the construction of the house for the respondents Stiltz and Denton?

Denny Byers stated, yes, I was.

Steve Like asked, could you describe for the members here the first meeting with them?

Denny Byers stated, the first time that I went out there…

Steve Like asked, could you give us a date please, approximately?

Denny Byers stated, it was in February, the later part of February, if I remember right or sometime anyway it was cold, the ground was froze I tried to dig the foundation and I couldn’t get through it because it was froze too deep.

Steve Like asked, how did you know where to start digging?

Denny Byers stated, I called Joey and he met me out there and I asked him. I looked around for some stakes and I couldn’t find any stakes. I ran into cement blocks and painted markers on the ground but I couldn’t figure out anything. When he come out there he said “I have 4 pieces of wood, 4 block laid out here where I want the house between these two trees” and I said, “at an angle?” I said “you’re going to set it at an angle, not straight with the road?” He said “no we want it set at an angle, like that.” I said “okay” so, I started to dig. So, I left and I come back about 3 weeks later when the ground was thawed out and the pieces of wood was still there and I went ahead and put the foundation in.

Steve Like asked, was Mr. Stiltz present when you attempted to dig the foundation the second time?

Denny Byers stated, yes, he was.

Steve Like asked, so did he in fact watch you dig it?

Denny Byers stated, yes, he was there when we, I don’t think that he was there when we dug the footers but, he was there while we were pouring the concrete.

Steve Like asked, did you at anytime take any measurements from any point of reference for any purpose? Did you take any measurements at all?

Denny Byers stated, no, I did not because, like I said I do not know where his property lines are or anything.

Steve Like asked, did you have any type of survey or any drawing of his property?

Denny Byers stated, all that I had was a copy of the building permit.

Steve Like asked, so it didn’t show where the house was to be located, you relied on Mr. Stiltz for that?

Denny Byers stated, yes, sir.

Steve Like stated, I have no further questions.

Jim Brugh asked, that building permit that you had, had the setbacks on it didn’t it?

Denny Byers stated, yes sir.

Jim Brugh asked, and you read it?

Denny Byers stated, yes sir.

Jim Brugh asked, what did that mean to you?

Denny Byers stated, it meant that I was suppose to be so far from the State right-of-way, so far from these back property lines, this East and West property line.

Jim Brugh asked, and did you take a look and see if it was?

Denny Byers stated, no I did not because, I did not know where his property lines were.

Jim Brugh stated, well, you knew where the edge of the road was.

Denny Byers stated, okay.

Jim Brugh stated, okay.

Denny Byers stated, yes sir.

Jim Brugh asked, did you eye ball it?

Denny Byers stated, yes sir.

Jim Brugh asked, did you have a measurement device with you?

Denny Byers stated, a tape.

Jim Brugh asked, did you tape it?

Denny Byers stated, no sir.

Jim Brugh asked, who assigned this job to you from Patriot Homes?

Denny Byers stated, I think that it was Jeff.

Jim Brugh asked, you said that you had the site plan?

Denny Byers stated, no, I had a copy of the building permit.

Jim Brugh asked, who gave it to you?

Denny Byers stated, Jeff.

Jim Brugh asked, Jeff who?

Denny Byers stated, Robertson.

Jim Brugh stated, nothing further.

Steve Like asked, on that building permit is there anything, do you know is there anything that indicates whether the setback is measured from the center of the road or from the edge of the right-of-way?

Denny Byers stated, no, it doesn’t say, it just says….

Steve Like stated, so many feet.

Denny Byers stated, so many feet, it doesn’t say from the center of the road, from the edge of the road from fence line or anything.

Ron Pollock asked, I have a question, you say that you’re the contractor and you had no sketches, no drawings, do you normally work like that?

Denny Byers stated, yes sir. Like I said, it’s up to the customer, they are spending 80, 90 or 100 thousand dollars, I feel like they should have their house put on their lot where they want it. I do a lot of them that way.

President Thompson asked, about how many foundations would you say that you have placed in White County in the last 12 months?

Denny Byers asked, in White County?

President Thompson stated, yes, roughly.

Denny Byers stated, 8 to 10.

President Thompson asked, and you have never been concerned about where they, where you measure from, from the center of the street, the road or the right-of-way?

Denny Byers stated, like I said…

President Thompson asked, there is no other county that sits upon that being clear that you do work in?

Denny Byers stated, you have to have building permits in a lot of counties, as a matter of fact just about every county except Fountain County, you don’t have to have a building permit in Fountain County. All of the other counties you have to have a building permit. There is a lot of them that have no setbacks, it’s not actually on the building permit itself.

Carol Stradling asked, are we voting on the fine first or the approval or disapproval of the variance? We really haven’t asked any questions pertaining to the variance to this point. When you said that you were ready to vote, are we voting on the fine?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that I was going to wait and see if we had any more evidence this evening, go ahead on that.

Steve Like stated, I do have one other statement that I would like to make and it’s regarding, if you would look at the building permit itself a copy of it was attached to the complaint, does not have point of reference. It has building setbacks but, it does not say whether it’s from the centerline of the road or from the edge of the right-of-way. The house is in fact 78’ from the centerline of the road. It looks appropriate on the lot and for the neighborhood to a builder unfamiliar with the local rules and was used to working in a county that had setbacks measured from the centerline of the street the house looked appropriate. I’m not excusing that in anyway, it’s just that it’s not a terribly stupid mistake to make that, put that house where it’s located and if you would see it on the site you would understand what I’m talking about.

President Thompson stated, we have pictures.

Steve Like stated, good.

Jim Brugh asked, could I ask Denise Denton one more question, if I could? Denise, you understand that you’re still under oath?

Denise Denton stated, yes.

Jim Brugh asked, did the salesman tell you to stake the property?

Denise Denton stated, no, not me, I was told to obtain my building permits.

Jim Brugh stated, nothing further.

Attorney Altman stated, Carol, you said that you have questions that you want, we might as well get all of the questions answered and then which one to handle first.

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, this building here and this building here, they are mobile homes? So there is no foundation set?

Attorney Altman stated, the question is referenced to photographs that are part of the Director has provided for us, the bottom two pictures of that.

Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you for sure, it’s been over a month ago since I was up there but, this is a mobile home and I believe that this is a standard home.

Jim Brugh stated, Denise can tell you that.

Director Weaver asked, the house to the East of you, is it a mobile home or it a standard home?

Joey Stiltz stated, they are both trailers, one on each side.

Steve Like stated, can I make a point though that there is a permit site built garage on that property to the East.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Jeff Saylor stated, someone goes to a professional to have that home installed, has a right to expect a certain amount of information and help. Clearly you not the professional, you’re the customer and they have the nice boiler plate contract that takes them out of the loop and I think that it was just a case of someone depending upon someone else that could have gone a step farther to help them but, didn’t. I don’t know that, I can’t see on my way of thinking that the contractor, the provider out of the loop on this one. I don’t think that I’m inclined to analyze the buyers, I think that they could have given much more assistance in this than they were but, if there wasn’t any contractional obligation for the seller to do that.

Carol Stradling asked, Jerry, does the contract indicate whether or not the property needs to be staked?

Attorney Altman stated, not that I can see.

Carol Stradling asked, or that it’s marked out?

Attorney Altman stated, not that I can actually see, it does not indicate that it needs to be staked.

President Thompson stated, I see it a little different, go ahead, I will give them a chance.

Ron Pollock asked, they have it diagonal from the road, was that on your sketch?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, it wouldn’t have had the right rear setback then.

Director Weaver stated, their dimensions on their sketch are not correct.

Carol Stradling stated, the sketch even says that there is 3.33 acres and the survey indicates 1 acre.

Director Weaver stated, the survey is from the subdivision plat that’s why.

President Thompson stated, I put this on the owner because, the fellow that put in the foundation he asked him to mark it and Mr. Stiltz, let's face it was not very precise. He did not have a tape measure just for the lack of better terms, he just stepped it off and put a piece of wood there. He should have been much more precise in laying out his own home if it’s his responsibility the way that I see it. If he had marked this down with the home in a foundation he asked him, obviously he asked him is this what you want.

Ron Pollock stated, I never heard of a contractor though working without sketches….

President Thompson stated, me neither.

Jeff Saylor stated, I guess that was the point that I was making is, I feel that there should have been much more assistance in this than….

President Thompson stated, I agree.

Jeff Saylor stated, a lot of interest in selling something and not a lot of interest in what happens after the fact.

Gary Barbour stated, I pretty much agree with everything that has been said, I still, there should be a lot more emphasis on the builder. They are going to them as a professional seller, builder and homeowner being subcontractors should be a lot more responsible to make sure that, they are at as much fault as what the owner is.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess one thought that is running through my mind is, if Mr. Byers has had experience where he has built on the wrong property, I think it would be his professional obligation to explain the ramifications of that and assure the customer that they get everything the way that it needs to be done. I don’t know how much you folks have paid these people to put this building on your lot. I don’t know what your expectations were when you requested that they build your home but, I know personally, I would expect that if someone was building a home that they are the professional and they would help me along in the process…

Attorney Altman asked, I think that it’s time to have a motion of what you’re proposing Carol one way or the other and then vote on the variance. You can have a couple of proposals relative to the violation and we can just vote. Do you have a proposal?

Carol Stradling stated, do we need to accept that there is a violation that may….

Attorney Altman stated, I think that is almost stipulated…

Carol Stradling stated, that’s on the record so, we don’t need it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s on the record.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so what we need to do is decide if a fine should be levied?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling asked, so we need to make a motion to that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, someone needs to make a motion with that and a responsible person or persons.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not sure how to say it.

President Thompson stated, this is difficult.

Attorney Altman stated, give me an amount and the people and I will advise the motion.

Carol Stradling asked, could I make one further point of information? How much would it cost to move it into the appropriate location? Do you understand that it could not be at an angle and the setbacks on your lot would not permit it being set at an angle? I don’t know if you noticed that on your survey.

Denise Denton stated, I don’t understand any of it.

Carol Stradling stated, on your survey that Mr. Milligan did, there is a dotted line with a square box. What that indicates is your front setback off of the highway. Your rear setback off of the back property line and your side setbacks from either side, it’s essentially a very long rectangle in the middle of your property. It would not allow it to be set at an angle.

Denise Denton stated, okay.

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

Director Weaver stated, we had a neighbor in last month but I’m not aware of anyone being here.

President Thompson asked, nothing in writing for or against for this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, alright.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s time for a motion.

President Thompson asked, anyone?

Attorney Altman stated, there doesn’t have to be a fine imposed.

Carol Stradling asked, how much would it cost to have this put in an acceptable…

Jeff Robertson stated, we’re thinking that it’s going to be in the neighborhood of around 20,000 to 22,000 thousand dollars to move that house.

Carol Stradling asked, just to reset it?

Steve Like stated, yes, because we will have to remove the existing foundation entirely and it will have to be, everything that is there will have to be demolished. Then we will have to start over. There isn’t any way to adapt the existing foundation to the building site. The plan, apparently, it was attached to the building permit showed it at an angle. Which, you can not be apparently based upon the actual dimensions of the lot and your building setback requirements and if you issued a building permit based upon the drawing that is attached to it I can not see how we can be responsible for it….

Jim Brugh stated, wait a minute, I object….

President Thompson stated, he has the floor, you will have your turn.

Jim Brugh stated, I thought that we were done.

Steve Like stated, if it can be placed at an angle, it can not be placed on….

Attorney Altman stated, just answer the question Mr. Like.

Steve Like stated, that’s the answer, it will be around 20,000 to 22,000 thousand dollars to tear that house apart and move it to a location that would fit on your existing setbacks and the actual dimensions of the lot as we now understand it.

Carol Stradling stated, that answered my question.

Jeff Saylor stated, since I can not fine the parties that I would like to, I would like to make a motion that we acknowledge the violation but, impose no fine.

Attorney Altman asked, I have a motion, is there any discussion on that?

Ron Pollock stated, if there is a violation but no fines, is what he is saying.

President Thompson stated, that what he asked, that’s what he suggested.

Ron Pollock asked, what does that do as far as, where does it put us as far as the house, the building?

Attorney Altman stated, you have to vote on the variance or not vote on the variance.

President Thompson stated, accept the variance or not.

Ron Pollock stated, I second his motion.

Carol Stradling asked, so what you’re saying Jeff is that because of the contract that Patriot Homes has with the customer we can’t fine Patriot Homes because, they have placed all responsibility on the customers?

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s the way that I understand, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, is that your understanding of the contract Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, that is probably the understanding for the contract but, that doesn’t mean that you can’t assess a fine against anyone that is brought in as a party defendant, respondent.

Carol Stradling asked, because, they have built this home they have obligations to White County?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s what I want to verify if they do in fact have a responsibility and obligation in this county….

Attorney Altman stated, when you site something, build something, they have an obligation to do it correctly consistently with the setbacks that is required by our ordinance.

President Thompson asked, and your reasoning for no fine, when we have a clear cut violation?

Jeff Saylor stated, my own feeling is when you have non professional dealing with professionals you should expect a certain amount of assistance and I think that that’s not right.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion before we vote on the motion? If not, it’s been moved to acknowledge the violation with no fine. All in favor signify by saying I, all opposed the same?

Due to a split vote the motion did not pass.

Attorney Altman stated, the motion fails, it didn’t have 3 votes.

Ron Pollock stated, Carol, there was a gentleman here at the last meeting that was opposed to it, his neighbor across the street that was opposed to this.

Carol Stradling asked, the variance?

Ron Pollock stated, yes, the other thing is there are two lots and they plan on building another one right next to it…

Carol Stradling asked, these folks do?

Ron Pollock stated, she has 2 lots.

Director Weaver stated, they are proposing to go through a subdivision, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so when Patriot Homes built this you had 3.3 acres?

Joey Stiltz stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that’s how this all come about was from their subdivision plat.

Denise Denton stated, the other lot is for my mother. I done all of the sketching before I wanted to subdivide it off then of course the sketch, I went back and asked for a subdivision and had done the other sketch.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, if you want, I do have the unapproved minutes from the last meeting.

President Thompson asked, the motion has been denied do we hear plan B?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I’m not sure that I’m ready to vote. I didn’t know if I want to vote yes or no. It’s too late now…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s too late now, make your motion, table it whatever you’re going to do.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I’m seeing now is Patriot Homes looked at this property being 3.3 acres and they looked at the setbacks. If you did take it from the centerline I think that there would be plenty of room out there.

Gary Barbour stated, they’re all at fault.

Carol Stradling stated, they’re all at fault and what is fair to do, I’m sorry.

Ron Pollock asked, could we make a motion that we table it and it come back?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, the piece of paper that he was suppose to petition for didn’t bring to us.

Attorney Altman stated, make your motion.

Ron Pollock stated, I make a motion that we table it.

Attorney Altman stated, until the next meeting, which will be next month.

Ron Pollock stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, is there a second?

Gary Barbour asked, what is that going to do if they bring it back to the next meeting? That really doesn’t resolve the issue

Ron Pollock stated, he said that we won’t know what….

Carol Stradling stated, he couldn’t start building with out it so even if he didn’t get it he should not have started building before he got it.

President Thompson stated, but the homeowner told him where to break ground right?

Gary Barbour stated, I make a motion that we levee a fine against all 3 parties 250 dollars against each of the builders and 100 dollars against the owners.

Jeff Saylor asked, each of the builders meaning?

Gary Barbour stated, meaning the subcontractor and Patriot Homes.

President Thompson asked, 250 dollars a piece and 100 dollars to the homeowner? Is that right Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, because, you think that the homeowner had some responsibility?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Ron Pollock stated, I second that.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded that we assess a fine of 250 dollars to Patriot Homes and 250 dollars to the subcontractor that placed the foundation and 100 dollars to the homeowner which is Joey Stiltz and Denise Denton it’s been seconded. All in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed the same? Motion carried.

Attorney Altman stated, you have before you the vote on the variance.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Ready to vote, right? Let's vote.

Carol Stradling asked, if we deny this variance, they need to move it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, if you violate the amendment is a violation.

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 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 42’ front setback variance from State Road 16 and an 8’ rear setback variance to bring the newly built home into compliance on (lot #1 in the proposed Wanda’s Acre Subdivision) that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 28 North, Range 5 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at a railroad spike at the Southwest corner of said Section 14; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 39 seconds West (Indian State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 250.01 feet to a Survey nail; thence North 89 degrees 08 minutes 55 seconds East 584.39 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 01 degrees 27 minutes 25 seconds West 250.21 feet to a survey nail on the section line; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 55 seconds West (576.02 feet – measured) (575.21 feet – recorded) to the point of beginning, containing 3.330 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township Northeast corner of C.R. 500 W. and State Road 16.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the fines being paid.

Jim Brugh asked, where do we pay the fine?

Director Weaver stated, my office.

Attorney Altman stated, at her office.

****

#1196 C.D.C. Resources, Inc.; Requesting a special exception as per Section10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a group home on lot #27 & #29 in Countrybrook Subdivision II. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 107 S. Countrybrook Drive.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this special exception this evening?

Dan Blaney stated, yes, I’m the Attorney from Morocco, Indiana and I have had the pleasure of representing CDC for, I don’t know 10 or 15 years now. I’m here tonight with Mike Cruz and Brad Gutwein and there may be some other folks in the audience too that will present testimony to you. I might tell you a point of reference, how I got involved in this. Mr. Cruz came to me and told me that he had filed for a special exception to put another group home here in Monticello. They already have several homes here and they will show you the pictures of them, how long that they have been here and what the neighbors think of the present group homes. He told me that he had applied but, he had been told that there was some opposition by the people that live out in Countrybrook Subdivision South of Monticello, objecting to a group home being placed on the property. He further told me that Mr. and Mrs. Rice, whom I don’t know but they had owned their lot there in Countrybrook for approximately 20 some years. The objectors when I went to your Building Commissioner I was furnished a copy of their petition and you all have a copy of that petition. Basically what that petition says is that there is a covenant in our subdivision that says that it will only be single family unit housing. They provided you with their covenants and I believe that they are dated 1972 and maybe they were amended in 1973 and it sets out certain things in there expectations of people what they might expect for their houses and these are very nice houses. The restrictions not only deal with single family units but it also talks about sheds and barns and various other things. Now, I don’t know if there has ever been any other proceeding where they have come in and said that someone couldn’t build a shed or they couldn’t have a little barn or they couldn’t have a hair dressing business or what ever but, that is really immaterial.

The reason that we are here tonight is because, CDC has always had an open policy and they want everyone to know and not only the Monticello community but, all of the counties that they serve. What in fact that they are doing to assess the needs of the citizens of our respective counties. So, that is why they are here before you this evening and they have asked for a special exception. I believe, when I looked up the law and the law to me is clear. I will have, Mr. Altman explain that to you but, there is a State Statute that was enacted in 1992 and basically says if you have a restriction that you can’t have a group home or if a public body says that you can’t have a group home that violates the public policy and that you can’t consider that covenant or restriction. Now, the law besides, or not even considering the law we think that you will find after you listen to what Mr. Gutwein has to say and Mr. Cruz that you will find that these people are just like you and I. Only they are special needs persons and that they do live in homes just like most of us do. They do come and go they don’t have 12 cars or they don’t have a bunch of things or they don’t change the look of their houses. This house, it’s my understanding that the only change would be handicap ramp on it. I’m sure that wherever you live you know neighbors that have handicap ramps and you may even have one at your house for your parents, grandparents or you wife or whatever the case might be. That’s sort of common that we have now but, Mr. Gutwein, Brad Gutwein, he is the President ahead of Comprehensive Development Centers, he’s a volunteer and I think that Brad want’s to address you.

Brad Gutwein stated, I’m the President of the Board of Directors of CDC Incorporated. I have a couple of prepared notes here if it sounds canned it’s because it kind of is. Based on national statistics, there are about 250 people in White County that have severe disabilities and that’s the national average. That is about 1 percent of the county population. That is about 25,000 so that’s kind of how they came up with that figure. With the baby boomer population slowly aging there is going to be more and more people in that county that are going to need housing in the future special needs as their parents may pass away and they may need assistance in providing housing and support for their special needs. One of the things that CDC has done over the past as we have provided that.

The agency was founded about 48 years ago by parents of children that needed assistance because of their special needs and to kind of paraphrase CDC’s mission is to assist individuals with disabilities to reach their full potential. Over the last couple years CDC has put some resources into providing housing for some of the consumers, as we call them. Recently you have probably seen where we have completed construction of Chestnut Village it’s an apartment complex that has about 15 units in it and it’s there for consumers that don’t need 24 hour need supervision. There is someone there to help them if they need it but they can pretty much come and go as they please. We are also in the process of building a smaller complex like that in Carroll County and we have put in for HUD funding to put a similar project in Jasper County also. We have property over there that we plan on doing this also there. We have several group homes here in White County, we have a group home in Carroll County. This is something that the agency feels that as a stuart of public funds we’re primarily, we’re basically completely public funded either by Medicare or State Funds or by donations from County Agencies or the county themselves. We have a duty to provide such services to the citizens of the 5 counties that we serve and for those of you that do not know we serve 5 counties, Carroll, White, Benton, Jasper and Newton. We only have, we have buildings in White County the center here and we have a center in Jasper County.

It’s been quite a while, probably 6 to 8 months, the Board and the staff have discussed the needs that two of our group homes are not accessible by people that have wheelchairs or may have problems climbing steps and things like that. So we have been considering the need to come up with another group home that would be accessible for people that have wheelchair needs. Once the Board decided that was the direction that we wanted to take, of course we have to go to the State because, everything that we do has to be approved by the State. We asked them for permission to begin the process of acquiring another home that would fit our needs. When we put in our application or request for the State, we said that we wanted one that would have at least 4 bedrooms. As we did our search around the Monticello area because, the two homes that we wanted to eventually sell are here in Monticello. So, we wanted to keep the new home in the area because of the consumers most of them still have family in the area so we wanted to keep the new group home near the current locations. We ruled out rural homes because we wanted a home that had a sewer system, hooked up to city sewers. Most of you have probably heard about the sewer project at the North end of town, the agency has had to deal with the lack of inadequate sewer system. So, we wanted to make sure that if we were successful in acquiring another property that it had an actual sewer system hooked up to it instead of a septic system. So as we did this search we came up with one home in Countrybrook that surprised everyone at the center we were very pleased with the affordability of the project and the fact that it could be adapted for people with special needs about mobility. We’re going to have 2 bathrooms at opposite ends of the house so that if the point and time came that we ended up with a co-ed setting that, that would not be a problem. The house is, it’s a nice house and it’s been well maintained the neighborhood is a very nice neighborhood, I don’t live very far from the neighborhood and we were very pleased with the opportunity. I’m not sure how many people in the audience here have seen our other projects but here are some pictures here if you want to look at them, take a look at our other group homes. We do a very good job of maintaining them. We’re not a slum landlord and don’t plan to be one. Along with the pictures, the Board has been provided with all of these pictures, they have also been provided with letters from various neighbors that currently live next to all of our group homes. I would like to read one, I will not read them all, I had to sit through the first hour and a half too so I’m not going to prolong this any more. This is from Jennifer Pack and she is a Loan Officer with Lafayette Bank and Trust so, she has kind of a view on both sides. She lives next to a group home but, she also lends money to people that may be buying the home next to a group home.

Brad Gutwein read the letter from Jennifer Pack out loud to the Board and the audience members.

Brad Gutwein stated, and she goes on to say that please feel free to contact me. I think because of the track record that we have had and because of not withstanding all of the legal issues, I’m not here to argue that kind of stuff. It’s the belief of the Board of Directors that CDC has been very responsible and very sensitive to the stuartship. Basically, our properties are public properties since they are funded by tax dollars and because of that, that this variance should be granted we’re not out to trash the neighborhood. There is a definite need in the community the housing survey that we did in the Rensselaer area showed a tremendous need for group homes and apartment complexes for people with special needs and I feel that our organization goes a long way to providing those needs. Thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, just for the record this is a special exception, not a variance. It’s very significant in the legal situation.

Mike Cruz stated, I’m the Executive Director for CDC and I am going to say some things that are complementary to what Dan and Brad had said. Basically, when we decided to make an offer and it was accepted on a home in Countrybrook, we anticipated some opposition. There is some 540 group homes in the State and I would say probably without exception I have no way of validating it, that there has been neighborhood opposition every time that a group home is opened. It is not unnatural, people have concerns about how this home, how this group of people are going to fit into the neighborhood, what is it going to do with the parking? Are they going to be roaming around in a subdivision? Those types of concerns, people have and I understand that. They’re natural and we were prepared to address these issued earlier. We had anticipated offering, having an open house and inviting neighbors from the Countrybrook Subdivision out to visit and to see what a typical home is like and answer questions in that regard. But, because we got wind pretty quickly of opposition we decided to hold back on that and present, address those issues tonight.

I’m going to talk about how a group home is operated. Basically, it is not a business, it’s a home for adult individuals who benefit from living close to family and friends. The individuals in that home receive 24 hours supervised attention. These people benefit from living close to family and friends, in some cases they have jobs, we have at least 2 people with jobs. Others are involved in volunteer activities here in the community, they go to the Kiwanni’s Sanction Club, they enjoy bowling, they participate in vocational and daily living skills activities almost on a daily basis during the week. They attend church, the enjoy living in a homelike atmosphere in a typical neighborhood instead of being isolated in some distant institution. This address will be home to 7 men and women. CDC currently operates 4 licensed group homes and as I mentioned there is over 500 around the state. Every home is tightly regulated by the State Board of Health and has to meet rigorous Medicaid standards. Our homes are indistinguishable from others in the neighborhood residences lead busy and engaged lives with 24-hour supervision. They go to bed early and are off to services everyday just like most community residences. Staff actively work to help consumers to be as self sufficient as they possibly can, that is done on an individual basis. Our agency vehicles are unmarked usually only 1 staff car is present and as Dan had mentioned the only external changes that we contemplate is a ramp off of the front door. We are going to modify a bathroom on the inside to be wheelchair accessible. We have almost a quarter of a century legacy of successfully operating group homes here in Monticello as far as we know there has been no unresolved problems in the current neighborhoods where our homes are located. Property values have not been effected by CDC group homes, in any community neighborhood, that we’re aware of. This situation concurs with hundreds of national studies which found no evidence to support the assertion the group homes lower to adjacent property values further we treat group homes as homes with residences as family members. This is the only way that some of the folks that we serve can live in this community. They each have a right to live in this community they each have different personalities, strengths and weaknesses, just like us. They face challenges each day that I hope that none of us or our families will never have to know but, the families and caregivers of these adults had no choice from the time that they were born. Everything has been a struggle so, we find ourselves here debating legal points when the core issue is one of fairness and civil rights. Do they have a right to live in their own community? We think so and those of us that are here speaking on behalf of CDC are giving voice to a small and venerable part of our community who can not advocate for themselves.

President Thompson asked, do we have any other opposition or anything in favor, in writing?

Director Weaver stated, yes, they are in the blue folder.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to speak in favor of this special exception? Has the Board had a chance to look through everything here? I was just found out that we had more information here. Do you have your blue folder, there are two other documents, just so everyone has the same. Is anyone here opposed to the variance that would like to address the Board?

Stuart Boehning stated, I’m an attorney, I represent a vast majority of the landowners of Countrybrook Subdivision. I’m going to be brief because I know that the Board members here have been here a while. Basically, I want to present 3 issues that will make your decision relatively easy and first and foremost, let me make it real clear, we do not oppose CDC, we’re not against CDC but, we want the integrity of our covenants and restrictions upheld by this Quasijudicial Board. The three issues that I want to raise tonight is, first of all, the vast majority of the landowners in Countrybrook Subdivision, oppose this special exception. The second point that I want to make is, there are recorded in the White County Recorders Office, covenants and restrictions that would prohibit this type of use. The third issue is, a point of law, in our Supreme Court has held that these covenants and restrictions are valid because they are a contract and I will explain that in a little bit.

First of all, my first point, the vast majority of the owners of Countrybrook Subdivision do oppose this. As a little back ground this subdivision was platted by Howard and Dolores Britton in the early 1970’s. On October 15, 1971 there was recorded the covenants and restrictions which were once modified and recorded in 1972 and these are for the subdivision phase 2. If I could please have except for the petitioners all of those who live in Countrybrook Subdivision, please stand. If the record could reflect that is approximately 50 to 60 percent, if I were to estimate.

Attorney Altman stated, I have 30.

Stuart Boehning stated, 30, thank you Mr. Altman. Actually, could you remain standing? All of those that are opposed to this special exception please sit down. Would the record reflect, yes sir….

Glenn Haskell asked, could I make a point please?

Attorney Altman stated, not yet.

Glenn Haskell, we would like to before they are done.

Stuart Boehning stated, would the record reflect that there were 2 that remained standing. So 28 opposed this special exception and 2 are not opposed, are in favor.

Attorney Altman stated, so noted.

Stuart Boehning stated, there’s a petition that I believe is on file and I can hand this or pass this around….

Attorney Altman stated, it certainly is, we have a copy that we would accept one or two and I can just note that they are part of the record.

Stuart Boehning stated, if you would please just note that is part of the record.

Attorney Altman stated, put that as objectors Exhibit A and the Board has a copy of this.

Stuart Boehning stated, there are 30 lots in Countrybrook Subdivision and 22 houses. Of the 30 lots, 24 have opposed this special exception so 80 percent and that be via it be the petition that is in front of you. I have a chart, Exhibit B & C, I would like to enter this into evidence if I may Mr. Altman. This is a blowup of the subdivision, this is Subdivision 2, Exhibit C, and this is subdivision 1, Exhibit B. The green stars are the proposed lots for the special exception that would be lots 27 and 29. The red stars are those who have signed the petition opposing the special exception and if you will note that there are stars to my knowledge on all of the lots in Subdivision #2, so everyone in Subdivision #2 opposes the special exception. The only ones that are in Subdivision #1 there are some lots that do not oppose and some that do oppose.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record subdivision Countrybrook Subdivision #1 as objectors Exhibit B, I really haven’t tendered these but do you have any objections Mr. Blaney?

Dan Blaney stated, no sir, no objections.

Attorney Altman stated, the other one would be, objectors Exhibit C. I will circulate those.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Boehning can you state how many lots are in Subdivision #2 and how many are in #1?

Stuart Boehning stated, absolutely, there are 20 lots in Subdivision #2.

An audience member stated, 2 are empty.

Stuart Boehning stated, 2 are empty and there are, it looks to be 10 in Subdivision #1. Since these are bulky I won’t pass these around, I will just lay them by Mr. Altman. If I could Mr. Altman I would like to pass out the covenants and restrictions along with 2 Indiana cases that are Supreme Court, Court of Appeals that decided along the same exact lines as the issues that is up in front of this Board.

Attorney Altman stated, I have no objections to getting a copy of that.

Dan Blaney stated, the only comment that I might have is I would like a copy of that also please.

Stuart Boehning stated, absolutely, we need to mark one for the record.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be objectors Exhibit D.

Stuart Boehning stated, if I can identify for Mr. Blaney the first one is the covenants and the second is the appeals court decision and the third is the Supreme Court decision, if someone may be wondering. So we have established the point that the majority of the owners of Countrybrook oppose this special exception. The second point is that the covenants, which you have in front of you, specifically prohibit this type of entity in the subdivision. Our courts have said that our covenants and restrictions are contracts and it has to be signed by all of the property owners at that time and duly recorded. It runs with the land if in that document it states it runs with the land and it continues with the land. All of those have been met in our recorded covenants and restrictions. If you will note in number 1 is says that all lots shall be used only for residential purposes, and shall, not may but, shall be only single family dwellings. Now the proposed use for this special exception would violate that. Number 4 says, no businesses and it continues on but, no businesses, this would also violate the covenants and restrictions. So this is clearly a violation of these covenants and restrictions that were record in 1971. Now the third point that I’m going to make is the last case that you have is our Supreme Court decision of December of 1991 by Justice Brent Dickson. This case is directly on point with what you are deciding and we ask that as a quasijudicial branch that you uphold what our Supreme Court has said. Mr. Blaney is absolutely correct when he said that there is a law in the books that says that you can not have a covenant or restriction that would prohibit a home for the disabled, such as, what we’re here tonight. You may ask well Stuart, how can you say then that it violates the laws because, our Supreme Court says that the legislature can enact this statute and that applies to everything forward you can not apply to backwards. It can not go retroactive and our Supreme Court said that contracts are a part of our constitution of Indiana. The legislature can not expose something that would undo a contract, you can in the future any subdivisions after 1992 that’s fine, it creates a special exception. The subdivision with the covenants and duly recorded restrictions file and recorded prior to that date and we feel that you have a duty to deny it because our supreme court has stated so. So we would ask that 1 at the majority would oppose this special exception and that we would also ask that you please follow the law as outlined by our Supreme Court. Thank you.

President Thompson asked, anyone else care to address the Board, in favor?

Phillip Flora stated, the CDC when they were selecting a site for this home, I was wondering if they found any property in the city where the covenant would not be broken other than the home that is out there in Countrybrook.

Mike Cruz stated, we did not.

Phillip Flora asked, of the hundreds of homes available, they could not find one that wasn’t?

Mike Cruz stated, we worked with Zook Reality and Becky White and we looked at every home. We had several conditions required we needed a 4 bedroom home we wanted a 4 bedroom home on a ranch style because that is the only way that we can really make it totally accessible. We wanted it with a layout, an internal layout that had at least one bedroom on one end of the house and one or more bedrooms on the other end of the house. As far as I know, if I can recall correctly, there were only 2 homes that met that condition when we were doing the search out in the country. As Brad had mentioned, we had chronic problems because, we do more laundry and utilization showers and that sort of stuff. So a septic system is not something that we were willing to consider so the only home that we were really able to find that met the criteria which we didn’t know before hand, was that home. So when we did that, it was kind of like well this is the only home that we can go after.

Phillip Flora stated, that seemed kind of odd with hundreds of homes available here in Monticello. I was wondering too, they have a 3 car garage down there, are they going to be using all of those garages?

Mike Cruz stated, no.

Phillip Flora asked, no?

Mike Cruz stated, no, we would have a van in one and then we would probably have the staff vehicle in another one, we would probably have one empty one.

Phillip Flora stated, that’s all that I have to say, thank you.

President Thompson stated, sir, you had your hand up earlier, do you care to address the Board now?

Glen Haskell stated, I thought that I lived on Countrybrook but when they took the petition around I found out that I guess that I don’t and no one came to see me. Now, I don’t know why, except I do have a grandson that lives in one of their apartments. They don’t know whether I’m for it or against it but, I will say this, I think CDC handled this entirely wrong. When they decided and looked at that house they should have sent a letter to every owner on Countrybrook Drive telling them how the house would be utilized. The real-estate agent, I think made a mistake because, they should have known that we had restrictions. We should have had a meeting besides you people to settle the difficulties because, I feel sorry for you people here and I feel especially sorry for these parents right here who thought they had a house for their children to live in. That’s all that I have to say thank you.

Judy Wooldridge stated, I live across the street from the property. I just wanted to explain to Mr. Haskell that I did go to his door to see about him signing the petition and no one answered. I only went one time but, I basically only went one time to everyone’s house I didn’t get you, I didn’t get you so that was not intended for you to feel excluded.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the Board this evening?

Perdue Powlen stated, if they need this residence so bad, where are these people now and why is it necessary to put them in a home. Number two, I understand, the rumor is, I don’t know what they are paying for this and I don’t know where they get the money but, I suppose out of Perdue Powlen’s pocket, some of it. What they are paying for this they can build what they want for that kind of money and have room to spare. I know what I’m talking about.

President Thompson asked, would you like to address that?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes. The people that will be moving into this group home are already living in Monticello in a group home. There is one group home about 3 block South of here on Main Street, on South Main Street, and the other group home is over on Linda Avenue. Our proposal is add on to our group home on Riley Road in Delphi, add one bedroom and a wheelchair accessible bathroom there and 2 of the 9 people in the original group homes will go there the other 7 would go to Countrybrook.

Perdue Powlen asked, is that the limit?

Brad Gutwein stated, 7 is the limit. We are not, 19 is the maximum that CDC is allowed period and 8 is the maximum per home. Seven would be the maximum that we would have in this home. The home as far as we are concerned in terms of square footage it’s not suitable for a larger number.

Bill Moore stated, I live right next door to the property in question. Our home is as well for sale because, I need to move to Lafayette for a job relocation. We have been honest with the people that have come to look at our home when we found out about the special exception and we have had people say that if this goes through they are no longer interested in our home. So, that would go directly contrary to what the Attorney said back here, gentlemen because, I have personal experience with that at this point and time. I think that I agree with our attorney at this point and time to say that it would be breaking 3 of the restrictions because it will be a business. It will be paid personnel on the property, paid by a company, organization to fulfill what the needs will be for this facility and also it will go by far against the majority of the people that live in that subdivision. Number 2 and number 3 that it goes against the restrictions itself and I would strongly disagree, it’s not that I disagree with CDC home or their goals or direction but, I think that there are other alternatives. When it directly effects someone standing here in the sale of their home it will probably sell in time as will the Rice’s next door if this does not go through but, I’m in strong opposition to this move. Thank you.

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

Carol Stradling asked, I guess that you mentioned two aspects where you’re saying that this is against the restrictions and that is what you’re basing it on, not on state law but, that it, it is in contradiction to the protective restrictions for Countrybrook Subdivision #2 is that correct?

Stuart Boehning stated, right, it’s a violation of the covenants and restrictions paragraph 1, I think that it’s paragraph 5 or 7 and the state law backs it up and says that if it is pre-statute it’s valid, if it’s post it’s invalid.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess when I look at the protective restrictions for Countrybrook and you mentioned that it’s only single family dwelling and then I refer to our Ordinance. It has a definition of dwelling, it says, “a permanent building, or portion thereof, designed or used exclusively for residential occupancy”, which I believe that this would fulfill, “including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and multiple family dwellings, but, not including hotels, motels, or lodging houses.” Their definition of dwelling, one family is “a building containing one dwelling unit only.” One dwelling unit only, on dwelling unit only, I do not believe that I see this being a duplex or an apartment building but, a single dwelling with multiple people.

Stuart Boehning stated, right with 7, I think that it was up to 7 Mr. Gutwein stated.

Brad Gutwein stated, 7 yes.

Stuart Boehning stated, yes, actually I think if I can, in reading the definition for dwelling, I don’t think that the case makes it or breaks it. As far as, there is no definition as to, and I sit on the A.P.C. for Tippecanoe County and we have specific guidelines as far as what constitutes the number of individual. I would agree on dwelling, it does not give that but I think that the intent, you have to also look at the intent of this, of the covenants and the restrictions. The intent for a single family dwellings because, our courts have said that covenants are rights in the property and actually the courts have also stated that the purpose of the covenants is to maintain or enhance the value of lands. The intended use of the land and here the intended use is for single family dwellings which, we don’t have that clear of a definition except for single family within the covenants. Then you have no businesses, no business so I think that you have a second clause if you have a hard time with that first clause then I think that then there is that clause in court….

Carol Stradling stated, I also have a hard time with the business aspect. I don’t believe that these people are there to make money. I would purport that if this is a business venture that CDC is putting there to make a profit which I would, I don’t know, what little I know about tax law I would say that you need to make a profit these people are not making a profit there.

Stuart Boehning stated, I’m sure that it’s not for profit actually a business would be a corporation, incorporated or an LLC. It could even be a proprietorship or sole proprietorship. A business is a venture where you engage in an activity whether it’s for profit or not for profit so it would still be a business.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I would also like to, I hate to put you on the spot Mr. Stark but, I do believe that Stark Oil, where is the office of Stark Oil?

Dean Stark stated, it’s at the address of where the corporation is my home address.

Carol Stradling stated, the address of the corporation is your home address, so you are operating a business out of your home.

Dean Stark stated, no I am not.

Carol Stradling stated, no, you are not.

Stuart Boehning stated, that’s probably just where the registered agent is.

Dean Stark stated, I operate the business out of Reynolds, out of my bulk plant and I use my office at Station 66 convenience store.

Carol Stradling asked, so there isn’t any business activity being conducted there?

Dean Stark stated, no, just a corporate address.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I believe that we really need to focus on the matter that is before the Board and that is whether to approve or not to approve the special exception. The enforcement of the private restrictions are for, are really not before us at all tonight. Even though this is an important issue to these folks, I don’t mean that but, as far as the Board of Zoning Appeals, we don’t enforce private restrictions, we don’t. They are evidence and we have heard them but, we don’t enforce them and they don’t control our decision about what the law applies, whether you do or not grant a special exception. Special exception, our Ordinance and the law says essentially that if they qualify and if they are just to look at it, they are zoned R-2, part of the record. As part of the record also, of our Ordinance, a group home would be allowed in an R-2 as a special exception. So that the law essentially says that if they’re permitted there and they are going to put a group home there, we have no discretion but, to grant it, grant this giving it a special exception. If these folks through their attorney or otherwise, wish to take action on their private restrictions they’re certainly entitled to do that. They must do that in a different forum to enforce them than here and if there are these violations, I don’t say that there are but, I don’t say that there aren’t them there. They need to file an action as quite frankly was done, looking for, searching for the cases that was presented by the objectors and neither one of them were against a Area Plan Department or Board of Zoning Appeals Department. They were all private matters against private individuals or in some cases, private centers like CDC. They were brought in court and this would be in like a Circuit Court or a Superior Court. I guess what I’m saying is I don’t want to, I’m not trying to belittle these restrictions and the potential violation or potential complaints with them but, what I’m saying to us tonight is if they are going to put a group home in there, we approve it. That’s all that there is to it, by law.

Carol Stradling asked, so it’s not in the jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine whether the restrictive covenants are being complied with or not?

Attorney Altman stated, no, it is not, as I indicated that with granting a special exception is mandatory once the petitioner shows compliance with the relevant statutory criteria. We can talk about this all night but unfortunately, there isn’t leeway there. Now, I’m not telling you that I’m trying to invade the providence of you 5 deciding whether they have in fact met those standards and your determination but, I’m saying is we don’t enforce those restrictions, we don’t do that and it’s to go some place else and that’s all. We have heard the evidence about them that’s essentially I haven’t heard anything new so I think that it’s time to proceed with the decision.

Perdue Powlen asked, what good are restrictions, then what possible good are restrictions?

Attorney Altman stated, again, you have to get an attorney to enforce them and a request for a violation….

Perdue Powlen asked, against whom?

Attorney Altman stated, whoever is violating your restrictions.

Perdue Powlen stated, that’s what we’re here for.

Attorney Altman stated, but this body doesn’t enforce them.

An audience member asked, what is the point?

An audience member asked, then why are we here?

Attorney Altman stated, we’re here to either grant or to not grant a special exception, that is what we’re here for this body does that I’m sorry, I think that you have expectations that we do something but, we don’t in this case and we don’t enforce private restrictions. We are here because they filed an application for a special exception, that’s all, and I understand that there is frustration but that’s what this body does okay.

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

Gary Barbour asked, is the petitioner then in compliance with the relevant statutory hearing?

Attorney Altman stated, that is for you to decide, when you vote.

Gary Barbour asked, so go down through or Ordinance?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, could you see anything that we could stumble on?

Attorney Altman stated, listening to the evidence, no, not as far as the matter before us no.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions?

Carol Stradling asked, I just want to reiterate Mr. Cruz, the only thing that you’re changing is, a handicapped accessible ramp?

Mike Cruz stated, and a bathroom.

Carol Stradling asked, and the bathroom. How many bedrooms are there?

Mike Cruz stated, 4.

Carol Stradling asked, 4 bedrooms?

Mike Cruz stated, 3 on the West side and 1 on the East.

Attorney Altman stated, 5 persons maximum.

Mike Cruz stated, 7.

Brad Gutwein stated, 7.

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

An audience member asked, Attorney Altman, on your meeting notices you said that this was going to be a special, how did you word that?

Attorney Altman stated, exception.

An audience member stated, a special exception, but, in the wording here it says a special exception variance. It is not a variance, you said.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s a special exception.

An audience member asked, then why does it say variance? The sign says variance.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s a typographical error.

An audience member asked, if they pass this is that going to be a variance or is it going to be…

Attorney Altman stated, a special exception.

An audience member asked, how do we know?

Director Weaver stated, they are voting on a special exception ballot. There are two different ballots, there’s a variance ballot and a special exception ballot and they are voting with the special exception ballot.

An audience member asked, and that ballot does not state variance?

Director Weaver stated, not to my knowledge, no.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That there were objectors present at the meeting and represented by their

Attorney, Stuart P. Boehning.

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

3. That the request is for a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a group home of 7 people on lot Number Twenty-Seven (27) and Lot Number Twenty-Nine (29) in Countrybrook Subdivision #2 in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 107 S. Countrybrook Drive.

4. That though a typographical error, the word “variance” was on the sign after the words “Special Exception”; this is a request for a special exception only and all requirements have been satisfied for a hearing on a request for a special exception and the White County Board of Zoning Appeals has acted on said request of a Special Exception for a group home on above said lot.

5. (1) Section 10.20 of the Zoning Ordinance (does) (does not) authorize the special

exception for this use in this zoning district. Vote: 4 does 1 does not.

6. (2) The requirements and development standards for the requested use as

prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance (will) ( will not) be met. Vote: 3 will, 2 will

not.

President Jerry Thompson had written on ballot: “Due to multiple dwellings” and voted “will not.”

7. (3) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) subvert the general purposes

served by the Ordinance. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.

Vice President Jeff Saylor had written on ballot: “I don’t think it would be fair to the potential occupants of the group home to move into a neighborhood that obviously doesn’t want them” and voted “will not.”

8. (4a) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming noxious. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.

9. (4b) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming offensive. Vote 2 will, 3 will not.

President Jerry Thompson has written on ballot: “Due to reason of use and property values to adjoining properties” and voted “will.”

10. (4c) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently

injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. Vote: 2 will, 3 will not.

President Jerry Thompson had written on ballot: “same as 4B” and voted “will.”

On the ballots it states “You should list your reasons. If additional space is needed, it can be provided. If you have circled any answer with an asterisk (*) you MUST vote against granting the special exception.”

It also states “It is therefore the decision that based on the above findings this special exception should / should not* be granted, subject to any conditions and/or commitments stated din the minutes of the Board, and incorporated herein and made a part of this decision.”

The Board voted the following:

President Thompson: should not be granted.

Vice President Saylor: should not be granted.

Secretary Carol Stradling: should be granted.

Gary Barbour: should be granted.

Ron Pollock: should not be granted.

The special exception was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 2 for and 3 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, the special exception is denied.

****

#1197 Lexi Meyer; Requesting an 8’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch onto the front of the existing home on lot #2 and a portion of lot #1 & #3 in Neininger Subdivision. The property is located in Union Township at 5542 E. Neininger Drive.

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

Lexi Meyer was present to represent this request.

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

Lexi Meyer stated, Robert Brown has a question about the legal description of my property.

President Thompson asked, Robert Brown….

Lexi Meyer stated, Robert Brown is my neighbor.

President Thompson asked, okay, so we know who everyone is. And your question sir is?

Robert Brown stated, according to the note that I got from Milligan stated that there would be 8’ difference on the East side of her lot and 20’ to the East side of lot #1, which is the other neighbor. Now does that mean that she is going to get 20’ off of the other lot and 8’ off of my lot? What does that mean? She wants to put a porch on, that doesn’t have anything to do with the sidelines.

Director Weaver stated, her legal description is for lot #2 and 20’ off of the East side of lot #1 and 8’ of the West side of lot #3. That is the property that she owns.

Robert Brown stated, 8’ off of lot #3, that’s me.

Director Weaver stated, yes, that she currently owns 8’ off of the West side of lot #3.

Robert Brown asked, see when they resurveyed that they moved the property line over about 8’. Now, does that go back to her record property deal or does it go back to the original, or to the last survey that they took?

Director Weaver stated, I can not answer that because, I don’t know the history of the property I don’t know what you’re referring to when they move the one.

Robert Brown stated, they had to re-survey it 3 times and the last time that they resurveyed it they more or less knew the property line on mine 8’ towards hers. The other property line where they said that it is suppose to be they took 30’ off of my East side because, the property line 30’ towards my house so they could sell the other two lots that was still in that subdivision.

Carol Stradling asked, is part of this when the subdivision was divided, it was divided into lots but, apparently the lots are not owned uniquely by one property owner…

Robert Brown stated, they were...

Carol Stradling asked, so that parts of one lot owned by…

Robert Brown stated, they were all owned by one person and they had an A-framed built on the first lot and then Lexi’s house was put on the second lot.

Carol Stradling asked, have you seen the survey?

Robert Brown asked, is that, that one?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, yes, so is your house….

Robert Brown stated, number 3.

Carol Stradling asked, 12’ from your property line?

Robert Brown asked, from whose property line?

Carol Stradling stated, from your property line.

Robert Brown stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so apparently then, there is 8’ of your lot that is owned by her so her property line is 8’ into your lot.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what it says.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s what I’m reading in this survey.

President Thompson stated, yes, I’m trying to figure it out too.

Carol Stradling stated, probably the lot line should have been 8’ to the….

Robert Brown stated, East of her house, or East of her property.

President Thompson asked, would you say that you have 12’ of property from your house to your property line?

Attorney Altman stated, all that this says is that she owns one lot and she owns 8’ off of lot #3.

Robert Brown stated, she owns 8’ off of lot #3.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s all that it’s saying.

President Thompson stated, she owns 8’ off of lot #3.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s all that it says and she also owns 20’ off of lot #1, that’s all that it means.

Robert Brown asked, in other words, the property lines are going to stay the way that they are anyway?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Robert Brown stated, that’s what I couldn’t figure out why they needed all of this just for her to get a front porch put on.

Attorney Altman stated, what this says is that her deed calls for owning 8’ of lot #3, lot #2 and 20’ off of lot #1, that’s all, it’s her property it’s not taking from anyone.

Robert Brown stated, so the property line is on hers….

Attorney Altman stated, will stay the same is what this says.

President Thompson asked, you just wanted a clarification?

Robert Brown stated, yes, that’s all that I wanted because she wants to put a porch on and I said fine go ahead.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing? Is anyone here opposed to this variance? Any questions or concerns from the Board? 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 is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.

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

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 8’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch onto the front of the existing home on lot 2, 20 feet off of the East side of Lot 1 and 8 feet off the West side of Lot 3 in Neininger Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5542 E. Neininger 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1198 Daniel H. & Nancy C. Logan; Requesting a 25’ front setback variance to build an enclosed porch on the front of the existing home on 100 Acres, more or less. The property is located in Cass Township at 9740 N. 1400 E.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this request? I was sure that we had the Logan’s here.

This request was tabled.

****

#2000 Ralph Donnelly (Peerless Cleaners); Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow upstairs apartments and to amend the required parking space requirement on lot #2 & #3 in Alva J. Martin’s Second Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 719 N. Illinois Street.

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

Larry Minter stated, I’m the builder from Rensselaer with Mr. Donnelly and I just come in on this second handily trying to get the project stimulated and keep it going. It has already been started, there is a foundation in there that has been in there for 4 or 5 years. At the time they only had a foundation release and they didn’t have a full set of plans until recently and now we have that to carry on and basically we just ask that it will faultier.

President Thompson asked, do you have something Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes, the next request is also for this same property and it is a request for setbacks. I don’t know if the Board, which order, or if it matters which order the Board hears these in. My thought was that if the setback variance wasn’t granted I don’t know that the apartments are going to come into play then. Am I right?

Larry Minter stated, yes, basically what the apartment project is, is for the manager of the cleaners to live there so she can be there present. Right now, she is coming and going from Rensselaer and it would be more economical for everyone if she lived there on the premises. That’s the main concern of the apartment.

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

Director Weaver stated, I know that we have received calls on the office on this but, as for any documentation, no.

Court Emich asked, I’m the owner of the Twin Lakes Coin Laundry and my only concern is that the parking. The information that I received in the mail said that with the apartments there is suppose to be 65 spaces and I was just kind of, what do you have 18 available?

Larry Minter stated, 18.

Court Emich stated, roughly right around there by the sketches that we have. I’m a little concerned because we’re and I don’t mean to sound sour apples because we’re in competition and it’s kind of a bad situation that way. What I’m worried about is that if the parking there requires 65 spaces and it goes down to 18 then the parking is going to start coming down because it comes to a V right there. It’s very congested and my business as theirs too relies on parking spaces because if you don’t have your customers in your spots using your facility then you’re not making money obviously. I was just a little concerned that if granted and this would pose itself that there is a need for those 65 spaces then it might start coming down into my spaces and that’s pretty much my only concern.

Larry Minter stated, chances are if that does happen, what will eventually happen is, they will use his facility instead of ours. If there is not enough parking there they will go to him and as far as the apartment there will only be one vehicle there and that will be the manager.

Court Emich asked, another questions that I had about the apartments, now the starting out with one apartment is there going to be any additional apartments?

Larry Minter stated, at this time there is only going to be one. Anything else above there at this time is just storage.

Attorney Altman stated, the application is for apartments.

Larry Minter stated, yes, that’s for future but at this time we’re only talking one for the immediate tenant.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to get your request refined down to what it is not for the future. We can’t grant it as a special exception or a variance.

Larry Minter stated, right now there is room on the top for 2 apartments and that would be the only two that there would be room for.

Attorney Altman asked, so your application is for 2 apartments?

Larry Minter stated, I guess it would be if that’s what it needs to be.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t say that’s what it needs to be, I’m saying that you need a request.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a single story building.

Larry Minter stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, is this concrete block structure out front is that the foundation that you’re going to build the apartments on?

Larry Minter stated, there is a Laundromat addition is what you’re looking at with the apartments above that.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to expand the existing building?

Larry Minter stated, the foundation is already in, it’s been in for like 5 years and like I said, it just set there and what we’re doing is trying to get the thing done it’s just been laying there idol for all of this time and it needs to be….

Court Emich stated, I guess that another question that I have, now that I think about it, if the foundation was there what was the reasoning that, that didn’t, if it was 3 or 5, I’m not sure...

Ralph Donnelly stated, the builder walked off of the job. He got in an argument with the architect. We started to build this thing a long time ago and I couldn’t get, I spent all of that money trying to get the drawings done and then it was approved and then it expired because I didn’t get a builder.

Carol Stradling asked, it was approved for the addition and the apartments?

Ralph Donnelly stated, yes before.

Carol Stradling asked, and how long ago was this?

Ralph Donnelly stated, 4 or 5 years ago.

Larry Minter stated, it was in 1996 I believe.

Director Weaver stated, it was when Ray was Director.

Ralph Donnelly stated, he told me to get started on it.

Attorney Altman asked, was the application for a special exception approved?

Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of, I think he, I believe that he was issued a building permit but, I don’t think that there was anything for apartments. Let me go over and check.

Ralph Donnelly asked, wasn’t there a Mayor Cross, a fellow by the name of Mayor Cross that was Mayor?

President Thompson stated, no, Cronch.

Ralph Donnelly stated, he is the one that said get going on that thing before your building permit expires and I didn’t.

President Thompson stated, he was director here before he became Mayor.

Carol Stradling asked, could you show me on the drawing what is currently existing? I take it that this is your proposed.

Larry Minter stated, this is the existing building and this is the proposed.

Carol Stradling asked, this is the existing, so you’re going to add all of that on and above that is an apartment?

Larry Minter stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s doubling your facility.

Ralph Donnelly stated, there is more than 18 parking spots. One time we had about 23 but there had never been that many cars there.

Ron Pollock asked, what determines the number of parking spots per business?

Attorney Altman stated, square footage of the business, of the building.

Ron Pollock asked, and it would total 65?

Attorney Altman stated, sure.

Ralph Donnelly stated, the Laundromat actually won’t be any bigger than it is now but, what we’re moving our laundry into, where the Laundromat is to take care of the beach instead of driving it back and forth to Rensselaer.

Carol Stradling stated, I lost you, somewhere.

Ralph Donnelly stated, well, see we do the laundry for the people out at the beach. How many do you have about 22?

An audience member stated, I don’t know, and the motels.

Ralph Donnelly stated, and the motels and we use to drive it back and forth to Rensselaer and it’s not practical. So actually what we will be putting in is a small laundry in the old part. This here will be the call office, this will be the Laundromat, and then the laundry will be here in the old part.

Carol Stradling asked, so when you refer to laundry that’s the one that you’re doing commercial laundry and the Laundromat is where others come in to use the washers and dryers on their own and put their quarters in?

Ralph Donnelly stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, see to me, it’s going to be your Laundromat.

Ralph Donnelly stated, we have been doing the laundry in here but, it isn’t quite big enough the way that it’s set up and by adding that on, see this will be the call office.

Carol Stradling asked, and what is the call office…

President Thompson asked, what did you find out?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s just for a propose addition, there wasn’t any variance.

Director Weaver stated, there was a setback variance granted January 16, 1992, evidentially a single story.

Attorney Altman asked, how much fire problem do you have?

Ralph Donnelly stated, it’s flexor roof, everything is cement.

Attorney Altman asked, the apartments above it, there’s no risk?

Larry Minter stated, there are stairways up both sides, there are still stairways up both sides.

Ralph Donnelly stated, we had to go down and have everything approved through the State.

Attorney Altman stated, you can get anything approved but, that doesn’t make it safe.

Ralph Donnelly stated, I don’t know.

Director Weaver stated, our building inspector questioned that.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that, I have been to dry cleaners and they are not very safe.

Ralph Donnelly asked, they’re not very safe?

Attorney Altman stated, they’re not very safe.

Ralph Donnelly stated, that’s because of the hazard waste, that’s perk, I don’t use perk.

President Thompson asked, is there any comments or questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, so how many public washers and dryers will you have?

Ralph Donnelly stated, probably about 20 top loaders and probably about 10, I think that I have 28 in there now, 28 top loaders and 10 side loaders, I will probably have less.

Carol Stradling asked, you would have less?

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

Carol Stradling asked, could we just have a little bit of time to process it before we vote? So we’re looking at 2….

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver, does this addition take out parking spaces that are there now?

Director Weaver stated, well, where they were before this, the foundation was put in.

Larry Minter stated, it’s the same amount of parking, just moved it out.

Ralph Donnelly stated, there’s a wall on that North edge and there is about 8’ or 10’ that’s just grass and weeds.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s where you’re going to build?

Ralph Donnelly stated, no that’s on the North wall.

There was discussion among the Board members and Ralph Donnelly.

Carol Stradling asked, what is this?

Ralph Donnelly stated, that’s for soft water, you take the salt tank and then on top of the salt tank is the water softeners.

Gary Barbour asked, where is that in location to this drawing here?

Larry Minter stated, this whole foundation is actually there, I’m not sure about the sidewalks.

Carol Stradling asked, so this foundation is here and the salt tank is here in the middle of it?

Larry Minter stated, it’s right behind it.

Carol Stradling asked, the corner of it?

Ralph Donnelly asked, do you know where the big sign is?

Carol Stradling asked, the big sign?

Gary Barbour stated, here is the salt tank and you said that there is already a foundation poured across here….

Carol Stradling stated, where the grass is…

Ralph Donnelly stated, do you see all of that stuff along there, there is a wall back in there and we will take all of this out, and the apartments will be like this.

Carol Stradling asked, so where the asphalt is now is going to be what?

Ralph Donnelly stated, that will be parking over here and then we will just continue that on out another 10’.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to have even more parking than what is on this plan? I’m feeling like I’m pulling different pieces of this to get a full concept of the project.

Larry Minter stated, it would be better if we went down and looked it.

Carol Stradling asked, so this is the existing concrete wall that you’re talking about?

Ralph Donnelly stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re saying that there is more things up here?

Ralph Donnelly stated, this is the existing concrete wall and the sign is over here.

There was discussion among the Board members and Ralph Donnelly.

Ralph Donnelly stated, that sign is right over here and it’s not too far from the wall. This is all grass in here and we want to take this grass out and blacktop it or concrete it right up to this wall so that cars can park all along here.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to have parallel parking?

Ralph Donnelly stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, along here?

Ralph Donnelly stated, either parallel or something.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to have 18…

Ralph Donnelly stated, probably 5 or 6 along here.

Carol Stradling asked, so you would have essentially, 1 car per washer, or one parking space per washing machine?

Ralph Donnelly stated, not if I have 30 washers in there, about. We have never had any parking problems.

Larry Minter stated, there is parking along this side too.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that, your plan is suppose to show that. Where are the apartments going to be?

Larry Minter stated, here is where the stair is going to be and there is a hallway with the stairs going down.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re putting a second story over all of it?

Ralph Donnelly stated, yes, it would be a metal roof.

Gary Barbour stated, this is for one apartment and there is going to be 4 apartments.

Carol Stradling stated, every time that I ask a question this project gets bigger. I’m just afraid that I’m not going to ask enough questions and it’s not going to be what is presented here.

Ralph Donnelly stated, the foundation is already in and has been in for years in the original thing. The reason why he said that he would let me put apartments up there so that someone could live up there because I was knocked off, I have a couple of Laundromats over in Rensselaer and they tear everything up, you need a person there at all times. You can ask Pool, the water man, his father helped me put this first one in and a pipe break or something like that and they called me up over at Rensselaer and said get over here, this place is flooded.

Court Emich asked, is that open 24 hours?

Ralph Donnelly stated, no, I think that we will probably keep it open until 10:00 at night.

Carol Stradling asked, have these plans been submitted to Area Plan?

Director Weaver stated, yes, that is our set of plans.

Carol Stradling asked, has the building inspector looked at this?

Larry Minter stated, yes, Bob has.

Director Weaver stated, I think that she is referring to the County Inspector.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that those parking spaces should be on there, on the set of plans. It’s not there and we….

Ralph Donnelly stated, if you go down, this is all grass along here. We have always had plenty of parking spaces, most of our business is calls and people bring clothes in and leave them.

Carol Stradling stated, that is entirely a new term to me and I’m starting to understand it.

Ralph Donnelly asked, do you ever take anything to the dry cleaners?

Carol Stradling stated, very rarely.

Ralph Donnelly stated, that’s okay but if you did you would take your clothes in and you would drop them off and you leave.

Larry Minter stated, what he does now is he has a route that he goes around in other towns and picks them up and takes them back to the place, this is going to be a drop off place for people that drop their close off. The only access in this area would be the Laundromat.

Carol Stradling stated, this doesn’t show any door in this wall, so how do you, there are no doors anywhere on this plan.

Larry Minter stated, two bathrooms there, and there will be doors going out this way and out there and stairs at the bottom and there is also stairs here.

Carol Stradling asked, and if I look this door comes out here and you have parking here?

Larry Minter stated, over there.

Carol Stradling asked, and that goes upstairs or into the laundry room? Here is the salt tank that you were referring, this plan helps a lot.

Larry Minter stated, yes, this is where the tank is and this is the foundation.

Ralph Donnelly stated, see right now we have a small commercial laundry right in this area, this is the old building and this is all, this back in here is the water heaters and the water softeners and it will be moved over here.

Larry Minter stated, the existing Laundromat is right here at this time.

Ralph Donnelly stated, there is washers here and there are washers along this wall there, then there are some dryers along here too.

Larry Minter stated, what this will do is give them access to the Laundromat here and keep the dry cleaners here from shipping everything from Rensselaer back and forth.

Carol Stradling asked, and you live above this?

An audience member stated, maybe.

Ralph Donnelly stated, maybe, she runs it at this point.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that this is only for your employee. It’s not for anyone else to live in there.

Larry Minter stated, that’s what we’re after at this point.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that at this point there is no….

Larry Minter stated, that’s what I’m saying is that’s what we need to do, get her in here and get it more….

Attorney Altman stated, I just want you to understand, if it’s approved it’s only that.

Larry Minter stated, if there is any change in the future we will come back for variances or whatever.

Carol Stradling asked, so, what are you going to do if it’s 2 story, you have this area here and this area here?

Ralph Donnelly stated, probably put storage in there like wrapping material, we have a lot of stuff.

Attorney Altman stated, we would require a firewall in there.

Larry Minter stated, everything is steel studs and drywall.

Director Weaver stated, between the Laundromat and the apartment there is firewall in there? when the inspector looked at it he didn’t think that it was there.

Larry Minter stated, it’s a poured cement floor.

Attorney Altman stated, it has to be a firewall and meet state specifications.

Larry Minter stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t care if it’s poured or whatever, it’s got to be a firewall and meet specks. I just want you folks to understand that our inspector will need that from now on, we have someone that is going to do it.

Ralph Donnelly stated, they are pretty strict on that fire stuff too.

Larry Minter asked, you don’t think that they are?

Attorney Altman stated, no I don’t, if they approved this, they are not.

Court Emich asked, is it zoned for apartment s through that area? Can you have, I’m not sure what you can have.

Director Weaver stated, under our old Ordinance, apartments were allowed in a business zoning but, under this new Ordinance that went in, in effect in 1995 that it no longer allows for residences in a business zoning.

Attorney Altman asked, so it’s not approved?

Carol Stradling asked, so then he can’t do the apartments?

Director Weaver stated, we have granted special exceptions to do so.

Carol Stradling stated, we’re looking at a setback and we’re looking at a parking variance, we’re not looking at anything concerning an apartment.

Director Weaver stated, the apartment is on….

Gary Barbour stated, the other one.

Director Weaver stated, on with the parking I believe.

Carol Stradling stated, to allow upstairs apartments.

Attorney Altman stated, I will tell you from looking at special exception law, I don’t think that it’s permitted, I don’t think that legally we can approve it.

There was discussion.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns with anyone?

Ralph Donnelly stated, we have had a lot of trouble with people ripping us off. just two weeks ago a guy came in and drilled out the changer and took all of the money and stepped out of it and you can’t expect a cop to be down there all of the time. I don’t blame them.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Are we ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, the one that we’re voting on now is variance 2000….

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, to allow upstairs apartments and amend the parking space requirement for the Laundromat?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Ralph Donnelly stated, there has always been plenty of parking.

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 provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow upstairs apartments and to amend the required parking space requirement on lots Numbered Two (2) and Three (3) in Alva J. Martin’s Second Addition to the Town, now City, of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 719 N. Illinois 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 1 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, your variance was granted.

****

#2001 Ralph Donnelly (Peerless Cleaners); Requesting a 15’ front setback from Main Street and a 7’ front setback from Illinois Street to build an addition to the existing Laundromat on lot #2 & #2 in Alva J. Martin’s Second Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 719 N. Illinois Street.

President Thompson asked, is there any addition to what has been said?

Larry Minter stated, basically what we’re trying to do is just clean the facility up and get, it’s an eyesore right now and it’s going to stay that way unless we’re able to finish this thing. It’s in your hands. I just want to get it done for him so he can have something finished up and have a facility to be proud of.

Ralph Donnelly stated, I’m lucky to get him, he put up that C.V.S. building up there.

President Thompson asked, any correspondence?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, nothing, is there anyone opposed to the variance or in favor of?

Carol Stradling asked, the 15’ setback from Main Street is primarily for the corner that is currently there, this corner…

Larry Minter stated, that’s the closest point yes.

Carol Stradling stated, the one that you’re adding is the corner of that salt box.

Larry Minter stated, exactly.

President Thompson asked, is there any discussion? If not are we 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 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 15’ front setback from Main Street and a 7’ front setback from Illinois Street to build an addition to the existing Laundromat on lots Numbered Two (2) and Three (3) in Alva J. Martin’s Second Addition to the Town, now City, of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 719 N. Illinois 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the petition is granted, don’t forget your permits.

****

President Thompson stated, is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? If there is nothing else, would the Board like 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