Get Adobe Flash player



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

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

Visitors attending were: James Halsema, Jay Welches (R. Landis), Tim Westerfield (A.M.I.), Sid Holderly, Charles R. Mellon, John Hawkins, Amy L. Vance, Jason M. Vance, Bryan L. Ton, Wil Davis, Larry Yerk, Don Yerk, Patrick Allen, Kerwin Masten, Jerey Myers, Katie Zalat, Doug Barnard and John Harshbarger.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken.

Carol Stradling stated, I have not had a chance to go through the minutes of May 24th and June 21st. I was not here on April 26th but I have had a chance to go through the minutes. There are just some minor things that were probably what was heard on the tape but, I think what was actually said and the March 15th I think that I turned in earlier.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I believe that you did.

Carol Stradling stated, those were just minor word choices.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that we just consider those modified by the additions that you have added to the record on those Carol.

President Thompson asked, do we want to go ahead…

Attorney Altman asked, which one was the CDC one, Director Weaver?

Carol Stradling stated, that was May 17th.

Attorney Altman stated, May 17th and that was one that we’re ready to approve?

Carol Stradling stated, I did review it.


Attorney Altman stated, I did too I just, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s done for the Board but, I did review that also. That’s the one that I would really like to get either approved, modified and then approved, that’s the one that we need to submit to the Circuit Court.

President Thompson asked, am I safe in saying then the March 15th, April 19th and 26th and the May 17th, meet everyone’s approval. Is that correct?

Attorney Altman stated, with the additions of Carol.

President Thompson asked, for the May 17th minutes, right?

Attorney Altman asked, which ones did you say that you submitted additions for, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, March the 15th.

President Thompson asked, so, can we wipe some of these clean or not?

Carol Stradling stated, I think that we can. There is only, on April 19th, Director Weaver, it refers to a garage truck and it should be garbage.

Director Weaver asked, what page?

Carol Stradling stated, page 8.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Carol Stradling stated, not on that one. There is just a couple on the May 17th meeting.

Director Weaver asked, do you have those noted?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, can we take those notations from you and do it that way?

Carol Stradling stated, yes. On page 2, it refers to, they did this according to a contact with one of the things that happened at the last meeting, I think that was a contract. Then on page 3, it refers to, just a minute this is a contract that the seller took on the responsibility of setting this home in these delivered you site plan with you setbacks. Which, I’m sure is what is sounded like but, I think that it’s Denise, the ladies name. These proceedings are recorded and then someone has to sit and listen to it and try to make sense of what is being said.

President Thompson stated, it’s hard, it’s a wonder that they do as well as they do.

Carol Stradling stated, on page 37, I think that should be septic problems. As far as I know, I can really correctly say, there are only two homes that met that conditions when we were doing the search out in the country as Brad had mentioned, we have it says chronic problems but, it should be septic. That’s essentially it.

President Thompson asked, so once again, are we safe in saying that we can approve the minutes up to may 24th, look at your schedule there, is that safe with everyone?

Carol Stradling stated, it should be.

President Thompson asked, is that okay with you Director Weaver?

Director Weaver asked, are you including May 24th or not.

President Thompson stated, not, up to the 24th.

Carol Stradling stated, I would like a little more time to read it.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I just want to make sure that I have the right ones.

President Thompson stated, okay, the minutes of the meeting let me repeat this now, of the March 15th, April 19th and the 26th, May 17th are approved as corrected. Do I hear a second to that?

Jeff Saylor seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded all in favor signify by saying I, all opposed the same, motion carried.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2021 H. Richard & Bonita R. Landis; Requesting a 32’ front setback variance to build a pool house on lot #19 & #20 in Sixbey Subdivision. The property is located North of Monticello at 2498 N. Sullivan Court.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Jay Welches stated, I’m representing Mr. Landis.

President Thompson asked, you’re representing him in what fashion?

Jay Welches stated, I work for him, he’s my employer.

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

Jay Welches stated, no, I believe that all of the paperwork is there, drawing, surveying, plot plans and everything else. It’s just a small 12’ x 14’ area to store a small restroom and everything. We have the Health Department that sized the septic system so, everything should be there it will be the same color and décor as the rest of the buildings and fencing and everything on the property.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Jay Welches stated, yes, just a one story 12’ x 14’ room will be secured.

Attorney Altman asked, no storage upstairs attic?

Jay Welches stated, no, no attic, no second level just one 8’ high ceiling.

President Thompson asked, anything Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything. I did want to clarify one thing, I don’t know if any of the Board members made it out to this property, I did get pictures but, I didn’t get them ready for tonight. At the time that the survey was done, let me know if I’m wrong, the time this survey was done there was not a house on this property…

Jay Welches stated, correct…

Director Weaver stated, but the house has been properly permitted and is in place now. So, I just wanted the Board to be aware of that, that there is now a home on this property as well.

Jay Welches stated, yes, we built the, got a permit a year and a half-ago and put a garage, a large storage facility. Then we got a permit this year and put a home on the site and the pool had already been put in a couple of years ago. Now they are putting a pool storage building next to the pool between the pool and the house.

Attorney Altman asked, the home is where, roughly on this survey?

Jay Welches stated, it sets this way 40’ x 60’.

Attorney Altman asked, so, it’s on the…

Jay Welches stated, this would be West and this is East.

Attorney Altman stated, the East side of where it says, Richard H. Landis…

Jay Welches stated, yes, it sets right here, in the middle of the survey, is where they built the house.

Attorney Altman stated, we will accept it, as exhibit A, proposed showing of the property of the him that Mr. Welches just testified to. Size of the home again…

Jay Welches stated, 40’ x 60’…

Attorney Altman stated, again, proper permit and everything but this modifies the survey that is before us so we need to have that.

Jay Welches asked, do you need the permit number on the house? I have it, 12131 was the permit issued.

President Thompson asked, anyone opposed to this Director Weaver?

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Any questions or comments from the Board? Nothing? If there is nothing…

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I would say is obviously, you can’t go across property lines.

Jay Welches stated, yes, sir…

Attorney Altman stated, we can’t allow that. It appears to be a 0’ setback but you can t be less than that.

Jay Welches stated, yes, it’s just inside the fence that is on the property.

President Thompson asked, if there is no other discussion is the Board ready to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 32’ front setback variance to build a pool house on Lot Number Nineteen (19) in Sixbey Subdivision, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

Also, Lot Number Twenty (20) in Sixbey Subdivision, Union Township, White County, Indiana, Except Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 21 in said Subdivision; thence East 225.84 feet; thence South 40.00 feet; thence West 226.21 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes East 40.00 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located North of Monticello at 2498 N. Sullivan Court.

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

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

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

****

#2022 James A. & Tammy J. Halsema; Requesting a 29’ front setback from Moore Street and a 24’ setback from Second Street and a 13’ rear setback from the alley to place new mobile homes on the property and to bring three of the existing mobile homes into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lots #4, #5 & #6 in Block 2 in Moore’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Brookston on the Northwest corner of Moore Street and Second Street.

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

James Halsema was present to represent this request.

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

James Halsema stated, I did have Mr. Milligan do a variance survey for me and this is pretty much, I went through the R-2 with you guys, to an R-4 which, limits the dwellings to put on the property, just looking for the variances it’s an older mobile home park. I have removed two of them already it’s just something that I would like to upgrade. I have a landscape architect, diagramming outline of what I would like to do but, it’s just for upgrade it’s something that is going to be all vinyl sided, shingle roofed dwellings and concrete parking spots. I would just like to clean it up and make it a retirement for my wife and me just something investment wise.

Attorney Altman asked, you say that you’ve removed some, aren’t you adding on, a new unit…

James Halsema stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, one more than what is there.

James Halsema asked, would you like to see this?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that I have that.

James Halsema asked, you have the same one?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I just thought that there was an additional unit being added to your lot.

James Halsema stated, yes, and that would be this one right here, that would be the only additional one added would be this trailer right here.

Director Weaver stated, he has gotten a permit to remove, I don’t know if the Board remembers, there was one of the mobile homes was encroaching on the neighbors’ property. He has removed that mobile home and has gotten a permit through us to replace that with a new mobile home no new, I say new not meaning brand new because, I don’t remember what age it was…

James Halsema stated, 1993..

Attorney Altman asked, is that the 66’ x 14’?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

James Halsema stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, and it is meeting, from what he has given me, it is meeting the proper setbacks.

President Thompson asked, any correspondence?

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

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

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver, does he need a variance because, of the number of units that he is putting on there?

Director Weaver stated, no, he needs a variance because of the location…

Attorney Altman asked, of?

Director Weaver stated, of the home.

Attorney Altman asked, of the ones that are going go other?

Director Weaver stated, yes, and some of the existing ones, some of the new ones and some of the existing ones. The pictures that I have given to the Board members with the different colorings on, what I have done there is I have taken his survey and tried to, for my own sake, make a little more sense of what was going on, on there property. So I just made a copy for the Board members so that they can be making sense of it too. There is a lot going on.

Attorney Altman asked, the one that says existing, says up at the Northeast corner and needs a variance because, it’s too close to the line.

Director Weaver stated, too close to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, the one below it that says existing stays, it’s 7’8”, is still to close to the line and then the one that says removed and the new conforms right?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, it has a variance also?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, oh, I see the line…

Director Weaver stated, the one that says remove has been removed right on the corner.

James Halsema stated, yes, it has been in compliance with the back line that was in compliance without the variance.

Director Weaver stated, but he is requesting for the new one to be closer also.

Attorney Altman stated, then the one still going clockwise around the lot, the one that says existing, stays and 6’2” at the Southwest corner needs a variance…

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, and then the other two conform right?

Director Weaver stated, yes, with the new homes in there, they will conform.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, with the new ones.

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, in this picture this trailer is this one?

Director Weaver asked, no, see the dirt in front of that one?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that is where the one that was, has been removed, the one on the corner, there was one removed off of the corner and you are the corner, yes, right there.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, this one is that one.

Director Weaver stated, if you look on those, you will see numbers on there that I have writing, 109, 111 those are the actual addresses of those mobile homes. So, I thought that would be helpful too.

Carol Stradling asked, so this one then is that one?

Director Weaver asked, that one’s, that’s right?

Carol Stradling asked, and this one is tan?

Director Weaver stated, that would be 107 and then the next picture down where the red car is, I believe that is the new one that is being pulled in, it’s not been relocated and it’s going back on 107A, yes, going right there. We have not issued a permit for that on the 20’ x 40’, he has to have a variance in order to put that on in that location.

Carol Stradling asked, so the variance is needed in order to put this one in?

Director Weaver stated, and the corner one and the other 3 that is going to remain into compliance.

Attorney Altman asked, this is all on city water and city sewage right?

James Halsema stated, yes, sir.

Attorney Altman asked, and it will be attached to that and you have 3 lots. You understand this combines them all 3 and they are never to be sold in any different way unless you get rid of the, if the variance is approved unless you get rid of the reason for the variance.

Carol Stradling asked, so the way that it is now you have 5 trailers there, you essentially have approval of the 5 trailers there but you need a variance to bring 3 of them into compliance.

James Halsema stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, and then you would like to add 2 new ones?

James Halsema stated, there was 6 original there will only be one new one.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, I see where you’re coming from but, there is one that isn’t there, that’s where this probably is.

James Halsema stated, this is old and then this is the actual, it will only be the new one because, I had an old one here and then this was old one which is a new one drawn into compliance. This one I do not own and it’s being moved as of July 31st so, the new on that I put in there will be in compliance. So, that is existing so actually, this old one here I had tore down because it was so old that I couldn’t get it moved. That new one here with the variance, will bring it into compliance here too but, that one there will be the only new additional mobile to the park.

Carol Stradling asked, how long have you owned this?

James Halsema stated, April of 1990

President Thompson asked, any questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, could we separate this and deal with the variances without one of the trailers?

President Thompson asked, I don’t think that we can, can we?

Director Weaver asked, Attorney Altman, on the request doesn’t it say, I think that we set out what he was requesting and then it’s to bring…

Attorney Altman stated, request for a front setback, Moore, front setback on Second rear setback, and to replace 3 mobile homes and add one mobile home and bring the existing mobile homes into compliance.

Director Weaver asked, so would that allow for it to be broken down for parts to approved and parts not?

Attorney Altman asked, yes, it would, it’s divided into shares, phases. The first one would be then request a front setback variance on Moore Street and that would be the two existing mobile homes 107 and 109 would be effected there, right Director Weaver? There is no other setback variance on Moore Street?

Director Weaver stated, not for existing mobile homes, the two new ones will need…

Attorney Altman stated, then all three of them, all four of them, 107 the new one, 109 and the new one going towards South Street all 4 need a variance. I guess what you say Carol, is you make a motion to approve that and vote on that and then we can step through the next one and then the next one and see how far that it goes.

Carol Stradling asked, could I limit it to 6 trailers on that site? Is it legal for me to make a motion to say that we approve the variance but limit it to 6 trailers on a site? Is that within our jurisdiction to limit that, the number on there?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, well, as long as it’s one that is a matter of the requested variance and that would mean I guess, that the two the new ones to the Northwest, then coming West to the South the ones that’s moving would not need a variance. The rest of them appear to all need a variance. Is that right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, so that if you’re going to eliminate one of the others you need to basically single it out and then move to approve it based upon that one being eliminated and vote and if it gets 3 votes then it’s been approved.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m confused here, it says proposed setbacks…

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, what is the proposed setback in yellow? Proposed by whom?

Director Weaver stated, that is how the survey was done it was laid out for that as proposed, I wasn’t quite understanding that myself. That goes right along with the new ones I guess is how that is, on Moore Street.

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t control us at all.

Director Weaver stated, no, it wasn’t bringing the old ones into compliance, that’s why we…

Carol Stradling asked, we really don’t need that then do we?

Director Weaver stated, no, not as far as I can see.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that I have a problem with the setbacks as much as how many trailers are there. If we could just keep it at 6 trailers instead of 7 and let the property owner decide if he wants to keep the new one that has never had one in that spot or the new one that would be address 111.

Attorney Altman stated, make a motion that way.

James Halsema asked, on the R-4 when I got it rezoned from R-2 to R-4, it allowed 8 so would you motion that to 6 just for what reason would that be?

Carol Stradling asked, does it meet the space requirements then?

Director Weaver stated, it does meet the space requirement but…

Attorney Altman stated, not as put on the lot.

Director Weaver stated, not with it meeting the setbacks, they cannot put that many on their property.

Attorney Altman stated, so you’re still entitled to make your motion, if you wish to do so and see the vote. I understand what you’re saying, he can select either the one set, the new one between 107 and 109 or the new one that is South of 109 and one or the other that’s what you…

Carol Stradling asked, okay, so I need to put that in a form of a motion? I move that we approve the setback variances as indicated but that the property owner selects one of the two new trailers and reduce it down to 6 trailers.

Attorney Altman stated, to select 3 new trailers.

Carol Stradling stated, the one new, he already has in there, he just didn’t set it and the other one in red is being moved so there are two on here that remain that say new on them.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, on the East side.

Carol Stradling stated, on the East side.

Attorney Altman stated, very good, proceed.

Carol Stradling stated, so I move that we approve the variances as set but, that we require the property owner to reduce the number of trailers on the lot by 1 either by removing one of the two new ones on the East side of the property.

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

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying I, all opposed the same. Motion carried. Any other…

Carol Stradling stated, now we’re ready to vote.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

James Halsema asked, once you go to 6 is there, will I ever be able to put the 7th on there? Can you file for, down the road if one of them will be moved at a later date, which might open up more room?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the future. If it gets there you have the opportunity.

James Halsema asked, so, if it does pass today, do I need to tell you which mobile home I will not put on there?

Attorney Altman stated, when you apply for your building permit you need to select one then.

James Halsema stated, okay, that’s fine, thank you.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-4, One Family Residence, Mobile Home Parks.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 29’ front setback from Moore Street and a 24’ setback from Second Street and a 13’ rear setback from the alley to place new mobile homes on the property and to bring three of the existing mobile homes into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lots 4, 5 and 6 in Block 2 in Moore’s Addition in the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located in Brookston, on the northwest corner of Moore Street and Second 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, 3 votes indicate the variance has been approved and modified to sit only 6 mobile homes be and is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

James Halsema stated, thank you very much.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re welcome, thank you.

****

#2023 Jon Hamm; Requesting a 5’ West side setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing detached garage to the existing house and a 6’ East side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #5 in Howell and Gosman’s Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 418 W. Market Street.

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

Jon Hamm stated, owner.

President Thompson asked, you are John Hamm?

Jon Hamm stated, yes.

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

Jon Hamm stated, no, I brought paperwork from my neighbors.

Director Weaver stated, I forgot that in the office, I will go get that.

Jon Hamm stated, that states that she doesn’t have a problem with me building closer to her house.

Attorney Altman asked, this is a neighbor to your East?

Jon Hamm stated, yes, where I’m putting the, add on she has no problem to it.

Carol Stradling asked, it would be to the West?

Attorney Altman stated, West, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, you’re adding on to the West of your house?

Jon Hamm stated, where the garage…

Carol Stradling stated, according to the survey that will be West.

Attorney Altman stated, yes that would be, sorry.

President Thompson asked, so this much, what Director Weaver, is getting this is the person from lot #4?

Jon Hamm stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, and her name may be?

Jon Hamm stated, Mimmie Hacker.

President Thompson asked, anyone opposed to this variance this evening?

Attorney Altman asked, what are you putting on to the garage and the home?

Jon Hamm stated, a room.

Attorney Altman asked, that will be single story?

Jon Hamm stated, yes, it will be cathedral ceilings.

Attorney Altman asked, it will be what?

Jon Hamm stated, open ceiling, it will be one big open room, open ceiling, large ceiling.

Attorney Altman asked, it will be single story though?

Jon Hamm stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it will conform with the roofline of the house or the garage?

Jon Hamm stated, the house.

Attorney Altman asked, the house, so it will be the same height?

Jon Hamm stated, it will be the same height as the house and the garage roof will come into the roof of the house.

Carol Stradling asked, and then you will park your car?

Jon Hamm stated, I have a driveway in front of the house still.

Carol Stradling asked, and you won’t need a garage then?

Jon Hamm stated, no, I have access to the back alley if I need to. There is an alley behind the house which is not stated in any of the books here. My wife and I put up a fence, went through this but, there is an alley there but, in the paperwork there is no existence of it, it doesn’t exist.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you want to read into the record.

Attorney Altman stated, June 28, 2001, the letter from Inez M. Hacker Exhibit A, was read into the record. That’s your next door neighbor?

Jon Hamm stated, yes sir.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else Director Weaver?

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

President Thompson asked, no one opposed here tonight? Does the Board have any questions? Nothing? Is the Board ready to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ West side setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing detached garage to the existing house and a 6’ East side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 5 in Howell and Gosman’s Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located in Monticello at 418 W. Market 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 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

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

Jon Hamm stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2024 Donald L. Yerk; Requesting a 5’, 5 ½’ & 5 ½’ separation variance to build a new grain bin beside the existing bin, dryer and barn. The property is located at 7398 W. 700 S., West of Chalmers.

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

Larry Yerk stated, the proposal is to put a new wet grain holding bin to feed the grain dryer. It says barn on the survey but, it’s actually a elevator building where we dump the grain so, basically we want to build it right beside one grain bin, the elevator building where we dump the grain and also the dryer, grain dryer on the other side. It’s just kind of tight, we’re trying to get a small wet holding tank in there.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything.

President Thompson stated, I wouldn’t think so but we have to ask.

Carol Stradling asked, I’m real ignorant on this setup. Are there any safety issues involved in having this building put in this proximity to these other structures?

President Thompson stated, I think that I will let our attorney answer that.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that this is pretty standard operating procedure of how they need to position the site, the buildings, it’s intended to be in such a way that there will be none.

Carol Stradling asked, less transportation between them…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, because, it minimizes sometimes, exposed augers and that sort of thing so that properly designed and properly installed and this is consistent with good farming economy and safety.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? Is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? If not does the Board wish to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’, 5 ½’ & 5 ½’ separation variance to build a new grain bin beside the existing bin, dryer and barn on the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 25 North, Range 5 West in Round Grove Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 7398 W. 700 S, West of Chalmers.

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

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

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

****

#2025 Jason M. & Amy Vance; Requesting a 3’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on the West 160’ of lots #708 & #709 in W.W. Raub’s Second Addition. The property is located in the Town of Chalmers at 106 Chestnut Street.

This request was not taped do to machine error.

They are adding an attached garage 36’ x 26’, single story. Then they will be converting an existing garage. No one was present to oppose this request.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 3’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on the West 160 feet of Lots 708 and 709 in W.W. Raub’s Second Addition to the Town of Chalmers, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located in Chalmers at 106 W. Chestnut 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 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

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

****

#2026 George W. & T. Maxine Hendress, Owner; Sprint Spectrum LP, Applicant; Requesting approval of a special exception to place a communications tower on 10,000 square feet as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on the South side of U.S Highway 24 between C.R. 300 W. and C.R. 400 W., West of Reynolds.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Tim Westerfield stated, I’m with A.M.I. out of Fishers, Indiana, 10085, I would like to hand these out to you if I may.

President Thompson asked, and you connection with Spectrum and the Hendresses is?

Tim Westerfield stated, we are speaking in behalf of Sprint Spectrum LP.

President Thompson asked, can he do that Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes, he is the one that actually brought the application in and we have dealt with him.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Tim Westerfield stated, as you may be aware, we are trying to obtain a Special Exception for cellular, wireless facility to be located in the 3,000 block of US Highway 24. For your Ordinance, our site is A-1, Agricultural and as you can tell by the diagram that I have out in front of you which, you do have as well in your packets, you should have received this also prior to this evenings meeting. We do meet the setback requirement which, is also a requirement for building which is, 80’ and that is from U.S. Highway 24 what we are going to do is lease out a 100’ x 100’ space which would be behind the cornfield which would remain in the front. Then we’re surrounded as well 300’ to the East, West and 300 plus to the rear of agricultural. The site itself will have a platform which is, 20’ x 20’ that the panels will sit connected to this platform which will encase all of the electrical appliances needed to run the cellular tower itself. The tower itself will be 250’ in height and this structure will allow co-location that is a point that needs to be made to you as well which would carry 3 providers two including ourselves. We do have a curb cut that the application has been filed I have talked to Mark Kelly with I.N.D.O.T. and he has verbally given me his blessing and felt that it should not be an issue to get that obtained in the next week or two. The gravel drive, as you can see here, will come in exactly 80’ to the site. This will be manned very minimal, we would probably go and check this site out once a month on an average. I do want to point out that we feel that if, let me just show you this here, here is the actually tower itself and you have this drawing as well. The tower will be lit at 125’ along with a light that flashes like a beacon light itself. There will be a 6’ chain link fence surrounding the 100’ x 100’ area and as here, you can see the cabinets that are on the platform which the platform itself is 18 inches off of the ground. Everything underneath it is stone and the one thing that I want to show you is the prorogation map, which you do have in the file as well…

Attorney Altman stated, for the record what do you mean prorogation, explain that please.

Tim Westerfield asked, yes, this map here basically, shows the frequency, is that correct?

Patrick Allen stated, yes.

Tim Westerfield stated, of the coverage that is allowed or that would be released from the site.

Patrick Allen stated, I work with Tim at A.M.I., what we would like to do is introduce Kerwin Masten from Sprint PCS, he is the radio frequency engineer and he could just explain what the coverage objectives are that we’re trying to obtain here.

Kerwin Masten stated, I’m an Engineer for Sprint PCS. The map that you have in front of you is what we consider our prediction for our coverage. Basically, we use modeling techniques, it’s a special computer program that’s recognized by industry standard and it gives us a prediction of what our coverage will be like based upon the height of a tower, the train that the tower has. Basically, what you have in front of you is with the tower that we’re talking about which is this tower right here along with existing towers that I have situated along I-65 we would get this kind of coverage based upon this type of tower. This is basically to cover the highway of U.S. Highway 24 connecting us from I-65 all of the way into the Town of Monticello where we are co-locating on our existing Sprint tower here in town. We’re using the existing tower that we already have to basically give the users coverage. This is all in red, the area in white is what we consider null coverage so, a person traveling in those areas probably would not have servers and this is the extreme amount that we can get out of a cell site. If you notice we call this a bow tie it has the centers sector in two, directional sectors that’s the longest stretch that I can make a cell site work. So, what we’re doing is trying to eliminate the need for more towers on that stretch of road and if you have any questions about radio or anything like that I can answer those.

President Thompson asked, Sprint will make use of this tower?

Patrick Allen stated, no.

Tim Westerfield stated, we will allow co-location which, will bring on 2 other carriers.

President Thompson asked, do you have them…

Patrick Allen stated, at this time there is no…

President Thompson stated, on the line so to speak, I don’t’ know what else to say.

Patrick Allen stated, there are no other carriers that have submitted an application for this site yet. Typically what happens is, once we get a site approved then a zoning processor that it’s able to be there and then other carriers are made known of that. They, the towers designed you will see in the site plans that you have there and the plans that we have there it’s designed for 3 carriers so Sprint and two others. There is plenty of compound space as well for other carriers to locate their equipment.

Tim Westerfield stated, Mr. President, as you can see on this drawing this is Sprint, what we’re proposing and then the other that are light are future co-locations.

Attorney Altman asked, that will be designed then to the tower that you’re constructing and built into that?

Tim Westerfield stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, we would require the co-location…

Tim Westerfield stated, yes.

Patrick Allen stated, yes, we would too.

Attorney Altman stated, as a condition of the variance, special exception if it’s allowed.

Tim Westerfield stated, that’s standard.

Patrick Allen stated, right as I understand it, that’s one of the conditions that we have to meet is that we make the tower available for co-location so that’s what Sprint has done. As Kerwin has stated, the purpose of the towers for the cover of the stretch of U.S. Highway 24 that there is previous but we have been no coverage. We need to locate it right there to achieve that, you can see the propagation, that’s what we call prorogation is the patterns of coverage that we have.

Tim Westerfield asked, it’s like a chain in link that we’re trying to connect this together. Are there any questions?

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, I guess that I’m wondering, is this, the same kind of cellular that, things are always changing.

Patrick Allen stated, actually it’s a PCS system. PCS is different technologies than the cellular technologies, the old companies that are out there Ameritech and Cell One are now Verizon and Singular but, those are your old analog systems, they are all parading now to a digital system also. The difference is, the older ones operated at an 800, 900 megahertz frequency, these operate at 1800 and 1900 megahertz frequency because, a better signal clearer reception better services can be provided by this type. This is a digital technology that is happening now so, I don’t know if that answers your questions.

Carol Stradling asked, so, they don’t extend as far?

Patrick Allen stated, yes, it has to be more precise, they are more precise their engineered…

Carol Stradling asked, that’s why you have quite a few towers it looks like in that area.

Patrick Allen stated, what this is showing also is that this tower right here is a tower that exist right now. We are not on this tower yet but, we had to provide coverage for this area in white county and this is one that is proposed here tonight, this is another one that is proposed here tonight…

Tim Westerfield stated, no I’m sorry, this is the other one that is proposed here tonight…

Patrick Allen stated, yes, I’m sorry, this is tonight, this is one that is an existing structure that we will be able to co-locate on. So we’re working with Sprint long distance who owns a tower here in town in Monticello and we’re going to co-locate on that tower instead of building one.

Tim Westerfield stated, these are their sites that are on U.S. Highway 431 are a actually out of White County. They are future planning’s that we’re actually working on right now and it would be part of this puzzle to connect all of this together and as you will look I believe that it’s your 3 page over from the book at I gave you…

Carol Stradling asked, U.S. Highway 421 or U.S. Highway 431?

Tim Westerfield stated, that would be U.S. Highway 431 right?

Director Weaver stated, U.S. Highway 421.

Tim Westerfield stated, U.S. Highway 421, U.S. Highway 431 is over here. You can see there, the site itself, is just West of what our original search was. Our destination that we wanted to obtain and the other markings that look like yield signs, are other existing towers that we will find in our search. As you can tell that basically, they are all of the 3 mile range and the closest one that we’re on is Southwest right there off of U.S. Highway 231 and I-65.

Patrick Allen stated, I just want to go back to the use for one second here. This is a propagation map showing what the tower there, this is what it would be without, this is as it exists today there is no coverage here. You are going to loose you signal so this is like a crucial place for that particular tower there and that particular height.

Tim Westerfield stated, again, this is to here currently some of this is and this is, and this going to be very soon I have a letter in fact by the Director, Mrs. Weaver that we are allowed to co-locate on the existing tower at this time.

Carol Stradling asked, so you have a tower there on I-65, is that 2 towers along I-65?

Tim Westerfield stated, that is not our site…

Patrick Allen stated, there is actually 2 towers there is a tower here on I-65 down in Tippecanoe County there is one here in White County. This tower basically covers here to here and this tower basically covers from here on down to Lafayette.

Tim Westerfield asked, and those are our towers correct Kerwin?

Kerwin Masten stated, these are our towers yes.

Patrick Allen stated, basically, the area that we’re stretching from is from Wolcott all of the way past Reynolds up to the edge of the interstate so it’s quite a long stretch. Basically as they have mentioned, I’m on every site that was a possibility and nothing else could. It was either too far this direction to give me a very large gap of no coverage someone traveling would not be able to get their call from the direction going along U.S. Highway 24.

Kerwin Masten stated, with the precise placement of this tower it eliminates two towers in this particular area if we put one tower there and it covers that whole stretch.

President Thompson asked, so you’re tower is giving you what?

Tim Westerfield stated, 6 to 7 miles.

President Thompson stated, 6 to 7 miles, that just blows me away that we just can’t do better than that.

Tim Westerfield stated, well isn’t there a federal…

Patrick Allen stated, yes, we have limitations within our power to provide. Cedes is a lot different than the analog was. I can remember when I worked in the analog room, putting up these 300’ towers that travel 20 miles and blasted everywhere. I also remember a lot of static and I remember those little phones that we use now days, that do everything from the internet to connecting for long period of times. The batteries last almost forever it seems like and all of the technologies, all of the carriers are going to this new technology which, is the CDMA,TDMA GSM which, requires the cells to be lower to the ground and requires a lot less power output. There is what they call interference issues, when the site would interfere with itself or another like one of our towers may interfere with another one of our towers if we were blasting out the power but, we didn’t we ran analog our system we would be dropping calls everywhere. This basically is a lot, it’s like mentioned it’s PCS and it’s clear you’re not going to hear the static but, it requires certain other issues and that’s the limitations on it.

Charlie Mellon asked, I would like to know why they go out in these farm fields to pick a site. Out there at Hendress’s, right across the road is a great big high patch, I bet you that it’s 50’ or more higher than where you’re putting that tower it looks like you could even save some height of the tower. Out in these farm fields, we’re loosing all of the farm acreage in the country for guys going out building urban buildings and all of that stuff…

Patrick Allen stated, I can answer that for you, this is part of what we do and the first thing that we do is we look at the existing Zoning Ordinance and what is required by code in the Ordinance. In your Ordinance, we’re directed in the schedule of uses to go to A-1 areas and that’s why we go in agricultural areas. We have specific, tower placement you can see it because, it has to be in a specific location to achieve coverage that they need. So, we kind of go hand in hand so, we have to look at what has to work for the technology and for the companies provide services. We need to provide for people in this area, we also have to look at the Zoning Ordinance and make them work together. So that’s what we go by and it’s right in you official Schedule of Uses, we’re directed, we’re permitted by special exception in A-1 areas. The only other areas would be an I-2 area and there is no I-2 area within this area of search that we have so that’s why we ended up going in agricultural areas.

Charlie Mellon stated, well, that hill is not too far away from your site, it’s just across the road.

Carol Stradling asked, Charlie, the hill that you’re talking about is still zoned A-1 but, it’s pastureland not cropland is that what you’re referring to?

Charlie Mellon stated, yes.

Patrick Allen stated, what we do is, we contact the landlords and we ask the landlords what their interest is and in this particular situation the landlord had an interest in leasing this property to Sprint so they have had time…

Charlie Mellon stated, it’s up to the landlord but, it just looks to me it might be a better situation over there on top of the hill for you guys the height would make a difference over there it looks like.

Patrick Allen stated, I can’t, I know that, we contact landlords we always try to find, we try to contact a least 3 different building landlords but, sometimes landlords just aren’t willing sometimes we find people that are willing and we try to work with those people. We try to find a good solution for the area for everyone.

President Thompson asked, are you aware, I mean it’s obvious of the ones that are in operation…?

Patrick Allen stated, yes, in fact that’s the tower inventory that you will have in there within the 3-mile range.

Tim Westerfield stated, on the third page.

President Thompson asked, you are aware of the ones that are possibilities of that we have granted building permits for?

Tim Westerfield stated, correct.

Patrick Allen stated, that was provided to us by, Director Weaver.

Tim Westerfield stated, unfortunately, we are, with the range that we’re looking in the ring here that we’re talking about connecting that corridor, if you will or thoroughfare into Monticello from Reynolds. Co-location is not an option to go to their sites and be able to continue this on as we wish to, to provide better service. In telling that, I’m sure that you have been made aware, I’m sure in the past about the 911 service that is very important to the community. Also, not just use for the community but, there are business people as well that have made expressions to us on more than one occasion of the importance of getting some cellular service that is ample.

Carol Stradling stated, you talk about co-locating, we have Verizon, we have Sprint, we have Singular could either one of those other providers co-locate on your tower?

Patrick Allen stated, yes.

Tim Westerfield stated, yes, they can.

Carol Stradling stated, so it’s not exclusive just for…

Patrick Allen stated, no, not at all, in fact we welcome co-location. We try to work with the communities that’s why the tower is built the way that it is built the height and the size of the compound is 100’ x 100’ to allow plenty of room for co-location.

Tim Westerfield stated, we’re trying to eliminate…

Carol Stradling asked, other things that have been said is that they like that 250’ feet, if you are at 250’ and they have to be lower…

Patrick Allen stated, 10’ lower.

Tim Westerfield stated, 10’ lower, right.

Carol Stradling asked, and that still works for them?

Patrick Allen stated, yes, it happens all of the time….

Tim Westerfield stated, yes.

Patrick Allen stated, as a matter of fact, you could look up and down the expressways and you see towers. You will see second decks on those towers and that’s what we do is, we look first for something that is there. My job is easy, if I can find an existing tower I would go to that tower, that’s what we try to find first and if we can’t then we find the next best solution that works with the community and with the existing Ordinance in that area….

Tim Westerfield stated, that’s why this tower at the height that we’re requesting it eliminates a future tower being placed within a mile or two of that along this same stretch of land.

Patrick Allen stated, this would be a very well placed tower and I just point out that it is just planned this structure is planned for, to carry those carriers right now we have plenty of compound space for them to put their equipment.

President Thompson stated, we have a question there in the back, yes.

Wil Davis stated, I’m a Carroll County resident but we do a lot of work in White County. We have cell phones with Verizon and they were talking about 911 when you come through the S-curves on U.S. Highway 24 out here West of Town, I went through there the night that the gentlemen was killed in the van. I tried to get out on my cell phone to call 911 and I couldn’t even get out. What they are saying about the digital and the analog, they are as different as day and night coming down Main Street from Carroll County you can’t get out. Verizon said for the last 4 years, that I have been with them, that they are going to go digital well, how many years do we have to wait for them to go digital. Sprint is already digital, with their PCS, I have used PCS and Verizon and there’s just as different as day and night. I know George Hendress, he works with us and he’s very much in favor by signing a lease with these folks. If you decide to go with this tower but, for us as business people that use cell phones and there are several here that do, there is a gentlemen sitting over here that is right in that dead zone at Brookston that you just can’t get out with Verizon. I’m not downgrading Verizon but they have been promised now for years and years that they are going to go digital and we’re still sitting here with the analog and can’t do anything about it. So as a resident that works here in your county I would very much be in favor of this tower so that we can have good connections and be able to talk to someone right down town when I’m going right down the main street of town. Thank you very much.

Patrick Allen asked, are there any other questions?

Gary Barbour stated, he’s concerned about having a tower on that road what are you going to do about the rest of the area that is not covered?

Patrick Allen stated, that would be in the future plans, what they try to do first is cover the main thoroughfare where the major traffic patterns are. From that point what will happen is, show you on the map, I don’t want to speak for Kerwin or anyone from Sprint but, today their coverage objectives are to provide coverage for the main, it all starts somewhere. If you look at say Marion County, 6 or 7 years ago when it started, they put towers along I-465 and down I-65 and if you look up and down I-65 you see them. They try to hit the major thoroughfares and then as capacity grows they fill in from there so someday there may be the need for a tower here to fill this gap…

Tim Westerfield stated, to hand off…

Patrick Allen stated, that won’t happen until there is shown a need for it there is communities right here that need coverage and that may come down the road. I’m not sitting here today saying that it is because, we don’t have that, it’s not on the books, its not funded there is no budget for it. It’s obvious as time goes on and the use progresses like it is, I mean, I always give an analogy, my kids don’t know what a phone with a rotary dial is and my kids’ kids aren’t going to know what a phone with wires is. It’s going to go that way, that’s just the way that it is, it’s a better service, it’s a quick, it’s a good technology that brings good solution to a lot of problems that we have. If you look at the storms that you have had come through here recently and when all of that goes down and you get landline power goes out the cell phones are still up, that’s what they use in those kind of situations.

Tim Westerfield stated, I think too with like is said this being a major thoroughfare. I know that Monticello and White County is heavily tourist traveled, US Highway 24 is a very vital highway when you do have car failure or emergency these people are very happy when they can turn on their cell phones and get quality service.

Wil Davis asked, I wonder if they can, as a business, our cell bill runs like 500 dollars a month, mine is 2,000 minutes for 150 dollars with Verizon. If this tower is allowed and I have talked to Verizon about this, Sprint, PCS the same service that I have right now is like 49 dollars. I pay 150 dollars for my cell bill each month for my phone, it’s the very same thing that Sprint is going to have for 49 dollars a month. Verizon says well, when they get in we will start matching their price well, you know their raping us more or less, three times what the phone bill would be if Sprint was here they would have some competition in the area. So that business men sitting here, it would be an advantage for Sprint or that tower to be here and then you would also have the other two people on the tower would make it even more competitive.

Tim Westerfield asked, are there any other questions?

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? Is there anyone here opposed to this variance?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything.

Tim Westerfield stated, I would like to add that we do meet the rules and regulations for your ordinance and is following through with you special exception this evening and the height requirement, everything that’s been turned into you the ASAP reports there fine. Where we are at with the FAA and the curb cuts from the state and I believe that we have handed you an adequate amount of information or at least I hope so.

President Thompson asked, say that again, the curb cuts from the state?

Tim Westerfield stated, yes, from State I.N.D.O.T., I had to get approval from them for the curb cut off of US Highway 24 and I can just hope for your approval and this is my first meeting if you didn’t notice so thank you for bearing with me.

President Thompson stated, you did very well.

Tim Westerfield stated, appreciate it.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, I think that this is addressed in the packet but I just want to clarify on our application it says that the owners are George W. & T. Maxine Hendress and in this document it refers to the Wendell Farm I think.

Patrick Allen stated, it’s just a name that we give it. Wendell is his first name so we say that it’s Wendells’ Farm…

Tim Westerfield stated, that’s actually what I believe that he has asked us to call that site, Wendell’s Farm.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that people know who George Hendress is, probably Wendell.

Wil Davis stated, it’s George Wendell Hendress.

Patrick Allen stated, that originates when we go out and look at a ring and we have to give it a name.

President Thompson asked, say from the time tonight, say that we give you approval and until you’re up and running what do you anticipate?

Tim Westerfield stated, that would be something that I would want to ask Kerwin Masten, or actually Katie, she is our…

Patrick Allen stated, she is our Implement Engineer from Sprint.

Katie Zalat asked, I’m with Sprint PCS, Indianapolis, Indiana. Construction from the time that we would have to apply for a building permit and how long would that take once we apply for a building permit?

Director Weaver stated, hopefully within a week or so you would have you’re permit.

Katie Zalat stated, okay, we could probably start construction between 60 and 90 days and then construction would last roughly 60 to 90 days.

President Thompson asked, do you require State approval?

Patrick Allen stated, no.

Katie Zalat stated, we would just get building permits.

Tim Westerfield stated, building permit is the only thing that we have to get.

President Thompson asked, out of no fashion does this have to pass the State?

Katie Zalat stated, no.

Tim Westerfield stated, no.

Patrick Allen stated, there are regulatory things as far as your license, frequencies and so on.

President Thompson asked, if there are not any other questions, is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, for the record we have received Exhibit A, consisting of 26 pages from the applicants.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception to place a communications tower on 10,000 square feet as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance on a part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 5 West, Princeton Township, White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of said quarter section; thence North 89 degrees 29 minutes 35 seconds East 2,660.02 feet along the north line of said quarter section; thence South 00 degrees 30 minutes 25 seconds East 80.00 feet to the point of beginning of this description: thence continuing South 00 degrees 30 minutes 25 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 29 minutes 35 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 30 minutes 25 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 29 minutes 35 seconds East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning and containing 10,000 square feet, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property located on the south side U.S. Highway 24 between C.R. 300 W and C.R. 400 W., west of Reynolds.

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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

Tim Westerfield stated, thank you very much.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing that I want to caution you is, our Ordinance provides that with a special exception is not substantially completed, commenced within 1 year, the special exception collapses, it is no more.

Tim Westerfield stated, yes sir, thank you.

****

#2027 Harold L. & Virginia Preston, Owner; Sprint Spectrum LP, Applicant; Requesting approval of a special exception to place a communications tower on 10,000 square feet as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on the North side of C.R. 50 N., west of Idaville.

Tim Westerfield stated, again, I’m with AMI, Fishers, Indiana 10085 and I’m here to speak on behalf of Sprint Spectrum LP. I would like to hand these out for you.

Patrick Allen stated, I’m also with AMI in Fishers.

Attorney Altman stated, the testimony that you have just given in number 2026 would be consistent with the testimony that you will give today about the specifications and otherwise, other then it’s modified by the location of where you’re requesting this second special exception?

Patrick Allen stated, yes except…

Tim Westerfield stated, with changes…

Patrick Allen stated, with one thing that I would like to point out…

Tim Westerfield stated, I would like to hand this to you first, this is the asack report, it’s granting us approval without FAA. We meet all of their regulations as far as height and this structure is in Idaville off of 50 North and it’s on the North side of the road just West of the Preston’s Farm. This is on 18 acres of property and it is zoned agricultural all of the parcels that are adjoining that are across 50 are zoned agricultural one with the exception to the Preston’s actual farmhouse which is residentially zoned.

Patrick Allen stated, the point, the only real distinction between this petition and the previous petition beside the obvious one the location. It basically fulfills the same purpose, we’re here filling this gap this is the common line, this is why we cut it off at the county line to fill this gap. The distinction that I want to make is that this is one of the ones that we talked about due to the technology that is available and coverage objectives, that we have we are able to design the tower in a little different fashion. It will be basically 190’ tower and by doing that about 200’ or so we can achieve the same thing by using a mono-pole instead of a lattice type structure, it’s a less obtrusive type of structure. It still provides for 3 carriers, we still have the same amount of space for co-location so it will achieve the same objectives.

Tim Westerfield stated, the distance is not obviously released as far as the other because of the height as one and another thing that you need to know as well too is the same cabinets are going to be placed that was just approved in the last petition. The coax cable will go across and I believe that it’s called an ice bridge…

Patrick Allen stated, yes, that’s just a connection.

Tim Westerfield stated, right the connection and everything is encased into the pole you would not see any of the wiring what so ever.

President Thompson asked, would this been a similar range as the other one?

Tim Westerfield stated, that’s what I’m saying, unfortunately not because of the fact that it’s not as high but, that is not the objective that we need for this area. We are maxed out to East to the county line and it fills in to where we anticipate co-location at the existing site, cellular long distance down town. That is part of our master plan, continuing to the South on U.S. Highway 421 and that will go in Carroll County and heading to the East our goal is to go on to Logansport and continue that route.

Patrick Allen stated, basically, it’s the same…

Tim Westerfield stated, as you can tell it’s less obtrusive I mean it’s very, in the area that we have placed this, you have been out there, it’s rather hidden.

President Thompson stated, it was, we have already voted on it but, the one at the Hendress site that was freestanding tower as well?

Patrick Allen stated, yes, these are both freestanding towers and there will be no guide wires involved. The other one had to be a land structure because of the height, the structure there supports that height, this one we can go up to almost 200’ with a mono-pole type structure. Once again to provide, it’s a key area trying to provide coverage to this whole service area and starting with the main thoroughfare as we stated before and then eventually I know that we will be filling in all of the holes.

Tim Westerfield stated, and the access again I’m getting a permit from county I have discussed this with Director Weaver for a gravel road as well that is going to go back 60’ to the site.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here, Charlie…

Charlie Mellon asked, how about, do they have any information of a church being built on the West side of Idaville on the same side of that road how far West is your tower from that church?

Tim Westerfield asked, has that church already been approved?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Tim Westerfield stated, okay, I was not familiar with this…

Director Weaver stated, the church is going on the East side of the Preston property.

Tim Westerfield asked, the East side, towards the silo?

Director Weaver stated, towards Idaville.

Tim Westerfield stated, yes, towards where the silo is at and the market, the farm market where they distribute feed…

Patrick Allen stated, again, this is, that’s one, this is an A-1 area, that’s why we’re locating in this area but, again, a thing to point out there is the design of the tower that’s more streamline…

Tim Westerfield stated, sir, you can correct me if I’m wrong but this site is more into a valley at a low point in comparison to where you church is going if I’m correct.

Charlie Mellon stated, the church is in that pasture East of the Preston’s buildings and you’re West of the buildings?

Tim Westerfield stated, we’re West of the buildings. There is some screen there with some pine trees about 15’ to 16’ high, a strip of them and there is a corn field to the West as well as to the North and we’re 60’ back from the road is what we’re proposing.

Charlie Mellon stated, there is a tower built down in the City of Lafayette without everything like it should have been and there is no more towers built in the City of Lafayette…

Tim Westerfield stated, this Board will not allow us to do that nor will Sprint…

Charlie Mellon stated, I think that it would be good to check with them, the neighbors over there if they are very close but, that’s farther away…

Tim Westerfield stated, sir, we do send out certified mails, it’s a requirement of this body that we notify everyone within 100’ of the property. In most cases, I went further than that I believe just to make sure that it was out and that was certified mail, they had to sign that.

Charlie Mellon stated, the sewer system is going in over there too pretty soon in the Town of Idaville, I don’t know how far West…

Tim Westerfield stated, we should be out of all easements, I believe that we are.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If not is the Board ready to vote? We’re ready to vote.

Attorney Altman stated, received Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2, Exhibit B, pages 1 through and including 21all as part of the record in this matter.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception to place a communications tower on 10,000 square feet as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance on a part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 2 West, White County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the east line of the east half of said section with the center line of the P.C.C. & St. L. Railway track; thence South 83 degrees 39 minutes 13 seconds West 439.48 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 50.31 feet; thence North 06 degrees 20 minutes 47 seconds West 10.00 feet; thence South 83 degrees 39 minutes 13 seconds West 240.38 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 79.97 feet; to the point of beginning of this description: thence South 89 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 56 minutes 37 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 56 minutes 37 seconds East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning and containing 10,000 square feet, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located on the North side of C.R. 50 N., West of Idaville.

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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed. I just want to caution you that it’s a special exception, it must be substantiated in one year or it’s gone.

Patrick Allen stated, thank you.

Tim Westerfield stated, thank you.

****

#2028 Aardvark Video Repair, Inc.; Requesting a parking variance for 10 spaces from the required spaces the White County Zoning Ordinance requires for a video repair business on lot #7 in Johnson-Tribbett Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 824 N. Sixth Street.

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

Doug Barnard stated, I’m with Barnard Construction, I’m the contractor on the project representing Doug Motel of Aardvark Video Repair. Basically, this variance, I think because we’re located within City limits we’re required to have one space per 100 square feet of floor area which would require 15 on this building, we have 1500 square feet of building. The county requires 1 per 300 I believe, what we’re requesting is that we put 10 in initially and hopefully business will mandate that we grow that parking lot fairly quickly but, initially we would like to get by with just 10 as the survey lays out.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything. I just want the Board to realize that they have already been issued a building permit. At that time they showed that they were going to meet the required parking and they informed me at that time they may request this variance but at the time that they received their permit they intended to meet the request.

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

Carol Stradling asked, there is plenty of room to put more parking…

Doug Barnard stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, you just opted not to say the cost…

Doug Barnard stated, budgetary…

Director Weaver stated, Carol, something on that, within the City of Monticello they are required to have their parking lots paved.

Doug Barnard stated, the subdivision covenants they are required that everything be paved, there will be no exposed gravel within that subdivision so yes, we can’t throw a little gravel out back to get a few more cars on.

Charlie Mellon asked, what side is the parking lot going to be on that building, the front?

Doug Barnard stated, there will be some on the South side and most of it to the West of the building.

Charlie Mellon asked, oh, around to the West?

Doug Barnard stated, the West is the roadside.

Charlie Mellon stated, yes, the West is the roadside…

Director Weaver stated, no, the East is the roadside.

Doug Barnard stated, East is the roadside, you are correct, I’m sorry. To the East and to the South.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion or comments? If there is not is the board ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a parking variance for 10 spaces from the required spaces the White County Zoning Ordinance requires for a video repair business on Lot Number Seven (7) in Johnson-Tribbett Subdivision located in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located in Monticello, at 824 N. Sixth Street.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, they already have their building permit.

Doug Barnard stated, thank you.

****

#2029 Hawkins Outdoor, LLC; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to bring the newly constructed billboard sign into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 9707 W. U.S. Highway 24, West of Wolcott.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone this variance?

John Hawkins stated, I’m with Hawkins Outdoor. When Director Weaver called me and told me what mistake I had made there and this is honestly just a mistake it was made, it was an oversight on a couple of peoples part. What we did is, we went out to the structure and I think that Director Weaver has pictures of the structure but, here is a picture of the before I did anything to it. You can see that there is what is called a platform or a catwalk that goes all of the way around the billboard and that was put on there so when guys are working on the faces they can actually stand up there. That is about 3’ in width and there is a walk around on every billboard instead of climbing down the ladder and getting around to the other side and climbing back up you can just walk around while you’re up there. When I found out that we made this mistake I sent two guys up there and we took that off of the side closest to the road. Two guys spent a day up there, they actually cut that off, and then they cut the platform off even with the face of the billboard and welded a new end piece on it. So now actually I’m 3’ further away from the right-of-way than I was when this whole thing started so I did make an attempt to correct the problem. I have also had an estimate as to what it would cost if I had to move this thing and it was as much as building a whole new billboard, it’s like starting all over. I did notice too Director Weaver on Jim, I didn’t notice that when I looked at this in the office but, Jim’s survey here has my, some of my dimensions of my billboard off a little bit. I don’t think that is a big deal as far as the right-of-way because the 30’ is exactly what I have so I don’t think that is a big deal but I just wanted to bring that up.

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

Director Weaver stated, well, I have had, I have been told that is going to be, I don’t think that anyone is here tonight to talk about this. I have been told that there is talk of an ingress and egress going in, in this area. There was some concerns about the location of the sign because of that, again, I don’t think that anyone is here tonight to discuss that but, I was informed of that, I have not got anything to confirm that but, I wanted the Board to be aware of that.

Jim Hawkins asked, was there talk of when that would happen?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, this is suppose to be set back how far?

Director Weaver stated, 10’.

Attorney Altman asked, and it’s right on the line?

Director Weaver stated, it’s right on the line, right.

Jim Hawkins stated, just to let you know, what I did, because of the mistake that I made, I went exactly by the State guidelines. I have to be 30’ from the centerline of the road and that’s exactly what I did. I just missed this and Director Weaver and I even talked about it and I just missed this 10’ from the, I guess that is the property line, I have to be 10’ off of the property line…

Director Weaver stated, or the road right-of-way. The 30’, is the highways right-of-way, I have talked with the Highway Department before we notified Mr. Hawkins and they have a 60’ right-of-way there so the 30’ is from their centerline to the edge of their right-of-way.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Jim Hawkins stated, the only other thing that I could say is the height of the thing, I’m 23’ to the bottom of the sign. So if there is any concern about a danger of maybe obstructing this or hitting it, I’m high enough that anything going through there is not going to hit it.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Carol Stradling asked, so everything else it meets the Ordinance requirements?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it does.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s just too close to the property line…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s on the property line.

Director Weaver stated, too close to the right-of-way.

Carol Stradling asked, but, the highway has given us a little more room because they have, well I guess…

Director Weaver stated, the County Ordinance requires 10’ off of the road right-of-way or the property line whichever is further back.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I’m saying is, because this is a state highway it has a larger right-of-way than what the county road would be.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling stated, so it’s essentially back further from the road than on a county road but, you don’t put a sign like that on a county road.

President Thompson asked, if there is no other discussion, are we ready to vote? Let's vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance to bring the newly constructed billboard sign into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 27 North, Range 6 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a Survey nail at the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence North 88 degrees 43 minutes 39 seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 532.90 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence North 88 degrees 43 minutes 39 seconds West 530.00 feet; thence North 01 degree 12 minutes 31 seconds West 398.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 88 degrees 43 minutes 39 seconds East 530.50 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 01 degree 08 minutes 14 seconds East 398.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 4.840 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 9707 W. U.S. Highway 24, West of Wolcott.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit that conforms with this variance.

Jim Hawkins stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2030 Reynolds United Methodist Church; Requesting a 9 ½’ rear setback variance to build an addition and attached garage onto the existing home and a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lots #4 & #5 in A.J. Holtam’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 508 E. Second Street.

President Thompson asked, are you representing this request?

Sid Holderly stated, I’m the President of the Trustees at Reynolds United Methodist Church.

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

Sid Holderly stated, the current property is an older 1-½-story house, the current garage is right on the property line to the West. When we do this construction, that old garage will be removed and the side setback would come into variance. Our access would come off of the alley then to the garage and there would be room between the alley and the garage to park a vehicle without it extending into the alley area. The driveway would then possibly be able to drive around, come in from the road and go out on the alley because, that street access is on a fairly steep slope and it’s a little bit hard to see the traffic on US Highway 24.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

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

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

Carol Stradling asked, is that the parsonage there?

Sid Holderly stated, yes, it will be the parsonage and the construction is to bring the house in line with the requirements of the Northern Indiana United Methodist conference.

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

Sid Holderly stated, the addition is primarily probably a bedroom and a bath downstairs with an attached garage. There is possibly room above that area for a room upstairs if we match the pitch with the current house roof on the back side so there could be a room upstairs but it’s not planned to be finished at this time. City sewer, city water and sewer, and I have an aerial if you want to look at that.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance? Does the Board have any questions? If there is nothing, then we must be ready to vote.

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t exactly say it but, the little dotted in area is where the garage will be removed right?

Sid Holderly stated, yes, there is a present room that would be removed and the present garage.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 9 ½’ rear setback variance to build an addition and attached garage onto the existing home and a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lots Numbered Four (4) and Five (5) in A.J. Holtam’s Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 508 E. Second Street in Reynolds.

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

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

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

****

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have any business?

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t have anything.

Gary Barbour stated, we keep coming up with these towers all of the time, someone is wanting a newer one brought in. I suggest that we get our Ordinance updated and whenever someone has a tower and even a current one, find out who is going to be on those towers and have then register with the Area Plan office of who is on what tower so that we know. That way when they come into these meeting we know who is on what tower, where those towers are located at so that we don’t have to repeat so many things.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be better.

Director Weaver asked, Terry Babka, did we ever get that filed?

Attorney Altman stated, no, it’s in the process.

Director Weaver stated, yes, the detached garage that is too high.

Gary Barbour made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission