Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, David Scott, Carol Stradling, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending was Attorney Jerry Altman.

Visitors attending were: Joe Maxson, Betty Abbott, Dorothy Maxson, Cindy Viney, Charles R. Mellon, Curtis Hanway, Eddy Bragg, Les Ezra, Louis Wontor, Dan Patterson and Nancy Downey.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the August 16, 2001 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2009 Ron Pollock; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance for a construction trailer that is older than 1981 to be placed in White County. The trailer has already been placed on a piece of property, which is located in Monon Township on the South side of State Road 16. Tabled from August 16, 2001.

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

Attorney Altman stated, may I, for the record, indicate that we have reached a stipulated agreement of settlement with Mr. Pollock. He is represented by Robert Little and the stipulation reads as follows: “defendant Ron Pollock shall as soon as reasonably possible with all dispatch and due diligence complete the following” I ignored the headings “A; properly remove and destroy the mobile home on his real-estate as set forth in the complaint file in this matter, B; properly remove the chain link fence and the privacy fence as he has recently installed, C; properly remove or plate all vehicles on defendants real-estate. Two, defendant Ron Pollock shall also do all of the above in full compliance with all of the rules and regulations and Ordinance and laws and satisfying all requirements for the same”. “Defendant Ron Pollock agrees and covenants he will not violate or use the above said real-estate in any way that violates all implacable rules, regulations, Ordinances or laws”. “Defendant Ron Pollock will pay a fine of 200 dollars with execution of this agreement”. “Defendant Ron Pollock will allow White County Area Plan Commission and it’s officers and John Raines, White County Environmental Officer to go upon defendants real-estate to inspect at all times at the discretion of the inspectors.


Six, if defendant Ron Pollock completes with all of the above within, all above with all due diligence as set out above he shall have up to November 15, 2001 to do so if required but, only if required. If he fails to do so, comply with the settlement the White County Area Plan Commission can set it’s complaint for hearing on the alleged violation as set forth in Plans Complaint in this cause and matter on December 20, 2001 at 7:30 at the White County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. If he complies with all of the above fully and completely the White County Area Plan Commission shall dismiss it’s complaint file herewith and Ron Pollock shall dismiss his request for relief #2009. It’s been signed by Mr. Pollock, has tendered a check, his check for 200 dollars as set out in the settlement for settlement and accordingly I would indicate that pursuant to the settlement that this matter be continued essentially without date but, egalled probably December the 20th meeting.

President Thompson asked, are there any comments from the Board? What were our conditions? Is that basically what we asked?

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what the problem was, he couldn’t get title…

President Thompson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, accordingly, he had a real problem with what he wanted to do with that trailer, it didn’t conform with any real section of our Ordinance at least what he wanted to do with it, it didn’t conform with any section of our Ordinance. So, I think that he essentially decided that was the only thing left open for him is to remove it. The other things about the vehicles aren’t probably quite involved in our mission but, they came as a general violation and they are working with Officer Raines, we included him in to get rid of the problem. The fence he had not properly permitted that and so that was why it was removed.

President Thompson asked, did we initially deal with this in about July?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s right.

President Thompson stated, if I remember…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s right.

President Thompson stated, it was tabled in August obviously…

Carol Stradling stated, he tabled it, it was first approached in July, he tabled it and he didn’t show last month and then presented this, this month.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so, when does the trailer have to be disposed of?

Attorney Altman stated, November the 15th, it must be gone. The truth is, by due diligence it must be gone as soon as reasonable possible. In other words, if it’s a week job he has to get it done in a week. If the weather makes it a 2-month job then it’s a 2-month job but he must get on it right away.

President Thompson asked, did you and Director Weaver visit him?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we met with his lawyer, yes, we did.

President Thompson asked, so, you need nothing from us?

Attorney Altman stated, nothing other than we have restated an agreed settlement assuming that he does what he has set out to do.

President Thompson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, still active, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, to the best of my knowledge, if we table it, it goes to the October meeting and you’re requesting November. Do we need a motion…

Attorney Altman stated, we’re requesting December, actually.

Jeff Saylor asked, you’re requesting…

Attorney Altman stated, pursuant to the settlement.

Carol Stradling asked, how many times can something be tabled?

Attorney Altman stated, we can table it as many times…

Carol Stradling stated, we can table it but, he can only table it…

Attorney Altman stated, twice, and this is not, this really isn’t tabled in the usual sense. This is a table to allow him to comply. This isn’t to get information in, it’s because he needs some time to get it out. So yes, it does need to be tabled and then the Area Plan Commission will bring it in front of the table, if he doesn’t comply at the December meeting.

President Thompson stated, I guess I’m at a loss here…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s different…

President Thompson asked, a little different because, it’s happened so long ago, do you recall how this came…

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

Attorney Altman stated, no, he was not.

President Thompson asked, anyone else?

Carol Stradling stated, I think that we were ready to vote and he tabled it…

President Thompson stated, yes, that’s true, that happened.

Attorney Altman stated, and it became clear that what he asked for was not in the Ordinance and they tried to amend it, and did amend it and found that, that was not in the Ordinance either.

President Thompson asked, but, then did he come to Director Weaver and say, what do I need to comply? I’m not sure how all of this came about.

Attorney Altman stated, essentially his lawyer and I talked this out and I told his lawyer of what I could read in the Ordinance, what he wanted to do wasn’t allowable in the Ordinance.

President Thompson asked, but, this is still all subject to Board approval next meeting when he presents this or not.

Attorney Altman stated, no…

President Thompson asked, no?

Attorney Altman stated, it will be settled.

Les Ezra asked, next door neighbor to the property, his fence and mine are the same. I guess I want to make sure that if I have to come to a fourth meeting now in December or not, there is this settlement and things are going to be removed…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s removed or it’s done, it’s removed and that’s what the agreement is to do so, it’s done.

Les Ezra asked, if it’s not then should neighbors of concern be at that meeting in December?

Attorney Altman stated, you bet.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and you’re going to know if that’s so, whether it’s removed or not.

Les Ezra stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, and call the department if you have any questions on it.

Les Ezra stated, okay.

Jeff Saylor stated, this is still open on our books…

President Thompson stated, it is.

Jeff Saylor stated, I guess that we need a motion to table it until December.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, that would be appropriate.

President Thompson asked, so, you’re not speaking on his behalf…

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Thompson asked, you’re not tabling it?

Attorney Altman stated, no but, what I’m saying is the agreement between the department and the applicant is that this would be tabled and he would have to do what the settlement is.

Jeff Saylor asked, the December meeting, we’re not voting on this anymore?

Attorney Altman stated, no, right.

Jeff Saylor asked, so the issue that, we’re not voting on, December is already closed at this point?

Attorney Altman stated, if he complies, yes.

President Thompson asked, why December?

Attorney Altman stated, it was to give him time to, approximately 60 days, to get it cleared off.

President Thompson stated, all right.

Attorney Altman stated, it didn’t have anything to do with, it was just the amount of time to complete the job, to remove the objectionable material.

Carol Stradling asked, the first question on our special exception ordinance whether or not this applies and wouldn’t we have to answer that no? That this variance, this special exception that he is requesting is not in, because, it doesn’t fit in our Ordinance…

Attorney Altman stated, if it were to go to a vote on his request, yes, and that’s exactly why the settlement has tailored this way because it is not there, it isn’t allowed.

Jeff Saylor asked, pursuant to the settlement, has this request been withdrawn?

Attorney Altman stated, it will be if he complies as it says. If he complies fully and completely we will dismiss our complaint, White County Area Plan. Then Ron Pollock would then dismiss this request. So, it isn’t being dismissed this second but it will be dismissed with compliance. So, table this appropriately, motion to table it.

Carol Stradling stated, a motion to continue, is that different?

Attorney Altman stated, no, that would be fine.

Carol Stradling asked, that would be the same?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, motion to continue.

Carol Stradling asked, is that different than a motion to table?

Attorney Altman stated, not very much, I think that it would be appropriate, actually the correct motion is, to table it.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, at this point I would like to make a motion that we table variance request #2009 until the December, 2001 meeting.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved, do I hear a second to that?

David Scott seconded the motion.

President Thompson asked, it’s been moved and seconded to table this variance #2009 to the December meeting, which would be the 15th correct?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, all in favor signify by saying I. All opposed the same, motion carried.

****

#2040 Ralph E. & Sondra K. Bragg; Requesting a 20’ front setback from First Street to build a detached garage and a 20’ front setback from First Street and a 23’ front setback from Hanawalt Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #6 in Citizen’s Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 501 W. Hanawalt Street. Tabled from August 16, 2001.

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

Ralph Bragg was present to represent this request.

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

Ralph Bragg stated, no sir, the only thing is, I guess, that there was a question about the shed and the shed would be removed once the garage is built.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the 10’ x 8’ shed…

Ralph Bragg stated, yes sir…

Attorney Altman stated, excuse me the 12’ x 8’ shed.

Ralph Bragg stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to speak in favor or against the variance this evening? Do you have the file?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I do.

President Thompson asked, is there any response from anyone there?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Thompson asked, questions or comments from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, there is a garage across the alley from your property?

Ralph Bragg stated, yes ma’am.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s a white garage?

Ralph Bragg stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, your garage, proposed garage, be any closer to First Street than theirs?

Ralph Bragg stated, no, it will all be in a line and that’s basically why I wanted it because, I want it to line, my house and his garage up together.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Anyone else?

Attorney Altman asked, where will you be entering and exiting to the garage, from the alley?

Ralph Bragg stated, no, off of First Street.

Attorney Altman asked, single story garage?

Ralph Bragg stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, no storage above, no significant storage above?

Ralph Bragg stated, no.

President Thompson asked, any other comments or questions? If not, 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 20’ front setback from First Street to build a detached garage and a 20’ front setback from First Street and a 23’ front setback from Hanawalt Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Number Six (6) in Citizen’s Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 501 W. Hanawalt Street.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the condition that the existing 12’ x 8’ building be removed.

You need to get a building permit.

Ralph Bragg asked, do I pick that up over here?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, in Area Plan.

Ralph Bragg asked, how long will I have to have my shed moved after my garage is completed?

Attorney Altman stated, it needs to be done right away.

Ralph Bragg asked, after my garage is completed?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and we do mean quick.

Ralph Bragg stated, oh yes, I’m talking two weeks, a week…

Attorney Altman stated, a week…

Ralph Bragg stated, just something just long enough to get my stuff organized and get it in my garage. Thank you.

****

#2048 Chrisie D. Helderle, Owner; Crown Castle, Applicant; Requesting a 30’ front setback variance for the equipment buildings for an approved communications tower site on 10,000 square feet. The property is located on the North side of C.R. 500 S., approximately ¼ of a mile West of US. Highway 231. Tabled from August 23, 2001.

President Thompson asked, any one here representing this variance? I didn’t think so, I didn’t recognize anyone. Do you know anything about this?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Thompson stated, no representation…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that this is two, there is a request in here but, it’s to your next months meeting which is today.

President Thompson stated, just as a side note, I have to laugh about this a little bit, we don’t get a lot of humor at this meeting. Your sheet that has the pictures, top on the left, I was out there, when they broke ground, see the corner post there, they broke ground on the left side of the corner post so that neighbor lost about a ½ of an acre of beans. I got a phone call about 11:00 on that one, the bulldozer got on the wrong side of the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the second continuance, the next one is it.

President Thompson stated, okay so…

Attorney Altman stated, due to the fact that no one appeared, this matter needs to, is continued and I think that we should note that maybe Director Weaver telling them that this is the last continuance they are entitled to.

****

#2049 Robert A. Beishuizen; Requesting a 4’ North side setback and a 2’ rear setback to build a new detached garage and a 4’ North and South side setback and a 4’ front setback to bring the existing unroofed deck into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #1 in Chambers Subdivision. The property is located in Liberty Township at 6902 Chamber Court. Tabled from August 16, 2001.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance this evening?

Robert Beishuizen was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you care to add any more to what has been entered?

Robert Beishuizen stated, at this time Mr. President, we would like to withdraw a portion of this request dealing with the garage. We would like to limit our request for approval of the variance dealing only with the bringing of, the existing deck, into compliance.

Attorney Altman asked, for the record, which just means that the existing garage would remain on the property right?

Robert Beishuizen stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, and that the application for the proposed garage and the variances associated with that, would be withdrawn from consideration of the Board.

Robert Beishuizen stated, that is correct.

Attorney Altman stated, so that we have just the side setback, the 0’ setbacks on the deck and the encroachment on this SFLECC property.

Robert Beishuizen stated, that is correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, nothing in the file, I was going to say I don’t see any other, we had the August letter, then we had a Patterson that we read and Dave Anderson was read, I don’t think that we have any new ones.

An audience member stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, I think that this is one maybe you couldn’t see, you’re copy wasn’t, Terena is that how you pronounce it?

Carol Stradling stated, it is Terena James.

President Thompson stated, yes James, and she is the co-trustee on the Ellen Richardson Trust.

Carol Stradling stated, she is the one that indicated that they wanted to consider it.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I will read into the record ignoring the formal part. The letter from Terena James was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address this variance either for or against?

Louis Wontor asked, the garage proposal is withdrawn August 16th, he’s withdrawing it again. How many times do you have to withdraw it?

Attorney Altman stated, just once.

President Thompson stated, I don’t….

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t recall…

President Thompson stated, I don’t think that he withdrew it in August…

Louis Wontor stated, I was here at the meeting, I personally heard him say that he is withdrawing the garage application.

Attorney Altman asked, well, it’s withdrawn, do you have any trouble with the deck?

Louis Wontor stated, no, sir.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, are you, just for the record, you’re adjoining neighbor?

Louis Wontor stated, correct.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address this variance? Is there is nothing else there Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t see anything else in the file.

President Thompson asked, Board, comments or questions? Nothing?

Attorney Altman stated, there is just one thing, we can’t consent for SFLECC, for the encroachment, there is just no way that we can get up to the lot line and we can do that legally. The encroachment is not something that we can consent to or allow, that’s just beyond our authority.

President Thompson asked, so, if there’s nothing else, is the Board…

Carol Stradling stated, but, the SFLECC has consented, we can’t consent but, they have so it’s just limiting what we can approve.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If not are we ready to vote? I guess we’ll vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 4’ North and South side setback and a 4’ front setback to bring the existing unroofed deck into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Number One (1) in Chambers Subdivision in Liberty Township, White Count, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township 6902 N. Chamber Court.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, after the withdrawing of the request for a proposed garage and that is withdrawn from consideration this is approved. You need to get a building permit.

****

#2050 Dorothy M. Maxson; Requesting a 15’ front setback to build an addition onto the existing home and a 26’ front setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on a parcel of ground 99’ x 182’. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 803 N. Third Street.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Maxson’s?

Joe Maxson was present to represent this request.

Attorney Altman stated, before you do that, I have been an attorney for the Maxson’s throughout my experience here therefore, I recluse myself as attorney in this matter.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Joe Maxson stated, I’m representing my mother for the request. What we’re trying to do is put a small addition on the North side of the building, North side of her property where the house is now.

President Thompson asked, okay, anything else?

Joe Maxson stated, we just had it rezoned, it was passed through Area Plan and through the City of Monticello. We wanted to get this variance done so we could start to build.

President Thompson asked, anyone here to speak in favor or against the variance this evening? Questions or discussion from the Board, anyone?

Carol Stradling asked, I guess I’m just wondering how much that around there is zoned I-1.

Joe Maxson stated, there are two houses, everything else is residential except for my moms house and the house to the South.

Attorney Altman stated, a lot of it was to start with because, RCA was there and they thought that development, expanding would go that way. Several of these lots were vacant at that time that were not theirs particularly but, several in that area were and the thought was that if RCA expanded it should be zoned I-1 and that’s why.

President Thompson stated, I see nothing in the file here, any response from the property owners, adjoining, excuse me, adjoining property owners. Any questions from the Board? No other discussion from the Board, are we ready to vote? We shall vote.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, I have come back to the chair to count the ballots on #2050.

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 15’ front setback to build an addition onto the existing home and a 26’ front setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on a tract of land out of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, described as follows:

Beginning at a point 150 feet North and 32 feet East of the Northwest corner of Lot Number 20 in the Industrial Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana; thence North One Hundred Eighty-Two (182) feet; thence East Thirty-Two (32) feet to the place of beginning.

ALSO: The northerly One Hundred Eighty-Two (182.00’) feet of the westerly Sixty Seven and Eighty Eight Hundredths (67.88’) of the following described parcel:

A parcel of land containing One and One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousandths (1.122) acres, more of less, in the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section Twenty Eight (28) Township Twenty Seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West of the Second Principal Meridian, in the County of White, State of Indiana, and described as follows:

Beginning at an iron pipe driven into the ground on the North line of Ireland Street at a point directly North of the Northeast corner of Lot Seventeen (17) produced, Two Hundred Ninety One (291) feet to an iron pipe driven into the ground at the fence line on the North line of the Grantor’s land; thence Westerly One Hundred Sixty Seven and Eighty Eight Hundredths (167.88) feet to the Northwest corner of the Grantors land, thence Southerly Two Hundred Ninety One and Fifty One Hundredths (291.51) feet to the Southwest corner of the Grantors land thence Easterly along the North line of Ireland Street One Hundred Sixty Seven and Eighty Eight Hundredths (167.88) feet to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 803 N. Third Street.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

Joe Maxson stated, thank you.

****

#2051 Curtis J. Hanway; Requesting a 28’ front setback to bring the newly built roofed porch into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on 1.00 Acres. The property is located in Monon Township at 6926 N. 100 W.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Hanway’s?

Curtis Hanway was present to represent this request.

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

Curtis Hanway stated, one of the reasons is the porch is being built, whether it’s replacing an existing one that was grandfathered and I extended it a little wider, or a little farther into the driveway, towards the road. The existing porch was grandfathered and it was doing structural damage, it was starting to heave and doing structural damage to the house.

Carol Stradling asked, I just want to clarify that the porch isn’t in the right-of-way, that it’s in the setback.

Curtis Hanway stated, yes, it’s not in the right-of-way.

David Scott stated, it looks like it’s 32’ off of the right-of-way.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, is there anything in the file?

Attorney Altman stated, no, there’s nothing in the file other than what you have before you.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against the variance this evening? Questions or discussion from the Board, nothing? If not, is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned 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 28’ front setback to bring the newly built roofed porch into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 29; thence South 02 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West along the section line 334.81 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 02 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West 171.66 feet; thence North 87 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds West 263.17 feet; thence North 02 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East 159.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 18 seconds East 263.47 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.00 Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 6926 N. 100 W.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

Curtis Hanway asked, do I need to get another building permit?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it has to be in compliance.

Curtis Hanway asked, okay, just for the porch then?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

****

Attorney Altman stated, I have brief to report I think that I sent you all the order of the Court on the CDC appeal of our decision here. The question, I have seen some of you about and is obviously, they have 30 days to file their brief and argument and then we have 20 days after that to do that. I presume that we do that and I just wanted to check with the Board and make sure that this is what you wanted your attorney to do in this matter. That would be to file the usual brief that is required. Are there any questions on that?

President Thompson asked, discussion?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, discussion.

David Scott asked, now, they are attesting? We, before my time, voted it down and their contesting it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, their contesting whether that denial of the special exception was appropriate. It was a special exception and that’s what they’re attesting and how they attest that they take a legal ward to do that in this case, the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court reviews the decision based, it doesn’t take due evidence and he reviews the decision and the record. Then decides what the correct thing to do and he can do all manner of things, he can refer it back to us to review our decision and make a decision, a corrective decision, he can confirm that decision, he can do all of a manner of things. What he can’t do is, review new evidence and he is not doing that, he just usually, when they get to that position reads the file and the Judge then makes a decision and that’s where we are on that.

David Scott stated, I didn’t get a chance to talk to anyone else, since I wasn’t here to hear the argument, I think I won’t vote on that.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re really not asking for a vote, I just wanted to know what the Board thought that I should I do.

President Thompson stated, right, in discussion.

Attorney Altman stated, in discussion, yes.

President Thompson stated, it probably good on this part because, it was quite a situation.

Attorney Altman stated, basically the Judge allowed us the opportunity to file a brief and the time for that hasn’t even started to do that because, I haven’t seen their brief yet.

Jeff Saylor asked, but, we can’t change the decision.

Attorney Altman stated, no, not the decision.

Carol Stradling asked, what if we don’t file a brief?

Attorney Altman asked, I guess obviously the other interviewer would file a brief and then the Judge would make a decision. I would certainly file and answer that we do not intend to file a brief. So, we’re not going to ignore the Judge, whether the Board wanted it, we can proceed and so what, file a brief?

David Scott asked, do these happen often?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, once in a while.

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t happen as often as once a year maybe once every 2 or 3 years. The last one was the landfill and I know in, probably 4 years when they appealed that.

Carol Stradling asked, if we, a brief that means more work on your part, more time commitment on your part. It wouldn’t really be presenting anything new, correct? He has our minutes, the Judge has our minutes and we said what we were going to say.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it would just be on the law, it would be on the law, that’s what the brief is we would be talking about the laws.

Carol Stradling stated, so we either have the option to file a brief which would then would present the law concerning with what we dealt with.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, or we don’t file a brief and then the judge looks at CDC’s brief and….

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and then he does his own research and does his decision based upon all of that.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that the only thing that we could add in a brief would be legal support for our decision.

Attorney Altman stated, yes and that’s what a brief, what I would intend to do. I think that it’s appropriate for you to give me an idea of what you want me to do about it, that’s all.

Carol Stradling stated, I have kind of talked to each of you about your decision and that’s kind of what I wanted to see if we, what would happen if we didn’t file a brief then.

Attorney Altman stated, sure, show of hands, just ask for those who do and those who don’t.

President Thompson stated, just that simple, those that are in favor of.

Attorney Altman stated, looks like we have 1 and those against.

President Thompson stated, looking at a Board of 4, voting of 4.

Attorney Altman stated, 2 against and 1 abstention, unless you want to cast a vote.

Gary Barbour asked, I guess that I have a question, what is, from a legal standpoint, what is worth the odds here of winning it and what are the odds of loosing it?

Attorney Altman stated, depends on what do you mean by winning and what do you mean by loosing. Obviously, what I would intend to do is just file a brief as to what the law is in this matter on these situations.

David Scott asked, if we don’t does it look like that…

Attorney Altman stated, no, shirking you responsibility?

David Scott asked, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, no, I don’t think so, I don’t think so in this case.

David Scott asked, is the Judge or the Court, whoever, is going to look at it, if they need presentation, I don’t know…

Attorney Altman stated, you never know when a Judge looks at something like that, they are going to certainly intend to, at least inform the court by direction the client. We just decline to file a brief and based upon what we believe to be adequate briefing by the parties is what I would suggest to him.

Carol Stradling stated, it kind of puts it back in the realm of CDC, the neighborhood and takes it out of our own.

Attorney Altman stated, kind of.

Carol Stradling asked, is that what we want to do today?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that’s exactly what the decision is of the Board. Right now, the vote is 1 to 2, do you want to vote one more time?

Carol Stradling stated, if the two of you would say, I would say okay but, when you split…

President Thompson stated, you vote your own conscious.

Carol Stradling stated, part of it is my own conscious, part of it is as a Board, you support our actions.

David Scott stated, what I was trying to get to is that if you send representation, it looks like your supporting your actions or if you don’t…

Attorney Altman stated, see the original decision was split.

David Scott stated, oh, I see.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, you can support your own vote, if you want to.

Jeff Saylor stated, all that I can tell you is I was one of the decenting members of the Board when the original vote was taken. From my point of view, it was a vote from the heart and not necessarily from the letter of the law. I have a feeling that whatever I feel reflected. How I voted is not going to stand up in court okay.

Attorney Altman stated, we’ll see.

President Thompson stated, well, probably my vote as well, I can see where they both could be challenged, I hear what you’re saying.

Carol Stradling asked, but, he will look at the testimony?

Attorney Altman stated, oh yes.

Carol Stradling stated, when the Judge looks at it…

Attorney Altman stated, he must look at that…

Carol Stradling stated, that the legal proceedings that we looked at are in those minutes…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling stated, the statements were in the minutes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, he must look at it.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that this would be a chance to say anything more that we want to say if we have any more to say and if you don’t have any more to say then…

Attorney Altman stated, beyond the law only. I can comment on it but I can’t bring more evidence in.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, so if there is any law that would support your decisions then this would be the chance, this would be the opportunity to present that. If either of you would like to do that, then I would support doing that if that’s what you want to do. Does that make sense?

President Thompson stated, yes, it does.

Gary Barbour stated, well, us basically as a Board, make a decision not matter how anyone votes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s’ right.

Gary Barbour stated, I see what you’re getting at but…

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s a difficult one…

President Thompson stated, yes, it is very difficult.

Attorney Altman stated, again, why don’t you, if you want to contact me, we have 30 days and then we have 20 days. In my count we have approximately, I have briefed the other ones so, I expect to have that. When I get that I may call you to see if you changed your mind.

President Thompson stated, that’s fair.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess just to say, not replying what the brief would support my vote but, I don’t want to go that way to deny either of you the opportunity to support your vote. If you would like to do that I would vote in favor of the brief. Is that clear Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, I think that’s what I’m saying as well, really.

Gary Barbour stated, I feel the same way of what she’s saying, I think that.

President Thompson asked, it was what a 3 to 2 vote that night?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, 3 to 2.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t think that I will ever forget when the result was announced the people that stood up and applauded.

President Thompson stated, yes, that’s right, pats on the back and then walk out. The whole next morning that bothered me, I just couldn’t go to sleep. It really did.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing, I have filed suit on the violation that the height violation on the garage and they have representation and we’re not yet to the point of court proceedings but, when we get there, or get farther I will report back. I just wanted to let you know. Couple mobile homes that we’re going after, they won’t respond to Director Weaver. I think that’s about it.

David Scott asked, I have one more question, on the Joe Maxson’s property here, the property that he is wanting to build looks like it really didn’t need a setback did it, is it the existing property or am I not reading it right? According to the, what is the setback because it looks like she has a lot of…

Attorney Altman stated, the problem is, here’s the strip and here’s the existing house and it’s too close, it was probably built almost before the Ordinance.

David Scott asked, okay, so this 17’ also is not in the normal setback?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, exactly. I think that it’s 20’ I believe there, is what it is.

David Scott stated, in Monon I think that it’s 32’ off of the street.

Attorney Altman stated, it depends on the zoning classification, I would have to check that to be sure.

President Thompson stated, meeting, week from tonight as far as I know.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that’s right.

****

Jeff Saylor 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