Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Phil Vogel, Dave Kitchell, B.J. Mursener, Sharon White, Jerry & Nancy Skinner, George & Rita VanHoutegen, David Gilman, Tom Spackman Sr., Ann Switzer Thompson, Rebecca Bailey Wimbush, James T. Korbos, Robert Lewis Justice, Dustin & Patricia Grieves, Chris Carpenter, Lois M. Rogers, Amanda R. Rogers, Joe Hlatko, Maureen Hlatko, Jane Switzer Walker, John & Mary Walker, John J. Ryan, Thomas Engle, Tom Spackman, Bob Guy, Randy Elizalde, W.E. Jackson II, Buehl W. Ponsler Jr., Betty Niekamp and David Adkins.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jeff Saylor and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to table the approval of the minutes of the August 13, 2001, September 20 and 27, 2001 meetings until the next meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously.

Attorney Altman stated, first thing that I want you to know, as a point of housekeeping is, application #2062 has been tabled and will not be heard this evening at the petitioner’s request. Does anyone have any questions on that? It will not be heard tonight so, if you’re here for that, be at the next one.

B.J. Mursener asked, are all of the adjoining property owners given notice Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, they should have, yes.

B.J. Mursener stated, I’m not sure that you got a proper list of neighbors.

William Jackson stated, I’m an adjoining property and I never received a letter and my address is 6330 E. Hickory Ridge Court.

Attorney Altman stated, wait just a second. We will be glad to put that on there. It will be tabled until the next meeting which will be…

An audience member stated, sir, sir…


Attorney Altman stated, just one moment, I will be with you.

Director Weaver stated, November the 15th…

Attorney Altman stated, November the 15th, right here, at the same time.

Vice President Saylor stated, same time, same place.

Attorney Altman stated, same time right here. Just a moment, we want to get a name on here and then we will go with you, okay.

Director Weaver asked, your name again sir?

William Jackson stated, William Jackson.

Attorney Altman asked, William F. and Rebecca A. Jackson…

Director Weaver stated, we did have your name on the list…

Attorney Altman stated, care of National City Mortgage Company…

Director Weaver stated, it went to your mortgage company.

Attorney Altman stated, so, that’s where it went. We will be glad to get your personal address and put that on there but, that’s, we use the tax records and that’s where they go.

Director Weaver asked, what is your address again?

William Jackson stated, 6330 E. Hickory Ridge Court.

An audience member stated, in order for me to get the letter that I got, I had to come over here to do it, the Area Planning and then twice I called. Once to have the letter sent to me and my name is on the list and I got the letter the 15th.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you, I’m glad that you did, I’m sorry about trouble with the mail but, you’re name is apparently on the list and I don’t know what we do about that, I’m sorry.

The audience member stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#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 and September 20, 2001.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone representing the request?

David Gilman stated, I’m representing Crown Castle, office is at 333 E. Ohio Street Suite 120, Indianapolis, Indiana. We were here earlier this summer and we received a special exception to construct a tower on Mr. Helderle’s property. The tower is built and on your map that I have passed out, the Cingular equipment building is existing. We do have our concrete pads poured and our meter boards installed. The entire 100’ x 100’ area has been graveled and is ready for additional equipment buildings. When we laid out the site, the site acquisition person who negotiated the lease area with Mr. Helderle, measured the 100’ x 100’ lease area from the parent right-of-way line. After applying the 60’ front yard setback requirement, it only allowed us for a Cingular and a second tenant. What we’re asking is that the Board consider relieving the 60’ front setback line to 30’, to allow us 3 additional tenant buildings writing a 30’ setback as opposed to a 60’ setback. These additional equipment sheds would be a maximum of 10’ x 20’ x 8’ tall. We think that the county road is about 15’ wide, gravel, dead end road. There is only one occupant on that entire road, I have talked to Mr. Helderle, and she said that Mr. Leming has not objection for the tower being there or the variance request and Mr. Helderle does own the property surrounding the tower site. This would allow us to continue on with our plan of operation to co-locate as many as 5 carriers on a tower as we had discussed earlier in our initial proposal for the tower, special exception approval. We don’t think by relieving the 60’ setback to a 30’ setback would be detrimental to the public, health, safety and general welfare of the community, simply because these are equipment sheds, unmanned equipment sheds. They are small and they would have no traffic generated by them except at most, one trip per equipment shed per month for maintenance and routine checks. They would not be illuminated except for a small wall pack security light over the door itself. We like to keep these equipment sheds relatively close to the road because, it would be within our fenced in compound area. The 100’ x 100’ area, has already been approved, by the State of Indiana, the phase one and the nebicheck list were for the 100’ x 100’ site. The federal approvals were for the 100’ x 100’ site, to expand beyond that, we would have to go through the State and Federal approvals all over again. They would consider that undisturbed area even though it’s just 30’ of land right next to what we have already been approved. We would have to go through the entire process again for that. With that I will open it up for questions to the audience or the Board members.

Director Weaver stated, I would just like to add to that Board. We have not received any complaints on this request or concerns with it, this county road does dead end because of the interstate and it is not a high traffic area.

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

Carol Stradling asked, you didn’t know that you needed these buildings to meet the future tenants?

David Gilman stated, we knew that we would need this 100’ x 100’ leased area. It is our error and I would admit that, the site acquisition person, when Mr. Helderle, the farmer who owns the property indicated that he wanted to use up as little farm land as possible and keep it right in the corner. So the site acquisition person measured 100’ x 100’ on a, dead end gravel drive not realizing that the 60’ setback took up 2/3’s of the leaseable area. Had we known that, or the homework should have been done more properly, we would have started our leased area further back and it’s just an error that we made and that we’re asking to see if we can get some relief from the Board. We just didn’t expect a 60’ setback on the gravel road, when you drive out there, it just appears to be a private drive for the one house at the very end of it.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, they at the same time, got approval for two other towers and they could meet their setbacks on those other two towers, they didn’t have any problems there so, I think maybe this was an oversight on this.

Vice President Saylor asked, anything further from the Board? Any other comments? Then at this time, the Board will vote.

Attorney Altman stated, I will accept the petitioners site plan as Exhibit A, and incorporate it as part of the record.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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

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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 30’ front setback variance for the equipment buildings for an approved communications tower site on 10,000 square feet on a part of the southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 26 North, Range 6 West, White County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said quarter section; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 17 seconds East 7.82 feet along the South line of said section; thence North 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West 20.01 feet to the point of beginning of this description:

Thence continuing North 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds West 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. 500 S and approximately ¼ of a mile West of U.S. Highway 231.

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 your building permits before you proceed.

David Gilman stated, thank you very much.

****

#2058 James T. & Georgia J. Korbos; Requesting a 6’ side setback variance and a 1’ separation variance from the home so he can build a detached garage on lot #6 in Gano’s Camp Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 3532 E. Bailey Road.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone to represent the request?

James Korbos stated, I would appreciate the request and I will get a permit if I can get it. I had a tool shed up there, utilities in it but, I made a mistake, it was untreated lumber and it was getting rotten and I knocked it down by mistake. So that’s why I came to the zone to ask for, I still have the cement foundation there.

Attorney Altman asked, so you’re building back on the foundation of the original garage?

James Korbos stated, yes, I am, I’m going to extend it a little bit longer.

Attorney Altman asked, how much longer, do you know?

James Korbos stated, about 10 more feet, it was 12’ and I want to go to 24’, 12’, about 22’ maybe. Not past the home, I have a drawing here if you would like to see it sir.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that we have your survey that you’re talking about.

James Korbos stated, yes, I didn’t know that you had that Mr. Altman.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Korbos had a shed on this property that was grandfathered that was sitting in the approximate location that he’s asking for this garage to go in. I believe in the pictures, you can see the cement slab from that shed.

Attorney Altman asked, single story garage?

James Korbos stated, yes, about 8’ to 9’ high. Not high at all, it’s a small roof, just to get the equipment in there that I want to put the stuff I had out.

Carol Stradling asked, is the firewall part that?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I was going to…

Carol Stradling asked, a requirement or do we…

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is State Building Codes do require when a structure goes closer than 6’ that it does require a firewall.

Attorney Altman stated, but,, I think that we need to include that as part of our matter.

Carol Stradling asked, so, your garage is closer to your house than 6’?

James Korbos stated, no, it’s going to be…

Attorney Altman stated, 5’…

James Korbos stated, 5’5”.

Carol Stradling stated, if it were 6’ or more it wouldn’t need a firewall but, since it’s closer than 6’ you need to put a firewall on your garage.

James Korbos stated, in other words, I will start that 6’ from the house then to be, protection right?

Carol Stradling stated, you will just put the firewall in your garage…

James Korbos stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, if we approve this, you can build your garage 5’ from your house and then you need to put a firewall in your garage so, if your garage catches on fire your house doesn’t burn.

James Korbos asked, so in other words, I have to build a brick foundation right?

Attorney Altman stated, no…

James Korbos stated, firewalls…

Attorney Altman asked, what is it particleboard?

Director Weaver stated, drywall.

James Korbos stated, yes, yes, oh I’m going to put that green board in other words…

Carol Stradling stated, but, there is a certain thickness that you have to put in…

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get it so both sides, since it’s a 0’ setback on the neighbors’ side, you need a firewall on that side and you also need it on your house side.

James Korbos stated, yes, I intend to do that.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good, we would require that for public safety.

James Korbos stated, see I had a boat that is a little longer than, then I had my grass cutters and stuff that’s all. I never kept a car in there so and then…

Carol Stradling stated, but, someone else might. After you’ve left the property we need to make sure…

James Korbos stated, okay sure. I’m going to put that stuff in, I want to do the right thing, the real right thing because, I have two granddaughters there and if anything happens to grandpa I want to make sure that it’s nice so no one bothers them and that’s the deep truth of God.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else like to comment on the variance request?

George VanHoutegen stated, I live next door to Mr. Korbos…

Attorney Altman asked, which way sir?

George VanHoutegen stated, where he’s wanting to build towards the garage on the property line…

Attorney Altman asked, lot #7?

George VanHoutegen stated, I’m 3542.

Rita VanHoutegen stated, yes, it’s lot #7.

George VanHoutegen stated, yes, the only reason that I’m against this is, can I show you these pictures?

Attorney Altman stated, sure, they become our property, they become exhibits.

George VanHoutegen stated, this is my house, it’s built on a hill and I also had water problems at one time, which I finally had taken care of. Now him building this garage, I’m going to have more water run off on the property line over on that hill, I already have my downspouts there my grinder pump is there and like I said, I had just taken care of my water pump. I don’t want to have to worry about more water and my sewer pipes are down there. I was down there a couple of weeks ago, I welled my grinder pump, and I just stepped through a hole it’s like the ground just hasn’t settled yet or what but anyway. Basically, I’m also worried about, you know if he has to build up that driveway or anything that’s also going to run the water down to, down on my hill. I have had two conversations with Mr. Korbos about this, we have gone around and around it always seems to change every time that we’re going to do this. The first time, he was going to build this, he wanted to know if he could come 8’ on my property, which I said no, he was going to put this big 16’ door in, I don’t know where he got that at…

Attorney Altman stated, just talk about what he is proposing today.

George VanHoutegen stated, right well, the reason that I’m saying this is because, I just received that letter two days ago. The drawing on that back of that is different than what we had talked about so really I wasn’t prepared actually, the picture, that’s why I brought that up. I’m not trying to tell stories…

Attorney Altman stated, let's just talk about the request.

George VanHoutegen stated, right, and that’s actually what I’m trying to do. I’m worried about if this garage is put there, I’m worried about people coming and building, putting their equipment on my property because I had trouble even getting the sewers in there, putting their equipment on my property if they have to build that garage right there. Basically, I guess that’s about all that I have to say.

Attorney Altman stated, we would not give him permission to put, have anyone come on your property, no one…

George VanHoutegen stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, so that this request would not allow for that to happen.

George VanHoutegen stated, okay.

Rita VanHoutegen stated, I’m his wife and I just wanted to bring your attention to the pictures that he showed you. If you look at the one picture, where you see the concrete pad, he has installed a steel rod that’s out from the concrete pad. That’s his indication of where the property line is and if you look at that concrete pad, it’s going to come over a lot farther than the existing concrete pad. So, consequently, I’m mean I would think, I don’t know that much construction but, I would think that a contractor would have to come in and fill that up because, it’s quite a bit higher, the concrete pad is quite a bit higher than the side yard. I don’t know how they would do that, that’s also a concern because of our grinder pump and all of our sewer pipes being underneath the ground on that side. There’s also, I believe another picture, did you, we’re very reasonable people. If, we have absolutely no issue with him building a garage, he has a lot of other areas on his property that he could place the structure that would not require any kind of damage to our property. We would just like for you to consider the damage that could easily be done to our property because of it being right on the property line in that location.

Attorney Altman stated, we accepted then marked for exhibit, objectors exhibit A, B, C and D.

John Ryan stated, I have been living there 23 years next to Ted Korbos, which is next to Jim Korbos, his father. This man never told the truth in his life…

Attorney Altman stated, wait, wait, wait…

John Ryan stated, just a minute, I’m talking now…

Attorney Altman stated, you’re out of order…

John Ryan asked, I’m out of order?

Attorney Altman stated, yes sir…

Vice President Saylor stated, sir, if you care to address the issues the Board is addressing fine…

John Ryan stated, this shed that he is talking about, I’m very sorry, I apologize…

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

John Ryan stated, the shed was a metal shed when he bought the place, it was back further on this picture…

Attorney Altman stated, we would be glad to talk facts…

John Ryan stated, and this is the facts, I have been there 23 years, this shed was way back here, he didn’t like it there, he moved it up and 8’ x 8’ shed. You know you buy these sheds, metal sheds, he’s talking about a wooden rotted out thing, there was no wooden thing. It was a metal shed and he moved it forward when he bought the place 10 or 15 years ago but, what he is trying to do is build next to someone else as far and as close as he could. Now, if he moves it back, he has all of the room in the world, he can build it 24’ x 24’, he could build anything he has 50’.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to comment?

James Korbos stated, I have no comments sir, I know everything that I have to do is going to be the right thing. I know that there isn’t going to be any water, I have my pump there too and I’m not going to go on anyone’s property. In fact this gentlemen, his garage, his deck and his septic tank system is on my property. I had the surveyor as Mr. Altman has there, he can show that he is on my property. I’m not going on their property, all I want is a 1’ and I know what to do and there isn’t nothing, I have my own pump in the front, I’m not going to let any water go down there, I’m not that stupid.

John Ryan stated, I’m talking about the water that would come off of the roof, the run off water off of the roof. About coming on my property, I have come down on the weekends and seen tire tracks in my back yard…

James Korbos asked, can I finish talking please…

John Ryan stated, the garage, I don’t know if it’s on his property that thing has a, in front of that garage it’s marked 1949, I had nothing to do with that it was there when I bought the place, I had nothing to do with that garage. Believe me, if it was up to me that garage wouldn’t be there if…

James Korbos stated, he was told before he bought it that he was on my property.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

James Korbos stated, and I told him…

Attorney Altman stated, the survey says where it is…

James Korbos stated, and I swear to God that’s the truth, I have a picture here…

James Ryan asked, this would be the side property line, okay, but, that’s grandfather clause right?

Attorney Altman stated, I understand…

James Ryan stated, we had a survey done too and it’s been about 3 years ago and nothing was ever said to us that we were on anyone’s property. The garage was on the property line yes, but, like I said, I had nothing to do with it and I have never done anything to this man…

James Korbos stated, you said to tell the truth, didn’t I tell you before you bought the property…

Attorney Altman stated, wait…

Vice President Saylor stated, gentlemen, let's address the issues at hand, do either of you care to address specific issues regarding the variance at this point? Do you have anything further to say?

James Korbos stated, I’m going to do according to what the Board tells me on the property. No one is going on anyone’s property, there isn’t going to be any water going on there…

James Ryan stated, I’m just saying I don’t think, he has a big enough yard to build it somewhere else and I don’t want all of that water coming down on my property and that’s where everything is…

James Korbos stated, we have rain gutters you know…

Vice President Saylor asked, thank you. Anything further from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, would it be possible for you to put your garage closer to the road or are you using that because there is already a foundation there?

James Korbos stated, yes, not only that but, I don’t want to, I want some playing room for the kids, granddaughters and stuff and I don’t have a big yard anyway, I only have about a 35’ yard. I had that space there and I just made a mistake and knocked the old, it was a 12’ x 8’ and I tore it down. It was a mistake and I could have just added it on and put my stuff in there so, I’m not going to anything else, I’m just wanting my grandfather place, I’m not going to build anything especially big. I don’t have much in room, I can build in the front like you said but what do I do with the space that I had on the side? See I could build a wall all of the way back more if I wanted, I have space right in front of the sewer systems, just where it was and I’m just going to go about 10’ forward in front of my home, see my home is about 22’ there.

There was discussion among the applicant and the Board members.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything else from the Board? Is there anything further from the Board at this time?

Rita VanHoutegen asked, the existing concrete pad, it’s my belief that, that concrete pad is not large enough to hold the structure that, he is wanting to build. As I stated about the pictures, I’m concerned about them having to build this concrete pad out, if it would fit on the concrete pad, he wouldn’t need the variance that he is asking for, the total 0’ variance for on our side, I don’t believe. So I would be very interested to know the size of the existing concrete pad because, I don’t believe that this is large enough width wise, from his house where he wants to put it width wise. With him having to bring, they would have to build that up somehow, I don’t see, it has to be wherever the concrete pad is down to the ground has to be about that high.

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

Carol Stradling asked, on our survey, it shows a concrete wall, is that the edge of the concrete pad?

Rita VanHoutegen stated, no, the edge of the concrete wall I believe is at the, dividing the two properties, that’s down…

Carol Stradling stated, now this runs perpendicular to the two properties.

Attorney Altman stated, have you looked at this? It might be helpful if you did.

There was discussion among the audience member and the Board members.

Carol Stradling stated, the pad doesn’t have to be 14’ wide, the existing pad is not…

Attorney Altman stated, the proposed garage would be 14’ x 24’…

Rita VanHoutegen stated, but if it’s 14’ would it not have to, would the garage not need to have a concrete pad the same width as the garage?

Attorney Altman stated, that would be part of the proposed request.

Rita VanHoutegen stated, right and that’s why, that’s where I’m voicing my concern because the pad will have to come over further over here. This area over here is on a very steep hill and the pad, they would have to come in with fill and everything like that, that’s my concern. Do you see where I’m talking?

Attorney Altman stated, the one photograph shows it.

Carol Stradling asked, so the property line is here?

Attorney Altman stated, apparently, the best that I can say, that’s, the only thing that I can say is the proposal is that it would almost be property line…

An audience member stated, it would be…

Carol Stradling asked, I’m sorry?

Attorney Altman stated, it would be on the property line to the North.

John Ryan stated, can I say one more thing? In that picture, those iron stakes are in the ground there, those were put in by Mr. Korbos, not by the surveyors so if, I was talking to him and I said Jim, what are these and he said I put those there.

James Korbos stated, I put one stake there so that I could measure where I wanted to go, further away from your property line. I’m not going to build no others there, I have a wall there and I’m just going to come straight out that wall, you had your inspector was out there and he seen that. If I lost my right, I lost my right, what can I say but, no one is going on his property.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any further comments from the Board? Is the Board ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Korbos?

James Korbos asked, yes?

Carol Stradling stated, on the survey, I’m trying to locate the concrete pad that your neighbor is talking about. In this picture, the edge of the concrete pad here…

James Korbos stated, yes, that’s the concrete pad.

Carol Stradling asked, and where is your property line, is it over here?

James Korbos stated, my property line is, this is my property line right here, this is the wall. Do you see how far away it is from there?

Carol Stradling stated, I do.

James Korbos stated, I put that there so that I would know because this property, as you can see here on this Carol, you see down here, he is on my property all of the way down here, 2’ here…

Carol Stradling stated, not here, he’s over here but he’s not over here.

James Korbos stated, he’s over here too, right here, he is over here, his deck, he has a deck here…

Carol Stradling stated, no the deck is right here…

James Korbos stated, his deck is right on this line…

Carol Stradling stated, and that’s what the survey shows, that it’s right on the line…

James Korbos stated, it’s right on my property line…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s his property line too.

James Korbos stated, his deck, my property line down here is 2’ it basically runs at an angle like this…

Carol Stradling stated, yes, I see that.

James Korbos stated, this angle here, and up here he is 2’ on my property down here.

Carol Stradling stated, not according to the survey. My question here is…

James Korbos stated, yes, see the survey…

Carol Stradling stated, no, what he’s saying is, that’s what Mr. Milligan said, that’s not what he indicates on the survey. What I want to know is, is this going to be the edge of your garage or are you planning on taking your foundation this way to your property line.

James Korbos stated, no, I’m just going to, all that I want is 1’ so that I can make this the 14’. It’s only 12’, I’m not going to start digging all of the way down, I’m just going to put a smaller one, see this here, this here, this is the property line and I have from here to here I want 1’ on this line.

Carol Stradling stated, make it strong with what?

James Korbos asked, with cement.

Carol Stradling asked, with cement, can you pour that without getting on his property?

James Korbos stated, sure…this goes straight…this is the back end…

Carol Stradling asked, you’re not taking this wall over that way?

James Korbos stated, no.

Vice President Saylor asked, I would like to ask the Board if we could in the interest of time to make final comments and ask questions. Sir, I would like to remind you, as I will all of the applicants here this evening, this is a 5 member Board, it does take 3 affirmative votes from the Board to pass the variance request. If you feel that it is prudent to table it until the next meeting it’s in your interest to do so. Is there anything else from the Board at this time? If not, I will call for any questions.

Attorney Altman stated, balloting has begun.

Carol Stradling asked, the Building Inspector inspects this, before things are poured correct?

Director Weaver stated, his first inspection is on the footers.

Carol Stradling asked, so if there are any problems with the location of that, that can be raised at that time?

Director Weaver stated, he should be able to, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That objectors were present at the meeting

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

3. That the request is for a 6’ side setback variance and a 1’ separation variance from the home so he can build a detached garage on Lot 6 in Gano’s Camp in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 3532 E. Bailey Road.

4. (1) The variance request (is) (is not) a variance from a use district or classifications under are plan law. Vote: 0 is, 3 is not.

5. (2) The granting of this variance (will) (will not) be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Vote: 0 will 3 will not.

6. (3) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request (will) (will not) be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Vote 1 will, 2 will not.

7. (4) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance is being applied to a situation that (is) (is not) common to other properties in the same zoning district. Vote: 0 is 3 is not,

8. (5) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance (will) (will not) result in unusual and unnecessary hardship. Vote: 3 will, 0 will not.

9. (6a) This situation (is) (is not) such that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that does not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning district. Vote: 0 will, 3 will not.

10. (6b) this situation (is) (is not) such that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. Vote: 0 will, 3 will not.

11. (6c) This situation (is) (is not) such that the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will materially impair the purposes of the ordinance of the public interest. Vote: 2 will, 1 will not.

12. (6d) This situation (is) (is not) such that the Board specifically fins the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is of so typical or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation, under an amendment of the ordinance, for such conditions or situations. Vote: 0 will, 3 will not.

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 1 for and 2 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, the variance is denied.

James Korbos asked, so I have to build that 6’ away from his property line?

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t have to, you don’t have the variance, is all that I can say. So, you might talk to Director Weaver tomorrow about this.

****

#2059 Patricia Grieves; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1971 London Homes Mobile Home to be placed in White County for custodial care.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone here representing the request?

Patricia Grieves was present to represent the request.

Attorney Altman stated, there are photos that are circulating among the membership for the record of the applicants trailer.

Director Weaver stated, I might add that, those photos were taken by the Inspector, Bob Braaksma.

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

Patricia Grieves stated, on our inspection with Bob Braaksma, he noted on the furnace that it needs to be cleaned and the orifice, needs changed. I have a receipt from Delaney stating that we placed in a new furnace.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, we have received from the applicant just now a paid receipt for a furnace in the amount of 1,475 dollars, marked Exhibit A.

Patricia Grieves stated, also on the inspection he noted that there are soft places on the floor in front of the door and in front of hot water heater, that has been fixed also.

Vice President Saylor asked, okay. Do we have anyone that would like to address the variance request? Anything from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, he mentions that extension cords supply power to the ceiling fans?

Patricia Grieves stated, yes, he asked us to remove those, those have been removed, they are no longer there. The owner that was there prior had, had them up there to run the ceiling fans and that was the first thing that he noticed, he said please remove those, and they have been.

Vice President Saylor asked, anything from anyone else? Anything from you?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have nothing to add.

Vice President Saylor asked, would the Board like to vote?

The Board stated, sure.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, we accepted 19 photographs of the trailer and the area from the applicant and they are part of the evidence in the matter.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1971 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the variance herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, 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 section of 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 and have it re-inspected from Mr. Braaksma.

Patricia Grieves asked, is it okay that I do that on Tuesday?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you just can’t occupy it.

Patricia Grieves stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2060 Jerry & Nancy Skinner; Requesting a 6’ side setback variance to build an attached garage and breeze-way on lot #9 in Stahl Subdivision. The property is located in Monon Township at 3433 E. Stahl Road.

Vice President Saylor asked, and you are?

Jerry Skinner stated, Jerry Skinner. The original garage that I had was 20’ x 22’ and I want to go 26’ x 30’. I want to make it 6’ longer and 8’ wider, we already tore the old garage down but, there is still a pad there where the old one was.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

Jerry Skinner stated, that’s actually, I’ve come up with the foundation, put the right foundation under it.

Carol Stradling asked, how big is the pad that is there?

Jerry Skinner stated, 20’ x 22’.

Carol Stradling asked, 20’ x 22’?

Jerry Skinner stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe that we have received any calls on this request. I would like to read to the Board the analysis from your staff report. On October 24, 2000 we did a permit for this garage and some other changes to the home. The information that was submitted for that permit showed that the garage would meet the required setbacks. The garage was never constructed and now can not meet the setbacks they have discovered or decided to move it to where it can not meet the setbacks and that is the reason for this request.

Jerry Skinner stated, and I do have a letter here from my neighbors that says that, it’s okay that I do this.

Attorney Altman stated, this would be the neighbor to the…

Jerry Skinner stated, all three directions…

Attorney Altman stated, the West, all three directions, okay.

Jerry Skinner stated, yes.

Attorney Altman read out loud the letter from the neighbors, Ann Copeland, Robert Gretencord and Leonard Miczynski.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that on the side that is close you need to have a fire wall…

Jerry Skinner stated, it will still be 6’ from the neighbors garage.

Attorney Altman stated, still want to have a firewall, it’s 6’ from the property line.

Jerry Skinner stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, it was when it was to the house is what was on the last one but on this one it’s within that close of the property, we would require a firewall. That meets the building inspector standards is what I mean by that.

Vice President Saylor asked, anyone else care to comment? Questions from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Jerry Skinner stated, single story yes.

Attorney Altman asked, personal storage?

Jerry Skinner stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, is the Board ready to vote? We will do so.

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 6’ side setback variance to build an attached garage and breeze-way on Lot 9 in Stahl Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 3433 E. Stahl Road.

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

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

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

Jerry Skinner stated, thank you.

****

#2061 Roger & Sharon White; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1960 Homette Mobile Home to be place in White County.

Vice President Saylor asked, ma’am.

Sharon White stated, I’m Sharon White.

Vice President Saylor asked, thank you. Sharon, do you have anything else to add?

Sharon White stated, no, not really, all that we wanted to do is since it was paid for, put it on the property that we’re buying instead of on the rented property.

Carol Stradling asked, you’re currently living in it?

Sharon White stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, someone else is?

Sharon White stated, no, I have all of my stuff in it because we’re staying with my dad in Gary and we don’t want to live in Gary no more so we want to put it on our own land. There is work to be done to it but, we were going to do it after we got it moved.

Carol Stradling asked, so the pictures that I see with articles in, it’s your stuff but, you’re not living there?

Sharon White stated, right, everything that I own is in it.

Carol Stradling asked, how long have you been living in Gary?

Sharon White asked, how long, since I was 3 and then we came down here. We bought the trailer, it’s in Apple Park Bergerstine and we want to get it out of there.

Carol Stradling asked, so you live in Gary but the trailer is here?

Sharon White stated, we want to be down here all of the time.

Carol Stradling stated, all the time, okay.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address this variance request tonight? Board?

Carol Stradling asked, you have seen the inspection?

Sharon White stated, yes, I have a copy.

Carol Stradling asked, and what corrections are you going to make when you move it?

Sharon White stated, we have to put a plug in, in the kitchen and the bathroom. It’s got the old pop out thing, it’s got an old furnace in it, it does work but, we do not turn it on because it’s oil, we want to put a gas furnace in it because there is gas on the West side of the lake.

Carol Stradling stated, it indicates here also that you have 60-amp service?

Sharon White stated, that’s for the outlet, he didn’t look at it really, he just assumed. He did not even go inside of that closet and open it up to see what was in there, I even offered to move the stuff out of his way because I have stuff packed up right there and he did not even go back there and look. He told me when I got it placed over there on the other lot he would come back and then we’ll get it replaced and then he would come and check it.

Carol Stradling stated, but, you understand that, that may need to be upgraded to 100-amp service.

Sharon White stated, 100, right.

Carol Stradling stated, if it’s not 100 amp it needs to be.

Sharon White stated, right, we do know that.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything else from the Board? Then at this time the Board will vote.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that you will need to do all that the inspector says that you have to do before you can occupy it as he set out on his inspection.

Sharon White stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, and the Board would be approving that subject to that happening.

Sharon White stated, right, he told me as soon as I got it done he would come back out and then he would send the paper back to you guys.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1960 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the variance herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, 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 section of 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 your building permit and your final inspection and all of the work done.

Sharon White stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2062 Joseph N. & Maureen L. Hlatko; Requesting a special exception to sell each side of an improved lot separately on lot 1thru 8 in Quail Run Subdivision. The property is located in Union Township on the North side of Quail Run Court.

Vice President Saylor stated, I would like to announce that this request has been tabled.

****

#2063 R. Christopher & Katrina M. Carpenter; Requesting a 6’ front setback from 9th Street to place a picket fence on the South ½ of lot 4, 5 & 6 in William T. Alkire’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 811 S. Prairie Street.

Chris Carpenter stated, I’m representing #2063 and I believe that you have pictures that we have supplied and a site map that we have also supplied.

Director Weaver stated, evidentially the Board did not get a copy of his survey.

Attorney Altman asked, really?

Director Weaver stated, at least I don’t have a copy with my packets, I’m assuming not, I’m not sure why, pass that around.

Carol Stradling asked, so this fence will go…

Chris Carpenter stated, along 9th street about 7’…

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at these pictures…

Chris Carpenter stated, yes, right along here.

Carol Stradling asked, around back?

Chris Carpenter stated, yes, all of the way around the back, there is an existing fence here from my neighbor and I’m going to continue it here.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the Board know that we have not received any calls on this request and again on the analysis on the staff report, they have a lot that has 3 front yards, they have 3 roads surrounding this property. The standard setback requirements for a fence, which is 4’ or less and less than 50 percent solid are 10’ from the front property line, 0’ on the sides and 6’ from the rear.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s just a 4’ picket fence?

Chris Carpenter stated, 4’ picket fence, just as it says.

Vice President Saylor asked, any concerns from anyone, from the Board? Does the Board wish to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 6’ front setback from 9th Street to place a picket fence on the Southern Half of Lot Number Four (4) and Lot Numbers Five (5) and Six (6) in William T. Alkire’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 811 S. Prairie 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.

Chris Carpenter stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2064 Vogel Real Estate Company, Inc.; Requesting an 8’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing building on lot 1, 2 & part of lot 3 in Lake Drive Subdivision, Block 2. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1001 N. Main Street.

Phil Vogel stated, this is kind of a follow up variance from the one that I did a couple of months ago. It was kind of our mistake, we didn’t realize that we were only 7 ½ feet wide on the rooms that we wanted to put on the back and that table, the conference table actually wouldn’t fit in there. So what we’re doing is we’re taking a 2’ x 20’ extension right along that wall. I guess I would call it a side wall because it’s a front setback because we’re on Lake Street I believe it is, or Center Street. That we’re coming out to, it’s actually not on Main, it’s on the side street there but, because we’re on a corner lot it’s a front setback. So what we’re doing is, we’re adding to that variance that we had 2’ x 20’ I believe just so that we can make the office space work.

Carol Stradling asked, so, on the survey, you requested this right?

Phil Vogel stated, no, see it’s on the same variance side, just 2’.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received any calls on this and I have nothing to add because Phil pretty much summed up my analysis.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone care to address the Board? Any questions from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Phil Vogel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, matches the roofline?

Phil Vogel stated, yes, it matches the roofline just like I said 2’ extension there.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good.

Phil Vogel stated, that we kind of goofed up on.

Vice President Saylor asked, is the Board ready to vote? Okay, we will vote.

Phil Vogel stated, I think that I mentioned that, that was a 2’, I think that’s a 2 ½’ so I want to correct that.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 8’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing building on Lots No. 1, 2 and the South 14.00 feet (measured along the East Right-of-way of Main Street) of Lot No 3, Block 2, Lake Drive Subdivision, as recorded in Deed Record 118, Page 462, White County Recorder’s Office, subject to a 10.00 Feet off the entire East side of Lot 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3 the 10.00 Easement being measured at right angle to the East Lot Lines, also subject to a right of ingress and egress across the parking lots as from time to time may exist on the West side of Lots 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at

1001 N. Main 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 to proceed.

****

#2065 Indiana Beach, Inc.; Requesting a special exception to allow an amusement park in a B-2 Zoning classification. The property is in Union Township at 5224 E. Indiana Beach Road.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone to represent the request?

Tom Engle stated, Mr. Vice President and the members of the Board, I’m with the firm of Barnes and Thornburg, can you hear me alright?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Tom Engle stated, address 11 South Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, on behalf of Indiana Beach. I also have with me Tom Spackman Jr. and there may be others that speak as well. What I have handed out are proposed findings of the fact for both the special exception and the height variance that we’re requesting which, go through the various criteria that are in your Ordinance which, I plan to review when I get to each of those. I was anticipating just dealing with the special exception and going right into the height variance request unless, you want to have separate voting on that.

Attorney Altman stated, let’s have it separate voting please.

Tom Engle stated, okay, then I will stop after the special exception and come back to the rest of it.

Attorney Altman stated, since that’s the way that it’s on the agenda, it would probably, might be confusing if we did that.

Tom Engle stated, okay, sure.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

Tom Engle stated, some of the information will be similar so, when we get to the height variance that will be a little bit shorter. Let me give you a little bit of background first, I have some site plans here that show the portion of the Indiana Beach property that is in question here which is basically, the amusement park property. Up along this dark line here, that should be just a little bit lower for it to match up. I have all of the rides indicated here, the yellow and the pink deal with the height so we will get back to that later. A little background, Indiana Beach was first opened in 1926 on this property here and the property was first platted around 1923. So it was very shortly thereafter that the first amusement park was opened, though it’s very different today from what it was then in terms of the rides and the amount of attractions that they have there. When the peninsula was first zoned it’s according to our best information, it was zoned as B-2 which is a general business district basically commercial, that is true under the 1972 zoning ordinance and the more recent 1995 ordinance. In 1972 the ordinance listed what was called, open-air recreational uses and facilities, as a permitted use in that B-2 district which would cover Indiana Beach Amusement Park. So at that point, it was still considered to be a permitted use however, in 1995 when the current ordinance was adopted it was a new use entitled amusement park. The table that is in that ordinance and it lists that as a special exception which basically is a permitted use subject to meeting certain criteria again, within the same B-2, General Business district. In addition, that ordinance also has a 45’ height limitation, which again, we will talk about later. So because, of the change, in the Zoning Ordinance and the need to continually you know, upgrade the park upgrade rides, putting new rides, take out old rides we wanted to come before you and request the special exception. Of course, we have the right to continue operating the park as it was then but that’s not economically feasible giving the way that the park operates. So we’re here before you to ask for that special exception.

I would like to run through the various criteria for a special exception with you here. Again, like I said a special exception basically is a permitted use but subject to meeting the criteria that is listed in the ordinance. Unlike a variance, there are no statutory criteria that are pursuant to state law just the criteria that is listed in your ordinance which is, what I want to go through here, that’s the wrong page, okay. In the interest of time, I’m not going to read through all of this anticipating that there will be questions and members in the audience that want to address certain points. I will try to go through these fairly quickly and save some time to address these specific points at the Board or members of the audience want to address here. Again, the amusement park is listed under Table B-1, that’s special exception in a B-2 district. The proposed use does comply with all of the other requirements of that district except as I said, the height variance. Which, the height, which we’re asking for a variance here so as far as lot size, building size, setbacks, we do comply with all of those. From here on out the other criteria are all of the ones listed in section 10.2008 D, which are the criteria for a special exception. As I said, the amusement park has been there since 1926 in various forms over the years and the whole surrounding area in this entire peninsula here has been used for recreational and for the most part seasonal uses. Since that time, there are of course some permanent residences now but generally, the area is fairly seasonal, as I’m sure that you all know I’m probably not telling you anything that you don’t know about that. There has been additions to the park, you know in light kind to what has been there, certainly more rides than there ever have been but still similar to the use in character of that same area as it has existed for quite some time. As far as the not interfering, I’m just going to jump down to number 6, not interfering with the general enjoyment of the adjacent property. The amusement park here, as you all are aware, contributes to the overall economy in the immediate vicinity. A lot of the other uses on this peninsula, the lodging and resorts do have kind of a symbiotic relationship with the patrons that come to visit this park. So we feel that there is a general addition that this park makes to the area and it does not interfere with that in terms of the general land uses, there are in that area. For those of you that have been out there, I’m sure that you know the facilities are well maintained and very safe. It’s a family orientated atmosphere. The rides are all inspected annually by the State of Indiana, each spring to make sure that they are in compliance with all safety standards. The park has made an effort to address the concerns of the neighbors and we’ll probably be talking more about that shortly. As I said, part of the reason that we want the special exception is so that the park doesn’t just remain as it is now until the end of time. There is a need to improve, to add new rides, take out rides that are no longer popular, generally keep the place up to the standards that would attract people to come to a park of this type in the numbers that they have come in the past. We feel that this is in keeping with the overall character and nature of the area and particular the natural features which are a criteria here. The particular rides that are along the water make use of course of that natural environment that’s why the park is here because, it is on Lake Shafer. We have the water rides and the rides that are out over the water on land that is owned by the park as well as the swimming pool facility all make use of those natural features of the site and we feel like compatible with that. As far as hazards, health, safety, welfare those general criteria that we have listed on number 8, I’m just going to kind of go through this fairly quickly.

The park is only open in the summer as you know, specific hours which, you may not be familiar with are, as I have here, the park basically closes at 11:00 on weeknights except for Saturday, it is open until midnight. So the impact on the area is limited just to that season and just to those hours. We’re probably going to end up talking more later I will just suffice at this point again, at the interest of time just say that Indiana Beach Incorporated have taken steps to reduce any impact on the neighbors such as lighting, noise, glare and things like that. The Lighting that is on the rides are all directed away from surrounding properties, the most part, there are not very many spot lights. The rides themselves are generally not lit, there are lights for instance in the kiddy land area that’s fairly well lit because of the children. There are some lights around the building areas here where we have the gift shops, arcades, and things like that but for the most part the rides themselves don’t have running lights and things like that. The levels of lighting are fairly low so they have taken a lot of effort to try to reduce that. Not of noise because that may be an issue that maybe you have questions about and may come up I guess the noise here comes from a couple of factors we have rides and then we have people. People probably do make a lot of noise and you can imagine, you have been out there, you know that you are on the roller coaster and you scream when you’re coming down and things like that so that’s one aspect. Another aspect of noise is the noise that the rides themselves make. Now the rides are all electric, it’s not like in the old days when the park first opened they may have even been gas or diesel. So the electric rides make very little noise but,, in addition to noise that the rides make, not just the mechanical motors and operations the wheels that are on the rails make a certain amount of noise as you can imagine. Recently, this has just kind of occurred since the very end of this current season the roller coaster that is down here, the Cornball Express, Indiana Beach kind of has kind of on an experimental basis put in a new noise reduction features between the rails that absorb sound. They have had that tested and it seems to reduce the noise a lot and we can talk a little bit more about that if you have some questions in that regard. So we have made efforts to reduce that kind of impact, they have security personnel that try to keep people in the right places and not on the neighbors property. As far as safety goes, all of the rides have been approved by the Department of Fire and Building Services and they are inspected annually, so I’ll leave that topic alone for now. The next two factors, basically are public facilities and impact of the park on that, they have their own water and they have their own sewer of course NIPSCO is very happy to supply them all of the electricity that they want to consume. So there really is no negative impact from a utility standpoint and with that I think and the presentation on the special exception portion if they have any other comments or any questions that you may have.

Attorney Altman asked, will anyone else be testifying?

Tom Engle asked, pardon?

Attorney Altman asked, will anyone else be testifying on this Mr. Engle?

Tom Engle stated, there may be members that may want to testify on their own but I think that’s the end of our official presentation.

Vice President Saylor asked, thank you. Do we have anything from the Board at this point? Would anyone else care to address the variance request?

Tom Engle stated, special exception.

Vice President Saylor stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it is a special exception.

Robert Justice stated, I’m an attorney from Logansport, I’m here with my clients, Ann Thompson and Jane Walker. These ladies would like to say a few words and then I have a few things to say about the legality of the situation.

Ann Thompson stated, I’m Ann Thompson, I was Ann Switzer and my parents bought our cottage next door to Indiana Beach in 1952. So we have been neighbors of the Beach for a long time and we enjoy our location. My sister and I, she was 8 and I was 10 when we bought it so we were raised sort of with that being our cottage. It was a great place for us it was a great place for our kids and now all of a sudden, well, let me show you, may I use my…

Attorney Altman stated, for the record I think that the property is right here and the Beach is here right?

Ann Thompson stated, yes, yes it is, this is our corner. So everything was fine until we came this spring to open our property and we discovered that we had a roller coaster next door. Let me just show you this, this is our property. This is a garage that was there, we used that as a kitchen and a screened in porch. This is the boathouse, that’s a sleeping room and it’s a real cozy knotty pine room with bunk beds and a fireplace. Lets see, in 1996, the last time that the lake was down we painted the place and that’s what it looked like next door to us in 1996. I think that’s the last time that the zoning was, wasn’t that the more recent zoning in 1996, anyway, this is what it looked like in September of 1996 and this is what it looks like when we came back this year. It’s really a monster, it’s so noisy that when your in our boathouse the floor shakes our attorney described it as feeling like we’re under the L-Trans in Chicago and it really does, you can’t put kids to bed. In fact our little kids are afraid in the yard because, the roller coaster is so loud and I know that that have tried some acoustical stuff because, we have bits of it all over our yard. So this is another picture and you can see how it is and I have been impressed that this Board seems to care what neighbors do and how it effects neighbors and all that we have is your protection and I hope that you won’t let us down.

Attorney Altman stated, before you leave, let’s make sure that we mark those properly. The photograph, this is dated on the back, we will mark that exhibit A, objectors exhibit A and then the others are…

Ann Thompson stated, these were all taken earlier this spring…

Attorney Altman asked, so it really doesn’t matter what order we do that….

Carol Stradling stated, they are all just, the one pictures that had the other pictures of the…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, she put them together.

Ann Thompson stated, I wanted you to see what it looked like because it has looked that way ever since we bought it.

Attorney Altman stated, A, B and C are accepted into the record. Do you want to look at those?

Tom Engle stated, we have our own pictures, that’s okay.

Carol Stradling asked, is this going to be part of the special exception, do you understand that there is two variances here?

Robert Justice stated, yes.

Ann Thompson stated, I do but if this, can I just say one more thing, if this had, if this roller coaster weren’t already built if this were the beginning of the process, you would have some input. We would have some input certainly the scale of the project would be smaller and I think that we probably wouldn’t be here tonight if we would have all had some input at that beginning instead of the end. Thanks.

Robert Justice stated, if I could address that matter, in order for the Beach to have the roller coaster they have to have the variance. In order to have the variance, they have to have the special exception. So we feel that it’s appropriate to talk about the problems that have risen from the beaches total disregard for the procedures of this Board. I think my other client would like to be heard.

Jane Switzer Walker stated, I don’t have a whole lot to add except that we had enjoyed this beautiful piece of property of ours for so many years. At this point we can not sit in our yard and have a conversation. We have, there are little children that we, it’s been a place where our family for several generations in fact we decided that 4 generations of our family have participated in and spent time at the cottage and now we can’t even talk in our yard. When the roller coaster is in action, we can’t even watch TV inside on the porch, we have a screened porch I don’t know if it shows in the picture but, we spend a lot of time there on the screened porch. It’s impossible to even watch television on the screened porch and at one point, we’re from out of town, this is a special place because we have been able to get together with my parents when they were living. It’s kept us together as a family however, it has become nearly unusable for us and I want you all to know that. Thank you.

Robert Justice stated, as I said, I want to address some of the legalities here and I have a couple of brief documents that I would like to give to the Board. Maybe I can call my clients to help pass them out and help me pass them out and then I wouldn’t have to talk and pass them at the same time, give one to Mr. Engle also. This is a outline of the process that is as we understand having read the ordinance it’s suppose to be followed when you ask for a special use application a special use exception which is what is before the Board. First you ask for the exception, you file an application and that’s required here as Mr. Engle correctly pointed out. The Beach is expanding its operation, this roller coaster was built this spring so first, you ask for the exception and then it’s granted. Then you ask for the variance, which they have to have because of the height and by the way that height requirement goes back to the 1972 ordinance. Then if that’s granted, then you ask for a building permit, then if that’s granted you build it and then if it passes inspection by the building inspector you get a certificate of occupancy, then you occupy and use the building. Of course what we have here is, the whole thing turned on its head. The building is being occupied and used, none of these steps have been taken no inspection, no permit, nothing. The ordinance itself talks about what is required for use again, if I can call on my clients here to pass those out and I refer to Mr. Altman, he is your attorney. I don’t want to tell you what the law is I will just tell you what I think it is. This addresses, use variance and then permit certificate. I think that you are probably familiar with these things but the most important thing about a use is that under section 4.40 there is no enlargement of a nonconforming use and no displacement by a conforming use, of a nonconforming use, that is 4.4008. My clients have a conforming use they have a home, couple of homes actually the roller coaster, the expansion of the park is a non conforming use and it’s pushing them right out of their property. You have to have a site plan filed with the application for the special exception and I guess this is the site plan. I’m interested to see it because, all of these labels that are on here weren’t filed with the Board, I came by and got a copy of the site plan looked it over, it didn’t have any labels, it had all of these things. This is basically a topographical drawing, shows elevations, it doesn’t really even show the boundary line of my clients property which is right about here, excuse me, this one does, okay. The one that was filed had something written here by hand, you couldn’t read it but, we understand what the plan is. The ordinance standards must be met to grant a special exception, are they met? No, they are not met why aren’t they met because, the things more than 45’ high and that’s part of the ordinance.

In regards to setback now that brings up an important point, which I want to make clear because, it’s not simple and I think that I can figure it out from this site plan it doesn’t really show the roads either but there is a road that comes down. This might be it along through here, it’s right at the seam, it use to be called Mohegan Avenue on the plat. I think that it’s now, sometimes put it as Indiana Beach Road but it’s irrelevant to my client’s property they come right down here and there is a gate and they go into their lot. That road ends, right where their property line comes across it was vacated back in the 50’s beyond that point but it’s still a public road after that point. The ordinance says 40’ setback from county road, that’s a county road. There is no setback at all, this Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to individually review and restrict special uses that is, it’s not a take it or leave it. You folks have the power to put conditions on the use, if you grant a special use and you have the power to consider. In fact you’re directed by the ordinance to consider whether a special use is harmonious with adjacent properties and does not interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent property. Special use must not involve hazards, uses hazardous or detrimental to the adjacent property through particularly noise. I have sat in the house, not the boathouse next to the property line but the house, the main house on the property with the windows all closed and try to listen to a TV set. What I discovered was, you turn the volume up as high as you can get and when the train goes by as it did about every 10 minutes, you couldn’t hear the TV set. I will tell you, I was sitting about 5’ away from it I wasn’t in the other room for something that’s what you have here, that’s what you have here, after the fact. Now, once again, if I can call on my clients, Jane we will get you this time, here are the specific problems and I’m not going to go over these in a lot of detail. The height restriction as you know about, I know that relates to the variance but I’m saying to you that unless they get the use exception they can’t get the variance. You have possible danger to adjoining property. Now, this thing is about 70’ to 80’ high and it’s right on the property line as you can see in the pictures that we have given you. If it falls over towards my clients property it’s going to fall on their house, that’s why you have setbacks but the ordinance does not require a setback it just puts a restriction in a B-2, 45’ in height. You have the authority to put a condition on the special use and require a setback. The noise, that’s why in many parts of the ordinance you have a buffer required, you have the authority to require a buffer here to lesson the noise, that’s the best way, distance lessons noise better than anything else. There is no buffer at all, the supports for this roller coaster are within inches of my clients property line. One of the supports for the roller coast is actually, I believe, in the right-of-way of Mohegan. That’s because the fence, which defines the Beach, takes an angle just as it reaches Mohegan. It cuts off to the side and I believe that the property line is extended. It does show a little better on this drawing here, the way that the property line is extended right there that fence is over the line, it’s in Mohegan and the great big pillion that supports the roller coaster is in the middle of Mohegan.

We also want to point out that there are some problems, some real problems with compliance with State and Federal laws, with what has already happened. This is not the usual situation where you have something that is being proposed. This is, we know what is there, we know what’s going to happen because, it’s there and all that I know is my submission and finally, the ordinance says no commercial construction in a flood plain period, this is a flood plain and this is commercial construction. Now, we have some remedies that we propose, I will pass those out to you, if you will pass those out. Now mind you, I’m not saying that this Board has to do these things, I’m saying that these are available remedies that you have. We suggest them to you and we ask you to help with the problem number one, you can require a setback all along Indiana Beach land property line and put buffering and vegetation and a solid fence in there 8’ high. I was before another Board, not this one recently, for another person that was seeking some rezoning and that was the kind of condition that was discussed at that time. So I know that it’s the kind of thing that you consider, you can suddenly enforce the height restriction and tell them to take it down, it’s too tall. You could limit the hours of operation as to those rides that are within say 100’ of the boundaries and 100’ isn’t magical, you have the power to say 100’, 50’ 200’. You can, finally, you could require a professional elevation of this whole situation by a professional acoustic engineering firm and ask them what can be done and that should be done of course of the expense of the entity which created the problem, Indiana Beach. Let the firm make a study, let them submit a report to this Board and then decide what action to do. This is not a problem, that is going to go away, even if you grant the variance, even if you grant the special use exception because as Mr. Engle correctly points out, the Beach is going to go on expanding. As it continues to expand it’s going to come up against other people’s property. Maybe some of the people that have commercial establishments there like that, fact that you can’t even listen to your television set when the train goes by. Of course, they are not right up against it like my clients are but, there is going to be other people who are going to say no, we don’t like that and we don’t want it. I know it’s after 9:00 and you have been through some long hearings so let me just touch on a couple points and then I will sit down. Life is full of surprises, when I got engaged in this case, I came over to the Area Plan Commission Office and I said, lets see the permits. Where’s the building permits, there is this monster thing going up and it’s been in the newspapers, everyone know that it was going up so I said where is the building permit? There wasn’t any building permit and I was very surprised. I expect this Board is going to, my clients except this Board is going to rubber stamp, you know give them the variance, give them the special exception because, it’s Indiana Beach. Because, they are a huge employer in this county they cast a very long shadow and I’m aware of that. Most of the people in this county have probably worked for this park at one time or another and I’m not even going to question about contacts between members of theirs Board and the park. I don’t know but,, I’m sure each of you, if you haven’t worked there yourself you probably had a friend or a relative or someone like that, that has worked at the Beach. I know that and I understand the difficult position that you’re in. When a big outfit like this says oh by the way, we built this 78’ tall edifice without getting a building permit or anything else we’re suppose to do, give us that stamp of approval so we can get on about our business. So what I want to say to you is this, if you’re going to do that, just say okay the ordinance doesn’t apply to Indiana Beach, they can do what they want. Just say that the ordinance only applies to all of those people that were up here before, you know the guy with the trailer or the lady with the trailer 20 years old, the guy with the garage wanted to extend a few feet and his neighbor didn’t like it. Get out in the open with it and say it if that’s what it means that’s what it means, if that isn’t the way it is then say no special exception.

Vice President Saylor stated, please…

Tom Engle stated, I don’t know if there is anyone else that wants to talk but if not…

Vice President Saylor stated, yes…

Rebecca Wimbush stated, I’m from Chicago and in the interest of time I have prepared a statement to say no, that you had a very long agenda and I thought that I would just cut to the chase. As I said, I’m from the Chicago area and I have made a special trip down here this evening to give this Board a personal perspective on both petitions and then to kind of clump everything together to save time. Both petitions filed with this Board by Indiana Beach, requesting a special exception to the B-2 zoning, General Business and the height variance to bring the existing amusement park rides, that exist, that exceed 45’ into compliance with the 1995 amended Zoning Ordinances. To give you some background, my family has lived in Monticello since the, mid 1800’s. My grandfather George Kassabaum was a local attorney who actually represented Mr. Earl Spackman, Mr. Tom Spackman’s father when the original Indian Beach ballroom burned to the ground in the 1930’s. My family has owned lake front properties and continues to own those properties at White’s Point and has owned them for over 70 years directly across from the Beach which is, I think, are you all familiar with where White’s Point is? Our cottage is like right here. We have over the years, we have watched Indiana Beach grown, thrive, and contribute to the local community. We have also watched Indiana Beach become the neighborhood bully, taking full advantage of their prominent position in White County to the detriment of their neighbors who are individual property owners. They have elected to ignore the regulations and requirements of this distinguished Board, as well as the White County Area Plan Commission, the White County Highway Department and the White County Board of Commissioners to their advantage. Indiana Beach’s mode operandi is their own version of don’t ask, don’t tell. They are of the mindset that they are automatically exempt from all county zoning, building and highway regulations until someone asks, at which time they scurry to remedy their known violations through requests for exceptions and variances, as the case this evening. Indiana Beach habitually constructs facilities and installs amusement rides without going through the proper and permit, zoning application process. It is only after a project is completed and property owners complain that they obtain the required permits, as well as variance and exceptions. They know that once a facility is constructed or a ride is installed, no one will ask that such facility or ride be removed. I will give you two just recent examples to give you an idea of what I’m speaking of.

Three years ago, I had a similar experience as the Switzer girls, I’ve known them as the Switzer girls, excuse me. Three years ago, I helped my 82 year old mother open our cottage on White’s Point the week of Memorial Day Weekend which, is a very important weekend. As I arrived, I noticed that a picnic pavilion had been constructed directly behind our lake property without obtaining any kind of a construction permit. It was only after I requested a copy of the permit that the Plan Commission realized that no permit had been issued. A stop order was issued until a permit could be issued. No notice was ever given to us regarding the construction of this pavilion. In addition, Indiana Beach proceeded then to run a public water supply line under the county road to supply that picnic pavilion with a public water supply. Again, I confirmed that no permit was issued by the White County Highway Department to dig under that road to run the water line. It was also confirmed with the White County Health Department that the water source had not been tested by the state environmental agency. The Health Department required Indiana Beach to supply bottled water until the water source was tested and results were received by the County. We now enjoy the trash that blows onto our property from the picnic pavilion, as well as all the “No Trespassing” signs, which we now have, to post on our properties. Not to mention, the maneuvering that we have to do to exit our property when catering trucks park directly on the county road to access the pavilion. Amusingly, there are signs, which have been posted on the picnic pavilion, which say “No Picnicking”.

My second example, last year Indiana Beach constructed this roller coaster, without following the proper county zoning, permitting processes. The roller coaster abuts the Switzer property on Indiana Beach Road, again I said that our property is located directly across the way in the small bay at White’s Point. It has become difficult to carry on a normal conversation on our screened porch across the bay due to the noise which, echoes from both roller coasters and the screams from the riders. Can you imagine the noise, if we can hear it across the bay what that noise must mean and sound like at the Switzer property? Doesn’t the enjoyment of one’s property count for something? Indiana Beach thinks not. I beg to differ, and I think each of you, if you were a property owner next to Indiana Beach you would feel the same way that we do. This evening Indiana Beach comes before this Board to formally request broad exemptions and variances from ordinances that they knowingly failed to comply with. Now, you may say, what’s done, is done, we can’t require them to tear down the resort and, of course not. What you can do however is to take control of this flagrant disrespect for the county’s zoning requirements and the county’s permitting requirements and procedures.

I am hear tonight to ask this Board to:

1. Grant the special exception to allow an amusement, an amusement park as it exists today at Indiana Beach Road. However, to levy maximum fines for each zoning violation for construction or additions to the amusement park pursuant to the current ordinances which, have been in effect since 1995 and for which no building permits ever were obtained.

2. Grant height variances for all existing amusement park rides which exceed the 45’ maximum height and which have received the required permits. As this Board shall determine except for the roller coaster, the new roller coaster which abuts the Switzer property and except for any other ride which is determined by this Board to have a direct negative effect on neighboring properties and which have no, have never received a permit.

3. Also, I ask this Board to direct Indiana Beach to follow all the required permitting and zoning procedures for White County for all future installation of facilities and rides and with the understanding that maximum fines shall be levied for any and all future violations.

4. I recommend that there be consideration to relocate this newly installed roller coaster, which abuts the Switzer property to the Indiana Beach campground, which is a much more appropriate location.

5. Lastly, I require, would ask that you require Indiana Beach, as a condition of any future required building permit, to give public notice of any and all future construction or, installations to all property owners who will be directly affected by such construction or installations

I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you and to consider the comments and requests that I’ve made. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer and I also have just a couple of, if someone could clarify something for me. As I was sitting here this evening listening and I don’t have the, I was not given notice because, I’m not on this side of the Beach, I’m on the other side. When you are considering granting this exception, are you then considering only the Indiana Beach Road side or are you clumping all of Indiana Beach property together? That would be my one question.

Attorney Altman stated, as I understand their application is for this property.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, it’s only for this property?

Attorney Altman stated, right.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, it is not for say the parking lot across…

Attorney Altman stated, right…

Rebecca Wimbush asked, across the way where the picnic pavilion is…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, so, it’s not a carte blanche…

Attorney Altman stated, just for this property…

Rebecca Wimbush stated, special…

Attorney Altman stated, just for this property, just for this property.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, alright, I think that’s all. Any questions?

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

Vice President Saylor asked, thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to address the Board at this time? Sir, the floor is yours.

Tom Engle stated, thank you, yes, we’ll make comments in response. I guess first let me talk about some of the matters that Attorney Justice had brought up. He talked about building permits, I want to have Tom Spackman Jr. talk a little bit more about the history of permits and what not in a minute but,, the definition of building itself between the 1972 ordinance and the 1995 ordinance has changed in respects to what actually is a building. In my opinion what would require a building permit, the 1972 ordinance just talked about and I can get these out but, I’m sure that you or Mr. Altman is aware, just talk about the enclosure of persons. Now it’s been broaden to talk about enclosure and support and a couple of other phrases. So there is one difference I believe as to what a building permit is required for also again, I will have Mr. Spackman talk a little bit more specifically about their history and the dealings with the Commission. As far as non-conforming uses absolutely, we recognize that we have as of 1995 a non-conforming use because the amusement park was put into what is called a special exception, which is why we are here. I would of course point out that in a B-2 district which encompasses all of this property here as well as the property of remonstrators single family residences is also a non conforming use in the B-2 district. So just to clarify that, that effects everyone out here. As far as the setbacks, I have provided documentation, some time ago to Mr. Altman, about the vacation of the streets. I think that we have at least eliminated that issue here that has been discussed earlier but, in the B-2 district there is no side yard setback, it’s 0’ and it’s 40’ along county roads. The Cornball Express is being the main subject tonight is not a front yard it’s a side yard. So there is no required setback at least per the district requirements. Since this is brought up I would like to submit this into the record, this is a letter from the Department of Natural Resources and according to statutory and I think that I had another copy, I apologize. I just thought of bringing one, you might want to show that to them as well basically saying that they have no jurisdiction for improvements in Lake Shafer and areas of the Tippecanoe River. So there really is no requirement and just to address it, even if there were our reading of the ordinance is that, those are any conditions like that are conditions to getting a permit and not perse the zoning approval that we’re requesting today. I guess again, about the property line here, we have been, in the past, exchanging correspondence recently with the neighbors here about what can be done about their concerns, about the noise and what not. I don’t believe that a solid fence was ever mentioned as a possibility though that may be something that is worth discussing but, it’s not our understanding that, that was something that they were looking for. Again, about building permits as I said, all of the rides that are being construction have all been reviewed by the State Department of Fire and Building Services down in Indianapolis. Again they are inspected annually so, the question of permits really is only a question of the local permits here in this county, not state wide and I will refer to Tom on that. I think that covers the list at this point and I will turn it over to you.

Tom Spackman stated, typically the permitting process on amusement rides has changed a little bit over time but basically it has always been handled at the State level. Any time that we put in any sort of amusement ride it has to be approved at the State. We actually send drawings down, it’s all certified by an engineer that is licensed in the state of Indiana, even the State comes out and inspects it. Now under the previous administration, when Ray Ferdinand was the head of Area Plan, I had talked to him about whether or not he wanted to review amusement rides and his comment to me was no. The county does not want to be liable for certifying amusement rides or having anything to do with a liable situation that might concern the county, certifying the safety of an amusement ride and that’s always been left at the State. That’s why we have not come in and as for permits on any of the new rides that we put in because, it wasn’t the State level the State notifies Area Plan because a copy of that comes up here…

Director Weaver stated, no, let me intervene here. No we don’t and the reason being, we will probably, now since we have a county Inspector but, previously we did not because we did not have a county inspector, we got no notification at all, it went to the State Inspector for our area, he will receive that.

Tom Spackman stated, okay. They have been inspected by the State and I think that maybe a future issue for the county to consider is whether or not you want to get involved with ride liability because, that is a State handled situation.

Director Weaver stated, I have discussed this with our building inspector, amusement rides are not within his jurisdiction, even though he is now the county inspector it is still not within his jurisdiction and they will still remain being inspected by the State. So, we have discussed that.

Vice President Saylor stated, yes sir.

Art Anderson stated, I just have one thing short to say. I have heard about how bad of neighbors the Spackman's were and how they, I mean I had to sit and listen to this but my problem with this is, you look at people that have foresight. You know we’re doing sewer projects all over the county we’re working on different sewer projects before the sewer projects were even started, Spackman had the foresight to take care of the sewer problem. He took care of it and then took the neighbors sewage with them. He even took, is even taking our county home sewage and our CDC sewage and volunteered to take it, doesn’t charge us for it but, he takes care of problems like this I mean there is a lot to look at. The other thing that I was sitting back there thinking about before he even mentioned the liability of these rides inspected by the county. I don’t think that we would want to take that on because, if there would be a problem we don’t want to have that as part of county inspection because, if we do that I mean, you’re accepting the liability if something happens. I don’t think that we want to do that but I have been here a long, in this county all of my life except for when I was in Vietnam. They have been good neighbors I mean sure it’s loud and I live right across the river from the, the lake from them. I knew that it was loud but, I live there, that’s I kind of like the music at night but as far as being good neighbors, they have been good neighbors I feel, thank you.

Vice President Saylor stated, thank you Art.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, may I ask one question? I’m picking up confusion here between inspecting, certifying rides and then the actual locating of that ride. Now I can see where White County wouldn’t want to have anything to do with coming in, inspecting, and certifying the safety of that ride. However, I would think that there has to be some local zoning that needs to be addressed when that ride is erected. So, I think that there is a difference here between inspecting and certifying a ride and actually looking at where is this ride being built. That’s what I think is being kind of meshed here and I see a big distinction between inspecting and certify a ride and studying where this location of the ride is so, I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

Art Anderson stated, the other thing that I forgot to mention that I wanted to mention is, the attorney over here mentioned that was in a flood plain. It would be impossible for that area to flood and the reason that it would be is, the dam would have to be built up about probably 10’ to 15’ higher to get it to flood. The dam is going to give before that area will ever flood.

Tom Spackman stated, if I could going back to the point that was just raised. One of the issues about the rides, permits were never issued and in discussion with the previous administration they considered it very much like a industry operation where you have machinery. We’re locating it where it best fits within the park as far as being able to serve the clientele that’s coming in. So there was never an attempt to bypass the rules of Area Plan, we were running under the assumption that the rules were still the same as the last time I had talked to Mr. Ferdinand in that area.

Carol Stradling asked, is there a setback in a B-2?

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, when it’s adjoins a B-2 zoning which, in this situation it does.

Carol Stradling asked, so that essentially would not inspecting the rides if we’re inspecting the location with a 0’ setback there is no reason to inspect the location unless they are over the property line, is that…?

Attorney Altman stated, you have to determine that it is within the property line.

Carol Stradling asked, so if there is a 0’ setback and they can build anywhere within that property is that…

Attorney Altman stated, on a side yard.

Carol Stradling stated, a correct…

Attorney Altman stated, on a side yard…

Carol Stradling stated, on the side.

Robert Justice asked, Mr. Chairman, could I see that letter from the DNR? I would like to get one eventually…

Director Weaver stated, here, you can have my copy…

Robert Justice stated, I saw what I needed to see. In the materials that I gave the Board, I gave you statutory citation which relates to the, let me borrow one of the Boards copies, I’ve lost my own.

Attorney Altman asked, 14-26-2-15?

Robert Justice stated, no, I don’t think so. Yes, the one that is specific. The statute that I’m talking about is 14-28-1-22, that’s the one that talks about certification of compliance with Federal and State Laws regarding wetlands, 14-28-1-22, this letter talks about 14-26-2-15. That’s a different statute in a different chapter, and what you have is smoke and mirrors. I would like to offer this exhibit…

Attorney Altman asked, may I have it so, I can mark it please, all that I’m going to do is mark it as your exhibit B.

Carol Stradling asked, do you have something that says that Indiana Beach is built on a wetland?

Robert Justice stated, yes, I have a map which shows the, excuse me, no, I have the definition of wetland from the ordinance, let me see if I can find it. I think that it is in here, it says wetland, an area which (a) supports predominately aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation (b) contains hydric soils, (c) is saturated with water permanently, or at least some time during the growing season; and (d) display an hydrology typically associated with a wetland. Now, the important point though is not what this ordinance defines wetland as, it’s what the Army Corps of Engineers the Department of Environmental, the Department of Natural Resources of the State and the other agencies which regulate Federal wetlands, defined as. That’s a very broad definition but this is your own definition. The real point is, this is the lake, they built in the lake, that is a wetland. The lake is a wetland…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s wet but it’s not a wetland.

Robert Justice stated, I think that the Federal people might differ with you about that but I don’t want to argue…

An audience member stated, …ma’am….

Robert Justice stated, one way or another that’s our position.

Attorney Altman stated, we won’t talk when he’s talking or when your talking, he won’t talk when you’re talking please.

Robert Justice stated, Exhibit B, this is a picture of the roller coaster as it was being constructed and here in the corner is the boathouse which, is my clients property. I submit that to show that this is not exactly the same thing as a piece of machinery inside a factory. Finally, I want to be clear about what we’re saying about the setback. The ordinance says that in a B-2 there is a 40’ setback from all county roads that’s what we’re talking about. Down here comes a county road, it comes right up to the fence and in fact we think that it proceeds a little bit beyond the fence. We say 40’ around that county road even if it’s only 10’ around that county road, there a pylon right there. That’s what we’re talking about with regards to setbacks, that’s clearly in a B-2 ordinance and I think in fact, it was in the B-2 ordinance in the 1972 version.

Vice President Saylor asked, sir?

Tom Engle stated, if I can clarify the wetland issues, I think whether or not anything is a wetland here, in my opinion and I will read from your ordinance is really not pertinent to the special exception application that we have. Under 4.70 wetlands, 4.7004 persons applying for subdivision or planned unit development approval or for a building permit must certify that the proposed subdivision etcetera for which a building permit is sought, is in full compliance with all areas protecting wetlands etcetera. We’re not here for a permit, that’s something that can be addressed after this and if it’s determined that the letter that we have from the Department of Natural Resources declining jurisdiction may not cover that and that is something that we can yet still handle at that point. That is something that your ordinance does not make that a condition except to getting a permit and again, not to belabor this too much but you know part of the confusion over the years has been what is a building. The fact that, that definition has changed and whether permits were even required for something that was not, maybe not within a factory but some of the rides are portable and permanently attached to the ground so we would not then meet that definition of building even under today’s ordinance. So there has been maybe some genuine confusion over the years about what a permit is really required for. I guess just one last comment, if there are any questions about the county road setback. I suppose that there might be a distinction to be made between, if a county road was vacated, you would have then at the end of the road whether you have to have 40’ from the end of the road rather than along the road. I would submit that the front yard setbacks is meant to be along a road and if you vacate the end of the road then I would say that doesn’t apply but maybe that’s something that hasn’t been resolved.

Vice President Saylor stated, I will remind everyone that at this point we are addressing request #2065 which is to allow a special exception for an amusement park in B-2 zoning. Do we have anything else, yes sir.

David Adkins stated, I own 3 properties on Indiana Beach Road. I am a resort owner. Indiana Beach as far as fellow business partner with myself, I feel that they belong here. They deserve special exception, they do help the community and they bring income into the community. They do everything that they can to help White County and for White County to grow Indiana Beach will grow with them and for Indiana Beach to grow they need the special exception in my opinion they deserve it. I have been here 4 years folks, Indiana Beach has treated me good, as far as I’m concerned. They have given me advice on what to do how to better myself, how to better my resorts because, the ones that I took over needed it which was Big Chief Lodge and Clearview Resort. They want to better the community, I feel that they deserve the right and the opportunity to do what is right which is get the special exception.

Vice President Saylor stated, thank you.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, I wanted just one last comment, I agree that Indiana Beach has really been Monticello Indiana in growing up here all of us I mean and I don’t think that, I mean it’s being perceived this evening that we are anti Indiana Beach, we are not. I am not anti Indiana Beach but what I think is important here is of course, every business needs to grow and communities need to grow however, there has to be some protection for property owners. I see down the road as they expand what you’re telling me, or what I’m hearing from comments around is that maybe next year I’m going to have a third roller coaster behind me. So I’m asking the Zoning Board, what protection does a property owner have to protect the value of their property and the enjoyment of their property I think that’s the bottom line here that needs to be considered. Thank you.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anything from the Board at this time?

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, was it B-2, has it been B-2 all along or did that change with the 1995?

Director Weaver stated, no, it was B-2…

Carol Stradling asked, even though there was residences there, it’s always been B-2?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that it was probably brought in under the original ordinance as a B-2…

Tom Engle stated, that’s our understanding.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the best to my memory too.

Jane Switzer Walker asked, may I make a comment, yes the B-2, our cottage has been there and we have been there since 1954 and there wasn’t any zoning period until 1972. So as far as our, the zoning applying to us at that time, it did not, thank you.

Tom Engle stated, basically, everyone became non-conforming unless you have businesses.

Robert Justice stated, excuse me, if I can address that, that’s not true. No one there previously was non-conforming. Everything was in place when the ordinance came in, was grandfathered in. It’s not about nonconforming use, the reason that we are here is not because Indiana Beach was there. The reason that we are here is because, they are expanding and that’s when it becomes non-conforming when they enlarge and grow.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address request #2065 this evening? Board?

Carol Stradling stated, in reading the letter from the DNR it indicates that you may have to obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers.

Tom Spackman stated, I think that was kind of a catchall but, basically those were piers that were already existing that the Cornball goes on. I can show you a photograph here of and in fact if we were out there, I could take you out there and show you some of the existing piers that it is sitting on.

Ann Thompson stated, one of those pictures shows when the lake was down…

Robert Justice stated, identify yourself please…

Ann Thompson stated, Ann Thompson, one of the pictures that I had was when the lake was down and you can actually see that area there, what was there, what is, that was in 1996.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, just received from Mr. Spackman a photograph and I think this is the first photograph right?

Tom Engle stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, actually, it may be your first exhibit?

Tom Engle stated, well we submitted the proposed findings and the use maps…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, okay so 1,2 and 3, so this is the exhibit 4, petitioners exhibit 4.

Tom Engle asked, are you considering the proposed findings as an exhibit?

Attorney Altman asked, do you wish to submit them as an exhibit?

Tom Engle stated, I would like for them to be in the record yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I will mark them exhibit 5 just, they will be out of order but, if you have no objections I will mark them exhibit 5.

Carol Stradling asked, can I ask one question? Have you contacted the Army Corps of Engineers?

Tom Spackman stated, we have a 404 permit I but, it’s not for that particular area.

Carol Stradling asked, because they were existing?

Tom Spackman stated, because they were existing piers and the Corps has never requested any sort of permit on piers as far as we know and I think that’s true of what the lake homes that have piers.

Robert Justice stated, I think that I can answer part of your question. Mr. Spackman is right, there is a 404 application pending and not with related to this but with regards to some things that Indiana Beach did years ago around on the other side of the peninsula that has resulted in a violation finding by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think they want to fine you 100,000 dollars, is that what their asking for?

Tom Spackman stated, no.

Robert Justice stated, oh, the papers that I have say that, I think 135,000 anyway, that’s pending before the Environmental Law Court in Chicago Mr. Engle’s firm represents and Mr. Engle, can you confirm that?

Tom Engle stated, I’m not handling that matter.

Robert Justice stated, you’re not handling that, is that Mr. Campadella, Mr. Chappell is handling that. We have an exhibit if I can get this, what I should do is get one of those cherry pickers so I can hand things out…

Attorney Altman stated, that would be great, that would be exhibit, let me make sure, that would be F, thank you.

Robert Justice stated, what exhibit F shows for the Board is the process of construction of the Cornball Express here is the edge of my clients boathouse, here is the new construction out in the lake.

Tom Spackman stated, if I can, I will answer the question on that particular picture, that is a seawall to retain the bank so that there is no further erosion of the bank into the lake, it’s nothing more than that. The Cornball Express let me provide two more exhibits for you, this shows the boathouse and the actual Cornball Express…

Attorney Altman stated, exhibit 6…

Tom Spackman stated, and you will see that the express is actually moving away from the boathouse.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any further comments on request #2065?

Art Anderson asked, I would like to ask when you’re looking at something like this, you have to do something, you have to use some common sense. If they would move this, what this attorney is talking about on this county road suppose that you would move something 20’, 30’ is it going to be that much less noisy 20’ or 30’ away? There is nothing that you can’t do if you spend a little money, I mean you could do something like that but, you have to use a little common sense in this too. Is it going to be so, you know joyous and wonderful 30’ or 20’ away from where this pillar is, is it going to be worth 20’? I mean, you have to look at this and wonder this to yourself, you can see all of these and anything can always be moved but the thing is are you going to gain anything. We don’t want the Switzer sisters out of the county, we don’t want Indiana Beach to be out of the county but,, is it going to make much difference even 10’, 20’ or 30’ away? It’s not going to make any difference, it’s like why build another 30’ away on the other side of the river listening to the band, I can still hear it but, big deal. I knew it was there, it’s been there, the Cornball Express hasn’t been but there has always been noise there that’s what people do they go there to have fun and they make noise. Thank you.

Vice President Saylor stated, thank you Art. I think at this time I would like to ask for final comments in regards to variance request, special exception request #2065. Is the Board ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, #2065 is the variance to have an amusement park there, correct?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not a variance…

Carol Stradling stated, special exception, to have an amusement park…

Attorney Altman stated, and our ordinance says that if there is a special, if it conforms, we approve it.

Carol Stradling stated, so on that issue, I believe that I’m ready to vote.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That 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 allow an amusement park in a B-2 Zoning classification on Lots numbered 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 147, 148, 149, 150, Tract “A,” and vacated portion of Catawba Avenue, Mohegan Avenue, and Apache Avenue, all in Untalulti Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana as per plat thereof recorded in Deed Record 115, page 197 in the Office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 5224 E. Indiana Beach Road.

7. That the special exception 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 special exception 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 special exception under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, it is granted.

****

#2066 Indiana Beach, Inc.; Requesting a height variance to bring the existing rides at the amusement park that exceed 45’ into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance.

Vice President Saylor asked, and you are?

Attorney Altman stated, may I briefly, in the interest of saving time, I would ask that the parties, that we incorporate all of the record of #2065 into the record of #2066 to just speed things up a little bit since they are very similar, if we could do that. Hearing no objections, same is done.

Tom Engle stated, thank you. I was going to point out that our proposed findings on the height variance were already submitted, as I believe exhibit 5 and you solved that, thank you. I guess I don’t want to belabor because, most of what we’ve already talked about, covers a lot of the information here for the variance. I just want to go through these, as I mentioned just briefly. A special exception has no statutory criteria, that is just limited by the criteria in your ordinance. That’s the only distinction here between this and the height variance, various development standards as it’s called is there are statutory criteria there are 3 of them which are more or less the same as what you have in your ordinance, so I won’t belabor that point any longer. Just to go through some of the points that I have and in our exhibit that we handed out. The first point is that strict application and this is again one of the statutory criteria, strict application of the terms of the ordinance when with all practical difficulties is that reference as applied to the property for there which the variance is sought. This has been an amusement park since 1926, part of the adoption of the ordinance. We believe and maintain that the 45’ height limitation, is not practical for an a modern amusement park and would result in economic injury which is one criteria that goes to establish what practical difficulties are defined as by the courts in this state. So that height limitation would impose that practical difficulty upon Indiana Beach. The rest of these criteria’s is very similar to what we talked about in terms of health, safety and welfare, the character of the property in district etcetera, I will go through these very quickly. Again, health, safety and general welfare, the public we talked about the permitting process with the State the annual inspections that we go through and we feel that those meet that criteria and I won’t belabor that beyond what we have here. Again, as to the surrounding property, this property has been as we have pointed out it’s zoned B-2. Since it was first zoned, our position is that the existence of the park here contributes to the wellbeing of that business district that is in this area and the peninsula that actually the existence of the park has served to increase property values in that area. The need for the variance is the peculiar condition to the property, which is number 4 on the list here. The peculiar condition here is that, we basically have an amusement park that has existed since before the ordinance and the adoption of the ordinance itself imposes that condition upon us. That’s not uncommon with the other neighbors because no one else has an amusement park so, I think that fairly self efficient I believe. Again, that is more or less the same as criteria #5 the difficulty was not self imposed it was self imposed because, this ordinance was adopted after the park was already there and had been there for a number of decades. Preservation adjoined with the property rights again that’s basically the same points before. Indiana Beach has a substantial property right to continue the use that they have existing, all be is subject to your ordinance in terms of expansion and non conforming uses which, we talked about under the special exception which, we have gotten. The fact that this is a minimum departure, as we have pointed out, we believe that we are not deviating from any of the other dimensional requirements of the ordinance. As far as setbacks area, minimum lot areas and like the only departure that we’re asking for is the height variance here today. I just want to point out on the map I have the different rides in different colors here and that’s just to help you understand here particularly the height that is involved. There is an exhibit C that is attached to our proposed findings which, lists the height of the rides in question here on both the ones that existed before 1995 and after. The rides that are here in yellow and pink are the ones that are higher than 45’ at least at some point. The ones that are in pink the ones in particular these three Cornball and these two rides up here are the newest rides, I just wanted to highlight those they have been built since the adoption of the 1995 ordinance. The ones that are in yellow existed before that point but they are also in excess of 45’ at least at some point. I think that’s all.

Robert Justice stated, this is fairly simple, here is the ordinance, the ordinance says at table 2, 45’ your ordinance have said that since 1972. Indiana Beach says oh, we never paid any attention to the past, no make us pay attention now. Well what’s more important, none of these other rides come right up against residential property. This one runs right along the boundary, a matter of inches separates some of the supports of that rife from the boundary. I haven’t measured it because, it’s way up in the air but if you look at it, it’s probably less than 10’ from the boundary if you extend the boundary upward, that’s what this is all about. It’s not about all of those other rides that are already there. If that ride falls over, where is it going to fall? It’s going to fall on my client’s property. We have ice storms we have wind storms we have structural failures, that’s why when you wrote your ordinance you put in setbacks to protect people. If you feel that because they have always done this in the past they should be able to go on doing it, this Board has the power to do that. I say again, if you’re going to do that why don’t you just say the ordinance doesn’t apply to Indiana Beach, it applies to everyone else, it’ doesn’t apply to them.

Rebecca Wimbush stated, I would like to get a clarification on, because now I’m focusing just on this variance and the height variance. From this map and the colors and everything as I understand it, and the Board can confirm this because, I haven’t seen the ordinance but I understand that you’re 45’ height maximum requirement has existed since 1972? Is that correct?

Director Weaver stated, yes, that is correct.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, so how many of these marked rides, are above 45’?

Tom Engle stated, the yellow and pink…

Rebecca Wimbush asked, the yellow and pink?

Tom Engle stated, yes.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, okay, and then when were these rides, the yellow and pink rides constructed?

Tom Engle stated, the ones in pink were, and Tom can give you the…

Rebecca Wimbush stated, well, we know that this one was constructed last…

Tom Engle stated, since 1995, we’re just keying that to the different ordinances…

Rebecca Wimbush stated, okay…

Tom Engle stated, and the one in yellow were before that but I…

Rebecca Wimbush asked, so my question is if this 45’ maximum height requirement has existed since 1972, how come they are coming before you today for a variance for all of these rides. They had to of been aware of this height requirement, I would have assumed that they would have come to you as they are constructing this. Not necessarily for that certification of the ride and everything like that, that we talked about prior but, to at least ask for you, as of you a variance because, they know that these rides are going to be exceeding 45’. So I guess that’s my question is, why now in 2001 we are now clumping all of these rides together? Then as I’m looking at their exhibit C of their detailed statement for this petition, it says application seeks a height variance from the White County Board of Zoning Appeals to permit the height for rides in the park to exceed 45’ of height limit. My question to the Board, or to them is they say for rides, now is this existing rides, is this the existing rides as they are today and will this variance apply to any future rides that are erected?

Attorney Altman stated, the application would only be for existing rides.

Rebecca Wimbush asked, as they are today?

Attorney Altman stated, as they are today.

Rebecca Wimbush stated, okay, that isn’t the way that it is written here so I wasn’t sure, thank you.

Tom Engle stated, we had listed that the particular rides on there just to clarify that point. I guess my only comment really would be about the setbacks which, we talked about the side yard setback is 0’. There is no setback on that side yard so, I think that was the only point that had been raised that need any clarification.

Ann Thompson asked, one more time, this is a little misleading because, here is the new Hoosier Hurricane and it shows it right here when actually it comes here and goes all of the way out here and back up. So when you look at this map and you see these the Cornball Express goes the entire length of our property and to say that it’s right here, when you look at the map doesn’t quite show the picture.

Tom Spackman stated, I have a couple of other pictures that I would like to offer for exhibits, give you some more detail. The Cornball Express I think is the one that is primarily a subject of concern here. This particular exhibit shows the Hoosier Hurricane which, the extension is located here and runs all of the way along the park that’s true. I think that everyone is aware of where the Hurricane is located, it’s right on the West side of the island going out to the lake and coming back. The Cornball actually runs through a lot of the hurricane and this particular picture, I will use that as an exhibit, shows you….

Attorney Altman stated, number 6…

(This exhibit is marked exhibit 7A)

Tom Spackman stated, right, the highest part of the Cornball is 78’ at the drop hill now, that is in the hurricane structure itself so, it’s really an extension of the hurricane and it then it runs across…

Attorney Altman stated, excuse me…

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Vice President Saylor stated, thank you, sorry for the interruption folks. (The tape had to be changed).

Tom Spackman stated, I have a few other pictures here it, one correction on this map, the log flume is also approximately 50’ high as well. This will show the flume and also the hill here is to the North side of what use to be the county road that came through the trees are the overhang on the property line…

Attorney Altman stated, that would be exhibit 7…

Tom Spackman stated, and then that shows you the tiger coaster, which is actually higher than the Cornball along the property there…

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s exhibit 8…

Tom Spackman stated, you will notice that there if foliage along the property line, you can not actually see the Cornball from the other side of the fence. Now during the winter, sure you can but the height of that coaster at that point is only 53’. Your house and it’s also at least 12’ off the setback line, there is a couple posts that are within 6” of the property line but, the centerline of the coaster is 12’, actually 16’ from the property line so there is some distance there.

Jane Walker stated, I don’t know what he is showing you in the pictures but, the log ride I believe does not meet the setback requirements either and but, because it is a little less bothersome than the roller coaster, we’re not even going to talk about that tonight. That’s been there, it’s right up against the road and the trees were screened until you cut them and that’s, there are a few leaves that come out and help us screen it but, they have taken a lot of our trees down when the roller coaster went up. I guess that the one thing that I’m having trouble with is listening to all of you handle, talk to these people that come before you with their request for variances and a mobile home that the woman can not even live in until she gets her variance. I think that all of you have been so considerate and careful in your request for these variances and then to see someone who has for years defied the height variance is just beyond my belief. I really hope that you all can do what we hope that you can do for us. Thank you.

Tom Spackman stated, just a brief comment here, the trees, we did trim the trees on our side of the fence, we did not take any trees out. I have tried to see if we couldn’t find some agreement on how to improve the property line between the two of us. I would offer another exhibit to you, actually two of them. This is looking in on the property and you can see that there is quite a difference to the house, this is the…

Attorney Altman stated, exhibit 9, the first picture…

Tom Spackman stated, have put in some sound absorbing material…

Attorney Altman stated, exhibit 10…

Tom Spackman stated, we have, over the last weekend when we had the private parties, we ran some tests with sound absorption, to see if we couldn’t cut the noise and it did significantly reduce the noise. We also tried it within the park and it had an impact there as well. We have no plans of taking that out and going back to the way that it was before so I don’t know, I didn’t see anyone at your property on that weekend so, I don’t know that if you had a chance to see what the noise abatement has done. We would be more than happy to clean up any scraps over there but, I couldn’t get a hold of anyone to get permission to do that.

Vice President Saylor asked, do I have any comments or questions from the Board? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I was just thinking in response to you, this is not something that is normally within our ordinance, so it’s not just a matter of saying this is, it’s not addressed, it is addressed but, indirect ways. It’s not as cut and dry as a mobile home, which has certain areas that are specifically related. So when you say that you expect a proper response from us it is very difficult, as it is not, it’s not standard. What we need to do up here is look at our ordinance and the law and see how it applies in what we are doing and that’s, that’s where the problem is. What we want to do up here as individuals, it’s not an issue, why is it issues how it applies to the ordinance and that’s where we are.

Jane Walker stated, I guess that the ordinance states 45’.

Carol Stradling stated, for a main structure.

Robert Justice stated, Carol, I think that Director Weaver will tell you this is a main structure.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Robert Justice stated, there’s no doubt about that.

Director Weaver stated, actually a main structure is 45’ and an accessory structure is only 15’ so we are looking at this as a main structure.

Carol Stradling stated, and those are the things that we need to bring up.

Vice President Saylor stated, Art.

Art Anderson stated, and by the way I have never worked for Indiana Beach or any of them. When you’re looking at, and I’m listened to the Attorney again come over here and as he was walking over and explaining this and he was telling you that Mr. Spackman again, just disregards and doesn’t pay attention. Now you know, you’re looking at a lot of structures that have been built and they are above the 45’. You think, you have to use a little common sense again, do you think that someone would just continually, arrogantly build these things if they really knew that they had to be 45’? I don’t believe so but,, Mr. Spackman or the Mr. Spackmans again are accused of not caring and that’s why they did it and I think that it’s pretty evident that they didn’t know. I mean it would have been a lot easier to sneak in here sometime and get a variance when no one else would be around and it wouldn’t be a big problem. Now that you have someone that hey, they finally found a little, they found that hey, 45’ is what it is you have to use your head again. I mean, to build all of those things, you think that someone is going to just keep sneaking in and building. It wasn’t snuck in and built. I mean whom are you going to believe, I don’t know, I haven’t asked, them the question but you know did you just arrogantly do this? So whom are you going to believe them? They live around here, or an attorney? It’s pretty easy for me to figure out.

Rebecca Wimbush stated, I promise that this will be my last comment. I know that it’s been a long evening, it’s been a long time for all of us, including the Spackmans and Indiana Beach and they are going by leaps and bounds. I think that this is something that the Zoning Board has to come to grips with maybe this evening is to think about your ordinances as they exist and how do they really apply to Indiana Beach because they are a part of this community. They do, as I understand fall under these ordinances or maybe they don’t if they don’t then we all need to know that. I think the point is as Mr. Engle said earlier, one of the criteria for a variance is practical difficulty. In a way this practical difficulty has been created by them because, if this ordinance has existed since 1972 and of course they don’t come in and just sneak in, you can’t just sneak in a roller coaster, you can’t sneak I these tall things. If you do not come in, when you know that this structure is going to exceed an ordinance you come in for a variance for that ride or that structure, what ever it may be. You don’t come in from 1972 to the year 2001 here all along and them clump them all together and I think that this will be an on going problem as the Beach grows and as it expands it’s business which of course we expect it to do. That’s what all businesses do but my question to the Zoning Board then is, how are we going to handle these future situations when another exotic ride that they may find of some fabulous ride in Germany or wherever but maybe it’s going to be 80’. So then how, but how is the Board going to handle this and I think that’s my main question? I thank you for your patience this evening with all of my questions but, it is a serious one because, we’re dealing with a business owner who is trying to expand and who has expanded. Who is been here for years and years and years as has our cottages who have been here for years and years. So we’re trying to make it so that it works for everyone but in the meantime I think that it’s going to be up to the Zoning Board to figure out how will we handle these things. Thank you very much.

Tom Engle stated, one last time. I think that you made a good point but yet I do think that it’s clear that at least how we’re handling it now is, we’re asking for a variance and that establishes that, that is how it’s going to be. I think that the question under lying all of this is maybe what was required in the past and the confusion that arose out of that but, I think that we’re all clear on this, this is what we need to do now.

Robert Justice stated, Mr. Chairman, just one point if I may. I think that his Board needs to know why this matter came before the Board. Why have all of these petitions been filed? The reason is that back in May, I wrote a letter at the request of my clients and they signed it. They said they’re violating the height restriction, they’re violating the special use requirement, we lined it out we sited to the ordinance and we submitted that to the Area Plan Director. Then she made an investigation and she is required by law to do when a complaint is filed and she said yes, they are violating the height restriction and that’s where all of this came from. This didn’t come from Indiana Beach, this came from my clients who made a complaint.

Vice President Saylor stated, I think that at this time I would like to ask for any final comments from anyone.

Attorney Altman stated, no further questions.

Carol Stradling asked, prior to Indiana Beach being there, I guess I’m looking back at it’s been established in a B-2 zoning for a long time…

Attorney Altman stated, since the beginning of the ordinance…

Carol Stradling stated, other than Indiana Beach being there and the affiliated resorts, what other business properties are there other than, I mean I understand that there are residential properties but primarily it was zoned B-2. I guess what I’m getting at is primarily it was zoned B-2 because Indiana Beach was there. Does anyone know why, that was originally zoned B-2?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure it was done because that was considered the business there, yes.

Tom Spackman stated, I would assume that was the reason.

Attorney Altman stated, beings since I was there, I would say yes.

Tom Spackman stated, even most of the permanent residence either have cottages on their properties that they rent or rent out the front yards for parking…

Attorney Altman stated, in addition to the other things, there are taverns, there are other businesses there in that location and were there in 1972 and have been fairly continuous every since then. Having lived here all of that time, I would say that without contradictions, so yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything else at this point? If there are no further questions, would the Board like to vote? Carol anything further, either of you?

Carol Stradling stated, there is just a lot of information that has been presented tonight on both sides of the issue.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, I would like some more time to consider the vote, I would make a motion.

Vice President Saylor asked, are you asking to table this until…

Carol Stradling stated, table it until next meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, so the record has been closed, arguments have been made and we will just reconvene in November for a vote. Just as I understand the structure of the matter.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that any more questions or any more issues that I need presented but I…

Attorney Altman stated, they have concluded the evidence is what I understand and that’s what I’m just trying to set the record straight.

Robert Justice stated, Mr. Altman, I might say, if the Board has the desire to for example, cease a citation or something like this to back up some of the things that have been said, if perhaps if the Board tables it, we could hear their questions. Then give them some kind of written answer, not a…

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to tender a brief of any sort, we will entertain it…

Robert Justice stated, well, but I would only do it if the Board wanted something directly to a particular subject. I think that we have presented a lot of information, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, okay. Do you have a motion Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I would move that we table this decision vote, I would move that we table voting on this matter until the next meeting. It can fail for a lack of a second but…

Vice President Saylor stated, we have a motion on the floor, is there a second?

Gary Barbour asked, is there any way that we can get a copy of the minutes early, so that we have time to review these?

Director Weaver stated, we can attempt to do that.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second the motion.

Vice President Saylor stated, it’s been moved and seconded to table this until the November…

Director Weaver stated, 15th.

Vice President Saylor stated, 15, 2001 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. All if favor, all opposed, the motion is tabled.

Attorney Altman stated, the matter is tabled, just again for the record, the evidence is in the arguments in that doesn’t mean that you can’t go view the scene if the Board whishes to do that but otherwise parties are not bring any evidence in. Does everyone understand that the vote will be November the 15th right here and will be the second matter I think of that day?

Vice President Saylor asked, is there any further business to come before the Board this evening? Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m trying to think, I’m still fighting with the lawyer to either do or what have you there…

Tom Engle asked, can I ask a question Mr. Altman? Will the vote be limited to the three members that were here to hear the evidence or will they be privy to the minutes and be able to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not sure that I have an answer for that. I would suspect that I would have to research and see but I would suspect that given the nature of the evidence that they would, other Board members may wish to vote also after reviewing the…

Tom Engle stated, I guess review the minutes and the exhibits…

Attorney Altman stated, and the exhibits and listen to the tape is what I would guess however, I can’t…

Tom Engle stated, I understand…

Attorney Altman stated, the other members are going to have to make that determination whether they wish to or demand to as the legal answer, I’m not sure where that comes down.

Tom Engle stated, I just wanted to mention it, that’s all…

Attorney Altman stated, they cross that bridge when we come to it next meeting I will try to do some briefing on that.

Vice President Saylor asked, Director Weaver?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think so, I don’t think so, it seems like we have one thing but I don’t know, I think that’s it. The Board has been here long enough.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anything from the Board? If not is there a motion to adjourn?

****

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission