Get Adobe Flash player



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

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

Visitors attending were: Steve Hooker, Eldon Sizemore, Maureen & Joseph Hlatko, Robert D. Phelps, Ruth E. Phelps, Charles R. Mellon, Tom Spackman, Dick Stevenson, Rex Stanley, Bob Guy, B.J. Mursener, Randy Elzalde, Julie Mursener, Gail A. Elzalde, Becky Jackson, William E. Jackson II, Cleo Bledsoe, Kevin Brown, Jeff Gingrich, Ann Thompson, Lee Thompson, Dave Jordan, Dan Banes, Attorney Robert Lewis Justice, Debra Fornof, James M. Duier, Paul Koertge, Jim Wurtec and Joe A. Maudlin.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to table the approval of the October 18, 2001 minutes until next meeting. Gary Barbour seconded the motion and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#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. Tabled from October 18, 2001.

President Thompson asked, and you are sir?

Joseph Hlatko stated, Joseph Hlatko.

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

Joseph Hlatko stated, yes, I have. I’m the owner of Quail Run Subdivision and my request for a special exception, is to sell each side of an improved lot separately. This would mean a two unit building after it is up. The objective is to build large high quality duplexes, these two bedroom units would have two baths a study, master bedroom suite and two car garage. To make this project feasible, I feel the ownership must be given. Property lines would go through the party wall, each owner would also own the front side and rear yards. Each side would have separate


septic systems, I have the permits for all 6 lots. The 2 bedroom units, I believe they will attract older adults with fewer children and this should be a tax advantage for White County. This is a win, win situation for property owners and to the people of White County. This is an example of someone else’s survey…

President Thompson asked, okay sir, let me, what you present to the Board, there is no other way to say that we keep. Do you have copies of what you’re presenting?

Joseph Hlatko stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, we don’t want to take your only copy.

Joseph Hlatko stated, these are…

Attorney Altman stated, we would move that we received and marked as Exhibit A as Mr. Hlatko has presented.

Joseph Hlatko stated, yes, that’s an example of a survey that the owner would get showing that he owns one side of the lot.

Attorney Altman stated, you want to use that as your testimony, return that, we need it back.

Joseph Hlatko stated, okay. I also have a couple of plats of the subdivision, if you’re interested in looking at these.

President Thompson asked, Jeff, is that what we have already or not?

Joseph Hlatko stated, now on lot #7 and #8, I had existing buildings already up, I have duplexes up…

Attorney Altman stated, we actually have the original plat as part of the application. As soon as we get it, we will mark it as exhibit B as again for the implementation and part of the evidence of this record.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Joseph Hlatko stated, I also have what the draftsman got, what they would look like.

Attorney Altman stated, again for the record, that would be applicants, Exhibit C, which I will mark that way.

President Thompson asked, any question for him tonight? Director Weaver did you have anyone?

Director Weaver stated, I will just add for the Board’s information, this was a subdivision that did go through the Area Plan, it was approved on October 19, 1978 with an R-5 zoning. The R-5 zoning at that time required a lot to have a minimum lot width of 100’ and a minimum of 20,000 square feet for a single-family residence.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone? Do you have anything Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I did not get a response from anyone.

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

B.J. Mursener asked, would it be possible to look at the evidence?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, could we have your name please?

B.J. Mursener stated, B.J. Mursener. Would it be possible to look at what was submitted here I guess to at least…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have the third one.

B.J. Mursener stated, there are some other people who might want to take a look also.

President Thompson stated, come forward if you would, if you would like to look at it.

Attorney Altman stated, please come up and look at these folks if you haven’t.

B.J. Mursener stated, I guess my comments are and I live, I don’t know maybe 50 yards from the property, it really is a thing in the current zoning under a Planned Unit…

President Thompson stated, excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, we have a meeting in progress here, we would appreciate your respect. Go ahead sir.

B.J. Mursener stated, there is a way in the zoning, I guess for a Planned Unit Development that would allow for maybe a 0’ lot line development. Actually what we’re looking at, to me is a variance for a 0’ lot line. I don’t know how many square feet per lot but, I think possibly some setback and square footage variances there and really do not believe that lined up on the center of a lot line, that is split up in 3 rural housing that’s conducive to the adjoining property. The property owners and the values etcetera but, there are other means to accomplish that, if that’s what is to be done. I believe a similar proposal was brought before this Board, I don’t know a couple of years ago or several years ago, maybe different members but, just personally I don’t believe that it fits the neighborhood. I don’t believe that it really fits the zoning regulations that this isn’t the proper method to achieve that goal. Another concern is, discussing once something is approved I guess, there isn’t any regulation on what values go up or how big it is or isn’t so someone can get zoning for one thing and do another, we have all seen it in the past and that’s a concern. That’s my comment, but maybe someone else might want to make one.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the Board this evening either for or against?

Robert Phelps stated, I’m not for or against, I’m a little concerned…

Attorney Altman asked, what is your name sir?

Robert Phelps stated, Phelps, Robert Phelps.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

President Thompson asked, and your relationship to this property?

Robert Phelps stated, I adjoin it.

President Thompson asked, on which side sir?

Robert Phelps stated, on the North side.

President Thompson stated, okay, go ahead.

Robert Phelps asked, one concern is road, has the road been dedicated to the county and has the county accepted?

Joseph Hlatko stated, the county has accepted maintenance for the road.

Robert Phelps stated, okay, the next question is the water situation, now it has been tiled on the South side, it seems to do the job on the South side but, I have a property right next to this. My property is under water 6 or 8 months out of the year. I can hardly garden at all, there is a water problem there on my property.

Joseph Hlatko stated, I have drainage tile on the, that goes all of the way through Quail Run like I said, I have all of the septic permits, which I have to do perimeter drains on the septic systems so those are all approved.

President Thompson asked, sir, where do you fit into this? Where are you from this property?

B.J. Mursener stated, there is actually one lot between me and the property. I live on Hickory Ridge so, I’m probably 40 yards away or something like that, I’m in a very close proximity.

Attorney Altman asked, B.J., would you come up and look at this map and maybe you can identify your home on this map and then the Board will know just where you are. That’s just a little bit different here.

B.J. Mursener stated, I just wrote B.J. right there.

Attorney Altman stated, I will pass this among the Board, this is the staff survey and map that shows where Mr. Mursener’s home is in relation to the plat. I think that we will mark this as exhibit 1 of the intervener’s.

Joseph Hlatko asked, can I add a comment?

President Thompson asked, let him and then we will come back to you, is that okay?

Jeff Gingrich asked, I live on the North, the Northwest corner of lot #8 across the street in Hickory Ridge. I thought that this was, we went through this a couple of years ago or something, about you building duplexes or whatever you want to do. What I’m confused is what he is actually trying to do, is he going to build this home and then sell it to someone is that your objective?

Joseph Hlatko stated, this is what I want to do, otherwise, if I, I can build duplexes, I can go build 6 more duplexes but, if I can’t sell them separately, I have to rent them. So then I have to make small units I can’t, what I’m proposing here I would have to get 1,100 dollars a month for rent and there is no way that I feel that I can get it out of this area.

Attorney Altman stated, the exact proposal is and let me read this to you, the proposed is a proposed special exception involves a request to sell each side of an improved lot separately.

Joseph Hlatko stated, it’s an alternative to building deluxe unit or smaller units and if I have to rent them I have to build them small to get the price down, I can’t justify them.

B.J. Mursener asked, two questions, you said that the road had been accepted for maintenance now is this dedicated for public use on a plat or is it still a private road?

Joseph Hlatko stated, yes.

B.J. Mursener stated, I don’t believe that the plat shows that, that’s why I’m asking the question.

Joseph Hlatko stated, it’s a dedicated road.

B.J. Mursener asked, okay, is that on the plat? Might I ask that, do you guys have the original? I don’t think that it is.

Joseph Hlatko stated, no, I think that is on separate papers.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that was done after it was platted.

B.J. Mursener stated, okay, evidentially you can find that. The other comment that I have is, I guess again, this subdivision was laid out under prior zoning regulations. Under the current regulations, and I’m quite familiar with this and it certainly would require drainage, proper drainage, retention ponds, etcetera, etcetera. I guess I believe and I have developed some property but, by doing this without going into a current Planned Unit Development or subdivision, what the current codes call for you know in allowing for all off of the new improvements or requirements that they were trying to maintain.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Hlatko has addressed this with the Drainage Board and he does have a letter submitted in the file that says that they will not be required to submit a drainage plan to the Surveyor’s Office as long as the original plans of the subdivision are followed. The subdivision was recorded in 1996 before the Drainage Ordinance came into effect and that is signed by Rick Raderstorf.

Attorney Altman stated, the issue might be whether this falls in those plans as it sets as long as the original plans are being involved he doesn’t have to…

B.J. Mursener stated, of course the original plans don’t call for dividing lots.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s my point.

B.J. Mursener stated, okay, thank you, I appreciate that, thank you.

President Thompson asked, back to his original question, are we within the guidelines of the setbacks? Are we in compliance everywhere here?

Director Weaver stated, that’s what I’m looking at here, I don’t believe so. This subdivision was platted out with a 30’ front setback, I do see in two situations the existing structures do not meet that 30’. There is one that is 29.7’ back, there is one that is 29.9’ back. The rear setback appears to have been met. The side setbacks the plat doesn’t show what the side setbacks are but, the R-5 zoning, had 20’ side setbacks and I do see in one situation here that the side is 13.1’.

Attorney Altman stated, and what you’re looking off of, just to tidy up the record is what we’ve marked as exhibit B, applicants Exhibit B but, you’re looking at a larger…

Director Weaver stated, I’m looking at the survey that was submitted with the application.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but, it’s a larger copy of Exhibit B is what it is.

Director Weaver stated, right.

B.J. Mursener asked, are we not asking for several exceptions here, setback exception, planned, I mean I’m a little confused because, what exception are we truly asking for?

Attorney Altman stated, request to sell each side of an improved lot separately.

B.J. Mursener stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s all that they have before us.

B.J. Mursener asked, I guess my question is if that were approved, does that not mean that we have said okay we’ll live with a 0’ lot line is one exception and we don’t have to, you know what I’m asking? Does that encompass a number of things that we are covering, number of things that would otherwise, would be several individual exceptions?

Carol Stradling stated, we’re not subdividing these lots.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the real question, originally, quite frankly, Director Weaver and I review this matter. I after reviewing it and all told Director Weaver to write a letter to Mr. Hlatko indicating that I don’t believe that this Board has the authority to do what he is asking us to do. That is to sell, you know, we can do 0’ setbacks but, we can’t create lots and that’s what it looks like to me that we’re doing. If we allow someone to sell one half and another half of a lot and that’s exactly what he is asking us to do…

Joseph Hlatko stated, of an improved lot…

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s exactly what he’s asking us to do. I think that is controlled by the Subdivision Ordinance, this Board really doesn’t have the authority to vary that, and that’s not what he’s asking for. He’s asking for a special exception and we have had several special exceptions and let me go over a bit about that. The law says he has the burden of proving that he is entitled to a special exception once he does that, we grant it, that’s basically what it amounts to and he has to show in the Ordinance where it allows and authorizes this. Then we say yes it is or we find no it isn’t in there and then we deny or grant it. Quite frankly, the Ordinance and I don’t see where we have the, this Board has the authority to grant the special exception that he wants at all.

Carol Stradling stated, it seems like a subdivision to me and we don’t do that.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s why I advised him to a Planned Unit Development or a subdivision modification of some sort and that would be to the Area Plan or something of that nature.

Carol Stradling asked, can you explain then why came before this Board?

Joseph Hlatko stated, I have talked to attorneys and they thought that this was the best way. As far as side setbacks, I’m well within the current County Code, on the side setbacks. I think that I have the two buildings up and they are something like 26’ between the buildings, which exceeds the county…

Director Weaver stated, the setbacks go from lot lines, not buildings, setbacks go from the lot line…

Joseph Hlatko stated, that’s what I’m saying…

Attorney Altman stated, you have to understand we’re talking about two things here. One is whether it can have duplexes on it and he can as long as he does it correctly. The other thing is what he’s asking to be done and that is to sell each side, I’m paraphrasing that slightly and that’s what I say I don’t think that this Board has the authority to grant that remedy.

Carol Stradling asked, unless we were to subdivide it there’s no, is there a real transfer of property?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s wanting it so that it would be transfer of property and I agree with you, I think that you’re hitting it right on the head.

Carol Stradling stated, I wouldn’t want to purchase a house like that but maybe there is someway, I don’t know how that transaction would transpire.

Joseph Hlatko stated, now, other counties in Indiana if the lot is zoned for a duplex and there are thousands of them going up in the Calumet region. If the lot is zoned a duplex, you build a duplex and the builder runs the dividing line right down the party wall, he can sell the other side separately. I have talked to the Plan Commission in Lake County and they said that we are not in a real-estate business, they can do as they please all that we care is that they put the proper structure up to begin with and that’s how it’s done there.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess if we’re not going to subdivide it and we don’t look at how the property is sold then he could put up a duplex and sell half without coming here couldn’t he?

Attorney Altman stated, he could if he got it properly modified with a Planned Unit Development or proper subdividing through Area Plan Commission, yes, he could. Yes he could and that’s why I initially Director Weaver and I had similar letter suggesting that he do that rather than come here and take his time and resources to be here.

President Thompson stated, there was a hand up over here earlier.

William Jackson stated, I live immediately North of the subdivision and the reason that I bought the property, it was zoned for individual homes and that got changed to duplexes. Mr. Hlatko built nice duplexes and now one of my biggest concerns is that this can potentially lead to more lots behind me and more people and things like that and I’m not really for that but, it’s going to double the number of duplexes that is right behind me.

Joseph Hlatko stated, that’s not true.

William Jackson stated, I don’t know that, I’m just saying that, that’s my concern because I’m right behind there, next ones that go up are going to be in my back yard and that’s my concern.

Joseph Hlatko stated, but it’s a question of whether you want a large deluxe unit or a smaller rental unit and that’s what it boils down to. I thought that it would be better to build large deluxe units to complement your house, you have some nice houses down there.

William Jackson stated, one of the concerns is there has already been people arrested for selling drugs and stuff that have been living back in behind me and I don’t like that.

Joseph Hlatko stated, I don’t like it either.

Randy Elzalde stated, I live just North, I’m sorry West right next to the duplex that he built there and I have a road on Hickory Ridge and Quail Run. Why wouldn’t you just build single dwelling houses down through there if you wanted…

Joseph Hlatko stated, the highest and best use of the land would be duplexes. Now, I’m not saying that I won’t build some single, this is possible Randy but generally there is more money in the duplexes. I would not rule out building a single-family house, in fact I had some ideas on that.

Attorney Altman stated, I have a couple of points looking at the plat that has been submitted by applicant, on the plat it says that the lots are to be used for residential purposes only, one duplex or single family dwelling per lot. It doesn’t, his restrictions, I don’t believe provide for the sell, the condominium type transfer, that he is asking for here. I think that while restriction don’t have to control our action but, I’m looking at what he has in the way of restrictions and believe that this isn’t consistent with it.

Joseph Hlatko stated, I’m prepared to change the restrictions.

Attorney Altman stated, that would eliminate if you owned all of the lots.

Joseph Hlatko stated, I do own all of the lots and that is a right and it would state that they may be sold separately.

Attorney Altman stated, there again, that is something that’s usually in our Ordinance done by the Area Plan Commission and approved by them because that’s a modification of a subdivision, not something that is addressed in this way.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess Attorney Altman, I’m still not clear on why and what issue we’re to address here tonight. If we’re not, even if we were subdividing this Board does not do that, if it’s not subdivided and someone chooses to sell half of their home how does the BZA get involved with that?

Attorney Altman stated, someone files an application, they have a right to do that, they have a right to file an application.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so he has filed his application but...

Attorney Altman stated, and we must take it up and treat with due diligence, respect and vote on an application even though, like I say, from square one I think that I’m speaking for Director Weaver and myself. We both did not think that this was a remedy that would solve his problem or that the Board could grant.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, we can’t tell them no, they did it but, you have to vote on it based upon what you feel here in the facts and the Ordinance.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I hear Attorney Altman saying I need some understanding from you as to why you feel that the Board can do this.

Joseph Hlatko asked, whom else am I going to go to? He mentioned going to a subdivision process. I have a subdivision, I have a very nice subdividing, I built two beautiful duplexes out there, you can go look at them anytime, they are beautiful. I want to build more of them but, I want to make them even nicer than that and I want to get people ownership instead of having renters. This is more stability for everybody, for my neighbors in back for the county, people are retiring from up North and they are coming down to Monticello because this is a beautiful retirement area and this is exactly what they would want.

Carol Stradling asked, I’m not arguing with you there I have no disagreement with you there I guess what I’m trying to ascertain from you is where does the Board have authority to act for or against what your asking for us to do?

Joseph Hlatko stated, my understanding is that you 5 people have the authority or I wouldn’t have come in here.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion from the Board? I guess I’m a little bit like Carol, I’m not sure where we have the authority to do this.

Attorney Altman stated, I can’t find where the Ordinance allows that at all, no special exception. We have special exceptions set out in our Ordinance under the schedule of uses where the Board can grant these sorts of things. We’ve done this before and we will do it some day in the future. There is nothing for that in this Ordinance and I guess I’m saying is legally the way to do is either a modification of at least the Subdivision Control Plat or a Planned Unit Development and that’s how it’s envisioned. I guess I would say that if this were allowed or allowable by the Board, I don’t see any differentiation from allowing this in any other lot in White County. It would just be a double up at least any other similar lot and there’s nothing that I see that’s particularly unique about any of these lots or in the evidence that’s unique so it’s just an automatic double up if it were a way to do it.

Carol Stradling asked, what is stopping me from selling half of my house now anyway?

Attorney Altman stated, the subdivision control Ordinance says that you can not do that. You can’t create a lot and that’s what you would be doing by doing that.

Carol Stradling asked, you can’t sell half of a lot?

Attorney Altman stated, you can’t, you can transfer it to an adjoining owner between adjoining owners, the Subdivision Ordinance allows that sort of thing so yes that can happen but, that isn’t creating more lots, that’s actually creating fewer lots is the way that goes.

President Thompson asked, if we were to act on this, let's say that we voted it down, he can turn around and present this to the Area Plan Board and it’s fine?

Attorney Altman stated, you bet, yes, he can present his proposal surely. This is just whether a special exception is remedied and he’s asking us.

President Thompson asked, but, yet why should we vote if we do not have the authority to do…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s their right by law.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that would be the first question.

Joseph Hlatko stated, it’s my understanding that you do have the authority.

Attorney Altman stated, and there’s where we differ and that’s where honestly people…

Joseph Hlatko stated, I have the zoning to build the duplex and I have my health permits and everything. It’s a question of whether I build 1,100 square foot rental unit or a 1,500 square foot one that I can sell and I can’t build a 1,500 square foot unit and rent it, it’s not feasible, I can’t do it.

Carol Stradling stated, who ever gave you the advice that we have the power to do that, did they site anywhere in our Ordinance that they were going from that says that we can do that or can you point us in that direction?

Joseph Hlatko stated, no, he’s not present, I do not know that.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

B.J. Mursener stated, just a comment, it appears like we’re an inch at a time, I have this and now I can do a duplex and now I can divide it. We’re kind of inching into something I don’t think that it’s statute and I just want to ask Attorney Altman a question. I hear should we vote, should we not vote because it’s an affirmative or negative is it an option to take no action on it what so ever whether it’s not an approval or a denial it’s just that the Board is not going to take action on it. Just trying to throw out options that may take you off of the hook also.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that we’re obliged to vote, the applicant presents it and then asks for it, I think that we’re obliged to vote.

B.J. Mursener stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion. Yes, one last point and then we will move on, yes sir.

Dan Banes stated, I’m with the White County Health Department. If he’s changing his plans on his buildings chances are he’s going to have to re-permit through the Health Department. I have not seen anything come through my office since I have been there so I’m just looking at the Health Departments view.

President Thompson asked, okay, thank you. Back to the Board, Board consensus, are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, okay, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That there were objectors present at the meeting.

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

3. That the request is for a special exception to sell each side of an improved lot separately on lots 1thru 8 in Quail Run Subdivision.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township on the north side of Quail Run Court.

4. (1) Section 10.20 of the Zoning Ordinance (does) (does not) authorize the special exception for this use in this zoning district. Vote: 1 does 4 does not.

5. (2) The requirements and development standards for the requested use as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance (will) (will not) be met. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.

6. (3) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance. Vote: 4 will, 1 will not.

7. (4a) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming noxious. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.

8. (4b) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming offensive. Vote 0 will, 5 will not.

9. (4c) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 1 for and 4 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, the request for a special exception fails.

****

#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. The property is located in Union Township at 5224 E. Indiana Beach Road. Tabled from October 18, 2001.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing Indiana Beach?

Tom Spackman Jr. was present to represent the request.

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

Tom Spackman Jr. stated, my understanding was all of the evidence was presented, basically it was closed off and we’re just merely waiting for the Board to vote.

Attorney Altman asked, from a procedural point of view, we have received a request for, two requests for continuances in this matter and do you want to speak to yours Mr. Justice at this time?

Robert Justice stated, I’m an Attorney, I know some of the Board members from the October 18th hearing. I’m here with my client Ann Thompson and her husband who are property owners adjoining the property involved. Mr. Altman, I think that there are really two questions here the first one is the question of continuance the second one is Mr. Spackman is of course correct you did say at the conclusion of the earlier hearing that the evidence was closed. I think that at least one submission has been received maybe two from interested parties since that time. My clients have a few matters that they would like to bring in although, we appreciate that this Board has a lengthily docket tonight we don’t want to take up your time unnecessarily. On the issue of continuance, Becky Wimbush who some of the Board members who were here will recall, she spoke at the last meeting, the property owner in the vicinity of the park. Jane Walker who is my client, neither one was able to be here this evening because of the fact that it is Christmas holiday. We made, I made inquiry on behalf of Jane Walker to see whether it would be possible to continue the hearings since it had been continued once already. We were told that we could not, that we did not have no standing to make such a request because we were not the moving party. I understand that is a clear policy I’m not suggesting that it’s a special policy or anything of that sort but, the Board has the authority I think to decide that the matter should be delayed to give everyone a fair chance to be heard. We have a fairly lengthily written submission that I think that Becky Wimbush sent to Director Weaver, the APC Officer. Jane Walker has given me another written submission from her but, of course written submission is not the same thing as a kind of give and take you get where members of the Board can ask questions or that kind of thing. It seems to me that we’re in the winter months here and the putting of this matter off for one more meeting would not involve substantial inconvenience for anyone for the members of the Board that wasn’t here. The situation is that everything is already built and no permits were even sought, now a variance is being sought so their permit can be obtained, that’s the basic procedural posture of the matter. That’s all that I would have to say on the continuance section Mr. Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you, I will because we have received it read the request of Rebecca B. Wimbush who is, sent us the following by facsimile. It is a request for a continuance, she indicates if she, if it is not her request for a continuance is not granted she would like to have and she requested to have this letter be read in it’s entirety into the record. I think at this time, I’m not going to do that because we haven’t passed on the two requests for continuances. Do you have a response that you wish to, relative to the continuance Mr. Spackman?

Tom Spackman Jr. stated, I think for all parties involved we would just assume to get on with the vote. The matter has dragged on for some time. Rebecca’s letter, I would point out that she is not the subject property owner. She lives across the lake from the park and that’s an entirely different matter she is also an outsider from Chicago and I would question whether or not she actually owns the land that she’s referencing I believe that still belongs to her mother.

Attorney Altman stated, I think what it really amounts to, from a procedural point of view, we have two request for continuance and the applicant is requesting that we proceed with a, with this matter this evening. Procedurally, I think that we just need to decide whether we are or we aren’t going to grant, allow it to be continued or not and I think their quite rightly have the right to continue it if we wish to do so.

President Thompson asked, who was, of the Board, who was in attendance, I was not at that meeting. You weren’t either Jeff?

Gary Barbour stated, I wasn’t.

Attorney Altman stated, 3.

President Thompson stated, no, there couldn’t have been 3 of us missing, we wouldn’t of had a meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, two of them, Jeff and Carol and…

President Thompson stated, oh, I thought you said that you were missing, I asked who was missing, I’m sorry.

Gary Barbour stated, I was missing.

President Thompson asked, I know that we have not approved the minutes but, how did that close? Did you vote to not…?

Carol Stradling stated, we voted to table it to review what was presented.

Attorney Altman stated, it was quite clear it was the evidence was concluded and…

President Thompson asked, but, to allow more information to be presented?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, there was just a lot to digest in that time.

Attorney Altman stated, no, just to allow time to decide whether that would be, that it would, that the vote would be taken.

President Thompson asked, can she legally put that on record even though we haven’t approved the minutes?

Attorney Altman stated, yes I certainly can to show what we said.

Director Weaver stated, I haven’t found it yet.

Attorney Altman stated, Carol had asked that we needed more time and I just stated that to resolve the stage of the record has been closed, arguments have been made, we will just reconvene in November for a vote. Just as I understood the structure, just as I understood the structure, I would again repeat they have concluded the evidence is what I understand that. That’s just what I’m trying to set the record straight and there is no objection to that and there was possibility of submitting a brief or citation from Mr. Attorney Justice and we were just to reconvene and vote.

Carol Stradling stated, Attorney Altman, they presented their oral explanation and then we had all of this stuff to go along with it….

President Thompson stated, which I got in the mail, I did get that but, I just wanted to double check actually in the minutes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, that’s where we are right now, we have received that.

President Thompson stated, so we need to address their…

Attorney Altman stated, request for continuance of the vote.

President Thompson asked, discussion on that from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, just on the continuance?

President Thompson stated, right, in other words, do we open it back up or allow it?

Attorney Altman stated, no just continuance of the vote.

President Thompson stated, oh, I’m sorry, I thought, I miss understood you.

Attorney Altman stated, the request is to continue so that the vote would not be taken this evening.

Gary Barbour asked, so if we continue it until the next meeting, they are not going to be able to give it any argument because all that we’re doing is postponing the vote.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the vote that’s what we’re talking about.

Gary Barbour stated, so I guess I don’t see what the point is whether we vote now or next month.

Attorney Altman stated, and I guess that you have heard the arguments and you just need to decide that, that’s all that I’m trying to say.

Robert Justice stated, Mr. Altman, if I can address that…

President Thompson stated, name again please.

Robert Justice stated, the name is Robert Justice. The submission that Becky Wimbush sent really is not a nature of evidence. Ms. Wimbush, I understand is a paralegal and what she has done here is she has made arguments, legal arguments with regards to the granting of the variance, what the standards should be, that kind of thing. I say that because, I received a copy of what she sent out so, if the issue is receiving additional evidence if the Board fees that the evidence should remain closed then Mr. Altman is entirely correct, there was no uncertainty about that, at the conclusion of the meeting. He said we’re done hearing evidence, we have it all in but, I would suggest that sometimes discussion, not of factual matters but, of procedural matters things of that kind. The standards that the Board should use might be fruitful especially, for the two Board members who weren’t able to be here at the earlier meeting. I would suggest that if Ms. Wimbush were here and if my client Jane Walker were here we might have a better interchange, this is only on the continuance matter.

Attorney Altman stated, Ms. Wimbush was here and submitted oral testimony and Ms. Walker was here and submitted testimony also.

President Thompson asked, Board’s wishes, Jeff, comment?

Jeff Saylor stated, we have a full Board and the Board has had ample opportunity to review the minutes so I don’t see any reason at least on my part to vote for a continuance.

President Thompson asked, we don’t necessarily need a motion on that do we Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly would have a motion on that…

President Thompson asked, you would?

Attorney Altman asked, and a vote?

Jeff Saylor stated, so moved.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded, all in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed the same, motion carried.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record the vote was I believe 5 to nothing in favor of denying the continuance.

President Thompson stated, okay, with all of that, is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, at the time she had asked that we, she being Ms. Wimbush read her letter I think for the record I will note that it was in the packet of all of the members. I don’t hear anybody opening up the record so I don’t think that it would be appropriate to read her letter either into the record. I think that the members can take the evidence as they receive it and vote at this time on it.

Robert Justice stated, Mr. Altman before the vote can I make the record?

Attorney Altman stated, we certainly would allow you to make record, yes.

Robert Justice stated, thank you. The, we would request that Becky Wimbush’s statement be read and also that a statement, which I have from Jane Walker who was unable to be here, which is very brief, about a half of a page be read. The reason is first, we have a lot of people here from the community this is a community issue what the Board has before it. I presume all of you have read these documents, I don’t have any reason to doubt that but, the members of the community would not know what the document said unless it were read in a meeting. I suppose it could be made available but, it strikes me in a public hearing of this kind it’s important for the public to know what the matter considered by the Board is so for that reason we would ask that these matters be read in.

Attorney Altman stated, I think procedurally we were very clear to conclude the evidence.

President Thompson stated, we have already decided and vote and acted on that letter I believe. Does the Board wish to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lots were existing lots of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

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

4. That the density of the improvements and rides are consistent with the reasonable needs of a modern amusement park of applicants.

5. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

7. That the request is for a height variance to bring the existing rides at the amusement park that exceed 45’ into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance 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.

8. 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 and that applicant has met their burden of proof required.

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

Attorney Altman stated, note the decision of the Board we have on BZA #2066 the variance 5 votes tendered, 5 votes indicate that the variance be as hereby granted, 0 against.

Robert Justice asked, Mr. Chairman can I simply ask…

President Thompson stated, we’re moving along.

Robert Justice stated, I know that sir…

****


#2067 Mary Rynard; Requesting a 2’ separation between the home and the shed and a 4.5’ separation from the detached garage to allow the shed. Also, a 7’ front setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the house into compliance and a 2’ side setback variance, a 4.5’ separation from the home to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #31 in Maple Bend Subdivision. The property is located in Liberty Township at 7202 E. Maple Bend Court. Tabled from November 15, 2001.

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

Dick Stevenson stated, Mary Rynard couldn’t be here this evening.

President Thompson asked, your relationship to this variance?

Dick Stevenson stated, I’m her fiancé and actually all of the testimony and evidence was given last month and I believe that the only thing that we were waiting on was a vote with a possible exception of a letter that Mary had wrote to the Area Plan Commission. I have the original copy of her letter….

President Thompson stated, excuse me sir, fellows, we still have a meeting in the room here. I’m sorry, go ahead…

Dick Stevenson stated, that’s okay, I assume that the Board probably has a copy of her letter, it’s concerning the feasibility of moving this particular shed.

President Thompson stated, just a second, make sure…

Dick Stevenson stated, if not I can give you the only copy that I have.

President Thompson asked, is this, the letter that you’re speaking of here?

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, he has it. Yes, I think that would be the only exception…

President Thompson asked, does the Board have that?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s a letter signed by Mary Rynard I also have a letter from a Deborah Fornof.

President Thompson stated, go ahead sir.

Dick Stevenson stated, actually, that’s about all that I have like I say testimony was given last month and evidence and I don’t believe that Mr. Altman was here last month and that’s the reason that it was tabled until tonight. I talked to the Building Commissioner of the Inspector and he had mentioned something about his main concern with that shed was the fact that it was 1.5’ too close to the house. There was a possibility of if the shed ever caught on fire the house might catch on fire. He said as far as he was concerned, he felt that they had a waiver or an exception that would resolve any, White County or anyone else, from any liability if that was ever to happen or, I could put a firewall in the shed, which would make it to code and stuff.

President Thompson asked, does this letter need to be read into the record Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I think the Board has that letter right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, the Board does have that letter.

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, she told them that she felt the shed could be moved and then she was misinformed that it can’t be moved and that’s what this letter is.

Attorney Altman asked, and that’s a letter from Mary?

Dick Stevenson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the one that I think that the Board has a copy of it right now and I would be glad to read it into the record if you think this is the best time to do that right now. The letter from Mary Rynard, received 11-20-2001 was read into the record.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to add to that if I could. After receiving this letter, I did go talk to our Building Inspector again regarding his request and he still feels that it is in violation of the fire codes and that the best situation would be still for it to be relocated.

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

Deborah Fornof stated, I just drove 2 ½ hours so I’m kind of nervous…

President Thompson stated, step up to the microphone would you please.

Attorney Altman asked, we just received a letter that was just tendered to us not very long ago. Do you want to read your letter into evidence Deborah?

Deborah Fornof stated, sure, this is the second letter…

Attorney Altman stated, oh second letter.

Deborah Fornof stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, read the second letter into evidence that we just got.

Deborah Fornof read into the record she had written.

Dick Stevenson stated, number one, she mentioned that there is no walkway between the shed and from it, you’re wrong…

Deborah Fornof stated, there’s no walkway at all

Dick Stevenson stated, there is a 3’ walk way running parallel with the shed. It’s probably on his surveyors map there, there is no washer and dryer in the shed or in the garage, they are in the house, I will challenge anybody right now to come out there and I will show it to you. Now this lady here, I think that I have seen her maybe twice in the last year and she’s from Chicago. She has an old beat up mobile home, I think that you know which one I’m talking about. I don’t know why she is down on this thing as far as termites, there is no termites in that home. I have had termite inspections yearly, it’s a very sound structure. The addition, the wooden addition that she is talking about is a wooden walkway at the back of the property and a sun porch that was put on the front, which is all in compliance the permits and every thing else. Now I really don’t understand why she wants to be this way, she has enough problems of her own over there…

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t matter…

Dick Stevenson stated, I know that it doesn’t.

Attorney Altman asked, is the shed in compliance?

Dick Stevenson stated, no, it’s too close to the house.

Attorney Altman asked, was it permitted?

Dick Stevenson stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the problem.

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, I know, that’s the reason we’re here as far as, here again, she can’t even see the shed from her…

President Thompson stated, that’s not important.

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t matter.

Dick Stevenson stated, I know but, it’s obvious that well, I don’t guess that it is obvious but, here again I was told that there may be some waivers involved the shed can not be moved, it’s impossible to do so. As far as tearing the shed down and rebuilding it, you know she’s looking of spending a couple of thousand of dollars to do that and it just isn’t practical.

Attorney Altman stated, this isn’t the first one that we’ve removed.

Dick Stevenson stated, well, you can remove the shed…

Attorney Altman stated, with cause to be removed if it doesn’t comply, if someone didn’t get a permit for it.

Dick Stevenson stated, no, I know, you have the authority to do it, I understand that, I’m just saying that if there are exceptions or waivers she would be happy to take care of that.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

Dick Stevenson stated, here again, I think that the fire issue was the number one issue with the Building Inspector. He mentioned that to put a fire wall in there and bring it up to code.

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

Deborah Fornof stated, would I be wrong to say that there would have to be 3 firewalls because not only is he not in compliance from the neighbors property, then he’s not in compliance being that’s too, not far enough from the garage. Then another fire wall because, he’s not far enough away from the house.

Director Weaver stated, he is in compliance with the setback from the side property line.

Dick Stevenson stated, I certainly am.

Deborah Fornof asked, from the side. So 2 fire walls then?

President Thompson asked, you’re lot #30 ma’am?

Deborah Fornof stated, yes I am.

Attorney Altman stated, she is an adjoining neighbor.

President Thompson stated, and lot #32, we got no response from or is there someone here?

Director Weaver stated, I’m not aware of any response.

Dick Stevenson stated, she signed the letter and said she had no problems, in fact, everyone did but, this young lady over here.

Charlie Mellon stated, what Director Weaver said about the building inspector, you should take that into consideration and this lady has made two trips down here from Chicago and I think that we should take care of it one way or another tonight.

President Thompson stated, okay, discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, I think at the last meeting we kind of brought up the point that if we do approve this and it catches on fire then are we held accountable in some…

Attorney Altman asked, you mean approve the shed?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Dick Stevenson stated, well, that’s where he mentioned that waiver.

Attorney Altman stated, well, the problem is, is a waiver is fine if you know who’s hurt but, you never know who is going to get hurt in the fire.

Carol Stradling stated, thank you Attorney Altman and that’s why we wanted to wait until you were available to answer that question for us.

President Thompson asked, anyone else?

Deborah Fornof stated, I do want to say something.

President Thompson stated, okay, one last time.

Deborah Fornof stated, I think it’s all of our being a homeowner we do have responsibilities to find out what the rules and regulations are before we even build. This is a fairly new structures and the one problem is being that the she is where it’s located and he really doesn’t have a side walk way on my side, if anything caught on fire…

Dick Stevenson stated, I do have a sidewalk…

Deborah Fornof stated, they will not, the fire department will not…

President Thompson stated, she has the floor…

Deborah Fornof stated, really be on his property to get to the front because of where the structure is located. There is just no sidewalk on my side now. I’ve got people that have been telling me for 10 years, not that I have to listen to everybody in the neighborhood their his friends telling me not to let certain people come on to the property because of liability reasons. These are the people that have to walk on to my property because, there is no room for anyone to walk because of the structures not being so far from the property line. He also uses that side property for storage, there is no consideration there to even ask whether or not I would mind I have never encroached on anyone’s property there and I shouldn’t.

President Thompson asked, back to the Board, what are the Boards wishes? Discussion? Vote? Ready to vote? Okay, if there is not other discussion…

Director Weaver stated, I have…

President Thompson stated, oh, I’m sorry Director Weaver, go ahead.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t recall from the last meeting and I don’t know if any of the Board members do, where it’s to ask the existing garage into compliance.

Carol Stradling stated, we actually had a few separate items here…

Director Weaver stated, right because, we also have a room addition, a proposed room addition on the back side. I believe in talking to the building inspector, he didn’t feel that we should bring that existing garage into compliance due to the fact that it also did not meet the fire codes.

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly don’t think that there is any reason to do that unless it meets fire codes. I think that the Board should make that a specific determination that it’s not being, you know, I fit’s grandfathered, it’s grandfathered, it’s not, it’s removed…

Director Weaver stated, it is grandfathered as far as I’m aware.

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, it’s grandfathered.

Carol Stradling stated, right, when he changes the property…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right and therefore I guess what I’m saying is I would not bring it into compliance unless it comes into compliance with the other codes. I think that I would require very much that he bring it into compliance with the fire code at the very least even if you don’t put it into compliance.

Dick Stevenson stated, we wouldn’t have any problem putting it in, bringing it up to fire code that wouldn’t be a problem there at all.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re talking about all of it, the garage, the shed, everything.

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, the end of the garage that would face the shed and that end of the shed that would face the garage and the side of the shed would face the house would be brought into the front though…

Attorney Altman stated, everything…

Dick Stevenson stated, yes, that would be the 3 walls that we’re talking about. Here again, she mentioned in her letter…

Attorney Altman stated, we’re done with this.

Dick Stevenson stated, oh, I’m sorry.

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 2’ separation between the home and the shed and a 4.5’ separation from the detached garage to allow the shed. Also, a 7’ front setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the house into compliance and a 2’ side setback variance, a 4.5’ separation from the home to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 31 in Maple Bend Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 7202 E. Maple Bend Court.

4. (1) The variance request (is) (is not) a variance from a use district or

classifications under are plan law. Vote: 5 is not, 0 is.

5. (2) The granting of this variance (will) (will not) be injurious to the public health,

safety, morals and welfare of the community. Vote: 2 will not, 3 will.

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, 4 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: 1 is, 4 is not.

8. (5) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance (will) (will not)

result in unusual and unnecessary hardship. Vote: 4 will, 1 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: 2 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: 1 will, 4 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: 3 will, 2 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: 2 will, 3 will not.

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 0 for and 5 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to make sure that you don’t have other violations in the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance but, your request is denied.

****

#2071 Lonnie Bledsoe; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow an outdated mobile home to be placed in White County.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, Lonnie couldn’t make it tonight, my address is 1477 E. 850 S., Brookston, Indiana. That’s all that I have to say.

Attorney Altman asked, so you live there now?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes, I have this permit here. I have all of this other stuff here if you need it.

Attorney Altman stated, received a Health Department request and you say that it’s for the septic system?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman asked, has it been installed?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman stated, this is a permit, we would call that Exhibit A, it looks like it is a, dated December the 20th.

Carol Stradling asked, can we keep that?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, I can make you another copy.

President Thompson asked, he says that he lives there, are there two dwellings or he lives in the mobile home?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, I live in the mobile home, yes sir.

President Thompson asked, you do live in the mobile home?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes sir.

President Thompson asked, all right, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, just, the mobile home was brought in and placed on the property without a permit issued one it. He has been working on getting a septic approval and getting the inspections done to get to this point. You ask if there is a home on the property, there is also and abandoned home on the property as well but the mobile home is situated on the property.

President Thompson asked, we have the property by one name…

Director Weaver stated, he does not own the property, he is renting the property.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, I just rent it, sir.

President Thompson stated, all right.

Attorney Altman asked, so this is for…

Director Weaver stated, property owner should be…

President Thompson stated, property owner is that name right there.

Attorney Altman stated, Bill Wagner.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, Bill Wagner, yes.

President Thompson asked, and Ed Wall evidentially…

Cleo Bledsoe stated, run the septic system.

Attorney Altman stated, we have an applicant by Lonnie…

Director Weaver stated, Lonnie owns the mobile home, Cleo lives there.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes.

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

Attorney Altman stated, it’s a special exception.

President Thompson stated, yes, it is.

Carol Stradling asked, we don’t have pictures?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we do.

Director Weaver stated, the pictures are from the inspection that was done by Bob Braaksma.

President Thompson asked, how long has it been there?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, I have been there, 9 months.

Director Weaver stated, I did believe, Mr. Braaksma was out at the property more than one time.

President Thompson asked, what is the name on that, on the application there?

Dan Banes stated, I’m from the Health Department, I went out there today, I received a call from them wanting the system inspected. Actually, they thought that they had lost the permit, there had not been one issued because of trash in the yard and he has cleaned the trash up, the septic system has put in properly and that’s the end of my business.

Attorney Altman asked, and therefore you issued your permit?

Dan Banes stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, that he has tendered into the record?

Dan Banes stated, yes.

Charlie Mellon asked, the county building inspector doesn’t inspect mobile homes?

Director Weaver stated, no, he does not.

Charlie Mellon asked, that’s what I thought. The electric hookups and everything, no one inspected that or anything. How old of a mobile home is it?

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Braaksma would have inspected that.

Charlie Mellon stated, that’s all that I wanted to know.

Director Weaver stated, they have a copy of your inspection.

President Thompson asked, any comments or questions from the Board? I guess that I do, it has been there for 9 months. Anyone other than me catch that?

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Bledsoe, where did the trailer come from?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, Lafayette, on U.S. 52 right across from the Dodge place, Twin City Dodge place on U.S. 52.

Carol Stradling asked, and they sold it to you?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, no ma’am they gave it to me. This guy that I know he gave it to me to move it out and his mother lived in it for 32 years, it’s been taken care of, well taken care of it’s a nice mobile home.

Carol Stradling asked, and did he explain, well, did he explain that there are other permits that you needed to get?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, no ma’am he didn’t.

Carol Stradling stated, he just gave it to you and you took it to, your relationship to Mr. Wagner is?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, no ma’am I’m not related to him. I just rented the place off of him to set a mobile home there.

President Thompson asked, but, this Ed Wall…

Cleo Bledsoe stated, done the septic system and cleaned it up.

President Thompson asked, who transported the trailer on the site?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, it should be in here, I don’t know, my boy had it moved, he had it moved.

President Thompson asked, so Mr. Wall wasn’t the one that actually brought it on the property?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, no sir, he didn’t move the trailer.

David Scott asked, this thing is located at 850 South of Brookston?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, Northeast of Brookston.

Jeff Saylor stated, do you recall the amount of a fine that was levied against the last home that was moved onto the property?

President Thompson stated, no, well Carol or Gary might.

Gary Barbour asked, what’s that?

President Thompson stated, the last mobile home that we fined.

Gary Barbour stated, that was the one for Ed Wall.

Director Weaver stated, that was Ed Wall’s mobile home. What was the question?

President Thompson stated, the fine.

Director Weaver stated, 200 dollars.

President Thompson asked, and it was paid?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, was it really?

Gary Barbour asked, when did it get paid, can I ask that?

Director Weaver stated, last month.

David Scott asked, is that the fellow that moved the mobile home in to build, live in while he was building a house?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, I didn’t know if you remembered, I couldn’t remember, that was before you came on the Board.

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly think that if you don’t take some action, we’ll have more of these moved in and they may be a nice as they can be but, they may not be and you may have people burned up.

David Scott asked, this fellow owns this property?

Director Weaver stated, no he rents the property.

Attorney Altman stated, rents the home.

President Thompson stated, this mans son owns the trailer correct?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, and he renting the property that it sets on.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, Jeff, back to you.

Jeff Saylor stated, the Board has already set precedence in establishing and levying a fine and I think at this point subject to the approval of this special exception that the Board would levee a fine in the amount of 300 dollars.

President Thompson asked, care to have that repeated, did everyone hear that? Do I hear a second to that motion?

Gary Barbour asked, who does that fine go against, does that go against the property owner, does it go against trailer owner? Does it go against the combination?

President Thompson stated, the owner of the trailer right?

A Board member stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, how much did we fine Ed Wall?

Director Weaver stated, 200 dollars.

Jeff Saylor stated, 300 dollars.

Director Weaver stated, 200 dollars.

Jeff Saylor stated, 200 dollars, I’m sorry.

President Thompson stated, on the past one that’s what she asked.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Wall was fined 200 dollars.

Attorney Altman stated, the motion here is for 300 dollars.

President Thompson stated, right. Do I hear a second to that motion?

Jeff Saylor stated, we can discuss it.

Carol Stradling asked, do you want to explain why, was Mr. Wall’s to low at 200 dollars.

Jeff Saylor stated, I misunderstood, I can modify and presume my motion since it hasn’t been seconded. I misunderstood the amount, I thought that the amount of the fine on the last trailer violation was 300 dollars.

Director Weaver stated, it was 200 dollars.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, that was my mistake. I would like to continue with the precedence as my point and the fine would be 200 dollars, I will amend my motion as such.

Carol Stradling stated, I would second that.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded, pending approval of variance #2071 that there would be a 200-dollar fine levied due to the fact of the mobile home being moved on site for the 9 months, approximately 9 months. All signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed, motion carried. Is the Board ready to vote?

David Scott asked, did you have any complaints from neighbors or anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not.

Carol Stradling asked, did you understand what just happened there, Mr. Bledsoe?

Cleo Bledsoe stated, no ma’am, I don’t really.

Carol Stradling stated, in White County, our Ordinance requires that you get a permit before you move a trailer of that age into White County. Those permits were not, that variance was not done typically this action is taken before the trailer is moved into White County and in the past we have fined individuals 200 dollars when they do that without getting the appropriate permit.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, yes ma’am.

Carol Stradling stated, and so we just voted to do that, I don’t know if Lonnie would pay it, if you would pay it, or if…

President Thompson stated, well, it will be assessed to the trailer owner, who ever owns the trailer.

Carol Stradling stated, and now we’re going to vote on whether the trailer is okay.

President Thompson stated, if the variance passes.

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 1969 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the special exception 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 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 variance under the above said section of zoning ordinance.

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

Director Weaver stated, you need to get your building permit.

Cleo Bledsoe stated, okay.

****


#2072 Rex Stanley; Requesting a 69’ rear setback variance to build a new home with an attached garage on lot #1 in Quiet Water Estates Subdivision. The property is located in Monon Township on the Northeast corner of West Shafer Drive and Quiet Water Court.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this request?

Rex Stanley was present to represent this request.

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

Rex Stanley stated, no, I guess it’s really pretty simple. I guess the main reason that I wanted to do that is because, I wanted to face West Shafer Drive instead of the small drive. With my garage I wanted to have an attached garage and if I put the house on the lot accordance to the current setbacks then I have to have a detached garage and that’s why I’m asking for the variance so I can have an attached garage.

President Thompson asked, any correspondence?

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

President Thompson asked, anyone here opposed or in favor care to address the Board?

Director Weaver stated, I just want to bring attention to the fact that this was a subdivision that did go through the Area Plan Commission in 1982 and this lot does have special setbacks. I did put those down in your analysis it’s 50’ from Quiet Water Court, 40’ setback from West Shafer Drive, 100’ on the rear and 20’ on each side.

Carol Stradling stated, which would be one side.

Rex Stanley stated, it will meet all setbacks except for the rear setback, which was originally 100’, it will meet every other setback but, the 100’.

President Thompson asked, discussion from the Board? Any other questions or concerns. If none, Carol, do you have anything?

Carol Stradling asked, no visibility problems getting on Quiet Water Court with the position of that?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe that there will be.

President Thompson stated, if there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that they are.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That 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 69’ rear setback variance to build a new home with an attached garage on Lot 1 in Quiet Water Estates Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township on the Northeast corner of West Shafer Drive and Quiet Water Court.

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

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

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

Rex Stanley asked, may I add something to the meeting?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Rex Stanley stated, okay, I was looking to purchase a different piece of property to put my house on and when I went through the realtor and Area Plan, I submitted my proposed project to them and Area Plan denied it. I understand what the reason was she denied it but, when I was originally looking at this piece of property, I was never made clear to me of the boundary lines on the piece of property. If Area Plan wouldn’t have caught that it wouldn’t meet the setback because what I thought that I was buying it would meet the setback and it didn’t. I had to like do some foot work and investigate it to figure out why on my part that it wouldn’t have met the setback. If someone would have proposed just a little smaller home on that piece of property they would have got a false prevention of what they were buying. I think there is a flaw somewhere along the lines is in the realtor companies or however, they do the surveying of that I could have been, actually what would have happened if they would have given me my permit. I would have gone out there and put my house on 5 lots instead of 2. I think that there needs to be something made if the concrete foundation of when someone buys a piece of property that either the realtor company or someone needs to specifically needs to point out what their findings. Do you see what I’m saying, she’s aware of exactly what I’m talking about and I just thought that I would add that.

President Thompson stated, we appreciate that.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m glad that we stopped the problem.

Rex Stanley stated, me too.

Attorney Altman stated, we know that you are.

Rex Stanley stated, instead of paying 50,000 dollars because I would have had to pay whatever those people would have asked for those other 3 lots you know, that would have been an astronomical amount.

President Thompson stated, I understand.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you for your comment, we will try to thank about that.

Rex Stanley stated, appreciate it.

****


#2073 Rangeline Properties, Inc.; Requesting a 14’ front setback variance to allow a new building to be closer to the front on lot #2 in Korpita’s Corner Subdivision. The property is located in Union Township at 3054 E. Division Road.

President Thompson asked, do we have someone to represent this request?

Eldon Sizemore stated, we had a little misunderstanding on where the…

President Thompson stated, just a second please, and your relationship to this variance is? Are you owner?

Eldon Sizemore stated, owner.

President Thompson stated, okay, I didn’t catch that, okay.

Eldon Sizemore stated, we had a misunderstanding where the property line was when we started construction and when Dave came out he caught it and Dave still couldn’t tell me where Milligan, he’s the one that did the survey where exactly the building should have been.

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is there is some confusion from the time the parcel of ground was originally laid out, which it was in a metes and bounds legal description, was then later subdivided. There was an additional right-of-way granted for the road and I, from talking to the building inspector my understanding is the confusion came in because of that additional right-of-way giving it at the time the subdivision went through. I believe that he had told me that there was more than one lot stake on the property, is that right?

Eldon Sizemore stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anyone responding to this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to address the variance either for or against? Discussion from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver, he applied for a building permit originally?

Director Weaver stated, yes, he did have his building permit prior to constructing.

Attorney Altman asked, and his building permit was proper such so it should have been properly setback?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, but, for the problem with the stakes.

Director Weaver stated, right, the problem that was found when the building inspector went out to do his first inspection.

President Thompson asked, Jeff, do you have something?

Attorney Altman stated, I thought that’s what we were saying, I just wanted to be real clear on the record that this really isn’t an intentional violation.

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t believe so.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Carol Stradling asked, so it’s the front setback that we’re looking at?

Eldon Sizemore stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and you put it in line with the existing Quonset hut?

Eldon Sizemore stated, yes, actually it’s probably about 2’ back farther than the Quonset. We had set I think that it was like 50’ off of the road is what our understanding was and I thought that we were fine when Dave had came out to inspect it.

Carol Stradling stated, this is saying that it’s 2’ closer to the road than the Quonset. The survey says that the Quonset hut is 38’ from the edge of the roadway and it’s saying that your proposed building is 36’ from the edge of the roadway.

Eldon Sizemore stated, no, actually it’s back farther than the Quonset by about 2’.

Carol Stradling asked, isn’t that what the survey says?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what the survey says.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes, that’s what it says.

Eldon Sizemore stated, when Milligan came out and done that the other day I even questioned that because I told him I said the new buildings is actually back farther than the Quonset. I don’t know, the stakes are all messed up out there I mean I don’t know where they are pulling them from but, the new building is back farther than the Quonset.

Carol Stradling asked, is the road at an angle, is that what it is Attorney Altman? Did he switch these two?

President Thompson stated, he’s asking for…

Director Weaver stated, I was going to say what he will be having done is asking for wood cover if it is…

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so it doesn’t matter but, the survey is representative of what is out there.

President Thompson asked, he got a copy of the agenda didn’t he?

Director Weaver stated, no, not unless he got one back there.

President Thompson asked, see how it’s worded in the agenda?

Eldon Sizemore asked, the 14’?

President Thompson asked, well but, carry on there, the new building will be closer to the front on lot #2, do you see where I’m at? Where do we go?

Jeff Saylor asked, but, it’s actually back farther right?

President Thompson asked, he is now but, it’s not what he’s asking is it?

Director Weaver stated, we’re asking for more than he actually is.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, so he’s requesting to amend it to actually 12’ rather than 14’.

Director Weaver stated, I do believe we do that without exactly, without having the survey…

Attorney Altman stated, I would certainly go by the survey at hand.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, my only other question is these dotted lines, is he too close to the side lots?

Director Weaver stated, he had a variance for the side setback. He did go through a procedure for a side setback variance.

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

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 14’ front setback variance to allow a new building to be closer to the front on Lot 2 in Korpita’s Corner Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Monticello at 3054 E. Division 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit amended so it’s correct before you proceed.

****

President Thompson asked, is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening?

Attorney Altman stated, for the record with the CDC matter, it is before the Circuit Court for decision we had all of the arguments the other day and we just have not heard yet what he’s going to rule so that’s where that is. This other one is the special exception for Indiana Beach and that is being appealed also, that’s just in the beginning stages of that. Carol, I’m not sure that you have it but, in addition to doing that, that is just when they appeal it, it goes to Circuit Court and Circuit Court reviews it and decides whether we did or didn’t do it correctly. The other thing that they have done is they made a request for a new judge so that’s about all that I can tell you about it.

Director Weaver stated, okay, will you go on and inform them of the situation with Terry Babka?

Attorney Altman stated, that is set for file a motion to set it for hearing, we have pretrial set and when was that, I know that I signed the letter…

Director Weaver stated, January 23rd.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the garage that is to high…

Director Weaver stated, the garage is too high, it has never been brought into compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, and we will set that for pretrial and then we will set it for trial. Pretrial is when the lawyers will be here, tell the judge in essence what the matter is and then we decide how much time the trial will take and set it for trial. Obviously, to remove the building is what we’re requesting. Is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I have one other item that I would like to bring up. The Flora property on State Road 43, they came, no that was through APC wasn’t it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right okay, never mind.

President Thompson asked, does he want to relocate? I heard that he had his eyeball on some property South of town. I heard that, you don’t know anything?

Director Weaver stated, he has not contacted us.

President Thompson asked, where does he stand on a privacy…

Director Weaver stated, that’s what I was going to bring up but, it’s the wrong Board, you don’t want to hear it.

President Thompson stated, bring it up anyway.

Gary Barbour stated, it’s still not up anyway.

Director Weaver stated, it’s still not up.

David Scott asked, the inspections of mobile homes, is there a criteria that he goes by or what?

Director Weaver stated, he looks at our ballot as you can tell, he fills out our ballot as to what he’s finding so he follows that ballot is what he does to make sure that the covers all of the areas that the Board has concerns with.

David Scott asked, I understand the last has to have a place to live but, I had a hard time voting for that trailer of that vintage if it was going to be next to me.

Director Weaver stated, okay, that’s a good subject to be brought up because we did pass one a couple of months ago that was going in out on West Shafer Drive and boy did I catch heck about that one. It is a very old mobile home, very nasty looking on the outside, the inside pictures were not that bad. The exterior of this mobile home is bad, it went across the road from a 200 and some thousand-dollar home, and I had several neighbors call very upset with us because we passed it.

Carol Stradling asked, we passed it just to come into the county. We don’t pass it to go on any particular location.

Director Weaver stated, and I explained that to them.

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t mean that you let it in, you can still deny it.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess the point is some people, that’s their own limit.

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

Carol Stradling stated, and they feel real good about that.

David Scott stated, the inside of it didn’t look bad and I looked at the outside and it looked like they put two of them together. I was trying to find some, I didn’t really want to allow it but, I felt sorry for that fellow sitting there too. I mean, everyone has to have a place to live but, like I said, if it was next to me, I don’t think that I would like it.

Director Weaver stated, fortunately this one does not have any neighbors. I mean, we do know where this one is going and there aren’t any close neighbors.

President Thompson stated, just out of curiosity, if I got a, I fi have a problem and maybe everyone has at one time or another, we have abstained from voting. Are there any guidelines on that? On that one, I probably shouldn’t have voted on and let me tell you why. Mr. Wagner, I farm for him, even though it was approved by rights I felt almost decided not to vote but, I know that I’m complicating you. What is our guidelines that we are allowed to or not to vote.

Attorney Altman stated, anytime that you wish not to. You are obliged not to if you have a finical interest in it and you wouldn’t in this one at all and it wouldn’t have mattered much to anyone at all but, you’re obliged to if you have a financial interest of any sort.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission