Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, February 21, 2002 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: Floyd & Janice Lee Fultz 14 x 60, Charles R. Mellon, Linda L. Brandenburg, Keith Brandenburg, Toni K. Hancock, Wm. Stenzel, Dwight Vigus, Lera J. Harbert, Michael Downey, David Uttermohlen, David Wolfe, Christine Hamby, Walt Hough, Chad Sellmer, Papuska Sellmer and R.L. Uttermohlen.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the January 17, 2002 meeting contingent on grammatical changes. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2075 Uttermohlen Properties, LLC; Requesting a 66,449 square feet space variance and a 17’ front setback variance for 25 apartments on 2.492 acres and the South end of lot #14 in J.C. Reynolds 4th Addition and lot #7 in James M. Richey Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 621 N. Main Street and across the alley behind this address. Tabled from January 17, 2002. (Revised)

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

David Uttermohlen stated, yes.

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

David Uttermohlen stated, yes, I do. I have some supplemental information that, I believe, everyone got a packet and this is just some additional descriptions, that were not quite ready at the time.

President Thompson asked, just a second if you may, would you like to interrupt here?

Director Weaver asked, is there a purchase agreement in that paperwork that you are handing


out?

David Uttermohlen stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

President Thompson stated, all right.

Director Weaver stated, that was my concern.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, I do want to make the record. We have presented for the Board a packet that is called Great Oak Apartments, it’s stapled together. I don’t know how many pages, we will call that, Exhibit A, and we do have some photographs, 6 photographs submitted, I think that those are yours right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and that will be Exhibit B and that’s of the scene and then do we, is there anything else that is among the Boards packets?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so.

Attorney Altman asked, okay then we are receiving Exhibit C, which Mr. Uttermohlen just tendered to the Board, is there anything else Mr. Uttermohlen at this point that you know of that they have as new exhibits?

David Uttermohlen stated, just these…

Attorney Altman asked, you’re going to be giving the Exhibit D right now, right?

David Uttermohlen stated, I will pass out Exhibit D…

Attorney Altman stated, I will mark that there.

David Uttermohlen stated, and this is more of thrill of technology than accessing. We’ll start….

President Thompson stated, go ahead…

David Uttermohlen asked, do you want me to start?

President Thompson stated, yes.

David Uttermohlen stated, I’ll call your attention to Exhibit D, I believe is the number, which is the aerial photograph of the site. It shows several houses and the existing alley that is the only means of egress to the ingress and egress to lot #14. I think that it was in 1914 that lot #14 was subdivided and stopped and did no longer have 50’ on the street. I will call your attention to first page of this exhibit which is simply a zoning map that shows the lot #14 there in the middle has been zoned, outlined in green on most of your copies…

Attorney Altman stated, and we would call that Exhibit C.

David Uttermohlen stated, Exhibit C outlining in green, has been zoned R-3 for multi-family and the next page is an offer to purchase real estate signed by Perry Powers. Mr. Powers has graciously agreed to both, sell us this property and has for obvious reasons, removed himself from an objection to our proceeding. The next page is a letter from Mr. Loy this was an action taken by the Monticello City Council Tuesday night…

Attorney Altman asked, excuse me one second. Mr. Powers’ property, if the Board remembers is the lot that is immediately South of the alley that was the access back to this property right Mr. Uttermohlen?

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay thank you.

David Uttermohlen stated, Mr. Loy’s letter, as he was kind enough to provide us with a letter summarizing the actions of the Monticello City Council. They have undertaken a procedure required by Indiana Code 36-1-11-5 to subdivide an easement, we’re not an easement actually, they’re selling us property. So we will have a deed for that connecting piece of property, so that we can actually link up lot #14 with a 50’ wide access road or a 50’ wide strip all of the way out to Main Street. The next page is just simply a legal description of that piece of property that I have submitted to the City for them to initiate the action for selling the property. I might note, Mr. Loy has made it quite explicit that the City has to follow this procedure so, there is no sale at this point but, it is, the City voted unanimously, all Council Members voted unanimously to initiate this process. The next page is just simply a legal description of lot #14, which is the big square mark. The next page, which is the first fold-out is a contour map signed by James Milligan, a well known local Surveyor. I’m sure that you have seen his signature many times before and that shows the contour of the 2-½ acres. I call your attention to the upper right hand corner, depending on how you are holding it but, the rather large area in the corner opposite the building that’s a ravine. I do have some pictures of the ravine, if anyone is interested in that information and that is currently an existing catchment pond…

Attorney Altman stated, that would be the Northeast corner of this…

David Uttermohlen stated, that would be the Northeast corner, correct. On the next page is another fold-out of the proposed development, you have gotten, you have received a smaller version of this in your packet. There are not substantial changes there is some additional information that has been added to it including and outline of the proposed purchase from the City to link up all of these various sundry pieces, bits and pieces of property. I would like to while we’re on this, just call your attention, for those of you who are interested in the drainage which is not the providence of this is, the way that I understand it, it’s something that you should consider when granting a variance of this nature. I call your attention on this little dot, which didn’t come out as well as I had hoped, right here next to the, just what would be South of the building the existing building that is approximately 106’. As the elevation marker and that is the high point of the proposed road and from everything to the East of that would run and drain out on Main Street and everything to the West would drain back on the property.

Attorney Altman asked, do you mean that backwards?

David Uttermohlen stated, West would drain to Main Street, East would drain the property, and I’m looking at it upside down. I will then call your attention to the other markers, we have a, there is a, as you walk, go down that the line where you see the current alley 11’ the next label is existing sewer which is approximately 105’ elevation, that is about a 6’ deep sewer. So we will probably have to put in a pumping station and as we walk back further the next label is current 15’ easement that is a dedicated easement to the City. As we go back further, the next elevation marker is 98’ and that is approximately the low point in that road. As you go North from there you will see a 99’ marker and that would be the point at which the water would drain at that point South or North, continental divide so to speak. I will also call your attention to the impounded ponds that we have, one is on the purchase from the City, the proposed purchase from the City the second one is in the center of the parking area, that is our green space. Then the low point there is about 95 as an elevation. As you can see from the existing contour map, previous contour map that will require some filling, the lot has a substantial amount of fill on it from various tornadoes and other activities. Over the years, we removed some trees so that we could get come equipment back there to actually, do a survey of what was there and what is under it. Generally speaking, most of it is a very shallow dig to virgin soil, everything that we build, will be built on virgin soil connected to virgin soil as either with a compacted filler or aggregate up to a footer, you know standard 4 block 16 wide 8” thick footer. Although, my father always wants to do 24” wide and so that’s pretty much what I have to say about that and I’m sure that maybe we have some questions. If you would care to just go through the next page I have a list of the buildings, number of units and an approximate elevation. The elevation is to the top, Mr. Altman, you don’t have a copy of that?

Attorney Altman stated, I can read off of this one.

David Uttermohlen stated, okay, and that’s an approximate elevation of the top of the foundation of the buildings. I will call your attention to the next sheet, this is from the Monticello City standards adopted last April. This will be considered a commercial drive 24’ wide with curbs and so we will follow on the next page, on the next page we would use the specks for a commercial drive. We are proposing straight and we’re proposing on the next page you will see the curb profiles and the parking areas it will be straight up and down on the street. At this point, we’re proposing a concrete curb with a drain and I’m sure that you have seen these before. The next two pages are for curb cuts, we use the city specks on any, basically on Main Street where the Main Street sidewalk comes back and I included ADA guidelines on curb cuts for any curb cuts that occur in the parking. Inside of the apartment complex, this is a senior housing complex, there will be approximately and let’s see I believe that we would be required to have two handicapped spaces and we have 8. We will have curb cuts at all of the handicapped places and curb cuts at all of the crosses for the sidewalks. The next page of course is the parking specks again ADA, from the ADA handbook and that’s the supplemental information that I provided to you tonight. There is a list, I have a list of issues that were brought up at the last zoning committee at which time we tabled the motion. I would like to, with your indulgence, go through a list of how we have tried to resolve some of these, is that all right?

President Thompson stated, yes, go ahead.

David Uttermohlen stated, first thing is the plot plan and the legal descriptions. We have included the Powers property, the City property and lot #14 legal descriptions. We do not have a formal drainage plan but that’s being conducted by Jim Milligan. Mr. Vigus expressed a concern at the last meeting about water that is in fact a fairly serious problem. I do have some pictures with me if you are interested, that show his dam that is currently on an impounded pond, is leaking and flooding his yard. So I am offering him, I sent him a letter requesting permission to go onto his property to repair the dam, there is some rubble on the hillside back there that is somewhat unsightly and to cover that rubble. Mr. Vigus has been kind enough to grant me verbal permission although, he is not, he does not wish to sign the letter and he’s present so if you wish to ask him you’re more than welcome to. The traffic services have been reviewed by Doug Roberts and Jay Clawson, they have, Mr. Clawson obviously, has a vested interest in making sure that’s a safe intersection since the store is right across the street. They have agreed that the proposed entrance based on their visual inspection of this site looks pretty good so the way we have a 25’ radius on the curbs both in on both sides in and out. We have sidewalks from the furthest point of the lot out to the street and notice all sidewalks will be at least 48’ wide and meet some Ordinances…

Attorney Altman stated, inches.

David Uttermohlen stated, I’m sorry 48” wide, I apologize. I don’t want to commit to a sidewalk like this, we’ll have planes landing on it a 48” sidewalk meet City specks. The road as a commercial road, the commercial drive will meet the specifications in the city manual. The parking areas will be 3” of asphalt probably 6” of gravel but, we have yet to get all of the engineering done on this site and we will go with what other recommendations that the engineer has for the level of traffic and expected weight. You have floor plans, you’ve had a chance to review those, we have a one bedroom and a two bedroom and a club house we included a specification sheet from the manufacturer that shows the general list of specifications do you have questions sir?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, on the bedrooms, one and two are they going to be equally interspersed among the apartments or how do you…

David Uttermohlen stated, if you look at the sheet that you apparently didn’t get, it states buildings A and B are one bedroom…

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good…

David Uttermohlen stated, buildings C,D,E and F will be two bedrooms…

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good, you’ve answered that.

David Uttermohlen stated, last time you received a letter from Mr. Powers and a petition and I will address the letter first. His concern is, if we make it a street, he would loose the right to rebuild if you recall my testimony last time was we didn’t want it to be a street and since he sold us his property it’s a mood point. The petition that he submitted was signed by, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Priest, his wife, Eric Connell and Joyce Coosley. We sent a letter to each of them requesting that they either contact us with their concerns so we can resolve their concerns, or come to this meeting, simply, that’s their choice. I called each individual, I did talk to, I called Mr. Hayden, I couldn’t get through to him, I left a message twice both times asking him to call me if he had any further concerns. I called Roger Priest, I did talk to Mr. Priest after I had discussed our plans. He had no concerns about and elderly housing project, this was on 4-6-02 all of these calls were made on April the 6th except I did call Mr. Hayden again on April the 8th. We have been unable to locate Eric W. Connell…

Carol Stradling asked, go back on the dates, this is February…

David Uttermohlen stated, you’re absolutely right, that would have been February the 2nd, we have unable to find Mr. Connell he’s not listed in the phone book and I don’t know where to get him. I did talk to Mrs. Joyce Coonsley of 617 N. Main, she’s the person whose house is due South of Mr. Powers house. I explained to her, her concern was that if it was made a street that it would interfere with Mr. Powers’ right to rebuild and she expressed that there was no concern anymore on her part. One other thing that I would like for you to note, we have discussed the sewer and water requirements with Mr. Pool and the City Engineer and Sewer Department, is it Ted…

An audience member stated, Joe…

David Uttermohlen stated, Joe, okay, concerning, we’re going to have to put in a substation. We will put a hydrant, you’ll see a mark on your plot plan on the more recent one, on this one, we’re proposing a hydrant,6” main, and a hydrant run back to the corner that puts it well within the minimum standards for fire safety. The existing sewer, which is marked on your plot plan, is adequate capacity for this proposed addition and there should be no problems with either the water or the sewer. Do you have any questions?

Director Weaver asked, I do have one thing that has been mentioned to me regarding subdivision I look at your development as being a similar situation in the City having street lights, are you proposing to put street lights in this development?

David Uttermohlen stated, actually, yes we were proposing not only to put street lights we, it was something that my father and I discussed recently is putting a getting a, N.I.P.S.CO. light on the corner where the exit is and then having more decorative lights throughout the complex. Again, this is a senior citizen complex and our goal is to make it as safe and secure as we can for the people in there.

Attorney Altman asked, are the specifications that you could maybe refer to in the record that would give us and idea what is required to make it senior citizen appropriate, light wise and that sort of thing.

David Uttermohlen stated, the primary design consideration when designing for an elderly population is you make the project either directly handicap accessible or adaptable with the distinction being we have on your paper. We list two single bedrooms and a two bedroom that will be fully wheelchair accessible with a roll-in shower. That’s not really required for most senior citizens, typically what happens is, you will have someone who will be injured or due to illness or become disabled. So, you make sure that you make the design so that everyone whether they are in a walker or a wheelchair can get access thoughout the development. You do that with curb cuts, you do that with wheelchair ramps you do that with only having 36” wide doors. So you have a minimum of a 32” clearance, actually it’s 35” clearance, you have levered handles so people with arthritis they can pull the handle…

Attorney Altman asked, so the lighting that you spoke of would be consistent with…

David Uttermohlen stated, they lighting would be consistent with the recommendation…

Attorney Altman asked, the exterior lighting…

David Uttermohlen asked, the exterior lighting like street lights, etcetera, would be based on the recommendation of a qualified lighting engineer either from N.I.P.S.CO. or from a private contractor and they are more than happy to sell us lights and a lot of them. Is there any other, did I answer your question?

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

Carol Stradling asked, on the plan that we had in our packet, there is a proposed duplex on Powers’ property and the one that you handed us this evening, it’s not there…

David Uttermohlen stated, the one that I handed you this evening is the most recent.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re not looking at a duplex at that location?

David Uttermohlen stated, certainly not at this time. One of the things is the zoning for the City property that we’re proposing to purchase that we’ve initiated the process is only zoned R-2 so we’re going to have to do some, probably have to do some zoning changes. If we’re going to actually use that property as well as the Powers’ property we will, at this point, we’re not planning on using the Powers’ property. If we buy additional space from Mr. Deibel and get his property zoned to B-2, you will notice that there is 16’ between Mr. Power’s corner of his house and the alley here, 16.6’ we have a proposal into him, to buy 8’. At which time we probably have enough room that if we decide at that time we would build a duplex. We would again, come to the zoning, Board of Zoning Appeals because, that lot is not big enough in itself for a duplex.

Attorney Altman asked, so your current proposal is…

David Uttermohlen stated, what I passed out tonight….

Attorney Altman stated, what is set out in Exhibit C and includes only apartments in the larger area to the East…

David Uttermohlen stated, that’s correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good, just for the record.

David Uttermohlen stated, by all means.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Does anyone care to address in favor of, not necessarily opposed, does anyone care to address this variance? Do we have any response, written response from anyone?

Attorney Altman stated, we do have, Richard Kelly, with Grace Community Baptist Church and that’s across this ravine that Mr. Uttermohlen had spoken of said that and he spoke with me personally too, but, the note here. He does not have a problem with the request, will submit a letter and I don’t suppose that we have that just yet.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, but that’s consistent with what he said that his I’m sure I’m using the wrong word but, the equivalent of the Board of Directors…

David Uttermohlen stated, trustees….

Attorney Altman stated, trustees they met and thought that this was a fine thing to have and I think those were his exact words.

President Thompson asked, you have spoken with him?

David Uttermohlen stated, yes, Mr. Kelly and I had a lengthily discussion. We discussed the, I actually have some pictures here of repairing his, he drains his parking lot, or the churches parking lot drains through our property into that ravine. We offered to make some repairs to that discharge pipe and also he has no problem or the trustees had no problem with us using their part of the ravine for any additional catchment that we needed for water.

Attorney Altman asked, can I see your, may we see your pictures of that pond and the dam?

David Uttermohlen stated, sure.

Attorney Altman asked, how many photographs do you have?

David Uttermohlen stated, unfortunately I don’t have copies, let me do this real quick and then you can pass them along if you don’t mind. This is a picture going up the ravine, taken in the recent rain storm that we had, which was the, I’m sure you are all aware of, a lot of water and you can see that it’s filled with water. This is a picture taken immediately to the left of where that picture was taken and that shows the earth berm that is the sole blocking, the sole method of blocking a ravine that was opened up on the far South side of the dam. This is this ravine and what’s in it, which is rubble and trash, rubble and trash in the sense of not litter, in the sense of woods and wood and leaves and things. This is a hole that is opening up in the dam and this is the fluent from that going into Mr. Vigus’s property. The big body of water in that picture is in fact an oriental fishpond. I actually have, if you, I don’t know how many more, I don’t want you to feel like I’m showing vacation slides here. This is a picture, that string is our property line that’s a picture of up the ravine. This is the churches discharge pipe and I have two more pictures that I might as well show you because I have them. This is a picture from our corner of lot #14 looking up the easement to Hanawalt Street and this is a closer shot that shows that orange X is, that actually marks the corner right here of this, it actually marks the corner of what should be the alley. That alley is kind of, notice in the picture, that alley is kind of exceeding it’s bounds, it’s 11’ wide alley, it’s about 25’ wide. We figure that putting in a road or a private drive, I’m sorry, commercial drive with curbs it sort of helps contain it a bit.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, those exhibits I think that we will mark G to and include M, maybe E…

Carol Stradling stated, Director Weaver he’s requesting a 17’ front setback?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, what is that a setback from, what would be considered the front?

Director Weaver stated, their access.

Carol Stradling asked, and does the City’s, does the proposed purchase from the City alter that any?

Director Weaver stated, no…

David Uttermohlen stated, this is the part that is closest to Main Street and that is the portion that is considered a setback, this should be closest to the Main Street should be 30’…

Director Weaver stated, the access goes from the right-of-way, the setback goes from the right-of-way.

Carol Stradling asked, is that the alley then?

Director Weaver stated, your setback goes from here to the building…

Carol Stradling asked, so this dimension should be what?

Director Weaver stated, 32’.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver asked, is that how we figured that?

David Uttermohlen stated, no, I thought that we figured it here, from this line.

Director Weaver stated, we looked at this so many times…

David Uttermohlen stated, actually, Mr. Altman, I believe, offered an opinion on this if you would be kind enough to share that as to what constituted the front…

Attorney Altman stated, where your finger is right now…

David Uttermohlen stated, so this line between, facing Main Street….

Attorney Altman stated, facing Main Street…

Director Weaver stated, we were considering this a front….

Carol Stradling asked, and he would need 32’ and he has 15’? So that’s where the 17’ comes up?

Director Weaver stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, are the others…

Director Weaver stated, yes, they are meeting all of their other setback requirements, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion from the Board? If there is no other discussion, Attorney Altman…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I basically, there is a list that I want to recite into the record that I believe that Mr. Uttermohlen has certainly indicated that they will comply with. When we vote, I think that I would certainly, would want to have these conditions as conditions that the developer needs to comply with. First is that they, City follows through and the 50’ access happen as you want and as you’re requiring okay as an adjacent to that. The one thing that I think that you do need to do is to name this, I presume Hanawalt and then you need to name it though. You do need to put a name on that otherwise, they are not going to be able to find your place from the Main Street. The second thing is and you indicated right away, no development on the Powers’ property. The property will be developed on the virgin soil that, to virgin soil and properly done according to the specks just like you said that it is a senior housing complex and would you just briefly relate to the Board how that limits the people that are in your complex?

David Uttermohlen stated, the Housing and Urban Development is the controlling authority on this and there was a court case controlling, as I understand the controlling authorities a court case about age discrimination. You can’t have exclusively senior complex so they amended their rules to, up to 80 percent you can have more than 80 percent but, you can’t mandate more than 80 percent of all of the apartments be occupied by people who a head of household is 55 years or older.

Attorney Altman stated, so that’s what your specifications would be and that’s what the Board is going to hold you to okay?

David Uttermohlen stated, what we’re requesting is, funding under that set it would be set aside…

Attorney Altman stated, which is, think that we’re…

David Uttermohlen stated, it’s funny because, we’re not building it so, it’s pretty much guaranteed.

Attorney Altman stated, and we’re saying with that restriction, we may approve it or not. The continuation would be that all of the improvements, the streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and parking area be in accordance with the city specks. You said that so, okay this isn’t new we’re just putting it down for the record that the whole development would be in accordance and approved by the White County Drainage Board and this would be as to drainage of course, the impoundment, the dam. I guess impoundment’s, I should say, I wasn’t aware of the other but, we have 3 impoundment areas and these all combine need to comply and get their approval. Have I missed anything Director Weaver or the Board members?

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

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-3, Multi-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 66,449 square feet space variance and a 17’ front setback variance for 25 apartments on 2.492 acres and the South end of the South end of Lot 14 in J.C. Reynolds 4th Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana described by: Beginning at an iron pipe set at the Southwest corner of the above said Lot 14; thence South 89 degrees 27 minutes East along the South line of said lot 332.50 feet to a pipe set; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes East along the East line of said lot 327.50 feet to a pipe set; thence North 89 degrees 27 minutes West 330.72 feet to a pipe set on the West line of said lot; thence South 00 degrees 30 minutes West 327.50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.50 acres, more or less.

ALSO: Lot 7 and 10’ off the North side of Lot 6 of the James M. Richey Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 621 N. Main Street and across the alley behind this address.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, subject to the conditions that I have set forth in the record, previous to the voting, 5 votes indicate that the variance is hereby granted. You need to do those and get your building permits.

David Uttermohlen stated, that’s great, thank you.

****

#2076 Brian Furrer; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on 10.00 Acres. The property is located in Honey Creek Township on the West side of U.S. Highway 421, approximately ¼ of a mile South of C.R. 100 N.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this variance.

Director Weaver stated, we had a call this afternoon indicating that there may not be any representation tonight I don’t know if there were any conflicts that came up or what the situation was.

President Thompson stated, okay, so therefore we will…

Attorney Altman asked, table it until the next meeting and that is when Director Weaver, so we have it on the record…

Director Weaver stated, the 21st, March the 21st.

Attorney Altman stated, same time, same place right here.

President Thompson stated, yes.

****

#2078 William J. Stenzel; Requesting a 30’ front setback and a 4’ side setback variance to build a screened porch on top of an existing boat house on lot #10 in Blue Bell Park Addition. The property is located in Liberty Township at 5339 Blue Bell Court.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this variance? Yes sir, your name is.

William Stenzel stated, William Stenzel.

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

William Stenzel stated, nothing in addition to what you have here.

President Thompson asked, first of all, any response from anyone?

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

President Thompson stated, okay, I’m sorry Attorney Altman, go ahead.

Attorney Altman asked, the improvement is, that he’s putting on this lot is within his lot right?

Director Weaver stated, yes, goes to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, even so we have a 0’ setback here…

Director Weaver stated, that’s right…

Attorney Altman stated, even though his boathouse goes beyond into I presume SLFECC’s property area, doesn’t go to the lake right?

Director Weaver stated, that is right.

Attorney Altman stated, it may be awful close, I haven’t seen the pictures.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything that you would like to give to the Board sir?

William Stenzel stated, I have the same things I did the application.

President Thompson stated, okay, fine.

William Stenzel stated, the survey and the building drawings.

President Thompson stated, okay, that’s fine.

Director Weaver stated, there is a letter in the file from the SFLECC, just so the Board is aware. It’s addressed, it’s dated January 9, 2002 to the Area Plan Commission. This letter was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, anyone here tonight opposed to this variance? Any discussion from the Board, questions?

Carol Stradling stated, when Director Weaver read that it indicated a 12’ x 12’ screened in porch and your survey represents a 12’ x 11’ improvement.

William Stenzel stated, I think that after Mr. Milligan did his survey then, Perry looked at it and decided to do a 12’ x 12’, so a 12’ x 12’ is what we’re asking for.

Carol Stradling stated, which would not effect the setback any but, it…

Attorney Altman stated, you must be sure…

Director Weaver stated, I was going to say, the survey doesn’t indicate that there’s 12’ there.

William Stenzel asked, what?

Attorney Altman stated, your survey doesn’t indicate that there is 12’ there so, all that we’re saying is according to your surveyor you don’t have 12’, you only have 11’.

William Stenzel stated, I think that Milligan was going by what was on the deck the top of the boathouse is currently.

Attorney Altman stated, you can’t go on beyond so, be real careful about that because, if you do we remove, we cause them to be removed.

William Stenzel stated, yes…

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t like to do that but we will remove them.

William Stenzel stated, I understand.

Attorney Altman asked, and I presume that your surveyor has it corrected and that’s would be the limiting, the 11’…

William Stenzel stated, okay, that’s fine.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Attorney Altman asked, single story boathouse and the one above it would be how tall, the equivalent of another story?

William Stenzel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and it’s not living space in there?

William Stenzel stated, no, it’s screened in on 4 sides just a screen….

Attorney Altman asked, no water or anything?

William Stenzel stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, no bathroom?

William Stenzel stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, very good, thank you.

President Thompson asked, if there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote? Let's vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 30’ front setback and a 4’ side setback variance to build a screened porch on top of an existing boat house on Lot 10 in Blue Bell Park Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 5339 Blue Bell Court.

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

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

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

William Stenzel stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2079 Lera Harbert; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1969 mobile home in White County. The mobile home is currently sitting on lot #10 in Thomasville Subdivision #1.

President Thompson asked, you are?

Lera Harbert stated, Lera Harbert.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add, to present to the Board ma’am?

Lera Harbert stated, not really, I didn’t bring anything because, I didn’t know what I was doing.

President Thompson stated, that’s fine, you’re here, that’s what counts.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to explain to the Board a little bit of what has gone on with this mobile home. It’s kind of a different situation. The mobile home had previously gone through this process and had an approved special exception that was in 1998. At the time that was done, it was owned by Randy Trunk. He placed the home on the property but, never came in and got an improvement location permit therefore the special exception expired because, he did not get a permit an improvement location permit within 1 year. Mr. Trunk is now deceased and Ms. Harbert now owns the mobile home and she is trying to get this home into compliance and therefore she has come back to us to start the procedure again, get a special exception so that she can get an improvement location permit.

Lera Harbert asked, can I ask one thing?

President Thompson stated, yes, name again please.

Lera Harbert stated, Lera Harbert.

President Thompson stated, thank you, go ahead.

Lera Harbert stated, the trailer is rented and the woman that lives in the trailer, she’s real sick and she has real bad seizures and I hope this permit goes through because I don’t know how we can even get her out of this property because she is really sick. I didn’t bring a letter from them but, she’s had two heart attacks from all of these seizures that she has had, that’s all that I have to say.

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

Attorney Altman stated, special exception.

President Thompson stated, excuse me yes, special exception.

Carol Stradling asked, so you own the mobile home and she rents it from you?

Lera Harbert stated, well, I sold it on contract and she’s renting it out but it was already rented when Randy died so it, it’s a mess I’m sorry.

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

Director Weaver stated, no we don’t. Just so the Board knows, she has had a new inspection done of the mobile home. There were some minor things that had to be done, she has already done those things and had the mobile home re-inspected so we actually have two inspections this mobile home has gone through in order to get to this point.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s the report that we’re looking at from Mr. Braaksma?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, any discussion from the Board? Concerns? Nothing more, Carol, if not are we ready to vote on this? I guess we are.

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 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit and then you have it in compliance and I think given the fact situation here it certainly is not a fact situation that would justify a fine. I don’t think that it’s her fault.

President Thompson stated, no.

Lera Harbert stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2080 Midwest Tower Partners, LLC; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on 4.44 Acres. The property is located in Union Township at 1133 Hanawalt Road.

President Thompson and you are?

Linda Brandenburg stated, Linda Brandenburg, Oberland and Energy representing Mid West Tower.

President Thompson asked, what do you have to present to us?

Linda Brandenburg stated, it’s my understanding that you have received drawings, application for variance also question, answer form for our request, coverage maps.

Attorney Altman asked, do you want to come and make sure that, that is what you’re talking about ma’am, in the record.

Linda Brandenburg stated, …this here….

Attorney Altman asked, I think that the applicant is referring to the following, I will hold up in the air, application with exhibits special exception, a map that shows the location of the proposed tower for the special exception in the world. Then a large schematic that is in the file on the record that shows about the same thing with some more information record surveyor that is called site number IN9101 Monticello tower, I think that’s really the only, that you’re submitting for the record is that right ma’am?

Linda Brandenburg stated, yes sir.

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

Director Weaver stated, we did have a neighbor call today just stating that they were going to be attending the meeting tonight. Also, I want the Board to know that with your pictures that I have given you tonight there is a map in there of the Monticello area and showing the existing towers. This is a location where there was previously a tower. The windstorm last fall damaged that tower and this is intending to replace that tower, it also carries the communications for the 911 system.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, and this is where Director Weaver, just on your map, can you identify where it is?

Director Weaver asked, on the map that I provided the Board members?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, it is the green star.

Attorney Altman stated, the green star…

Director Weaver stated, on the left side of the map.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s on 400 is that right?

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s off of Hanawalt Road.

President Thompson stated, yes, Hanawalt Road…

Attorney Altman stated, I thought 400….

President Thompson stated, just West of the jail right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, okay, is this identical to the one that went down?

Linda Brandenburg stated, the only difference that I would like to make, the tower that was apparently up there was painted. What Mid West would like to do is put, change it to a lighted during the day and that would go a strobe at night instead of painting the tower, that would be the only difference of the tower that was there before.

President Thompson asked, same height, same specifications…

Linda Brandenburg stated, everything that you see, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone on the, was there anyone on the tower collocating in addition to 911?

Linda Brandenburg stated, I know that it’s set up for collocation, I personally don’t know if it had collocation at the time that it was damaged or not.

President Thompson asked, that’s what they were operating the 911 on?

Director Weaver stated, we have Tom Mays here from the Communications Center.

Tom Mays asked, I’m director of communications, Mr. Altman will you swear me in?

Attorney Altman stated, sure. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give this evening be the truth the whole truth and nothing but, the truth?

Tom Mays stated, yes I do.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

Tom Mays stated, prior to the damage of that tower we had both a, our primary police transmitter and an antenna there and our mobile data terminals there. They are temporarily located on the Sprint tower awaiting replacement of that tower. We keep that equipment in two different places just for this kind of an emergency even though that tower was damaged and we lost that equipment, we were able to use equipment at the other tower, that’s why we use two different towers.

Attorney Altman asked, and the proposed tower that the applicant is presenting this evening would be appropriate and for your location and your happy with the proposal?

Tom Mays stated, yes sir, that is correct, I have the information that she has presented the Board in my office and I reviewed it again and as soon as it is complete we will move our equipment back out there.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to this, this evening? Is there any other discussion or questions from the Board?

Gary Barbour stated, we have a letter here from a John Allen, Air Space Consultants, Inc., you say that you’re not going to paint the tower but, in here is says that the FAA will require a marking aviation orange and white and lighting red obstruction.

Linda Brandenburg stated, what they will do is they will use lighting instead of the actual painting the tower, your last one was painted with the…

Gary Barbour stated, orange and white…

Linda Brandenburg stated, right, what they will do is they will use lights but then at night go into a strobe.

Carol Stradling asked, so it doesn’t need to be aviation orange and white?

Linda Brandenburg stated, what I’m going to tell you is that, what ever they come back with that whatever the FAA tells us to do, we do.

Carol Stradling stated, you have to do.

Linda Brandenburg stated, exactly, we don’t have any control over that but, if it comes back if there’s been something else that has gone on in-between there and my information, I don’t know but, I do know that the FAA tells us what to do.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? If not is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that else that we have consistently always require that whenever they put a tower up that they are obliged and that we require that they allow collocations of anybody that wants to use your tower we require that.

Linda Brandenburg stated, absolutely.

Attorney Altman stated, in here I guess that we’re required 911 and what else do we have on there?

Tom Mays stated, I have two different pieces of equipment in there, the primary police frequency and my mobile data terminals are run from that tower.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what we will be requiring be on this tower.

Tom Mays stated, at this point, those are the only two that I have found, I may move some other equipment there.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot is a part of 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 special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is North 90 degrees West 1009.5 feet and South 11 degrees 38 minutes East 529.4 feet from the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 32; thence North 86 degrees 57 minutes West 353.6 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 03 degrees 03 minutes West 440 feet to an iron pipe on the North right of way line of the P.C.C. and St. L. Railroad; thence South 86 degrees 57 minutes East along said right of way line 440 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 03 degrees 03 minutes East 440 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 86 degrees 57 minutes West 86.4 feet to the point of beginning, containing 4.44 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 1133 Hanawalt 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re telling you that the special exception must be substantially commenced within 1 year or you loose it.

Linda Brandenburg stated, okay thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, you need a building permit.

****

#2081 Christine H. Hamby; Requesting an 8’ front setback and a 3’ South side setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on 0.48 of an acre. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 401 Francis Street.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Christine Hamby stated, Christine Hamby.

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

Christine Hamby stated, I called and asked if there was anything else that I should bring and I was told that there wasn’t.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, do you care to make a statement about this?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything to add, Ms. Hamby kind of has an unusual piece of property it is right on the curve of Norway Road and where it goes down into, Monticello to Norway, Francis Street, I’m sorry. She kind of has an unusual piece of property there.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, is it the topography that is unusual there Director Weaver or just…

Director Weaver stated, I think that the topography plus the road being right there, I think that it’s a matter of both.

Attorney Altman asked, okay, will this be a traffic problem of any sort?

Director Weaver stated, no, if the Board looks at my pictures there’s two cars there in the pictures one being mine and the other one, there is plenty of room there, it’s not going to obstruct a view on the roadside, not that I can see at all.

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

Carol Stradling asked, it looks as though you have a long lot but, that goes down a hill into the river, is that…

Christine Hamby stated, it certainly does, very abruptly, what I want to do is restore what was the garage about 5 ½ feet of it remains they converted the rest to a bedroom, full bath and closet.

Jeff Saylor asked, this structure right here, would that be…

Christine Hamby stated, that was the garage.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, that’s what I’m looking at right here, on the drawing.

Christine Hamby stated, that’s right and I want to add to what remains, it’s only 5 ½ feet deep and my car will not squeeze into it.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Christine Hamby stated, yes, what I will do is just extend what is already there and conform to everything that is already there the roofline will be the same and the building material so it will just look like it’s always been part of the house.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Anyone? Is the Board ready to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 8’ front setback and a 3’ South side setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home commencing at a point which is North Twenty-six (26) degrees West eighty-four (84) rods more or less, along the center line of the Lafayette and Michigan State Road, from a stone in the middle of said above road on the East and West diving line of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West and North fifty-four (54) degrees forty-four (44) minutes East along the center line of the Norway Road three hundred seventy-nine (379) feet, and North fifty-eight (58) degrees East two hundred forty (240) feet, and North fifty-two (52) degrees thirty (30) minutes east three hundred ninety-two (392) feet which point (by record) is the beginning point of the following described tract as surveyed. Thence North 52 Degrees 30 Minutes East along the center line of Norway Road a distance of 26 feet; Thence North 42 degrees 36 Minutes East along the center line of Norway Road, a distance of 134.00 feet; Thence South 82 Degrees 29 Minutes, a distance of 23.70 feet to an existing iron rod; Thence continuing South 82 Degrees 29 Minutes East, a distance of 110.80 feet to an existing ½ inch iron pipe; Thence continuing South 82 Degrees 29 Minutes East, a distance of 3.50 feet; Thence South 00 Degrees 46 Minutes East along the West bank of the Tippecanoe River, a distance of 114.21 feet; Thence North 80 Degrees 26 Minutes West, a distance of 18.00 feet to an existing ½ inch iron pipe; Thence continuing North 80 Degrees 26 Minutes West, a distance of 132.00 feet to an existing ½ inch iron pipe; Thence South 86 Degrees West, a distance of 65.70 feet to an existing ½ inch iron pipe; Thence continuing South 86 Degrees West, a distance of 36.70 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.48 acres, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 401 Francis Street.

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

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

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

Christine Hamby stated, I shall, thank you very much.

****

#2082 Floyd & Janice Lee Fultz; Requesting a 2’ height variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to place a privacy fence on 2.50 Acres. The property is located in Union Township at 1320 Hanawalt Road.

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

Floyd Fultz was present to represent the request.

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

Floyd Fultz asked, I just want to ask a question. Why is it 6’ from the back and on the side it’s up to the fence?

Director Weaver stated, the setback requirements are what he’s asking.

President Thompson stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, the setback requirements is 6’ off of the rear of the property but, you can go right on the side property line. The reason being, a lot of times if they put a fence up in town there is an alley back there, basically to protect that fence from damage from the alleyway the traffic on the alley.

Floyd Fultz stated, well, this isn’t an alley, it’s just a field there.

Director Weaver stated, I realize that but, the setbacks…

Floyd Fultz stated, I want to go up to the corner…

Director Weaver asked, pardon?

Floyd Fultz stated, I say I want to take it up to the corner.

Director Weaver stated, and that is what we requested for you. I do have something I want to add to the Board the site plan, not the survey on the back but, the site plan that you have on the front of your staff report is not correct, that is not the proper property. Mr. Fultz, I believe, owns more than one property on Hanawalt and I believe that we have identified the wrong piece of property for this. I apologize for that.

President Thompson asked, anyone here opposed to this variance this evening? Any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Board, questions, concerns or discussion?

Carol Stradling asked, what I’m looking at, appears to be kind of an “L” shaped fence at the back of your property?

Floyd Fultz stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but what’s behind that “L”? To me it appears to come up the side and then go towards the middle of your property?

Floyd Fultz stated, it’s a farm field.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, so you just don’t want to know what’s behind that fence on your property is that…

Floyd Fultz stated, no, what I want to do is, I have some stuff that I want to sit back there to keep people from seeing it from the road.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Floyd Fultz stated, see, that road has a little incline there and 8’ would not have been enough, that’s the reason that I asked for 10’, that would give plenty for it. I have some stuff that I want to sit back there, I’m going to clean it up a little bit.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else have a concern? If not are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 2’ height variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to place a privacy fence on two and One-Half (2 ½) acres out of the Southwest Corner of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of section Twenty-nine (29), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range three (3) West, being the identical land described in a certain Auditor’s Tax Deed recorded at Deed Record number 70, at page 176, in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, described as follows:

Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West and running thence North 20 rods; thence East 20 rods; thence South 20 rods; thence West 20 rods to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 1320 Hanawalt Road.

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

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

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

****

#2084 Michael & Lisa Downey; Requesting a 33’ front setback and a 4’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage and a room addition onto the existing home on .96 of an acre. The property is located in Union Township at 6190 E. Woodhaven Court.

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

Michael Downey was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to the description tonight sir?

Michael Downey stated, no, I don’t sir.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything in the office on this.

President Thompson asked, okay. Did we have any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, okay, anyone here opposed, or in favor, of the variance this evening? Any questions from the Board for Mr. Downey?

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition, single story?

Michael Downey stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman asked, and conform to the present home that you have there?

Michael Downey stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, in style and otherwise?

Michael Downey stated, yes it is, it will be brick.

President Thompson asked, nothing Director Weaver? I guess that I asked you that once, I’m sorry. Any questions from the Board? Nothing, if there is nothing we will proceed.

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

Michael Downey stated, no, we have septic and well.

Attorney Altman asked, this will not be on the new septic system?

Michael Downey stated, no, it won’t.

Attorney Altman asked, will it increase the bedrooms in this addition?

Michael Downey stated, it’s just a family room that we’re adding on.

Attorney Altman stated, to convert that to a bedroom you would have to have the septic and well approved by the Health Department.

Michael Downey stated, okay.

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 33’ front setback and a 4’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage and a room addition onto the existing home on a tract of land located in the North Half (1/2) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty Seven (27) Township Twenty seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is North Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes West (N 89° 42’ W) along the Half (1/2) Section line One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty (1350) Feet and South Zero Degrees West (S 0° W) Sixty (60) Feet from the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Twenty Seven (27) and running thence North Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes West (N 89° 42’ W) Eighty Two and Three Tenths (82.3) Feet; thence South Forty Two Degrees West (S 42° W) One Hundred Ninety Nine and Eight Tenths (199.8( Feet; thence South Thirty Six Degrees West (S 36° W) Thirty Eight and Five Tenths (38.5) Feet; thence South Thirty Degrees West (S 30° W) Fifty Seven (57) Feet; thence South Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes East (S 89° 42’ E) Two Hundred Sixty Seven and One Tenth (267.1) Feet; thence North Zero Degrees East (N 0° E) Two Hundred Thirty (230) Feet to the point of beginning, containing Ninety Six Hundredths (.96) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 6190 E. Woodhaven Court.

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

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

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

Michael Downey stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman stated, and no bedrooms.

****

#2085 David L. & Tina M. Wolfe, Owner; Crown Castle USA, Applicant; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20. Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on 10,000 square feet. The property is located in Liberty Township at 4967 E. 400 N.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone present to represent this variance?

Toni Hancock stated, hi, my name is, good evening members of the Board, my name is Toni Hancock I represent Crown Castle USA. I am here not only to represent Crown Castle but, the landlord or the landowner Mr. Wolfe, who is also, present tonight. I do have some maps that were not included that I would like to pass along to the Board to show where the coverage would be on this tower.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, I’m receiving 4 pieces of paper which will be marked as joined unit Exhibit A on the front it says White County Indiana, Crown Castle own sites and has a map of White County, Indiana, Exhibit A, four pages. You may proceed.

Toni Hancock stated, the second page of this shows Mr. Wolfe’s property being Lake Shafer with Monon Lake Shafer and Monticello the coverage and Reynolds the coverage for Verizon which is our client will be fully taken care of in that population of the county. As you can see from Brookston and Wolcott we do have coverage there and we do have coverage with other carriers or they area under development up and down I-65. From what I understand this will be Verizon’s built out for the county and we are promoting heavily to collocate up to 5 carriers per tower at this time. I believe that all of the information is provided we have met the FAA standards, there will be a strobe on the top, it will be a 300’ guide tower. The height is approved through FAA and you don’t know of anything else that I have forgo, if there’s any questions, I’m open.

Jeff Saylor stated, looking at the map I think I know how I’m going to vote on this.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m right there with you.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, we’ve not received anything, again, for the Board I have given them a map that I have done showing the existing towers and the proposed towers.

President Thompson asked, what carrier again Toni?

Toni Hancock stated, this one will be Verizon and we are right now in a very competitive marketing arena. We’re trying to get as many carriers on our towers as we can.

Jeff Saylor asked, 400 North, where is this tower going?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that it’s the…

Director Weaver asked, Toni, can you show him that?

Toni Hancock stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, he’s asking which tower is the new tower.

Toni Hancock stated, the proposed tower is right here, Lake Shafer we have this tower, Monticello…

Jeff Saylor stated, this is what we’re talking about right here.

Toni Hancock stated, this is the Hardebeck’s, or no, this is the Hardebeck’s here and there’s one in Monon but, this is the gap which if this tower is there what it will do is hopefully take care of any static or dead areas.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance? Obviously, I don’t suppose that there will be. Any questions from the Board?

Director Weaver asked, in looking at maps here, what is the benefit of putting this tower at that location over putting it a little more to the East, wouldn’t it give better coverage? It looks like a lot of it is overlapping.

Toni Hancock stated, I asked the same question. What the engineer said is, because of where the population is in the county that, that makes more sense to have it because of the users. If they go more East it’s pretty much just farm country and there are not very, there, it should be adequate, it won’t be the best coverage but, as far as the population and where the population is in the county that makes more sense.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Board? That’s not part of the Wyant property?

David Wolfe stated, it was at one time, it has been sold, and I’m the second owner since that time.

President Thompson stated, oh, I didn’t know that, I don’t get up that way that often but, I recognized the…

David Wolfe stated, Jack and Sue Peters bought it from the Wyant’s and it’s a 21-acre parcel.

President Thompson asked, okay, I didn’t know it even left the Wyant Family. I don’t get out much I guess. If there is nothing else is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot is a part of 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 special exception as per Section 10.20. Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, White County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said section; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 46 seconds West 603.20 feet along the south line of said section; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 295.37 feet to the point of beginning of this description; thence continuing North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 100.00 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 100.00 feet to the point of beginning and containing 10,000 square feet, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 4967 E. 400 N.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, subject to our usual requirement of required co-location, allowing that the vote on that request is 5 votes cast 5 votes indicate that the special exception should be granted, again, I note that you must have it completed substantially in one year or it collapses. You understand?

Toni Hancock stated, thank you.

****

Attorney Altman stated, we had a porch that was out of compliance, that we’ve removed, caused to have removed it was built on someone else’s property, pretty easy and you denied the variance…

Director Weaver stated, no, it never made it for a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, so we saved you one there.

Director Weaver stated, S.F.L.E.C.C. would not grant them approval to encroach on their property so they could not request a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, so it was pretty easy but, it wasn’t easy for Director Weaver and I to get it off but it is gone. So that and the Babka matter apparently has not been re-filed, that’s the one that the garage was to high and that is set for trial in May. Now they may come before us but I just wanted you to know, update on matters that effect the Board. Is there anything else Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, well, you might brief them on Indiana Beach and CDC because some of them were asking me about it.

Attorney Altman stated, CDC, I have not heard anything. Everything is before the Judge, all of the briefs that takes a lot longer than you would ever imagine to get all of that done and before the court so that the court can then make a decision that should be coming out directly I would think. Indiana Beach we have been playing, finding a Judge, change of Judge. What they have done is they’ve made a motion, change of Judge. We may in fact have that Judge Mrzlack is now one, Judge Smith is on the other to Carroll County, so I don’t know exactly. That is still, that hasn’t gone to any type of a hearing at all yet on the Indiana Beach matter. The special exception, or the variance.

Director Weaver stated, just to clarify for the Board there are two separate lawsuits on Indiana Beach.

Attorney Altman stated, so that’s why when you see my bills and all it’s on, it does take…

David Scott asked, what are they, what is the difference?

Attorney Altman stated, one is a special exception that they have appealed and that was one that allowed them to be an amusement park. The other one is a variance, a height variance. They could be there with a special exception under the new Ordinance is what it amounts to.

Carol Stradling asked, how are things progressing so that Indiana Beach doesn’t have to come before the Board ever time that they want to build anything new nor do we want them to do that?

Attorney Altman stated, you know, that was real interesting, after the comment here by a Commissioner we certainly had that feeling too. Then recently we saw something in the newspaper about what we thought and the newspaper reported as a new ride. It was only Director Weaver and Dave have checked this out. Apparently, it is old what they are doing is repairing an old ride is what they are doing. So we checked and I got the distinct impression that the county attorney said that they must get building permits. I agreed with her that, that’s, due process would require that, they can’t require you not to get it, to get building permits for what you’re doing and making speck, and farmers the same way, may go a special exception, they don’t need permits. So they are now getting permits for things we’re working on that, I don’t know that we have everything done but they have applied for some.

Director Weaver stated, they are applying for permits for their structures, buildings.

Attorney Altman stated, that, again, I someone has backed up and decided you know the law is…

Director Weaver stated, I’m not sure that’s a final decision.

Attorney Altman stated, well, someone had better tell…

Director Weaver stated, I’m not sure that’s a final decision.

Attorney Altman stated, I know, someone had better tell their lawyer that that’s all that I can say.

Director Weaver stated, I know, I’m getting contradicting stories on that.

Attorney Altman stated, well, someone had better change the Ordinance then….

Director Weaver stated, and that’s what I understand is suppose to be in the works.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s about all.

Jeff Saylor asked, if you removed the building permit restrictions, are we still dealing with the height variances and things like that?

Attorney Altman stated, I would think so.

Director Weaver stated, I think that’s all going to depend on how it’s written up.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I think the main intention is they don’t want us to permit the rides. They don’t want the liability of the rides. Structures, they have no problems with us issuing the permit for building structures.

Jeff Saylor asked, what is the difference in liability from the county issuing a building permit for a roller coaster versus some other industrial structure.

Attorney Altman stated, good question and that’s exactly what we have to make sure we’re consistent on that.

Director Weaver stated, I might be able to answer that to some degree. There are special inspectors from the State that inspect the rides and I don’t know that our county building inspector has the qualifications to be able to inspect the rides.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I’m saying though is it still needs to be consistent or consistent we have to have substantive and procedural process and they have to be consistent, they can’t be discriminated and that’s about all, likes have to be treated likes. I’m going to see who is at the door.

President Thompson asked, I have one other thing to bring up. It was something that I was kind of mentioning to Gary and Jeff, the Uttermohlen situation I don’t know if we want to think about the way that our fees are set up or what. We charge a 75-dollar filing fee for a variance or special exception. The Uttermohlen situation, we incurred 180 dollars in legal expenses. So we are more than running in the red on that request and I think that maybe we need to give some consideration on revising the way that we handle those.

David Scott asked, can you clear something, completely different but, for a water tap in Monon, there is a 350 dollar water tap fee that’s a minimum a normal household water tap that you can do for that. If we have to go a block, if we run over that 350 dollars in labor, expenses and whatever, it’s a minimum of 350 dollars or the cost of doing it. Actually, can you implement something like that so that you don’t burden people that have, that doesn’t need to pay, I hate to see you raise it to 500 dollars and then someone comes in here with something small and have to pay that…

Director Weaver stated, right.

David Scott asked, can you write it up so that it’s a minimum and then….

Director Weaver stated, well, that’s a thought that I had that maybe we can put a 75-dollar filing fee plus expenses…

David Scott stated, expenses…

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I think that we need to give some thought to this.

Carol Stradling asked, how often do we incur expenses before it comes?

Director Weaver stated, it seems like it getting to be more and more.

Carol Stradling asked, can I ask what kind of expenses?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I have his bill here if you want to see it. I brought it with me, it hasn’t been paid yet but, he has submitted it to me and I just thought that now is the time to discuss this. Some of them I feel like yes, we are responsible for but, some of them, I think that the Uttermohlen’s should be responsible for. The first expense is preparation of draft of a letter to Dave Uttermohlen regarding items needed for approval for request of variance. So in other words, he summarized what we had mentioned at the last meeting for them telling them, that’s what they needed to present to us. This one I’m not real sure what it is, that’s why I wish, he was here so he could explain, preparation of second draft of letter to Dave Uttermohlen regarding the same. Next we have an office conference with Dave Uttermohlen then a fax to Jay Clawson forwarding information regarding of Uttermohlen. The next one, conference with Dave Uttermohlen and then we have a conference with myself regarding the Uttermohlen’s, then he has a conference with Jim Milligan regarding Uttermohlen to get the engineers statement on the dam and the holding capacity of the impoundment pond. Some of them I feel like, when he conferences with me I don’t have any problem with us being responsible for that but, I feel like maybe some of this expense should fall back on the applicant and I’m not sure how we want to do that. I don’t feel that it’s fair to the taxpayer to pay these expenses when it, one individual is reaping the rewards of the variance or rezoning or whatever we’re dealing with.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that’s my feeling on it.

Jeff Saylor asked, if he drafted up a new wording on the fees does that just have to be voted on by the Board or the Commissioners? How does that…

Director Weaver stated, we have to, I draft them up, we advertise them, it goes to the APC for their approval and it goes on to the County Commissioners for their approval.

Jeff Saylor asked, so you can draft one?

Director Weaver stated, sure, we can do that. That’s all that I have.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission