Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Donna L. Geisler, Jo Brooks, Harold Brooks, Raymond L. Huber, Michael Burke, Attorney Tribbett, Bea Smith, James Smith, Mona L. Burgess, Bill Burgess, Joyce Van Weelden, Dick & Wanda Martin, Doug Keesling, Richard M. Weidner, Teresa Lancaster, David Vyse, Judi Snowberger, Vicki & James Wenrick, Margaret Haskell, Rev. Chris Dodson, Russell Graefnitz, Pauline Graefnitz, Ruth Wilburn, Gina Bell, Mary Cook, Joe & Marilyn Holscher, Bruce A. Baker, Connie Richardson, Martha Eiche, Marilyn Paschen, James Paschen, , Tammy Paschen, John B. Edwards, Phillip & Sandy Kyburz, Dale Tyler, Kenneth Weatherholt and Greg Vogel.

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 May 16, 2002 minutes until the next meeting. Gary Barbour seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2120 Monticello Christian Church; Requesting a Special Exception to allow them to have 3 free-standing on premise signs on 8.38 Acres. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1002 Airport Road.

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

James Paschen stated, my name is James Paschen and I am representing Monticello Christian Church.

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

James Paschen stated, no, the sign is what we’re trying to get done, a 4’ x 8’ sign with 6” letters.

Director Weaver stated we have not received any thing in the office on this, as you can see on your staff report the Ordinance does allow one on premise sign per roadside. They do have two existing signs, this would make a third sign on the property.


President Thompson asked, but, no response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, yes, the signs are set up forth on Mr. Milligan’s survey and location of them and they appear to be back from all of the roads. I guess I really should say the survey shows how far they are back from all of the roads that are involved in this area. It’s a fairly busy area of course, however, they’re setback 40’ and 50’ on the intersection there and I’m just reciting since this is a survey. The evidence that the applicant has presented for us the size and the height is set forth there and I think it’s just significant evidence for the Board to review and in deliberations and part of the evidence in this matter.

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

Jim Paschen asked, I would like to say why we need the, why we want this sign. The reason is we need a sign with bigger letters that we can read, that people can read. The letters that we have now we would like to have it to be able to tell them what we’re, what’s going on in the church, that we would be able to put that on this sign. The others, the signs are actually smaller and the letters are too small that people can’t read the print that is on those. They are like 4” letters and from the road to where the sign will be located, where the other signs are it would be much easier to read.

Attorney Altman asked, they are quite a ways away from the road too.

James Paschen stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so it’s not disturbing visibility.

James Paschen stated, yes, it’s not right on the road so it’s quite a ways back. It’s where our existing sign actually was, there is a planter there and we took the sign down probably 8 to 10 years ago, planting flowers in our flower box. To put the sign back now of course we have to go back and have the request to get the sign back in the flower box back where it was. Thank you.

President Thompson asked, any questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, so your planning on leaving the two signs there.

James Paschen stated, the two signs are in different locations, yes, we would like to leave the two signs there and requesting a third sign.

Carol Stradling asked, your adding a third sign.

James Paschen stated, the sign will be put back into the planter where it was our existing sign.

Carol Stradling asked, and this will have changeable letters?

James Paschen stated, yes, change it within the weeks, or within the days that things are going on at the church.

President Thompson asked, anyone else?

Richard Weidner asked, I think it’s relevant to know the fact that the amount of property and amount of frontage we have on each of those roads. We have approximately 1,000’ or better on those two roads. Our signs that we now have are on the local road traffic, the sign that will come there will be, although it will be setback from the road, will be viewed from the U.S. Highway 421 as it goes past there. So really we’re not asking for a…sign we just feel that we have so much roadway that we need that in order to have the signs visible to everyone.

President Thompson asked, okay, thank you. Any other discussion?

Michael Ike asked, I just rise in support of the variance.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you. Anyone else? Any other concerns or questions from the Board? 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 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 Special Exception to allow them to have 3 free-standing on premise signs on a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Four (4), Township Twenty Six (26) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, being described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point on the Quarter (1/4) Section Line which is North Ninety Degrees East (N 90°E) Four Hundred Thirty Nine (439) Feet from the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Four (4) and running thence North Ninety Degrees East (N 90°E) along the Quarter (1/4) Section Line Five Hundred Sixty (560) feet; thence South One Degree and Thirteen Minutes West (S 1°13’W) along the centerline of a county road Six Hundred Sixty (660) feet; thence South Eighty Nine Degrees and Fifty Three Minutes West (S 89°53’W) Five Hundred Forty Five and Eight Tenths (545.8) feet to the East right-of-way line of Rainbow Drive in Christian Park Subdivision; thence North Zero Degrees East (N 0°E) along said right-of-way line Six Hundred Sixty and Ninety Four Hundredths (660.94) feet to the point of beginning, containing Eight and Thirty Eight Hundredths (8.38) Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1002 Airport 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, you need a building permit before you proceed.

****

#2121 James E. & Beatrice Smith; Requesting to modify the restriction from an old height variance. They are wanting to turn this structure, address 5785, into a dwelling. Also requesting a 3’ side setback variance for this to be a dwelling on 0.775 of an acre. The property is located South of Monticello off of Airport Road at 5785, 5787, 5789, 5791, & 5797 E. Golden Hills Drive.

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

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes, my name is Don Tribbett, I am an Attorney from Logansport representing Jim & Beatrice Smith. Do you want me to use the microphone?

President Thompson stated, you can.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be best.

President Thompson stated, I think it would be the best, you’re close enough.

Mr. Tribbett stated, I have a loud voice so people usually hear me anyway but, this particular matter has had a little bit of a long tortuous history and I think its important, maybe to go over some of this, some of the Board members have already heard what we’re about to say but, I think for those that haven’t it’s some what important.

Jim & Beatrice Smith acquired this property on April 24, 1986. Now at the time they acquired the property, there were a total already of 5 dwelling units on the property. There was a duplex which they rented out over the years, there was also a garage, an apartment above the garage and there were two trailers on the property, one of which the Smith’s have occupied since they have acquired title. In addition, there was a one-story garage on the property, next to the duplexes when they acquired this property. If you’re familiar with this area, this is in the Golden Hills Addition, it is a fairly densely populated area, a lot of small lots typical of what you find around the lakes, in this area and this is no different. A lot of houses are close to the property line and that is no different with this particular property, the garage I mentioned, which was a one story garage was within 3’ of the property line, roughly, just a little over 3’. Several years ago, the Smith’s decided that they would like to add a second story to that garage, in order to have some additional storage space. So they came before this body, because of the fact that they had been grandfathered in, with what they already had but, they needed to get approval to add the loft to the garage at that time. So they came before the Board of Zoning Appeals at that time and a variance was granted, however, there was a condition placed on the granting of that variance and that condition was, that the garage not to be used for residential purposes. Now the Smith’s have continued to live there since that time and that served their purposes for several years but, recently the Smith’s decided they would like to take that garage and convert it into a residential dwelling unit, nice enough that would eventually would like to retire and make that their permanent full time retirement home.

There is one issue that I think that you’re going to hear about, so, might as well bring it up. The Smith’s did not realize that there was the condition that had been placed on the property, either forgotten or whatever and they did start actually doing some improvements until it was called to their attention that they needed to take action. That resulted in their filing of a request for a rezone with first of all, the Plan Commission and then the County Commissioners because the fact that the number of residences they have on that property, they needed to get a rezone before they could do anything. So they went to the Plan Commission, after several hearings and then the County Commissioners a couple of hearings and they ended and the rezone was approved so the property was rezoned to R-3 which would accommodate the number of dwelling units that they have on there. The other thing that I think is important, that I believe that you have a copy of, this at the time of the rezoning. The Smith’s entered into a number of commitments with regards to this property and those commitments were largely entered into accommodate and satisfy a legitimate concerns that had been expressed by some of their neighbors. Specifically what the Smith’s agreed to do was to remove the two trailers from the property which would, if they were allowed to remodel the garage into a residence, would result in a net, a total of 4 residential dwelling units, single family residential dwelling units on this property. So we would have a reduction of one since there are currently 5 residential dwelling units. It would result in a total of two fewer buildings on the property because it would now no longer have the garage as a separate garage but would be a dwelling unit. The other thing I think is important to remember is that under the commitments the Smith’s have agreed not to add any more residential dwelling units at any time despite the fact that it is now zoned R-3. Another important matter is that those commitments would not only be binding upon the Smith’s but would be binding upon all future owners of the property. The way that the commitments read, they would be recorded only after the, they would receive approval if they do receive approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Again, stressing what I think are the important issues, 2 fewer structures, one fewer residence, no additional area as far as structures, it would not be more area, actually as far as area under roof it would be less with the removal of the two trailers. Those would result in conditions which are less dense which seems to be a concern, less traffic, less congestion in the area, we feel that they would be totally positive results and that’s the reason that we are here asking number one, for the commitment previously when they received their variance to be modified so that they would now be able to use that garage, storage unit as a residence. Also number two because of the fact that I alluded to you earlier that the garages within roughly 3’ of the West property line, they need to get a variance for that. Again, I think that it is important to point out, this is not unusual, one of the neighbors who I suspect that you are going to hear from objecting tonight has a residence just to the West of the Smiths and her house is roughly 3’ from the property line as well. So, it’s not unusual and again, I think that it’s typical of lake properties. I may have more to address in the way of some of the objections that I anticipate you’re going to hear, I would say that we have gone through quite of a range of objections and I think that you are going to hear something new tonight I don’t know, every time that we have had a hearing we’ve heard something new and I certainly respect the concerns of property owners for their property, I know that it is a very emotional issue and I don’t mean to be disrespectful when I say that but one of the issues that was raised earlier on was that the Smith’s didn’t hold title to the property so we had to bring a deed in to show that in fact they did. The next time around we were told that there would be drainage issues because of the toilet and sinks that would be in the garage, of course that doesn’t take into account that we’re going to have sewers there in a matter of hopefully a couple of weeks. The next time around we were told that there was a wooden fence there that was acting as a dam, a slat wooden fence that something that I have never seen happen before and I think would be highly unusual and then we heard about risk of fire that would be there because now it’s a residence and I guess that my position would be there’s probably less of a risk of fire being used as a residence than being used as a storage facility with petroleum products, other types of flammables that are often stored in those types of units. So we are here respectfully asking that this Board approve the variance because of the 3’ requirement, I’m sorry the 6’ requirement, it’s actually 3’ and we’re also asking that you modify your earlier condition on this property so that they are now allowed to occupy it as a residence.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Tribbett, for the record, I would like to go over the survey that Mr. Stein prepared for you, the two mobile homes that are going to be removed, they are the two mobile, the two areas that are on the survey and they are called mobile homes now, that may sound like a no brainier to say that but, I presume that those are the two that are going to be removed?

Attorney Tribbett stated, yes, one is towards the North in the property…

Attorney Altman stated, very near the North.

Attorney Tribbett stated, and the one is just South of that on the West side of the property.

Attorney Altman asked, and the property that is in question, the garage that you want to convert, that your client wants to convert to a house, is the building that is just effectively South of both of those and has the word house on it and the North boundary is 21.4’ right?

Attorney Tribbett stated, that is exactly correct. My copy has, someone has handwritten in proposed house.

Attorney Altman stated, on the survey that we have from Mr. Stein…

Attorney Tribbett stated, that is the building, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, no problem, very good, I just wanted to make sure that the record is right.

Attorney Tribbett stated, and I think that the other, I’m not sure if yours is labeled but to just, just to the right or to the East of the one that has the house that we’re proposing is the duplex, again, on mine it’s written in duplex but I don’t think that it was on the original and the one the East of that is what I referred to early as the garage with the apartment above it over close to the property line it is labeled South, 2 degrees, 36 minutes, 26 seconds West, 50.04’.

Carol Stradling asked, in our pictures, is that the yellow one?

Attorney Tribbett stated, what they are proposing to convert into a house is the yellow.

There was discussion among the Board members.

President Thompson asked, I want to ask both of you something here, he mentioned these possible arguments that’s made, has this been heard before, in front of someone?

Director Weaver stated, Area Plan, for the rezoning.

President Thompson asked, how recent?

Director Weaver stated, it has gone just, very recent, just this year. It has just gone through the rezoning process.

President Thompson asked, did you know that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, maybe I should have but, I didn’t.

Attorney Tribbett stated, June the 17th.

Director Weaver stated, yes, we referred to that on your staff report, it’ was rezoned from R-2 to R-3 in May of 2002.

President Thompson asked, alright but, then that is going to be my second question. Why do we have R-5 on this?

Director Weaver stated, when we changed Ordinance’s, the R-5’s changed to R-2’s. We no longer have an R-5 anymore. I would like to explain to the Board what you received in your packets from me. I have sent to you a copy of the original application for the original variance, a copy of the minutes from that meeting and a copy of the staff report that was done for that meeting. I have also sent to you a copy of the commitments that were signed in conjunction with rezoning request. I also sent to you copies of the pictures, Mr. Smith allowed me to go in and take a tour of this structure and I did take pictures, and you do have copies of the, pictures of the exterior and interior of this structure and then tonight we did receive a letter from an adjoining neighbor and I did give that to you just before the meeting.

President Thompson asked, okay Attorney Altman, you want to go over that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I do have the letter. It was faxed to my office to the Board of Directors a variance to James and Beatrice Smith. The letter from Larry & Julie Pell was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, their any relationship to the property is? You don’t know where they…

Director Weaver asked, I do not know, live next door?

James Smith stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, are they adjoining to you?

James Smith stated, yes, this is their back yard area, and we live on the lake across the street.

Attorney Tribbett stated, where they’re located, the Smith’s property being right here and the Pell’s being here.

James Smith asked, the house is here and this is their back lot right here. Do you understand sir?

President Thompson stated, yes.

James Smith stated, their back lot is right here and their house over here across the road.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Carol Stradling asked, when he says back lot, is that…

James Smith stated, they don’t have a garage, they have a storage shed back there .

Carol Stradling asked, in the back lot?

James Smith stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, are there any homes in these back lots?

James Smith stated, these are, they have a garage with apartment building, they have a garage and they have a…

Attorney Tribbett asked, is there any kind of garage or anything that you know of?

James Smith stated, no, they have a storage building at the back of the lot.

Carol Stradling asked, so do the Bailey’s have a garage with an apartment above it?

James Smith stated, yes, it has been there for about 2 years.

President Thompson asked, if I could interrupt here for a second, this isn’t the first night, when we’re addressing a variance, I would appreciate politeness, I don’t know what the proper term is. We are trying to conduct a business meeting this evening and everyone of these variances are important to someone here and this Board is trying to do what is right for everyone and it’s hard to deal with this, when you’re dealing with the person that has applied for the variance and there’s two or three side conversations in the back ground. I know you’re not loud but, it does carry and it’s a little disturbing. So, I would appreciate your cooperation a little more please. If you would like to visit, step out and come back in, okay

David Scott asked, in your opinion, the work that they have done on the inside, has it been illegal or has it…

An audience member stated, only if you can enforce the law.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, let’s quiet. We won’t do that for you, you don’t do that for him.

Director Weaver stated, there is a complete kitchen inside of this structure, there’s a complete bathroom inside of this structure. I don’t know about a tub or a shower but, there is yes, there is a stool and a sink. There’s also room off of the kitchen that is complete, which is, what I would refer to like a living room, type room.

James Smith stated, it’s a porch on the pool.

David Scott asked, my other question is, Attorney Altman have you read this commitment?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we have.

David Scott asked, and is it what we talked about at the last meeting, pretty much?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, pretty much, yes. I think it was pretty well phrased by Mr. Tribbett when he testified and it would in fact do what I believe the commitment was intended to do. It would get rid of every problem but yes, I believe that it would the reduction and density and the reduction in use.

President Thompson asked, okay, anyone here care to address for or against this variance? Yes ma’am.

Mary Cook stated, I’m Mary Cook and I’m the lady who lives to the West. When he went for this first variance, I opposed the idea, because of the residence. I was informed before he even started that it was going to be a residence, one of his workers told me, so then that’s when I told them on variance, no way. He has, well, kind of lied with the first variance and I think he should be held to that one because the second one if he gets it, it’s going to be the same way. It’s going to go straight down. Everything he promises he will do, he will not do, I have pictures here, I only have 3 of them right now, because I did not receive information through the mail. They try to keep it away from me.

President Thompson stated, now, just a minute now.

Mary Cook stated, I didn’t know there was a meeting tonight.

President Thompson asked, and you’re adjoining property owner?

Mary Cook stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, you are adjoining now?

Mary Cook stated, yes, I’m right next door, the fence line separates.

Director Weaver stated, it should have been the same people that got notified of the rezoning.

Mary Cook stated, I did not get a letter, Donna went got a letter and had it xerox off and gave it to me and I have a map, these are my pictures.

President Thompson stated, now there is just one other thing ma’am. Hold on, we don’t want you to give them to us, we keep, it’s kind of rude, but, that’s the way this works.

Mary Cook stated, that’s alright, I look at it everyday.

President Thompson asked, okay, alright because, you are presenting them with evidence, do you see what I’m saying.

Mary Cook stated, right.

President Thompson asked, alright, is there anything else?

Mary Cook stated, no, I just don’t think this variance is going to honored.

President Thompson stated, okay. Just hold tight for a second.

Director Weaver stated, she is not on this list, why I can not explain that, I can’t explain it.

President Thompson stated, well were sorry about that.

Carol Stradling asked, is the property held in your name Mary?

Mary Cook stated, yes it is, I’ve been there since ‘61.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I will just have to make, step in and make the ruling that we can’t proceed until we get the property owners…

Attorney Tribbett asked, isn’t there a case law that she’s actually here that, that’s a waiver?

Attorney Altman stated, we’ve consistently required that we do, that our staff, that our ordinance says, even when they’re here. When they say, I understand there is case law that does that but we have consistently done that. The Board can decide if they want to proceed based upon Mr. Tribbett’s statement that case law might say that she is here and therefore no harm or no foul. We pretty consistently said that they didn’t get notice by the usual method that we stop and give that notice and have the meeting next month. I don’t like that at all but, that’s what we have consistently done.

Donna Geisler stated, I want to add to that…

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t need to add, it’s the Board to decide.

President Thompson stated, I’m trying to think back. In past situations when people were present, I guess I am trying to think back, alright. Okay. Jeff .

Carol Stradling asked, do you wish to proceed ma’am?

Mary Cook asked, what?

Carol Stradling asked, or do you wish to the postpone it?

Mary Cook stated, I think we should postpone it until we can get more of our neighbors, because some of them didn’t mailing.

President Thompson stated, okay ma’am, you understand really the adjoining property owners will get a direct mailing, just adjoining.

Mary Cook stated, okay, that’s fine.

President Thompson asked, okay Jeff ?

Jeff Saylor stated, I guess that was my concern, was that this adjoining property owner was not notified, was there possibly any others?

Director Weaver stated, I wasn’t aware that Mrs. Cook did not receive a copy of this letter. Again, I don’t know what has happened.

President Thompson asked, are you aware of anyone that are true adjoining property owners ma’am?

Attorney Altman asked, that didn’t get notified?

Mary Cook stated, most of them down there are new people and I don’t have the listing of all the people up there.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Mary Cook stated, I know Larry just adjoining.

President Thompson asked, okay. Carol you were asking?

Carol Stradling asked, I was wondering if she wanted to proceed and if she wanted to and all the others are notified then…

President Thompson stated, well like Attorney Altman says, its going to be up to the Board. Do we care to proceed or do we care to table this, on that account. Discussion?

David Scott stated, well the lady is here and, it appears to me that they have been here three or four meetings in a row, one way or the other, I think should vote, that’s my opinion.

James Smith stated, perhaps there is something…

President Thompson stated, just hold up please. I want to hear from the other Board members and we will come back to you.

President Thompson asked, Jeff your thoughts? Gary?

Attorney Altman stated, I think you should make a motion to proceed.

President Thompson stated, that’s what I am coming around to.

Gary Barbour stated, I have…with this meeting, it’s been published quite a bit. It’s been before the Area Plan Commission, I mean its been an on going thing and I understand she may not have gotten a notice but, there was a sign also posted up out front and she is aware of it, she’s at the meeting.

President Thompson asked, okay, if we care to act on it, we need that in a form of a motion.

David Scott stated, I will make a motion that we go ahead.

President Thompson stated, okay, it’s been motioned, a motion has been moved to proceed with variance number, I need more papers.

Attorney Altman stated, #2121.

President Thompson stated, #2121, thank you. Is there a second to that?

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

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

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed, we shall proceed.

There was discussion among the Board Members.

President Thompson stated, okay ma’am, go ahead, I’m sorry.

Donna Geisler stated, my name is Donna Geisler and I’m here representing my Mother, Edith Dunham, whom I have I have power of Attorney for and she had a complaint about this too, that’s why I wanted to say something about it, because she didn’t receive hers until the 15th of July and she didn’t even have time to write a letter to get it back up here before the meeting tonight. She called me very upset about that.

President Thompson asked, could I interrupt you just one second, just in case. Okay, you are a true adjoining property owner?

Donna Geisler stated, she is.

President Thompson stated, excuse me, and you are to what?

Donna Geisler stated, she’s right across the road from this, the thing on your map that says house, which is really the garage apartment…

Attorney Altman stated, she’s on the list.

Donna Geisler stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, okay, I just wanted to make sure, okay, go ahead.

Donna Geisler stated, and the other thing that I wanted to protest against, I mean I really, is the map, when we got the map. Of course I called Director Weaver and she made me a copy, which I really appreciate it but, it’s like half a map, we don’t have the back side that you guys all have but, it doesn’t even say who made this map up, or what. It’s like half cut off.

Director Weaver stated, the full map is in the file and that tells the legal description. We don’t have the capacity in our office to make a copy that size.

Donna Geisler stated, thank you and the other thing I wanted, I think Attorney Altman has got most, you guys have done most it about, I wanted to verify the 4 places that they were talking about were the duplex is two, because they’ve got it listed on this map as just a house.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what Mr. Tribbett very plainly said when I went down my list of the mobile homes and the mattering area, building in question and then he went on with what will be the duplexes, the next building going to East and the other house.

Donna Geisler asked, the other house is the apartment, right?

Attorney Tribbett stated, on the commitment to, yes, it specifically defines that as two…

Attorney Altman stated, yes I understand but, it is for our record too.

Donna Geisler stated, right, that’s why I wanted to make sure it was okay on the record. Thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to look at that, you can keep it. Mr. Stein prepared it, he certainly surveyed it.

Donna Geisler stated, I don’t understand that, it’s not added on this, oh, they are talking about this, that’s not the house.

President Thompson asked, okay, anyone else care to address the variance either for or against?

Bill Burgess stated, my name is Bill Burgess and my wife Mona and I, we are in favor of the variance, and we live, our properties are located at 5790 & 5792, which is just directly across the street.

President Thompson stated, thank you. Anyone else? Yes?

Joe Holscher stated, my name is Joe Holscher and we have the property across the street and I am also in favor of it. Everything that they have done is a good, plus they are taking out two trailers, everything is, it’s just so much better since they are cleaning everything up.

President Thompson asked, yes, ma’am?

Wanda Martin stated, Wanda Martin and my husband…

President Thompson asked, could you please come forward just a little bit, I’m afraid they may not pick you up.

Wanda Martin stated, Wanda Martin and my husband, Richard, were in favor, we live across the road from the property and we’re in favor of the improvements.

President Thompson asked, okay, thank you, anyone else? Yes sir.

Russell Graefnitz stated, I’m Russell Graefnitz, I live directly across at 5788, and one of the problems appeared to be water coming down in the past and I’ve been there since 1974, right directly across, and nothing the Smith’s have done so far as that particular problem as concerns, has made any worse, the water coming down on me and I’m in favor of their request.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you. Back to you, you have nothing else?

Director Weaver stated, I have nothing else to add.

David Scott asked, in your opinion the work that they have done so far, would that have required a permit?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it would.

Carol Stradling asked, the picture we have down here in the lower left corner is a three garage door what?

James Smith stated, a three-car garage built back in the early ‘90’s.

Carol Stradling asked, is that what you’ve got listed as barn?

James Smith stated, that may be on the survey.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, that was in 1990?

James Smith stated, well I’m not sure if it had a permit for it but it was back in the early 90’s, of what I remember. Do you remember Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I believe it was after your variance but, cannot tell you the date, I don’t think that I have that file.

James Smith stated, I think it was afterwards too.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it was.

Carol Stradling asked, do you folks live on this property?

Beatrice Smith stated, we rent the mobile home.

Carol Stradling asked, do you rent, okay you live in the mobile home?

Beatrice Smith stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I do have that final hearing, it was August of 1992.

James Smith stated, and a permit was obtained for that garage.

President Thompson asked, Dave, I’m just asking, do you care to…

Dave Scott stated, so everybody knows, I’m for what you are trying to do but, I’m going to make a motion that we impose a $100.00 fine for the work that you have done without a permit. So I want to make that in form of a motion.

President Thompson asked, need second to that? Any discussion, before we vote? If not, oh I’m sorry Carol.

Carol Stradling asked, sorry it takes me a while to process things. So that’s the work that they have done to the proposed home already?

Dave Scott stated, yes, without a permit.

Carol Stradling asked, because the garage, barn, was that with the permit?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it was.

Carol Stradling asked, and the fence was put up with a permit?

Director Weaver stated, at one time we did not issue permits for fences so I have no idea about that. I have no way to track that.

Gary Barbour asked, when did the work start on the proposed…

Beatrice Smith asked, which work?

Gary Barbour asked, pardon me?

Beatrice Smith asked, which work?

Gary Barbour asked, as far as the interior work…

Attorney Tribbett stated, he’s talking about what you wanted to make into a residence, when you did you actually start the work over there?

James Smith stated, I don’t know, the reason that we, we’ve got a pool there, and my wife has a lot of pool furniture, my wife and I and we did this because of pool furniture storage. We eventually built the garage, because getting that furniture up and down stairways into that loft was just absolutely tough. So we ended up building a garage and used the garage so the building sat there and it’s got a loft full of junk and it still has a loft full of junk and it just involved from a setting area with window for the pool…

Beatrice Smith stated, screened in…

James Smith stated, screened in and it just involved.

Gary Barbour asked, so you don’t know when you started putting in the kitchen and the bathroom and any of that in?

Attorney Tribbett asked, roughly.

Carol Stradling asked, after the garage or before the garage?

Beatrice Smith stated, oh after the garage.

James Smith stated, oh yes, four years…

Beatrice Smith stated, five years.

James Smith stated, maybe five years.

Dave Scott asked, four or five years ago would they have required to get a permit at that time to…

Director Weaver stated, to convert the garage into a home, yes.

President Thompson asked, let's get back to this motion that needs to be voted upon. Dave now, on that motion are you assessing a fine only if the variance passes, or either or?

Dave Scott stated, I don’t think it makes any difference whether it passes or not, they are a violation. I mean, they worked without a permit so I think that’s two issues.

President Thompson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, right.

David Scott stated, I mean that’s my opinion.

President Thompson stated, so let’s go back to the motion, a motion that assess a $100.00 fine to the Smith’s either, pending either before the vote of the variance of #2121. All in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson asked, all opposed the same, motion carried. Now, any other questions, oh, I’m sorry, the lady, I about forgot about you, you had your hand up earlier.

Cindy Bixler stated, I just wanted to say…

President Thompson asked, your name please.

Cindy Bixler stated, my name is Cindy Bixler and I just want to say that it was about 4 years ago, maybe 5, we were in there.

President Thompson asked, okay. Thank you. Any other discussion among the Board? If not are we ready to vote?

Carol Stradling stated, I have one more issue. As I look at these pictures, the front of this proposed garage becomes, looks like it is fairly complete but, as I look at the side that Mary needs to see, it’s cobbled, I mean its got a little bit of this and that and I am sure being a neighbor, it does appear that you’re doing some things to clean the area up by removing the two mobile homes. I guess I would really like to see you finish the side of the home that faces Mrs. Cook.

James Smith stated, well if we get a permit were going to finish the whole structure.

Beatrice Smith stated, that is our plan.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to reside the whole structure?

James Smith stated, yes.

Beatrice Smith stated, it’s not sided now.

James Smith stated, it’s not sided now, we stopped, we stopped.

Carol Stradling asked, so your plans for this building are to complete the interior and to also complete the exterior, so that..

James Smith stated, we want to do the interior first, so we can get rid of the trailers. As far as our commitment and follow up with the exterior.

Carol Stradling asked, do you foresee a time table to finish that up?

James Smith stated, I think we are more or less committed to 6 or 8 months.

Attorney Tribbett stated, we have to, I think it’s 9 months after we get the improvement location permit we have to have it completed with the trailers out of there and in fact of the matter is, he has already made plans to get one of the trailers out of there already so…

Carol Stradling asked, that’s interior and exterior?

Attorney Tribbett stated, it’s converting it into a residential, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I’m seeing, I guess what I would like to reiterate is that the outside would be finished in that time, you can certainly convert a barn or a garage to a home without doing anything to the outside…

Attorney Tribbett stated, we will comit to that.

Carol Stradling stated, and I guess that the neighbors would probably like to see that outside finished.

James Smith stated, I’m sure that they would.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, and I would just like to…

James Smith stated, if I could of worked down there this spring but because of the litigation, we felt like we had just better leave it alone.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, thank you.

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

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-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 objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is to modify the restriction from an old height variance. They are wanting to turn this structure, address 5785, into a dwelling. Also requesting a 3’ side setback variance for this to be a dwelling on That part of the South half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 26 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana, Commencing at a Point in the Centerline of the Michigan City-Lafayette Road, known as Stone No. 10 in Surveyor’s Record “B”, Page 9, White County Surveyor’s Office; Thence North 88 Degrees 09 Minutes 14 Seconds East, a distance of 455.50 Feet to the Northeast Corner of Crooked Creek Subdivision; Thence North 87 Degrees 49 Minutes 19 Seconds East, a distance of 269.10 Feet to the Point of Beginning, being the Northeast Corner of Lot No. 10, Golden Hill 3rd Addition, said Corner being monumented by an I-Beam Corner Post;

Thence North 87 Degrees 17 Minutes 12 Seconds East along an existing Fence line, a distance of 100.50 Feet;

Thence South 00 Degrees 42 Minutes 48 Seconds East along the West described line of the Dahl Property, as described in Deed Record 216, Page 12, the Allspaw Property, as described in Deed Record 216, Page 11, the Breedlove Property, as described in Deed Record 1981, Page 821, and the Burke Property, as described in Deed Record 1983, Page 1342, a distance of 200.50 Feet;

Thence North 86 Degrees 53 Minutes 12 Seconds East along an existing Fence line and the South described line of said Burke Property, a distance of 89.75 Feet;

Thence South 02 Degrees 36 Minutes 26 Seconds West along the Westerly side of an existing private driveway, a distance of 50.40 Feet;

Thence South 65 Degrees 03 Minutes 34 Seconds West along the Northerly side of an existing private driveway, a distance of 185.00 Feet;

Thence North 04 Degrees 01 Minutes 29 Seconds West along an existing Fence line and the East described line of the Cook Property, as described in Deed Record 1979, Page 1198 and the Howland Property, as described in Deed Record 1984, Page 1329, a distance of 320.00 Feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.775 of an Acre by Survey, 0.80 of an Acre, by Record.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 5785, 5787, 5789, 5791 & 5797 E. Golden Hills Drive.

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, subject to the compliance with the commitment as previously submitted in this, for this property and the rezoning, conditions for both and subject to the further amplification this evening that this I don’t think that it’s unclear but if it were unclear, that the outside would also be finished and completed as part of the remodeling of the garage area in question here within the 9 months, that Mr. Tribbett sited on the commitment as well as the inside. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

James Smith stated, thank you.

Mr. Tribbett stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

****

#2122 Bruce A. & Pamela S. Baker; Requesting a 30’ front setback variance and a 1’ side setback variance to build a storage building on this property which will replace an old boat house on 0.12 of an acre. The property is located in Monon Township, South of Monon Road at 5385 N. West Shafer Drive.

President Thompson asked, anyone here to, yes.

Bruce Baker stated, my name is Bruce A. Baker and I own the property.

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

Bruce Baker stated, originally my boat house had partially collapsed in the back and I had a erosion going down and that’s why I had to stop it and I poured concrete in there to stop it and I started to put a storage room back there and I didn’t know that we weren’t grandfathered in until I was notified so I stopped and talked to Mr. Anderson.

Director Weaver stated, we do have a letter from the S.F.L.E.C.C. regarding the property. Mr. Baker has also gone and talked to his neighbors and they have submitted a letter from, where his neighbors have signed off that they have no problem with this structure.

President Thompson asked, would you like to enter that?

Attorney Altman stated, the S.F.L.E.C.C. letter was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members. The letter from the adjoining property owners signed by, Ed Nieckula, Irene Nieckula, Kim L. Graham and Brenda Graham was also read out loud to the Board members and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else here care to address either for against this variance? Any questions, any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, I see, window cut outs?

Bruce Baker stated, yes, ma’am.

Carol Stradling asked, so it’s more than just storage?

Bruce Baker stated, it would be storage and a changing room.

Carol Stradling asked, changing room windows?

Bruce Baker stated, yes, of course you have curtains up there.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess I am looking at more of a, it will be windows not screen?

Bruce Baker stated, it will be glass windows.

Carol Stradling asked, so you plan on sitting in there looking out?

Bruce Baker stated, you could, yes, it will be mostly storage, we have to carry everything up about 22’ to putting the rafts away or any kind of, like ski tubes, stuff like that and I can easily put it in that room, put it into the back side of it.

Carol Stradling stated, my concern Mr. Baker is that, have had several people in the past few years, who come saying changing a roofline or add storage above the garage and the next thing we know, its this nice room and I guess that is what I am seeing with your addition when you have a picture window in the front, and then another picture window on the side, it doesn’t look like storage facility to me. So I am probing to find out what you’re intentions are for this room. If you’re looking, I mean it looks very nice but, I don’t want to pass this, assuming that its going to be a storage facility and actually additional area, a living space, probably won’t be a bedroom, but a living space, even though it’s unattached to your home.

Bruce Baker stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, and I guess I’m just trying to ferret out your intentions for this building.

Bruce Baker stated, well I prefer not to put up screens in because you get a lot of water damage if you do that. If you put windows in you can at least keep the water from entering the building. What do I want to say, it will have a door on and it will have windows in it but, it won’t have, won’t have heating in it or a bedroom, it will have electricity in it.

Attorney Altman asked, will it have a stool?

Bruce Baker stated, no sir.

Attorney Altman asked, a kitchen?

Bruce Baker stated, no plumbing.

Carol Stradling asked, will it be finished on the inside, or, you said that you would hang curtains.

Bruce Baker stated, yes, well you would have to, other wise people would see you, because you are close to the waterfront, and people could see you. I’m not sure on the storage building if you’re allowed, I would assume that you would be allowed to insulate them inside, I don’t know.

President Thompson stated, I’m sure he could, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not aware of a problem with that.

Attorney Altman stated, the thing is, you inch along until you’re living in it.

Bruce Baker stated, I know, I’ll just agree to the thing, I won’t, I will not make it a living space.

President Thompson asked, anyone else? Jeff, Dave, Gary, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, it’s just something like that puts us in position where you’re policemen. You’re saying that you’re not going to use it as living space and like this one that was before you 5 years down the road it progresses and all of a sudden it’s living space and then we’re police trying to figure out okay, what was said, you made a promise and now you’ve made this, it’s not so…

Bruce Baker stated, I be glad to sign whatever you want that I will not put pluming in.

Carol Stradling asked, how tall will it be and the neighbors are aware and how tall it will be and it’s not going to block their view?

Bruce Baker stated, well all of our buildings are up 25’ above these buildings, well roughly. We’re not on flat property, were on a hillside, all the homes sit up roughly 22’ to 25’ up. This one here is, I have a basement below my cottage and it sits below the basement and to my, I get my North, South, East and West turned around, I think it’s East, to my East there is a lot and there are no building there, it’s my neighbor owns it across the street. To my right, my neighbor sits forward of me, I actually sit back we’re in sort of a curve and I don’t block any of there view what so ever.

Carol Stradling asked, what I am looking at does not yet have a roof on it?

Bruce Baker stated, no ma’am.

Carol Stradling asked, I am assuming this will be a single story storage shed?

Bruce Baker stated, a single story.

Carol Stradling asked, and the roof will be?

Bruce Baker stated, gabled roof with about a 3’ rise on the front and it will be shingled, it will not be tin or anything like that, it will be a normal asphalt roof.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I have no qualms with the building as such but, I feel real funny calling it storage and I…

Director Weaver stated, we can put a condition on it permit that it cannot be converted into a living space…

Bruce Baker stated, that would be fine.

Director Weaver stated, and it can not be used as living space, that if will help you.

Gary Barbour stated, I do have a problem with the windows being in as well as Carol because what’s to say that five years down the road that someone wants to throw a bedroom or something like that in it or a kitchen in there or something, who is going to know.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the problem, who will know.

Carol Stradling asked, is there something else we can call it, besides a storage, that would…

Bruce Baker stated, we could call it a changing room, if you want, I don’t care.

Carol Stradling asked, kind of a changing room with a little cabana kind of thing and this is a large, it’s nice, I’m not arguing with you there but I’m having a hard time calling it what you call it and saying that is okay.

Bruce Baker stated, if you want me to sign a statement, that I won’t change it into a living space, or whatever, I will be glad to do that, I mean I don’t know what else to explain.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s, it’s really tight.

President Thompson stated, just put kind of a, like Attorney Altman was saying a condition or make a motion that it be…

Bruce Baker asked, would it be okay to insulate it?

President Thompson stated, put on our boundaries, I mean are we going to get..

Attorney Altman stated, I think there is clearly the minimum we do commit. That’s it’s only a changing area, or a storage area and that would be recorded.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, are any of the neighbors here tonight?

President Thompson asked, how about that, are you understanding what Attorney Altman is saying?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t like it yet either but, it’s the best I can think of.

Carol Stradling stated, I do but…

President Thompson asked, you understand what our Attorney is saying?

Bruce Baker stated, yes sir. I will be willing to sign whatever want.

President Thompson stated, I understand.

Bruce Baker stated, or you can come out and after I get the roof on take a look at it if you want.

President Thompson stated, okay but, Director Weaver and the girls trying to tract something or, what your...

Attorney Altman stated, and it’s always ask, done before when they do that, it’s at his cost.

Director Weaver asked, how do we do a commitment on a variance?

Attorney Altman stated, just that it’s a condition.

Director Weaver stated, we don’t have the ordinance or anything that gets recorded, all that is recorded is the minutes.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s why I think we should incorporate some minutes. If it isn’t that, it isn’t of record. I know what you’re saying.

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

Carol Stradling stated, and actually what our description of it is, is for accessory building.

Bruce Baker stated, that would be fine.

Director Weaver stated, we treat a storage shed and an accessory building the same, it has the same setbacks as an accessory building, storage shed and garage all fall in the same classification.

Carol Stradling asked, okay.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

Carol Stradling asked, do we need that contingency or, do we need a motion for that Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I’m going to announce it as part of the variance.

President Thompson stated, yes, I assumed that you were going to do that at the 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 variance and a 1’ side setback variance to build a storage building on this property which will replace an old boat house on Beginning at a point East eight hundred fifty-eight (858) feet and South thirty-two (32) degrees thirty (30) minutes West six hundred five and five hundredths (605.05) feet of the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of Section Thirty-two (32), Township twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana. The point of beginning being the Northwest corner of land to be conveyed.

Thence South thirty-two (32) degrees thirty (30) minutes West sixty-four (64) feet; Thence South fifty-seven (57) degrees thirty (30) minutes East eighty-four (84) feet; Thence North forty-five (45) degrees East sixty-four (64) feet; Thence North fifty-seven (57) degrees thirty (30) minutes West eighty-four (84) feet to the point of beginning. Containing twelve hundredths (.12) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5385 N. West Shafer Drive.

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 applicant drafting, of course to be drafted a commitment that this is accessory building, that it will never be used as living space, of any kind for human habitation and only be used as storage or a changing area and that there be no plumbing on the premises or no kitchen area only electricity. You need to get your building permit.

Bruce Baker stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, your welcome.

Attorney Altman stated, tell your neighbors that they need building permits before you do this much.

Bruce Baker stated, I will.

Director Weaver stated, he needs to have this commitment signed and notarized prior to getting his building permit correct?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, ma’am.

Director Weaver stated, I just wanted to clarify that.

Attorney Altman stated, so you need to get a hold of my office.

****

#2123 Teresa Lancaster; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance from an undeveloped road on the East side of the lot to build a home on Lot 4 in Sterner Acres Subdivision. The property is located in the Town of Chalmers, West of State Road 43 on the North side of Walnut Street.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing? Yes.

Teresa Lancaster stated, that’s me, my name is Teresa Lancaster and I have lived in Chalmers for 5 years, I love this town and I would like to move on the other side of town and build a really nice home there. So this just moves the setbacks 10’ and my neighbors were okay with it. We can’t close that Street, because there is, some day a potential subdivision behind that and that wouldn’t be right to close that Street, that would be the only access road there.

President Thompson asked, all right, just out of curiosity, what kind of home are you…

Teresa Lancaster stated, it’s a TK Constructor home, it’s like a ranch, it’s really nice.

President Thompson stated, I go by that lot at least twice everyday sometimes more.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Teresa Lancaster stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, how many bedrooms?

Teresa Lancaster stated, three.

Attorney Altman stated, three bedroom of course it is on city water and sewer.

Teresa Lancaster stated, yes, natural gas.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any response.

President Thompson asked, anyone here to speak here or for or against? Any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, I just want to clarify if there’s 50’ allowed for that proposed roadway if it were to go through and your proposal is to build 15’ off of that?

Teresa Lancaster stated, right,

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, Carol? Anything else, any other discussion? If not, ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, how many lots?

President Thompson asked, it’s the last one, isn’t it?

Teresa Lancaster stated, there’s one next to that one.

President Thompson asked, there is?

Teresa Lancaster stated, yes, Mr. Bossing owns that and then the potential housing division behind that.

President Thompson stated, yes I knew he owned the property behind you. I guess I thought that was the last one.

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 10’ front setback variance from an undeveloped road on the East side of the lot to build a home on Lot Number Four (4) in the Sterner Acres Subdivision in the Town of Chalmers, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Chalmers on the North side of Walnut Street and West of State Road 43.

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 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.

Teresa Lancaster stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2124 Ruth Wilburn & Gina Bell; Requesting a 24’ front setback variance form Hallmark Avenue and a 7’ front setback variance form Mitchell Avenue to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 93 in Floyd O. Hall Woodlawn Meadow Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1113 Mitchell Avenue.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing, yes?

Ruth Wilburn stated, I’m Ruth Wilburn and…

President Thompson stated, just a second.

Ruth Wilburn stated, and my daughter Gina and I bought this home and two weeks before the closing, everything was rush, rush. I had sold mine and I had no place to go, and I bought this home and everything was rush, rush and two weeks before closing date, I found out, I think it on June the 20th that the existing carport was wrong so what I’m asking for is a variance to leave the carport, not have to tear it off.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, have you closed on your matter ma’am?

Ruth Wilburn asked, pardon me?

Attorney Altman asked, have you closed on your real estate transaction yet?

Ruth Wilburn stated, oh yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Ruth Wilburn stated, we’re in the house.

President Thompson, asked, do you have anything Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I was just going to read what was at the bottom of your staff report. I did do a lot of research on this, the subdivision was set up before the Area Plan in existence and it was set up with 25’ front setback from Mitchell Avenue and a 15’ setback from Hallmark Avenue. The home was built in 1970 with carport being added in 1973.

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address either for or against the variance? Okay. Jerry do you have anything? Discussion from the Board, questions?

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver what would the side setback be, I guess, or what would it be from Hallmark Avenue in the Subdivision?

Director Weaver asked, correctly?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, it would be 32’.

Carol Stradling asked, so 15’ is short, it’s shorter than what is standard?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling asked, but, that’s what was in existence?

Director Weaver stated, right but that is why those setbacks were not acknowledged by Area Plan because it was done before Area Plan, that’s why we are asking for a front setbacks on each roadside.

President Thompson asked, any other comments or concerns? If there’s nothing else, are we ready to vote? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, the traffic down Hallmark Avenue is…

Ruth Wilburn stated, minimum.

Carol Stradling asked, those few homes back there possibly getting to Hallmark…

Ruth Wilburn stated, one home in back.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, most people use Mitchell Avenue?

Ruth Wilburn stated, we haven’t lived there all that long but, as far as I can tell yes, most people use Mitchell.

President Thompson asked, nothing else? Okay, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

Residential.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 24’ front setback variance form Hallmark Avenue and a 7’ front setback variance form Mitchell Avenue to bring the existing home into compliance on That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 26 North, Range 5 West in West Point Township, White County, Indiana, described by:


Basis of Hearings: Indiana State Plane Coordinate System, West Zone

Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Said Section 26; Thence South 00 degrees, 44 minutes 59 seconds East along the Quarter Section Line and the center line of County Road 450 West, a distance of 366.72 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 554.95 feet; thence South 00 degrees 46 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 295.27 feet; Thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 546.90 feet; Thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 59 seconds West along the Quarter Section Line and the center line of County Road 450 West, a distance of 147.93 feet; Thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 01 seconds East along the South Line of the Bell property as described in Deed Record 228, Page 614, White County Recorder’s Office, a distance of 240.00 feet; Thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 59 seconds West along the East line of said Bell property, a distance of 140.00 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 15 minutes 01 seconds West along the North Line of said Bell property, a distance of 240.00 feet; Thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 59 seconds West along the Quarter Section Line and the center line of County Road 450 West, a distance of 13.28 feet to the Point of Beginning containing 3.00 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in West Point Township at 5091 S. 450 W.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, his is one of the few ones, all that I ever say that they don’t need a building permit.

****

#2125 James G. & Joyce Van Weelden; Requesting a 13 ½ ‘ height variance and a 21’ front setback variance for a pole barn on 0.47 of an acre. The property is located in Liberty Township North of 600 North off of Pleasant View Drive.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, hi, my name is Joyce Van Weelden and I represent my husband and myself and I did bring back my sign.

President Thompson stated, okay, sounds good. Do you have anything additional to present to us, other than I read ma’am.

Joyce Van Weelden stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to add on the staff report, I noticed the darkened area that she has, that actually is not the property it’s the property the square, the small square just North of that, that has no structures on it the Van Weelden’s do on the darkened area as well.

President Thompson asked, okay do you have anything Dale? We see we have your drawings here.

Dale Tyler stated, no, not really.

President Thompson asked, okay, any coorspondence?

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

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, the only thing I presume that your drawings, it would be the, what the structure would be then, right?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, will be built as what the drawings are. What kind of exterior would you put on there?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, steel.

Attorney Altman stated, steel…

Joyce Van Weelden stated, FBI Building, gray, light gray…

Attorney Altman stated, FBI type building, very good, thank you.

President Thompson asked, anyone else here care to speak for or against tonight? Any concerns from the Board or comments?

Carol Stradling asked, you’re putting a half court basketball in there?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, well there will be a hoop on the wall. So when the boats are out in the summer time, they can play inside if choose but, in the winter it will be a boat storage. So they can pull them out, because my son likes to play basketball. That’s why it’s a little higher ceiling but there will be a hoop on the wall.

Carol Stradling asked, only a portion of it will be correct, there’s a front area?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, yes that’s just for extra storage and because it was such a large building, we thought it might look better, not just have giant thing sitting there.

Carol Stradling asked, so is the designer sitting next to you?

Director Weaver stated, I think for the record, that is Dale Tyler from FBI Buildings.

President Thompson asked, any other discussions? It’s going to be a nice basketball court.

Carol Stradling asked, just for your family that play, or a lot of children in the area?

Joyce Van Weelden stated, this was my husband’s dream, he used the boat storage as an excuse to come up some way to get a basketball court.

Carol Stradling stated, I am so glad that you put that in here, so now we know what we are approving, that’s it’s a storage building.

President Thompson stated, don’t see any markings there, where the boat storage is going to be.

Joyce Van Weelden stated, that’s why there’s a big tall door there.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion, 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 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 a 13 ½ ‘ height variance and a 21’ front setback variance for a pole barn on That part of the South side of the North Half (1/2) of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Commencing at a stone in the center of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 28; thence North 47 degrees 44 minutes East 31.15 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes East 138.74 feet; thence North 80 degrees 51 minutes West 133.33 feet; thence South 13 degrees 23 minutes West 137.83 feet; thence South 81 degrees 00 minutes East 165.3 feet to the point of beginning.

Together with all of Grantor’s rights and interest in a certain 12 ½ foot by 80 foot vacated street as vacated by the White County Board of Commissioners in Ordinance Number

91-10-21-96-1; which ordinance was duly recorded in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, October 21, 1996 as Document Number 96-10-5067.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowe’s Bridge at 5619 & 5620 Pleasant View Drive.

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.

Joyce Van Weelden stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, your welcome.

****

#2126 Phillip L. Kyburz; Requesting a 51’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on 1.57 acres. The property is located Princeton Township at 7771 W. U.S. Highway 24.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Phillip Kyburz stated, I am Phil Kyburz and I have my sign.

President Thompson asked, alright, and do you have anything extra to present?

Phillip Kyburz stated, no, not right now.

President Thompson asked, all right, Director Weaver do you..

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this. This home is a older home, it was built, originally built in 1913 according to the county records but, their making a sizeable addition to this home and that’s why they are trying to bring it into compliance.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, a single story? Roofline carried through with the present roofline? In a style that would hook up with that sort of thing?

Phillip Kyburz stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anyone care to speak for or against? To the Board, comments, nothing, anybody? Nothing, 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 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 a 51’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of the above said Section 29; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 49 seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate Grid System) along the section line 1116.43 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 49 seconds East 200.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 01 second West along the fractional section line 342.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 49 seconds West 200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 01 second East 342.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.57 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Wolcott at 7771 W. U.S. Highway 24.

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, the variance is granted, you need to get a building permit, before you proceed.

Phillip Kyburz stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, your welcome.

****

#2127 Vicki L. & James L. Wenrick; Requesting an 8’ height variance for a proposed detached garage on Lot 3 in Oak Tree Subdivision. The property is located in Liberty Township at 4318 N. Raccoon Circle.

President Thompson asked, you representing this variance?

Vicki Wenrick stated, yes, Vicki Wenrick and my husband James, and we also brought our sign.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the Board know, we have not received anything on this, from the neighbors but, I wanted give a little bit what transpired here. We have issued the permit for this structure, once she got home, her husband brought it to her attention that the building was going to be taller than the 15’. They immediately contacted us and went ahead and got a variance filed, they have not started construction but, the permit has been issued for this, so will amend the permit if approved.

President Thompson asked, anyone here to address the variance? Attorney Altman, anything? To the Board, Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, how tall is the house to the peak?

James Wenrick stated, I have never measured it. I would have to guess, it’s a modular so I would say its at least 15’.

Carol Stradling asked, okay and the reason you want to make the garage roof so tall is because…

James Wenrick stated, I like the barn style and a little added storage.

Carol Stradling asked, there will be a loft storage?

James Wenrick stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, so it will be, is that gambrel?

James Wenrick stated, it will be eaves and everything.

President Thompson asked, anything from anyone? Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, the same color as the house?

James Wenrick stated, yes, it will start out as wood siding but, it will be vinyl sided to match the house and quickly.

Carol Stradling asked, the storage shed, the storage shed you currently have there or is that, another, there is a white…

James Wenrick stated, just a little barn.

Carol Stradling asked, will that remain?

James Wenrick stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Jeff anything? Dave, Gary, Carol? Okay.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-1, One-Family Residence.

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 8’ height variance for a proposed detached garage on Lot 3 in Oak Tree Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 4318 N. Raccoon Circle.

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 permit amended to conform with the variance.

Vicki Wenrick stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2128 Judith Snowberger; Requesting a 6’ side setback variance to replace and enlarge the existing garage. Also, an 8’ side setback variance, a 17’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 13 in A.J. Holtam’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 700 E. 2nd Street.

Judith Snowberger stated, I’m Judy Snowberger and I left my beautiful sign in my front yard so I will bring it back Monday. I have lived there in Reynolds for 40 years and the garage I think was built the same time the house was, it’s 60 some odd years old and through the years it keeps getting lower than the ground, I mean the alley way and therefore with the water problem that we have in Reynolds, it’s coming around and going right straight in my garage. I’m getting inches of water in my garage and it was kind of suggested one time to put gravel in my driveway, in my garage to fill it up and I didn’t want to do that as it has a cement floor in it now and so what I want to do is to raise it up above the alley hoping that this water situation is not going to go inside again and it definitely needs it, it needs to be replaced, the garage is, the wood is getting rotten around the bottom where the water has been hitting it and I just really would like to have a new garage there. I think it’s going to improve my property a lot and as far as the house, I didn’t have any idea that it is right on the border line and it is so they suggested that I get a variance on that too. That’s all that I have to say.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything from any of the neighbors but, I did do some research on this, and she is right, the home, from our records the home and the garage were built both the same time in 1938. I did recommend that maybe she talk with the Town of Reynolds about the encroachment on the alleyway. Did you do that?

Judith Snowberger stated, I went to the Town Board meeting and talked with them about it and they said they was waiting for a letter from you after we got done with this here tonight. They have no problem with it.

Director Weaver stated, we don’t normally send them a letter.

Judith Snowberger stated, oh, they said you did.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Judith Snowberger stated, when I talked with them, they had no problem with it, they just said it was all right with them but, they wouldn’t write a letter for me, to send to you.

Carol Stradling asked, will you be removing that garage?

Judith Snowberger stated, the wood is no good, the wood is bad around the bottom of the foundation.

Carol Stradling asked, why don’t you move it off the alley so you’re not encroaching anymore?

Judith Snowberger stated, because there’s cement, there’s a whole garage has a cement floor on it, the whole size of the garage, is a cement floor and why go through the expense of tearing it down, or tearing that cement out of there and I was under the assumption I was under a grand fathered clause or something, because of the year span on that thing…

Carol Stradling stated, when you remove something though, that no longer applies.

Judith Snowberger stated, not moving the foundation, it’s still staying in the same place.

Carol Stradling asked, but, you’re moving, you’re removing the entire garage and you will be adding more concrete to the foundation of the entire garage? You’re extending the garage?

Judith Snowberger stated, extending it back, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and you’re raising it up?

Judith Snowberger stated, well yes, I’m going to raise it up 5”, or it’s already sitting at 4”and they suggested 2”, so it will be 6” there, higher.

Carol Stradling asked, so you won’t have a lot of problem there anymore?

Judith Snowberger stated, well I hope not, I hope not, because if it hadn’t been for that I probably wouldn’t of had that problem.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I am saying, I don’t know, maybe I’m mistaken here, but, if you’re removing the wooden structure and all you have is the foundation and you want to raise that up, I’m not suggesting that you remove the concrete, but, leave that in place, add to it what you want to add to it, but, move your new garage over, so your no longer encroaching.

Judith Snowberger stated, that’s going to take half my back yard.

Carol Stradling stated, it would only take another 1’, 1’, 1.7’.

Judith Snowberger asked, what am I going to do with the extra concrete sitting there?

Carol Stradling asked, I imagine it will get covered up or put some gravel there or what’s abutting the exterior of your garage now?

Judith Snowberger stated, I’m sorry?

Carol Stradling asked, if your garage is lower, there’s something on the other side of that now. You know?

Judith Snowberger stated, just my yard.

Attorney Altman stated, looks just, the yard.

Carol Stradling asked, the side is on the alley?

Judith Snowberger, stated, there’s nothing there. There’s 3’ of grass, yes, 3’ of grass there.

Attorney Altman stated, I would could get consent to encroach.

Judith Snowberger asked, pardon me?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure we could get a consent into encroach from the city before I tore down your garage because other wise you’re going to have, we can’t give you approval to encroach on the alley. We can allow you to go to the property line but beyond that it’s up to the city, or the town there to give you a consent to encroach if they wish to do so and I sure would have that in writing before I tore down my garage, because the bank, some day you sell it or someone sells it, there’s going to say you have to have that or it won’t pass mortgage inspection.

Judith Snowberger asked, so then I need to go to the Town Board again, and ask them for a…

Attorney Altman stated, consent to encroach, now we can give you the variance but, we can’t give you a variance to go on the alley is what I am really trying to say but, the City or the Town can do that by the consent to encroach.

Judith Snowberger stated, consent to encroach.

Carol Stradling asked, is there really a need to do that though?

Attorney Altman stated, well if she moves it, no, but she doesn’t want to move it I guess.

Judith Snowberger stated, well I don’t want to take up, I don’t have much back yard as it is and I didn’t want to take up all the back yard…

Carol Stradling stated, but the back yard is right…alley…

Judith Snowberger stated, the back yard is only 6’or 3’.

President Thompson stated, but, your not changing…

Carol Stradling stated, 1.7’ so you’re not on the alley anymore, your garage is sitting on the alley.

Judith Snowberger stated, that’s probably the edge of the alley.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, not according to the survey.

Judith Snowberger stated, yes, not according the survey, I understand that.

Carol Stradling stated, according to the survey, I mean maybe your grass growing in the alley, but, part of your garage is sitting in the alley and now would be the time to move your garage, so it’s no longer sitting in the alley.

Judith Snowberger asked, but I can’t go back? I can go back, go another 10’ back of my garage from the front of my garage to the backside, I can go 10’ as long as I am away from the edge of the alley, right?

Carol Stradling asked, I guess I would, you want to make your garage bigger?

Judith Snowberger stated, well I’m going to have to. It’s going to be too narrow now.

Carol Stradling stated, no I’m not saying, I’m not saying to change, you’re proposing a garage that is 17’ by 30’. That is what you want to build.

Judith Snowberger stated, that’s how wide it is now.

Carol Stradling stated, I agree, but it’s longer than it is now, you want a garage that is 17’ x 30’, I am suggesting to build a garage that is 17’ x 30’ but, the one edge on your property line and not over into the alley.

Judith Snowberger stated, I understand what you are saying.

President Thompson stated, you would just be giving up 1.7’.

Carol Stradling stated, of your yard.

President Thompson stated, you’re shifting it over 1.7’.

Judith Snowberger asked, okay, I can do that but, I don’t have to take that concrete out of there?

Carol Stradling stated, I wouldn’t think so. If it’s not obstruction in the alley, it sounds like it’s lower than the alley, so it’s an obstruction in the alley.

Gary Barbour stated, if it is 4” or 5” lower, just backhoe to the dirt, plant grass there.

President Thompson asked, someone got the survey?

Judith Snowberger stated, I have a question the, with that excess of concrete it’s going to be hanging out the side of my garage, can that be used to channel the water, that’s coming in from town, in and around into my garage?

Attorney Altman stated, you will have to talk to the Town Board about that.

Judith Snowberger stated, oh, okay, we have a real water problem there and I’m getting it all from town.

Jeff Saylor stated, maybe we can vote on this to put it up to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that is right.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, and that would just be my suggestion, is to build the same size garage as your doing. Your going to have to pour concrete to extend the 30’ just add additional 1.7’ on the other side, so you’re not in the alley and you don’t have to go back to the Town Board, for a letter of enroachement because you won’t encroaching anymore.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

President Thompson stated, you’re 100 percent on your own property.

Judith Snowberger asked, so from the edge of that then it’s on the alleyway, I go back 1’ and what?

Director Weaver stated, 1’7”, 1.7’.

President Thompson stated, show her what we’re talking about. Make a drawing for her, I think she understands but, so there is no guessing.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Judith Snowberger stated, okay I will go along with that.

Attorney Altman stated, she said that will be fine.

President Thompson stated, okay, all right.

Carol Stradling stated, the variance will remain the same, because she is the same distance from the property line but, she’s just going to move the garage over so she’s not encroaching.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, exactly.

President Thompson asked, so that should be announced that way, before we vote, correct?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s’ right, she just agreed to that.

Judith Snowberger asked, I have one more question.

President Thompson stated, go ahead.

Judith Snowberger asked, being that my house is on the border line, what am I going to do if the house burns down or something, can I still build on that same area? Am I going to have to move another foot this way to build, it’s just a thought.

Attorney Altman stated, if you kept the variance, get the variance it would be allowed to be right there.

Judith Snowberger stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that I would do it if I was you but, it would be allowed to do that. I think I would move in just a little bit so I could maintain it.

David Scott asked, she is going to move over this foot point seven.

President Thompson stated, yes.

David Scott asked, is there a zero setback on the side there?

Director Weaver stated, she is requesting a 6’ side setback.

David Scott stated, oh, okay, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that part.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Okay, let's vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 6’ side setback variance to replace and enlarge the existing garage. Also, an 8’ side setback variance, a 17’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 13 in A.J. Holtam’s Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 700 E. 2nd 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, first I want to announce that the applicant has agreed and modified the request to move within her boundary line as far as the garage, it will be a zero but, she will move within her boundary line and subject to that modification the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Judith Snowberger stated, thank you so much.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2129 Raymond L. & Jeanne M. Huber; Requesting a 1.5’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on Lot 3 in Frank’s First Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 5052 N. Frank Lane.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance? Yes.

Raymond Huber stated, I’m Raymond L. Huber and my wife Jeanne.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information for us tonight?

Raymond Huber stated, no we would just like to put a bedroom on and have a bathroom.

President Thompson asked, okay, Director Weaver anything?

Director Weaver stated, we did have a neighbor come in and ask about this, they were actually asking about the deck they had a little confusion and thought that the deck was going to possibly be enlarged and I showed them this survey and I believe they were fine with that, they are not here tonight.

President Thompson stated, alright.

Raymond Huber asked, the deck?

Director Weaver stated, the porch on the waterside, they thought maybe you were doing something with that is what they thought so that’s, once they realized you were not, then they were fine with that. I do have a question, I pulled, I found an old variance that was granted on this property and on the survey that was done at that time, it showed that there is a well in the location where you are going to build this addition..

Raymond Huber stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, and when I was at the property, it appears that, that well is still there.

Raymond Huber stated, yes, it’s a 4” well.

Director Weaver asked, okay, how are you going to, you’re not to build over it I am sure.

Raymond Huber stated, I checked with Dave Anderson and there’s going to be a basement excavated there and I said at the time, this would be enclosed in the basement. That I would be putting a stafter inside of the basement, redoing all the air volume tanks and I was asking if there were any building codes that we would be breaking, that if that were the case, he said no, there wouldn’t be so there wouldn’t be a problem with that.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion? Anyone care to address either for or against? Discussion from the Board, or Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition would be one, conform roofline?

Raymond Huber stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and obviously the external siding would be consistent with the present siding?

Doug Keesling stated, well, actually it will be sided, the current structure is a concrete block but, it will probably be sided at some, a future date.

Raymond Huber stated, the whole thing is going to be eventually sided right now it’s a block building and it’s a wood structure in the front on the lakeside. We would be wanting on the East side I guess, we’re going to side the entire building at the same time.

Carol Stradling asked, any plans connect a garage, the existing garage?

Raymond Huber stated, there is no garage.

Director Weaver stated, it’s a shed.

Doug Keesling stated, it’s a storage building, just a shed.

Carol Stradling stated, the survey says…

Raymond Huber stated, the survey is wrong, it’s a storage building.

President Thompson asked, any other discussions? If not, we ready to 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 1.5’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on Lot 3 in Frank’s First Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5052 N. Frank Lane.

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 first.

Raymond Huber stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, your welcome.

****

#2130 Kenneth Weatherholt; Requesting a 14’ front setback variance to bring an existing attached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 9 in Hillcrest Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 615 Hillcrest Drive.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, yes, I am Kenneth Weatherholt.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information for us?

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, I think I bought the house in ’92, ’93 somewhere in there. The garage was already attached and I bought it without any problems and I just recently sold the property and it come up on the title search and I’m just trying to get it fixed for the fellow that bought it.

Attorney Altman asked, who built the garage?

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, I don’t know, it was built two years before myself, before I owned it.

Director Weaver stated, in answer to that question, it was built in 1981. I cannot tell you who the owner was at that time but, I did research the records, and it was built in 1981. It’s on a cul-de-sac also.

Attorney Altman stated, I see that.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know if that added to some of the confusion as to where or how far back it was, I can’t answer that.

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address either for or against? Attorney Altman, do you have any questions?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I don’t.

President Thompson asked, the Board? Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, there’s a house in the adjoining lot, it’s a brown brick? I was just wondering how that, how far forward that comes?

Kenneth Weatherholt asked, you mean on the property to the, to the North of it? Is that what you’re asking?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, it would be the property...

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, if you’re standing in the middle of the drive it would be to the right of this survey, here. Is that what you are asking?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, if the other house is even with the front of the existing house now, just this garage sticks out a couple of feet.

Carol Stradling asked, so the garage is forward of that a few feet?

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, right, the…..actually strikes this garage because it is farther towards the center line of the two property’s, that’s only reason that it really hits it.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Carol, Dave, Gary, Carol, nothing.

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, oh, I brought my sign back also.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 14’ front setback variance to bring an existing attached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot #9 in Hillcrest Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 615 Hillcrest Drive.

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.

Kenneth Weatherholt stated, thanks.

****

#2131 Gregory P. Vogel; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance for a proposed detached garage on Lot 7 & Part Lot 6 in Lake Meadow Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1118 Poplar Drive.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Greg Vogel stated, yes, my name is Gregory D. Vogel the second, I don’t want anyone thinking that I’m named after my Uncle Phil.

President Thompson stated, Gregory P…

Greg Vogel stated, D, we need to change that.

President Thompson stated, Gregory D, all right.

Greg Vogel stated, and we bought the house, it was a bankruptcy, it’s been sitting vacant for 3 years. We’ve got two nice trees in the back, one is on my property line that’s over on the neighbor to the North and really to get it, the garage sitting there without having to take a nice tree out that’s pretty much where I would like to put it. The garage doors will open to the South, they won’t open to the garage, will not open to the road that I’m requesting the setback from so there won’t be any cars parked along that way or anything like that. I think there is only one house back there in the back, it dead ends. Just want to keep the trees is what it comes down to. I brought my sign.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything?

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

President Thompson asked, Greg do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, Greg, the garage size wise not high, extra?

Greg Vogel stated, oh the terms of the size of it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Greg Vogel stated, I was going to go by 24’ x 30’ but, since I found out that if I can get it under 700 square foot that I can save going down 30”on a footing, so I think I’m going to make it a little bit smaller.

Attorney Altman asked, but the height wise will be…

Greg Vogel asked, oh the height?

Attorney Altman asked, the usual height of a garage?

Greg Vogel stated, yes, yes, I’m not going to put…

Attorney Altman asked, storage or anything over head?

Greg Vogel stated, no I’m not going to changing room or anything. I would like to have it about the same height of the house is.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, right.

Greg Vogel stated, it’s going to be sided and painted and roof the same so it should look identical.

Director Weaver asked, can I asked what kind of work you do on the inside?

Greg Vogel stated, I run a Sprint car team. I am the owner and the driver.

Director Weaver stated, you don’t need a permit for that.

Greg Vogel asked, what’s that?

Director Weaver stated, you don’t need a permit for that.

Greg Vogel stated, no and the cars, you don’t start these, they require push trucks so there isn’t going to be any noise in the neighborhood, you just can’t start them.

Director Weaver stated, I was referring to the work being done inside the house.

Greg Vogel stated, oh, they had a garage in there that they put, they tried to put in a living space and it was pretty poor attempt and so really that’s the main thing we had to do. I put a new roof on it and fixed some siding but the one car attached garage that they turned into a living space really needed the most work.

Director Weaver asked, okay, have you checked with us to make sure that you didn’t need a permit for that?

Greg Vogel stated, no, I haven’t.

Director Weaver stated, you might come into our office and check with us, and make sure you do not need a permit for that. I don’t know, I couldn’t tell from what was going on.

Greg Vogel asked, for the drying walling?

Director Weaver stated, if you’re doing electrical or anything of that nature…

Greg Vogel stated, no, no nothing like that.

Director Weaver asked, no plumbing?

Greg Vogel stated, no, no, one and a half baths, we just, the only thing that I did, I put ½ inch drywall on the ceiling and it looked awful wavy so that’s pretty much what we’ve done.

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, do you know if they got a permit to finish the inside of that, turn that garage into a living space? Is that what we are dealing with?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have no….

Greg Vogel stated, that was done several years ago.

Director Weaver stated, most people that convert garages do not get permits.

Carol Stradling stated, they should.

Director Weaver stated, they should but, they don’t so my guess is…

Carol Stradling stated, even though it’s been a long time ago, there might have not been a permit to do that.

Greg Vogel asked, so am I going to get penalize because somebody finished it, their garage off.

Carol Stradling asked, I don’t know Board, what do you think?

Dave Scott asked, the neighbor behind you doesn’t have a problem you blocking his view or anything like that?

Greg Vogel stated, no, he hasn’t mention anything to me.

President Thompson asked, anything else? If not, ready?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 12’ front setback variance for a proposed detached garage on Lot 7 and Lot 6 except 23 feet off the North side of Lot 6 in Lake Meadow Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1118 Poplar Drive.

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.

Greg Vogel, stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

****

President Thompson asked, Carol, do you have anything? Director Weaver do you have anything?

Director Weaver asked, what is the outcome on that, have you heard anything on that?

Attorney Altman asked, what they honestly would like to know, this is on the garage that was converted in and we approved and now they are trying to get a figure, dollar figure. We’ve got to either submit evidence or they have been fishing for a proposed fine amount that we would be satisfied with and I don’t know exactly how much attorney fees were handled on that. I would say that we certainly want to at least collect that much and it’s been a fair amount. I mean…

Director Weaver stated, I have that figure in the office, I don’t have it right here with me.

Attorney Altman stated, so they are fishing for that and I guess the only thing that I would say is if was talking, I am talking to you as a Board is I would say maybe 3 or 4 hundred dollars over attorney fees.

Carol Stradling stated, I was thinking 5…

Director Weaver stated, I think that we need to remember too that this violation went on for years.

Attorney Altman stated, I know, that’s what I’m…

Director Weaver stated, I think that we definitely need to keep that in mind.

Attorney Altman stated, so what I’m saying is 5 hundred dollars over attorney fees, proposal…

Carol Stradling stated, I move 5 hundred dollars plus attorney fees, all attorney fees.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand and that’s what I’m clearly saying, I don’t think that would be county or expense to do that. To finally force them to do what they should have done.

Gary Barbour stated, this has also dragged on for years, you have to put more of a bite into it, in my opinion so that they, you don’t get people dragging it out on you because that’s costing the Area Plan Office money…

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, sure it is.

Director Weaver stated, plus the time, the time in pursuing this…

Attorney Altman stated, sure has.

Director Weaver stated, and his original variance was the height…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s not just attorney, it takes your time to type it up, to hear it to…

Director Weaver stated, to pursue it, I mean he’s had a stop work order posted out there for oh, I know over a year.

Carol Stradling asked, so 500 wouldn’t….

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know what would or wouldn’t, you guys have to tell what you feel like there.

David Scott asked, I’m lost, which one are you talking about?

Director Weaver stated, South end on Sheridan Road, he built a detached garage taller than what the height allowed and came for a variance and was denied he did not removed, did not lower the height of the garage and just…

Carol Stradling asked, what month was it…

Director Weaver stated, he came back to the Board and with a proposal to add to do an addition to where it was now an attached garage…

Carol Stradling stated, attached garage and two story home…

Director Weaver stated, and a two story home yes, and it was approved last month.

President Thompson asked, Charlie did you want to ask something?

Charles Mellon stated, I wanted to ask Director Weaver if she was out to that VanWeelden’s place.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I was.

Charles Mellon asked, do the other Board members and the other guys know what kind of a mansion that he has out there?

President Thompson stated, no, I don’t.

Director Weaver stated, no, that is not the big VanWeelden…

Charlie Mellon asked, oh, that’s not the one?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Charlie Mellon stated, oh, I thought sure that it was.

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s to the South of there.

Charlie Mellon stated, well, since they talked about that one out there, it has a big barn with a full basket ball court. They had to have J & J Derick to, he’s got NBA goals in there and Norris the builder has been out there oh, off and on for 4 or 5 years of building for him. He owns a bunch of landfills in different states, he’s got the one over there at North Newton, that’s who I thought it was.

Director Weaver stated, no, different VanWeelden.

Charlie Mellon stated, but it’s up there pretty close…

Director Weaver stated, yes, they are close to each other, you’re right.

Charlie Mellon stated, there was a road I might as well say, past that place, I think your dad Jerry knows where it’s out, it’s out there on the Smith ground. There was gravel road, a dirt road and maybe it’s gravel now but he took over that road even and us guys use to go back in there and kids were back in there and he’s got it chained off now up to the main road. I don’t know how he got that done but I thought them was the people.

Director Weaver stated, different people.

Charlie Mellon stated, but, he’s got a house over there that is something that you wouldn’t think it would be in Liberty Township, I guess.

President Thompson asked, okay, back to Carol’s…

Carol Stradling asked, what $50 a month, out of compliance, plus Attorney fee’s? I mean that’s a little over a dollar a day.

President Thompson asked, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor stated, that sounds fair, if this is something that we are going to be negotiating within…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m going to propose it, as the answer.

Jeff Saylor asked, then it’s not negotiable.

Director Weaver stated, well the judge will have the final decision.

Attorney Altman stated, unless they agree to it.

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s not out of line.

President Thompson stated, well it’s reasonable.

Carol Stradling stated, he came to the Board, to request a variance and it was denied and he didn’t do anything about it.

President Thompson asked, are you putting that in the form of a motion?

Gary Barbour asked, where does that put you at 50 dollars a month, if…

Carol Stradling asked, how long has it been Director Weaver that we…

Attorney Altman stated, two years.

Director Weaver stated, I think it’s been two years.

Jeff Saylor stated, we should probably identify a specific from the date that…

Director Weaver stated, I would be more than glad to run over to the office.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s been that long since he’s been denied, it’s been two months, two years since he’s been denied.

Carol Stradling stated, it was his choice, you know we made our discussion and he choose not to respond to it.

David Scott asked, how much time after we made the decision does he have to get in compliance? Maybe the fine should start from that point on.

Director Weaver stated, he’s now in compliance, because the Board approved for him to build an addition to attach it.

David Scott asked, okay, so but, when he was turned down and he already had the work done. Was he given a certain time limit to tear his thing down?

Director Weaver stated, I think the best I recall, he was told to get it…

Attorney Altman stated, remove it.

Director Weaver stated, get it removed and taken care of.

David Scott asked, so you would start from the day of…

Director Weaver stated, variance hearing, up until the day of the variance hearing when he was approved, I would assume.

Jeff Saylor asked, the date of the denial of the request originally until the date of the approval…

Director Weaver stated, approval of the second request.

Jeff Saylor stated, which would be last months meeting, 50 dollars, each consecutive month plus attorney fees.

Director Weaver stated, plus attorney fees.

Carol Stradling stated, I know that sounds like a lot but….

President Thompson asked, is that your motion?

Jeff Saylor stated, that was Carol’s motion….

President Thompson stated, that was Carol’s motion, it sounded like it was come from over here.

Jeff Saylor stated, I was just reading is all.

President Thompson stated, I can’t even repeat it.

Carol Stradling stated, attorney fees plus 50 dollars a month beginning the date that the original variance was denied to the change that was approved in June.

President Thompson asked, okay, second to that?

Jeff Saylor seconded the motion.

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

Attorney Altman stated, Indiana Beach thing, we finally got one Judge, Judge Smith. They fiddled around more with that than I would have liked. I don’t know why in the world if they just go do it, we would have had an answer from our judge but that’s, I would guess we will have a hearing on it and there will be an answer. That is on the special exception from the variances but that’s, it’s moved a little bit.

Jeff Saylor asked, if the judge overturns our decision…

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, okay, then the Beach is not longer in compliance?

Attorney Altman stated, no, so they just re-file.

Jeff Saylor asked, so then it just all comes back to us again?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, they re-file.

Gary Barbour asked, how many years can this go on?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that the judge is going to…

Jeff Saylor asked, so if we…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that it’s going to, I think it’s a good decision. I’m satisfied, you know, we can go that way I won’t tell you that it can’t happen Jeff, but I feel satisfied with what we did.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, quite frankly, I think that’s why they fiddled around longer thinking that something, happen other than….

President Thompson asked, are you done?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, on these fines I handed to Director Weaver we were talking about fines earlier, we really don’t have a time table on these things when they should be paid by do we?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, do we?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Jeff Saylor stated, just be stated at the time that we make the fine.

Director Weaver stated, I only recall one time when we had some problems in getting our fine collected and I think it took Attorney Altman sending them a letter telling them to get it in here.

Attorney Altman stated, he got a little grumpy.

President Thompson asked, put that on the record somehow…

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, what is a reasonable…

David Scott asked, 30 days or before the next meeting?

Director Weaver stated, I would think it would depend on the amount, I mean with fines that you propose I would think that 30 days would probably be…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, high dollars for that thing…

President Thompson stated, well that is something we can hammer out next meeting, think about it. It’s pretty open-ended the way that we have been doing it.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that 30 days would be very reasonable.

President Thompson stated, okay, next meeting is August the 15th.

Jeff Saylor stated, payable before the next Board meeting.

President Thompson stated, maybe we will have a light meeting next month.

Director Weaver stated, well at least we haven’t had double meetings this year.

President Thompson stated, no, it’s been close but that’s all right. Okay, if there is nothing else, nothing else?

Carol Stradling made a motion to adjourn.

David Scot seconded the motion

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission