Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, January 16, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Tim Noe, Keith FaFarman, Kathy & Rick Carr, DeLea Hendress, Dwayne Hendress, Floyd & Janice Fultz, Buck Stevenson, John Hawkins, Bill Smith, Steve Vanderipe, Scott Lowry, and Grace Oilar.

The meeting was called to order by Attorney Altman and roll call was taken.

Attorney Altman conducted the election of President. Carol Stradling motioned that Jerry Thompson remains President with Gary Barbour seconding the motion. President Thompson continued the election of officers. David Scott motioned Carol Stradling as Vice-President with Gary Barbour seconding the motion. Dave Scott motioned Gary Barbour as Secretary with President Thompson seconding the motion. Jerry Altman will remain as attorney. All Voting was unanimous.

President Thompson stated, thank you. First of all before we go any further we have a new board member tonight. It is Dave Stimmel down here on my left and it would be your right. He is a brand new member, so go easy on him this evening. He is kind of learning as he goes here, but he will be a real good addition.

President Thompson stated, first of all prior to tonight’s meeting each board member was sent a copy of the November 21, 2002 minutes. Has everyone had a chance to look those over and do we want to address those?

Carol Stradling stated, I move that we table it. I need a little more time to go over them.

David Scott stated, I second that.

President Thompson stated, all of those in favor of tabling the minutes until the next meeting say “aye”. All of those oppose?

The entire Board responded with “aye”



President Thompson stated, all of those who are attending tonight’s meeting can see that it is being recorded. We ask that anyone who address the meeting, please give your name and the main reason for this is that the ladies back in the office will do the minutes tomorrow or the day after of tonight’s meeting. It helps them if they put who was speaking. Also, those of you who have requested a variance this evening will be given an opportunity to speak either for or against. All of those who are here for a variance you have a few options available to you and I will turn this over to our Attorney Mr. Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, this is a 5-member board and all of the members are present. If you have any matter approved or any exceptions made you have to have 3 votes. As an applicant you have the right to table your request, if you wish to do so. If you table it, it would be heard next month at the same time. It gives you time to get more evidence or more information.


Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2162 Kathleen Carr; Requesting an 8’ South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to enclose an existing concrete slab and a wood deck and to build a second story addition on Lot #56 in Parse’s Lodge 2nd Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 5191 N. Crabapple Loop. Tabled from the December 3, 2002 meeting.

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

Kathleen Carr stated, I’m Kathleen Carr.

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

Kathleen Carr stated, I believe my contractor Tim Nolan does.

Tim Nolan stated, I brought prints in last month and this was built too far over the property line. I was told that I could move it over or cut it down that it would be fine.

Attorney Altman asked, has that happened?

Tim Nolan stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, the copies of the prints he is talking about, you have in with your pictures.

Tim Nolan stated, all it is, is moving it over.

Attorney Altman asked, have you taken down the building?

Tim Nolan stated, no I did not. I was told not to touch the building. I was told to bring in prints.

Attorney Altman stated, the board told you to take the building down.

Tim Nolan stated, no the board told me to bring in prints of it with the right variance.

President Thompson asked, do you want that entered in on the record?

Director Weaver stated, there is a copy of that in the file, where we in accordance with our ordinance that we have in place. We did send a letter to Kathleen Carr regarding her fine that the board had imposed at the last meeting.

Attorney Altman asked, is the fine paid?

Director Weaver stated, the fine is unpaid at this time.

Kathleen Carr stated, I called about a week ago, knowing this was going to come up tonight. I would like to appeal that fine. I was told that tonight was the night to do that. Can I do that now?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Kathleen Carr stated, as I understand I do realize I should be fined something for building without a permit. The reason I would like to appeal is, this is quite an additional expense on my part. I am the only person who works in my family. My husband is 74. He gets social security. I just had cancer surgery, and I have a whole lot of things going on right now. I feel I should be fined something, but $500 is pretty substantial for me right now.

President Thompson asked, and the contractor do you have anything you would like to say this evening?

Tim Nolan stated, just that on the print what shows the building is at the line and it is over and I would like to shorten it, instead of take it down.

President Thompson asked, are there any questions from the board?

David Scott asked, what about the neighbors to the South? Have we heard anything from them?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that is the neighbor we originally heard from.

Kathleen Carr stated, yes. They were here at the last meeting.

President Thompson asked, are they here?

Kathleen Carr stated, no, they were at the last meeting. Their concern was it being too far over and that they are trying to sell the home.

President Thompson asked, there was no other response from anyone.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Nolan you are a professional contractor?

Tim Nolan stated, I’m a builder.

Carol Stradling asked, do you normally build without a permit?

Tim Nolan stated, no, I usually go get the permit, but this was a relative. It was for a relative and I just came down on a weekend to build on an existing deck. I should have gotten one.

Carol Stradling stated, so, if you were in Chicago and you were building on a relatives deck, you are going to a second story, going to the property line, if not over in Chicago, you would do that without a permit?

Tim Nolan stated, the second story I would have had a permit for all of that. I know that. I just thought I would build a screened in porch and there would be no problems on an existing deck. If I would have started from scratch I would have came down and got a permit.

Kathleen Carr stated, I would like to say when I bought the home. I don’t know if you realize this or not. I bought it with an illegal deck that was the way it was sold to me. It wasn’t disclosed at closing. It wasn’t until I started building on it; I had 3 surveyors out and no body ever said anything to me about an illegal deck. It was never brought up to me until we started building on the deck. Then we found out that the guy should have built it 4’ back from the line and then you put a room on it’s another 4’ back. Obviously I would have known all of this had I gotten the permit to begin with.

President Thompson asked, but you are willing to cut this back to be in compliance?

Tim Nolan stated, yes.

David Scott asked, single story?

Tim Nolan stated, yes sir. It will be single story.

President Thompson asked, Gary, Dave or Dave. Dave I’m not trying to ignore you, but this is from last meeting and we are more familiar with it. Gary or Dave do you have any concerns here?

Gary Barbour stated, now you are looking to cut it back, so it is level with the house from the South side.

Tim Nolan stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, and you are not building a second story addition.

Tim Nolan stated, no, that was just something we were looking at for the future. We added it to the meeting last month, so it was a good time to throw it in if we were going to.

David Stimmel asked, I hear from Jerry if it breaks the building code, is there a reason for the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, it is still too close.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it is still too close on the North side. The southwest corner is still to close also.

President Thompson asked, so how do we want to handle this? Carol do you have any idea.

Carol Stradling stated, she is a relative and you are building it for her. Are you being paid for this?

Tim Nolan stated, he hesitated.

Kathleen Carr stated, yes, but not as much as a regular person.

David Scott stated, we have kind of come to the conclusion before, that we really can not fine the contractor because there is no way. It seems to me that, if he is a contractor he should get a permit before he works. I can see how that lady would not know if she needed a permit or not, but the contractor should know that. He should have one before he starts work.

Attorney Altman stated, I think so too. We have fined contractors before.

Director Weaver stated, yes we have.

Attorney Altman stated, we have fined contractors, subcontractors, and owners, if you remember that one case. You can impose a fine. Obviously he has testified he has violated the ordinance.

President Thompson asked, Gary do you have a thought?

Attorney Altman stated, if we do not have another motion before us of any sort. We have a fine imposed of $500, we also have the request for a variance. That is where we are.

David Scott asked, the set back variance we are going to be voting on is for building the deck straight back?

Attorney Altman stated, the South line boundary of the house.

David Scott asked, what would be the set back then?

Tim Nolan, the cement patio was already there. All I did was cover up the existing cement. I did not go any bigger.

Attorney Altman stated, it is very nearly impossible to tell exactly what that is, except that it is no closer than the house is.

Tim Nolan stated, it is even with the house. It will not go pass the house.

Attorney Altman stated, do you have anything else to add to this?

President Thompson stated, I’m going to ask her something. What if we lower the fine? They are going to be out a great deal of expenses bringing this back into compliance. It is just an idea.

What were you thinking?

Carol Stradling stated, well I’m trying to look back at the precedent that we have set and tried to set particularly in the last few months. I know this fine has been kind of a troublesome for us. It looks like back in September we started going with a pretty basic $500. There was one case when we just went $400.

President Thompson stated, Gary or Dave do you have anything?

Carol Stradling asked, Diann can we just do payments? Is it $500 all at once?

Director Weaver stated, from my end, I do not see why we can not take payments.

Carol Stradling stated, I sympathize with you, but we are trying to set a precedent, but in that ordinance we established, we said it could be adjusted.

Attorney Altman stated, up or down. That is what we did, so it could go either way.

President Thompson asked, do you want to ask that now?

Director Weaver asked, that is fine. The 10’ on your drawing that you show, is that from the eve or the foundation.

Tim Nolan stated, I was just thinking about that. This is kind of wrong. What you are seeing right here, that is the front. The screen porch is going to be the exact same thing. Over here is the rest of the house. It does not by pass the house. The rest is all sidewalks.

Director Weaver stated, I’m referring to the other side of the house.

Tim Nolan stated, I’m going to go with the same roofline, same pitch everything will be the same.

Director Weaver stated, the way I measure it here on your survey, there is only 9’ from the existing home to the side property line.

Tim Nolan stated, I know when we figured it last month it was 10’.

Attorney Altman stated, you also have on the other side it would extend beyond the house.

Tim Nolan stated, but that is not………

The board and Tim Nolan are going over the survey.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what we are saying is you are telling us one thing, but we are looking at something that says something different. It is really hard to know.

Tim Nolan stated, I was not thinking about this from the last meeting. I did not know there was a problem here. I thought it was just the screened in porch area. I wasn’t looking at this at all.

Carol Stradling stated, the problem is we have a picture of what you have presented that you are going to build and that is not what is being built. You are saying you have 10’ here and Diann is asking, is it 10’ from the line to the edge of the house or is it 10’ from the line to the edge of the roof. We are looking at a survey with the property line at an angle if it is 10’ at the front edge it is not going to be 10’ from the back edge. Do you see what I’m saying.

Tim Nolan stated, yes, I see what you are saying. If I ran this screened in porch with the existing house that is the code. Roof line, same line, same everything, so that would be ok?

Director Weaver asked, so then are you going to change the roof line on the existing house, is that what you are saying. You’re just going to go in line with it.

Tim Nolan stated, yes, I’m just going to go straight across with it. It would be in code then.

Carol Stradling stated, so the setbacks then Diann are 8’ minimum.

Director Weaver stated, yes, with a total of 18’ between the two sides.

Attorney Altman asked, so he does need a variance?

Carol Stradling stated, so he does need a variance because he doesn’t have a total of 18’.

Director Weaver asked, so you are going to shift the whole room to the North?

Tim Nolan stated, I’m just going to cut it off.

Director Weaver stated, what about to the North because it doesn’t line up on the North side.

Tim Nolan stated, well actually I’m not shifting, I’m just going to cut it off.

President Thompson asked, I know this is not easy, but we need to address this. How do we want to handle it?

David Scott stated, if the neighbors do not have a complaint, I don’t see anything wrong with him building straight with the other house. I think some of the fine needs to be shifted to the contractor from the property owner. I don’t know how we can do that, or if we can do that.

Gary Barbour stated, I guess I’m ready to move on. I make a motion that we reduce the fine. Access $200 to the property owner and $100 to the contractor and as long as it is built in the same lines as the North and South side of the existing house.

David Scott stated, I second that.

President Thompson stated, it has been moved and seconded. Diann do you have that down?

It is $200 to the property owner and $100 to the contractor and brings it back into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, yes

Without 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 to build in line with the existing house on the South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to enclose an existing concrete slab and a wood deck and to build a second story addition on Lot 56 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5191 N. Crabapple Loop.

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 1010 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.

Carol Stradling stated, for those of you that are here, I know he was trying to do his relative a favor, but we really don’t do each other favors by not going through the proper procedures, not getting permits. We just see so much of this.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to pay the fine when you get the building permit. The building permit needs to be gotten now.

****

#2173 Floyd Fultz; Requesting a special exception to allow a 1974 mobile home to be relocated within White County. Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance requires that any mobile home older than a 1981 have an inspection done and an approved special exception in order to be placed in White County.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Fultz’s? Yes, you are?

Floyd Fultz stated, I’m Floyd Fultz.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else you would like to present to the board, other than what I have read?

Floyd Fultz stated, it wouldn’t be done until the weather breaks in the spring.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from anyone on this. I would like to comment that this had received a special exception once already, and permits were issued and nothing was done with the mobile home. It is currently setting on the property and has been since the first special exception was filed in the office. We no longer will do that, we will not even allow anyone to move a mobile home on his or her property without going through the special process and being approved first. This home has been setting there for over a year now, with nothing being done yet.

Attorney Altman stated, so you know that can not happen again.

Floyd Fultz stated, it will be taken care of when the weather breaks. I will try to do that.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who opposes this variance this evening.

President Thompson asked, does the board have any questions, or comments?

Carol Stradling asked, are you living in the one for the exception or are you living in the other one that is on the property?

Floyd Fultz stated, I’m living in the one that is originally there. I’m not my daughter is.

It’s not being rented out. I’m not receiving any money. They just live there and go to school and work.

Carol Stradling stated, so the original one is still being lived in.

Floyd Fultz stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, has it been a timing thing to get that switched.

Floyd Fultz stated, yes, I got to have the weather to do it. The juice has got to be moved. You can’t do that in the wintertime.

Gary Barbour stated, wait a minute, this has been going on since August of 2001.

Director Weaver stated, yes, that is right.

Gary Barbour stated, and you are saying you haven’t had the time to move it.

Floyd Fultz stated, I probably would have gotten it moved, but I would have to quit working. I do tree work and it was pretty hard to schedule everything around a work schedule to go over there and move it. Then we had problems with the kids living some place else for 2 or 3 days. It’s not a 15-minute job.

Gary Barbour asked, we have gone a year and half now. What kind of time frame are you looking for?

Floyd Futlz stated, this is going to be done in the spring, just like I told you. I guarantee it.

President Thompson asked, just out of curiosity how many times can we reissue on the same property?

Director Weaver stated, well this is not on the property. This is on the mobile home. I don’t think we have anything.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think there is a restriction. You don’t have to grant it either.

President Thompson stated, right.

David Scott stated, after he moves it in there, I noticed there are some thing’s that need to be checked.

Director Weaver stated, our county inspector would do the final inspection.

Carol Stradling asked, you are going to find a way to make this happen this spring, right Floyd?

Floyd Fultz stated, yes, I know that everything has to be done to the trailer, to bring it up to code. It has to have different plug ends, around the sinks. Like I said it something that can not be done in 1 or 2 days. It will probably take me a week to get it done.

Director Weaver asked, may I request from the Board that if this is issued, that we give him a dead line to have this done?

President Thompson asked, could we do that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, reasonable conditions could be applied.

David Scott asked, what would be fair, 6 months.

The board is discussing how many months to allow.

Director Weaver stated, as far a John Raines is concerned this is a junk mobile home setting there because it does not have enough room for a special exception and it is not properly permitted at this time. The sooner it’s taken care of the better.

David Scott stated, I do want to be fair to him because of the weather.

Carol Stradling asked, could you have this done by May?

Floyd Fultz stated, yes, I should have it done by May.

Floyd Fultz asked, 5 months from now or when I get the permit?

Attorney Altman stated, now.

President Thompson stated, 5 months would be the middle of June?

Director Weaver stated, if your special exception is approved tonight. You need to be in the office tomorrow to get your permit. This is a violation setting there.

Carol Stradling stated, you’re not properly permitted right now. End of May.

I move that the special exception be approved contingent on the trailer being in place and final inspection occuring by the end of May 31, 2003, and the other trailer being removed.

David Scott stated, I second the motion.

President Thompson stated, all of those in favor signify by saying “aye”.

The board members all replied with “aye”

President Thompson stated, motion carried. Are there any other discussions?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1974 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said improvement, and the Board additionally finds that the above said special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you must pickup your building permit tomorrow and you have until May 31 to remove the old mobile home and have the final inspection on the 1974 mobile home.

****

#2174 Delea J. Hendress; Requesting a 22’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch onto the existing home on Lots 126, 127 and the South ½ of lot 128 in North Addition. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 306 N. Boone Street.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Hendress?

Delea Hendress stated, I’m Delea Hendress.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else you would like to present tonight?

Delea Hendress stated, yes, I have a picture. There was a porch on this home before I did my remodeling.

President Thompson stated, now just a second. We keep the pictures because you are presenting them as evidence, just as long as you understand that.

Delea Hendress stated, yes, I understand that. Our slab is still there, and I think Dwayne did you hand in the drawings?

Director Weaver stated, yes, they have copies of them.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything to add to this?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this or any calls from the neighbors. I do not have anything else to add.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to speak in favor or against said variance. Any comments or concerns from the board?

Delea Hendress stated, there still is a place in front still part. This is part of our driveway. This blacktop here, there is a place to park a vehicle yet, before you get to the road. I park my car there a lot.

President Thompson asked, do you understand what she is pointing out there?

Director Weaver stated, actually I wonder though if that is part of the right way. According to the survey they only have 11’ left. I think where she is referring to must be part of the right way.

Delea Hendress stated, oh really.

Director Weaver stated, I’m assuming from looking at your survey that it must be. The street in front of you has a 60’ right way.

Delea Hendress stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, so there is 20’ from the edge of the payment to the property line that belongs to Boone Street.

Attorney Altman stated, so you need to make sure it’s surveyed and don’t think you know where the lot lines are.

Delea Hendress stated, it has been surveyed.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m just saying be sure you do it. We don’t like to remove them very often. We do, but we don’t like to. So check that.

President Thompson stated, back to the board. Carol do you have something?

Carol Stradling stated, no, the pictures are showing the existence, but the porch is going to be bigger than the one you took off.

Dwayne Hendress stated, the one we took off was just on the front. This time we are going to make the whole front of the house an “L” shape.

President Thompson asked, Gary, Dave or Dave do you have anything?

Without 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 22’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch onto the existing home on Lots 126, 127 and the South Half of Lot 128 in North Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located the Town of Reynolds at 306 N. Boone Street.


7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

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

Delea Hendress stated, thank you.


****

#2175 Richard A. Talbert; Owner, Buck Stevenson; Applicant; Requesting a 14’ rear setback variance to add a ½ story above the part of the existing house that is currently 1 story on .28 of an acre. The property is located in North of Monticello at 3955 E. Lake Road 26 W.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Talberts? Yes, sir you are?

Buck Stevenson stated, I’m Buck Stevenson.

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

Buck Stevenson stated, nothing that I know of. I’ve have some pictures to show where the house is setting there now and the West part of it is 2 stories and the East is only 1 story and he has a front porch on it. He wants to take the Northeast part of it 2 stories in the air.

President Thompson asked, Diann is he aware of the pictures you have?

Director Weaver stated, no, he has not seen them.

President Thompson asked, do we have any fan mail?

Director Weaver stated, I did receive a phone call from a neighbor not necessarily against the request, just inquiring about the request. That is all I have.

President Thompson asked, their relationship to the property is?

Director Weaver stated, I could not answer that. Zachney is the neighbor. Do you know where they are located in conjunction with the property?

Buck Stevenson stated, I sent all of the names of all of the neighbors. Whether they have responded or not.

President Thompson stated, well this one has and we are asking what side they are on.

Buck Stevenson stated, I don’t know any of the neighbors over there.

President Thompson stated, you don’t know them.

Buck Stevenson stated, I don’t know. I talked to the neighbors across the road.

President Thompson stated, we are just concerned, since we had the one response. Sometime we have people who respond who do not adjoin and that is the whole point of the matter. We want to make sure that they do adjoin the property.

Director Weaver stated, they were given notice, so they are an adjoining property.

President Thompson asked, okay. Is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of or oppose it?

Carol Stradling asked, Diann down at the bottom there is a canopy that was built at the same time as the garage. Is that what is on the front here or where is this 8x8 canopy? The Assessor’s records indicate that there is an 8 x 8 canopy that was built at the same time as the garage.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that it is on the backside of the garage.

Buck Stevenson stated, the house was there, if I understand him right the house was there and he built the garage.

Carol Stradling asked, were you there when the garage was built?

Buck Stevenson stated, no, I did not know the gentleman.

Director Weaver stated, I have the permit here and it shows on here that they built it themselves, the garage.

Carol Stradling asked, I’m sorry it shows?

Director Weaver stated, they built the garage themselves.

Buck Stevenson stated, he told me that Ray Ferdinand or somebody was there back when he built the garage.

President Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel, do you understand what he is asking here.

Dave Stimmel stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, Gary, do you have anything?

David Scott asked, just out of curiosity how did our height variance come in to play here.

Director Weaver stated, it is not a height variance, it is a rear setback variance.

David Scott stated, okay, but he is building a second story on here. Does this comply with our height variance?

Director Weaver stated, yes, to the best of my knowledge it does. The maximum height for a dwelling is 30’.

David Scott stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, it is a part of the dwelling. Where you run into the height variance is on detached garages where people want them big.

President Thompson asked, Gary, do you have anything?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Thompson asked, no other questions, are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Buck Stevenson, is this on the sewer system.

Buck Stevenson stated, yes, it is already on it.

Without 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’ rear setback variance to add a ½ story above the part of the existing house that is currently 1 story A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Six (6), Township Twenty-Seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is South zero Degrees and Thirty-two Minutes West (S 0º 32’ W) Six Hundred Thirty-six and Five Tenths (636.5) feet, South Seventy-two Degrees and Six Minutes East (S 72º 6’ E) Eight Hundred Sixty-eight and Six Tenths (868.6) feet and North Eighty-three Degrees and Thirty Minutes East (N 83º 30’ E) One Hundred Eight and One Tenth (108.1) feet from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Six (6) and running thence South One Degree and Thirty-one Minutes East (S 1º 31’ E) Ninety-four and Four Tenths (94.4) feet; thence South Eighty-seven Degrees and One Minute East (S 87º 1’E) One Hundred Twenty-two (122) feet; thence North One Degree and Forty Minutes East (N 1º 40’ E) One Hundred (100) feet; thence North Eighty-nine Degrees and Forty-one Minutes West (N 89º 41’ W) One Hundred Twenty-seven and Two Tenths (127.2) feet to the point of beginning, containing Twenty-eight Hundredths (.28) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 3955 E. Lake Road 26 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 1010of 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.

****

#2176 Joan F. Ginter, Owner; Steve Vanderipe, Applicant; Requesting a 29’ front setback variance, a 1’ West side setback variance and a 3’ East side setback variance to build a new home on Lot 83 in Gingrich 2nd Addition. The property is located South of Monticello on Sheridan Road.

President Thompson asked, and you fellows are?

Steve Vanderipe stated, I’m Steve Vanderipe. I’m not only the applicant, but now I’m the owner of the property. January 10 the property transactions happen, so the deed is recorded as of January 10.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to share?

Steve Vanderipe stated, yes, I have some pictures I’d like to give.

President Thompson stated, you did hear what I said earlier.

Steve Vanderipe stated, yes, I did. What I have done, I went to the property and staked it out how it would lay on the ground as well as the back side which actually you consider the front. It just gives you an idea in pictures instead of paper of what I’m doing.

President Thompson asked, Diann have you had any response to this?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything from the neighbors.

Steve Vanderipe stated, in addition to that, I just want to say that I went and talked to all of the owners around there and physically meet with them. I showed them everything I’m going to do, which they had no problems. I meet with the Lake Association and they do not have a problem with it. In addition to that when I bought the property I researched it and it was a deeded lot

And it shows that the plat was 80’ from the road back. When I had the surveyor go do it they found physical stakes at those locations which the shortest distance shows 68’ or so. I just wanted to relate that to you. My aggressiveness on this variance to put the house to the lake, I normally would not have been this aggressive, but for that reason I needed to do that and you can see the pictures I still have an enormous amount of ground to dig out to do a walk out basement. It is about 10 truckloads worth of dirt just to get the walk out portion the way it is. I just wanted to make you aware of that. It seems to me kind of aggressive. I needed to do that under the circumstances.

President Thompson asked, that sound find. Jerry do you want to announce that.

Attorney Altman stated, dear sirs: in conversations with Mr. Steve Vanderipe the SFLECC understands his desires to place a home along 1’ of his property line at 5731 E. Sheridan Road in Union Township. The SFLECC does not object to Mr. Vanderipe’s placing the house as described on lot #82 of Gingrich 2nd addition.

Steve Vanderipe stated, Mr. Thompson, I saw that letter after he sent it out. It needs a correction. He mistakenly put 82 on there instead of 83.

Director Weaver stated, the correction is noted.

Steve Vanderipe stated, another correction if I might add, this may not be anything at all, but it says variance west side 1’, eastside 3’. I think it was just rattled off because it is 1.6ft on each side. I’m going to square the house on the lot.

President Thompson stated, that is not going to be problem.

Steve Vanderipe stated, thank you very much.

Attorney Altman asked, this is going to be on the sewer system?

Steve Vanderipe stated, yes it is.

President Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?

Carol Stradling stated, I just want to verify when we look at the survey, it does not show how close you are to the lake and when you talked about moving out dirt that is actually land that is between your property line and the waters edge.

Steve Vanderipe stated, I was concerned about that too as far as the question being answered. The only thing that I had was reliable at all was, I went to the lake association and they went to the West Side. He did his own calculation and gauged it to be 80 to 90’ as far as the property lines to the lake edge. As far as excavating ground it is beyond my land. They had no problem with that. I talked to them about it. Anything else you do with the Lake Association if you put a boatlift or sea wall. You just have to go to them and get a permit. I really don’t know how that relates to the Area Plan. Area Plan doesn’t have any bearing on stuff like that.

Director Weaver stated, we don’t issue permits for boathouses, lifts, or anything like that.

Steve Vanderipe stated, that is what has happened a lot of things that I have investigated across that side of the lake. Does that answer your question?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, we couldn’t give you permission to move that dirt out of somebody else’s property.

Steve Vanderipe stated, right.

Carol Stradling stated, I just wanted to clarify where your house was in relationship to waters edge.

President Thompson asked, Gary, do you have anything?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Without 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 29’ front setback variance, a 1’ West side setback variance and a 3’ East side setback variance to build a new home Lot 83 in Gingrich Second Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello off of Freeman Road on Sheridan Road.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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


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

****

#1 Toledo, Peoria, and Western Railway Corp., Right Angle Media, Inc., and Hawkins Outdoor Advertising, LLC; Appealing the decisions of the White County Area Plan Commission and Common Council of the City of Monticello, Indiana in refusing to issue and/or denying their application dated 8/23/02 for the issuance of an improvement location permit and certificate of occupancy and require the White County Area Plan Commission to issue the applicable improvement location permit and certificate of occupancy to the appellants. Continued from December 19, 2002 meeting.

President Thompson asked, you gentlemen are?

Keith Fafarman stated, I’m Keith Fafarman. I’m an attorney from Lafayette and I represent the appellants, and to my right is Jeff who is one of the principles of Hawkins Outdoor Advertising.

This is new grounds here for everyone, it is my understanding that there has never been a BZA appeal until recently here. I think we will probably figure out procedure here as we go along.

What I would like to start with if I may because everybody apparently has gotten what I did file with notice of appeals.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything to say?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Jerry do you?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing and for the record, we will receive anything you want to give us for the appeal. That is the document with several pages. Actually it is 5 pages with exhibits received here 1/16/03. In addition to that I have the notice of the advertising of that matter that was in the Herald Journal. I’m just going through the file here. A copy of the notice that actually was published. We additionally have motion to continue the hearing, which was granted until today. We are also submitted as part of the matter today before the board a cross section of the proposed sign, as I understand your people submitted that. Has the board seen this?

Director Weaver stated, no they have not.

Attorney Altman is passing out copies of the proposal to everyone at this time.

Attorney Altman asked, what else is there Diann that should be a part of the request for a building permit.

Director Weaver stated, the rest of the documentation from the application, I believe is submitted as a part of their evidence for the appeal.

Attorney Altman stated, is it your understanding that you included as a part of your notice of appeal these documents that the applicant submitted when you requested the permit.

Keith Fafarman stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman stated, I thought so. I just wanted to have it all for the record.

Keith Fafarman stated, well, actually some of the items that are in there are not necessarily exhibits to the notice of appeal. So I believe the actually application needs to be apart of the record.

Attorney Altman asked, are you talking about the papers I have in my hands. Is it reasonable to note that they are exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of your notice? Is that a fairly decent way to identify them?

Keith Fafarman stated, actually these 2 items are not a part of my exhibit.

Attorney Altman stated, again has the board look at this. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of their notice are really documents that they submitted when the made the application for the permit. Additionally they submitted document that I will read it to you. He proceeded to read the document to the board. The next thing that they want, as a part of the record is this document here Jerry. I will let you look at it. If it is all right with you I will note that this is exhibit 4 and the other one will be exhibit 5. Is that all right?

Keith Fafarman stated, I believe the letter would be exhibit 3.

Attorney Altman stated, okay it is a letter 3, yes it is on there.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else you would like to present sir.

Keith Fafarman stated, no, other than if necessary I believe Mr. Walker would testify that the factual allegations in the notice are true and that would be specifically paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10. If you have any questions for Mr. Walker on those issues you are welcome to ask him, but Mr. Walker would testify that is what has happened. I think this is a real simple case. I provided the two cases in my notice basically the case of the Board of Zoning Appeals City of Fort Wayne vs. Shell Oil Company says very simply that an application for a building permit is to be decided under zoning requirements in effect at the time the application is filed, and the right to use property in according prevailing zoning ordinances accrues on the filing of application for a building permit. An Ordinance of a substance of character can not later operate with such rights. My clients filed their application for new improvements location permit, and nothing was done on it. Zoning ordinances specifically provides that with regards to and this is from section 7.1001 of your zoning Ordinance as that in regards to the issue of an improvement location permit. I’m sorry after the receipt of the information required for an improvement location permit the plan commission is designated administrator shall review the standards set in this ordinance. If the applicant has meet all of the required standards, then within 3 days the designated administrator shall issue the improvement location permit. Section 7.1005 then provides that if any of the major elements are clearing outlined with the standards within 3 working days issuance of the improvement location permit will be denied with a written statement specifying the reason for the denial. Where we are now 5 months later and there still has not been either an approval or a denial, and the zoning rules specifically state one way or the other within 3 days. That is one problem. The second one is, that at the time this ordinance at the time the application was submitted which is the laws that you must considered when deciding this issue was 1. That off premises advertising that billboards were permitted within the zone. The city of Monticello had no ordinance regulating signs. There may have been a thought, but there was no regulation. After the application was submitted and before there was anything done on this I guess the date would have been October 2 approximately over a month after the application was submitted the city of Monticello decided they really did not want bill boards. So they passed an ordinance saying no billboards. The count of Indiana appeals in the Ft. Wayne case said well don’t even look at that ordinance because that ordinance was adopted after the application was submitted, and Ft. Wayne says very simply look at the laws at the time of the application. The laws at the time of the application were zoning ordinance permitted billboards in the area on the location. There was no zoning law and there was no Monticello law that said no billboards there. The improvement location permit should be issued. It is really that simple.

Attorney Altman stated, or a denial needs to be issued.

Keith Fafarman stated, well what I’m saying one way or another, but there was no grounds for the denial as my clients are entitled to the improvement location permits. I would also refer the board to the case of Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals vs. Marion County, which said very distinctly when the applicant meets all of the requirements of the ordinance he is entitled to the issuance of a permit of a matter of right. It my not lawfully be withheld. He met all of the requirements at the time that he submitted his application and my clients are entitled to their permits.

Attorney Altman stated, we received this today from Mr. Loy.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have a question?

Director Weaver stated, first I would like to clarify one thing. We informed them that at the time they made application that it could not be issued with out an approval from the Monticello City Council. That was not done 3 days after application. That was done at the time of application. That is a standard policy that we have followed in our office for many years. I would like to point out that there was no written approval or denial necessary from me of a permit because Area Plan does not issued building permits. The building department issues building permits and Dave Anderson signs those permits and I no longer have that jurisdiction.

President Thompson stated, Jerry.

Attorney Altman stated, I believe the City would like to talk.

President Thompson asked, would you care to address this sir?

Bill Smith stated, I’m Bill Smith and I’m a city councilman. I think you all have the papers here. We denied their request when they came to us and we passed an ordinance for the City of Monticello that would prohibit those kinds of signs. Our attorney could not be here tonight. He is somewhere in Bloomington. He wanted to be here, but could not and I wish he were here. In talking with him he wanted us to take his place.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman asked, is there anymore evidence you would like to put into record.

Keith Fafarman stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, the City doesn’t, we did note and I just gave a copy of Mr. Loy’s response with today’s date about this matter and I would at this time recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that, since this is something different, I would assume Mr. Fafarman would like to look at the responses and maybe this matter be continued for another month pending your briefing of that and then for a final decision on this at the next meeting. This would give everyone a chance here to read and respond to what is here. Also, give Mr. Fafarman a chance to brief relative to the City’s response.

Keith Fafarman stated, if I may Mr. Thompson and Mr. Altman at this point I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to filing of the City of Monticello, as it was never served on me.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand and we just received it today.

Keith Fafarman stated, I would like to continue this matter until the next meeting, which would be in February.

Attorney Altman asked, what would that date be?

Director Weaver stated, February 20th.

Attorney Altman stated, February 20 same time and same place, and then you will be first on the agenda.

Keith Fafarman stated, I will file a response before hand and I will serve it on the city.

****

Attorney Altman stated, I would like to say something out of courtesy. I would like to thank the board for the flowers that you sent to my father’s funeral. It does help and I thank you very much.

Attorney Altman stated, the Indiana Beach variance special exception matter. Indiana Beach has sent to me a copy of their proposed brief and I have mine ready to submit when they submit theirs. That will be heard on the 31st of this month and by Judge Smith from Carroll County. This is the judge that this has been passed to. Obviously it is going right down to the decision. I don’t know yet until you can get the decision.

President Thompson stated, just hit the highlights of that, so Dave can have an idea of what you are talking about.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, sometime ago a neighbor of the Indiana Beach asked, or they didn’t ask. They sent a letter demanding that we enforce the ordinance against the Indiana Beach. Before that time we had very consistently done, not because it is on the lake area because it is a completely different category of business and not specifically require them to comply with the ordinance. We did so after this objection and they asked for a special exception and that we allow them to be there. Really dropping back to 1972 when we got our ordinance they were allowed to be where they are. Then in 1992 when the ordinance was redone, they needed a special exception to be there. The other thing that they asked for that our ordinance has a limit of height, which is 45’ for buildings. They have 10 rides that are above that, and so they came in at the same time and got a variance for those 10 rides. The neighbor is taking up an appeal for those at the Indiana Beach. If someone appeals our actions they go to the Circuit Court.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver asked, what about Babka, where do we stand on that?

Attorney Altman stated, I have called him and he has called me. Right now we are playing phone tag. This is the one with a 21 or $2200 fine. I’m trying to get together and he was on vacation. It just as much my fault as it is his. We are trying to get together to get an answer. Thank you for reminding me. I totally forgot about it.

Director Weaver stated, I have given everyone a copy of the meeting dates. I did want to let the board know too, not only did we send flowers to Jerry, but one of the girls in the office her mother-in-law passed away also. We did send a small boutique for that. This is another reason why we need money for the flower fund.

President Thompson stated, the flower fund is just to donate what ever you wish to do it. Dave, I might have told him, I’m not sure. When we exceed 10 variances we go to a second meeting in the month. Diann did you tell him that?

Director Weaver stated, I could not remember if I had or not.

President Thompson stated, it is the summer months.

Director Weaver stated, it is not normally in November or December. It’s normally in the summer.

David Simmel asked, would it be okay if I ask a question about this appeal?

President Thompson asked, why not?

Attorney Altman stated, they tabled it. At the meeting you can ask prior, but since it was tabled.

David Stimmel stated, my concern is trying to understand the setback violations the items sited by Mr. Loy are in fact a result of the City’s law or the Area Plan law.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand. I got the letter about the same time that Diann did. I’m sure that is what he is trying to say. Because of that it was inappropriate. What I will probably do between now and then is send him a denial letter based on that. Even though Diann is right the building inspector issues the permit anymore. I may in fact just dot the I’s and cross the T’s.

President Thompson asked, we are going to have to keep Dave on this Carr situation. We are going to have to visit this quite frequently. There are so many things there. Diann do you have anything else?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I do. I had sent to the board a list of fines that have been imposed. Did that have the information that you were wanting to see?

Carol Stradling asked, is that all we have imposed?

Attorney Altman stated, Yes. When you back off of the $500 fine you are on a slippery slope guys. You tried to avoid that. You back off and everyone comes in and acts poor and if you don’t stay on it. I’m saying this because I don’t know who is going to be out there next month. I’m not trying to pick on any body. I’m just trying to tell you, if you back off of it and you are going to hear this every time.

David Scott asked, that lady probably needed help, but if that guy is a contractor he knows he has to get a permit before he does the work. How do we handle it?

President Thompson stated, Dave you just mark down in the corner of your envelope how many times you are going to run into this between now and December 2003.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the board know too that this board set a fine example because the Area Plan Commission has now adopted the similar policy.

President Thompson stated, really! I know what you are saying Jerry, but their also taking a pretty good hit because we are making them back that house back up and more in one direction.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree, except……

President Thompson stated, they are still being fined.

Carol Stradling stated, the only other time we did that, where we fined them and they still took a financial. It was the guy with the roof around the pole. He took a pretty big hit too.

David Stimmel asked, Diann does the Building Inspector go out and check these to make sure that this is adhered to?

Director Weaver stated, yes. He has more work than he can keep up with.

There was a discussion among the board members.

Director Weaver stated, we have two things that we had mentioned at the last meeting that I’m bringing back to this meeting. 1. Chris Wiese, and his trailer. He still does not have a permit and is still using the trailer, and Dave Anderson the building inspector has researched and he called the State and they have never applied for a State release.

President Thompson stated, well, we need to get them back in here.

Attorney Altman stated, Diann get me a letter or a list of the facts and I will help you prepare a violaton.

Carol Stradling asked, can the State act on that, since they have not applied for a permit.

Director Weaver stated, no they won’t because it is up to Dave Anderson to do the inspections on State Permits.

Attorney Altman stated, by that Diann, I just need the usual facts.

President Thompson stated, that surprises me.

Director Weaver stated, he sat right here in the meeting and said he had applied.

President Thompson stated, yes he did.

Director Weaver stated, because I had distinctly asked him and he told me he applied.

Attorney Altman asked, what is your second question Diann?

Director Weaver stated, discussion of signs, remember I gave you guys homework. One example was the sign that has gone to the side of an existing building. It’s lettering that has gone on the side of an existing building. The other one was there was an existing on premise sign that has been repainted to be an off premises sign and thirdly.

Attorney Altman stated, the second one is a violation, and the first one is not. I don’t know about painting.

Director Weaver stated, that was the second one it was painted.

Attorney Altman stated, no I mean the one on the wall.

Director Weaver stated, it is not paint, it is lettering. It is actually plastic white lettering.

Attorney Altman stated, that is a violation.

Director Weaver stated, thirdly, I still have a problem with the signs on West Shafer Dr.. I have struck out on this, Dekker’s and Rollheiser. I had sent violation letter to Don Rollheiser regarding this. He has contacted me and he has given me a letter from Rick Cox. Calvin Cox owns the property. I’m assuming that Richard is a son and that is whom the letter is from. It states in regards to the signs located on the lot on West Shafer Dr.. Please be advised that the larger sign has been there since 1985. The smaller sign was put there sometime between 1989 – 1993. I can not give you an exact date as the sign was put there without notice and to the best of our knowledge it was in that time frame. I have not lived in Monticello since 1985. I have gone down to the Assessor’s office and looked at the records that I have access too. We don’t even find where someone is paying taxes on these signs. We have not located any permits for these signs. I do agree that the larger sign has been there, and I did talk to Mr. Cox on the phone prior to the last hearing. He indicated to me that the larger sign had been put up many years ago. I believe from my memory, which doesn’t mean too much these days, that the small sign has been put up in the last 3 or 4 years. I don’t know where the board wants to go with this.

President Thompson stated, do you know who owns the land that these signs are on.

Director Weaver stated, it was Calvin Cox who owns it. He personally told me that he put the first sign up.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m just wondering if this is not opening a can of worms. What kind of records do we have on other signs? I’m wondering if we shouldn’t do a survey listing or send out letters trying to update bringing into compliance. If we don’t know what is there now, how can we say what is the new one, what is the violation, what has been there, what has been grandfathered.

Director Weaver stated, that is why I’m asking the board because it is a very touchy situation.

Attorney Altman stated, it is also an extra far amount of work that you don’t necessarily have the staff to handle.

Director Weaver stated, it is an extreme amount of work.

Carol Stradling stated, maybe what we can do is let that one go and when you are out with your digital camera make sure that the date stamp is one. Then we can start having a record of what is there now. If we go after one…….

Attorney Altman stated, you better make sure you have the right trail.

Director Weaver stated, the only flaw that I see with that, in this situation Mr. Ryan brought this to our attention that he didn’t believe that the signs were legal.

Carol Stradling asked, is the burden of proof on Dekker/Rollheiser or us?

Attorney Altman stated, if it is a violation, we have to prove it.

Carol Stradling stated, so they don’t have to prove that they had a permit when they put it in.

Attorney Altman stated, we should prove our case.

Carol Stradling stated, they don’t have to, we have to.

Attorney Altman stated, that is correct. We have a good one on the second sign.

Carol Stradling asked, but other than the letter from Mr. Cox, do we have any other proof.

Director Weaver stated, that is on the newer sign that he is dating between 1989 – 1993. No, there is not much proof either way.

Carol Stradling stated, that is a 4-year span.

Director Weaver stated, I could not prove that is not true.

Carol Stradling stated, you could not prove that it is true or not true. It is just a statement of a 4-year span. How else can you get it?

Director Weaver stated, with the Assessor not having anything, I don’t know of any way.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know either. The township trustee might.

Director Weaver stated, that is whom I went to. Judy does the accessing for them.

Attorney Altman stated, you are probably “sol”.

David Scott asked, do we have anything in place that would take care of the problem in the future?

Carol Stradling stated, I still think she needs to go with the dated digital photos.

Director Weaver stated, the only thing I know to do is what Carol suggested and go around the county and taking pictures of all of the existing signs. I do not know any other way. Signs are so difficult to track because you don’t know if it is the owner that got the permit or if it is the owner of the sign that got the permit. It is very difficult to track.

Carol Stradling stated and probably nobody got a permit for the sign. They are just there.

Director Weaver stated, I’m almost sure neither one of these had a permit.

Attorney Altman stated, I would believe that all right.

David Scott stated, even today if someone puts a sign up, they should get a permit, but they may not. You just have to catch them at it.

Director Weaver stated, now the first two I mentioned to you, I know they have went in, in the last year. I have photos and they both are going to be a battle.

David Scott asked, how do other counties handle this.

Director Weaver stated, I have no idea.

Attorney Altman stated, I do know that … regulates it pretty tightly. The even made it so you could not put the little sign out there to come into your truck path.

There is a discussion among the board members.

Carol Stradling stated, I wish the city had presented something earlier on why they denied it, instead of passing a new ordinance. When I read that new ordinance, you know well. Without anything from the city on why they denied it.

Director Weaver stated, they denied based on their new ordinance.

President Thompson stated, after the fact.

David Scott stated, the only thing you can do is try to police it as you go and if you catch somebody, however, minor it is, it is going to be a $500 fine goes in to effect. Even those you are not going to catch all of them. Maybe like you said earlier, maybe fines should be posted in the paper. Maybe people will realize, if you don’t get a permit for what ever, you are going to get fined. Other than a lady coming in here not knowing what is going on.

President Thompson stated, we use to have somebody from the paper attend the meetings. They haven’t done it for along time.

David Scott stated, we just need more press on this. We need to start setting examples.

Carol Stradling stated, since we do not have any proof we need to let it go. We need to start collecting proof and keep it on record.

Director Weaver stated, I have proof on two of these. I don’t have any proof on the ones on Cox’s property.

Attorney Altman stated, write them up Diann.

Director Weaver stated, so we will let Cox’s slid.

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to send a response to Mr. Ryan or just let it go. Do they know it is in question?

Director Weaver stated, well he did know that we sent out a violation letter to Mr. Rollheiser. We did mention that during his hearing.

President Thompson asked, what do you want to do?

Carol Stradling stated, part of me says professionally he should be notified that we were not able to formulate some substantial proof that they were in violation. Part of me feels that this will stir things up.

Attorney Altman stated, if you do not have the proof leave it alone.

David Scott asked, I have a question about mobile homes. Why is the age on those ages and not as numbered years.

Director Weaver stated, it is an age 1981 that is when HUD restrictions changed. That is where the 1981 came from. They updated the restrictions then.

Attorney Altman stated, it is a definite safety thing. They upgraded them so they are safer. The undated the wiring.

David Scott stated, I have a real hard time voting for a 1974 mobile home, even with an inspection. I just think about it moving in next to me and I realize everyone needs a place to live.

Director Weaver stated, I will tell you what, that is a very good example because we had one last year that we approved for a special exception and they pulled it in to the property. You would not believe the phone calls we got. It was so bad the neighbor’s were so opposed to the people wind up pulled it out and pulled a new sectional in.

David Scott stated, we have a mobile home park in Monon and they will not allow them in there that old.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have a problem updating that date.

Director Weaver stated, the thing is with these mobile homes we don’t’ notify any of the adjacent property owners because there are no adjacent property owners. Supposedly the home is not going to. We don’t know where the home is going at the time. The people don’t know what is going on until the home is there.

David Scott stated, sometimes I don’t know if you are doing them a favor by letting them move into some of these old junky homes.

David Stimmel asked, so Diann what you are saying we are doing exceptions?

Director Weaver stated, it is called a special exception. Jerry you could better answer that better than I can.

David Stimmel stated, what I’m saying, if you are going for a zoning variance there is a sign out front stating when the meeting is, etcetera. Is the same kind of sign used for notification?

Director Weaver stated, no because the simple fact is a lot of times these mobile homes are not in White County when this goes on. It doesn’t do any good to put a sign up when they are not even in the county.

David Stimmel asked, you could not put the sign up where it is going to go.

President Thompson stated, they are suppose to have that before they enter the county.

Director Weaver stated, and it has nothing to do with the property of where it is going to be located.

David Stimmel stated, it just seems like a loophole, if you forgive me. I mean if I was property and I did not know that was going to go on and that son of a gun showed up, I would be like the other people.

David Stimmel stated, I hate to be a pain, but I keep hearing two things on this appeal. These violations and the notices from the City are these setback violations and the access number sign and the site plan and etcetera. These are violations of the City ordinance or a violation of zoning ordinance of White County.

Director Weaver stated, some of them are zoning violations. I think it states in there.

David Scott stated, and we had the ordinance before they.

Gary Barbour stated, yes

Director Weaver stated, we did.

David Stimmel stated, I’m trying to clarify his point.

Director Weaver stated, we had ours in place, but the city did not have theirs in place.

David Stimmel stated, all right that is what I’m trying to understand. I just want to make sure I have my dates right.

David Scott stated, I was curious about that my self.

Attorney Altman stated, and what I was pointing out about our ordinance talks about right away. 10 feet back from the right away. That was enforced at the time they applied.

David Stimmel stated, they have not offered to revise their site plan.

Attorney Altman stated, what we probably owe them is a denial letter. Not you guys, the department owes them a letter.

David Scott stated, that is the only thing that is in violation of you didn’t get the denial out in 3 days or what ever it was.

David Stimmel stated, so does the ordinance need to be changed because he if he is siting the ordinance and it says 3 days, then something needs to happen or something needs to be changed.

Director Weaver stated, when the building commissioner adopted his ordinance, it stated in his ordinance that any conflicting ordinance was null and void.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

President Thompson made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary


Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission