Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 17, 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, and David Stimmel. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: James Wenrick, Deon Miller, Keith Fafarman, Emery N. Rasmussen, Jennifer Pickering, James M. Reynolds Jr., Bill Smith, Ray Hardesty, Tamera Hardesty, Ewing S. Gainer, Brandon Miller, Jeff Walker, John Hawkins, Dow Dillinger, Dave Pavy, Darrell Powers, Brett Powers, Ray Buchler, Holly Przyborski, Rick Przyborski, Richard Landrum, Wendy Landrum, Doug Dowling, James D Mann, Kim Ward, Jim Ward, Mike Neal, Dan Neal, Merle Peterson, Phil Lucacini, George Loy, and Mike Collins

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Carol Stradling and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the December 3, 2002 meeting. David Stimmel seconded and carried unanimously. Carol Stradling made a motion to table the February 20 and March 20, 2003 minutes. Gary Barbour seconded the motion and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****


#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 February 20, 2003 meeting.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I see that both parties are represented. We also received Findings of the Fact from the City of Monticello. Documentation from the Area Plan Commission, and Toledo, Peoria, and Western Railway Corp. What is our next procedure here Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, the post…. This is the case is we received evidence the last time from


The applicant and the City of Monticello and from the Department here. All sides have rested and that this is before us for determination and vote. We asked for and received as you just said the proposed Findings of Fact and conclusion of law and orders from both the City of Monticello and the Applicants. We are really here this evening to make a decision to make the Findings of Fact and enter a judgement of this body.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there room for discussion?

Attorney Altman stated, you could do that if you choose or you can just proceed with the determination. That is something this board can decide or not. What you need to do and asked them if that is okay.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, Dave, or Gary?

David Stimmel asked, Diann is it appropriate to ask the respondents if they have any thing else to add to the findings of fact?

Attorney Altman stated, it really isn’t in that posture.

David Stimmel stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, it really isn’t in that posture. The posture is meaning to accept evidence of any sorts. You can accept oral argument if you wish to do so from them. You can get that. It is in that posture. If you are going to get more evidence or what I’m really saying, you have to tell the parties you want more evidence and give them notice tonight that the next meeting you would do that. Then it would be fair and they got the notice that you are going to do that. I’m not recommending that. I’m saying if you did want more then that is what you should do. Make a motion to accept more evidence, tell the parties you want to do that, and tell them it would be at the next meeting or at an agreeable time. Something additional I prepared a finding of fact for the City and the applicant and for the boards consideration. Just very briefly relative to the law in this matter, no body asked for specific findings of fact or conclusions of law before this matter was presented at the appropriate, therefore I prepared a very simple, but appropriate I believe determination as to whether the applicant has or hasn’t meet their burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence, whether they are or aren’t entitled to the remedies that they have asked for and an order granting that or denying that or I have a number 3 as other for the board to decide. This extended to you as an assistant, if you decide that you want to use it. You can do that, it is sort of like a ballot form and what the applicants gave us is exactly what I asked for. It is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. If you decide that you want to do more, than use what I just gave you this evening as your ballot, then I would suggest what you do with applicants and the City’s Findings of Fact go through each of them and each of you do this and basically agree or disagree with all of them. Then it just like any other election. If I total them up and we get 3 or you that agree to the Findings of Fact it is there, if you don’t then it isn’t a Findings of Fact. We can go through and take care of that. We don’t have these very often, so I’m trying to at least tell you how to proceed now if you are just going to go ahead and vote. Are there any questions from the Board? Did I make it clear as mud?

David Stimmel stated, so what you are saying we are going to take each findings of fact Jerry from each respondent.

Attorney Altman stated, if you wish to do so. Certainly I see nothing inappropriate about doing that. This is what the applicants have suggested what is important and you should make a determination on. What you do is you find findings of fact as I have said before and then from the facts that you say are so then you enter your determination to what ought to happen. Then from that you have a decision. It’s like your other ballots that you have. You either say yes to this issue or no to that issue, yes or no and then when you are done I count them up and if you have 3 for it. It is done, if you don’t have 3 it’s not done.

David Stimmel asked, this is the document that you are talking about.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

They are looking over the documents at this time.

Attorney Altman stated, this is the Findings of Fact that the City of Monticello did. 1. You look at that one like you would the one I have here. My number 1. I got it so it has or has not. Here you would say yes or no on each one of them. You go through and when you get done with that we will try to figure out what your decision was.

David Stimmel asked, or we could you this one?

Attorney Altman stated, anyone of the 3 three (quote) ballots that you have. Does the rest of the board understand what I’m saying or suggesting? Here is the City’s Findings of Fact. You could just as easily taken the same thing, and it is very similar that the applicant had the first one. You could say yes it is so, or not it isn’t so. If you say yes it is and 3 of you say yes it is, it is determined to be a Findings of Fact.

Gary Barbour asked, and that is based on which of these?

Attorney Altman stated, none of those necessarily. These three all stand alone.

Gary Barbour stated, but you said we could use these as a ballot.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you can use them as a ballot. Obviously this is not set up as a ballot. I don’t know how else you are going to determine it. If you use this or if you agree with this unless you agree with all of it or not to show favorites, but the City of Monticello, if you don’t agree with all of it.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so if we were to do that with TPW and then we are looking at voting on 23 different Findings of Fact.

Attorney Altman stated, that is right.

David Stimmel stated, I would prefer to use our Findings of Fact to vote for this thing.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we are not voting as we normally would on a variance to say it’s not a variance. What we are voting on is to determine that the City of Monticello acted appropriately in their denial of approving of this sign at that location.

Attorney Altman stated, and that the White County Area Plan acted correctly or incorrectly in denying in their actions in this matter.

George Loy stated, Carol, if I may I would take issue if what you just said. Jerry if I may I think the issue is whether or not the White County Area Plan Commission acted appropriately in denying the permit.

Attorney Altman stated, the applicant as said both.

George Loy stated, correct, but…

Attorney Altman stated, I could understand that you disagree with that, but the applicant said both, so I’m not trying to invade the providence of the Findings of Fact here. I’m not trying too…..

George Loy stated, but this body only determines appeals from the Area Plan Commission, not the City Council or the County Council.

Attorney Altman stated, and that is not what they are trying to do.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, to me there are several issues here. 1. Should that sign be there, but that is not what we are voting on. 2. Whether or not the City acted appropriately and that is what we are voting on. So what we are voting on tonight is whether or not the White County Area Plan Commission office responded appropriately by denying the application by their actions and by the evidence submitted form both parties. Is that..

George Loy stated, I would agree with that.

Attorney Altman stated, whether the applicant has proven that. There could be evidence that might prove that, but it wasn’t presented or there could be plenty of evidence presented and you agree with that.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I have one question for Diann. I know that it has been standard operating procedure that we present this to the City Council.

Attorney Altman stated, we could not get into that. That is evidence that is new facts. In other words you either open it up completely or you don’t open it up completely.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, we have the evidence and the record that was presented at the last hearing and that is what you are deciding is based on.

David Stimmel asked, Jerry would you explain a little bit more about this Findings of Fact. This single page because as I read this what it tells me that we are basically judging TPW and Right Angle media to work with the City of Monticello and the White County Area Plan Commission to come up with a solution on their own. Is that the correct interpretation?

Attorney Altman stated, no, that is just saying did they or did they voluntary consent to agree to do what they did with the City of Monticello and the White County Area Plan Commission. That is an issue they’re last hearing and all I’m saying is you need to decide whether they did so voluntarily or not. I’m not trying to go there, it is a matter.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, do I have a motion.

David Stimmel stated, I think we should use this ballot.

David Scott stated, I second the motion.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, all in favor.

Everyone replied aye.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are we ready to vote?

David Stimmel stated, I believe so.

Attorney Altman stated, if you don’t want to vote at this time and you want 5 members, now is the time to ask us to postpone this evenings vote. Hearing no objection we will proceed to vote.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That objectors were present at the meeting

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

3. That the request is for Findings of Fact and Order.

4. (1) That applicant has or has not met their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Vote: 4 has not, 0 has.

5. (2) That the applicant is or is not entitled to the relief prayed or requested in its above said petition filed in this matter. Vote: 4 is not 0 is.

6. (3) That the applicant is or is not entitled to any relief as a consequence of the

facts presented in this matter to this board. Vote 4 is not, 0 is.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Board that judgement shall be and the same is hereby entered upon each of the above and foregoing findings and the parties are each hereby ordered and directed to carry out the provisions of this order.

(1) That applicant shall receive or shall not receive all relief as requested in the above said petition. Vote 4 shall not 0 shall.

(2) Shall receive nothing.

(3) Other.

The Findings of Fact and Order was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 0 for and 4 against.

****

#2186 Douglas & Kelly Dowling; The property is located on 0.168 of an acre, North of Monticello at 5196 E. Wenz Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 4’ front setback variance to build an unroofed

deck on the front of the existing home.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing the Dowlings?

Would you care to identify yourself?

Doug Dowling stated, I’m Doug Dowling. I guess the only question I have is that this is a 4’ setback, if you look at the drawing it goes from about 5’ to 8’.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, would you mind stepping up to the microphone? I’m having a hard time hearing this evening.

Doug Dowling stated, on your agenda it says it is a 4’ setback, but on the drawing the deck is going to have to angle and it goes from about 5’ to 8’. I don’t know if that all needs to be in there or not?

Director Weaver stated, the deck is required to be 4’ off the property line and since you are going right to the property line we are asking for a 4’ setback variance.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we also have a letter from SFLECC granting the variance to bring the deck to our property but encroach. You understand that you can not go on to the SFLECC property?

Doug Dowling stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, the board have any questions?

Director Weaver stated, you do have pictures, and if you look at the pictures I tried to show that there is quit a bit of yard between his home and the water. Majority of it being owned by SFLECC.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does anyone in the audience have anything to add to this? Any other correspondence?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President asked, are we ready to vote or do you need more time?

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 4’ front setback variance to build an unroofed

deck on the front of the existing home.

That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a ½ inch iron pipe on the Northwest corner of Lot #7 in Wenz Subdivision; thence North 54 Degrees 28 Minutes 44 Seconds West (bearings based on Wenz Subdivision) 119.07 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning; thence South 64 Degrees 56 Minutes 09 Seconds West 126.52 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 54 Degrees 13 Minutes 30 Seconds West 57.22 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 53 Degrees 34 Minutes 00 Seconds East 73.79 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 22 Degrees 06 Minutes 56 Seconds East 12.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 67 Degrees 53 Minutes, 04 Seconds East 72.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 37 Degrees, 30 Minutes, 12 Seconds East 50.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.168 of an acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5196 E. Wenz 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 10.10of 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

#2187 Richard L. & Wendy L. Landrum; The property is located on Lot #19 in Bay Ridge Subdivision, in the City of Monticello at 607 Terry-Ho Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 18’ front setback variance to build an addition

onto the existing home and a 2’ rear setback variance to bring the

existing home into compliance.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing the Landrum’s?

Richard Landrum stated, I’m Richard Landrum.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, would you mind stepping up to the microphone? Is there any additional information that you would care to present to the board this evening?

Richard Landrum stated, no, nothing has changed. Everything is the same as to what we turned in last month.

Attorney Altman asked, first addition is single story?

Richard Landrum stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, fits in with the guidelines of the present dwelling.

Richard Landrum stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, it would be similar construction type.

Richard Landrum stated, yes, it would match the neighborhood.

Attorney Altman asked, it would match the present house?

Richard Landrum stated, yes it will match the current house.

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

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does anyone in the audience or the board?

Are we ready to vote?

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 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 18’ front setback variance to build an addition

onto the existing home and a 2’ rear setback variance to bring the

existing home into compliance.

Lot 19 in Bay Ridge Subdivision in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 607 Terry-Ho 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 3 affirmative and 1 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, make sure you get your building permit.


****

#2188 Robert D. Pavy, Owner; L. Dowal Dellinger, Applicant: The property is located on 84 acres except 4.15 acres, North of County Road 225 North directly North and West of 3148 N. 400 E.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a Special Exception to enlarge and bring the

existing campground into compliance.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Dow Dellinger stated, good evening Ladies and Gentleman. I’m Dow Dellinger and I’m here with the owner Dave Pavy. We are here with the application this evening as far as the status goes I will bring you up to speed a little bit. We had several meetings with property owners and surrounding area initially we had applied to rezone the entire back 40 acres so we could place a mobile home park on that area. After meeting with the neighborhood our decision is to go forward with the campground and the neighbors seem that the campground is acceptable. The mobile homes were not acceptable. So at this point in time what we are trying to do is work with some drainage and get something accomplished with the sewer board to provide sewer and drainage to the campground area. We want special use, it is our feeling that the entire front half approximately being used for a campground off and on for years, and probably not in proper zoning. There is 6 acres out in front, there is an R-4 and we were approved B-2 subject to approval tonight with. The rest of the property is A-1 both of which would handle the special use of the campground both are acceptable for the special use of a campground under the zoning ordinance. We are asking for that to happen this evening. Our intentions are basically to bring the property into compliance and if we need additional expansion in the back either be for camping or with drainage or the sewer system, we will be able to do so. Obviously with the proper building permits. That is the intentions for special use and good faith sign with the neighborhood we want to change the zoning so there wouldn’t be mobile homes placed in the front. Currently there is a place in front the 6 acres that could be used for the mobile homes. We do not want to do that. We want to put that in the campground use. That is why we are here this evening, and hopefully you will agree we should bring it into compliance. We can use the property as a campground. It has been used a campground for so many years.

David Stimmel asked, Dow are there any covenants that were in what your are doing with the people who will be using the campground that would prevent them from leaving a trailer for a period of time, like not to exceed 60 or 90 days or something like that. In other words if someone brought one in and put a camper up and left it for 18 months.

Dow Dellinger stated, right, and there wouldn’t be an ordinance per sa or nothing that is attached with the land up there. It is going to be a rental property none of the tenants are going to rent the lot for any more than annual bases. Under the Indiana Law if anyone abandons a trailer, we can pursue to remove that trailer. Honestly these guys, part of what they are talking about is having some trailers that they would keep up and possibly sell there a seasonal type trailer that they might rent out part of the trailers, a few there they are trying to keep it a higher scale. If any of them would be seasonal they would be at a higher scale.

David Stimmel asked, so there would be some permanent trailers there?

Dow Dellinger stated, there would not be any permanent modular. There will be some seasonal there, but not trailers that would be there for a long period of time. One of the intentions with these guys that they have worked an agreement with some campers to buy new campers to use and turn those over every year and sell off a trailer that would basically 3 years old each and try to turn those over each year a little bit, so they will try to keep it a cleaner area. The neighbors have seen they have done a lot of clean up already. We are continuing to do that, we are currently working with the sewer district to try to line up a suitable situation with sewer with that area as well, even though it is only going to be used for a 4-month period. With the current plumbing situation that they have, they can’t use it for any more than a 4 month period, it can’t run year around because the water lines are only like 4” deep through the park. Those get blown out each year. There can not be any year round camping in that area. There will not be any trailers there for a long period of time.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, do you have any roads or improvements in line?

Dow Delllinger stated, they have improved the road that is there now. There are no plans right now to expand the numbers of site that are there. As a matter of fact we are trying to use all of the sites that are there. They have updated the electrical, some of the water service that is out there, drainage. Some of the campsites are not usable when it is wet. We are trying to work on drainage so we can use all of the sites that are currently there. As far as plans for current improvement there is know any then upgrading the road that is currently there, there is no plans at this point and time to change around the set up.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a survey done by James Milligan and I think we all had it in our packet. I believe it would identify maybe 3 buildings and the pool. I see these pictures and I’m remotely familiar with Arrowhead campground, but I picture a different campground where they have the sites marked out and electrical boxes staked out and numbers on them identified. Do you have those kinds of plans or are people just going to pull in and park.

Dow Dellinger stated, those are the plans. Believe it or not they are partially there. At least the sites are partial there. There is some gravel there that hasn’t been brought up to snuff or hasn’t been approved for a number of years. There is that type of site they are looking to go towards. The sites that are there already laid out and I think they are going to try to use what is there. Those will have to be improved because they are now over grown at this point. They have cut down trees and done a lot of work just to get it were it is open and you can see through it. They have removed trees that have been there for months, and years, so they can get access there. They are currently working on improving the roadway and the campsites. They have upgraded the electrical and some of the boxes that are there at the sites.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there any way you can provide the board with some of that documentation, so we can get some idea of the scope and scale of what you are planning on doing?

Dow Dellinger asked, would you like a map of the area that exist, is that what you are looking. As far as drainage and septic goes we are currently working with trying to come up with a design to work with the sewer district the last two weeks we are trying to work on a design he is doing a typographic map to see what we could do with a grinder pump system and trying to figure out some expenses with the grinder pump system. As far as up grading the roadways I guess.

Dave Pavy stated, my name is Dave Pavy and we have started some road improvements regarding several loads of gravel to do that which is the lime type gravel. We have replaced all of the electrical, the electrical goes to approximately 192 sites through out the park. That is in the process. We are upgrading all of that, all of the boxes have to be changed, and all the boxes in the house and pool house, and the clubhouse are being changed as we speak. Current Electric is here to give you more details on that improvement, if you would like to go through that.

Attorney Altman stated, I think they would very much like to have more details.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I’m not, you said a 192 sites that is what you currently have?

Dave Pavy stated, no there are 162 sites that have electric and those are all being changed to current codes. There we no ground faults on any of that, so there was high risk in reference to electrocutions. We are changing all of that. There were no ground faults to the swimming pool, it is being completely being redone as we speak. New electric in the swimming pool with ground faults, so there is absolutely no risk to the public when they come in to use the pool. In addition the pool, we have got the trees and when Dow was talking about tree improvements, we have gone through, pulled, and trimmed the trees up. We have cut trees that were severally slopping, so we reduced the risk of any trees falling on trailers, campers, and things like that. We are improving it in that regard. That is what I have run into so far. The entire interior portions the hot water heaters, that is all being done. Right now the interest is of course is bring the existing campground into compliance. Most of the use when Dow said the front would.. at one time the whole wooded area had been used as campground. Probably 50% of that was in the primitive sites that did not have electric and that type of thing. Right now the interest is to make sure we get all of the campground that have services on it which is a lot of sewage and electric in to compliance and meet all of the codes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it sounds like you are doing a lot of work, they are out of compliance now Diann?

Director Weaver stated, it is considered a grandfather use.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, okay, so it is when you expand that you need to acquire a special exception.

Dave Pavy stated, well for an example in the back of the property you can see that it is right now as A-1 and has been used as an A-1. If we have to put in a pond system or something like that for sewer, that back area would probably be where we would do those types of things. Eventually we might put some sites around the pond. At this point I’m just not sure what I intend to do. Coming into Labor Day and trying to get the exception is certainly difficult for me, I’m sure to do it that way. Then we felt if we did it this way then we could make the right decisions to make sure the campground in the proper way.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the things that they are doing Diann, they’re maintaining what they already have in operations, so that does not affect whether or not this is approved.

Director Weaver stated, that is right.

Dave Pavy stated, one of the issues we have ran into for example the pool house is going to need replaced in a year or so. According to present law as soon as I get the pool house torn down, then I have to come back to the zoning board to get it approved to bring it back up, so those are the types of things I would be dealing with if I didn’t change the zoning at present.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, Board we do have a letter in among the pictures. It is from Nancy K. Seymour, I will go ahead and read this into the record. Dear White County Area Plan, thank you for sending notification of the special exception located North of Co. Rd 225 N directly North and West of 3148 N 400 E, owner Robert D Pavy. I would like to express concern as a farmer, this is a farm area and should be treated as such. The farmers use roads for their grains, chemicals, and equipment the traffic would possibly hazardous and a nuisance for farm equipment. The chemicals used in farming would not be pleasant for the campers. I know you will examine all of the pros and cons and do what is best for the areas. Thank you Nancy Sickler Seymour. I would like to see 162 sites as extensive, in my way of thinking. I don’t think it is a small operation. It doesn’t sound like Mr. Pavy is approaching it from a small operation and you are looking at even making it more than that. Correct?

Dave Pavy stated, correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I would like to see some sort of comprehensive plan type, so we know… I know you don’t have specifics yet with topography and that kind of thing. I’d like to know how many sites you are looking at and before we just approve this whole acreage for a campground. I don’t know what the board’s feelings are on this, but.

Attorney Altman stated, make a motion, that is the best way to get things moving on it.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, I could do that setting in this chair?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I would like to table this and have the applicant present some, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a survey plan. I’d like it reasonably to scale so we can identify what sites you have, where they are now, where that pond might be, if you have major improvements you are going to have to plan for roads eventually and how is that going to access the County road system. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable addressing those issues. If we could table it and get a more detailed plan or proposal in different phases if you need to do it that way.

Dow Dellinger stated, just so I’m clear these guys are just talking currently just using the sites that are there.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, you don’t need a special exception.

Dow Dellinger stated, correct, the concerns are we have buildings that are going to be repaired in the next probably years time and will have to have special exception, we will have to come back and asked for permission to replace a new building with a business that is already there. I think these guys want, you don’t have a problem coming up with a plat showing what is out there now and what could possibly be there. It would be pure speculation because at this point in time there is no intentions of expanding the campground. We can show you a master plan, but that may never come to…. Right now the current intentions is to use the sites that are located and determine and the pond is probably the only thing that would happen with in the next 6 months to a years time because of drainage, other than that.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I guess then maybe we are a little premature.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what we are really saying is best thing is get us that, the best that you can, and then if you need to later on to deviate that, you can come in for approval on that. That would be the best. That is kind of what you are saying.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, that is kind of what I’m saying. The way you are operating now you don’t need a variance for.

Dave Pavy stated, right, but also there is 6 acres that is zoned for mobile homes that is up against 400. That is zoned for mobile homes.

Dow Dellinger stated, and it has been approved to change that to a B-2 status with a special use, but only subject to approval by this board for special use.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so if that is what you a looking at doing with that property then I would like to see a plan before we approve that use for that property, or that special exception.

Dave Pavy stated, part of the rezone is to rezone it to campground. To take it from a mobile home zoning where it is presently to campground, so there would be no risk with mobile homes up against the road. That was one of the concerns by the neighbors as well.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’ hesitate to approve the special exception to enlarge a campground when I don’t know what the plans are for the campground other than up grading what you are currently using which you don’t need a variance for. Without further information I’m hesitate to address this issue. I would move that you table this, if you want to come up with some more plans to present, then we can deal with that, but at this point I’m not sure I have enough information to vote on the expanded use that you are looking at.

Attorney Altman stated, I believe he said sure, you want to table this and present that.

Dave Pavy stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question this will not effect the impending approval of their rezoning. We can hold this over until the next month to take to the commissioners.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, certainly can.

Dow Dellinger stated, we don’t want to change the zoning. I believe we will want to put modulers up there if we don’t get the approval.

Attorney Altman stated, you may or you may not, but it doesn’t need to be presented next Monday.

Dow Dellinger stated, that is what I’m saying. I don’t want it presented next Monday.

Director Weaver stated, we will hold off until next month’s meetings.

Attorney Altman stated, there are people here today, so that you understand what we are doing. We are tabling this until the next meeting. That is May 15 right here at 7:30. You have the benefit of being number 1 on the agenda. They are going to bring back what they are asking for as a proposal or a plan. You can check with Diann earlier you can get a hold of a copy also. Okay folks that way you can have a copy and study it before the meeting.

David Stimmel stated, shouldn’t we request that in writing in the sense so they know exactly what they need to bring back, so there no ambiguity what is required when they get here or some other unnecessary delay.

Dave Pavy stated, what I’m assuming is if there is going to be any expansion that it would be for example at least sometype of a plat that would show expansion design and maybe in that plat would be a lake if that is what the intent is or what ever.

Attorney Altman stated, if you are going to have a pond in there, you at least give the outside specifications of what you need there and where it will be roughly speaking. That is to scale like every thing else.

Dow Dellinger stated, I want to make sure that board clear that we don’t know what you pen to exactly what we are talking about . We want have any engineering done in a month.

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t want engineering.

Dow Dellinger stated, I’m saying we won’t have a scale drawing how big the pond is going to be with the drainage.

David Stimmel stated, my understanding is you are asking for is a conceptual drawing.

Vice President stated, what is your reason for this property. You are going to come up with some things. If you got, where do people take a shower, where do they go to the bathroom, how do they get their water, what do they do with their trash, are there going to be fire pits, and roads. If you are building one portion and then going to build another or how are you going to connect them? How is traffic going to come in and out and how are you if an ambulance needs to get back there? How does the ambulance get back there, that kind of thing.

Attorney Altman stated, the conceptual drawing is exactly what we are looking for.

David Stimmel stated, also a concern of not wasting anybody’s time. If we are going to ask them to bring something back we need to be very specific about it and not a to handled brush or we are going to end up with another situation of where we have somebody who has another question and then they are going back to the drawing board for another month waiting for more approvals. I think we owe it to them to write something up specifically what you are requesting.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I guess my intent is how are you going to handle the numbers that you are going to have there or could have there. If you want to break it down in phases, what are you planning on doing in the next couple of years? That is the special exception is good forever.

Attorney Altman stated, you must substantial commence it within one year.

Dave Pavy stated, one of the things that has come up and I don’t mean to continue to drag this out, but one of the issues has been the sewer situation that is going on. It has not addressed campground concerns. As you are aware a private sewer district is servicing Indiana Beach Campgrounds privately, which of course is a part of their own? We are not going to be able to participate in that, so we are going to have to be a part of the sewer district that is coming through which is an advantage as well because of the revenue that will be generated. We are having some problems with it because of the application of fees and things like that, that we will be responsible for at this time. The State is dealing with part of this in the State Legislator right now in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because of the sewer districts that are going in that are not treating campgrounds in a fair way. That is something that I’m going to be dealing with over the next few months and certainly some of the out comes of that are going to have an effect on me as well.

Attorney Altman stated, Dave do you feel like they are giving the specific request from us or do you want this.

David Stimmel stated, I think it needs to be some more specific. I think it is too ambiguous that way it is being stated.

Gary Barbour stated, even if it is conceptual they show it to us tomorrow. The property is zoned for A-1 and R-4, so he can carry on with business on all of it, just like what they are doing right now. Isn’t that right? Except they could put mobile homes in the front lot. So if you go business and you give them a special exception right now you kind of got the best of the evils here. Rather than have a mobile home part out front and the rest of it as campground. Because they can do the campground thing without the special exception anyway.

Dow Dellinger stated, our intentions were to show good faith and that is what we are going to do and try to do it with a campground and not a mobile home.

Gary Barbour stated, isn’t that right Dave?

Dave Pavy stated, to be honest with you I don’t know what the demand will be. That campground in the last couple of years has not been very full. Years back it has had as many 400 to 450 campers on it throughout that whole wooded area. Now I don’t where it is going to be. I don’t know where it is going.

Gary Barbour stated, as it is right now if they get the drainage taken care there is nothing say they couldn’t just make the entire acre all campground.

Dave Pavy stated, I’m certainly not going to develop it beyond its capability where I can reap the benefit on it. If I’m only going to be able to get the demand to market wise for a couple hundred campers that is as far as I can go with it. I’m certainly not going to develop it for 800 if I’m only going to have 200 in there.

Gary Barbour stated, I understand what you are talking about with the, but do we really have as the board the ability to show them what they can or can’t have for campsites within this facility.

Attorney Altman stated, yes on a special exception you can.

Gary Barbour stated, its pretty broad.

Attorney Altman stated, per a specification for a drawing.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, if we are looking at this entire acreage being put into a campground, I’d like to know how they are addressing the …..

Gary Barbour stated, it already is though.

Director Weaver stated, the back part has been farmed.

Dave Pavy stated, it’s actually 45 acres that has been used. There is 36 acres that is in bean fields and there are 45 acres that is being used as campground.

Attorney Altman stated, as to that it is and there is about 45 acres that they and they are probably grandfathered in and they can’t expand more, but they can do what they have done. If they tear something down and replace it they will have problems. They really do there is no questions about it.

Dave Pavy stated, the pond came up the first to deal with the drainage problem, but it is really possible for the to be a real nice thing to have as a recreational lake, so I have discussed that as a possibility. I think that would be a nice addition to the community. For example fixing the pool and are going to be offering that pool to the community. Which has been done in the past, so I’m putting a lot of money into that pool, it will be like a new one in the next 6 weeks. So that is going to be offered to the local residence around the pool area. I’m certainly not wouldn’t get much draw offer made from the town, but there are a lot of people and neighbors who would like to use that and their kids. I think there are a lot things that we are doing, its going to be a real plus for the community. Certainly we are bringing in a lot of revenue, and several of the high school kids to help us. We are doing a lot of things that are beneficial to the community as well. Keep in mind this is only seasonal, it will only be open through May 1 to October 31. So it is open for 6 months, as is Indiana Beach. Now Indiana Beach has 1400 sites with Jelly Stone and Indiana Beach, so as my markets going to be able to get the ones when I don’t have the actual lake access, and Indiana Beach access. I think that is going to be questionable.

Attorney Altman stated, I hear you talking and I guess I’m still worried about what Mr. Stimmel is talking about here. About a specific request. We are trying to give you that and yet I still hear you talking really general about what you are doing and I’m not sure in a month what specific you can get back to us Mr. Dellinger relative to their present use, present improvements, present services per site, and then a proposed future use of the balance of the ground.

Dow Dellinger stated, well part of the concern is the sewer district is not set a wait yet, we are still negotiating something with the rate. If the rate is high enough we won’t be able to expand at all because we won’t be able to afford to. Until we know what the sewer situation is going to be, I truthfully can’t tell you any more than we can today or a month from now.

Attorney Altman stated, so would we be better of tabling this until we know that.

Dow Dellinger stated, the problem is we are trying to go forwards with the project and I don’t want to have ours hands tied coming back and telling us, and another is we have an engineer expense in with this as well. We can say we will spend the money on the engineering for the wooded grounds and come up with a dollar number from the sewer district that is okay we may decided to expand further because it is cheaper for us right now to have the sewer district put the grinder pumps. We won’t have to pay for the pumps themselves the sewer district pays for them now. A year from now we will have to pay for that out of our own pockets. It is cheapest if we make a decision early on and a lot of that is going to be based on 2 things. 1. The amount of campers we get in, in the first season, and 2. What are we going to run with sewer expense? We will be happy to put together what ever drawings you want, until we know for certain what is going to happen to the sewer district and I would say a month, but I don’t know how, or I can’t say when the sewer district is going to turn over the rates for us.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, how soon after the sewer district determines their rates, will you be able to move?

Dave Pavy stated, as far as giving you a projected look at what we want to accomplish, probably pretty quickly. That is on hold just because it is an expense, if it is approved then I can go forward and if it is not certainly I wouldn’t, but I don’t’ want to the expense reality to it, if it is going to be something that not tolerable from the sewer district.

Dow Dellinger stated, part of it, is if the sewer district allows us not to pay for grinders that are in there, we could try to go ahead and plan for an expansion now. If they are going to make us pay for every site that we might possible have with the grinders that we have, we certainly are not going to be interested early on. Engineering is cheaper if you do it in one shot, than if we piece mail it out. It’s kind of a factor of economics, we don’t know what we may put in next year based upon expenses, and not knowing if we can proceed forwards. We don’t want to pay for engineering and then come back and the board says no we don’t want you to use the rest of the ground for a campground. I think the 44 acres where probably grandfathered in and you would have a difficult time stopping us from using it as a campground. The back acreage I think has been used for agriculture and it is up to you.

David Stimmel asked, isn’t there Dow codes already established for campgrounds as far as access and those kinds of regulations?

Dow Dellinger stated, there are State access codes we have to meet.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, maybe if you could present those, I just don’t feel comfortable giving you carte blanche to expand without anything other than this and your good will. I mean your intentions sound great. I would much rather see that then a mobile home park, but what my vision of it is what I would see a nice campground being is maybe completely different from yours or somebody else down the road.

David Stimmel asked, isn’t there a motion on the table?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, well there is a motion to table it. Do we need to table it longer or do we.

Dave Pavy stated, well we could always do that if we don’t have what you are looking for prepared by the 15th. So we could table it for a months. At least we could give you a preliminary what we are trying to accomplish.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, they could table this for 3 months correct. The board can table it as often as we need to. They wouldn’t have to reapply.

Attorney Altman stated, that is right. That motion to table and the applicant stated that is favorable. What is the pleasure of the board?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, there is no second.

Gary Barbour asked, have we given them enough direct answers, I guess that is what the questions is.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know if they are in the position to give us direct information back. That is the real problem.

Gary Barbour stated, that was my concern also. It is going to have to be real vague because until they know what they are going to be able to afford one and two it is just like any business plan what are we going to allow them to do. It is pretty much a guess on their part.

Attorney Altman stated, they will directly beyond a guess. Right now they don’t know where they want to go. I would suggest, I think they know we at least want to get perimeters of what they have and what they are serving now and a proposal of what they….

David Stimmel stated, I don’t think they know that.

Attorney Altman stated, that maybe and I agree. I’m just talking about generally they know what they have done and they know what their services are to what sites they have out there. They can get that for us, and then they could make a proposal that they intend to either duplicate that or this many sites or they are going to serve this many sites to say without any services to them. They can get without spending a lot of many. At least an idea of how many yogi sites they are going to have. All of the hook ups and everything and how many will be out in the wild hook ups.

Gary Barbour asked, is it clear as mud to you, do you know what you need?

Dave Pavy stated, yes I do.

Gary Barbour stated, and you know also right?

Dow Dellinger stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m going to second the motion to table it.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, okay motion and second all in favor state aye anyone oppose?

Two board members stated aye and 1 opposed.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I’m in favor of the motion, so that is 3 to 1 and we will table this until the next meeting and hopefully we will have some more.

****

#2189 Emery N. Rasmussen Jr. & Loretta Rasmussen; The property is located on Lot 47 in H.P. Bennett’s Addition in the City of Monticello at 701 S. Bluff Street

Violation: None.
Request: They are requesting an 8’ front setback and a 4’ height variance to

build a detached garage. The existing detached garage will be removed.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing the Rasmussen’s.

Do you have anything else to add to this?

Emery Rasmussen stated, no I don’t have anything else to add, I just want to get rid of that eye sore and build a new garage. I consider it an eye sore.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we do have pictures. Does anyone in the audience have anything to say about this variance? Any correspondence?

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

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Rasmussan I have a schematic of the garage you are putting up. Single story two-car garage.

Director Weaver stated, single story with a loft.

Emery Rasmussen stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I thought it was going to have a loft. Okay.

Emery Rasmussen stated, we talked about the height variance because when Wrede’s do the excavating and the block work and stuff I wasn’t sure exactly where they were going to finish up, so that is why, I knew it was going to be pushing the 15’.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so since you needed one for the location, might as well get it for the height at the same time, instead of having to come back again.

Emery Rasmussen stated, that is correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the doorways would be off of the alley.

Emery Rasmussen stated, no off of Cleveland St.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, off of Cleveland St.

Emery Rasmussen stated, the one that is there now is off of Cleveland St.

It’s only 7’ from the side walk to the garage lean too.

Attorney Altman asked, this would be 24’?

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions? Is the board ready to vote?

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 8’ front setback and a 4’ height variance to

build a detached garage. The existing detached garage will be removed.

Lot 47 in H.P. Bennett’s Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 701 S. Bluff 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you must get your building permit before you proceed.


****

#2190 Ray & Tamara Hardesty; The property is located Lot 7 in Davis Addition in the Town of Idaville, South of 402 S. East Cross Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 22’ front setback to place a new home on the

property.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing that request?

Ray Hardesty stated, I’m Ray Hardesty. I think I need a side variance too. There is an alley setting there. I have to be 30ft off of the alley?

Director Weaver stated, the alley side would be considered a side not a front.

Ray Hardesty stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, you are okay on that.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, good, other wise we would have to start all over again. It would have to be re-advertised, and you are.

Ray Hardesty stated, I’m Ray Hardesty.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, do you have anything else to add to this?

Ray Hardesty stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, single story structure?

Ray Hardesty stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, how many bedrooms?

Ray Hardesty stated, 3-bedroom modular, and the sewer is already there. It has a grinder pump and in ground pool and stuff. We live in Lafayette and the insurance company wants us to have something there with someone living there. We are going to let my nephew rent it off of us. It is a 2000 Double wide, I have already bought it.

Attorney Altman stated, so it will be hooked up to a sewer system.

Ray Hardesty stated, yes the grinder pumps are indicated on the map.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the audience?

Director Weaver stated, I have a question. Did you build the garage on the property?

Ray Hardesty stated, it has been there a long time. I have owned the property for a long time.

Attorney Altman asked, how long?

Ray Hardesty stated, 25 years.

Director Weaver stated, the reason I’m asking this question, on the Assessor’s record they show the garage was built in 1980, but I was not able to find a building permit for that garage. That is why I asked if he owned it at the time the garage was built. Do you know if there was a permit issued for that garage?

Ray Hardesty stated, I’m not sure, I don’t remember.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is this the garage or is that the garage?

Director Weaver stated, that is the garage. I don’t think it shows the shed.

Ray Hardesty stated, the shed is not mine.

They are looking at the survey at this time to determine what shed is his.

Director Weaver stated, we are talking about this shed.

Ray Hardesty stated, I tore that shed down already.

Director Weaver asked, when did you tear it down?

Ray Hardesty stated, over the weekend.

Director Weaver stated, okay because I was just there.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, was there a house there at point in time.

Ray Hardesty stated, no, I lived on the front lot. I own from one street back and I sold the front piece.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, what I’m hearing Diann say is that the deck for the pool crosses the lot line.

Ray Hardesty stated, it’s the fence, isn’t it.

Director Weaver asked, is it only fencing, no decking?

Ray Hardesty stated, it’s just the fencing.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, if it were to cross and we approve this then that would join lot 7 and…

Director Weaver stated, they don’t own that lot. That is why I was pointing that out to you.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you don’t own lot 8, but you have a bathhouse.

Ray Hardesty stated, it is just a shed setting there and what. I just rent that property and I take care of it. They are my neighbors and he was going to sell me that piece of property, but it is tied up in a loan or something.

Director Weaver asked, so this is just privacy fence?

Ray Hardesty stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I miss understood you when you were in the office.

Ray Hardesty stated, I have known him and taken care of the property for years. He owns from one street to the other too. He uses the front house on Main St. he rents that. He wanted $8500 for that lot, I told him I would pay that and he could not come up with the title.

Attorney Altman stated, so we are not approving a fence. It’s just that you have it across the neighbor’s property.

Ray Hardesty is showing Attorney Altman the property line on the survey.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at the survey that says East Street. Which one is East street. East Street has a 50’ right away and looking at the picture the road is not 50’, so when you place that.

Ray Hardesty stated, he has the flags out there.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the flag is your property not the position of the modular.

Ray Hardesty stated, no, it is on my property.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, the building Inspector will be out there when they set the foundation?

Director Weaver stated, he would be out there before they pour the footers.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, okay, to make sure its not poured to close to the roadway.

Director Weaver stated, he is to be out there before the footers are poured.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, any questions, or comments from the audience? Any questions, or comments from the board. Are we ready to vote?

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 to place a new home on the

property.

Lot 7 in Davis Addition to Idaville, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Idaville South of 402 S. East Cross Street.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10of 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

Ray Hardesty stated, thank you.

****

#2191 Gutwein Historic Real Estate Inc., Owner; Gutwein Motors, Brad Gutwein: Applicant; The property is located on Part of Lot #26 on Market Street in the Original Plat in the Town of Monon on Market Street between 314 and 324 N. Market Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback to place a freestanding sign on

the property.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I see Phil Gutwein is here representing this request.

Phil Gutwein stated, well we already have two existing signs that we have put up on existing bases, and this new sign we would like to have in the same row, we don’t exactly want this one setting back because of the cosmetic look of the thing. Also if the sign sets back we have a building to the North and to the South, which hinders the view of the sign.

Director Weaver stated, the signs that you have now are not on the same property, correct.

Phil Gutwein stated, no they are down the street a ways. They are grandfathered in.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I thought.

Phil Gutwein stated, the new signs were put up on the existing bases, so we would like to have all of the bases in the same planes, so that it looks even. We have to keep Monon looking good you know.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, will it be at the edge of the sidewalk, I don’t see the sidewalk on the survey at all.

Phil Gutwein stated, it would be back from the side walk a little ways, it will be 2 or 3’ back or maybe 5’ back from the side walk. The buildings along there run to the edge of the property line. The side walks in that area does not run all of the way back to the property line.

David Stimmel stated, Phil are you saying you are just trying to line it up with the other signs.

Phil Gutwein stated, yes, we want them all lined up. We have one farther North, but they are on the same plane. If this one is setting back, it will look goofy.

David Stimmel stated, so basically it will be on the same plan.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, how big will the sign be?

Phil Gutwein stated, oh it is probably 6’ square. It’s a pretty good size.

Director Weaver stated, am I right that it is going to look like the new Ford Signs here in the area.

Phil Gutwein stated, Ford is in a big sign-changing mode.

Director Weaver stated, have you seen the new one out on 24?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, yes, but that is not a big top pole.

Phil Gutwein stated, yes, it is a big pole.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so this will be up in the air?

Phil Gutwein stated, oh yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it’s just like the one at Bartlett.

Phil Gutwein stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I was picturing a low one to the ground.

Phil Gutwein stated, no, it is up in the air.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does the Board wish to vote?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback to place a freestanding sign on

the property.

25 feet off the South side of Lot #26 on Market Street in the Original Plat of New Bradford, now Monon, White County Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon on Main Street between 314 and 324 N. Main Street.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10of 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

#2192 Brandon E. Miller & Deon V. Miller; The property is located on .19 of an acre, in the Town of Wolcott at 401 S. Range Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 19’ front setback variance from South Street and

a 13’ front setback variance from Range Street to bring the existing

home into compliance and to build an addition on the home. Also, a

32’ front setback variance, and a 3’ rear setback variance to bring the

existing detached garage into compliance.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Deon Miller, stated , yes, I’m Deon Miller.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything else you would care to add to what we have before us.

Deon Miller stated, no, not that I know of.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the audience? Any correspondences, does the board have any questions?

Director Weaver stated, I did have a call from the Town inquiring what they were requesting. We did send them a copy of the staff report and the survey and I have not heard anymore from them.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you are not changing anything on the existing garage? You are just squaring off the house.

Deon Miller stated, correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does everyone wish to vote.

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 19’ front setback variance from South Street and

a 13’ front setback variance from Range Street to bring the existing

home into compliance and to build an addition on the home. Also, a

32’ front setback variance, and a 3’ rear setback variance to bring the

existing detached garage into compliance.


A part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty (30), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Five (5) West, in the Town of Wolcott, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of South Street with the East line of Range Street in said Town of Wolcott; thence East on the South line of South Street One Hundred and Twenty (120) feet; thence South Sixty-six (66) feet; thence West parallel with first mentioned boundary line One Hundred and Twenty (120) feet to said East line of Range Street; thence North on said East line of Range Street Sixty-six (66) feet to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 401 S. Range 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

#2193 Merle L. & Pamela A. Peterson; The property is located on Lot 13 and Part of Lot 14 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, North of Monticello at 5007 N. Canyon Loop.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 3’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback

variance to attach the proposed home to the existing detached garage.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Merle Peterson stated, I’m Merle Peterson.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I see that you are coming to the microphone. Is there anything that you would care to add to this report?

Merle Peterson stated, not really. We are just building a new home and the garage was built in 1986. If we attach the two, I understand that I have to bring the garage into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything in the office, but when I was on site today getting pictures for tonight’s meeting, it was brought to my attention and I don’t know what the board wishes to do with this. I don’t know if there is a problem with the survey, I really can’t answer the question at this point. I have not had any time to investigate it. From the waters edge to the foundation of the home itself, appears to be approximately 31’. Now with the roof and deck on that home, it also needs to meet the front setback requirement. I don’t know if, as you see on the survey it doesn’t indicate to us where the water edge is. I have no idea if the waters edge is within the property lines or if the waters edge is outside of the property lines. I don’t know if this has any barring on anything, but I did want to bring this up because it was brought to my attention. As I said I did not have time to investigate this.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, were you aware of.

Merle Peterson stated, originally when I came in to apply for the variance it was to add the roof over the patio had a survey. I got the survey in and was told I did not need that variance, but to go ahead and get the variance to attach the garage. Called the surveyor with the very same question you have, Indiana Hydro’s property line is about 15’ out in the water from this property.

Director Weaver asked, so the water is actually on the property?

Merle Peterson stated, yes it is. It crosses just about at the gazebo.

Director Weaver stated, that is really unusual.

Merle Peterson stated, plus I have a letter from SFLECC that I declared earlier and saying that I could build a deck within the 20’ of waters edge.

Attorney Altman stated, I hear you, but that is really interesting. That is the first that I have ever heard that the water encroaches on somebody’s property.

Merle Peterson stated, had I not been advised by Area Plan that I didn’t need the variance.

Director Weaver stated, well based on your survey. So I was quite shock to see the water that close to your home.

Gary Barbour asked, doesn’t this map kind of show that same thing?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think….

Director Weaver stated, it appeared to me that it did, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think, I guess from the Boards point of view, we will grant the variance, its just I don’t know as I ever 23 where the lake encroaches on somebody’s private property. Its always the other way.

Director Weaver asked, do we have a copy of the letter from SFLECC?

Merle Peterson stated, I have a copy in my folder, if you would like a copy.

Attorney Altman stated, we would sure like to have it. I think we can proceed now.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so the garage has been there.

Merle Peterson stated, since 1986.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you are putting siding on it?

Merle Peterson stated, we are building a new home.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, and building a new home and residing the garage.

Does the Board have any questions?

Attorney Altman stated, in the building permit file, we have a copy of the letter. Let me read from the SFLECC. Dear Sirs: It is our understanding of the SFLECC that Merle Peterson desires to place a house and deck at a distance of no more than 20’ from the waters edge on his property and his number is 4007 N Canyon Loop, Monticello. SFLECC does not object to Merle Peterson placing the house and deck dated about and represents the background submitted to your commission. Respectfully, Joe Roach. I’d like to give this copy back to put in the file.

Director Weaver stated, I would get a copy for this variance file.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any more questions? Do we wish to vote?

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 3’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback

variance to attach the proposed home to the existing detached garage.


Lot 13 and Part of Lot #14 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5007 N. Canyon 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 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****


#2194 William Miller & Jennifer Pickering, Owner; James Wenrick, Applicant: The property is located on Lot 4 in Block 12 in the Original Plat, in the Town of Brookston at 407 S. Railroad Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 3’ front setback variance to build a wheelchair

ramp.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing that request?

Would you care to come forward and identify yourself?

James Wenrick stated, I’m James Wenrick.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, do you have anything to add?

James Wenrick stated, no, just that the boy can not get up the present ramp, so we have to extend it.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, any comments either for or against?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything in the office, no.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it appears from the survey that you will have 1’ between the ramp and the sidewalk.

James Wenrick stated, right.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does the board have any questions?

Are we ready to vote?

Without further discussion the board voted.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I guess I do have a question Jerry. On this if we approve it and they put in the ramp and if the next occupant does not need the ramp are they permitted to build something else to that location?

Attorney Altman stated, just the ramp.

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 3’ front setback variance to build a wheelchair ramp.

Lot 4 in Block 12 in the Original Plat of Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 407 S. Railroad Street.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10of 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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


****

#2195 Joe Dean Ward, Owner; Kim Ward, Applicant: The property is located on 1.00 acre, South of Monticello at 4012 S. Freeman Road.


Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 28’ front setback from Freeman Road and a 28’

front setback from County Road 400 South to bring the existing home

into compliance and to build an addition onto the home.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Kim Ward stated, I’m Kim Ward.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, would you come to the microphone Kim? Do you have anything to add?

Kim Ward stated, no.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the audience?

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

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does the board have any questions? Do we wish to vote?

Without 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 28’ front setback from Freeman Road and a 28’

front setback from County Road 400 South to bring the existing home

into compliance and to build an addition onto the home.

That Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 26 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 26 North, Range 3 West; thence South along the centerline of a public highway 208.71 feet; thence West 208.71 feet; thence North 208.71 feet to the centerline of a public highway; thence East along said centerline 208.71 feet to the place of beginning, containing 1.00 acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 4012 S. Freeman Road.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, you must get your building permit before you proceed.

Kim Ward stated, thank you, and I did not bring my sign back.

****


#2196 Ewing S. & Mary E. Gainer; The property is located on Lot 52 in Parse’s Forest Lodge First Addition, North of Monticello and North of Parses Road on Timberline Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 22’ front setback variance to build a detached

garage.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Ewing Gainer stated, I’m Ewing Gainer and I’d like to make just one little explanation why I’m setting the garage where I am. Diann took pictures and the small aluminum little shed there and the trees and stuff. I can’t got any further back even if I cut the trees down because there is a bank there that slopes off, so I have no room to go any further back regardless if I cut those trees down or not to put the garage. I just thought I would give you a little explanation of why I’m putting the garage there.

David Stimmel stated, the slope is back here, is that what you are saying at the back of the property line.

They are currently looking at the survey.

Ewing Gainer stated, yes, back here is the slope.

The board members and Mr. Gainer are currently looking at the survey.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the analysis indicates that this is at the end of a dead end road and the roadway is 25’ wide, so..

Ewing Gainer stated, I’m the very last house back there and there are 3 small empty lots back there. There has been nothing done to them since the Parses addition was laid out. There is nothing there but woods and that all slopes down too. So there is no way to use it. That makes that lot useless, if I can’t put that garage where I want to.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is your home across the road?

Ewing Gainer stated, yes. The home sets on lot 48.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so having 10’ between the garage and the 25’ roadway wouldn’t pose any visability problems with traffic.

Ewing Gainer stated, no and I’m going to be about 12’ off of the line where the 25’ is.

David Stimmel asked, who owns the other lot?

Ewing Gainer stated, Mr. Martin and he lives in Lafayette and has a cottage across the little bayou there through the woods from me.

Mr. Gainer is showing David Stimmel the lot location on the survey at this time.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there anymore questions? Do we wish to vote?

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 a 22’ front setback variance to build a detached

garage.

Lot 52 in Parse’s Forest Lodge First Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello and North of Parses Road on Timberline Court.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you must get your building permit before you proceed.


Ewing Gainer stated, thank you very much.


****

#2197 Buchler Contracting Inc.; The property is located on Lot 19 in Stahl’s Subdivision #1, North of Monticello located at 5919 N. Stahl Road.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 6’ height variance and a 5.5’ South side setback to

build a 2 story home on the property.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I assume you are here to represent this.

Ray Buchler stated, I’m Ray Buchler. The 6’ is a little confusing, I went over this with Diann. It is measured from the road, I talked to Jim Milligan and the height is technically from the road. We scaled the drawing and it might come out to be 33’ with the house. I might exceed the 30’ by 6 inches or by a foot. I brought this to Diann afterwards. She said well let's get the other variance. It was sort a like when you measure it from the road. It says when you read it from the curb, of course there are no curb so you measure it from the road. That is why we are filling for this and the 5.5’ setback on the south side is for my other house. We are going to be changing that by 6 inches.

Director Weaver stated, he was here last month and got his side request approved and there was a little bit of confusion to whether that was going to be enough on the one side, so he wanted to make sure that it was going to be enough and that is why we went ahead and added that on to this request for the height. We did already issue a permit for the home once he got looking over it a little closer realized the 30’ maximum height on it, contacted us immediately and that is when we filed the variance for the height, so he is trying to make sure he is in compliance with our ordinance.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we have a diagram, this is looking at it. What side of the house is this?

Ray Buchler stated, that is the South side. The East Side faces the Big Monon and the South side faces my other house.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the bump out would be the chimney.

Ray Buchler stated, that is right.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions? Are there any correspondences?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received any.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, the pictures that we are looking at Diann done?

Director Weaver stated, those are from our last meeting.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so this has been removed.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it has been removed.

Ray Buchler stated, this is a tough one to come up with. I even asked Milligan how do you come up with what part of the road that you are measuring these things. He said because the road slopes this way, technically if you go to the center of the road and what part of the house do you measure because the lot slopes this way. So have I have two different slopes and I really couldn’t get anything that is what he told me. I didn’t know there was height when I put the prints in and it was afterwards when I started scaling it.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are we ready to vote?

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 a 6’ height variance and a 5.5’ South side setback to

build a 2 story home on the property.


Lot 19 in Stahl’s Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5919 N. Stahl Road.


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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, make sure your current permit is correct now.


****

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything else that we need to talk about tonight?

Director Weaver stated, I have a couple of things real quick. We are in the process of amending our table 2 in our ordinance to where the height for the accessory buildings is going to be raised by 2’ to allow an accessory building to be 17’ basically is what this amendment is. Because of the change in the definition of how to measure the height. That is now why we are changing the table 2 and there were a couple of areas had no figures filled in and we filled those figures in. This is just to make you aware, and I apologize for not getting you copies, but I will get those copies out to you.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, those changes will they reflect the normal standards.

Director Weaver stated, that is our intent. The second thing I have is I want to try to keep the board in formed that I have had a secretary quit, Melanie is no longer with us. I just wanted to make you aware of it.

Attorney Altman stated, just to let you know it was the stress and the strain of people coming into the office objecting, the usual regiment that the office generates it was too much for an experience nice person.

Director Weaver stated, yes she had been with us for 3 years.

Attorney Altman stated, so when the counsel or the commissioners say that it’s not problem or its easy or what ever, please tell them different from that because these ladies sometimes get the real riot act. She is not the only one in there that feels that way. It is pretty tough sometimes.

Dave Scott stated, I have a question for Diann I guess. In Monon like all other small towns all the houses are 10 to 15’ off front set backs, they are in violation, but they’re grandfathered. If they want to set a portable building in the back do they have to bring their house into compliance in order to get a permit?

Director Weaver stated, no, but that building will have to be in compliance.

Dave Scott stated, okay not the house. I asked Dave that question when he was over because a fellow asked me about it. I said I don’t know, but I will ask and Dave told me that you had to bring the house into compliance before you can get a permit for the shed.

Dave Scott stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, if they are not doing anything to the home, then no.

Attorney Altman stated, if they are attaching it.

Director Weaver stated, it structure is its own structure.

David Stimmel stated, I have one thing for you Diann. I was at the March meeting or either that I owe you $50.00. I don’t know which it is. I’m not showing up in the minutes.

****

Vice President Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

David Stimmel seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission