Get Adobe Flash player

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

Visitors attending were: Anthony Gioia, Patricia Gioia, Art Anderson, Charles R. Mellon, Mark Babb, Priscilla Babb, Chris Cleefman, Otto Leis, Mike Downey, Eugene Broughton, Fred Mosher, Rosalie Geir, David Maroney, Donna S. Mayhill, Kevin M. Mayhill, and Robert Turner.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

President Jerry Thompson asked, just a question for myself are you listening?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I’m listening.

President Jerry Thompson asked, even though the variance we are about to put on the record, how much are we truly able to discuss on the matter, even though it has been tabled?

Attorney Altman stated, absolutely nothing on the merit, absolutely nothing.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so anything you feel shouldn’t be, you are going to cut us off? I have a couple of concerns myself, I know a couple of board members do as well as others. Does everyone understand that?

Art Anderson stated, my question wasn’t about that. My question was if it has been tabled twice, can the third time, can a person table that themselves and come back a fourth time?

President Jerry Thompson stated, not to be rude, but I’ve got to put that on the record.

****

#2206 Thomas R. Schilli; The property is located on 2.008 acres, West of Wolcott at 11734 W. U.S. Highway 24.

Violation: None.


Request: He is requesting a special exception to operate a recycling facility on the

property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, this has been tabled, before we address Mr. Anderson. Will this automatically be set to the August meeting Diann or like Art said. We are about to the max of this thing.

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is it is tabled until the August meeting. That was their intentions.

Attorney Altman stated, it has to be to the next meeting.

President Jerry Thompson asked, but this is going to be their last go?

Attorney Altman stated, I think so, yes.

Art Anderson asked, I would like to know? My question isn’t even about this one. You can take this one out of it. My question is, if you have tabled one of them twice, the third time it goes you said the people have the right to table it again themselves. They can table it again. Just forget this one, if somebody came twice and tabled it and are coming for their third time, can they again at the meeting to be tabled again and then come back for the fourth time? This is on any of them, just not this particular one.

Attorney Altman stated, I wouldn’t say we couldn’t, I don’t.

Art Anderson asked, I’m asking if they request, not if you request?

Attorney Altman stated, well they have requested twice.

Art Anderson stated, they have done it twice and if they come and say there are only 3 people here or say everyone are out, you never know what is going to happen.

Attorney Altman stated, that is right.

Art Anderson asked, if they were to ask to have it tabled again can they do that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I believe they can.

Art Anderson asked, okay what does the rules say, it says twice and then the third time it goes for a year, if I remember right.

President Jerry Thompson stated, while he is looking that up, I will state my concern, unless you want to go first.

David Stimmel stated, no you go ahead.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I said to you, I believe we talked on the phone, something that I’m concerned about. On the situation at Chalmers, I mean we ordered them to putt a fence on the property and they did that. I wish as I look back I wish it would have been stated in a case like that privacy fence, it is a chain link fence, it looks just as ugly as it ever has. Let me compare this to another business, I don’t know how this came about, I don’t get to the Eastside of the county often, but Willie Mote’s that is a chain link fence with some what privacy inserts in it. We need that badly, what can we do to change that. What is done there, so we don’t go through this again?

Director Weaver stated, I think the board just needs to stipulate when they make those conditions that they make it a condition that it is a privacy fence.

David Stimmel stated, I think you can be even more detailed than that Diann, from the way I read it. If you want it 50% over, you can say zero, and say this needs to block all view and you can stipulate as many items as you want on a special exception.

Director Weaver stated, this board hasn’t

David Stimmel stated, that is right.

President Jerry Thompson asked, did this go back to when President Johnson wife, isn’t that when this kicked.

Art Anderson stated, another thing you need to think about is, if you are thinking about rewriting this the area that you have that you are talking about, if it is over a certain size, it is going to go right to the top anyway, so you need to make it like a pheasant farm and then it will keep all of the trash and the rats and stuff in. When you write something like that for something that you are talking about like that one on 43, that does keep the trash from blowing over in the fields.

Several are talking at once.

Attorney Altman stated, let me talk you about the matter and I wanted to make sure that I hadn’t read it recent, but I wanted to reread it and reread the context that it comes in. We are talking about page 63 9.4002 and it says failure to appear, I think it is the one you are thinking about Art and others might be. It says when a petitioner or authorized representative as failed to appear to present his petition at either of two consecutive meetings the petition should be dismissed. The issue I see there is usually that is a failure to appear, and tabling is different than a failure to appear. That is up to the board to decide.

Art Anderson stated, but the board is the one that tabled it on this, the board voted to table this.

Director Weaver stated, no

President Jerry Thompson stated, no they didn’t appear.

Art Anderson stated, I know they didn’t appear.

Attorney Altman stated, it was tabled prior to the meeting, just like it was tonight.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it was with less of a notice than this time.

Several talking at once.

Director Weaver stated, no they came in yesterday and that is why we called you and told you that they were planning on tabling it, we did not have it in writing yet.

Art Anderson stated, but when I talked to Cindy this morning it wasn’t.

Director Weaver stated, we did not have it in writing until today.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I guess I can tell you is it is ordinary in situations like this when something is tabled in a court of law and it would not be considered fail to appear.

Art Anderson stated, laughing, well that is the same guy who can’t define his.

Attorney Altman stated, no it isn’t, I can just tell you that in courts of law you can get a table and that would not be a fail to appear. Our ordinance talks about failure to appear.

President Jerry Thompson asked, but when they called did they say they wanted it tabled until the next meeting? How was it stated?

Director Weaver stated, it is right there in the file.

Attorney Altman stated, okay it says right here 7/17/03 Diann, Schilli Trucking is formally requesting Special Exception #2206 be tabled for tonight’s meeting. Robert J. Guy. Received 7/17/03.

Director Weaver stated, which means we would put it on next month’s agenda.

Art Anderson asked, so how many more times can they table then?

Attorney Altman stated, like I said the ordinance only talks about failing to appear, and two times in a row it is dismissed. Now again the Board is in charge of interpreting the ordinance, as is the Director. That is all I can tell you, but as I said this a quasi judicial body as usually parliaments in court this would not be considered as failure to appear. What they have done with their attorney.

Director Weaver asked, Jerry can the board choose to not set a limit as to how many times they can table it. We can notify them that they can table it only so many times.

David Stimmel asked, what would be the option after that Diann?

Attorney Altman stated, they could appeal your determination to the Circuit Court. If they chose too. They would have to get a final decision first.

David Stimmel asked, you’re saying set the limits of tabling the cause to 3 or 4 times or what ever the number is? Then after that they have to do what?

Attorney Altman stated, refile.

Director Weaver stated, the board would then dismiss it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you are talking about 2 different directions. You are talking about did they appear or did they not appear. You’ve got 2 different convictions here.

Carol Stradling stated, I would suggest that, we have had people or applicant’s table two times, I’m not sure if we have any history of anyone tabling it 3 times. I suggest that we move on with the next and perhaps at the end of the meeting we can discuss how to make that decision on how many times they can table.

President Jerry Thompson stated, but see my point they have two opportunities yet they can table if they appear, right.

Art Anderson stated, that is my question.

Attorney Altman stated, it says fail to appear.

Carol Stradling stated, they might even be here next month, and then we have spent 15 minutes addressing something that may never happen.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is this agreeable with everybody? We pass on this until the end of the meeting.

David Scott asked, Diann if someone is going to put in a junk yard or a recycling thing, or something that may be unsightly could they get permits without coming in front of this board? If they meet all of the setbacks.

Director Weaver stated, waste facility is required to have a special exception.

David Scott stated, I just want to make sure.

Director Weaver stated, it has to come to this meeting.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so am I to enter into record that this is tabled until August 21, or wait until we discuss this later tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, either way.

President Jerry Thompson stated, let's handle this at the end before we have any commitments.

****

#2216 Michael & Lisa Downey; The property is located on .96 of an acre, North of Monticello at 6190 E. Woodhaven Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 45’ front setback variance and a 5’ height variance for a

detached garage and a 23’ front setback variance to extend the existing

roofline on the home.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Downey’s?

Michael Downey stated, I’m Michael Downey.

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

Michael Downey stated, that is it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the request either for or against?

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Downey you are aware that you have two parcels here and that by using this variance you would essentially marry them together so that you can’t divide them or without another variance, as long as you are using it consistently with the variance if it is granted?

Michael Downey stated, correct.

President Jerry Thompson asked, any questions, or discussions from the board?

Carol Stradling asked, is there any reason why you can’t move the garage back a few feet?

I know it is in line with the proposed addition, but. Would you consider moving the garage back?

Michael Downey stated, my wall setback, where the wall is setting the garage would be past that and it was elevated the wall right in the middle of the driveway, if I go back on it, that is why I’m 3’ shy of my well right now.

Carol Stradling asked, so your driveway actually is going to come in from the 50’ side of the garage?

Michael Downey is showing Carol Stradling where his driveway will be.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

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 45’ front setback variance and a 5’ height variance for a

detached garage and a 23’ front setback variance to extend the existing roofline on the home on a tract of land located in the North Half (1/2) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty Seven (27) Township Twenty seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is North Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes West (N 89° 42’ W) along the Half (1/2) Section line One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty (1350) Feet and South Zero Degrees West (S 0° W) Sixty (60) Feet from the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Twenty Seven (27) and running thence North Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes West (N 89° 42’ W) Eighty Two and Three Tenths (82.3) Feet; thence South Forty Two Degrees West (S 42° W) One Hundred Ninety Nine and Eight Tenths (199.8( Feet; thence South Thirty Six Degrees West (S 36° W) Thirty Eight and Five Tenths (38.5) Feet; thence South Thirty Degrees West (S 30° W) Fifty Seven (57) Feet; thence South Eighty Nine Degrees and Forty Two Minutes East (S 89° 42’ E) Two Hundred Sixty Seven and One Tenth (267.1) Feet; thence North Zero Degrees East (N 0° E) Two Hundred Thirty (230) Feet to the point of beginning, containing Ninety Six Hundredths (.96) of an acre, more or less.

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

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

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


****



#2220 Fred & Linda Mosher Revocable Trust; The property is located on 80 acres, West of Monon at 1176 W. Park Road.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting 40’ front setback variance to place a roofed porch on the

home and a 25’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into

compliance. Also, a 55’ front setback variance to bring the existing 46’ x 65’

pole barn into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance.


President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Mosher?

Fred Mosher stated, I’m Fred Mosher.

Attorney Altman stated, before we begin with the merits, I have been the attorney for Mr. Mosher for sometime, honestly didn’t know about this matter until I read it on the agenda, but because of that I will recuse myself at this time.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Mr. Mosher do you have anything extra that you would like to add to what I have read.

Fred Mosher stated, no, the front porch is already there, it just needs repaired and that is about it. I don’t know if I should bring this up, but the road is under a 99-year lease and the lease is up.

President Jerry Thompson asked, were you aware of that?

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t know anything about it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and the lease is with whom?

Fred Mosher stated, with the county.

President Jerry Thompson stated, oh with the County, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, does the County lease it from you then?

Fred Mosher stated, yes, my father told me that and I have always wanted to check on it and I went to the Courthouse and I can’t find anything. I suppose I’m going to have to go back to the abstract.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this variance either for or against? To the board.

David Stimmel asked, Fred is there anyone living in the house now?

Fred Mosher stated, no. We have some people who want to move into it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave, Gary, & Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, your plans are more than to put on the porch, but you just need to do that because the porch would extend too close to the road.

Fred Mosher stated, no the porch isn’t going to extend any further then what it is now. If I do add a porch on there, I’m not saying I will because of the roofline, I may not be able to do it. If I can’t, it would be going to the South.

Carol Stradling asked, but you are planning on doing more work to the house?

Fred Mosher stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but that is the one that needs the variance?

Fred Mosher stated, the tool shed.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?

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 40’ front setback variance to place a roofed porch on the

home and a 25’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into

compliance. Also, a 55’ front setback variance to bring the existing 46’ x 65’

pole barn into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana containing 80 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Monon at 1176 W. Park Road.

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

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

****

#2221 Donna S. Fiscus; The property is located on Lot 126 in Citizen’s Addition, in the City of Monticello at 410 Chestnut Street

Violation: None.

Request: She is requesting a 20’ front setback variance to build a roof over an existing

porch.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Fiscus’s?

Donna Fiscus stated, I’m Donna.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything extra you would like to add?

Donna Fiscus stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, the survey that is on the back of your staff report, you need to ignore that one. You have a new one that I have given to you. There was an error on the first survey. We did receive a phone call from a neighbor; they were just inquiring about the request. They did not say they were against the request.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the request either for or against? Dave, Jerry, anything?

Attorney Altman stated, the additions that you would be adding will be single story and work right into the roofline of the home?

Donna Fiscus stated, yes

President Jerry Thompson asked, we have Donna Fiscus, but yet the survey shows the owner as Kevin Mayhill? What is the deal here?

Director Weaver stated, Fiscus is her maiden name and Mayhill is her married name.

President Jerry Thompson stated, oh it is? Then when was this survey done?

Director Weaver stated, the property is still in the Fiscus’s name. She is now a Mayhill.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you agree with that?

Any questions, or concerns from the board? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, on the survey it doesn’t appear to be any farther than the ones in the neighborhood.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else? Carol, Gary, Dave, and Dave?

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 20’ front setback variance to build a roof over an existing porch on Lot 126 in Citizen’s Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 410 Chestnut 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 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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


****

#2222 Chris Cleefman; The property is located on Lot 9 and 25.3 feet off the East side of Lot 8 in Howell and Gosman’s Subdivision, in the City of Monticello at 322 S. First Street.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 16’ front (First Street) setback variance and a 6’ front

(Market Street) setback variance to build a room addition on the home and to

bring the existing home into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Cleefman’s.

Chris Cleefman stated, I’m Chris Cleefman.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to add to that?

Chris Cleefman stated, no sir.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

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

Attorney Altman stated, obviously the house was built quite sometime ago before 1972? This is very properly grandfathered and you are trying to bring it into compliance with a variance?

The additions that you will be adding will go into the roof line single story?

Chris Cleefman stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this either for or against? I might say those of you we have addressed you are free to go or you are welcome to stay the duration of the meeting. Any other discussion from the Board?

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 16’ front (First Street) setback variance and a 6’ front (Market Street) setback variance to build a room addition on the home and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 9 and 25.3 feet off the East side of Lot 8 in Howell and Gosman’s Subdivision in Monticello, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 322 S. First Street.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in

nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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


****

#2223 Priscilla Babb; The property is located on 84 feet off the North end of Lots 3 and 4 in Block 10, in the Town of Burnettsville at 301 S. Main Street.

Violation: None.

Request: She is requesting a 32’ front setback variance, 2’ side setback variance, and a

9’ height variance to build a detached garage.

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

Mark Babb stated, I’m Mark Babb.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and your relationship to Priscilla?

Mark Babb stated, I’m her son.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else that you would like to add?

Mark Babb stated, yes. I did receive some concern about the 24’ height that was so that I could put a 4-post car lift in, if I needed to on down the road. I do not need to, it is not a requirement, I could probably do it later, and I just wouldn’t be able to extend it the full height. That is basically it. I believe it is 17’ for the County that would probably be fine.

Director Weaver stated, we did receive a letter from the neighbor from Jeff Saylor. I will read it but I believe you all have a copy of it. It is Dated July 14, 2003. We received it July 16, 2003. To The White County Zoning Board of Zoning Appeals: I scheduled to have wisdom teeth removed on Wednesday, July 16 and will most like not be attending the board meeting on Thursday evening. As such I wanted to address the variance request of Priscilla Babb. Priscilla and I are adjoining property owners and my house is located just South of her home on Main St. in Burnettsville. The alley behind our homes is unimproved and the adjoining resident property on the East is owned by Kevin and Patty Lasbrook. The variance is located on the high ground in our immediate neighborhood. A new and larger garage would certainly be a benefit to Priscilla and I am in favor of approving the variance request on the lot lines, however, since all of the homes on the adjoining are one or one and half stories, I do not feel that a 24’ height variance for a detached garage would be appropriate. If the current 15’ height limit is not sufficient I would suggest approving the County limit of 17’. Again I am certainly in favor of the lot line setbacks as requested. I have concerns only about the 24’ height variance for any present or future construction. Thank you, Sincerely Jeff Saylor.

I would like to clarify one thing on this. The Area Plan Commission has approved an amendment to the ordinance to allow detached garages to be 17’ high. It has gone and been approved by the County Commissioners, but it has not yet been approved by the City Councils.

Mark Babb stated, that is all I have.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the board on this matter? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m wondering it states that it is built on the high ground, so does that mean it will be even taller?

Mark Babb stated, yes, actually 3rd street is kind of like an alley and my garage is right there at the peak. I don’t know if you have pictures.

Director Weaver stated, the camera didn’t show it very good.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m wondering if you have a height variance and it looks like it is it looks like it is a foot. I was just wondering where the height goes from. Does it go from?

Mark Babb stated, it goes from the ground to the peak. That is what I was told.

Carol Stradling stated, so if you build it on the hill, you are already a foot in a half taller than anybody else in the neighborhood.

Director Weaver stated, I think the hill is bigger than that.

Carol Stradling asked, do you know what the height difference is?

Mark Babb stated, I’m not sure. Like I said what you are seeing there is probably bigger than what is actually going to be there to begin with. I was just considering putting a 4-post hoist in there and I can probably still put one in there if it was 17’. It just wouldn’t be able to extend it all of the way. That is down the road anyway, I’m not to concern about it, it was just an option.

David Scott stated, if they haven’t adopted the 17’ rule.

Director Weaver stated, it is 15’.

David Scott stated, so he could only go the 15’ without a variance.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott asked, what does that do to you?

Mark Babb stated, I’m not sure, I think I’m going to need it at least probably 12’ side walls, and I don’t know how, it is to the peak. I don’t know how they measure that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you see any opposition to that?

Director Weaver stated, all I’m aware of is the letter that we received.

President Jerry Thompson stated, no I mean on the requirement.

Director Weaver stated, on the requirement, no. The only reason they haven’t received it is I have not gotten it to them yet.

David Scott stated, if they approve the 17’, he could go to the 17’ without coming back to this.

Director Weaver stated, if they approve it prior to him getting his permit.

Mark Babb stated, I’m not even saying that it will be that tall.

Carol Stradling asked, so we would need a motion to amend the variance to, for a 17’ height instead of a 24’ height.

Attorney Altman stated, yes that would be the order if that is what you feel like you want to do.

David Stimmel asked, which mean a 2’ height variance.

Carol Stradling stated, that is what I figured. I move that we amend the variance to read 17’ height instead of the 24’.

Mark Babb stated, I’m not saying that you have too. It might only be 14’ to the peak when they get done. It is 40 x 60 on paper, it may only be 36 x 54’.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. There were 5 aye. Any other discussion on the matter?

Without further discussion the board voted.

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 32’ front setback variance, 2’ side setback variance, and a 9’ height variance to build a detached garage on 84 feet off the North end of Lots 3 and 4 in Block 10 in the Original Plat of Sharon, now Burnettsville, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Burnettsville at 301 S. Main Street.


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

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


****

#2224 Anthony F. & Patricia B. Gioia, Owner; Cindy Lear, Quality Homes, Applicant: The property is located on 0.145 of an acre, North of Monticello at 5460 E. Albertson Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 24’ front setback variance and a 22’ rear setback

variance to place a manufactured home on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, you are obviously?

Anthony Gioia stated, We are Anthony & Patricia Gioia.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to add to this?

Anthony Gioia stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, we haven’t received anything on this.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman asked, single story home?

Anthony Gioia stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, is this in the city? Is it on the sewer line?

Anthony Gioia stated, no, and it will be on the sewer in a year. We are next I know that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone who cares to address this either for or against? Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, do any of the other mobile homes meet the setback there?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.

Carol Stradling stated, just looking at the, it doesn’t appear that they do, but it also appears that this is twice as big as any of the homes on the….

Anthony Gioia stated, there is a newer one in the front and behind us.

Director Weaver stated, if you look at your pictures he is referring to the home that you can see in the right column the middle pictures.

Carol Stradling asked, did they get a variance for theirs?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t recall one being there. I can’t tell you that for sure.

Carol Stradling asked, did you considered a small mobile home so that it would be similar to the others in the area?

Anthony Gioia stated, some of the ones that they are replacing now are the similar size. I don’t know if you have the whole area in there. That whole park along the rear that is the size they are putting in. There are at least 5 or 6 new ones in the last couple of years.

Carol Stradling stated, if you didn’t set it at an angle would it fit?

Anthony Gioia stated, not the way we would like it. That is why we are here.

Director Weaver stated, I think that the way they’ve got it angle is so that they can probably have a better view of the water. Is that correct?

Anthony Gioia stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, the water is to the North of the…

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave, Dave, or Gary? Any other discussion?

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 24’ front setback variance and a 22’ rear setback variance to place a manufactured home on that part of the South half of the South half of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 3 West, Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, more fully described by: Basis of Bearings: Indiana State Plane Coordinate System-West Zone. Being a part of the land as described in Miscellaneous Book 1981, pages 1182-1183, White County Recorder’s Office. Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 28; thence North 01 Degree 45 Minutes 40 Seconds West a distance of 298.06 feet; thence South 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 90.80 feet to the point of beginning; Thence South 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 90.80 feet; Thence North 44 Degrees 27 Minutes 25 Seconds West a distance of 66.10 feet; Thence North 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 109.53 feet; Thence South 28 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 63.39 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.145 of an acre, more or less. Known as Tract No. 49.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5460 E. Albertson Court.


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

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

****

#2225 Robert R. Turner; The property is located on Lot 87 in J.C. Reynolds Third Addition, in the City of Monticello at 521 W. Broadway.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 10’ front setback variance, a 7’ East side setback variance

and an 8’ West side setback variance to rebuild a roofed porch and to bring the

existing home into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Turners?

Robert Turner stated, I’m Robert Turner.

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously the home was built sometime ago before 1972.

Robert Turner asked, you mean the house? It is about 100 years old.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, it is such that it is grandfathered and you are just trying to bring it into compliance. It is not a violation that is what I’m really trying to establish.

Your proposed porch, will you be enclosing the porch that is in the photos?

Robert Turner stated, we are just replacing the roof and the poles.

Director Weaver stated, he just wants to replace the porch.

Attorney Altman stated, oh I see.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address either for or against? To the Board any discussion?

Carol Stradling asked, so Mr. Turner you are not enclosing this porch, you are just replacing it?

Robert Turner stated, we are rebuilding the roof.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else?

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 10’ front setback variance, a 7’ East side setback variance and an 8’ West side setback variance to rebuild a roofed porch and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 87 in J.C. Reynolds Third Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 521 W. Broadway.


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

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


****

#2226 Fraternal Order of Police #123, Owner; Happy Tails Animal Care Center Inc., Applicant: The property is located on 5 acres, West of Buffalo at 8954 N. West Shafer Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a special exception to place a kennel on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing?

David Maroney stated, I’m David Maroney and I’m representing Happy Tails, and to my left is Rosalie Geier, also representing Happy Tails.

President Jerry Thompson asked, when you say representing are you the owners or?

David Maroney stated, it is a non-profit organization, I am the President of the Board of Directors and Rose is Vice President.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, I appreciate that. Do you have anything else that you would like to present to us tonight?

David Maroney stated, I don’t believe so.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann anything?

Director Weaver stated, I just want to mention that he did give us a copy of a proposal facility and a general overview of what the Center will be doing and we did receive a copy of that. We have had several adjacent property owners’ contact us regarding this request. We did this morning receive a fax from the adjoining property owners. You did receive a copy of that as well. I will read it to you.

It was received 7/17/03, it is dated July 16, 2003. For the meeting 7/17/03 at 7:30 p.m. White County Board of Zoning Appeals. We have received a letter from you and we have questions, and concerns about this special exception. 1. What will be done with this property now and in the future? 2. What will happen to our property values? Our concerns: 1. Barking dogs, noise and bothering our dogs. 2. Smell. 3. How much other noise and traffic? 4. Dogs only? 5. Limit of number of animals that you can have. Listed is both signature and address.

No, Christine Kleber 8925 N. West Shafer Drive. I have also given you a map so you can coincide with these address. No, Mr. Kleber, at the same address. No, (Can not make out either the first or last name) 8880 at N. West Shafer Drive. No, Maria Garcia, (No Address listed), No, Norma Navaro, 8901 N. West Shafer Drive, No, Benjamin Navaro, (Same Address), ? for Otto Leis, 5853 E Hwy 16, Yes, John E. Zeiseniss, Krystal Plant.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are any of these people in attendance?

Otto Leis stated, yes I am.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are you in favor?

Otto Leis stated, yes.

Art Anderson stated, we have several questions on how the property is going to set up, if an existing shooting range is going to stay there, whether there is going to be outside dog runs, things of that nature?

President Jerry Thompson asked, would you like to address these questions?

David Maroney stated, I would be more than happy to address. What will be done with this property now and in the future? There will be very little basic structural change to the property itself. We will be utilizing the property much as it is. It is my understanding that any alterations to the building to accommodate the kennel must be submitted to the State Board of Health and approved by the State Board of Health before anything can be done. There are very strict regulations on setting up temporarily house animals. There will be the addition of a small area in the rear of the building, which will not be visible to most areas. This will be an area where dogs can go out of their kennels, get fresh air, and come back in. All of the work will be done in compliance with State codes. In the event that Happy Tails would have to close its doors the agreement that we will have with the FOP is that the property will revert back to the FOP.

What will happen to our property values? We believe that they ought to be enhanced and perhaps significantly. For one thing we want this to be an educational center for White County as well as a temporary shelter for animals. Our educational program will be head quartered there. We envision picnic benches, landscaping out in the property, so that children and adults can come there for a learning experience. We expect to significantly increase the value of the property, through landscaping and through improvements in the decor. The shooting range will no longer exist and that is going to be I think a great benefit to the people in that area. All of that noise will be eliminate. There will be no firearms of any kind on that property. I would think that would be an enhancement of it. Barking dogs, noise, and bothering our dogs? Happy Tails will have limited temporary housing for a maximum of 10 dogs and 10 cats. The animals will be kept primarily inside, it will be a sound proof area. They probably will be barking from time to time inside. I don’t anticipate that anybody will be able to hear anything. A couple of weeks ago we toured a facility similar to what we hope to have in Buffalo. I think it was called Bunk and Bath. As we approached the animals in there as we approach there was no noise what so ever. The dogs and the number of cats we have will not at anytime be running free, so there would be no bother to anyone else’s pets or property. How much other noises and traffic? I don’t anticipate that there will be any other noise or any other traffic. We are having only a limited number of kennels if you will for animals a maximum of 10 dogs and 10 cats. We will primarily use the Herald Journal where I work to find permanent homes for these animals as pet of the week. As we envision it people will call and make appointments for them to come see the animals and do some paperwork. As a practical matter there ought to be not more than one car there at a time and perhaps the vehicle of who is on duty at that time.

The only other thing occasionally we would perhaps a school bus when we have our educational program because we really want to focus on younger members of the community for our education program. Traffic would probably be minimal at best in our view. Finally a limit on number, yes we are intentionally preparing a maximum of 10 dogs and 10 cats. We will not be a dumping ground for animals, we will be working with both the City and the County. I don’t know if the board is aware of it, but for example last year in White County the County spent about $10,000 in tax money to euthanize stray animals that were picked up at the county level. I don’t think that we will be able to save all of those animals, but certainly some of them we will. Since the FOP is donating the property, we want to give as much priority as we can to the animals that are picked up in the City and the County as far as finding, as far as providing temporary shelter. While these animals are in the temporary shelter are Happy Tails volunteers will be looking for foster and permanent homes. Animals that come in will not be here hopefully for a long period of time. We will simply place them in homes so that they are no longer homeless. By the maximum of the 10 dogs and 10 cats. If you have additional questions Sir.

Art Anderson asked, will this be staffed full time?

David Maroney stated, we are not quite the far along. We will have someone there daily obviously to take care of the animals, I doubt that we will be able to have someone there 24 hrs a day, but there will be 1 or more people there on a daily bases to provide the necessary care for the animals.

Art Anderson asked, what if a dog runs out side. Will the dog have free run inside and outside all of the time?

David Maroney stated, I don’t think I can answer that at this time. We have not had contact with the State Health Board on specifics. I don’t know what the State requirements will be on that.

Art Anderson stated, that is one of my concerns, living in the area and having a business, not so much during the day, but in the evenings. It is a lot different then living in the city. Sound travels a lot more. People think the country is quiet, but we are 1 ½ from the lake and you can here the speedboats running up and down the lake all the time. Barking dogs in the area.

David Maroney stated, I would say this, if that were to become a problem, I’m certain that we could assign someone either at a certain time in the afternoon and close the dog runs off throughout the evening.

Rose Geier stated, one thing I would like to add is we plan on having these animals walked and so when we tuck them in at night, I know exactly what you are saying, I live in the country, I have dogs myself. I don’t like to hear barking dogs in the distance and so I totally sympathize with your concern on that. We will make every effort, the animals will be walked. They will be more on the tired side in the evenings.

Art Anderson asked, are there any plans to put a fence around the property to keep other animals from the animals inside.

David Maroney stated, we are a non-profit, volunteering organization, we will be supported by fund raisers and private contributions, and we will certainly welcome a donation or contribution of a fence and we would have it up immediately.

Art Anderson stated, I understand that, but you can understand there are several dogs in the neighborhood, I don’t have one. We have stray cats, I’d like to get a new home for. Dogs in the area maybe not the ones on the inside being heard.

Several are talking at once.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are there any more concerns? To the board?

David Maroney stated, I would like to make one more comment to the gentleman. Our mission is to work with stray animals and reduce and end the problem of homeless pets. We want to work with the public too because we are going to be providing a service to the public and we hope that we can do it in a very professional fashion that will produce community support.

Art Anderson stated, don’t get me wrong, I’m not against it, I’ve just go some concerns especially being a non-profit organization sometimes it is hard to get funds to do some of this stuff.

Carol Stradling asked, will it be 100% strays that the County and the City bring in or if I want to get rid of my dog I bring it to you?

Rose Geier stated, we have been there and done that already. No this is from the City and the County.

Carol Stradling stated, I have no desires to get rid of my dogs.

David Maroney stated, we should clarify that, to be adopted strays that we can place in foster and permanent homes. Obviously if an animal is diseased or violent that would not be a compatible pet, but all of the adoptable strays that we can accommodate we will put into foster homes and permanent homes. I would state also we began the pet of the week in the newspaper in about August or September of last year and we have had 15 to 20 that are now in permanent homes now and usually they have been adopted in the first 2 or 3 days. We have an excellent track record and we do require that any strays that are picked up be spayed and neutered. We will take care of that end of it before they go to a foster home or permanent homes and eventually that will make a big impact on the stray animal problem. The focal point of our community education program will be the need to spade and neuter as well.

Art Anderson asked, have you dealt with the same offenders or picked up the same pets?

David Maroney stated, no the ones that we have adopted and placed in permanent homes have remained in the homes. We are very happy with the program. We do some screening on the recipients of the animals as well.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? Gary, Dave, or Dave?

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Maroney you said you would like the Community to support this. You have a list of 6 people I would say opposed of the use of the property in this fashion. Have you made an attempt to talk to these people to resolve that in their minds?

David Maroney stated, I just became aware of this tonight. We would be more than happy to. I think there is a public perception a certain public perception when the word Kennel comes up. We don’t perceive this to be a kennel. It is temporary lodging for animals who other wise would be killed. Our focal point becomes finding homes for them, we they can be in a home. I sure I can speak for the entire board in saying that we would be more than happy to contact each and every one of those people, and explain precisely what we are going to do at that location.

David Stimmel asked, the exercise area you talked about it being exterior kennels. Do I have a mental image of individual runs for individual dogs that would be allowed outside all of the time or just at certain periods of the day or how would that work?

Rose Geier stated, it will depend on the weather and on the animal. Some animals that may suffice, but for other animals that are more active, getting them out and walking. It depends and then again that is honoring the neighborhood, if we do have a barker, we may limit that. It may be taken out for a walk.

David Stimmel asked, will there be 10 runs for 10 dogs that will have access to the outside?

Rose Geier stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Charles?

Charles Mellon asked, are you going to just accept dogs from White County?

David Maroney stated, we will give those animals priority and allocate what space we have. It doesn’t matter what part of the county it is.

Charles Mellon asked, what about the health conditions of those dogs? Will they be checked out to see if they have had their shots?

David Maroney stated, absolutely. Before we will place an animal in a foster home or a permanent home it will have up to date shots and it will be spayed or neutered without exception. That is a policy that we follow with the animals that we have adopted through the pet of the week in the newspaper. They were brought up to standards on their shots.

Charles Mellon stated, I don’t think it will be any competition place that was just built up there. That is a totally different deal. It just sounds like Buffalo is going to the dogs.

Several talking at once.

David Stimmel asked, what about the waste removal Rose?

Rose Geier stated, I believe the State will determine that.

David Maroney stated, it is my understanding, Mr. Stimmel, from a very early on conversation that I had with the State Health Board, we take them a drawing of how many kennels we are going to have and for what type of animals and also how many people will be there and given times. They take that information and they tell us what we have to have as far as sanitation, waste treatment and those sort of things. That is something that the State dictates. I know when we talked to Joe at the kennel at Buffalo, she told us it took her 6 months to get everything in line to meet state requirements. There is no gray area in that the State will just tell us what we have to have.

Art Anderson stated, the names on the petition most of them that were against it are all adjacent property owners. Either directly adjacent or across the road.

David Maroney stated, we hope when it is finished to have a bright happy facility that will enhance the area. I think all of us on the board are committed to doing this in a professional and a top-notch fashion. I don’t think anybody on the board will accept anything less than that.

Rose Geier stated, we would like to get some Douglas Firs planted around the perimeters of the property.

Charles Mellon stated, one of the biggest advantages is the building and the area is being donated.

David Maroney stated, we are much appreciative of the support of the FOP in this. It is a wonderful donation, we have had wonderful support from Mayor Fox and the City Administration. I hope this resolves and we will have the support from the County. It is a service that is long over due for White County.

Gary Barbour asked, would you have a problem tabling this tonight and going back and talking with these people who are going to be your neighbors. It is in their back yard. Then bring it to the next meeting and see what we can find out.

David Stimmel stated, that is where I was going to go on this and I agree with you.

Gary Barbour stated, I would feel a lot better voting on this.

David Stimmel stated, also if you could approach the State and a drawing so we know what it is going to look like. What the facility is going to look like will help a lot. I think it might help with the neighbors. So they can understand exactly what is going on.

David Maroney stated, I think we can contact all but one, I noticed the one lady here does not live an address. Perhaps she lives in one of these houses. It appears that we are talking about 4 different properties here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does he have this that you printed for us?

Director Weaver stated, no, but I can give him mine.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has the property owners in relationship to the….

David Maroney asked, what would the board like us to return to the next meeting with?

Gary Barbour stated, all I’m asking for if you go to them and explain to them what you just explained to us here tonight. I think in my opinion be good neighbor and show them what is going on.

Art Anderson stated, I can understand their concerns, I mean limited information with just say there is going to be a kennel come in. I can understand the concerns like barking dogs, etcetera.

Director Weaver stated, also when we mail out the notices to the neighbors they do not get your supplemental information like you have provided. We only supply that to the board not to the adjacent property owners. They have not seen your letter or anything like that.

David Maroney stated, we will be more than happy to contact them.

Attorney Altman stated, another thing that would be helpful like Mr. Stimmel stated is if you could get a little more specific about what the size of the kennels and the lawns and the control there. That sounds like something that would be helpful.

Carol Stradling asked, is that on a septic system out there?

David Maroney stated, yes. We have done sample boring and I suspect we will need something for the State. I suspect they will tell us we will need something larger. The one there is relative new within the last 4 years. Again I have some doubts as to whether it will meet State specifications. That is covered by State regulations.

Charles Mellon stated, I probably shouldn’t mention I think one of the things, and Dick could probably I think the fence around the property would be one of the main things, with the woods area around them and a lot of deer, a lot of animals in there. If they get right up to the runs or even the building make noise that is going to cause the ones in side to riled up.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so is it agreeable with everyone that we table this until the August 21 meeting? Is this acceptable to everyone?

Director Weaver stated, I do not know if you need a State release, but you might want to get with our building inspector on this.

****

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay let's back up to variance #2206 Thomas R. Schilli. A discuss on how many times this can be tabled. Jerry do want to?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I’d say, is I just read earlier about the failure to appear as we have systemly operated and this would be under this ordinance and the prior ordinance this request tabling would not be considered a tabling or a failure to appear. Saying that however, I think that, I think Carol you are right, as a procedure we have consistently allowed these things to be tabled that way. I believe that a reasonable can be imposed and I think that is for the board to decided. You don’t want to discuss anything at all on the merits or anything approach as that. I think the Board can reasonably impose a limit to the allowed tabling and I think that is what you guys really need to decide. I don’t think a lot of discussion other than make a motion and do it.

Gary Barbour asked, you can do it with a motion and not have to have a new ordinance to do it?

Attorney Altman stated, no, interpreting the ordinance I think it would be reasonable at this time Gary to do that and informed them they must be here at the next meeting or it will be dismissed.

Gary Barbour stated, I think you owe it to the general public to put a limit on this, so that you are not every month having to watch.

Several talking at once.

President Jerry Thompson stated, but the way it stands right now they could.

Attorney Altman stated, the way it stands right now. I think the board can informed them that you made a decision that if they are going to proceed with their application that they do so, with what ever you decide. I don’t want to insert that, you’ve got to decided that.

David Stimmel stated, I think the way I understand it from the stand point of failure to appear, is if you got a traffic ticket and you, it says you are going to appear, but if you get your money there first or your attorney you have appeared. You can do it by proxy. I think by virtue, that they have contacted Diann, they have appeared in that sense of the….

Attorney Altman stated, exactly. That is how it would be considered in a court law.

Carol Stradling stated, I know we have done this before and I think we have done it with Towers. Was it Cingular that month after month didn’t show? I thought at that time Jerry somebody had said if they do it one more time. I thought this was already decided and that there was something in our book.

Several talking at once.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m reading the ordinance and it is failure to appear. Art I’m just saying what that says and this is not failure to appear.

Art Anderson stated, what you needed to do the last time was define that the last because I’ve got a lot of people called this time and got them not to come, but I came just to make sure and the other neighbors came just to make sure. You know somebody can always show up and pull one on you.

Attorney Altman stated, I can hear and understand that.

Art Anderson stated, but the thing of it is, it imposes on the public. Here is the thing that is imposed on me for the last 2 meetings. My daughter got married in June and she wanted me to come out to New Mexico, well both times I had insurance coming up and everything else coming up and I had a time to go which is this time and so I missed the last one they had. I waded through this one and I didn’t go out and visit my daughter because I thought you know there ought to be a time that they have to say they are not coming by, instead of the last minute. Officially I didn’t find out until today that they were not coming, even though you got called, you did not state when they called me. Cindy did not say, she said we think. There is a lot between I think and that they are not.

Director Weaver stated, that is a failure on Cindy’s part then. We did not have it in writing.

Art Anderson stated, that is exactly what she said when she called me. So you really didn’t have it until today.

Director Weaver stated, right, we were trying to make a courtesy call to warn you.

Art Anderson stated, I appreciate that, but it I was at the bank when you called and when I got back you were already gone.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if we acted on something tonight that gives him 2 more opportunities, doesn’t it?

Art Anderson stated, I feel like it would give him 3 more opportunities. If I’m looking at this honestly this is happen in the ordinance present, he is now under the ordinance present. The public has been misinformed by Jerry when he told them the last time, so I really honestly feel he could do it for 3 more times and if you would even make a decision tonight. It is just like someone grandfathering in. In other words I’m screwed.

David Scott asked, can we order him to come to the next meeting and address this.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with Carol, I think we have done that in the past.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree.

David Scott stated, let's do that and let's decide right now how we are going to handle this from here on.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I thought in the past, like Carol they were able to table it twice and that is it.

Several are talking at once.

David Scott stated, we need to change the ordinance.

Director Weaver stated, I think we do.

President Jerry Thompson stated, they are allowed to table it.

David Scott stated, they are allowed to table it twice. Say someone falls through the crack and they actually have legitimate reasons for, can they re-file?

Several are talking at once.

Attorney Altman stated, it says after 3 months they can.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are we going to get back into are they present or not. Are we going to get back into that ordeal?

David Scott stated, if they are on the agenda two weeks in a row, if they don’t show then they have to go back through the system.

Art Anderson stated, I think your motion to correct your mistake needs to be that tabling is the same as failure to appear and then you’ve got your problem cured.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not going to go that way Art. I don’t think tabling and failure to appear are the same. I won’t conceed to that. So if that is what you are asking us to do.

Art Anderson stated, no I’m not asking, but I was saying to correct your what you have now. I mean you can’t do it on this one. I mean in all fairness to them. I don’t think you can.

David Stimmel stated, I think you can. Jerry has already said you can set the limit wherever you want to set the limit. You can set it tonight.

Several are talking at once.

Art Anderson asked, what if the board decides to table it 3 times?

Attorney Altman stated, they could do that as many times as they want. There are no limits on that.

Art Anderson stated, what if the board needs more information, and have to table it. Then they have to wait 2 times for that. Then that puts him in.

Attorney Altman stated, no it doesn’t. If the board does it doesn’t count against him at all.

Art Anderson stated, if he feels the board doesn’t have enough information, or there are only 3 people here to make a decision on that night and he asked for it to be tabled again and then the next week there are 3 different people come in and they say they don’t have enough information…

Several are talking at once.

David Scott stated, there will always be an exception to the rule, but we have to start somewhere.

Director Weaver stated, they can table to another meeting, it doesn’t have to be the next meeting. Like they could have requested today to table to the September meeting. They can do that.

Art Anderson stated, it is still tabled, regardless.

Director Weaver stated, that would still be counted as 1, even though it is 2 months.

Carol Stradling stated, all we need to do is make sure the people have a chance to present their case and if we need more information then we need to make it clear what we need and they agree that they can or can not supply that information in that amount of time. We have asked, can you get it in a month will that harm you. I think from our point we need the ability to be able to table it, to get information and I think that people have the opportunity to table something, but pretty much when people bring something before the board because they want an action on it. They are not normally incline to delay it, we can come up with what ifs forever. I think as long as we have the opportunity and people have the opportunity to present the case, then that is fine. I don’t know if Diann has said why they tabled it.

Art Anderson stated, I know why.

Carol Stradling stated, it is my inclination that we do need to set a limit. There are circumstances and I think anyone on the board is willing to work with anybody who is willing to work, but if they are just canceling for no.

David Scott asked, can we as a board make a motion to address this at the next meeting whether they are here or not?

Carol Stradling stated, I think we can.

Director Weaver stated, I think we have done that before. As long as Area Plan sends out a letter stating the board has decided to hear it.

David Scott stated, it will be heard whether they are here or not. If not then it will be thrown out.

Carol Stradling stated, and they will have to re-file.

Director Weaver stated, I think we have done a letter to that fact before.

President Jerry Thompson asked, will you notify them of our decision.

Art Anderson stated, the total real injustice that was done here was at the last meeting. When Jerry told the people, and there were a lot of people here and it was stated, that 2 times tabled and the third time you are out. They even believed that to. You guys even heard the same thing.

David Stimmel asked, isn’t this the 2nd time?

Art Anderson stated, this is the 2nd times. The next meeting will be the third time.

These people didn’t come tonight that I called and they thought well the next time we have to be there, so we will be there at the next one.

Attorney Altman asked, is that the motion you want to make Dave?

David Scott stated, yes, let's do that and we don’t have to set, or we can do this each time. I mean if somebody is putting us off because it is not a popular thing that they are doing. We owe it to the public to say look.

Carol Stradling stated, we owe it to the taxpayers who pay us to be here and take our time, their time. I second the motion

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann read that what you have written down, so everyone understands.

Director Weaver stated, what I put was I’m to notify them that August is their last opportunity to be heard.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is that acceptable to everyone?

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to say that their application fee is not refundable.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, all of those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All of those opposed. Motion passed.

Director Weaver stated, I was directed by Gary Barbour to put Terry Babka on the agenda, so that we can better address this matter. I have supplied you with some of the information about what is going on with this.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay Diann hit the highlights.

Director Weaver stated, okay, a permit was issued for a detached garage to Mr. Babka, on the permit it was noted that we had a maximum height of 15’. I believe he could have add any living space. He built the garage and it was approximately 23’ tall. I went out and posted a stop work order. He then came in and filed a height variance, which you have a copy of the minutes and a copy of the survey. That request was denied. We then at the August meeting imposed a fine and he was notified then of the fine. The fine as still yet to be paid. We did at one time last year have this set for trail, last May a year ago May and just before the hearing, he came in and filed a second variance. This time the request was since he then was going to be hooking up to sewer he no longer needed to be on a septic system and then could attach the house to the garage. It was no longer a request for a height variance for a detached garage it was a request to bring it into compliance so he could attach it to the home. That variance was passed. He then came in shortly after actually the next day after the meeting and picked up his building permit to attach the garage to the home. This is yet to be done. I was out there I have a pictures it was last month. He still has not attached the home to the garage. The permit is not longer. The building permits stated you have to start within 6 months and be complete within 2 years. He did not start work within that 6 months. We still have not received our fine. We have approximately $1,300 rapped up in attorney’s fee in this situation. We still have a violation setting out there. This has been going on since 2000.

David Scott asked, what do we do from here?

Attorney Altman stated, in addition to that I did file suit against him in Superior Court, so this was for enforcement of the original violation. That is, I surpassed, like I said we had it set for trial and had an understanding that they were going to pay the amount of the fine and because of that understanding the trial date was continued. Since that didn’t happen and the board discuss, then filed a motion to reset it for trial and the Judge and took my motion and set it for pretrial, which is coming up. It will be set for trial to proceed on. That is sort of brings it to the legal part where it is presently at now.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have any correspondence from him or his attorney in writing? Or has this just been phone conversations between you and the attorney?

Attorney Altman stated, a list a phone conversations.

Carol Stradling asked, and he is communicating through his attorney?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Scott asked, can we do anything until the court appearance?

Attorney Altman stated, the court hearing as to the violation and the amount of the fine. Obviously had settled for the amount of $2280, and we settled for that and never got it. Now going back through court to get it.

Gary Barbour asked, the $2280 does that still stand or is that out the door now?

My opinion is the fine as well as the attorney fees.

Director Weaver stated, if I recall when we first set this up.

Attorney Altman stated, attorney fees you make your own here okay. That doesn’t mean the fine.

Gary Barbour stated, this has gone on long enough in my opinion. He ought to be paying the fine, but guess what now I personally think that garage needs to come down because it has been a game all along.

David Scott asked, the garage is out of compliance?

Attorney Altman stated, well you see you have a variance to put it together.

Gary Barbour stated, we have given him 2 opportunities, and they have not complied.

Attorney Altman stated, he got a building permit, but he didn’t do it.

David Scott asked, there is a height violation?

Director Weaver stated, well for it to be attached it doesn’t meet the setbacks to be attached.

Attorney Altman stated, if he goes ahead he would be in compliance, but he didn’t do that. In other word you gave him a variance to do it. To put it in compliance and he got a building permit, but as Diann has said he has not done it. He could come back and get another building permit because variances do not expire. That doesn’t have anything to do with still being in violation.

Gary Barbour asked, how can you issued a permit?

Director Weaver stated, at the time the permit was issued the fine hadn’t been set up because he came in the next day.

Gary Barbour stated, now say he comes in to get a building permit, are we going to issue it even though he owes us a fine.

Director Weaver stated, no

Attorney Altman stated, I want the fine paid.

Director Weaver stated, the original way this was set up the attorney fees, plus $50 a month. Now we’ve got how many more months on top of. This was July of last year. We have 12 more months.

David Scott asked, what is this guy’s story. Does he have one?

Attorney Altman stated, the lawyers says that he has talked to him several times and he was always going to bring it in, but never gets it in. That is what the lawyers have told me.

Gary Barbour stated, this is how it has went along from the very start. We are always going to do something, then we give him what he wants and we never get anything in return

David Scott asked, what I we get an order to tear it down and he doesn’t do it?

Gary Barbour asked, yea what happens from that?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously it is up to the Judge to agree with us, to take his word or tear it down. I don’t know that the Judge would. I can ask for that and work towards that. I’m just saying that is part of the parcel of the whole matter.

David Scott stated, well I do entirely agree with Gary on having it tore down and come in and make it right.

Gary Barbour stated, the longer you on this board the more you start understanding its like we give and give and give and.

David Scott stated, then you have to draw a line.

Gary Barbour stated, exactly, and if you continue to give they are going to take advantage of it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you bet they will.

David Scott asked, can you give the guy another chance and say look if you come in here and pay this fine in the next 30 days we will not make you tear it down.

Director Weaver stated, you are too soft.

Carol Stradling stated, he is a player and a conniver.

David Scott asked, is he?

Several answered yes.

Carol Stradling stated, he will say what he think. I don’t think.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you are not going to bluff him into anything.

Carol Stradling stated, if I recall I voted against him being able to attach that garage to that house anyway.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have any idea when this is going to be address?

Attorney Altman stated, yes pretrial is August 1.

David Scott asked, so basically tonight all we can do is vote to have him tear it down and that is the only action we can take?

Attorney Altman stated, what I really want is a consensus of the board what.

Carol Stradling stated, he is in violation of the attempt of this board on two occasions.

Attorney Altman stated, he was once and then got his variance, but he hasn’t gone ahead to do what the variance says, so what is setting there is in violation.

Gary Barbour stated, it has never been in compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, well technically when we gave him the variance the building permit

Gary Barbour stated, there is no technically about it, he never has been in compliance. We have given him the opportunity and it has never been in compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, when you give him a variance and a building permit, he is in compliance.

Gary Barbour stated, that was an opportunity to bring it into compliance. Technically it has never been in compliance.

Carol Stradling stated, unless they were connected they were not in compliance.

David Scott stated, for the period he held the permit.

Gary Barbour stated, he had the opportunity to be in compliance.

David Scott stated, I will go along with what ever you guys want.

Carol Stradling asked, is there contempt? I mean you hear of contempt of court and I guess that is what I’m feeling. He is thworting the intent of this board to right the situation.

Attorney Altman stated, we can not get him on contempt, but we certainly get him on violations.

Gary Barbour stated, you know where I stand.

Attorney Altman asked, Carol where do you stand?

Carol Stradling stated, I think he should pay $50 a month since he has been in violation because he did this agreement and we stopped it because he was going to come into compliance. Even though I didn’t like that anyway.

Attorney Altman asked, in addition to the $2280?

Carol Stradling stated, I do.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I will answer for her. YES.

Director Weaver stated, the $2280 was the $50 a month. The $2280 was the attorney fees at that time and the $50 a month at that time.

Attorney Altman stated, so you are saying from the time forwards $50 in addition.

Carol Stradling stated, yes we set that amount thinking that he was going to come into compliance with the building permit, and he did not.

Attorney Altman asked, Jerry agree?

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, Gary agree?

Gary Barbour stated, I agree with that we need to add on as well as.

David Stimmel stated, I think there some discussion about tearing it down. Is that?

Gary Barbour stated, I still think it needs to come down. He is not going to do anything with it. I think it has been a game all along. If got this going you can bet.

David Stimmel asked, so is that what you are going to argue on August 1? What are you going to argue August 1 just for the fine or is he in compliance what is the argument on August 1?

Attorney Altman stated, to proceed with the full violation. If that is what the board directs me to do that is what I certainly will do. The fine and tear down, if that is what the board directs me to do.

Carol Stradling stated, except he has a variance and the variance is forever. So he has the variance, we granted the variance.

David Stimmel asked, what does the court do? Does it order him either to come into compliance and pay the fine in 90 days or something like that? Then he stonewalls that?

Attorney Altman stated, then we will proceed to validate and execute.

David Stimmel asked, so do we or the Court?

Attorney Altman stated, I go through the Court to do that.

Director Weaver stated, then we rack up more attorney fees.

Attorney Altman stated, of course.

Director Weaver stated, that is the whole point, he gets to extend it on and we get to incur more cost and that is the way the whole thing has gone all along.

Attorney Altman stated, I can’t stop that.

Director Weaver asked, why.

Gary Barbour stated that is why I say it is time to draw it to an end. We go for the fine and the extra months now and the building comes down. The game is over now. It will draw the line in saying it will continue to get pushed out.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know if legally we can make that building come down. All we can do is make that building come into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, we made the carport come down.

Attorney Altman stated, the difference is we have a variance. Getting into compliance at the vary least we can require.

David Scott asked, will the Judge decide whether it comes down?

Attorney Altman stated, right now I’m going to push it that way, yes. Obviously if they understood the situation they will go back to the point that Carol is making is get it into compliance. They have the right to do that.

David Stimmel stated, then there should be a short leash on the fine.

Gary Barbour stated, see we can even direct the fine at $50 a month.

Several talking at once.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have, I want to take it down. How many votes do I have for that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I want it to come down.

David Stimmel stated, I want it to come down and they need to pay the fine.

Attorney Altman stated, what it is saying to you is clearly can get the fine, okay and if they know what they are doing they can demand the right to come into compliance, and I have the right to make that happen quickly. The Judge will sure agree with me.

Gary Barbour stated, I think 90 day is ridiculous, I think this needs to happen in 30 days.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have any trouble with that.

Carol Stradling stated, he already has had 6 months on that building permit. It’s not like.

Director Weaver stated, he has had a year.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have any trouble, loud and clear.

Carol Stradling stated, you said 4 votes in favor, I would love to see it taken down and I would love to, if legally we can do that.

Attorney Altman stated, 5 votes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, let's test it and see if we can legally do it.

Carol Stradling stated, I would like to see him charged as much as we can charge him because he has wasted our time, he has wasted.

Gary Barbour stated, he has wasted a bunch of the tax payers money.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree totally.

Carol Stradling stated, I think we can show that we have tried to work with him.

President Jerry Thompson stated, oh yes. Do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I have two things. It goes along with our fine. I have imposed your fine twice in the last 2 weeks. 1. There was a deck that had a variance last year on it. The contractor came in and applied for the building permit, when he applied for it we had a question as to whether they were in a flood area or not, so we sent Dave Anderson out and when Dave Anderson went out to the property the deck was already there. It was not in compliance with the variance, therefore I imposed the $500 fine and he chose not to come back in front of the board. He instead bought additional property to make it meet the required setbacks and the fine has been paid by the contractor and the property has been adjoined to the original property so it is now in compliance. The contractor was Jim Davidson, owner’s name is Koontz. I don’t know if you recall that or not. 2. We issued a building permit for a 6’ privacy fence, we got a complaint from a neighbor that the fence was 15’ tall and we sent Dave Anderson out, really not thinking that there was a 15’ tall fence, but yes there is really a 15’ tall fence. I have imposed that fine, that one they maybe appealing that request and they may also come for a variance. Just so you are aware.

David Stimmel asked, where is that one at?

Director Weaver stated, it is up on the river, I can’t tell you an exact location. I meant to bring that information with me, but I forgot.

David Stimmel stated, 15’.

Gary Barbour stated, explain it to us.

Director Weaver stated, evidently the bank goes down and as the bank goes down, he keeps the fence level. I guess there is only one place in the entire fence that really is 6’ tall. The rest is all over and that is a very short distance.

Carol Stradling asked, does this obstruct the neighbor’s view?

Director Weaver stated, that is why the neighbor was complaining.

Attorney Altman asked, are you done Diann?

Director Weaver stated, the other one I have real quick. I just need another opinion. I have a sign out here and we require a $40 sign deposit and it states that if it doesn’t return or is damaged when it comes back we don’t give the $40 back. This one is damaged because of the storms. I’m kind of having a hard time keeping the $40.

President Jerry Thompson stated, give it back.

Director Weaver stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, we have not received a word from the Judge Smith on Indiana Beach.

Carol Stradling asked, he heard it then?

Attorney Altman stated, he has had it for, it ought to be coming pretty quick. Judge Smith generally pretty prompt about when he rules on things.

David Stimmel asked, where is TPW?

Attorney Altman stated, the lawyer that handled that, that no body like here, laid his motorcycle down in San Antonio and lost a knee. So we got a phone call on where it was and really it was the law firm trying to figure what the guys stuff was going on and where it was. They called me and I said well we need 20 days time to get the record together and they brought it to me yesterday afternoon. We are still working on the transcript and the record on that. What you do is you file all of that with the Circuit Court and the Judge proceeds based on our records.

Director Weaver stated, we make a book like this, and the minutes have to be done word for word. Every ooh, ah, e, has to be in the minutes. We needed more time to get that prepared.

Gary Barbour stated, back to the violations. As a board member at the APC the other night, there are several other violations that we don’t necessarily hear about. That is why Diann is informing us more of that because it is things that she deals with. I asked, and I know that it is an outrageous request, but I have asked, to see what the different violations are, so that we know more about what they are dealing with and what is going on with it. There are things that happen behind the scenes that we don’t as board members find out.

Director Weaver stated, we are going to try to come up with a way to log it, so to keep you better informed.

Carol Stradling asked, is there anyway when we impose a violation or a fine that it can be added to property tax?

Director Weaver stated, that goes back to what we just discussed. We are working on that one.

Attorney Altman stated, we will introduce it to the Judge, like Mr. Hubbard’s fine.

Director Weaver stated, well she probably wasn’t aware of that one.

Attorney Altman stated, They imposed a $100 fine and asked, him to do an apology like you guys did with North White Building Trades. That should be interesting to see, but anyway we are going to reduce it to a judgement.

Carol Stradling stated, Babka still has property and by gully he has to pay property taxes or pays a hefty fine there too, well maybe not this year, but.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else anyone?

David Scott stated, we were talking about those fences a little bit ago. Would it be worth while to write in the ordinance that any thing like a junkyard or something like that be 100% blocking fence, or just put it in the ordinance so that is policy that everyone knows before he even gets here that is something that he has to do. I mean junkyards, recycling places, or something that we want to look at on an individual. Sometimes it is tough to set up here and say well, to be the one to say look you need a fence around that thing. If it is just policy.

Carol Stradling stated, then you have the landfill up in Buffalo. Would that require 100% fence.

David Scott stated, well that falls under a different rule because I think they are required to cover that every night and I suspect that they fall under some strict guidelines from other people.

Carol Stradling stated, its not that you don’t see everything, its just that.

David Scott stated, even like, he is talking about the junkyard over here Willie Mote’s or what ever. I mean you could like right next to that, I mean that guy do a nice job of operating that.

That fence you can see through it, but for a practical purposes you can’t. I would think that anything that is going to be a potential eyesore in the community should have a fence similar around it.

Several are talking at once.

David Scott stated, I know we let that slip by and couple of years down the road there maybe new board members and somebody wants to do the same thing again and they end up with the same thing that you fellows have in Chalmers.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t think that we need to have as much like junkyard. I don’t think it needs to be that specific as that as much as how can it be written where we have the right to declare what style of fence.

David Stimmel stated, it is already there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, we could declare what style of fence?

David Stimmel stated, that is the way I read it and I have read it several times.

Director Weaver asked, Jerry look up the definition of screening?

Director Weaver stated, maybe that is an area where we could get a little more specific.

Attorney Altman stated, screen buffer, a structure erected or vegetation planted which initially or eventually is a sufficient height and or density to conceal and area from view or drown out sound.

Director Weaver stated, maybe if we rewrite that that would be the answer and require screening.

David Stimmel stated, I have trouble with the term eventually.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, only thing is the Indiana Beach when they put in the last Yogi Bear thing, we put a screen along the North Side and that was a vegetation and that is now coming into a pretty decent screen. That has been several years, but it did grow, its just now getting full enough. I’m just saying that we have used that.

David Scott stated, that guy in Reynolds runs that recycling and it’s not an eyesore. They do a pretty fair job at keeping that cleaned up. I suppose we would be forced to put a fence around them.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you would, I mean no they would be grandfathered, but if somebody did anything like that or changed anything very much it wouldn’t be grandfathered.

David Stimmel stated, but the way I read that Jerry, when we talked about this I really believe we’ve got the right to set virtually any restriction on that facility.

David Scott stated, even though.

David Stimmel stated, not go back, I’m talking about Schilli or another one, I mean if you had some auto recycling yard, and you said you want it to look like Willie Mote, I don’t want one piece of paper to escape from that thing. You can write that into it and the first piece of paper that went across that thing would be a violation.

David Scott stated, then we just have to make sure we have it covered.

David Stimmel stated, that is the key. It gives you amount of latitude to do that kind of thing.

Attorney Altman stated, he is talking basically about page 16. There are 8 category there on special usage and I think that it is appropriate to look at it carefully more.

David Scott stated, we just need to take more time to think. That is the bad thing they come in here and trying to do something in 15 minutes and sometime things don’t get addressed.

David Stimmel stated, we talked about earlier, Dave was trying to get some permanent changes in the ordinance itself that address the fence issue. Something more clearly defined as to what a fence is. Instead of looking at the 1943 Webster dictionary or something like that. I mean really in the sense being able to define for certain category.

Attorney Altman stated, you know the town board as you said, you where going to talk to them and kind of encourage them to get us some guidelines of what they want.

David Stimmel stated, Joe talked, like they planned to do that. That is the way he talked.

Attorney Altman stated, that sounds like you know there again their the ones that are out there. They’re the ones that ought to give us the input so that we can enforce the ordinance the way they want it.

David Stimmel stated, Juanita Waugh will not be the last problem.

Carol Stradling asked, would it be safe to say that a temporary fence, whatever would be temporary, one season?

Director Weaver stated, you are going to have to define it. A specific time.

Attorney Altman stated, I would say 15 days renewable for 2 terms.

Carol Stradling stated, I can see a construction project taking more than 15 days.

Director Weaver stated, if you go 15 days, you are causing me one big nightmare.

I’ve talked to Dave Anderson and the state code for a state building permit to be considered temporary as 30 days.

David Stimmel stated, 30 days.

David Scott stated, well there is another thing you need to take into consideration, if somebody may loose a building and then they’ve got to come through Area Plan and he has got to get a State permit. So actually he may be 6 months before he actually does what he has to do, which is a lot.

Director Weaver stated, he could always get a permit for a permanent fence.

Carol Stradling stated, if I’m going to reconstruct a building though and I know I’m going to do something there, had a fire and can’t get it back right away. I don’t know there we go with the what ifs. As long as we have the contingency that we can extend the temporary permit.

David Scott stated, yes, if we had at least something on the books, if they come in here and they ran over something, we can make an exception.

Director Weaver stated, I wish we had never gone into the temporary fences. Something you considered when thinking of temporary fences is RV’s. How long can I leave my RV on my property.

Attorney Altman stated, that is a problem.

Director Weaver stated, yes it is, and it is something to think about when you are talking about temporary.

David Scott stated, I had no idea, I have a RV that sets there all year long.

Director Weaver stated, yes, but I’m talking more of these lake properties where they bring them in for the summer. How long can it set there?

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Motion to adjourn.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission