Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, August 21, 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: Charles R. Mellon, Lewis Woolfington, John Welch, Patricia Welch, Rodney Conn, Don Norman, Troy Irwin, Jim Irwin, Gary Gilmore, Raymond L. Huber, Wes Schroeder, Karl Stokes, April D Stokes, Sallie Blazer, Frank Blazer, Charles Lucterhand, and Brian Perry.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the June 19, 2003 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.


****

#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. Tabled from the July 17, 2003 meeting.

Violation: None.

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, this has been tabled, am I correct?

Director Weaver stated, yes, they have requested it to be tabled.

President Jerry Thompson stated, the Fraternal Order of Police #123, the owners and it has been tabled. Does this automatically go to next month’s meeting?

Director Weaver stated, they have requested that it be tabled to the next meeting.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay we are talking September 18, so if anyone came concerning that variance, it will be heard on the 18th of September. They won’t be contacted,


right?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so if anyone is here, so it will be next 3rd Thursday in September. Okay let's move on.

****

#2227 Raymond L. & Jeanne M. Huber; The property is located on 1.26 acres, South of Lowe’s Bridge on the North side of Lake Road 36 W.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 25’ front (Lake Rd 36 W) setback variance and a 25’

front (Frank Lane) setback variance to build a storage shed.


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


Raymond Huber stated, I’m Raymond Huber.


President Jerry Thompson asked, can you come to the mic please?


Raymond Huber stated, I just got out of the hospital. Can I set here please?


President Jerry Thompson stated, yes, you can set just speak loudly please.


Raymond Huber stated, this is my wife Jean, according to this we want to build a storage shed, let me explain real quickly what happened. We put an addition on the house and there was a shed behind the house that was existing already. Mr. Wrede came in to dig the basement foundation and the shed was in the way, so we had some people come over and they moved the shed approximately 30 or maybe 50’ back or even farther to another piece of property that belongs to me and my wife. It is vacant. In the mean time Mr. Dave Anderson came out and inspected the property and wanted to know if I got a permit to move the shed. I said I didn’t know I needed a permit to move the shed. He said yes, so I went up to get a permit to move the shed because I didn’t know if I was going to bring it back to the original property or leave it back the other way. What ended up happening was the lady in the office. Mr. Anderson was at the property and said that it was okay to put the shed with a 6’ set back. I came in and paid the bill and they said it was okay to pick the permit up the next day and I said I couldn’t be there for another week and they said that was fine. I went back and Ms Diann Weaver here says that I was in violation due to the fact that there was a 32’ setback. It is the way the property goes, and I was told that it was a 6’ and I had Mr. Darrell Maxwell measure it out and it was 7’ setback. This is where we are at and the road in questions is a dead end road. Nobody uses it except 2 people. This is probably everybody knows her this is Mrs. Betty Memmer lives back there to the right. She is the only one living back there because her husband has passed away. Her kids come back there quitee a bit to see her, but that is all of the traffic that is on the road. I was wanting to put the shed at a 6’ setback and I’m actually going to put it back 7’. I hired the sand and everything to come in because I thought the permit was through and it didn’t. We put a halt on everything. Diann Weaver here said we had to apply for the variance and that is where we are at now.


President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Diann do you want to respond to any of that?


Director Weaver stated, just that I think that there was a misunderstanding on the building inspector’s part when he explained to them that they could put it that close to the road. He was not considering this a road and he and I have discussed that since then and I believe he understands that it is considered a road and does have the front setback requirements.


Raymond Huber stated, the road is actually a gravel lane and it was put in by my Aunt Nora years and years ago because she had a bunch of property down there and she formed a lane for access so she could subdivide lots. It became a road a named road during 911 when everyone had to have a mailing address, but what Diann is referring to on her codes, and she gave me a copy they listed that basically as a road. She is right there 100%, its just basically a gravel lane, we keep it up. The County has nothing to do with it. We put the stone in and everything. I guess according to your classifications it is a road, access, or driveway or what ever you may want to call it. It is everything but an alley. I wish it were an alley.


President Jerry Thompson asked, did we get any response from anyone?


Director Weaver stated, I have not had any response.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address either for or against? Jerry do you have anything.


Attorney Altman asked, the proposed shed is the one we have here the pictures of a small shed right?


Raymond Huber stated, I haven’t seen it sir, I don’t know.


Director Weaver showed them the pictures.


Joan Huber stated, yes that is our shed.


Attorney Altman stated, I’m just establishing the record. I guess the record does clearly show that there are two roads there and as a consequent essentially 2 fronts. That is why the variance is for both ways.


President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here care to address either for or against? Go back to the board. Gary, Carol, do you have anything?


Carol Stradling stated, I’m real puzzled with what I’m reading and what I’m seeing on the survey. It says this property has an existing 30 x 40 garage on it now.


Director Weaver stated, that is clear on the other end of the property now Carol.


Carol Stradling stated, but it is not on the survey.


Raymond Huber stated, No because I had.


Carol Stradling stated, I see West Shafer Drive here, I see the centerline of Lake Road 36 West is here and this would be Franklin and here is the seawall.


Raymond Huber stated, I don’t know why it wasn’t put on there. The reason this survey came about was they said I had to have a survey, so I hired Mr. Milligan to come out and make this survey.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is the other building an issue at all?


Raymond Huber stated, no the other building is so far away.


Carol Stradling stated, the record indicates that there is a garage on the property and the survey not showing it.


Attorney Altman stated, it should have been on the survey.


Carol Stradling asked, so is your home on lot 3 then?


Raymond Huber stated, yes.


Carol Stradling stated, that is not showing either.


Joan Huber stated, that is not in question, that is another lot.


Director Weaver stated, this survey was done prior to the variance ever being in the picture. I think Mr. Milligan, and I think this might show why the buildings are not showing. Mr. Milligan added the shed so they could use the same survey for their variance request. Actually that brings up another subject. The request as we have advertised and listed it is only for the 1.26 acres and it does not include the .66 or lot 3. Those 2 properties are not included on this request.


Carol Stradling stated, okay, all right.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?


Carol Stradling stated, no I just wanted to make sure I was looking at what we were talking about.


President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave or Dave?


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 25’ front (Lake Rd 36 W) setback variance and a 25’ front (Frank Lane) setback variance to build a storage shed on a Plat of survey of Lot 3 in Frank’s First Addition and 0.66 of an acre in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32 and 1.26 acres in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31 all in Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana showing iron pipe found and set (Doc.010703879).

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge on the North side of Lake Road 36 W.


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.


****


#2228 Gary Q. & Sheila J. Gilmore; The property is located on .50 and 0.160 of an acre, North of Reynolds at 19 W. 300 N.

Violation: No permit issued for a detached garage.

Request: They are requesting a 4’ front (C.R. 300 N) setback variance, a 6’ front

(Meridian Road) setback variance, a 5’ West side setback variance and a 30’ rear (North) setback variance to add onto the existing home. Also, a 46’ front (Meridian Road) setback variance to relocate the existing detached garage.

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

Gary Gilmore stated, I’m Gary Gilmore.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you. Do you have anything else to add Gary?

Gary Gilmore stated, no, everything has to be into a variance because of the existing home was built in 1970 on half an acre of which zoning now doesn’t even allow that to be done. In order to attach a garage on to the end of the house, my existing garage would be unusable. Therefore rather than tear it down, if I can move it and use it that is kind of what we are in the process of doing.

President Jerry Thompson asked, have you gotten anything?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the adjoining neighbors on this. In researching information for the board this evening, I did find that the garage was built in 1979 and there are some other sheds on the property and did not find any permits for any of these.

Gary Gilmore stated, the garage, I asked the builder when I built it, if I need a permit. I bought it from Farm Builders, Dale Tyler. Dale said, no you don’t need any permits. I said, okay you know more than I do about it, so he put the building up. That is my fault.

Director Weaver stated, that is my concern.

President Jerry Thompson asked, how many times have we heard that?

David Scott asked, it was built in 1979.

Gary Gilmore stated, that is the building I want to move.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we understand.

Attorney Altman asked, will Farm Builders move it?

Gary Gilmore stated, no, I will move it my self.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we have ran into this before Gary, it is nothing on you, we have I don’t know how many situations. Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, I would certainly suggest that every improvement on this tract get a proper building permit for it. No matter what it is or where it is. That might be a condition of this. As you said it is yours in a sense to do even though you are ensured by somebody else. I think that ought to be the minimum that ought to happen, if this is approved.

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

To the Board. Carol do you have any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, not any questions, I do know that if Dale Tyler did that in 1979, he insisted that I show him my building permit in Delphi. I don’t think that is a current practice for FBI Buildings.

Director Weaver stated, I have dealt with Dale Tyler quite a bit in the past few years.

Carol Stradling stated, I would be concern that was a policy of the builder, but if it was in 1979 it is no longer.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave and Dave do you have anything?

David Stimmel asked, the other buildings on the property Gary, I guess I’m asking Diann, should they be a part of the variance to bring the whole property into compliance?

Director Weaver stated, well the reason they are not is because the survey doesn’t show those buildings.

Gary Gilmore stated, they are all portable buildings and the majority of them are going to be moved when we are all done. They are storage buildings.

Director Weaver stated, they still are required to meet setbacks and have building permits. That is a misconception by a lot of people that if they are on skids that they don’t need permits and they don’t have to meet setbacks. That is not true.

Gary Gilmore stated, okay, I wasn’t aware of that.

Director Weaver stated, okay, just so that you and everyone out here knows about this.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I meant about getting a building permit for everything.

Carol Stradling asked, do you understand that if you move those sheds and they are not in compliance and you move them to close to the roadway, they would also need another variance?

Gary Gilmore stated, sure, that is fine.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?

Gary Barbour asked, so what we are doing is voting on a condition that he brings it into compliance? We need to put that on our ballot?

Attorney Altman stated, I surely would, yes. Does the board see any reasons to go ahead with the violation?

Director Weaver stated, I am not aware of any recent violations on FBI. As far as I know they do come in and get theire permits.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I do. I’m not attacking Dale Tyler, don’t get me wrong, but I can think of a couple of situations where they have broke ground then came in to get permits. They went ahead and started. I realize weather was a factor, but still that was sometime ago.

David Scott asked, the condition is that all portable buildings be permitted?

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Without further discussion the board voted.

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 4’ front (C.R. 300 N) setback variance, a 6’ front (Meridian Road) setback variance, a 5’ West side setback variance and a 30’ rear (North) setback variance to add onto the existing home. Also, a 46’ front (Meridian Road) setback variance to relocate the existing detached garage on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 27 North, Range 4 West, in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 9; thence North 90º 15’ West along the Section line 148.0 feet; thence North 00º 29’ West 148.0 feet; thence South 89º 15’ East 148.0 feet to the Section line; thence South 00º 29’ East 148.0 feet to the point of beginning containing .50 of an acre more or less.

Also, That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 27 North, Range 4 West in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southeast corner of the above said Section 9; thence North 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 00 Seconds West (grid bearing) along the section line 148.00 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence North 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 00 Seconds West 8.00 feet; thence North 00 Degrees 33 Minutes 31 seconds West 185.00 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 00 Seconds East 156.00 feet to the section line; thence South 00 Degrees 33 Minutes 31 Seconds East along said line 37.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 00 Seconds West 148.00 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 33 Minutes 31 Seconds East 148.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.160 of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Reynolds at 19 W. 300 N.

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.


****

#2229 John L. Jr. & Patricia M. Welch; The property is located on Lot Number 30 in Echo Trail Subdivision #2, Southwest of Buffalo at 8247 N. Kiger Drive.

Violation: Built a shed too close to the property line and appears to have built a second

shed without a building permit.

Request: They are requesting a 4.5’ side setback variance to bring the existing 12’ x 16’

storage shed in compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance.

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

John Welch stated, I’m John Welch, owner of the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything that you would like to present tonight sir?

John Welch stated, on the variance for the setback, I did obtain a building permit to build the shed. I was planning on building it with the 6’ setback. The night I started on the floor the next door neighbor and I got together and decided well I didn’t need to be that far from the property line, it was okay for me to move it over. Ignorance on my part I didn’t know a thing about variances. That is just the way that stands. On the second shed it is kind of a surprise to me on the violation because that shed was there. I sort of re-sided it and put a new roof on it and new doors because it was in such shoddy condition. It was an existing shed, I just didn’t realize I needed a building permit, or if I did.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so is this a property he has purchased recently or something?

John Welch stated, yes the fall of 1999.

President Jerry Thompson asked, that building was there?

Director Weaver stated, well that is what I couldn’t determine. That is why I put it appeared, because it did increase in size and it did get a porch added to it.

John Welch stated, that is why it is bigger, it did get a porch added to it.

Director Weaver stated, well it is longer than it was originally too. At the time you came in to get your building permit for the other shed, it was on your assessment card as an 8’ x 10’. It is not 7.5’ x 16’.

John Welch stated, well if it says 8’ x 10’ I can’t verify that.

Director Weaver stated, that is what you were assessed for. That is what I’m basing this on.

John Welch stated, okay I can’t verify that, if it was.

Director Weaver stated, we did not notify him of this because the conclusion wasn’t sure and I didn’t have a chance to get in touch with him regarding this.

John Welch stated, in regards to the setback, I do have a letter from the neighbor stating that it was okay and that it is okay where the shed stands.

Attorney Altman asked, is that the letter from Leroy and Ellen Bettenhousen?

John Welch stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman stated, it was delivered to us, it is dated the 15th of this month and delivered to us on the 19th. I think the board has a copy. We need to incorporate that into the record as received and a copy is in the file.

John Welch stated, going back to the shed that appears to have built a second shed without a building permit. Regardless of the fact on what you decide on that one, that shed is being removed before the end of this year. We are planning on trying to obtain a building permit for a little cottage, which will set right behind where that shed is. It has to go anyway.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry sir, I’m backing up a little bit. I’m back to this letter. They adjoin your property?

John Welch stated, yes sir.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is all I wanted to hear you say on this. That is a key thing.

John Welch stated, I really don’t have anything else to say.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, part of this property is in a flood way and we did send to the board a copy of the flood map that we had received. He has already contacted the DNR and a flood map is included with the drawing. I don’t believe this shed is probably in that flood way, but I did want the board to be aware of that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, was there any other response other that the other one? Is there anyone who cares to address this either for or against? Jerry do you have any questions or comments?

Attorney Altman stated, no, other than as to the violation the fine is automatic.

John Welch stated, well we understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, okay very good than.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, on the staff report down at the analysis it says March 10, 200, I’m assuming that is to be 2000.

Director Weaver stated, yes it is 2000.

Carol Stradling stated, as I look at the analysis it refers to a 12’ x 16’ and 7.5’ x 16’ and then on the survey I see a 12’ x 16’ and 13’ x 16’. On the survey also, I don’t see the mobile home and I don’t see an existing house.

John Welch stated, those have all been removed, the mobile home and existing home.

Carol Stradling asked, they all have been removed?

John Welch stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, the 13’ x 16’ shed is the shed with the roofed porch.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the middle picture.

Carol Stradling stated, I take it that the porch portion then faces your property and not the neighbors.

John Welch stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, which shed was there initially?

John Welch stated, the one with the porch. It didn’t have the porch, just the enclosure was there.

Carol Stradling asked, and you thought it was permitted?

John Welch stated, just ignorance on my part, I didn’t know it needed a building permit just to upgrade a structure that was already setting there.

Carol Stradling asked, so it was already there when you bought the property?

John Welch stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, it is the 12’ x 16’ then one with the gambrel roof that you got the building permit for?

John Welch stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so you need a variance for that one?

John Welch stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, what would happen if you were to move that new shed so that it would be in compliance instead of getting the variance?

John Welch stated, it is setting on a concrete foundation, so basically it is unmovable.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone else, while Carol is thinking? Dave do you have anything?

David Scott stated, I have another question. I have never seen a flood way or flood way fringe before, it seems to me your either in the 100 year flood plan or your not.

Carol Stradling stated, which is changing.

David Scott stated, pardon me.

Carol Stradling stated, which is changing. The State is changing the floodway at this point.

David Scott stated, before we made them, I can’t tell by looking at this map where he is going to position his house or these buildings or anything.

John Welch stated, it is very hard according to that map.

David Scott stated, we have always made them before make sure that the house is so many inches, or foot or something above the 100-year flood plan.

Director Weaver stated, actually the flood ordinance of White County has adopted 2’ above the flood elevation.

David Scott asked, what is the flood elevation?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have that information with me. Let me see if I can locate it. It is 656.7.

David Scott stated, 656.7 okay well then I would say the blue area is in the flood plain.

Director Weaver stated, the blue area is the floodway fringe and the yellow is the floodway.

David Scott stated, he just needs to understand that the buildings and everything needs to be 2’ above the 657. Is that correct?

Attorney Altman stated, that is what the ordinance requires.

Director Weaver stated, that is what the flood ordinance requires. He has been in touch with the DNR and they have seen the property, actually when they were up here because of the flooding. They happen to be up in the area and they did see this. It did not voice concern to me about that. They did and I think they did tell him that they did recommend that he have a surveyor out to mark the property, so that he does not where the floodway is.

John Welch stated, yes Mr. Milligan is coming out tomorrow to determine exactly where the fringe line is out on the map. He is going to set an elevation so that I can apply for my building permit.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Dave? Gary? Carol back to you, are you satisfied?

Carol Stradling asked, so are we, the violation is? We are not voting on that? He is not appealing it at this time?

Without further discussion the board voted.

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 4.5’ side setback variance to bring the existing 12’ x 16’ storage shed on the South One-Half (1/2) of Lot Number Thirty (30) in Echo Trail Subdivision Number Two (2) in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Southwest of Buffalo at 8247 N. Kiger Drive.

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

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

President Jerry Thompson stated, wait just a minute here, we have not discussed the violation. Do we need to discuss this?

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to?

President Jerry Thompson stated, the fine. I’m just asking before we proceed.

Attorney Altman stated, as I understand he has not appealed it and therefore it moot.

I thought you imposed the fine and he had to appeal it.

Director Weaver stated, I make him aware of the fine. I didn’t actually impose it.

Attorney Altman stated, oh, I’m sorry.

President Jerry Thompson asked, relay to us what was discussed about the fine?

Director Weaver stated, I’m trying to think back.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you remember sir?

Director Weaver asked, how this all came about?

John Welch stated, we applied for the building permit to build a dwelling and the DNR sent I the paperwork saying that we were not in the floodway we were okay to proceed. In the mean time I had applied for the building permit and demolished the existing structure and the planning commission found that the DNR had the wrong location marked on the map. There I set in the floodway which I had dwelling on there that I destroyed and now I can’t rebuild. When they came out to see where I was applying to put the dwelling that is when the discovery of the violation was found.

Director Weaver stated, the building inspector went out and found it. I do remember this now.

We did notify him that we had the policy of the $500 fine and gave him a copy of that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, you have accepted that?

John Welch stated, yes sir. I guess I have one question. The 5-0 vote being okay, if I get my building permit, I guess I’m confused on the building permit.

Director Weaver stated, we need to amend that one.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to be in compliance for the shed, as well has your new home.

John Welch stated, our sheds are they limited to the 2’ above the 100 year flood plan or is that just for dwellings?

Director Weaver stated, there is a size requirement and I do not know that off of the top of my head. I have to look it up and if it is under a certain size then it does not have to go through the DNR. That is a good point. I had not thought about that.

John Welch stated, when I had originally applied for the permit to erect the shed, there was no question that we even had to apply to the DNR to set an elevation or a size because of the 12’ x 16’ size I was issued.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can tell you, is that you might check and see whether or not you do have that problem, and then we will have to address that. That is the best I can tell you.

Director Weaver stated, I’m taking from the board that you have to be in compliance with our flood ordinance if you need to be. Am I correct here Dave?

David Scott stated, yes, if he needs to be.

Director Weaver stated, I can check the size for you and if it needs elevated then we will have to elevate it, but if it doesn’t then you are okay.

****

#2230 Rodney J. & Jaimee L. Conn; The property is located on 2.506 acres, North of Buffalo at 9518 N. West Shafer Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 5’ Height Variance to build a 40’ x 50’ Pole Barn on the

property for personal storage.

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

Rodney Conn stated, I’m Rodney Conn.

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

Rodney Conn stated, it is all there, I just want a 5’ variance. Waiting for a question

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, when I went out to the property the poles are set, I think. Are they just in the holes?

Rodney Conn stated, yep.

Director Weaver asked, they are not actually set?

Rodney Conn stated, if you go back when I got a permit for the Windmill, I also requested a building permit for that. When I went in there they told me I had to come back in two days to get the permits and I just drilled the holes and set them in there that day. They are just setting there.

Director Weaver asked, they are not set?

Rodney Conn stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I did have a concern about the sign, his sign is visible once you get to the property and around his landscaping, but I did have a concern with that, but once you get that far it is visible.

Rodney Conn stated, you said it had to be on my property, which my property sets over 200 yards off the road.

Director Weaver stated, my concern was I felt it should be away from the tree and away from the landscaping.

Rodney Conn stated, well once you come down the lane you can see it. I had no other place to put it because you guys told me that it had to be on my own personal property and to be on my own personal property I thought I would put it in the best place I could.

Attorney Altman stated, it looks obscured to me.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything from any of the neighbors on this.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone who cares to address the issue either for or against? To the board, Dave Stimmel?

David Stimmel asked, Rodney who owns the barn to the other side of the property? Is this yours?

Rodney Conn stated, no that would be the neighbor Billy Conwells.

David Stimmel asked, have you talked to them?

Rodney Conn stated, I sent them a letter and they said they had no problem with it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott, I don’t mean to cut Dave Stimmel off, but do you have anything else?

Without further discussion the board voted.

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 5’ Height Variance to build a 40’ x 50’ Pole Barn on the property for personal storage on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a railroad spike at the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9; thence South 88 Degrees 22 Minutes 57 Seconds West (S 88º 22’ 57” W) (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System), a distance of 316.35 feet to a half inch iron pipe and the point of beginning; thence South 88 Degrees 34 Minutes 51 Seconds West (S 88º 34’ 51” W), a distance of 344.86 feet to a half inch iron pipe; thence North 1 Degree 05 Minutes 03 Seconds West (N 1º 05’ 03” W), a distance of 324.77 feet to a half inch iron pipe; thence North 89 Degrees 08 Minutes 12 Seconds East (N 89º 08’ 12” E), a distance of 330.80 feet to a corner post; thence South 3 Degrees 35 Minutes 12 Seconds East (S 3º 35’ 12” E), a distance of 321.79 feet to the point of beginning; said described tract containing 2.506 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Buffalo at 9518 N. West Shafer Drive.

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

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

****

#2231 Lewis L. & Janet W. Woolfington; The property is located on Lot Number 37 in Billy-Cal Subdivision #2, North of Buffalo at 6366 E. Nancy Circle.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 17’ front setback variance and a 1’ height variance to

build a 30’ x 50’ pole barn on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this request.

Lewis Woolfington, stated, I’m Lewis Woolfington.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay thank you. Do you have anything else you would like to present this evening?

Lewis Woolfington stated, no the only reason I want the height variance is because there is a weather vane I want to put on top of it. Building that size of barn, that is what they say to come within the compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, we have not had any contact with any of the neighbors and I have no concerns on this.

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

Carol Stradling asked, are there any buildings in the area with similar height or will yours be the tallest? I can’t tell by the pictures that we have.

Lewis Woolfington stated, let me see what pictures you have. Well I have pictures too of the area.

Carol Stradling stated, well we have to keep the pictures, so I didn’t know if you wanted them back or not.

Lewis Woolfington stated, this is one coming up the street, this is from the Buffalo Park Discount store. This is higher elevation. This one is coming out of the circle, it is a pole barn. Here are trailers and another pole barn in that general area. Here is a semi trailer setting there and a container.

Director Weaver asked, back on this circle, isn’t it mostly trailers and manufactured homes?

Lewis Woolfington stated, there are 2 manufactured homes there. There are 6 trailers from anywhere to the 1950’s to about 1993. There is one home in there that is in pretty bad shape. A widow lady lives there, and I feel for her.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol do you have anything else?

Director Weaver stated, that is a residential area back there, that mainly has mobile homes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay. It looked like a lot of the lots were vacant and I didn’t know if it was developing or?

Lewis Woolfington stated, my children own 3 of those lots adjacent to me.

Without further discussion the board voted.

1. That the property is properly zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 17’ front setback variance and a 1’ height variance to build a 30’ x 50’ pole barn on the property on Lot Number Thirty-Seven (37) in Billy-Cal Subdivision Number Two (2), in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Buffalo at 6366 E. Nancy Circle.

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.

****

#2232 Ronald E. & Shirley M. Stoller, Owner; Charles R. Lucterhand, Applicant: The property is located on 1.079 acres, North of Wolcott between U.S. Highway 24 and County Road 200 N., on the West side of 900 W.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 110’ width variance for a proposed lot to be known as

Lot 1 in Stoller Subdivision #1.

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

Charles Lucterhand stated, I’m Charles Lucterhand.

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

Charles Lucterhand stated, I’m planning on putting up a mini warehouse there on that site, and all I need is one acre, which I’m subdividing. I have to go through a variance first and with the building that I want to put up, I need more length than I do width. The amended width is 250’ I believe and to make the acre and maybe future buildings to go up there, I need the lot to be exactly or approximately 140’ x 311’, which is just over an acres. I need a variance.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors. It has not gone to the Area Plan Commission yet for the subdivision. He is waiting for the approval hopefully the approval of the variance before he proceeds with the subdivision.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, Diann could you explain the width variance is?

Director Weaver stated, each zoning is required to have a minimum width for the lots in that zoning. For this zoning it is required to have a 250’ width and this is on the road frontage.

Attorney Altman stated, and this is 140’ and that is the difference. I just wanted to be plain about what and why is required.

President Jerry Thompson asked, no response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance either for or against? Any questions or concerns from the board?

Gary Barbour asked, this is just a regular warehouse with garage doors in it?

Charles Lucterhand stated, mini-storage.

Director Weaver stated, I might add to that this is an industrial area to the East is farm land, but they have rezoned a big section of this on the West side of the road for industrial use.

Gary Barbour asked, mini-storage what is that normally to be zoned?

Director Weaver stated, a B-2 and I-1 would be the proper zoning.

President Jerry Thompson asked, how many units are you going to have in the building? Do you know?

Charles Lucterhand stated, 37. That is the plan.

Attorney Altman asked, the height will not be particularly anything, you just want a longer?

Charles Lucterhand stated, according the height I should be okay. I better be okay, or it is not going up. Yes I think the height will be fine.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann with this in the setting there are no traffic problem resolving from this?

Director Weaver stated, no that I can see.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion from the board?

Carol Stradling asked, are the other lots going to be the right size then?

Charles Lucterhand stated, that I do not know. I’m just buying 1 acres. The other lots I don’t know, I’m not following you. What do you mean?

Attorney Altman stated, I think he is undivided at this time.

Carol Stradling stated, but they want to make it.

Attorney Altman stated, they are not lots they are tracts of ground at this time.

Director Weaver stated, this is the smallest piece that they have divided out.

Charles Lucterhand stated, that there is 5 acres in between, there is a Witco to the South. To the North there is a Prairie Seed Farm. There is farm ground right in the middle of it. I think it is approximately 5 acres. I’m buying an acre to the North that bumps up next to Prairie Seed.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, I guess my thing is I’m wondering if they all need to be 250’ wide on the front, then why wasn’t it split that way.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I have not worked with these people a whole lot, but I kind of think that they are just dividing it out as they have purchasers. It did appear to me, I did look Carol to see that they will have enough width for the next piece to come out on that side. It will be plenty wide.

Gary Barbour asked, it is not split out yet right?

Director Weaver stated, no it is not split out at this time.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

2. That the lot is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 110’ width variance for a proposed lot to be known as Lot 1 in Stoller Subdivision #1 on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 27 North, Range 6 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at a railroad spike found at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24; thence South 01 Degrees 05 Minutes 46 Seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along CR900W and the section line 140.00 feet; thence North 88 Degrees 30 Minutes 25 Seconds West 336.00 feet; thence North 01 Degrees 05 Minutes 46 Seconds West 140.00 feet to the quarter section line; thence South 88 Degrees 30 Minutes 25 Seconds East 336.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.079 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Wolcott between U.S. Highway 24 and County Road 200 N., on the West side of 900 W.


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

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


****


#2233 Karl E. & April D. Stokes; The property is located on Lots 5 and 6 in Block 6, in the Town of Brookston at 511 S. Prairie Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 13’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance and a 23’ front

(Sixth St.) Setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance. Also, an 18’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance to put an in ground pool with a 6’ privacy fence. Also, a 10’ front (Ripley St.) setback variance to put a 4’ picket fence. Also, a 15’ front (Ripley St.) setback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage.

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

Karl Stokes stated, I’m Karl Stokes. The only change I have to this and I brought it out to Paula, when we applied for this, it is going to be an above ground pool, not in ground pool.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that makes any difference, it’s the distance and the privacy fence, so I think.

Director Weaver stated, an in ground pool and above ground pool have the same setbacks. It doesn’t cause us any problems.

Attorney Altman stated, it is the advertisement that we are worried about because if it is wrong then we have to correct it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann any response from anyone?

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman asked, the addition to the garage would be single story additions?

Karl Stokes stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, and they would fit into the roofline with proposed current structure there?

Karl Stokes stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it will conform siding wise.

Karl Stokes stated, yes, all roof lines will be lower than what they are now.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this variance?

Troy Irwin stated, I’m Troy Irwin and I live at 507, which is lot 4. I’m right next door to Lot 5. I asked the board to deny this request simply because right now Lot 5 is in litigation as to ownership of that lot.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Are you aware of that Diann?

Director Weaver stated, no I wasn’t. I’m looking here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Mr. Stokes do you care to respond to that?

Karl Stokes stated, I have not received anything on that litigation. We have had 3 threats in the last 3 years and that is it.

Troy Irwin stated, I have an attorney’s name if Mr. Altman would like to contact that attorney. He has all the pertinent information. So you can have a better understanding of what the litigation is. In all honesty if the board wishes I can explain it to you. If you choose not to that is fine too.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, just a minute here now.

Director Weaver stated, I do have the information here that the Stokes submitted to us for the building permit. This is how we found that they needed the variance. There is a copy of a recorded deed of personal representatives putting Lot 4, and 5, in block 6 in the original plat in the town of Brookston, In into the names of Karl E. Stokes and April D. Stokes. If you want to put a copy of that in the file, I will do it. We do request a copy of the deed for any building permit and that is why I do have that in my possession at this time.

Jerry is passing the deed down to show Dave Stimmel.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have any thing, before I ask something here?

Attorney Altman stated, well I guess I don’t know exactly. I don’t know enough about the matter to give much of an opinion on it this evening. Let me ask a few questions. Has a law suit been filed sir?

Troy Irwin stated, it is in the process, I spoke with the attorney the last time I spoke to him was about 10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. this morning. Whether he has filed it or submitted it that I’m not certain of, but I do know it is in the process of.

David Scott asked, you live on lot #4?

Troy Irwin stated, yes that is the one I live in. Mr. Stokes and I entered into an agreement in July of 2000. He purchased 4 and 5, but in order for him to purchase 4 and 5 he had to have an agreement from me that I was purchasing 4 from him. In that agreement there was a personal agreement between he and I. I fulfilled my obligation in that agreement, he has not. That is why this is in litigation today.

Attorney Altman stated, and does this call in to question of owner ship of lot #5.

Troy Irwin stated, that is a potential solution to the litigation.

Attorney Altman asked, but does it call into question his and their ownership of lot #5?

Troy Irwin stated, yes at the present time, it is in their ownership, but resolution one of the solutions for that is in question of Lot #5, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, so you are not making a claim that you own lot #5?

Troy Irwin stated, no I’m not making that claim at all. The claim I’m making is.

Attorney Altman asked, you are not making a claim that they have obliged themselves to deed you or sell you lot #5?

Troy Irwin stated, no sir.

Attorney Altman asked, but you are saying that in settlement of a dispute, lot #5 may become a bargaining chip?

Troy Irwin stated, very much so in question, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and that is what you are saying. Based upon that I would think that there is no reason why we can not proceed with this matter and vote on this matter if the applicant wishes us to. Also it can be tabled or denied by the board just based, as we would treat any matter. It would only be if ownership was challenged to the lot #5.

Troy Irwin stated, I guess my request sir, is that should I end up in the positive of the litigation that is being contested right now. I don’t want to have them destroying that property, which I don’t want to knock down buildings and such. I asked, that the property be left as is, until this litigation has been settled.

Attorney Altman stated, okay. I guess I hear his request, but the only thing I can say is if the applicant wants to proceed the board then has the matter before it and can decide whether to grant it or not based upon the merits of the matter presented all the way around.

Carol Stradling stated, the flip side of that, is if you come up and it is ruled against you then they have had a delay in proceeding with what they want to do with property that according to our records they legally own.

Attorney Altman stated, and have every right to request this variance.

Carol Stradling stated, just because I tell this gentlemen that I don’t feel he owns this property doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to do with this property what he wishes, unless I’m missing something. Am I missing something Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, no I think, this is what I’m saying I think we can proceed because the applicant has the right to request what they are requesting from us.

Troy Irwin stated, correct, the only thing that I can respond to that is, if in 30 or 60 days this could be settled and I would hate to have that property destroyed in a way that I don’t want it destroyed, if in fact the litigation falls in my favor. So I’m asking if anything deny it until this litigation is completed.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

Troy Irwin stated, thank you very much.

David Scott asked, has the lawsuit been filed?

Attorney Altman stated, no, he didn’t know.

Troy Irwin stated, I’m not certain if he filed it today, or not. The last I spoke to him was today and he was in the process of filing it, so I can’t tell you yes it has been or no it has not been. I know it is going to be yes.

Attorney Altman stated, even if it is filed, if they want to proceed then you can review it. That doesn’t mean that we approve it, or anything. It is legitimate before us to act. This is what I’m trying to say.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we are basically going on an assumption.

Attorney Altman stated, he is going on the assumption.

President Jerry Thompson stated, well we would as well.

Carol Stradling stated, if the applicant wishes to proceed to improve property that may, or they may loose in a settlement or they may win, so it. Do you wish to proceed now that you know that it?

Karl Stokes stated, yes I do wish to proceed.

President Jerry Thompson asked, your name again please?

Karl Stokes stated, I’m Karl Stokes.

David Stimmel asked, on the property line here where the fence is going out. The fence line will stay the same along the backside?

Karl Stokes stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, is that the bottom left hand picture that you are talking about?

David Stimmel stated, the bottom right hand picture.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have any requirements about the height of a fence around the swimming pool?

Director Weaver stated, our ordinance requires it to be a minimum of 4’, the state codes I have learned requires it to be a minimum of 5’.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not sure a picket fence will meet state codes.

Karl Stokes stated, we are doing a 6’ privacy fence.

Director Weaver stated, they are doing a 6’ privacy fence.

Carol Stradling asked, all around the pool?

Karl Stokes stated, there is going to be a deck on one side. The deck is going to be used as the barrier, so the deck will actually be.

Carol Stradling stated, alright.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave and Dave? Dave did you want to say something?

April Stokes stated, my name is April Stokes. This could be a plea of assumption then mine is going to be a plea of emotion. Just to set the record straight in my own opinion against some of the things that were said. The property was not purchased with a purchase agreement from Mr. Irwin. We had purchased it and had agreed to sell it to him. As far as destruction of the property that we might do to it. It is a vacant lot and I don’t know what is there except for grass and dirt that can’t be replaced as far as any destruction goes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we hear you, but it is also a matter that really isn’t in our territory to deal with. I understand what you are saying okay, we have the proper information right now to do what we are legally allowed to do.

April Stokes stated, yes, thank you.

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

Attorney Altman stated, no. We just need to show that we have received into record the deed showing proof of ownership in the names of Karl & April Stokes recorded 7/26/00.

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 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 13’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance and a 23’ front (Sixth St.) Setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance. Also, an 18’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance to put an in ground pool with a 6’ privacy fence. Also, a 10’ front (Ripley St.) setback variance to put a 4’ picket fence. Also, a 15’ front (Ripley St.) setback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage on Lots 5 and 6 in Block 6 in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 511 S. Prairie Street.

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

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

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

****

#2234 Darryl G. Miller & Deon V. Miller; The property is located on .18 of an acre, North of Monticello at 5698 & 5704 E. Halas Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 24’ front setback variance to put a new shed on the

property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, this also has been tabled. I’m going to assume that this is automatically on next months meeting.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it is on next months meeting. I like to let the board know why this is tabled. When I went out to the property last week to take pictures of the property the sign was not posted, so I actually tabled the request due to the fact that they did not put up the sign.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so those of you who are here concerned with the Miller variance it will be tabled to the September 18, 2003 meeting.

****

#2235 Brian D. & Christi M. Perry; The property is located on 3.788 acres, Northeast of Chalmers at 4938 S. 50 E.

Violation: Purchased property that created a rear setback violation.

Request: They are requesting a 66’ rear setback variance to bring the existing home into

compliance.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I might add to this I’m a little bit like Jerry. I’m not the owner, but I’m the tenant of the farm. I’m very familiar with the situation. Jerry do I set out or not?

Attorney Altman asked, do you rent from the Perry’s?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I rent from the Shell’s. Shell’s own the property that Perry bought the property from. I have power of attorney for the Shells.

Attorney Altman asked, were you involved in the sale?

President Jerry Thompson stated, verbally, I was aware of it, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, you weren’t involved in it obviously didn’t matter financially to you whether it was sold or not sold.

President Jerry Thompson stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t suspect that it doesn’t matters whether you continue or not at the farm. You farm whether this was sold or approval. The only thing that I would ask is the configuration of the property purchase that creates a violation. Does that benefit you anyway that it is configured that way, as a farmer?

President Jerry Thompson stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, am I right the way the position of that tool shed and that barn and that little shed there is hardly any way they could have divided this without creating a violation?

Director Weaver stated, they could have included those structures.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, if they had done that, included the structures it wouldn’t make any financial difference to you.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it would benefit you?

President Jerry Thompson stated, it wouldn’t. Directly it wouldn’t effect whether I would make use of the building or not.

Attorney Altman asked, so you use those buildings?

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you probably want to excuse yourself then.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. I just wanted to check.

Director Weaver stated, the Vice President takes over.

Attorney Altman asked, does everyone understand what we are going through there. It isn’t all that obvious reason for excusing somebody from being a member and voting on these things. Mr. Thompson has figured out that there is a reason for that.

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

Brian Perry stated, I’m Brian Perry.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, Brian were you here earlier when we swore in?

Brian Perry stated, no ma’am.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, would you care to do that?

Attorney Altman swore in Brian Perry.

Brian Perry stated, we want a variance so that we can remodel the house. We are not adding any square footage to it, we just tore out a couple of walls and redo the plumbing, electrical, and put dry wall back over it.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone having anything for or against this variance here tonight?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors.

David Scott asked, does the property separation also put the tool shed and that in a setback violation?

Attorney Altman stated, it probably does doesn’t it Diann?

Director Weaver stated, possibly, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I did it to scale, it looks like it might be okay.

Director Weaver stated, I have not scaled it out, so I can’t answer for sure on that.

Attorney Altman stated, he is requesting an approval of the shed and the 2’ right Diann.

Director Weaver stated, no we have not requested a variance on the shed. Only on the home.

David Scott stated, so this will be grandfathered, unless he wants to do or change something on the shed.

Director Weaver stated, none of this is grandfathered.

Attorney Altman asked, none of it is grandfathered?

Director Weaver stated, none of this is grandfather, which is why we are here this evening.

They created the violation when they split this acreage out from the original tract.

David Stimmel asked, we can not amend this without re-posting it, right?

Director Weaver stated, it depends on how you want to amend it.

David Stimmel stated, I guess I was talking about was to bring the shed and barn in compliance.

Director Weaver stated, at the time they filed, I discussed the shed with them and it was my understanding that the shed was not an issue. It was destroyed they would not want to replace it.

That is why we did not include it.

David Stimmel stated, okay.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, Gary do you have any questions?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so the farm will be out of compliance then also, or no.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so. The barn only has to be 6’ from the property line.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so you purchased this property contingent upon this split?

No, it was already split when you purchased it?

Brian Perry stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, so you were not the party involved in splitting it?

Brian Perry stated, no, we had spoke to them several times and we went out to look at it on a weekend sometime and she said this is where it is going to stop. They want to keep the 2 tool sheds and the grain bins in the back with the actual farm ground. They just told us that is where they were stopping it.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, that gave you the portion that you wanted?

Brian Perry stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, just so that it is clear the area that was sold was already pre-determined before Brian came on to the scene. That is what the family decided to offer for sale.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any more questions?

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 is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 66’ rear setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on that part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 26 North, Range 4 West in Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Basis of Bearings: Indiana State Plane Coordinate System, West Zone.

Commencing at a stone located at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 22; Thence North 88 Degrees 52 Minutes 47 Seconds East along the Section Line, a distance of 2387.24 feet to a iron pipe set at the Point of Beginning; Thence North 00 Degrees 27 Minutes 19 Seconds West, a distance of 600.00 feet to an iron pipe set; Thence North 88 Degrees 52 Minutes 47 Seconds East, a distance of 275.00 feet to a railroad spike set; Thence South 00 Degrees 27 Minutes 19 Seconds East along the Quarter Section Line and the center line of County Road 50 East, a distance of 600.00 feet to an existing pk. nail located at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 22;Thence South 88 Degrees 52 Minutes 47 Seconds West along the Section Line, a distance of 275.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 3.788 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northeast of Chalmers at 4938 S. 50 E.


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

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

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any comments on the violation?

David Scott stated, I think setting here the circumstances around the situation. I don’t, I mean who is in violation?

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, the people who split it, or the people because they bought it?

David Stimmel asked, what about the tenant?

David Scott stated, I will make a motion that we waive the violation.

Director Weaver stated, my concern with this is how many times does this happen that we are not aware of it.

David Scott asked, how do you prevent it?

Director Weaver stated, yes that is my concern, yes. These people go out and make these 3 acre splits, but somehow, and not saying that we have to make an example out of you, but somehow we need to get their attention that they have to keep setback requirements in mind when they are doing this. So they do not create violations like this one. I mean this has caused them nothing but a headache.

David Scott stated, they actually should come up….

Tape went off.

Attorney Altman stated, okay we are back on the record. #2235.

David Scott asked, what do you recommend Diann? What are you saying?

Director Weaver stated, I’m not recommending anything. I don’t know the answer to this.

David Scott stated, I mean it is not his fault they separated it like that.

Director Weaver stated, no it’s not.

David Scott stated, that is what I’m saying that their buildings maybe a setback violation.

Director Weaver stated, I guess with this situation has brought me aware that there could be so many more of these with the way people split property. I’m not saying that the fine needs to be fined, but I guess it is something we need to address in the ordinance.

Gary Barbour stated, but if people are subdividing and creating violations how can you, I mean you need to stop that.

Director Weaver stated, but it is something that does not go through our office.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, how is this split recorded?

Director Weaver stated, they take a survey to the auditor’s office and then they go and have it recorded.

Attorney Altman stated, and if it is over that acreage then it is approved, and its allowed.

Director Weaver stated, that is my concern if somehow they had to come to us first for something then that would prevented the situation.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it pretty much is just happening out in rural agriculture areas, yes. Is there anyway we can notify the Auditors office just to call their attention that if there is a split and then there are buildings involved that. If that is the only way to address it, not that it could work, but we may need to adjust the split line.

Attorney Altman stated, you do have a motion on the floor waiving the fine.

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

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anymore discussion? All in favor in waiving the fine say aye, and all of those opposed. Everyone voted in favor of waiving the $500 fine.

****

#2236 Wes Schroeder; The property is located on Lot 65 in North Addition, in the Town of Reynolds at 506 N. Clark Street.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 5’ side setback variance and a 2’ separation variance to

build a detached garage.

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

Wes Schroeder stated, I’m Wes Schroeder. I don’t know you might have pictures of it, I guess I’m just wanting to update the house, the garage is kind of in a sad shape. It is too small to pull vehicles in. As to how weak it is, at times it kind of scares me. It blows a little bit in the wind, so I don’t want to cause any harm to anybody like that way either. I have talked to the one neighbor next to me to the North that adjoins the questionable mark there. He says he has no plans to build anything close to the property and has no problem with it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Diann.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors. I do again have a concern with the sign and I had made him aware of this. They did have construction trailer setting in front of the sign since Monday.

Wes Schroeder stated, well it was really since Monday night. It was only a few days and it has been moved now.

Director Weaver stated, I just wanted the board to know so the board can address it if you wish, or let it be.

Wes Schroeder stated, basically if you look at it, I don’t know if you have a picture. That is the only spot I really have to stick a sign. I just stuck it there and didn’t think that is the only parking I have. That is why I want to build there. It is a dead end street and it would free up the street and make it less crowded through there.

David Stimmel asked, is this drawing accurate? It sticks out 1’, the house does into the roadway.

Wes Schroeder stated, I have no idea, it was there when I bought the property.

Director Weaver stated, he and I have discussed that, also at the time that he filed this and made him aware that we can not request that to be brought into compliance.

David Stimmel stated, so that would preclude him from doing any work to the house.

Director Weaver stated, he can not up date it more than 50%.

Wes Schroeder asked, is that just the house or the whole property?

Director Weaver stated, just the house.

Wes Schroeder stated, I don’t plan on doing anything else to the house, if that helps any.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, the property with the garage being as close as is it to the property line we usually require that be built to fire code, with a fire proof wall.

Wes Schroeder asked, is that, are you talking between the two structures or the on the property line?

Attorney Altman stated, on the property line.

Wes Schroeder stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be required, that encroachment you, I don’t know if I want to do much more and say this. You need to get a consent to encroach if you are going to do that, and maybe ought to consider a variance if you are going to put money, like you are putting it into that structure because other wise it is, you are putting good money into bad.

Wes Schroeder asked, you mean I should bring the house into compliance?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and the only way you can do that is get consent to encroach and file for a variance.

Wes Schroeder stated, okay. Do I do that in the same office?

Attorney Altman stated, no the consent to encroach would have to come from the City.

Wes Schroeder stated, okay, I don’t know if it makes any difference, but the house directly across from me had burnt down years past before I built the house. When they put it back they went back far enough to give allowance between my house and it. If something had to maneuver through there it could.

President Jerry Thompson stated, to make a long story short, if you do this now someday if you choose to sell the property, you will have this all taken care of.

Wes Schroeder stated, that would be the thing to do.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who opposes the variance or for the variance?

Wes Schroeder asked, so Jerry you are saying that it would not be sellable now?

Attorney Altman stated, the encroachment really makes it a problem.

Wes Schroeder state, okay, but it was sellable when I bought it, without any problems.

Attorney Altman asked, did you buy it with cash? Did you put a mortgage on it?

Wes Schroeder stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, well I take it back about being sellable.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol anything?

Attorney Altman state, if this is approved, we are not grand-fathering or approving that encroachment.

West Schroeder stated, right it has to be done separately.

Attorney Altman stated, or the encroachment and it doesn’t meet setback towards Clark Street.

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

David Stimmel stated, I’m just curious about the structures to the North, next to the garage. How close is the nearest?

Wes Schroeder stated, 30 or 40’. There is a 3-car garage detached from the house.

Carol Stradling asked, most of the people who live on that block have 2 adjoining lots, is that what I’m reading?

Wes Schroeder stated, no actually I think there is only one directly across, Tetzloff.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at lot 67 and 66, which should be right next to you. This seems to adjoin.

Wes Schroeder stated, oh, I didn’t realize that.

Carol Stradling stated, this would be the house and that would be 2 lot, so you are the only one on one lot.

Wes Schroeder stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, sometimes the pictures match reality and sometimes they don’t.

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 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 5’ side setback variance and a 2’ separation variance to build a detached garage on Lot 65 in North Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 506 N. Clark 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.


****

#2237 Frank J. Blaser; The property is located on 0.484 and 4.538 acres, North of Lowes Bridge at 7185 N. Meredith Court.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting 29’ front setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence and a 3’

height variance for a detached garage.

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

Frank Blaser stated, I’m Frank Blaser.

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

Frank Blaser stated, first of all I talked to the homes that are the closest to this situation or where this garage will be, cottages 6, 7, 8, and 9. I talked to each of the owners and none of them are against us doing this. In fact they are in favor and think it will make the neighborhood look better. Basically what we want to do is take down an old barn that was there for about 25 years. It needs a new roof, its rusty, and it is kind of in front of a brand new home we just built on the lake.

President Jerry Thompson stated, wait just a second, like Carol said earlier when you present that we don’t return.

Frank Blaser stated, I don’t want them.

Carol Stradling asked, so is this the building that is going to be removed?

Frank Blaser stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, okay what you are talking about the building being removed, it is the building that is on the left part of this picture?

Frank Blaser stated, yes, it is the building that is brown and white. Our intention is to mimic the house which has a 10/12 and 10/10 pitch roof line with dormers.

Attorney Altman asked, that is with the proposed garage that you are talking about?

Frank Blaser stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that picture that I have marked exhibit A for the record.

Frank Blaser stated, the proposed garage, which again you can keep this too, is called a cape cod style garage and it has dormers similar to what is on the home now. Our intention is to use the same siding, same roofing, same color, and same everything, so it will conform and looks right. Now the reason we need the height variance is because of the roofline and the dormers demand that the height of the building be 18’ and this is going to be used mainly for agriculture equipment. That is what is in the old barn now. My tractor will not go through a 7’ door, so I have got to put 9’ studs instead of 8’ to bring it up another foot there, so I can put an 8’ over head door. It is going to take somewhere between 19’5 and 19’75 all together as we see it.

Gary Barbour asked, is there going to be a second story in this building?

Frank Blaser stated, there is a loft. The plans call for a full second story, but we are just going to put a half of a second story. We are going to make a loft out of it for storage, general things.

Attorney Altman asked, is this for habitation?

Frank Blaser stated, no, the garage will not be finished on the inside at all. It will just be studs.

Attorney Altman asked, and you have handed this, which I’m marking exhibit D and you have circled a cape cod garage with upstairs and that is the relevant matter on this.

Frank Blaser stated, that is correct. The other part of my request is for a fence. A privacy fence that will come off of the corner as the plan shows you the blue print. Coming off the corner of the garage, the reason we want to do that is, its like a back alley street down that way and I have taken some pictures of that to show you why we want to have the privacy fence there. One of them shows a cottage, that cottage has been abandon for over 5 years. The White County Health Department closed it due to insufficient sewer system. No one has lived there or been there. Not that has anything to do with this, other than we want to cover it up also.

Attorney Altman stated, on the survey what is called house on tract 1.

Frank Blaser stated, it is tract 9.

Attorney Altman stated, tract 9, the house sets on tract 9. Trying to keep the record clear.

Frank Blaser stated, doing what we are doing here taking down the old and putting up the new is going to do nothing but help the whole area, I believe and the value. It will not block anyone’s view, it is kind of in the middle of the field that I own.

David Scott asked, the 25’ road right-of-way is that a county road or is that just a private drive?

Frank Blaser stated, actually my deed shows I own that roadway. It has been dedicated.

David Scott asked, would the fence block traffic?

Frank Blaser stated, no, the road way ends at my garage.

Sally Blaser stated, I can answer that. The road was actually a dead end road before we put the house on up and where the road stopped is where we want to put the fence. From that point on it was totally woods. We totally cleared it, so you have a better idea of what was there before.

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Blaser you are showing the fence, am I right, it stops here. It is only running from here to the garage?

Frank Blaser stated, yes, down the hill and we planted 27 bushes that will turn into 19’ trees.

President Jerry Thompson asked, have you received anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything at all.

Attorney Altman asked, how high will the fence be?

Frank Blaser stated, it would be a 6’ privacy fence.

Attorney Altman asked, is that what he asked for Diann?

Director Weaver stated, yes that is what we have asked for.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone who cares to address either for or against? Any questions from the board?

Director Weaver asked, I have a question, how are you going to access the garage? Is it going to be off a private road.

Frank Blaser stated, I just put a road down in from between the new barn is going and in between the old one going down Lake Road 65, so we won’t even use that back road anymore.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-4, One Family Residence or Mobile Home Parks.


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 29’ front setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence and a 3’

height variance for a detached garage on

Tract 1

That part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Section 21; thence North along the Section Line 920.00 feet; thence East 808.55 feet to the point of beginning; thence East 264.56 feet to Lake Shafer; thence South 45 Degrees 30 Minutes 23 Seconds East (S 45º 30’ 23” E) along said lake 35.10 feet; thence South 39 Degrees 28 Minutes 30 Seconds West (S 39º 28’ 30” W) 124.00 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 38 Minutes West (S 35º 38’ W) 25.00 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 22 Minutes West (N 54º 22’ W) 241.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.484 acres, more or less.

Tract 2

That part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana Described by:

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Section 21; thence North along the Section Line 920.00 feet; thence East 808.55 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 54 Degrees 22 Minutes East (S 54º 22’ E) 446.32 feet; thence South 28 Degrees 19 Minutes 29 Seconds West (S 28º 19’ 29” W) 185.31 feet; thence North 63 Degrees 30 Minutes West (N 63º 30’ W) 248.31 feet; thence North 76 Degrees 30 Minutes West (N 76º 30’ W) 369.12 feet; thence North 87 Degrees 00 Minutes West (N 87º 00’ W) 162.43 feet; thence North 217.82 feet; thence East 468.55 feet to the point of beginning; said described tract containing 4.538 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowe’s Bridge at 7185 N. Meredith Court.


7. 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 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.

****

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay back to Norman’s. Diann I’m going to let you start on this.

Director Weaver stated, I have given the board a report to kind of summarize what has gone on with this. The permit was issued May 2, 2003 for a 6’ privacy fence at the time they were in and signed for the permit, we did have them sign a copy of the fine policy that the APC and BZA adopted. On June 30, 2003 we received a call telling us that the fence was 16’ tall. Dave Anderson the Building Inspector did go out to investigate that for us. He did find that the fence was much taller than what had been permitted. On July 11, 2003 we mailed a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Norman about the violation and sent them a copy of the signed fine policy that they had signed. Then on July 15, 2003 Mr. Norman contacted the office regarding the letter, he explained the situation to him, and then on July 28, 2003, we received the letter appealing the fine. I did go out on August 6, 2003 to see what had been done with the fence, if any changes have been made. Some of it has been lowered to where it is not quite so tall. I did not have the ability to measure the height of that, I did not have anything with me to measure the height, so I did ask Dave Anderson to go out to measure it. Part of the fence is still exceeding the maximum height of 8’ that the ordinance states. That is where it stands at this time.

Attorney Altman stated, before we get further into this, the board needs to understand that unlike a lot of appeals that are presented to us, this is a matter that you need to be decide carefully if you are going to accept this as an appeal. Let me talk about what I’m saying, it has nothing to do with the Norman’s or the matter before us. As always you need time to accept an appeal from one person, everyone wants to appeal and possible??? The fine. The board must be careful in making a decision to accept this because if the reason you impose determine to impose this on any violation was because it was taking entire too much time of meetings. To expedite things you determine that a blanket fine would be imposed. If you start entertaining appeals like this, you are going to be I would suggest that should be concerned that you are not back to where you are to start with. Everybody coming in and saying please takes the fine away from me and you won’t have improved your situation at all. Go ahead and accept it if you choose.

Carol Stradling asked, Jerry don’t they have the right to an appeal?

Director Weaver stated, the policy that was adopted says you have the right to appeal.

Attorney Altman asked, it did?

Director Weaver stated, yes the policy adopted says you have the right to appeal.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I stand corrected, I didn’t read that. I’m wrong.

President Jerry Thompson stated, while she is looking that up, are you the Norman’s?

Don Norman stated, my name is Don Norman. Actually I have 3 projects going on and I have 3 permits. I have a shed, deck, and the fence, which I did go through the DNR. The gentleman who is doing the work for me is a co-worker at the prison where I work and he only gets off every 7th and 8th weekend off every two months and initially he took vacation time to get this work done for me. The problem that we are having is that my lot, the cottage has set there for 20 years, but the ground slopes straight down. He put the fence up while I was at work that day and he thought he was doing me a favor by making it run straight across to make it look prettier. After I talked to Mr. Anderson, after I got a letter from him because he looked at my deck and I told him that only one of the projects are done. The permit for the fence wasn’t even two months old when I got the initial letter. I thought I had a year to finish it, but I went out there as soon as possible after I talked to Ms. Weaver, I knocked it down. The part if they are still saying that it is still questionable, in the picture where it drops straight down, it isn’t even 5’, but it drops straight down and that’s where they are saying that it is over. My place set empty for over 20 years and I bought it 4 years ago and I put a new tin roof, vinyl siding, deck, the fence, and the shed. My guy only gets every 7th and 8th weekend off.

Attorney Altman asked, so you are taking it down to the 6’?

Don Norman stated, I already did, but the one part that is in question, I guess that is still in question is the very last panel that is closest to the house there. When you are standing there it is at my shoulder and only 5’ tall, but the ground drops straight down and I guess it wasn’t minor or he just took another piece and put it up there where there wasn’t an empty hole there. I guess that is what is in question. Like I said the project wasn’t done anyway because he got bad poison oak when he was putting this up.

Director Weaver stated, the policy that was adopted says that a permit holder wishes to contest a fine, they must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals within the 60 days period, and the board reserves the right to increase or decrease or remove the fine depending on the evidence.

Don Norman stated, that is the part I’m confused about is that when I talked to Mr. Anderson initially he told me there might be a problem with the fence and I thought it was settled and Ms Weaver didn’t work for them. I understand that.

Director Weaver stated, the fence violation is an Area Plan violation, not a building violation.

Don Norman stated, I understand that. Since he is the one who went out there, I thought at that point and time.

Director Weaver asked, did you hire a contractor?

Don Norman stated, no, it’s a co-worker at the prison where I work.

Director Weaver stated, okay, but it does say that you were building the fence yourself.

Don Norman stated, right, at the time I told the girl it was a co-worker and she said since it wasn’t a contractor so she marked it as myself doing it. I went through the DNR and I did everything I was supposed to do.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any discussion with the board?

Carol Stradling asked, you say you have taken it down to 6’ except at that one spot?

Don Norman stated, it was actually the last 2 panels, and I took them down and I said when you stand there it isn’t even 6’ tall. It stair steps down and very last section is actually like 5’.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you see what he is talking about Carol? It’s the very last section.

Don Norman stated, the section before that is still under 6’ also. So it’s just that the ground drops so drastically down that is what is in questions, otherwise, there would be gaping holes.

Carol Stradling stated, so when you say that you have taken it down to 6’, you’re referring to the rest of the fence were at 6’.

Don Norman stated, or less it were just the last couple of sections.

President Jerry Thompson asked, have we had any contact with the neighbor?

Director Weaver stated, no, my notes are from where Dave went out and measured the fence it is the last 2 ½’ are over the 8’.

Don Norman stated, that is where it drops straight down.

Director Weaver stated, there are places though from my understanding with my conversation with him the minimum that the fence is 6’ and the rest of it other than that 2 ½’ is at the 8’ mark or less.

Don Norman stated, no ma’am the whole fence is only 6’ sections.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I’m going by what our Building inspector told me.

Don Norman stated, the only thing is, if I can see a picture, I can show you what I’m talking about.

David Stimmel asked, but didn’t it increase the height of the panels then?

Don Norman stated, that is what is in question, it drops down so drastically like that.

David Stimmel stated, so if I look at the picture taken on 8/6/03 that section is above 6’?

Don Norman stated, no sir, this is 6’ all here and this right in here is these last couple of sections is.

David Stimmel asked, how tall are the panels themselves?

Don Norman stated, 6’.

David Stimmel asked, and you are saying he added to the bottom of the panel?

Don Norman stated, yes these last few here.

President Jerry Thompson stated, this certainly isn’t a common situation.

Attorney Altman stated, but he is on the lake, it is on the lake.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I know it isn’t totally unheard of, but.

David Stimmel asked, when will the project be done?

Director Weaver stated, they have two years to be complete.

Don Norman stated, it’s only been two months going.

Laura Norman stated, we are doing everything at once we are doing the house and deck.

Director Weaver asked, but the fence was complete?

Don Norman stated, no ma’am, the guy that is doing it he didn’t cut off the tops he didn’t put the last section up yet going towards the road.

David Stimmel stated, but the reasoning being Mr. Norman is that the fence as it was completed and to anybody would have said it was originally constructed it was complete. Until you were notified of there being a problem that is when you began to adjust the height of the fence.

Don Norman stated, it wasn’t my plan to go that way, he did it while I was at work.

Laura Norman stated, we don’t live out there full time.

Don Norman stated, that is another question I have for you, I heard you talking about the guy wanting to tear the barn or something like that he needs a permit or variance for that. The property right next door I’m trying to close right now its been empty for 15 to 20 years with an abandon vehicle there, roof is caving in and its stinks of dead animals, and I’m trying to buy it and tear it down. Do I have to come see you for that I take it?

Director Weaver asked, to remove the structure?

Don Norman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, no all you do is contact the Assessor’s office. We do not issue permits.

Don Norman asked, can the fire department do a controlled burn, if they want to practice?

Director Weaver stated, that is between you and the fire department.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol what are your thoughts?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m thinking about another fence that we had not too long ago and the post where high, wasn’t that in Brookston? I’m looking at this and I don’t see much of it that was 6’ to begin with and I don’t see much of it that seems to be 6’ at this point. I understand that you are building on a hillside, maybe the fence that was selected wasn’t appropriate for the area. I understand your difficulty in the location of putting the fence up there especially using a pre-fab fence section, but you did agree that it would be only 6’ high and this is definitely over 6’ high. Certainly the post are higher and I don’t know, I understand that it was somebody else that built it, but essentially the homeowner is still responsible for what goes in and making sure that it is in compliance. It appears to be, I understand that he couldn’t get back for 7 or 8 weeks, but then it would be your responsibility to take those panels down.

Don Norman stated, which I did.

Carol Stradling stated, I still see panels there.

Don Norman stated, I think those pictures were taken before I took them down.

Carol Stradling stated, these are dated 8/6/03 and I’m still looking at panels that I.

Don Norman stated, like I said these, if you walk up to the left side of these, these are 6’ or less. These are the very last one that drops down.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that, but those panels are still over 6’ high, even with the hill.

Don Norman stated, so are you saying that if I just knock out the bottom part, it is okay.

Carol Stradling stated, no, in one of the decisions we made, we went by the post tops. In this case to be comparable we would have to go with the top part of the fence to the ground.

Don Norman stated, then this project isn’t even completed I’m asking. It wasn’t even 1 ½ or 2 months old when I received this it wasn’t complete. So I’m going to be fined for a privacy fence that is not complete.

Attorney Altman stated, as you put it in it was complete. The only reason that it changed was because you got, just like what Mr. Stimmel said.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think anybody puts a fence up 16’ high and then takes out the top panels to make it lower to complete it. I….

Don Norman stated, I understand what you are saying, but the guy did it and he hasn’t been able to come back, he hasn’t had days off.

Carol Stradling stated, but you are the property owner and you can take those panels down, if they are not.

Don Norman stated, well I did and I destroyed them while doing it. I had to hit them with a hammer. I destroyed them and lost money doing it.

Carol Stradling stated, on 8/6/03 they were still up there.

Don Norman stated, no ma’am they were not they were taken down. What you are looking at is one panel there and you might see a little piece on the end that top panel is not there. If you can see the post, which you can’t because the tree is blocking it, that panel is down. That is one panel. That last one when you walk up to the left side it is only 5’ tall. Then the ground drops drastically.

Director Weaver asked, you are saying the one by the house?

Carol Stradling stated, but you are saying to the ground.

Don Norman stated, that one is only 5’ tall. This left side when you walk up to it only comes up to my shoulder. As a matter of fact when the gentleman when he built it you can see how it is flat there. He trimmed it the dog-ears to make it flat.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I understand what he is trying to say.

Director Weaver stated, my building inspector was out there on and he says that it is still over 8’ tall.

Attorney Altman stated, he was out there on 8/11/03.

Director Weaver stated, and that is conflicting with what you are saying.

Don Norman stated, the section is that tall it is at the very end of it where it drops straight down.

Attorney Altman stated, that is still a violation.

Carol Stradling stated, that is still the violation.

David Stimmel stated, it is still there.

Attorney Altman stated, it is still there and it is still a violation.

Carol Stradling stated, you measure from the ground up.

Attorney Altman stated, and that is where it is measured.

Don Norman stated, but the ground is straight down like this, its not like this its like this.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what would happen, if you took that last panel out?

Carol Stradling stated, the whole section of fence.

Don Norman stated, I could live with that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, everyone is getting hyped up here.

Charles Mellon stated, if that there has a drop off on one side, I don’t know which side you are looking at the fence, you look at which way you are looking at the fence. If you are looking at the back side of it, if you are looking at the low side you are 8’, but on the backside I bet it is only 5 or 6’ like he says. What would be wrong with filling up that hole.

Don Norman stated, I was going to do that. I think I remember telling you that I was going to landscape my ground because I’m trying to control the water. The water came so fast that it came through the house. I tried to terrace the steps by the time I get done with it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, if you comply the starting part of that last panel, it is going to be 6” tall. If he wants to comply with a 6’ on the far end towards the water, if he complies with 6’ at that point and you come back towards the property the starting point will probably only be 1’ at best.

Carol Stradling stated, but we’re not asking that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it is going to be at an angle.

Carol Stradling stated, only if he uses those pre-fab forms, now if he were to put up post and construct his own, then he could put it straight up 6’ all the way down.

Several are talking at once.

Gary Barbour asked, what about this here is it 6’ to the ground or 6’ from here to the ground?

President Jerry Thompson stated, well there you go.

Gary Barbour stated, that is what you need to determine. Somebody needs to go figure that out first.

Director Weaver stated, at those points it is not 6’ from my understanding from the inspector. He measured them.

Gary Barbour stated, these are pre-fab panels okay, they are 6’, as I look at this, this part to here is going to be 8’ and this part from here is going to be 6’.

Director Weaver stated, that is right.

Carol Stradling stated, the maximum height is 6’.

Director Weaver stated, the maximum height of the fence that they told us was 6’. The ordinance does allow for a 8’ fence, this is my point I’m trying to make. They violated what they told us they were going to have. They told us it was going to be a 6’ fence and in actual reality very little of it is 6’.

Don Norman stated, no ma’am very little of it is over 6’, and when I get done with the landscaping and put in dirt right there, it won’t even be that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is the standard panel without any?

Don Norman stated, 6’ tall and 8’ long.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so the standard panel is 6’ tall.

Don Norman stated, yes sir and the last is cut off and it is even shorter.

The last panel there is a problem, then I will tear the whole thing down. As a matter of fact the last two panels I took down I put them on his deck, which the girls at the area plan said I could do that. I attached them to the deck because it looks nicer.

President Jerry Thompson asked, well what are the boards wishes here? I think everyone has spoke their peace.

Carol Stradling stated, I think when you say a fence is going to be 6’ tall and you stack sections on top and you put 6’ on top of 6’ its obviously not 6’ anymore. I understand your situation, I’m not sure that fence design was appropriate for that location. The fine is for when you apply for a building permit you state what you are going to do and the fine is in place if what they put in then would require a variance. The $500 fine is imposed.

David Stimmel stated, I move that we reject the appeal.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying “aye”.

All board members answered “aye”

President Jerry Thompson asked, all of those oppose the same?

David Stimmel stated, sorry Mr. Norman.

Don Norman asked, then what am I to do with the fence?

Attorney Altman stated, comply with the permit and pay the fine.

Don Norman stated, or I could just finish doing my landscaping and it will still be under 6’. When I finish my landscaping.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if that were the case then it would be acceptable.

Don Norman stated, I got fined for a project that wasn’t completed that wasn’t a month or 2 months olds. It wasn’t even completed and that is correct.

Director Weaver stated, the fence is measured from the grade of the ground and.

Don Norman stated, I understand that.

Director Weaver stated, I’m talking to the board let me state my opinion. My concern is that when this terrace that is not the height, that is not the grade of the ground am I correct or.

Don Norman stated, so its not the base of it goes in. Is the height of it where you drop it down here and because it is hanging out and this is in the ground here?

Gary Barbour stated, if you go back fill that in against the fence and you still walk around the neighbor’s side of the property, technically you are still in violation unless you are going to change their part of the ground also.

Don Norman stated, they told me they never called and complained either.

Gary Barbour stated, so unless you are going to change the whole hillside there, you are still going to be in violation.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

President Jerry Thompson asked, okay is it your turn?

Attorney Altman stated, very briefly, you have before you the record for the appeals on the Indiana Beach matter. I wanted to get this out to you this far ahead of time, so you will have a chance to read and absorb and understand, so that when we go next step on this matter, you can understand what the facts are. I’m not going to repeat what I talked to all of you about on the phone, but what we have done next is to have an executive session that we are going to call. We are going to set that time right now or directly and Diann that was tentative would be?

Director Weaver stated, tentatively we came up with the dates of September 3rd and public meeting the following Wednesday, which would be September 10th.

Attorney Altman asked, how is that for you?

Director Weaver asked, do we have a conflict?

President Jerry Thompson asked, are those Wednesdays?

Director Weaver stated, yes those are Wednesdays. I’m guilty on that, those are the days that work for me. I knew it worked for Carol too.

Attorney Altman asked, when could you be available?

David Stimmel stated, I couldn’t be available either of those nights.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the time frame that you are available.

David Stimmel stated, I will be out of town on the 26, 27, 28, and 29 of this month.

Director Weaver stated, okay we can’t go that early anyway.

David Stimmel stated, okay I leave the morning at 10:45 a.m. on the 3rd.

Attorney Altman asked, how long are you going to be gone?

David Stimmel stated, until we return on the 18th.

Director Weaver asked, are you going on vacation?

David Stimmel stated, yes, plane tickets for Alaska.

Attorney Altman asked, you will be back when?

David Stimmel stated, the morning of the 18th. I was planning on coming to the meeting on the evening of the 18th.

Carol Stradling asked, you scheduled your vacation around a BZA meeting?

President Jerry Thompson stated, just one of them.

Attorney Altman asked, are the rest of you available for those dates?

Director Weaver stated, yes, but still I mean we have the 45 days that we are looking at.

Attorney Altman asked, how far out are we on the 45 days, if we wait? When was the 45 days up?

Carol Stradling asked, is it 45 days from the date of this August 7?

Attorney Altman stated, yes. So actually you will be back on the 18th.

Director Weaver asked, and we are to have it back to the judge when?

Attorney Altman stated, 45 days. I would bet, what I was going to say was if we extend it out to the 18th or after the 18th are all of you available. What I was going to be was go to the other side and tell them we have one member is committed and will not be available to comply with the time that the judge said. Can we extend this another week? If you get back on.

David Stimmel asked, is it necessary?

Attorney Altman stated, oh I think it is very helpful to have a full board if we can do that. I really do think that.

Carol Stradling stated, it has gone on long enough Dave that another week if we could get it isn’t going to.

Attorney Altman stated, that is all I’m thinking, is that I think they still understand that even they would like to have a full board even if they figure we are going to support our decisions.

Carol Stradling asked, could we propose that we meet on the 18th after our meeting, we can call an executive session and then we could do the public thing on the 19th and still be within our.

Director Weaver asked, the 19th is a Friday, do you still want to do that?

Carol Stradling stated, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me.

Attorney Altman stated, the truth is that it doesn’t matter to me.

Carol Stradling asked, we could do it during the day?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you right now how big the meeting on the 18th is going to be.

President Jerry Thompson asked, well about a late afternoon?

Carol Stradling asked, what time are you getting back?

Attorney Altman stated, let me tell you want I’m going to need the week to get it all lawyered up.

Carol Stradling asked, it isn’t lawyered up enough Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, no I mean the Findings of Fact. I think the meetings are fine, I don’t have any problem with your time frame, just because I think you are quite right.

Gary Barbour stated, if you need the week why not just do it on Monday night.

Director Weaver stated, I would rather do it on a Monday night then.

Gary Barbour stated, well you’ve got kids.

Director Weaver stated, I may be shuffling kids and that is my problem.

Attorney Altman stated, no matter what everybody would like to go that way. We extend it a week and do it that way.

Director Weaver asked, what time are we looking at on the executive session. What I would like to do before everybody leaves here is run down stairs and look at the calendar and see if those dates are available.

David Stimmel stated, I would like to make a point that if there is any delay on the plane, I’m serious, I will be out of luck and I won’t be able to make it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, how is the September agenda looking?

Director Weaver stated, we have not had the cut off yet, I don’t know.

Attorney Altman asked, so are you saying that the 18th is iffy?

David Stimmel stated, my flight is to be in at 10:45, anything could happen that could create a problem.

Attorney Altman asked, why can’t we do an executive session on.

Gary Barbour stated, have it on Tuesday.

David Scott stated, Tuesday might be bad.

Director Weaver is going to check the calendar down stairs.

President Jerry Thompson stated, variance #2232 if you look at the sheet, Stoller’s owner Lucterhand is the applicant and it is the building North of Wolcott. We took the applicant word on everything tonight. Didn’t we?

Attorney Altman stated, we have done that before.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m not saying he is not accountable, but.

Attorney Altman stated, we have done that before, the applicant give evidence before. I’m not telling you, there are sometimes the consent to do that is a little light honestly. We have done that before. Not to split hairs, but do we know if Stoller’s are okay with this?

Attorney Altman stated, that is a good question, it always concerns me a little bit.

David Stimmel asked, how do you approach that Jerry? I’ve seen it twice. Do you challenge that or ask that question?

Attorney Altman stated, if you have any questions at all you should ask them.

Carol Stradling stated, essentially if the applicant is not the owner and we pass it, he can’t do anything that he doesn’t own even if we grant it to him correct.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that is right.

Carol Stradling asked, wouldn’t that, I mean if the owner was to contest it, then our variance would be invalid anyway, so we have not harmed anyone by passing it when it goes to the next level.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I guess the thing I remember is we have had the applicant do the speaking, but the owners have been present.

David Stimmel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that is true, more often than not.

David Scott asked, did we fine Gary Gilmore tonight?

President jerry Thompson stated, no.

David Scott stated, I thought he needed to be fined, but it seem like the one right after it was almost identical and we did not handle it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so she is checking out the 22nd and 23rd?

Carol Stradling stated, I believe so.

Attorney Altman stated, I have heard nothing from either lawyers about the Findings of Fact that I have requested. I just wanted to bring you up to date on everything. That is really it. Like I said, you’ve got your reading material.

Director Weaver stated, both of those nights are open. What time do we want these meetings?

Attorney Altman asked, is 7:30 all right, since we are use to it, or do you want to do it earlier?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’d like to see it at 7:30, not any earlier.

Attorney Altman stated, procedurally the other thing that I can tell you as soon as I get their Findings of Fact, I will send them off. You being in Alaska may or may not want me to fax it to you.

Director Weaver stated, the sheet that you got with fines imposed is something that Gary had asked me to get and he also had asked if there was a way let you know of the violations that we deal with. I haven’t got that one quite worked out yet, but we are working on it and as soon as we have some kind of method of keeping up with those, we will start doing that as well.

David Scott asked, how long do they have to pay these fines?

Director Weaver stated, according to the policy it gives them 60 days, and if it is not paid within the 60 days, then they have an additional $50 per month.

David Scott asked, automatic or does it come before the board?

Director Weaver stated, it is automatic.

Attorney Altman stated, it is automatic. Again you guys have got to be really careful about, I stand corrected, you’ve got to listen to them, but you really, the more you give them any slack the more you eliminate the benefit of her being able to enforce the ordinance and not look ??? and you’ve got to look at that.

Director Weaver stated, I have to let the board know I’m not real crazy about fining people, but we need to get the point across, but I appreciate the policy because it gives me, I’m more comfortable fining someone when I know there is a flat fee, you get this fine and if you have a problem with it then you take it to the Board. I like that and I appreciate that, it makes my job easier.

Carol Stradling stated, but it would make your job more challenging, if you sought and you fined them and they came here and we said no it wasn’t valid, it shouldn’t have been imposed.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, because why does she fine anybody then.

Gary Barbour stated, well the more I think about this too, as long as it has gone on now with the automatic $500 fine and a $50 a month fee if you don’t pay the fine, I’m thinking to myself that there really is no bite there on the $50 a month. I mean I already got $500 what is $50.

Attorney Altman stated, you rest assured if it goes very much more then 2 months we are going to have them in court.

Gary Barbour stated, well that is my concern and the reason I’m concerned about it because I see on here where Area Plan Commission with Hubbard, we not only lowered his $500 fee, but he hasn’t even bothered to come in and pay it yet and he isn’t due until the 9th or the 14th.

Director Weaver stated, I have not seen the apology in the paper either.

Gary Barbour stated, and there has not been an apology in the paper and that concerns me because.

Attorney Altman stated, yes sir.

Gary Barbour stated, I think because we were lenient with him if he doesn’t pay it by the due date I think it ought to revert to the original $500 fee as well as the $50 a day.

Attorney Altman stated, let me think on that as to how we can do that Gary.

Gary Barbour stated, that upsets me, I lowered that fee at that time because we didn’t think we had enough votes to give him the $500 fee.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else you guys want to talk about this Indiana Beach thing?

President Jerry Thompson stated, not yet.

Attorney Altman stated, I will tell you from a procedure point of view, think of it like this. We will have A and B here and maybe C. I intend to probably prepare one. You guys are going to have yours also and we will just go through and this one here, you will read and do we agree with it. If 3 agree then it is a Findings of Fact. If 3 don’t agree then it isn’t. In other words if it says those chairs are yellow and 3 people say yea they are then that is a Findings of Fact. Then we will just move on and on with all of them. This includes yours Jerry if you bring in a set.

Carol Stradling asked, so if the issue with the Irwins and the Stokes tonight, he was presenting a piece of information that the Stokes didn’t own that property, and so what we would be looking at is the Findings of Fact was his statement fact or was the Stokes statement fact and we voted what we found to be fact according to the presentation.

Attorney Altman stated, yes and you can decide even if everything he said was right, that it didn’t matter when it came to us voting on Mr. & Mrs. Stoke’s application.

Carol Stradling stated, so with Indiana Beach if the Thompson/Switzer say its noisy, we need to say yes or not it is noisy and does that matter.

Attorney Altman stated, that is measured up against the standard that the Judge laid out for you. The general enjoyment of adjacent property owners. That is what the ordinance says.

Carol Stradling asked, can we when someone is living next to an amusement park assume that they take on another level of enjoyment?

Attorney Altman stated, that is what Mr. Anderson told you it was, if you think of the facts Art Anderson. He said that everybody wants to be there because its noisy, that is really what he said. Its like everyone under the sun wants to go 52 and 26 in Lafayette. That is the god awfulness area in the world in Lafayette. You would look at it and wonder why would anyone want to be there. The truth is that everybody wants to be there, so what I’m saying is you balance those and you make a decision and that is the finding of facts that you are talking about here Carol.

Carol Stradling asked, we need to identify them?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you need to identify them. That is what I’m trying to say.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I know everyone wants to go home, but you brought up something. The way this read we should have been given reasons either yes reasons or no reasons. Does that mean we should have been doing that tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, no question of that should.

President Jerry Thompson stated, there isn’t enough time.

Attorney Altman stated, there isn’t enough time. The answer is from a procedural point of view I don’t have any trouble as your lawyer to tell you from an efficiently point of view is you continue to do what you are doing right now until the cows come in. That does mean on the Indiana Beach things, we know it was contested and we started to lawyer it.

David Stimmel asked, where does that go on the voting process is that a part of the permanent record of the meeting itself or does it go into some part of the vote.


Attorney Altman stated, our ballot doesn’t really allow it. Maybe quitee frankly in the minutes, this is where, I charge.


David Stimmel asked, are you saying we should state something as obvious as that?


Attorney Altman stated, that is right. That is Findings of Fact.


David Stimmel stated, okay I’m dragging this out here, I’m saying how, you say that is because of a vote. Do you have a vote, is that a findings of fact, do you make a motion, say I move that we have a findings of fact that this property is irrelevant to this response at this point and time?


Attorney Altman stated, I would you the word irrelevant as a lawyer, but the truth is yes. You have two Findings of Fact and you read them and this is what Judges do.


David Stimmel asked, where does it go Jerry that is what I’m trying to understand.


Attorney Altman stated, it would go into the minutes under.


David Stimmel asked, would you vote on that, would we make a motion?


Carol Stradling stated, we would need to vote on that, if it is a motion the board has to vote on approving that motion or denying that motion and it is your opinion and it is a fact that you found and you can state that as such, I don’t think we need to approve that or not approve that.


Attorney Altman stated, what you actually do is you approve it in the minutes and this is why the minutes are so critical because it ought to be in the minutes. Where it says…


Carol Stradling stated, to me that is what we do when that gentleman discussed wetlands on the campgrounds, and we discussed it and decided that okay that might be a finding of fact that it might be a wetland, but it is irrelevant to our decision.


Attorney Altman stated, exactly.


Carol Stradling stated, but that is in the minutes, that is not anywhere on the ballot and we didn’t make any motion, we just discussed it.


David Stimmel asked, then how can it be a findings of fact, if I’m the only one that has that opinion, you may not agree with my opinion. That is what I’m concerned about.


Attorney Altman stated, what you do then is present it and if it gets 3 votes then it is a findings of fact.


David Stimmel stated, okay in other words if you are concerned about it being on the permanent record, that it is a findings of fact and you would put it in a motion.


Carol Stradling stated, it is a part of the permanent record though, when we have minutes, correct?


Attorney Altman stated, yes, and that is what I just pointed out.


David Stimmel stated, not have findings of fact unless.


Attorney Altman stated, unless it is written down in the minutes. This part of the minutes what I’m talking about here. We decided that the property is properly zoned lot. The lot is an existing, the side plan is presented blah, I’m not going to take the time to read it all, but that is all findings of facts. The objectors were presented blah…


David Scott stated, but during a regular course of the meeting for the sake of things moving on.


Attorney Altman stated, we don’t do that.


David Scott stated, unless it was contested and upon a further date and then we have go through this like Indiana Beach is probably necessary.


Attorney Altman stated, this is what I meant by the efficiently involved, but when you get to something like this efficiently doesn’t matter, it has to go.


President Jerry Thompson stated, I just thought of something what if we have a big meeting for September and have to split it up into 2, then we are going to have 4 meetings.


The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission