Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 18, 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: Todd Thompson, Charles R. Mellon, Janice Conwell, Deon Miller, Jon Provo, Steve Woodcock, David Maroney, Rosalie Geier, Sharon Grigsby, James Grigsby, Michael E. Triplett, Denis Marmolijo, and Louis A. Indovina

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

****

#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, anyone here representing the variance this evening?

 

David Maroney stated, good evening, I’m David Maroney. I represent Happy Tails, I’m the President and we are a volunteer group. When we were here at the July meeting you presented us with a letter that was signed by a number of people some in favor or the request and others raising questions about our operation of our proposed animal care center. You asked us at that point to contact those people. What we have done in the interim is this. I prepared a written statement and I can give you a copy of this statement later if you so desire. I prepared a written statement explaining precisely what we are proposing what it is and what it is not. There were 5 people on your letter as I recall who raised questions, or said no that they may not be in favor of this. We found that represented basically two residences. We took the official statement that we prepared and we went to both residences and we left copies of this at the first residence. The lady we spoke to was not fluent in English. She explained that her husband and brother were. We asked her to pass that along. Again the statement outlines our proposal and we invited them


to call if they had any questions. We invited them to attend this meeting if they had any imput. The second residence we spoke to the people who had signed as opposing it. They were under a number of misconceptions about what Happy Tails would be. The lady of the residence ended up saying yes I support it and her daughter agreed to volunteer to assist us. It went well we did contact the residences that were indicated on your letter and gave them as much information as we had and invited them to attend tonight.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, and have they?

 

David Maroney stated, I don’t know if any of them are here. I do not see the two ladies that we spoke to when we went to the sites.

 

Attorney Altman asked, do you want to enter the letter in as evidence?

 

David Maroney stated, I do not have a copy of it, but I would more then happy to provide you one if you so desire.

 

Attorney Altman stated, we would like one. Would you tell us what the letter says so that we could have it in our record this evening?

 

David Maroney stated, it explained first of all Happy Tails in an all volunteer organization and that we are not as actually what the agenda indicates. We are not planning to place a kennel in this property, that is not quite an accurate description. The building our project is supported by the city of course, by the Sheriff Department, and by the FOP as a whole. What it will be is an animal care center, it will be an educational facility within the building. There will be limited facilities for stray animals they will not be kept there permanently, they will be kept there only while we find foster homes and permanent homes. There will be a maximum of 10 dogs and 10 cats there at one time. That will be the maximum that is all the space we will have. We will give preference on the temporary lodging to animals that are picked up by the City and the County. Those animals are routinely euthanized and they don’t have a chance. We will give precedence and preference to the animals that are collected by our local law enforcement. Any other space that is available on temporary basis will be filled with animals that are healthy and adoptable. We are a non-profit organization. We are affiliated with the White County Community Foundation and we are in the process of filing for our 501C3 Non-profit charitable status. We have received wonderful support from the community in the context of fund raising and from the Sheriff, police, and the FOP. There was one question that was raised about animals approaching this or kind of hanging around our place. Our first step on this will be to fence in the property, so that we have no animals collecting there. The animals that are given temporary lodging at Happy Tails will be walked on daily basis and exercised, but they will not be running free on the property. We will be remodeling the interior so that noise will not be a problem in the evening.

 

As far as the sanitary requirements and the specific plans, those must be approved, we have to submit a plan to the State Board of Health. We have to comply with all State regulations and we would not be able to do anything until our plan is approved. We will be following State regulations the same as any other facility in the County that has that would take at least 6 months and probably anywhere from 6 to 9 months just to complete that procedure with the State.

 

Attorney Altman asked, is your proposed facility still similar to this?

 

David Maroney stated, yes, as I explained when we submitted that is a very rough proposal of what we have and again we have to have a plan that is State approved. That will be starting point for us. Whether it turns out exactly like that I have no way of knowing at this point.

 

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the board know that we have not had any recent contact from any of the adjoining property owners.

 

Carol Stradling stated, you have mentioned that you contacted two address, on this there is 4 different addresses and 5 locations, but they weren’t adjoining do you know which ones you contacted?

 

David Maroney stated, we contact the ones that indicated no. This one was a yes and this one was a question mark. This is the group that we concentrated on.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, I’m all for taking care of animals, but before I should ask this, you are the applicant, do we really have anything from the FOP?

 

Director Weaver stated, they signed the application as well.

 

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, I was just curious.

 

David Maroney stated, I have been dealing with Mike Andrews, who is the President of the FOP and Jason Lingenfelter and they asked if they should be present at this meeting and Diann indicated that it probably would not be necessary. They have again supported our project and have agreed to donate the building and the property.

 

Director Weaver stated, yes they did sign the application along with Happy Tails.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here care to speak either in favor or against?

Does the board have any 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 was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

 

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

 

6. That the request is for a special exception to place a kennel on a tract of land out of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Twenty Eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Sixteen (16), and running thence North Eighty Nine Degrees and Fifteen Minutes West (N 89º 15’ W) Four Hundred Twelve and Five Tenths (412.5) Feet; thence South Zero Degrees East (S 0º E) Five Hundred Twenty Eight (528) Feet; thence South Eighty Nine Degrees and Fifteen Minutes East (S 89º 15’ E) Four Hundred Twelve and Five Tenths (412.5) Feet; thence North Zero Degrees East (N 0º E) Five Hundred Twenty Eight (528) Feet to the point of beginning, containing Five (5) Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Buffalo at 8954 N. West Shafer Drive.

 

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

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

 

****

#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 asked, is there anyone here to representing this request?

Deon Miller stated, I’m Deon Miller.

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

Deon Miller stated, no, it is 8 x 16 storage shed.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, the reason he is requesting the variance he is in between two roads, so he has 2 front yards, no back yard. It is a very narrow lot, those there is really no place that he can put this shed without going through a variance. There is also 2 existing mobile homes on the property that are grandfathered and the way they are in there, there really is no option for the shed. It is not a good location.

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

Carol Stradling asked, is there one there that is going to be removed?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 24’ front setback variance to put a new shed on a tract of land located in the North Half (1/2) of the Southeast Fractional Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty Eight (28), Township Twenty Eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, being described more fully as follows:

Beginning at an iron stake which is North Eighty Nine Degrees and Nineteen Minutes East (N 89º 19’ E) Two Hundred Eighteen and Four Tenths (218.4) feet from the Northeast corner of Lot Number One (1) in Grande Vista Addition and running thence North Eighty Nine Degrees and Nineteen Minutes East (N 89º 19’ E) One Hundred Twenty (120) feet to an iron stake; thence North One Degree and Fourteen Minutes West (N 1º 14’ W) Sixty Five (65) feet to an iron stake; thence South Eighty Nine Degrees and Nineteen Minutes West (S 89º 19’ W) One Hundred Twenty (120) feet to an iron stake; thence South One Degree and Fourteen Minutes East (S 1º 14’ E) Sixty Five (65) feet to the point of beginning, containing Eighteen Hundredths (.18) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5698 & 5704 E. Halas Court.

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

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

 

****

#2238 Sharon Grigsby;

Violation: None.

Request: She is requesting a Special Exception to allow a 1976 mobile home to be

relocated within White County. Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White

County Zoning Ordinance requires that any mobile home older than a 1981

have an inspection done and an approved special exception in order to be

placed in or relocated within White County.

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

Sharon Grigsby stated, I’m Sharon Grigsby, and this is my son. I have already had that done. The Chief of Police was the inspector. You should have a record of that.

Director Weaver stated, that Bob Braaksma did do an inspection. Before we get real involved with this I do want to set the record straight. In the past when we have been granting these, it was my understanding that our County Building Inspector was going to do the follow-up inspections, he is not, so if the board wants another inspection done, it will have to be done by a private inspector. The county inspector does not go back and inspect.

David Stimmel asked, at whose cost?

Director Weaver stated, the owners cost.

Gary Barbour asked, why wouldn’t the building inspector check this?

Director Weaver asked, why doesn’t he?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, my understanding from him is that it is a manufactured structure and he has no authority to do the inspections on the inside. The only thing he can inspect is how it is placed on the property.

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

Carol do you have any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, no, so if we do approve this special exception this evening then you will have to have another inspection after it is connected.

Sharon Grigsby stated, yes, he does have to come back. It isn’t hooked up to water. He wants to make sure that all of gas monitors are hooked up.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave Scott?

David Scott asked, is this going on a country lot?

Sharon Grigsby stated, yes.

David Scott asked, are there other trailers around or is it in a trailer park?

James Grigsby stated, no there is an acres and half of land that we are on, and the place adjoining our property they have a trailer. Our lot has a trailer on it.

David Scott asked, we don’t get a plot like this?

Director Weaver stated, no when it is a special exception. It really doesn’t pertain to the property, it is on the condition, and it is being granted based on the condition of the home.

David Scott asked, my question is if this was going in next to a $250,000 home we would inspect it and we would not know that? I mean we would approve this and not know that.

Director Weaver stated, I understand your concern and that has been a problem in the past, but that was what we have this set up we’ve not set it up to, the ordinance is not set up that way.

Attorney Altman stated, the ordinance is set up as a safety check to make sure that the wiring, heating, and the plumbing is all correct. We hopefully don’t have people hurt because they buy something older and it is out of code. It is just to check on older homes.

David Scott stated, so we don’t have any provisions to protect the properties.

Attorney Altman stated, no they must comply with all of the zoning regulations, so yes.

David Scott stated, by looking at this I can’t tell where it is going.

Director Weaver stated, that is right.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and it is only to be located in White County somewhere. That is all it is.

Director Weaver stated, if they had a 1982 mobile home, they could get a permit to place it any place in the county they wanted to, other than the towns.

David Scott stated, but it would have to meet setbacks and everything. This is going to have to do that also?

Attorney Altman stated, this is just to make sure that it is a safe home.

Director Weaver stated, I do understand your concerns because we have passed one before.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so they will be back?

Director Weaver stated, we have passed one before that has had problems. They will be back if they can not meet setbacks.

David Stimmel asked, Diann the pictures of the electric service, there is a cover for that?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t really tell you that. Those pictures where provided by Mr. Braaksma.

David Scott asked, so when they go to set this they have to come in and get a permit and it has to meet the setbacks?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I think it would be Dave, it is only to show the conditions inside the box.

Director Weaver stated, he doesn’t indicate one way or the other.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? Are we ready to vote?

David Scott asked, is someone going to inspect this once it is there?

Director Weaver stated, that needs to be a condition of your vote.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1976 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

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

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

****

#2241 Louis & Janet Indovina, Owner; McWilliams Construction, Perry McWilliams, Applicant: The property is located on Lots 4 and 5 in Dolby Addition, South of Lowe’s Bridge at 3866 E. Dolby Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 15’ front setback variance to build a second story addition and to bring the existing house into compliance. Also, a 6.8’ side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance.

 

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

 

Louis Indovina stated, I’m Louis Indovina.

 

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

 

Louis Indovina stated, no, the only thing that I have I don’t know if I should present it here is the DNR report.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything on this?

 

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything on this. Not that it makes any difference, but just so the board knows we have another request tonight for his neighbor.

 

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, but you have no fan mail from anyone?

 

Director Weaver stated, no.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

 

Attorney Altman asked, when was the sewer ran through to your neighbor?

 

Louis Indovina stated, sometime next year.

 

Attorney Altman stated, next year.

 

Louis Indovina stated, that is what we have heard anyway. We have filed the papers.

 

Attorney Altman stated, you know in the interim you have to get a septic permit for the additional increase to the addition. That might mean sewer or septic system, if they require it.

 

President Jerry Thompson stated, well it would depend on what his addition would include.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I said maybe.

 

Louis Indovina stated, yes.

 

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

 

Carol Stradling stated, the footprint of the home is not going to change, it is just a second story.

 

Louis Indovina stated, yes.

 

Carol Stradling asked, does this do anything to the neighbor’s view? It looks like the other homes are to the lake side of that.

 

Louis Indovina stated, correct.

 

Carol Stradling stated, people don’t like it would they have a view of the lake and you build a house in front of them.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, what will be the addition?

 

Louis Indovina stated, a bedroom, computer room, and a family room.

 

Director Weaver stated, any time that they add a bedroom we do require a septic permit before we will issue the permit.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel?

David Stimmel asked, I have a question about the height of this. Will the height fall within the zoning ordinance them?

 

Director Weaver stated, the maximum height is 30’.

 

Louis Indovina stated, I sure that is right.

 

David Stimmel stated, I would caution you not to be too sure with the contractor. I mean I would make sure with the contractor because if you end up back here.

 

Attorney Altman stated, you may have to pay a fine.

 

David Stimmel stated, make sure he understands.

 

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t like fines, we like compliance.

 

President Jerry Thompson asked, are there any other questions?

 

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 15’ front setback variance to build a second story addition and to bring the existing house into compliance. Also, a 6.8’ side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance on Lots 4 and 5 in Dolby Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge at 3866 E. Dolby Court.

 

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

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

 

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get the building permit and the septic approval.

 

Louis Indovina stated, yes.

 

****

#2242 Steve D. & Paula S. Woodcock; The property is located on 2.00 acres, Northwest of Wolcott at 5792 N. 1100 W.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 4’ height variance to build a Pole Barn for personal storage.

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

Steve Woodcock stated, I’m Steve Woodcock, its just going to be an equipment storage. Tractors and stuff like that.

Attorney Altman asked, it is a proposed garage the 42’ x 48’ structure we are talking about on the survey?

Steve Woodcock stated, it is a tool shed. It is going to have a 14’ ceiling in, your permits only go to 17’. I didn’t know if that meant the ceiling or the peak to the roof.

Attorney Altman asked, so you want 21’ on that structure? I just want to make sure which one you are proposing.

Steve Woodcock stated, yes, I just drew it out. They said you had to have that for Area Plan.

Director Weaver stated, I need a clarification. The permit was issued for personal storage.

Steve Woodcock stated, well farm equipment. I don’t think that she understood either, she said that somebody didn’t explain it to her right. I was wanting to go agriculture because I wouldn’t be in here.

Director Weaver stated, I understand.

Steve Woodcock stated, I have $350 to get this done.

Director Weaver stated, he is located on 2 acres of property. The two-acre tract does not consist of a farm, so we can not issue a permit for a farm building.

Steve Woodcock asked, so how does your other farmers get by.

Director Weaver stated, if they have 3 acres or more a farm is considered 3 acres or more. That is why the permit was issued for personal storage. That is why the height variance is required.

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

Carol do you have any comments.

Carol Stradling stated, no, I see 16’ height on one sheet, okay I see.

Director Weaver stated, we issued the permit Carol, and once we issued it then they realized they were going to be taller than what we allowed. That is when they filed for the variance,.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave, or Dave? Are we ready to vote?

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’ height variance to build a Pole Barn for personal storage on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 6 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana described by;

Commencing at a cast iron monument at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 34; thence South 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 14 Seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 960.06 feet to a railroad spike and the point of beginning;

Thence South 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 14 Seconds East 360.00 feet to a railroad spike; thence South 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 45 Seconds West along the fractional section line 242.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 14 Seconds West 360.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 22 Minutes 45 Seconds East 242.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.00 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northwest of Wolcott at 5792 N. 1100 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.

****

#2243 Daniel J. Zbinden; The property is located on 0.277 Acres, more or less, West of Buffalo at 8133 N. West Shafer Drive.

Violation: None.

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

and a 3’ West side setback variance to build a new home on the property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann.

Director Weaver stated, this request has been tabled until the October 16 meeting, due to the fact that they did not get their sign posted. Therefore I have tabled the request.

 

****

#2244 Winona R. Rathje, Owner; Janice Conwell, Applicant: The property is located on Lot 6 in Dolby Addition, South of Lowe’s Bridge at 3870 Dolby Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting 20’ front setback variance, a 6’ side (Southeast) setback

variance, and a 10’ side (Northwest) setback variance to enclose a deck and to

add a second story.

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

Janice Conwell stated, I’m Janice Conwell, the Rathje are employed as educators in Napierville and can not be here on a Thursday night.

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

Janice Conwell stated, yes, can I pass these out?

President Jerry Thompson stated, wait just a second, if we get copies, Jerry explain to her the rules.

Attorney Altman stated, if we get copies we keep them as exhibits.

Janice Conwell stated, that is fine, I have several.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I just want to make sure we do not return them.

Janice Conwell stated, as you can see the existing house has a 25” over hang which is on each side and takes up and the measurements that the surveyor took was from the farthest points, which is the overhangs. We are gaining 2’ on each side because the new structure will have a roof the gables from front to back and the overhang wouldn’t be on the sides. Also we want to enclose the front deck which overhangs the house by 14” and we would be enclosing the deck in line with the house, not in line with the deck. We would be providing rain gutters and down spouts to get the water away from our neighbors, which we don’t have now.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry or Diann do you want to enter this?

Attorney Altman stated, I entered it as exhibit A page 1 & 2. We do have information from the SFLECC that they understand and they do not object and it is a letter dated August 27, 2002. Also have an application for septic permit and this is constructing and adding bedrooms and it has been approved by the White County Environmental specialist on August 22 of this year.

Director Weaver stated, you should also have in the file a copy of the letter from the DNR. Look to your left.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we have a letter dated September of this year from the DNR setting forth the requirements for building in this area, and what you need in reference to the flooding.

Director Weaver stated, it just states what the lowest floor elevation needs to be. Our ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation be 2’ above what is quoted in this letter. The building inspector will look at that and we will make the permit conditional that they get us an elevation certificate from a survey back to us before we will issue an occupancy permit.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else? Is there anyone here who cares to address this either for or against? Dave Stimmel do you have anything?

David Stimmel stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott, Gary, and Carol. Are we ready to vote?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 20’ front setback variance, a 6’ side (Southeast) setback variance, and a 10’ side (Northwest) setback variance to enclose a deck and to add a second story on Lot 6 in Dolby Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge at 3870 Dolby Court.

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

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

****

#2245 Hardebeck Realty, Owner; Crown Castle, Inc, Applicant: The property is located on 0.23 acres, more or less, in the City of Monticello at 1118 N. Sixth Street.

Violation: The building permit and the Special Exception that were given, were for the

tower to be 250’ tall.

Request: They are requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001

of the White County Zoning Ordinance to modify the previously granted

Special Exception #1181 to allow the tower to be 287’ in height.

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

Todd Thompson stated, I’m Todd Thompson, I’m the representative to Crown Castle as well Nextel Communications. I was asked to try to explain as much as I could as to what occurred and this tower being constructed out of compliance. The original zoning personnel, I guess I should describe. Crown Castle had hired whenever the tower was first constructed and should have prepared and presented to the board for a tower for 285’ which was constructed at for Verizon Communications. At that time though Crown was in process building a major build out basically for both Cingular and Verizon. They had over 100 towers going which is an enormous amount in Indiana at that time. They had a project, which they referred to as the Greenfield project where they were building numerous towers with some engineer direction for both Cingular and Cellular one at the time and Verizon at 250’ which is what this tower was approved at and applied for. This fell under this particular program. I can only say that a mistake was made whenever they filed because this was directed from Verizon to have been 285’ all along. As Mr. Altman had mentioned and as I feel the same way I do not like anything or who would be out of compliance. We did go ahead since we had this error we researched the history to make sure everything else that we know of with that facility is in compliance. Some documentation was provided, it is compliance with the FAA FCC. The tower, foundation, and everything was constructed for 285’ tower. Now the reason I’m here instead of the previous zoning personnel or the Tower Company that actually built the facility, neither one work for Crown Castle at this point in time. The industry had a tremendous change back when the economy fell off to be quite frank with you. A lot of contractors basically lost their jobs, or they had to go into different fields. I was fortunate I guess to still be in here except for cases like this. I have to handle for the carriers as well as the power companies. Nextel Communications is planning on relocating and has already pulled a building permit to go at 240’ to be within compliance in case there was a rejection of this tower basically staying at the 285’ height. Their intentions are to go 270’ if it is at all possible, if we can keep the facility as it is at this point in time. The positive out of all of this is, it does help with Nextel and any other carrier that come in having the additional height. There is no doubt that it is a benefit from that regard. Regardless that is the best explanation that I can give you as to what has occurred and feel welcome for anymore questions.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that there is a $500 fine?

Todd Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, as to your merits of your new request please go over that.

Todd Thompson stated, as far as merits.

Attorney Altman stated, about why you want it that way and how it is safe, how it is not inappropriate. All the things that need to be talked about.

Todd Thompson stated, as far as the safety the entire structure again was approved through the FAA FCC at the height it was constructed at. Actually up to 320’ through the FAA is what it was approved at. From a safety standpoint other than that there really isn’t anything additional I think I can give you. I don’t know of any other harmful effects the additional height would have or any effects at this point with the approvals that we received for that particular tower. As far as the reason for the additional height to benefit, this is a site that is considered a coverage site and carriers look at them in two different versions, a coverage and a compasated. This site is for coverage purposes mainly at this point. With growth over a number of years it can change to where it could be compasited and a need for another site in the area. It would be I think at least 5 or 10 years down the road. The higher height does with the terrain in which the area that we have it expands how far the service can go from Monticello area and out. The main purpose of the site is to service the Monticello area. We also want to cover the surrounding areas and far as connectivity with an existing site Verizon already has that with them. If there is an adjustment in the height do they have to come down to 250’? I’m not saying that this would have to happen but if it recalls a request for us to come back in to build another site to connect the network with the existing sites that are in place. That would be the worst case scenario, I’m not saying it will happen, its just that it could. Engineers would have to make a final decision on that. We will address that if we need to.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, well I would like a clarification, you are saying 285’ and you provided us at the time you filed a picture that stated that the tower was 287’. So which is correct?

Todd Thompson stated, with the 287’ and the 285’ I will tell you that the 285’ is what should be considered accurate. I put the 287’ because there was a light on top for the FAA and that is the top of the total structure. As far as with the equipment that is on it the top of the tower is actually 285’.

Director Weaver stated, I just wanted to clarification so there is no confusion.

Todd Thompson stated, no problem, but keep in mind above that is a lightning rod. They don’t consider that part of the tower the FAA FCC, they take it into consideration, but it is typically 5’ to 10’ above the tower.

Director Weaver stated, they have been notified of the fine and the board received a copy of the fine policy that they signed. Mr. Thompson has signed that on their behalf. They are aware of the $500 fine.

Todd Thompson stated, I can literally take care of that through my company tonight if necessary or as a condition of Nextel being able to go up to 270’ to be able to pull that permit. If that would be acceptable to the board.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this either for or against?

Carol do you have anything?

Carol Stradling asked, so this tower has been in place for how many years?

Todd Thompson stated, approximately 3 years, but it is 2 to 3 years.

Carol Stradling asked, has there been any problem with the height?

Director Weaver stated, no, I was completely unaware of the discrepancy of the height until we were contacted.

Todd Thompson stated, I will mention that since we found out we were out of compliance when ever I applied for the building permit for Nextel the engineers did verify that it was 285’ and I have a range finder which can verify usually within 3’ and it came in right at 285’.

Director Weaver stated, I have discussed this with the Building Inspector and he is aware of what happened here. I do believe that it is his intentions on future towers that he will notify them right up front that they will have to have this instrument with them to verify the height when he does the final inspection.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any more discussion?

Director Weaver asked, do we have to act on the violation first?

Carol Stradling stated, no, it was a part of this and he is not arguing with it.

Without further discussion the board voted.

President Jerry Thompson asked, did you say that you represented all of Crown Castle?

Todd Thompson stated, I’m a representative for them that I’m a contractor and I have been since they started or had a regional office here Indianapolis, which was in 1998.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have a business card I can have.

Todd Thompson stated, sure.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-2, General 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 special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to modify the previously granted a Special Exception #1181 to allow the tower to be 287’ in height on part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana described as follows:

Commencing at a PK nail marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 29; thence South 00 Degrees 17 Minutes 49 Seconds East (bearing based on Geodetic North) on a line produced to a railroad spike marking the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 29, a distance of 2666.60 feet to the intersection of said line and the Easterly extension of the North line of real estate described in Document 99-12-7208 (parent tract) in the Office of the Recorder in White County; thence North 88 Degrees 05 Minutes 50 Seconds West on said Easterly extension, 690.57 feet to a ¾” diameter pipe marking the Northeast corner of said parent tract; thence continuing North 88 Degrees 05 Minutes 50 Seconds West on the North line thereof, 50.65 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West 25.18 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West 100.00 feet; thence South 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West 100.00 feet; thence North 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East 100.00 feet; thence North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.23 acres, more or less, and subject to easements and rights of way of record.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1118 N. Sixth Street.

 

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

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

****

#2246 Crispin & Denise Marmolijo; The property is located on Lot 23 and the South Half of Lot 24 in Frank Burch’s Lakeside Addition, in the City of Monticello at 900 Bluewater Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 18’ front setback (Fisher Street) variance to build an addition onto the home.

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

Denise Marmolijo stated, I’m Denise Marmolijo.

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

Denise Marmolijo stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I do. I did talk to the city, I was aware from reading the newspaper that they did vacate a portion of Fisher Street that adjoins this property and I have given you a copy of the ordinance vacating this roadway. So this will be as it states on this document it will be added to their property.

Attorney Altman asked, so the request to build is on this property?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone here care to speak for or against? Carol do you have any questions or concerns?

Carol Stradling asked, will you be taking that tree down?

Denise Marmolijo stated, taking 10 down and we are taking part of the house off and redoing the back and we are taking 3 rooms off and putting 3 rooms on and fixing the basement because after the last water coming down that area we had a lot of water. We are trying to fix that problem.

Director Weaver stated, they are at the bottom of the hill.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are there any more questions? Are we ready to vote?

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 18’ front setback (Fisher Street) variance to build an addition onto the home on Lot 23 and the South Half of Lot 24 in Frank Burch’s Lakeside Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

 

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 900 Bluewater 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, okay other business. We have the Triplett’s.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann do you want to proceed?

Director Weaver stated, I will give a brief overview of what has transpired. I have provided you with an in-depth report of what has went on. Basically I noticed that there was a new privacy fence on Mr. Triplett’s property. We did send out a courtesy letter to him notifying him of the violation. He did come into the office and he explained to us that Mr. Provo is purchasing the property on contract from him and that is who put this fence up on the property. He did go ahead and apply for the permit and at that point in time when researching the information for his permit realized that he was not meeting setbacks. Therefore it is a violation of the ordinance for the setback requirements and we could not issue the permit for it without a variance. Therefore we sited them for a violation and sent out a letter and they are appealing the $500 fine. That is my knowledge. I apologize I did not get out to the property today, but to the best of my knowledge the fence is still on the property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we will give him a chance to speak.

Director Weaver stated, we have Mr. Provo and Mr. Triplett here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do either one of you care to address the board tonight?

Jon Provo stated, I’m Jon Provo, I bought the property from Mike Triplett and the fence was already on the property and then it was around a pool and we are filling the pool in. I leased the buildings to some tenants that lease everything. I came up to find out about a permit and I was told that was State I had to file papers with the State. Correct?

Director Weaver stated, no for a fence.

Jon Provo stated, I was told that and anything I do out there it is zoned and anything I get has to be filed with the State. Before I could get any permitting done our people who are living out there put the fence. We said we would take the fence back down, we were told to go to talk to Mr. Brooks at the highway garage, we did that and Mr. Brooks said he didn’t care if the fence was there.

Director Weaver stated, that was prior to telling you to remove the fence. That was how we determined that you were not meeting setbacks was prior to us ever telling you that you were in violation.

Jon Provo stated, right, that is why we went over and asked him if the fence was a problem for the highway. They told us no. We came back up and still didn’t get a permit. It makes me no difference, I just think that it is silly to spend $500 on a $50 fence.

Director Weaver stated, the reason we sent them to Mr. Brooks was to find out how wide the road right-of-way was and where exactly it was located at because when Mr. Triplett was in the office was not sure of that information. That is why we referred them to Mr. Brooks at the Highway garage. It was not to find out if they cared where the fence went.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, this is just the policy for violations. You have to show justification for something different.

Mike Triplett stated, I just wanted to let you know that previously there was a fence in the location that I had taken down awhile ago.

Director Weaver asked, how long ago and what kind of fence?

Mike Triplett stated, I don’t remember, it was a 4’ privacy fence in the same location. I bought the property in 1998.

Director Weaver stated, once you remove the fence that breaks the grandfather clause anything new has to be in compliance.

Mike Triplett stated, okay I didn’t know, I just wanted to explain what the situation was.

Jon Provo stated, last fall across the street from us the property where we have is the cottages and the house across the street is a restaurant beside the restaurant is another gentleman’s property from Chicago. He had a chain link fence and he wanted that taken down and a wooden privacy fence put in, I did not know I had to get a permit to do that and I done it and they came out red tagged it and said it was on County right-of-way. I got out papers out because we neighbor with them on the setbacks and where the property lines were and proved that it wasn’t on County right-of-way and I built that fence and got no fines out of that and we were in violation as the same before.

Director Weaver stated, that was before this fine policy was in place and that property also has different setback requirements than your property does.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol do you have anything?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not sure.

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

Gary Barbour asked, are you from around here?

Jon Provo stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, what do you do for a living?

Jon Provo stated, construction.

Gary Barbour stated, construction. So when you do construction and build stuff without getting permits or what…

Jon Provo stated, I don’t live there the tenants that live there put it in.

Gary Barbour stated, but isn’t it your property and ultimately as owner of the property you are responsible for the property.

Jon Provo stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

Carol Stradling asked, did the tenants just take down the fence around the pool and put it there without telling you about it?

Jon Provo stated, no, we talked about the fence because there had been one there before and when I asked about permitting I was told I had to go to the state on anything we done out there because of the way it was zoned.

Director Weaver stated, if you were told that then why didn’t you go through the state to get a permit.

Jon Provo stated, Diann you’ve got papers in your office where I filed for a garage permit and you told me I had to go to the State. That is why the papers are laying there and I have never done it.

Director Weaver asked, why did you not do that then with the fence?

Jon Provo stated, before I got that done the fence was put up. I said I would take the fence back down that is not an issue. If you want $500 and the fence comes down that is fine too, I guess.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel do you have anything?

David Stimmel stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, are we voting on whether or not the fence stays, no we are just voting.

Attorney Altman stated, you aren’t voting on anything.

Director Weaver stated, the fence can not stay.

Carol Stradling asked, he is appealing the fine and we need to give a response and we need to.

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t necessarily need to do anything, other than listen to his request and do something or not do something. If you do nothing then the $500 will stay in place.

David Scott asked, regardless of what we do, what does he do with the fence? Does he have to get a permit?

Director Weaver stated, it either has to be taken down or have a variance.

Carol Stradling asked, the variance is not before us tonight?

Director Weaver stated, no it has not been filed. At the time we sent the letter out on July 29, we gave them 10 days to get the problem corrected and fence is still up and a variance has not been filed.

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Provo help me understand how the fence got built again? You say the tenants built it at their own volition. I mean did they just take it upon themselves?

Jon Provo stated, they asked if they could put a fence in there. I said we can get that done and before I got everything done they built the fence. They are Hispanic people, all of the buildings are full of them. They all work for the seed corn place in Remington. They needed a place where they could stay and that is where they came. We rented it all to them and there kind of, they got vehicles that they work on and stuff and wanted to know if they could put the fence up there. That is where I told them I would get that done and before I could the fence was there and here we are.

Carol Stradling asked, can you tell me what kind of time lapsed in between that?

Jon Provo stated, we had a 3-month contract with me and the contract is up, so it has been no more than 3 months. The contract was up September 1.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is the board’s wishes?

Jon Provo stated, I’d like for the fence to stay, I’ll go through what ever the variance and I’ll take it down until we get that done and put it back up whatever I have to do to make it right.

President Jerry Thompson asked, any suggestions.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess the concern that I have here from compliance. We have sent them a letter to file a variance, they have not done so, and the fence is still there. You’ve got to look at this from the point of view of enforcement and the message that you are sending to people getting them into compliance. The only real justification that I can see for imposing a fine is a message you’re giving out to get into compliance.

David Stimmel asked, so Mr. Provo they went out bought the material and put the fence up.

Jon Provo stated, that was already there. There was a fence on the property they took that fence down.

David Stimmel stated, okay.

Jon Provo stated, that fence was coming down and they just moved that fence from one spot to another where it used to be.

David Stimmel asked, so this is not new material, they just took the fence down and moved it to a different location?

Jon Provo stated, there use to be a fence there that fence had been taken down and they took the fence down from the back and put the fence back up in the front.

Carol Stradling stated, I hear you saying that your tenants did it, but I also hear Diann and you saying that the fence is still there and you would like it to stay there. So to me the issue of the tenants did it and your not responsible, you had nothing to do with it.

Jon Provo stated, I’m not denying responsibility in any way shape or form.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do we leave the fine stand?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Mike Triplett stated, I don’t know if it makes a difference, but the first time I went to the area plan, when I received the letter I offered to take it down immediately.

Attorney Altman stated, we understand, but it is a violation.

Jon Provo stated, I was told by Area Plan that the contract where I purchased the property was no good.

Director Weaver stated, we didn’t tell you it was no good.

Jon Provo said you stated, I could not file for a permit or anything with that contract.

Director Weaver stated, excuse me can I finish please. What we explained to you is we had to send the letter out to the owner as recorded in the auditor’s office and that is what we have done. We have sent it to Mr. Triplett.

Jon Provo asked, and I don’t get one?

Director Weaver stated, a permit can be issued to you, at the time we sent the letter out we were not aware and we did not have an address for you. We still do not have an address for you that I recall.

Jon Provo stated, I have a mailbox at the place and I have gotten mail from you there.

The mailbox for the office is on the property Diann.

Director Weaver stated, we were told you were purchasing the property on contact and at that time we did not have an address for you. Mr. Triplett is listed as owner in the Auditor’s office.

Several are talking at once.

Mike Triplett asked, who is the fine for?

Director Weaver stated, I have not seen the contract. Did you bring a copy of the contract with you?

Jon Provo stated, I did when I tried to get permits up there.

Director Weaver stated, how long ago, over a year ago. We never issued permits, so I don’t know that we still have that information in the office.

Attorney Altman stated, generally the fine is imposed on the person who has possession. WE have a motion and do we have a second?

Carol Stradling asked, person in possession or property owner?

Attorney Altman stated, the person who is in possession or on the contract.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is the difference?

Attorney Altman stated, well a tenant would be somebody that might be in possession. Sometimes it is the proprietor.

Jon Provo stated, here is the contract legal contract and it is notarized.

President Jerry Thompson asked, moved and seconded that we stand.

Gary Barbour stated, wait a minute. We have a motion to leave the fine imposed but what about the fence. Is the fence going to be in compliance?

Director Weaver stated, the fence is not in compliance and there has been nothing filed to bring it into compliance.

Gary Barbour stated, all right. Can I press upon that we amend the proposal? Give them 10 days to remove the fence or make the seps to bring it into compliance.

Carol Stradling asked, how long since?

Director Weaver stated, the original letter was mailed out July 29.

David Stimmel asked, are you saying permit in lieu of the fine?

Gary Barbour stated, no the fine stays and either the fence comes down or they have so many days to file for a variance.

Carol Stradling asked, next months meeting the deadline to get in for that variance is when Diann.

Director Weaver stated, Wednesday. This coming Wednesday, the 24th.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are you hearing all of this?

Mike Triplett asked, who takes care of all of this responsibility with this board. Is it me as the property owner or is it Jon as the contract holder?

Attorney Altman stated, that is between you and Jon.

Mike Triplett asked, whom is the fine directed to?

Jon Provo stated, we’re not showing you the contract Jerry, I over heard you say that possession of the property and who is responsible. How do you define that to me, who is responsible for the property.

Attorney Altman stated, you have possession by the terms of that contract right.

Jon Provo stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the person that is responsible for the fine.

David Scott stated, then he should have been able to get a permit. I mean.

Director Weaver stated, we did not deny him a permit because of him being the contract purchaser. We will issue a permit to a contract purchaser, we require a copy of the contract.

Attorney Altman stated, he was denied because he was out of compliance.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay Gary let's try one more time. Okay this is it.

Jon Provo stated, this all came about because of this contract. Now you are telling me that with this contract I’m responsible. I came in before the fence was ever built and asked about this and the contract was not recognized.

Director Weaver stated, that is not true, we recognize contracts, we issue permits to a contract buyer. I do not recall Mr. Provo coming in.

Jon Provo stated, I talked to the attorney about it a week later when we were at the attorney’s office and asked, them that question because I had been denied. I asked, her if this contract was valid for permitting because I’m going through the same thing with the sewer board.

I’m working with the sewer board to get my sewer straighten around.

Director Weaver stated, we have denied any permits for you. We may have told you that you needed to have a State Release before you could get a permit, but we have not denied any permits to you based on the contract.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Charles?

Charles Mellon stated, Diann stated a while ago that the owner of that property is still in the Auditor’s office under Mr. Triplett’s name. So why are you saying that he is the owner now?

Director Weaver stated, ownership does not change in the auditor’s office until a deed comes through. A contract does not change the ownership in the Auditor’s office until the contract is paid off or deed is issued.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not an attorney, but I believe that Mr. Triplett would have some interest here also because if Mr. Provo doesn’t comply then it is up to Mr. Triplett to respond to the board’s request. You both are kind of implicated.

Mike Triplett stated, as soon as I received the notice of this, I didn’t know there was a problem. I immediately went to the Area Plan and stated I would take the fence down.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Triplett has been very cooperative.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I would amend my motion that the fine stands and if you would wish to have a variance on this fence you would need to get your application in by Wednesday to be on the next meeting. If you can’t make that deadline then you have the option to tear that fence down and Gary suggested 10 days. I think that would be long enough to take that fence down. So I move

Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.

Director Weaver stated, option or obligation.

Carol Stradling stated, he has the option to request a variance or removing the fence within 10 days. The variance needs to be requested by Wednesday, if not the fence needs to be taken down within 10 days.

Jon Provo asked, who needs to request the variance?

Director Weaver stated, the request will be in Mr. Triplett’s name as you as the applicant as a contract purchaser.

President Jerry Thompson stated, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor signify by saying “aye” all of those opposed the same. Motion carried.

David Stimmel stated, he could get on the agenda by Wednesday.

Director Weaver stated, as long as he files by Wednesday.

David Stimmel stated, does he have to have every single thing, all of his ducks in a row by Wednesday.

Director Weaver stated, yes that is right. He has had plenty of time.

David Stimmel stated, he has plenty of time.

Director Weaver stated, he was notified July 29.

Attorney Altman stated, nothing new there other than of course we have the Executive session Monday right here in the session to respond to the Judge’s order and enter our Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law on Tuesday.

President Jerry Thompson asked, the whole meeting Monday is an Executive meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t see it taking very long.

First tape went off.

Second tape started with Attorney Altman already talking. You can talk about the merits, procedures, lawsuit, talk about anything in the Executive session. You can talk about the odds you win or the odds you lose. All of those sorts of things.

David Stimmel stated, so for a rookie like myself, I’m looking for is kind of information for the decision itself. I want to get all of that out of the minutes.

Attorney Altman stated, yes. The bottom line really comes down to what the Judge is asking for. He is asking for Findings of Facts.

David Stimmel stated, the Judge is very clear I believe.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t want to talk a lot more, but that is really what comes out.

I wouldn’t talk about being factual basis tonight. The real thing that you’ve got to look at is the facts of the matter. We will talk about that Monday.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?

David Scott stated, I have a question. I had a fellow, or someone that has a pole barn out on his property in the country. Can he put what ever he wants in that pole barn?

Director Weaver stated, he is asking for an interpretation of the ordinance.

President jerry Thompson stated, I would say as long as it what is stored is for like agriculture or A-1.

Attorney Altman stated, he has to conform to the use that is allowed there. In other words if I am in an A-1 area I couldn’t have a contractor’s business in there.

David Scott stated, well what about all of these fellows in the contract business with backhoes and dump trucks and they have it on their farm properties.

Attorney Altman stated, they are to have a different set up.

President Jerry Thompson asked, they are operating as a business name?

Gary Barbour stated, if it is A-1 its going to be just like the business in Brookston we just dealt with.

David Scott stated, if someone stores something in their building, and they pull it in there once a year and take it out another time of the year.

Gary Barbour asked, like asphalt equipment?

David Scott stated, exactly.

Attorney Altman stated, it depends on whether the storage is allowed.

David Scott asked, what happened in Brookston?

Gary Barbour stated, we didn’t allow them to keep it in there.

Director Weaver stated, okay let's go a step further, is a special exception an option for a business like this, an excavating business or.

David Scott asked, my question is?

Attorney Altman stated, if it is in the ordinance and it allows it then yes.

Director Weaver stated, our ordinance even though we just amended it, we messed up.

Attorney Altman stated, what I’m saying is if the ordinance says under scheduled uses that a contracting storage area is a special exception under the zoning of the map or the parcel you are talking about then you can give them that. If it is not then the answer is no.

David Scott asked, who is going to go out and enforce that? If I own a building and as long as I’m not storing weapons of mass destruction or something, I don’t think that it is anybody’s damn business what I’ve got in there.

Director Weaver stated, but it is because of the zoning ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, the zoning ordinance restrictive.

David Scott stated, it is wrong. We better hire somebody to go out and start going out through pole barns because I guarantee that there are a lot of violations out there.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t doubt you, but I’m telling you that is the situation. That is the ordinance.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I know what you are saying. Charlie knows to that there is masses shuffle before the first of March a lot of times.

David Scott stated, well what if someone wants to take a backhoe and store it in your shed. Are you in violation?

Attorney Altman stated, storage is allowed in their zoning classification no. If it isn’t, then yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I wouldn’t say that because that is a common tool used in an A-1.

Carol Stradling stated, there are a lot of rules and lots a law that is on the books and not all of those are enforced 100% of the time. When there is a problem that law can then be enforced.

David Scott stated, but people use it to pick on people.

Carol Stradling stated, it also gives us the Area Plan office the ability, if a storage facility becomes a rented storage facility and traffic becomes high and it becomes a problem for the area and somebody comments on it. Then there is something on the books to act upon.

David Scott stated, well that is a different story you are talking about traffic and.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know what the circumstances are, but.

Director Weaver stated, like the property down in Brookston it did become a problem. The property in Brookston was a problem. We got several complaints about what they were doing.

Gary Barbour stated, they were hauling pavers up that long driveway up into that subdivision and they wanted to split off the shed from the house, so that the boy could buy the house.

Director Weaver stated, they were storing paving equipment in there.

Attorney Altman stated, the answer that you are talking about is, if someone does one little thing like that, you will get by with it. It is always that way.

David Scott stated, another thing I would bring up is that may be a sore subject is that Mr. Hubbard has not paid his fine.

Director Weaver stated, we are at the wrong board, but that is why it is highlighted and the APC will get a copy of this.

Gary Barbour stated, also looking at the 24th, didn’t we deny the permit for a guy having a sign in his yard for working on autos?

Director Weaver stated, we denied them their rezoning request.

Gary Barbour stated, he has a van setting there with a sign on it.

Director Weaver stated, we are on it. That is all I’m going to say on the record.

Mike Triplett stated, I wanted to get clarification on this. Is Mr. Provo supposed to come and apply for the variance?

Director Weaver stated, or removes the fence.

Mike Triplett stated, if he doesn’t would it be in my best interest to ask for the variance just to make sure.

Director Weaver stated, or removes the fence.

Mike Triplett stated, I know we can remove the fence that is not a problem. I’m trying to take care of my responsibility here. If Mr. Provo doesn’t come and ask for the variance, should I be doing it?

Attorney Altman stated, as contract owner you have certain rights in this circumstance. I have read your contract and you probably should have a lawyer read that for you and tell you what to do.

Mike Triplett asked, am I responsible for?

Attorney Altman stated, you can be.

Mike Triplett stated, so it would be in my best interest to at least ask for the variance whether I get it or not or take it down.

Attorney Altman stated, you probably need a lawyer look at your contract and see what is your responsibility in there. I guess you have some and you need to do something about it.

Director Weaver stated, I would also like to mention that the fine is due by October 15, or there will be additional fees imposed.

Mike Triplett stated, fine, but the fine is being sent to Mr. Provo.

Carol Stradling stated, if he doesn’t pay it, then you are.

Mike Triplett stated, so that is why I should get and ask for the variance so the fines won’t keep adding on. One last thing where the fence is the road kicks away from the fence. It is like one section of the fence is in violation of the footage. Is it just take just that one section down and the rest of it is okay or do we still have to ask for the permit.

Director Weaver stated, if you take that portion down we can issue a permit for the rest of it.

****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission