Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 23, 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: Christine Shaffer, Jennifer Deniston, Rich Deniston, Karen Frank, Jim Brown, Sandy Brown, D.A. Jefferson, Gloria Overbeck, Jim Overbeck, Emerson Enyart, Barbara Enyart, Doug Shaffer, Stanley Keeton, Steven Lytle, Kevin Luse, Teresa Luse, Glenda Salomon, Fritz Salomon, Marie Green, Brad Gutwein, David Wilcox, and Steven Brown.

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.

Attorney Altman stated, I would recommend that the board insert a statement in the minutes of the Executive Session, Monday September 22, 2003 at the very end. It says the following that no subject matter was discussed at the Executive Session other than the subject matter specified in the Public notice. The Public notice specified that we were discussing pending litigation.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have that or are you going to just take what Jerry has here?

Director Weaver stated, we will take it off the tape, instead of writing we will use that.

David Scott stated, made motion to accept that.

Carol Stradling stated, I will second that.

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

Attorney Altman stated, it was inadvertently not on there and it needs to be on there.

****


#2252 Edward E. Lytle; The property is located on Lot 16, Part of Lot 17 and Part of Lot 15, in Lake Manor Addition, in the City of Monticello at 605 Twin Lakes Avenue.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 6’ rear setback variance to put a 6’ privacy fence to the rear property line.

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

Steven Lytle stated, I’m Steven Lytle.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is your relationship to Edward Lytle?

Steven Lytle stated, he is my father.

President Jerry Thompson asked, would you come forward please?

Attorney Altman stated, let me be a little plain about this. If you don’t come forward and testify into the mic you would not be surprised I suspect your testimony might turn out to be absolute mush on the tape from that distance in the back. I would do exactly what this says, “please come forward. There may not be much to say, but what little you want to say you.

Steven Lytle asked, would you like to repeat that?

President Jerry Thompson asked, can we proceed legally with this?

Attorney Altman stated, Steven Lytle signed the application.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry I didn’t know that. We have a lot a people come in and we don’t know how they are connected. Do you have anything else you would like to present other than what I have read?

Steven Lytle stated, I think that is pretty much it.

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

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any calls on this. I have been out to this property a couple of times and today I went back on the city poolside and there are several fences that go back to the back property line. What they are wanting to do there is an existing chain link fence back there and they are wanting to take a wooden fence back to that chain link fence and as the ordinance is set up now it will not allow that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any fan mail from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who wants to discuss this either for or against? Any questions or discussion from the board?

Carol Stradling stated, I just want to make sure that the fence is going from the rear of the home to the back property line.

Steven Lytle stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, it is not going in front of the home?

Steven Lytle stated, no it is not. We are just going straight back to the chain link fence. I believe the City owns it.

Carol Stradling asked, is there one already in place or is that the neighbors?

Steven Lytle stated, that is the neighbor and that would be to the North.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that you have more than one lot here and that if you do this and if the variance is granted that you can not break off any part of this parcel. It is all married together as long as you use it as one.

Steven Lytle stated, yes, correct.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave, or Dave?

Gary Barbour asked, is this going against the chain link fence?

Steven Lytle stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, is the chain link fence still going to be there?

Steven Lytle stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, you are going up to the fence, not parallel with the fence.

Steven Lytle stated, no, I’m going to be running East and West. He is going to be running East and West and the chain link fence is going North and South. If it is like this he is going to run the fence start up to it. Which is up to the little league ball diamonds.

Carol Stradling stated, it just looks like the same post as the wooden fence back there, so it looked like you were going to run the fence parallel to the chain link fence.

Steven Lytle stated, no, the chain link fence is still going to be there. When you look out his back door you will see the ball diamond still no construction there.

They are looking at the survey at this time.

Attorney Altman stated, the applicant is amending his survey, if not his application to that and only that.

Carol Stradling stated, you are also going from the house north to the neighbor’s wood fence.

Steven Lytle stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, we have already issued a permit to do that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else? If there is nothing else are we ready to vote?

David Stimmel asked, should we amend this survey so it reflects this.

Several are talking at once.

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 6’ rear setback variance to put a 6’ privacy fence to the rear property line on Lot 16, 9.2 feet off the North end of Lot 17 and 44 feet off the South end of Lot 15 all in Lake Manor Addition to the City of Monticello, White County Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 605 Twin Lakes Avenue.

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.

****

#2253 Durward L. & Mildred L. Webb, Owner; Robert & Carole Blamer, Applicant: The property is located on Lot Number 9 and Lot Number 10 in Hilltop Subdivision, also 4.46 acres, East of Monticello at 810 E. Hilltop Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a Special Exception as per Section 10.20, Article

10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a kennel on the

property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Sandy Brown stated, I’m Sandy Brown with Stefaniak Realtors. I would be the selling realtor on this.

President Jerry Thompson stated, not to doubt everyone that comes to the microphone, don’t get me wrong, but here again you are representing the Realtor.

Sandy Brown stated, I’m representing the buyers.

President Jerry Thompson stated, but.

Sandy Brown stated, but I’m the realtor.

Director Weaver stated, the Blamers are going to be purchasing the property from the Webbs. There is a purchase agreement in the file and she is representing the Blamers.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is that acceptable as far as you are concerned.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

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

Sandy Brown stated, I assume that you have a copy of the survey and everything. I have one question. As a board do you go out and take pictures before?

Director Weaver stated, yes they do have pictures.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if you have others that you would like to present you can.

Sandy Brown stated, no I just wanted to see if you do that.

Director Weaver stated, we have received a letter from them and I believe that you have a copy of it.

Attorney Altman stated, I will read the body of the letter. I’m writing to object to the rezoning to allow a dog kennel on the subject property. Our Church property joins the proposed dog kennel and it appears that the opposed kennel is located within 50’ of our property. The area next to the proposed dog kennel is currently used for a play area for children involved in various Christian education programs. Members of the Church Counsel do not believe it is wise to use the property to have a dog kennel on that property with all of them playing just across the property line. The obvious issues with barking dogs, odors, and flies associated with it a dog kennel regardless of how well it is kept. With prevailing winds from the West or Southwest it is obvious that these uses will affect our property. It is also possible that at sometime in the future that the church may need to expand their Worship structure to the West in the direction of the property line. As we are as for to the North and East as allowed due to setbacks. If that use comes in the future it would be undesirable to have a dog kennel next to any future Church building. We encourage you to deny this special exception requested for a the purpose of placing a dog kennel on the property adjoining us.

Director Weaver stated, if the board would look at the pictures on the right column, the middle picture. The playground equipment that you see is the Church property. The building on the left hand side of that picture is the building that is on the applicant’s property.

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

Tim Frank stated, I’m Tim Frank and I have a petition, I live at 791 East Hilltop CT, just across the street from the Webbs.

Attorney Altman asked, locate us, where are you again?

They are having Mr. Frank point out where he is on the survey.

Tim Frank stated, we oppose the rezoning of that property.

Attorney Altman stated, it is not a rezoning, it is a special exception.

Tim Frank stated, okay special exception. The requested use of the land as a dog kennel is incompatible with the land use in the surrounding area, which is primarily single family, residential, and also a Funeral Home which is Miller-Roscka. I would ask those who have signed the petition here to stand.

Attorney Altman asked, would you please tell us where they all live?

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes names and relationships to this property.

Tim Frank asked, do you want the map?

President Jerry Thompson stated, just in general

Tim Frank stated, Dave Wilcox is 830 E. Hilltop Court, that is just East adjoining the property.

David Scott stated, sir we have this survey here with numbers and if could you just read it and tell us what numbers they are on.

They are currently looking over the survey.

Tim Frank stated, Rich and Jennifer Denniston would be right next to 11 they join the property in the back. John Roscka he could not be here this evening, he has the funeral home across the tracks. Doug and Christine Shaffer are across the road from #11. Darcy Miller who is across the tracks and it would be North and would be Ty Vogel property.

Director Weaver stated, that would be the property just West of the Funeral Home.

Tim Frank stated, well there are two residences there and the first is the one Phil used to own and then the second one. Cindy Jennings who lives in the parsonage.

Attorney Altman asked, where exactly is that on the map?

Tim Frank stated, I don’t know.

Director Weaver stated, I think it is the property to the East.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there no number on this?

Director Weaver stated, I think this is the church here and this is the parsonage here.

Tim Frank stated, I would like to make it quite clear this is no reflection upon Durward or Mildred. This is strictly a reflection upon the kennel.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the board?

Clint Jensen stated, I’m Clint Jensen, I am former president of the Luthern Church, I’m not signed on this, but they asked me to come. My question is, is the purchase for the entire property? Then why don’t they put the kennel on the other side away from the church property?

Sandy Brown stated, I think that having to be 200’ from the nearest house or something like that.

Clint Jensen stated, well I object to the kennel, but I really can’t see why it doesn’t go here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone else?

Dave Wilcox stated, I’m Dave Wilcox. I wanted to say something opposing this. I’m a day sleeper and the fact this kennel being there would greatly alter my sleeping habits, which are messed up as it is. I’d like for you to vote no against this.

Doug Shaffer stated, I’m Doug Shaffer and I live at 861 E. Hilltop and I to would like to ask that this variance be rejected. Hilltop is a very peaceful neighborhood and the concern that we have regarding this request that it would increase the traffic and additional noise that a kennel would bring. We are very proud of our neighborhood as far as it being quiet and peaceful and we would like to leave it that way as far as the children playing in the neighborhood. We would like for you to keep that in mind.

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

Carol Stradling asked, is the kennel drawn to scale?

Director Weaver asked, are you referring to what is at the top right of the survey?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I think that is just a proposed layout of what the kennel will look like.

Carol Stradling stated, it is huge.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so I can’t put that building in that spot.

Director Weaver stated, it is going to be over here on the left.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, I see.

Attorney Altman stated, that says it is an existing building. Do we have where?

Director Weaver stated, it is going in the same area.

Sandy Brown stated, I thought so.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess looking at the survey, it doesn’t locate the building there. We have a gentleman here who inquired about it being near the church. You are saying that it is not there that it is over. Do you have anything that locates it on the real estate, so that these people know and the board knows?

Sandy Brown stated, I thought it was the existing building was.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I thought also.

Sandy Brown stated, that was my question, will it matter if it was where the existing building is? Will that matter?

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m saying is that you folks need to give us a proposal with a building on the real estate proposed and then the board knows specifically where you are talking about. These folks can do that also and then as indicated makes some difference at least to one of the people that were up here talking. It might make quite a difference to the Church if that is completely on the West Side of the property. If it is going to be over there it may be over 300’ away from the Church’s property line. That might make a difference to them. You kind of have to decide and if you want to table this to get that in form of a specific presentation and location now would be the time to do that.

We usually have that located on the survey and I see it didn’t until you brought it up that obviously isn’t going to be the building. It is not to scale and if it isn’t going to be there, but over somewhere else that would make a difference to everybody in this matter.

President Jerry Thompson asked, there are no Webb’s and no Blamers here in attendance.

Someone answered the Webb’s are here.

Jim Brown stated, I’m Jim Brown. The building that you see there, is the kennel. It says see detail and turn that detail and that is it. It is going to have 10’ concrete pads coming out from the sides ad the kennel is inside that building. This isn’t the building. It is a detail of that building.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is what we are wondering.

Does this group here understand what she just explained to us.

Tim Frank stated, yes, we already knew that and it does not change our minds. We are opposed to it wherever it is located back there.

Carol Stradling asked, is this a kennel for their own dogs or are they breeders, are they going to keep the dogs kenneled over night?

Sandy Brown stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, yes to the first or to the second?

Sandy Brown stated, it would be a kennel for outside dogs for grooming. She will have a business.

Carol Stradling asked, so the concrete runner would be outside runs and then inside she is going to have a 6 x 8 inside kennel and a hallway down the middle?

Sandy Brown stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the board?

Carol Stradling asked, are there hours of operations that people can drop their dogs off or come and get them?

Sandy Brown stated, I don’t know that.

Carol Stradling stated, we kind of addressed that at a meeting a little while ago with Happy Tails and the barking can be a problem. We addressed the hours and what would be available and how many people would be coming in and where those people would be coming from.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Sir you were concerned about the location. Do you understand what was just said here?

Clint Jensen stated, I understand, but I still object.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone else? Carol, Gary, Dave and Dave?

Carol Stradling stated, something that Mr. Jensen said, egress and ingress you know back to the kennel people bring their dogs will they park in the driveway here and then walk the dog all the way back.

Durward Webb stated, there is a driveway that goes back to the existing building.

Attorney Altman asked, where is the driveway?

Durward Webb stated, to the West.

Tim Frank asked, is this is going to be a business, why is it not zoned a business?

Attorney Altman stated, the ordinance allows it with a Special Exception. It is an A-1 zoning. In other words the ordinance allows this kind of business to be in an A-1 zoning with a special exception.

Tim Frank stated, thank you for that clarification and one other thing. This is a dead end street, there is no turn around. There was suppose to be, but the turn around is our driveway since it is the last one. I think with the increase of traffic and so.

President Jerry Thompson stated, back to Carol and Gary. Is there anything else?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That there were objectors present at the meeting.

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

3. That the request is for a Special Exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a kennel on the Lot Number (9) in Hilltop Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

Also, Lot Number (10) in Hilltop Subdivision, located in Union Township, White County, Indiana.


Also, that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34; Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the intersection of the North and South quarter section line of the above said Section 34 with the South right-of-way line of the T.P. & W. Railroad; thence South 84 Degrees 19 Minutes West along said right-of-way line 552.72 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 382.75 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 13 Minutes West 516.27 feet; thence North 08 Degrees 06 Minutes 30 Seconds West 337.08 feet to the above said right-of-way line; thence North 84 Degrees 19 Minutes East 556.56 feet to the point of beginning, containing 4.46 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Monticello at 810 E. Hilltop Court.

4. (1) Section 10.20 of the Zoning Ordinance (does) (does not) authorize the special

exception for this use in this zoning district. Vote: 5 does 0 does not.

5. (2) The requirements and development standards for the requested use as

prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance (will) ( will not) be met. Vote: 3 will, 2 will

not.

6. (3) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance. Vote: 2 will, 3 will not.

7. (4a) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming noxious. Vote: 5 will, 0 will not.

8. (4b) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity by becoming offensive. Vote 5 will, 0 will not.

9. (4c) Granting the special exception (will) (will not) materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. Vote: 4 will, 1 will not.

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 0 for and 5 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

****

#2254 Gutwein Motor Co. Inc.; The property is located on Lot 35 and part of Lot 33 on Arch Street in the Original Plat, in the Town of Monon at 301 N. Arch Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 25’ front (Third St.) setback variance, a 24.5’ front

(Arch St.) setback variance, a 6’ rear (East) setback variance, and a 3’ side

(North) setback variance to build an addition onto the existing building and to

bring it into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Mr. Gutwein do you have anything else you would like to present?

Brad Gutwein stated, you should have a picture of the survey there.

Attorney Altman asked, are you talking about this survey?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m holding in my hand a survey from Mr. James Milligan dated September 22, 2003.

President Jerry Thompson asked, to be used for?

Director Weaver asked, you are not changing the use are you? Will the use continue to be the same?

Brad Gutwein stated, well we are going to add a mechanical room and have air compressors in it and the other part will be a wash bay.

Director Weaver stated, they did just go through a rezoning process, it was approved by the Area Plan Commission. I don’t know if it has been acted on by Monon.

Brad Gutwein stated, yes, Tuesday.

Attorney Altman asked, so it is now properly zoned for business?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it had a grandfathered use on the property.

Brad Gutwein stated, the building was built in 1948.

President Jerry Thompson asked, was there any response from anyone?

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, will the building be consistent with the existing buildings?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes concrete, just like the other buildings.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Brad Gutwein stated, single story.

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

David Stimmel asked, who is the neighbor to the North?

Brad Gutwein stated, Pat Newbold. That is whom I bought the property from.

David Stimmel asked, the compressors would be where in the building? Against the wall or where?

Brad Gutwein stated, no.

Brad is currently showing floor plans to the board.

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 currently zoned B-2, General Business.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 25’ front (Third St.) setback variance, a 24.5’ front

(Arch St.) setback variance, a 6’ rear (East) setback variance, and a 3’ side

(North) setback variance to build an addition onto the existing building and to

bring it into compliance on Lot 35 on Arch Street and 36.00 feet off the South end of Lot 33 on Arch Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, White County Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 301 N. Arch 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.

****

#2256 James T. & Gloria Overbeck; The property is located on 1 acre, North of U.S. Highway 24 and West of State E. 100 N.

Violation: Built a 34’ x 14’ patio in 1996 without a permit.
Request: They are requesting a Special Exception to allow equipment for an excavating business to be stored in a pole building. Also, a 9’ height variance to build the pole building for storage of the equipment.

President Jerry Thompson asked, You are James Overbeck?

James Overbeck stated, I’m James Overbeck.

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

James Overbeck stated, on that deck it was built in 1994. It is on skids and we are getting rid of it because we are building a room on to the house. In 1994 I didn’t know we needed a permit for a deck, but that is my fault. As far as the equipment goes, it is going to be used for storing my equipment only, our business is ran out of a building in town at 219 S. Bluff Street if anybody is questioning that. My neighbor will be putting some farm tractors in the building also. Mr. Kneadler. I just want to have a building up to keep everything inside and get everything nice and clean.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann you go first.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors on this. I do have a question that really doesn’t have anything to do with the request. When I was investigating this, when was the original house built?

James Overbeck stated, the first part of the house was built in 1930. I bought it off of Kneadler and then we remodel it. Then in 1989 I completely finished it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone here care to speak either for or against? Jerry do you have anything.

Attorney Altman stated, the proposed building will be to locate inside your equipment only besides Edgar Kneadler’s tractors and all of the equipment of your business will be inside. There will be none outside on this property.

James Overbeck stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I might add something to this. The excavating business is not in our schedule of uses and when they came to me asking what they should be zoned, I did a comparison with a situation that we had done previously for a drainage business. It was my decision that I felt like the A-1 zoning could be a proper zoning as long as they got a special exception. That was a judgement call on my part for them to go through this process.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think I have any questions about this, but you said the rest of your business is operated out of?

James Overbeck stated, where the phones and bookkeeping is done up town here. We have a lady that does our bookkeeping and stuff.

Carol Stradling asked, is it on Bluff Street.

James Overbeck stated, it is on 219 S. Bluff Street.

Carol Stradling stated, I would in the 400 block of Bluff Street and I was trying to picture excavating business there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave?

David Scott stated, Diann explained everything, I guess the only thing I have is how does this differ from the situation that the guy couldn’t park his black toping equipment in his shed.

Attorney Altman stated, this is on a county road and it is maintained and that one wasn’t at all. It was a very narrow road. I understand that and Diann and I had that conversation and that is probably the big difference. It is right on the county road. It goes directly on their property to the county road, not on a private road that is insufficient.

Gary Barbour stated, the other road really didn’t have an easement.

Several talking at once.

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Overbeck can you show me on this map, this is the proposed building? I’m trying to figure out what these buildings are.

James Overbeck stated, oh those are my neighbors farm grounds and buildings. This is the house and this is the watershed. The building is going on the back part. I have to be 200’ from the well.

David Stimmel asked, the neighbors are who again?

James Overbeck stated, Bernie Kneadler, they own the farmland here. I actually bought the farmland from them. They own this, this, and everything around me.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m concerned that nothing was mentioned about the deck. No discussion about the deck.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question about the hot tub. When did the hot tub go in?

James Overbeck stated, in 1994 when we put the deck on. That hot tub now is trashed, it is going too. I didn’t know we needed a permit. It is on a 6 x 6 skids. I didn’t know in 1994, but I know now we have to have a permit.

President Jerry Thompson stated, but this deck is removed or is it going to be removed.

James Overbeck stated, it is going to be removed. It was just a temporary thing. We can have it out of there next week if it needs to be.

President Jerry Thompson asked, have you seen it?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it is a good size deck, I have a picture of it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is it portable?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.

James Overbeck stated, I moved it away from the house a while back.

Director Weaver stated, that date I went by which is 1996. I got that off of the property record card. That is the date that they started assessing it. If I recall in 1994 they did not need permits for decks. If it was built in 1996 they needed a permit.

James Overbeck stated, that is when we did it in 1994. It is going to be taken off.

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

Carol Stradling stated, so in 1994 they didn’t need a permit and was there a reassessment somebody that would have caught it in 1996 and then added it to the record. I’m just wondering why they added it to the record in 1996.

Director Weaver stated, I can not answer that. I do not know.

Gloria Overbeck stated, I’m Gloria Overbeck. The reason it came up in 1996 was because I was questioning, we were paying taxes on the Royal Oaks well house. Who ever came out and looked at it at that time saw the hot tub and asked me about it. They said that we have to pay taxes on that. That is why it came up in 1996. I didn’t know we had to pay taxes on a hot tub.

President Jerry Thompson stated, but you are still saying it was there previous.

Gloria Overbeck stated, yes, it was there in 1994.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave and Dave?

Carol Stradling stated, I feel comfortable with not fining for the violation under the circumstances. If they had come in for a permit in 1994 it wouldn’t have been necessary, so it wouldn’t have been on file anyway.

Attorney Altman asked, is there a motion?

Carol Stradling asked, we need to make a motion? I move that we take no action on the violation. It wouldn’t have been a violation. I think that is the issue, it wouldn’t have been a violation.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second the motion.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All of those in favor signify by saying “aye”. All voted “aye”.

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 allow equipment for an excavating business to be stored in a pole building. Also, a 9’ height variance to build the pole building for storage of the equipment on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the above said Section 21, marked with a railroad spike; thence North 88 Degrees 16 Minutes 19 Seconds West (Polar Observation) along the section line 1151.13 feet to a railroad spike and the point of beginning; thence North 88 Degrees 16 Minutes 19 Seconds West 150.00 feet to a railroad spike; thence North 02 Degrees 43 Minutes 41 Seconds East 303.70 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 88 Degrees 16 Minutes 19 Seconds East 150.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 02 Degrees 43 Minutes 41 Seconds West 303.70 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described tract deeded to the Royal Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc. as recorded in Deed Record 1980 Page 452, described as follows: that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 21 Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township White County, Indiana, described by: commencing at the Southeast corner of the above said Section 21; thence North 87 Degrees 57 Minutes West along the Section line 1157.84 feet; thence North 03 Degrees 05 Minutes East 89.66 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 86 Degrees 55 Minutes West 31.10 feet; thence North 03 Degrees 05 Minutes East 65.10 feet; thence South 86 Degrees 55 Minutes East 31.10 feet; thence South 03 Degrees 05 Minutes West 65.10 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.0456 of an acre, more or less.

The above described tract contains 1.000 acre after said exception.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of U.S. Highway 24 and West of State Road 39 at 5855 E. 100 N.


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 10.20 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 sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

****

#2257 Stanley & Alicia Keeton; The property is located on Lots 37 and 38 and part of Lot 39 in the Original Plat, in the Town of Idaville at 113 Railroad Street.

Violation: None.
Request: They are requesting a 12’ front (Railroad St.) setback variance & 12’ front

(Logan St.) setback variance to build a new home on the property.

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

Stanley Keeton, stated, I’m Stanley Keeton.

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

Stanley Keeton stated, no.

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

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this. There is an existing mobile home on the property that is going to be removed.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that you have parts, maybe two lots, I’m not sure and if you are granted the variance that you can not sell off any part of that.

Stanley Keeton stated, yes, I understand that. It is two 50’ lots and 10’ of lot 39.

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

Carol Stradling stated, the position looks better where they moved it than it does on the proposed building setback lines.

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 12’ front (Railroad St.) setback variance & 12’ front (Logan St.) setback variance to build a new home on Lots 37 and 38 and 10 feet off the West side of Lot 39 all in the Original Plat of the Town of Idaville, White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Idaville at 113 Railroad 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.

****

#2258 Glenda Salomon; The property is located on Lot 36 in Howard Hill Second Addition, in the Town of Reynolds directly South of 417 E. Hillside Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: She is requesting a 7’ Front (East) Setback Variance, 13’ Front (South) Setback variance, and a 4’ Rear (West) Setback Variance to build a new home on the property.

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

Glenda Salomon stated, I’m Glenda Salomon.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything. We do have a letter that we received from a neighbor that is not opposing it, he is in favor of it. This is in regards to the variance for lot 36 in Howard Hill 2nd Addition to the town of Reynolds, Indiana. We, Dale and Shirley Mathews, of 420 E. Hillside Drive, Reynolds, IN feel that the variance for Glenda Salomon should be granted. We have no problem with her building a home on that property. Sincerely, Dale Mathews.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Carol start with you. Do you have any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

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 7’ Front (East) Setback Variance, 13’ Front (South) setback variance, and a 4’ Rear (West) Setback Variance to build a new home on the property on Lot 36 in Howard Hill Second Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds directly South of 417 E. Hillside Drive.

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

nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation

under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of

property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based

on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions

of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact

support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under

the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

****

#2259 Douglas M. Hines, Owner; Donald Jefferson, Applicant: The property is located on Lots 39 and 40 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition, West of Lowe’s Bridge on the corner of West Shafer Drive and Amos Drive.

Violation: None.
Request: He is requesting a 22’ front (Amos Dr.) setback variance to build a home on the property and a 13’ front (West Shafer Dr.) to put a detached carport beside the home.

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

Donald Jefferson stated, I’m Donald Jefferson.

Director Weaver stated, Donald Jefferson is the purchaser of the property.

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

Donald Jefferson stated, well my biggest problem is I have two roads on both sides of me and that eats up 64’ of my property and so I have to ask for help.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything.

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

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman asked, are you accessing off of a 25’ road?

Donald Jefferson stated, it has not been determined yet. They haven’t determined what side yet. I prefer Shafer because it is a lot nicer road than the other one.

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

Emerson Enyart stated, I’m Emerson Enyart, I have the next 3 lots. A year ago Mr. James, I had to give him a variance, and now on the other side we are giving a variance, we are going to be squeezed in. I’m opposed to closing Amos Drive and I’m opposed to the 8’ variance to the property line unless we get the same variance on our side maybe down the road a few years. Somebody had come in and tore up our lots complete just about except the one end lot. The rest of them have all been bulldozed down.

President Jerry Thompson asked, someone has come on to your property and has done this?

Emerson Enyart stated, well we have 3 lots, it was dark when we came to town. I just set there with my mouth open, I couldn’t understand how someone could come in and move and bulldozed down everything in the lots.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you understand what he is saying?

Director Weaver stated, I understand what he is saying, but I don’t know where lot lines are to know. I know there has been some work done on the property that Mr. Jefferson is purchasing. I don’t know exactly where the lot lines are.

Emerson Enyart stated, well we have 3 50’ lots and it looks, I mean it was about dark and we couldn’t tell, it looks like everything is bulldozed over into our last 36 lots.

Donald Jefferson stated, that is not true I had it hauled off of my property. Your property over there is a big mess and I requested that it be cleaned up.

Emerson Enyart stated, all right, if it is going to be cleaned up, we can clean it up. It has been that way for 40 years. We have owned that property for 40 years.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess the only comment that I have here is whether somebody has damaged your property or doesn’t exactly have anything to do with this request. I would recommend that you take care of that in an appropriate way. That is about as far as I can go and say here. I don’t here you saying to do with how Mr. Jefferson is proposing to put a home on there.

Emerson Enyart stated, I will say it this way, as long as it doesn’t change Amos Drive and as long as it doesn’t come within.

Attorney Altman stated, we are not changing Amos Dr. at all.

Mr. Jefferson is showing Mr. Enyart the survey.

Donald Jefferson stated, isn’t it standard the 8’?

Director Weaver stated, for a side property line.

Donald Jefferson stated, that is what he is talking about right there.

Carol Stradling stated, actually he is going to be farther away from your property then the requirement would require him to be. According to the setback requirements, he can be up to 8’ away from your property and he is going to be 20’. Isn’t that correct Mr. Jefferson?

Donald Jefferson stated, yes that is right.

Emerson Enyart stated, I have no objections as long as it doesn’t close Amos road, which is our access to it. As long as it doesn’t alter Amos road.

Carol Stradling stated, he can only build on his property, he can not build on the road way.

Emerson Enyart stated, I know, I’m not trying to say that. I’m saying I don’t want Amos road closed because.

Director Weaver stated, he is not requesting to close that road.

Emerson Enyart stated, it might have been here. I’m not trying to stop him from getting a new home. I’m envious of him.

David Scott asked, the one corner of the house is it 10’ from the road? Is the road 25’ or is it the right-of-way?

Several answered it is the right-of-way.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we have pictures and you can see that it is one lane arrangement. Dave Stimmel? Gary, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, you indicated that the surveyor will be back out to stake.

Donald Jefferson stated, the surveyor is to go back there and stake that house to make absolutely sure that it gets in the proper place.

Carol Stradling asked, does the building inspector check that?

Donald Jefferson stated, after the surveyor is there the building inspector.

Director Weaver stated, when he is out to do the footer inspection he will double-check that.

Carol Stradling asked, Diann is there any way we can check because you know the infrastructure? of Amos road maybe can they check to make sure that there are 3 lots to the North of that? I know we can’t get exactly, but you know it looks like there is only 100’ and realize that there is something off on the survey.

Director Weaver asked, did the surveyor stake your lot? I know there were some stakes up there.

Donald Jefferson stated, what he did was go out there and actually uncovered the stakes, the original stakes is what he said. He put little flags on them. He couldn’t get to the back stake on the backside because there was trash and stuff there. That is why he is going back to set the two back stakes.

Director Weaver stated, so he is going to have the lot staked.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

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 22’ front (Amos Dr.) setback variance to build a home on the property and a 13’ front (West Shafer Dr.) to put a detached carport beside the home on Lots 39 and 40 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Lowe’s Bridge on the corner of West Shafer Drive and Amos Drive.


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

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

****

#2260 Steven S. Brown; The property is located on Part of Tract A in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, .166 of an acre, more or less, North of Monticello at 5042 N. Canyon Loop.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 5’ side setback variance to attach an existing garage to the

the existing home.

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

Steve Brown stated, I’m Steve Brown.

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

Steve Brown stated, I have a couple of things here. (He is passing paperwork out to the board members.) I just want to build a breezeway and I have an existing 1 ½ car garage and a small house. I wanted to build a small breezeway in between there. It is 7’ x 20’. The purpose is to be the front entry into the house, mud room, and covered access between the house and the garage. Really looking forward to having something before winter.


President Jerry Thompson asked, was there any fan mail?

Director Weaver stated, we have received a letter from the neighbor, and.

Attorney Altman asked, is that the neighbor to the South or the North?

Director Weaver stated, to the South, they are opposing the request in the letter. I know we have had a phone call with Mr. Brown and I guess they had some confusion in what was being requested and we were to have received another letter, but we did not.

Steve Brown stated, right, I have been unable to reach them. I spoke to them Saturday morning. He was under the impression that I was going to build a breezeway and turn the garage into living quarters and build a new garage on the front. He told me that was the way the letter read to him. I had Paula read the letter back to me and it doesn’t say anything like that, so he gave me his phone number and said he wouldn’t be opposed to just a breezeway and that he would write another letter for me, but I was unable to reach him this week. The phone number he gave me. It really is his phone number.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record you’re building to connect the existing garage to the existing house.

Steve Brown stated, correct.

Director Weaver stated, he did get a permit to build the garage and at that time the ordinance did allow for detached garage to go as 3’ to the side property lines.

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

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ side setback variance to attach an existing garage to the existing home on that part of Tract A in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition in the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot Number 29 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition; thence South 61 Degrees 45 Minutes East 25 feet; thence South 25 Degrees West 117.1 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 34 Degrees 24 Minutes West 60.60 feet; thence South 61 Degrees 45 Minutes East 120 feet; thence North 34 Degrees 24 Minutes East 60.6 feet; thence North 61 Degrees 45 Minutes West 120 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains .166 of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5042 N. Canyon Loop.

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 asked, who wants to go first?

Attorney Altman stated, again I saw the judgement from Judge Mrzlack on Babka. I don’t know what else to say other than that. I think you might want to look it over, I think it is helpful to know that the judge day in and day out looks at matters like that and he has his findings and how simple it really is and how. This is exactly what you do day in and day out here with everyone and it might just help you a little bit and understand what the law kind of requires of a judicial decision. I guess that is the one thing other than merits of what he did there isn’t much to argue about except his appeal and we can do that if we choose.

Director Weaver asked, how long of a time period do we have to appeal?

Attorney Altman stated, roughly 30 days.

Director Weaver asked, were you surprised that they didn’t give him a time limit to have all of this done?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I was. I thought about filing something that it be asked, I’m not sure what to do.

Director Weaver stated, in my opinion it put us right back in the same situation that we are in.

Attorney Altman stated, no body can talk to you guys for you. I’m not sure what I’m going to do. I may file a motion to ask the judge to supplement his judgement by putting some dead lines in there. That would be what I recommend or think about if the board. I agree with you because this guy has just been totally.

David Stimmel stated, I don’t have a copy of the judgement.

Carol Stradling stated, it was with your packet on the table underneath the pictures.

David Scott stated, this says he was fined $2500 and then he has to bring this building into, he either has to remove it.

Attorney Altman stated, he just gave him the options of how to do it. Cut the garage down, he can attach it like we said, but to do that he has got to get a building permit.

Carol Stradling stated, but he is from using this detached garage until he does so. So if he uses the detached garage he is in violation.

David Scott asked, in order to do what he wants to do does he have to come back in front of us or does he need a height variance?

Attorney Altman stated, no we gave him the variance to attach. The other way was denied. He is boxed in to what the judge has gotten him.

Director Weaver stated, he will have to come back in for another permit if he decides to join them. He probably will have to have a permit to lower it.

Carol Stradling asked, Diann can you keep us appraised when if he comes in for the permit. I don’t know do we have regular traffic out there that we can see, if he is using his garage.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that would be a good enforcement. You don’t have anything else to do go check that garage.

Carol Stradling asked, how much was the fine?

Attorney Altman stated, $2500, he stepped it up some. The other thing is the Judge did recognize what you have heard me talk about how the old fine is still active. The old fine ordinance is still active. That makes me feel better, but not good enough to tell you that we don’t need to get a better fine structure.

Director Weaver stated, the judge said that we need to get a new one.

David Scott asked, what do we have to change about it?

Attorney Altman stated, what happened is the old ordinance has a fine structure in there of $10 to $300 a day. We amended by changing the old ordinance and by adopting the new one, but didn’t adopt a new fine structure at the same time. I indicated since we didn’t, we took out everything on the old ordinance except the fine structure because we didn’t substitute a new one in there. I understand the look on your face Gary, I’m not impressed with it either except, for the Judge bought it. I want to get a new one in there, so that we don’t have to rely on that.

David Stimmel asked, Gary is this appropriate in your view?

Gary Barbour stated, I think it is for two reasons. We got more than we required for a fine and we didn’t get the building tore down which I would have ultimately seen just to put an end to something that has gone on forever and shouldn’t have. The other side of that is the judge kind of made it pretty clear in court that it is going to be expensive to get it to come in to compliance. If he adds the two together that is a lot of money for construction, if he takes the roof off. That is still some pretty good money to do that.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else that you want to talk about?

Director Weaver stated, fines imposed. We have one that is still not paid. We have contacted Mr. Triplett told him to bring in the check from Mr. Provo so that we can process it. He informed us that he would be in, but he was suppose to have a hearing this week he is getting the property back. We have not yet seen him in the office.

Attorney Altman stated, if you do not get it by Monday morning, let me know and I will send a letter. Does that sound reasonable?

Carol Stradling asked, does he have a check?

Attorney Altman stated, apparently he does, that is what he says.

Gary Barbour stated, he has a check.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to go ahead and put the thing through. The other thing is there my response to the Public Access Coordinator. I sent that about obviously I checked that statute and I realized I didn’t need that other sentence. That is really all I have.

President Jerry Thompson asked, I’m assuming we will be informed when our day is coming on the other issue.

Director Weaver stated, these guys have not had a chance to look this over. I didn’t mail it to them.

Attorney Altman stated, we didn’t have time. I just got mine today. I have hardly looked at it.

Director Weaver stated, I’m talking about what I got the other day.

Attorney Altman asked, do you have anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I did give you each a copy of a conference that is going to be in Indianapolis next month. We do have money to pay to cover your expenses for that. I’m not sure how much of the expense it will cover, but we can cover some of it.

Carol Stradling stated, not over night is necessarily, we can get down to Indy by 8:00 and get home by 6:00 pretty easily.

Director Weaver stated, the only bad thing about it, I think it is the day after our last meeting.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do they have to know ahead of time?

Director Weaver stated, I believe registration has to be in by November 10, 2003. What you would have to do is cover the expenses and then submit them to me to be reimbursed.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I do have something. I came up with an idea of what Dave Scott was talking about the statute of limitation. Give this some thought and we will talk about it more next month. My idea is that it go with the ownership, not a set number of years, but go with ownership. If I bought a piece of property today, and somebody built something last year that didn’t get a permit, I shouldn’t be fined for that. I have run into this in the office and it is not a good situation. I thought that is how we might be able to make this work, but I don’t know if it would or not. That is something I was going to suggest.

David Scott stated, if you buy something, you assume.

Gary Barbour stated, you can’t assume. Before you buy that property you really need to make sure that the property is in compliance before you purchase it. I know this because I went through it. Two years ago September I bought the house in Brookston that I own and through all of the process that the deck was added without a permit. I wouldn’t sign on the dotted line until there was a permit purchased and that house was brought into compliance.

David Scott stated, that is my point, you are involved and you are aware of that.

Gary Barbour stated, if you go to lending institutions and purchase the property, they require in most cases in what I have been involved in.

Director Weaver stated, I have had situations where the property has been sold and I have had to go back on the new owner because the old owner did something with that property. That is not a good situation. I don’t like doing it. I’m sure the board wouldn’t like to set here and fine someone for it.

David Scott stated, I just wonder is that something that the lending institution really looks at.

Director Weaver stated, I think some do and some don’t.

David Scott stated, I would think that most of them don’t.

Director Weaver stated, honestly I don’t know of any mortgage company that comes in and researches the building permits.

Carol Stradling stated, I would think that as long as the survey matches the property description, like that deck showed up on the tax record and it showed up on the survey. I would think they would think that they are okay.

David Scott stated, yes, but they may not be.

Carol Stradling stated, in this case there was no permit for that.

Gary Barbour stated, well the company that ended up finding mine on my property was the Title Company that found it.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know how. I honestly don’t know how. I don’t have any title companies come in and ask for permit information.

David Scott asked, what would be the appropriate thing to do then if somebody buys a piece of property and there is a deck on there and there has been no permit issued. What would you do?

Director Weaver stated, I’m going to make them get a permit.

David Scott stated, make them get a permit, but are they in violation.

Director Weaver stated, technically yes. That is why I think a statute of limitations should go with the owner, I think that might be an answer to the problem.

David Scott stated, well if the Area Plan Office has been run with an iron fist since beginning of time, I would have no problem with if you didn’t get a permit, you get a fine assessed. Maybe a fence shouldn’t have the same fine as a big dollar value I can see some difference there. When somebody has come in and asked the Director do I need a permit for that, well maybe he said no or how can you fine the guy now. How do you know what the Director at the time told them.

Gary Barbour stated, it is almost like a cop pulling somebody over for speeding. If the cop writes you a ticket for speeding and you go to court what is the judge going to do. He is going to fine you for speeding.

Carol Stradling stated, but the fine is a well known law, if you are checking to see if you need a building permit and you go into Area Plan early, many, many years before and go ahead and do it.

David Scott stated, exactly, and I will tell you what happened to me, when I built the first house I built. There was a lean to on the back of it and I wanted to tear that off and I wanted to rebuild it. I was 2’ off of the property line and I came over and got a permit and the guy said, you are too close to the property line and you don’t meet the setbacks. My argument was, it was there before and I’m just tearing it down and redoing it. He said well okay and he gave me a permit. How often did that happen? This happened to me. That was back in the 1970’s sometime and that is the way business was done back then. All you have to do is put up an argument and I hate to see people that did something 17 years ago get a $500 fine.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have a problem with that, if it is the same owner. The situation the other night, they were the ones who built that garage.

David Scott stated, sure, but I’m not sure when he went and seen the director, did the director say you don’t need the setbacks, I’ll just write the permit.

Attorney Altman stated, he didn’t though.

Director Weaver stated, he didn’t though. He didn’t write a permit.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it was just a verbal okay.

Director Weaver stated, in that situation the problem I had he knew better.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, he was County Assessor.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is exactly right. That is where I was coming from.

Director Weaver stated, that is why he should have gotten fined.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t make myself very clear.

David Scott stated, well I didn’t know what his capacity was or anything.

Director Weaver stated, he was County Assessor.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is right.

Director Weaver stated, I gave Jerry the heads up that this was coming through and why I had done what I did.

David Stimmel stated, I’m going to kick myself later, but I’m going to bring this up. About Link, did he ever get a hold of you?

Director Weaver stated, he called me today and he was supposed to be in. He hasn’t made it in yet.

David Stimmel stated, we built a little building on the backside of the building at the plant. I asked and inquired at a couple of different places and not knowing we didn’t have a permit for it. Finally I called Link at FBI and he said, oh you don’t need one. I talked to the State and they said anything over 25 or under 32’ feet didn’t need a permit. I called Diann and said I think we are in trouble here. The only reason I’m bringing this up is because what are your plans, it seems to me that there is discretion involved here. I’m not going to object if you fine them okay, it would be well within the law.

Director Weaver stated, the only time I can fine is when it is not meeting setbacks or not properly zoned.

David Stimmel asked, not for getting a permit?

Director Weaver stated, that is the building department that has to do that.

David Stimmel stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I have no authority over that.

David Scott asked, I wonder how often that happens? When contractors go through the State permitting process and I think they are done.

Attorney Altman stated, if they do they are absolutely on something. You can’t tell me that any decent contractor doesn’t.

Gary Barbour stated, you be careful.

David Stimmel stated, FBI has been in business for 50 years, I’m telling you they didn’t think about coming to the County to get the permit.

Several talking at once.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I will tell you after the recorder is shut off.

Director Weaver asked, are we done then?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I have a very strong opinion on why that is done. We have dealt with it for years with them.

David Scott asked, Farm Builders?

President Jerry Thompson stated, you have got to be careful. They are willing to take the risk on a fine, they know the fine is not that great and they are not going to hold up their work crews. They have work schedule and wheels are going to turn. We had that happen in Chalmers. We had a ribbon cutting on the fire house in Chalmers. There was never a permit. Stram same deal. We will take are of all of the permits. We were dedicating a building that had never been approved. Never had one permit on it.

Director Weaver stated, Chalmers had a Waste Water Treatment plant going up with no permit too.

President Jerry Thompson stated, they say all of that and it is just a yes situation and we are going to work. How many times have we run into that?

Attorney Altman stated, that is right.

President Jerry Thompson stated, they’re a good organization. They are organized. They got a lot of work and we are going to work everyday.

Director Weaver stated, I think they are better.

David Stimmel stated, they had time to do this. I mean this was not, this didn’t take a couple of days to build this thing.

Director Weaver stated, in this situation I got the feeling when I talked to Link, I think it was a honest mistake. When I talked to him.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if we fine them. The fine is less than what it will cost to hold up a work crew.

David Stimmel stated, I’m sure that is right.

Carol Stradling stated, if you fine them, it is less. They just decide that it is worth that money to get my work crew going and get started on this project done.

President Jerry Thompson stated, this is totally different, but I think said this to Dave maybe a meeting or two ago. Crawfordsville, the guy that keeps getting fined for the hog manure deal in the ditch. It is cheaper for him to pay that fine than it is to haul that manure 15 miles down the road. They have fined him enough now that they have put him out of business. It appears from what I read.

Attorney Altman stated, finally somebody got serious.

David Scott stated, another thing is, if you are a contractor like Farm Builders and you got men working there and crews. I can kind of see them wanting to proceed.

David Stimmel asked, how long? There is a window there when they can do it. They know ??? well they can get that done. It is just a matter of somebody taking the time to get the drawing and get the application filed. It is because they don’t, won’t spend the time up front. I think that is it. There is time, there is several weeks to do this.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they are taking orders now for next year.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if you talk to Dale Tyler they are 75 to 100 buildings behind. They have work scheduled that far out.

David Scott asked, what is the reason for I think I know for filing for a permit one day and coming to get it the next. I had two contractors jumped me about that.

Director Weaver stated, to avoid mistakes, so that we can research and avoid mistakes. It has really helped. I know a lot of people don’t like it, but I don’t care, it has helped. We find a lot of problems for taking that extra time and researching it.

David Scott stated, their point is two days out of work, two trips, two everything.

Director Weaver stated, they don’t have to bring that information in to submit it. They can have someone else bring it in. It’s hard for them to fax it because some of it has to be picked up here in the building. They can have a neighbor bring it in, they can have friend bring it in.

David Scott stated, the two guys that jumped me were contractors.

Director Weaver stated, my opinion is we don’t have any business going any other way because we find a lot of problems.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree. I would much rather have a mistake found at this end, then on the other end.

Director Weaver stated, before it is started, instead of after it is started. It really has made a difference. What brought this on, we had a permit issued for a house on property that already had a house. The people had no intentions of removing the existing house and they had to go through a subdivision to correct the problem. The problem wasn’t caught until the second house was already going up. That got very costly for them because of that. Had we taken the time and had the time to do the research. Another thing that has really helped us is the computer. With our aerial on the computer has helped up a lot. I can look at there to see if there is a building on there. I can see the house.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission