Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, March 18, 2004 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: Dave Rosenbarger, Charles Bossung, Bob Young, Dwight Vigus, Ken Smith, Marc King, Jeff Haynes, Robert Teumer, Donald Wilson, Butch Moody, and Charles Mellon.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the January 15, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2276 Town of Chalmers; The property is located on 0.02 and 0.037 acres just South of the Town of Chalmers on the West side of the State Road 43. Tabled from the January 15, 2004

meeting.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 57.5’ Front setback variance and a 3.5’ side setback variance to replace a meter building for the Chalmers Sewer System.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Town of Chalmers?


Ken Smith stated, I’m Ken Smith from Fanning & Howey. We were requested to provide a land survey by a register land surveyor. Showing exact boundaries. We had previously submitted a survey which we prepared ourselves. We didn’t use the correct corners so that is why they requested this survey from a land surveyor. That has been supplied. I didn’t know if you had anymore comments or questions. We have also attempted to improve some properties for the adjacent landowners, stone some drives, put a fence up so we don’t access that drive.


Attorney Altman stated, we are receiving in evidence some photos with writing on the bottom. There are 4 photos that will be applicant’s exhibit A, 1 - 4.



Ken Smith stated, we had a request by the adjacent property owner, the contractor used that drive, to re-stone that drive and we have done that. We have also placed a fence between that property line and the town’s property line so we wouldn’t access that drive. When the project gets to the point where we can put a culvert for drainage in, the town has also agreed to put a culvert along the property line to ensure the drainage isn’t backed up on that property. We will even dress up that stone a little bit, if we need to, to be a good neighbor to those property owners on the North.


Attorney Altman asked, the culvert will be where?


Ken Smith stated, right there where the red fence is on the photographs. Right along that boundary of the North property line with the Town of Chalmers, so the drainage along there will not be impeded.


President Thompson stated, I guess I know what you are saying the orange fence, but it is in a pile in my pictures.


Ken Smith stated, here’s the drive, we’ll place that culvert right along that property line.


Attorney Altman asked, it’s on the East boundary? The East boundary line of that, sir?


Ken Smith stated, the North boundary, that would be the North line. Right between the drive and the property line. We would place the culvert right along through there and also along the East boundary as well. The drainage can continue on off of that field, continue on down… There’s a stone drive there on that Northwest line, property line.


President Jerry Thompson stated, now wait a minute, back up, the stone drive is that …


Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Young’s.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is that the drive you’re speaking of?


Ken Smith stated, that is the drive we just placed additional stone on.


President Jerry Thompson asked, when did you do that?


Ken Smith stated, that was done earlier today.


Some one stated, about 4:00 this afternoon.


President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.


Ken Smith stated, we’ll also, the request was also to place a culvert along there and we will also do that. We just can’t do that now because we have some grading and stuff to get done before we can get that in there.


President Jerry Thompson asked, so you are going to put a culvert under his driveway?


Ken Smith stated, no, between the two properties.


President Jerry Thomspon stated, okay, so the pipe is going to lay East and West.


Ken Smith stated, yes, that way any water that is along that drive that is standing there will be able to drain away.


Attorney Altman stated, and then it will go East and West and then go South along…


Ken Smith stated, it will turn South and along…


Attorney Altman stated, the highway and the property line going South to the low area or to a tile.


Ken Smith stated, it will go to the low area and drain away. We have also spoken to Mark Kelly from the State Highway Department. He will be, he has okayed verbally to us. We can have an access off of State Road 43 to that property. We’ve got the permit going into him to get that access off of 43. So the town will have an access from the state highway to the property and will not impede or cross anyone else’s property.


Attorney Altman stated, so you won’t be going on Mr. Young’s property.


Ken Smith stated, no, not at all. Mr. Kelly verbally said he didn’t think that there was a problem with it and make sure to get your permit in. We are in the process of getting that permit in so we don’t impede his property. We will clean that property up, as we finish up. We will dress it up and put some number 8 stone on there, get the culvert in there, do any seeding or grading that needs to be done and take care of that. That’s all I have.


David Scott asked, this area here between State Road 43, there’s going to be off road parking here for the utility workers in the future? Where are they going to park when they come in?


Ken Smith stated, they will be able to pull onto the property and just park on the property.


David Scott asked, onto his property?


Ken Smith stated, there will be a drive from the state highway over onto the property. Then they will be able to pull off onto the property itself. The existing lift station will be taken to ground level and put a drive there. They will be able to pull off of the highway onto their own property. It will be a gravel drive.


David Scott asked, they won’t have to use this fella’s driveway then?


Ken Smith stated, they won’t use that driveway again as of today. They will even clean it up a little more when they get done with the work there.


Attorney Altman asked, so you will stone the area where they will drive or park on your property?


Ken Smith stated, yes.


Attorney Altman stated, the Town of Chalmers’ property, park in that area on their property.


Ken Smith stated, on their property, yes.


President Jerry Thompson asked, any questions for this gentleman?


David Stimmel asked, where are they going to do this? Where are they going to pull off at? Show me.


Ken Smith stated, this wet well and this wet well pump, they will drive right to there. Then they will be able to pull right onto their property.


David Stimmel stated, 17’9”.


Ken Smith stated, well actually these will be gone.


David Stimmel asked, these will be gone?


Ken Smith stated, and they will be able to pull onto the property there. Between this building and the existing, new lift station. So it will be a lot more…


Attorney Altman stated, so the wet well will be gone and the wet well pumps will be gone as shown on your survey.


Ken Smith stated, yes, everything will be down to ground level and we will build a stall net and provide a drive.


Attorney Altman asked, so there will be room for how many vehicles there, two or three?


Ken Smith stated, well the town will rarely access that site, except for reading the meters or maintenance. There will never be more than two on that site at the most, maybe three but then it will only be a temporary situation. There’s not gonna, there isn’t any regular work to do there. It just pumps the flow down to the plant.


President Jerry Thompson asked, I should know this from the past meeting, but will this all be fenced in?


Ken Smith stated, there is no fence planned, but if that is a condition I could get an answer from the town to tell me if they agree.


David Scott stated, I may be getting ahead just a little bit but I just read a request from the property owner to the South requesting a fence on that property line.


Director Weaver stated, we received a letter.


President Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t know that.


Director Weaver stated, we received a letter from the adjacent property owner and she is requesting that a fence be put up.


Ken Smith stated, I can’t answer that, the council president is here if he would like to answer whether or not they would put it up I would be happy to step away and let him answer.


Attorney Altman stated, let me just read the letter into the record. This is in reference to this matter addressed to Diann.


I received notification of the hearing scheduled for March 18, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. to hear a request for a rezoning variance believed to be necessary to place a meter building for the Chalmers sewer system. Please consider this letter my response to this notice.


As I understand it, construction has already begun on the building with the placement of the concrete pad. The pad however, apparently has been placed only 3.6” from the side of the property that belongs to the city and does not meet the setback requirements for an A-1 zoning classification, thus the necessity for a zoning variance.


Since this property is adjacent to my farm and I originally deeded the parcel to the village, I have supported the village requests in the past. However, I am very concerned that the use of my farmground not be disturbed by construction of the meter building as it was during the past construction by the village. Therefore, I will support the zoning request only if a fence is constructed along the property line in order to protect my property. Erecting this fence will serve two purposes; it will define the boundaries for future use as well as insure that the farmland will continue in production as it has in the past without disturbance or soil damage.


I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Mr. David Rosenbarger and he will speak for me at the meeting. Sincerely, Linda N. Rockaway.


A copy to Charles Bossung and, of course, Dave Rosenbarger.


Director Weaver stated, I would like to make one correction. The measurement in there was 2’6”.


President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else here care to address this variance?


Marc King stated, I’m President of the Council in Chalmers. I think that’s an excellent idea. I don’t think there will be an issue with that.


Carol Stradling asked, will the fence be put on the property line or will it be off set from the property line?


Attorney Altman stated, usually in farm areas they are on the property line. Diann, that’s what usually happens is, in farm areas.


Director Weaver stated, we don’t issue permits for farm fence so we don’t regulate where they go.


Carol Stradling stated, I’m not a farmer, but I would think if the fence is on the property line that you would have to come in. Can you go right up to it then when you work the field?


Attorney Altman stated, usually farm fences are right on the property line.


President Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t think on the property line would be a problem. I would, if it was mine, I would like it on the property line.


Attorney Altman stated, most farm fences are right on it.


President Jerry Thompson stated, it would definitely define their property and her property. You know. That’s my thoughts any way.


Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Young do you want a fence between you also, and this property?


Bob Young stated, no, I don’t want a fence there because I have a visibility problem with what they’ve got now when trying to enter the highway. Because they’re 6’ from the highway and if they put a 17’ tall building there you’re not going to see the North bound traffic.


Attorney Altman stated, okay then, so you don’t want a fence. Okay. I just wanted to know since you are here and we are talking fences. I wanted to get to that right a way.


President Jerry Thompson asked, even a chain link type fence, Bob? Not interested in something like that? I’m just throwing out an idea. I don’t know, you’re there.


Bob Young stated, I’m not really concerned about the fence. I’m more concerned about the boundary.


David Scott stated, what kind of roof are you going to have, if we allow this to be 2’ off their property line. Is it a hip roof, or a flat roof, or what kind of roof does this building have on it?


Ken Smith stated, we can place what ever roof you think would be best on that building. It has not been built yet, it is not a problem. If you want the roof to be flat with it’s back of the building, we would be happy to do that.


David Scott stated, I was just concerned about if it would run off where we allow 2’, that it would run off on the neighbor’s property and it would either need guttering or I don’t know.


Ken Smith stated, I think that we already have, I would have to look at the plans but I’m pretty sure that we have guttering on the sides. We could drain down and away into that culvert if you wanted us to. The culvert is going to be there anyway so we could address that if that’s a concern.


David Scott stated, and we don’t want water to puddle over there either. We need to take the water away from this side of the building. That’s my opinion.


Ken Smith stated, I will work with the building contractor to put gutters on there and drain it to the front where the culvert is and get it away. I can do that and we can make the roof flat with the back of the building if you would like to as well. We are going to have to have an over hang on the sides.


David Scott asked, the back you’re saying West?


Ken Smith stated, towards the South.


David Scott stated, towards the South. That is the back of the building, the South is.


Ken Smith stated, that is the back of the building, yes. So we’ll assure we have gutters and we’ll assure that it drains to the culvert and goes away.


David Scott stated, well if it was peaked so it runs…


Ken Smith stated, it will run East and West forward and into the culvert and it won’t pool back there.


President Jerry Thompson stated, Marcus, even though Mr. Young says that he’s not necessarily in favor of a fence. With the facilities that you are going to have, will your insurance company require you too?


Marc King stated, I think we can fence the property and put a gate up.


President Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t know whether insurance wise if they would require it of you. That’s what I’m wondering.


Marc King stated, we haven’t discussed that yet. So I’m stating my opinion but that’s what the…


Attorney Altman stated, we certainly don’t want to create a visibility problem with the fence or anything there to add to that but by putting anything, no matter what it is there.


Marc King stated, chain link fence.


David Scott asked, can you tell what the distance is from where the fence would be and the road there?


David Stimmel stated, I don’t see the right-of-way.


Bob Young stated, 7 ½’.


David Scott stated, 7 ½’.


Bob Young stated, to the black top on 43. If they put the fence on their North/South boundary line you’ve got 7 ½’ to park equipment between the asphalt and the fence. I don’t think the State Highway will let you build a fence there.


Ken Smith stated, we are 30’ from the centerline of the pavement to the property line. We are not even on the road right-of-way of State Road 43. The right-of-way line is here and the town’s East property line is on the right-of-way. We are outside of the right-of-way so that pavement is not 22 1/2’ wide on one lane, so probably 15’ from the black top to the property line. Then we are an additional, the nearest structure to the property line, is an additional, this is the generator and this is down so you can… We are an additional 15 ½’ to the generator so approximately 30’ there. The tallest structure that may obstruct any view is 30’ away from the edge of the pavement on the property. Any of you can drive out to the property and look at it if you would like to. We can take photographs…


Carol Stradling asked, is this circle with the ‘x’ that’s a utility pole isn’t it? I’m trying to line that up with the pictures here. That’s this one, is it not? This pole is here. That’s what the fence would be in line with, that?


Ken Smith stated, it would be even back behind that a little bit.


Carol Stradling stated, okay.


Ken Smith stated, so it would be right down through here.


David Rosenbarger stated, the fence is pretty well gone but there used to be a fence, here.


Carol Stradling asked, so essentially the fence won’t set any closer to the highway than the existing utility poles?


Ken Smith stated, yes, the fence will actually be a little bit further away from the highway than the existing utility poles.


President Jerry Thompson asked, would your State permit would that dictate where the fence would go? I’m asking, I don’t know myself.


Ken Smith stated, driveway access permits usually want to see an improvement sketch or a map of the improvements like that. So yes it will, they will take that into consideration when they evaluate that permit. They’ll say where are your improvements, we’ll have to show them a sketch, show the width of the driveway. Yes it will. I’m not sure if that’s the criteria but that’s always what they want to see.


David Rosenbarger stated, Dave Rosenbarger representing Linda Rockaway. In the letter she sent you, I’m getting a little misunderstanding here, she wants the fence up before they build the building. She wants them off her land. Her concern is packing the ground and everything and with it being 2’ roughly 7” away there is no way. They’re going to be driving all over her farm and her comment to me was, “I’m okay with the pad where it’s at, if they put the fence before they build the building”.


Attorney Altman stated, so now, you’re talking about…the South?


David Rosenbarger stated, on the South side and even the West.


Attorney Altman stated, and the West Side, of this small tract of ground that is surveyed off.


David Rosenbarger stated, that was her comment.


President Jerry Thompson asked, any other questions for Dave? Comments?


David Scott asked, does that propose a problem? Does that sound like a problem?


Marc King stated, I didn’t hear all of that.


David Scott stated, they would like the fence put up on the South and West border right now. Before construction goes any further.


Marc King stated, from my prospective that’s fine.


Carol Stradling stated, to keep the construction equipment off of the farm ground. That’s the way that I read the letter too.


Ken Smith stated, I wouldn’t think that we would have a problem with building a 12’ x 12’ building with a fence there, no. I would, as far as the Council President for Chalmers said it was fine and we’ll get it put up.


David Stimmel asked, the 30’ from the centerline of the highway to the property line. Didn’t I hear somebody say the road, the highway itself is 22’ wide.


Ken Smith stated, no. I made the comment that if it, if the blacktop was only 7’ away from the property line that means that lane would have to be 22 ½’ wide. It was a… remark on my part.


David Stimmel stated, I guess the concern that I would have is just, I think as maybe is Bob’s, is the East part of the fence. Is one going to want it to be setback, I would think, as far as it could be to give you access, visibility to the South as much as possible. How much that is, I don’t know but I would think...


David Scott stated, also you would probably want to have room to pull a utility truck up there and not be out on the highway. You know to get out and open a gate or whatever.


Ken Smith stated, I would be happy to get with the fence contractor tomorrow or Monday and get a layout and submit that to the plan commission if you want to approve that on a conditional basis. I would be happy to get that over to you.


President Jerry Thompson asked, did the representative from the State give you a time idea on when he would get back with you on the highway access portion of this?


Ken Smith stated, he sent the permit today, so I assume I will get it tomorrow. I’ll be happy, we can submit it Monday back to him. It doesn’t take him very long to get things done.


President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.


Ken Smith stated, we can certainly get the southern fence put up before we begin construction on that building and do the rest of …


David Scott stated, South and the West.


Ken Smith stated, South and West, yes sir.


David Scott stated, the lady is concerned with the two sides.


Ken Smith stated, we can certainly get that South and West part put up and even the North part put up. I would just be opposed to putting the East part up because that is our access off of the highway.


President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to, have a concern?


Bob Young stated, my name is Bob Young and I’ve got the property to the North of this plot. I have 2 acres there. I have a copy of my abstract for the easement to the drive that exists there and there is no public easement in my drive. I can show you that.


President Jerry Thompson stated, once you give that we keep it.


Bob Young stated, well you are not going to keep it, it’s the only one that I’ve got. I don’t think the lady that owns the farm is going to put up with the survey marks that they ran on this survey that they got because they moved my Northwest, North, my West boundary that runs East and West. They moved it South onto her, about 15’ to 18’ from my corner post is where they’ve got their surveyor stake now. I’m real sure that she is not going to be real happy with that. They gave me about 15’ to 16’ on the West End of my property that isn’t mine and they took about 3’ off of the East End that was mine. I’m not really concerned with that, too awful much, because we’ve always had a pretty good relationship with the farm and them, we’ve not had any problem. As far as the entranceway and the good neighbor policy, the good neighbor deal with the stone and everything happened about 12:00 this afternoon, I think. You were there yesterday and I don’t see how they could get a 100-ton crane and Brim Concrete truck on this. If they’ve got 15’ down front it would’ve been darn crowded because I seen them in my driveway all afternoon yesterday trying to work in it. I’m not going to have it because I hear about it every morning. They had a waste problem yesterday that they were dipping out with buckets and throwing in the field. Then when they decided they could do that, they had a flat bed farm truck with a steel bed on it so they took the 5 gallon buckets of human waste and poured it on the flat bed parked in my driveway and then all of the stuff ran out. As you could have seen on the 6:00 news last night. It was well documented. That’s all I’ve got to say about it. If you can zone 50’ x 50’ and come off of the State highway somebody...


Attorney Altman stated, we will get that thing copied if you can wait a little bit we can do that. It certainly doesn’t indicate there’s anything in the way of a public easement of ingress and egress on this property of Mr. Young’s.


President Jerry Thompson asked, any comments from the board?


Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at the survey Mr. Young, have you seen that at all?


Bob Young stated, I saw this one and I saw where they drove their stakes. They put railroad spikes with a piece of ribbon on them, actually.


Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a more official survey from a registered surveyor, not the engineering survey as we looked at in the past. There’s a, help me make sense of this if you will, on this map there is an 18” diameter concrete corner post.


Bob Young stated, the only one that is a true marker any more is the southwest corner has a true marker on it.


Carol Stradling stated, this says this corner post found on deeded line 3.5’ West of the true corner.


Bob Young stated, yes because the State Highway’s not going to let you move it 3’5” on out toward the highway because then you’ve got about an 8’ or 9’ difference.


Carol Stradling asked, so is that true then?


Bob Young stated, they moved it when they put the sewer in the last time. They moved it to the North and to the West.


Carol Stradling stated, okay. So when it says found on deeded line 3.5’ West of the true corner, it’s actually South of the true corner also.


Bob Young stated, it’s actually North of the true corner.


Carol Stradling stated, North of the true corner. It also looks as if they took the beginning point...


Bob Young asked, from the steel stake on the Northwest corner?


Carol Stradling stated, actually it looks like they took it from the right-of-way line. You guys are good with these aren’t you? I’m looking at this big circle here. They took the beginning point. It looks like a GPS mark there. Is that true? So they didn’t just take it from the corner post they took it from a GPS location, a benchmark location.


Bob Young stated, there’s a brass State benchmark locator by the Northwest corner of that property, like 15’ over and it’s still asphalted over. It’s been asphalted over for the last 8, 10 years. We dug it up 4 or 5 years ago to get a true reading on the neighbor’s property. Nobody’s dug it up in the last 10 years.


Carol Stradling stated, okay, I don’t see that on here anywhere. But they did take a point of origin from an actual GPS point, not from the concrete post that was there. Is that the way you folks are reading that?


Bob Young stated, they’re saying that they took it from an iron post on the Northwest corner.


David Scott stated, the North line of Section 14 of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33. They took it from a benchmark is what they are saying here and they described the benchmark. We can’t tell, I can’t tell...


Bob Young asked, what are they describing the benchmark as?


David Scott stated, the West right-of-way line of State Road 43 and the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33.


Ken Smith stated, could I clarify. Benchmarks in survey terms are used to describe elevation data, up and down. I’m not sure what that has to do with locating horizontal property lines. In the State of Indiana, and many other states, has a public land survey system. I won’t pretend to give you a lecture on the rectangular survey system in the United States. You come off of section corners. The land surveyor has a certification down there that he complied with Indiana Administrative Code 865-12, Rule 12. That he conducted the survey in accordance with the law of the State of Indiana. What you have to do is find section corners and the surveyor, if the surveyor was here, he could tell you that. You have to go out and find section corners come off of those section corners and come in off of that. I wasn’t there when he did it, but I’m pretty sure that he went out and found the section corners came to the section corners and found the improvements that are there. If I could take a look at the survey real quick.


David Stimmel stated, this is the corner that we are talking about, right here, is the section corner.


David Scott stated, he has described it, it just…


Ken Smith stated, so he has, he has a section corner so he came off… the corners in accordance with the requirements of the I.A.C. 865 Rule 12. He performed the survey off the section corner, got his horizontal boundaries in and located them. Benchmarks are used to describe vertical data.


David Stimmel stated, they found the iron pipe, here.


Bob Young asked, are they calling the iron pipe the section corner?


Carol Stradling stated, no. The section corner appears to be about 208.5’ North of the beginning of the property on their right-of-way line of State Road 43.


David Scott stated, it appears to be on the corner of an alley, 14’ right-of-way alley.


The Board is currently going over the survey with Bob Young and David Rosenbarger.


Carol Stradling asked, are we okay? Does it fit then, or not?


Bob Young stated, according to the paperwork that part’s okay with me.


President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? For the record does anything else need to be mentioned on the fence business before we vote.


Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think so, I think it is very clear that they have agreed and modified the request to put a fence on the West and South side of this property and do it, I suppose within a week. That would be reasonable, right?


Ken Smith stated, yes.


Attorney Altman stated, okay. I think that’s the only real modification that I’ve heard. They have agreed that they will not have any access at all across Mr. Young’s property or his ingress and egress property and that is part of this matter here. That they will park on the property not on anybody else’s property or the State property. I think that’s the only thing that I know that they’ve said. Does anybody have something to add to that?


President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol are you satisfied? Gary, Dave Scott and Dave Stimmel.


Attorney Altman stated, that Mr. Young’s deed has been marked, Mr. Young’s exhibit #4.


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 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 57.5’ Front setback variance and a 3.5’ side setback variance to replace a meter building for the Chalmers Sewer System on


TRACT I:

Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 26 North, Range 4 West of the Second Principal Meridian in Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana more particularly described by:

The Second Principal Meridian in Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly describe by: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence South 90 Degrees 00 Minutes East, along the Quarter section line, a distance of 1,288.15 feet to a wooden corner post on the West right-of-way line of State Road #43; thence South 02 Degrees 31 Minutes East, along the West right-of-way line of State Road #43, a distance of 208.50 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 49 Minutes West, along the North line of the Town of Chalmers Sewage pumping station property, a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 02 Degrees 31 Minutes East along the West line of the Town of Chalmers Sewage pumping station property, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 49 Minutes East, along the South line of the Town Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 33; thence South 90 Degrees 00 Minutes East, along the quarter section line, a distance of 1,288.15 feet to a wooden corner post on the West right-of-way line of State Road #43; thence South 02 Degrees 31 Minutes East, along the West right-of-way line of State Road #43, a distance of 208.50 feet to the center of a concrete post, which is the point of beginning;

Thence South 02 Degrees 31 Minutes East, along the West right-of-way line of State Road #43, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 49 Minutes West a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North 02 Degrees 31 Minutes West a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 49 Minutes East a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.02 acres.

TRACT II:

Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 26 North, Range 4 West of Chalmers Sewage pumping station property, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 02 Degrees 31 Minutes East, along the West right-of-way line of State Road #43, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 49 Minutes West a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 02 Degrees 31 Minutes West a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 49 Minutes East a distance of 20.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.037 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located just South of the Town of Chalmers on the West side of the State Road 43.


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.

Based upon the conditions and modifications as stated the variance was granted the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.


****

#2280 Patricia A. Adkins & Kenneth S. Turpin; The property is located on Lot 47 in Gingrich Addition, South of Monticello at 5307 S. Gingrich Court. Tabled from the February 19, 2004 meeting.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 24’ front setback variance and an 8’ South side setback variance to replace the existing home on the property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that variance # 2280 Patricia A. Adkins & Kenneth S Turpin has been tabled. Diann stepped out. Do you know if that is tabled until the next meeting?

Attorney Altman stated, it is tabled until the next meeting.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay we are looking for April 15.


****

#2289 Uttermohlen Properties, LLC, Owner; Great Oaks Apartments, Applicant: The property is located on 2.5 acres, more or less in the City of Monticello East of the corner of Main Street and Hanawalt Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a space variance of 81,000 square feet for 27 apartments, this is amending the previously granted variance #2215.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I believe this has been withdrawn, is that right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, not tabled, but withdrawn? We will not see this again.

Director Weaver stated, right.

****

#2290 Donald Wilson; The property is located on .55 of an acre, Northeast of Lowe’s Bridge at 5787 N. Lake Road 51 W.

Violation: None.

Request: He is requesting a 25’ front setback variance and a 6’ side setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing cottage to the home.

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

Donald Wilson stated, I’m Donald Wilson.

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

Donald Wilson stated, no I think all the records that they requested the board has.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we do have a letter from the SFLECC regarding this request.

Attorney Altman stated, address to the Department. As per your request that of Mr. Don Wilson, that of Mr. Don Wilson. The SFLECC has review Milligan’s survey dated February 6, 2004 for a parcel owned by Donald Wilson. The SFLECC does not object to Mr. Wilson variance request for the front setbacks for his construction of the proposed addition to connect his house to the boat house. Respectfully, Joe Roach.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I just want to explain the pictures that I have given the picture that I have given the board on this. The first page pictures that has 6 pictures that is what I took today. There is another photo along with this and this is a picture that was taken in February of the property. Dave Anderson the Building Inspector took it and he is actually standing on the ice on the lake. The building you see there are the two buildings that will be connected.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does everyone understand that? Is there anything else? Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, no. The roofline will be connected and be no taller than the rooflines of the present buildings.

Donald Wilson stated, no it will blend right in. It will look like it was always there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the board? Dave, Dave, Gary and Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, our notes say that you will attached this to the existing cottage, but you also have, there is a cottage on the property that will stay where it is.

Donald Wilson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, there is also a mobile home and that will stay where it is?

Donald Wilson stated, yes, it will not affect these.

Director Weaver stated, I did research these. There are no violations. They are grandfathered.

Carol Stradling stated, it looks like you have a pretty good parcel for lake property.

Attorney Altman asked, is this on the sewer system.

Donald Wilson stated, it will be next month.

Attorney Altman stated, we will require that. All structures.

Donald Wilson stated, yes, it has all been staked.

Attorney Altman stated, no one will be living in the boat house.

Donald Wilson stated, no

Director Weaver stated, wait a minute.

Donald Wilson stated, the boathouse, where I’m putting the room will become part of my house.

Director Weaver stated, right.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it will become one.

Attorney Altman asked, will people be living in the boathouse?

Donald Wilson stated, yes in the wintertime, if people visit that is where I will be putting them.

The reason for doing this is because we have a large family, 7 kids and 10 grandkids. In the summertime we have plenty of room, in the wintertime we’ve got our master bedroom with a king size bed and the guestroom with a twin size. In the wintertime we don’t have room for much company. The main reason to do this is for a family room and an extra bedroom for the wintertime.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are there anymore comments?

Director Weaver stated, I have one more question for Mr. Wilson. When I was up there today I did not see your sign posted.

Donald Wilson stated, I took it out about an hour before you got there. So it would be dry to put it in my trunk.

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 25’ front setback variance and a 6’ side setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing cottage to the home on Out lots, West ½, Northeast ¼, Township 32, Section 28, Range 3, .55 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northeast of Lowe’s Bridge at 5787 N. Lake Road 51 W.

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

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

****

#2291 David A. & Lucille Dickerson

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a Special Exception to bring a 1974 mobile home into compliance with Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?

Sherman Moody stated, I’m Sherman Moody. I’m Broker for Lakeland Real Estate, and I represent the Dickerson’s. They live in Illinois.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are you aware of this?

Sherman Moody stated, I made the application. I signed the application.

Director Weaver stated, yes. Did you have them sign the application?

Sherman Moody stated, you had me fill it out as the applicant.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I just want to make sure everyone know who is representing who.

Director Weaver stated, he is the one I have been dealing with on this. He brought the inspections in.

Sherman Moody stated, the mobile home is up for sale and it had to be moved because they are up dating the area it was in. He asked if we could sell it, when I talked to Diann she said we would need the exception because of the year of the mobile, so it could be moved here within White County. We had it inspected and made the repairs necessary and so what we are doing is that we will be able to move the mobile to some other place.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, but I will mention that in your information that was sent to you this mobile home has been inspected twice. You do have two inspections to look at.

David Scott stated, we don’t know where it is going.

Sherman Moody stated, not at this time. The gentleman who is buying it, made the mistake of making arrangements where the zoning was wrong, so he is having to find another place. He thought he was going to take it out to Harris Camp and that is zoned R-2 now, so he is making other arrangements.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Carol Stradling do you have anything?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m just noticing on the second inspection, you still need a smoke detector in the hallway.

Sherman Moody stated, we have taken care of that.

Carol Stradling stated, the insulation.

Sherman Moody stated, the insulation he said that once they moved it to the location, he would have to come back out and inspected it to make sure all of the insulation had been pinned up in there. He told that, once we put the trailer wherever it is going, that he would come back out and do that inspection.

Attorney Altman stated, you know you are obligation to bring it up to snuff.

Sherman Moody stated, yes, he is aware of that.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what the second inspection means, the approval here is only to okay, but they have to do all that is required by the inspection.

Sherman Moody stated, exactly and he told me that once it was moved and in place he would have to come back and inspect it, particularly for the insulation underneath to make sure that it had a vapor barrier and that everything was intact as it was when it left.

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

David Stimmel asked, we are approving the moving of the mobile home, not the placing of the mobile home in a location? He will have to get another special exception for that?

Director Weaver stated, that is right, and no this allows it to be relocated on another property. At this time it is not specified where it is going because that is not what we are addressing. It is not for setback anything for that.

Attorney Altman stated, so if he puts it someplace that is totally qualified, only the re-inspection to make sure that the improvement meets all of the health and welfare things is all we will see.

Sherman Moody stated, as soon as we know where it is going I will have to go back and make sure the zoning allows it to be there. The person buying understands that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? If not let's 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 1974 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.

****

President Jerry Thompson stated, in your packets there is a report from the Director. Does everyone have that? Diann do you want to start?

Director Weaver stated, this is regarding an appeal from Robert Teumer for, I cited him for having a campground on his property. As you can see from the pictures as early as March of last year there were two, a minimum over the last year at least one camper on the property along with a mobile home. At times there were two and at one time there was 3 campers on the property. He is not zoned for a campground. He is zoned A-1 and in order to have a campground he does have to go through a special exception process, which he did not do. I sent him out a violation letter and he did get the campers removed and the mobile home is his own personal mobile home and it is still on the property. The campers are gone and he is appealing his fine.

Robert Teumer stated, my name is Robert Teumer.

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

Robert Teumer stated, no, I was building a home back there and the two mobiles, the camper trailers were held for me. They were only put there until we got done building everything. They did finally move them and she help move them because they didn’t believe me that they had to be moved and they dragged it out and they finally come and got them when I got the letter from her. They did move them and I’m going to be moving the mobile home and giving it to my son because I don’t use it anymore. I never did use it as a campsite on the property. It wasn’t used for that. I had a stroke about a year and half ago and it slowed me down on everything that I was doing. It hit me on this side. I’m getting things done now. As a matter of fact my son comes to help me.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Robert Teumer stated, I have a big house trailer on there and it is a 14’ x 70’ and I was wanting to subdivide the property. I don’t know if that is the time to issue that or not.

Director Weaver stated, that has nothing to do with this, it is a separate matter, separate board.

President Jerry Thompson asked, back to Jerry, do you have any questions or comments for him?

Attorney Altman stated, what ever the reason those campers were there and they are not suppose to be there and always maybe nice you don’t conform to the ordinance and then you have problems getting people to respect the ordinance.

Robert Teumer stated, there were more trailers on that property that I had moved off. They were there when I bought the property. I had them moved off, it is just that the two people who are neighbors in Hammond where I lived and they were helping me build this place. They did move them, it was less than two years. They were even there two years.

Attorney Altman stated, two years is a long time to violate an ordinance. I understand, we don’t know that and Diann did he indicate that these were people who were helping build a home.

Diann Weaver stated, he did indicate that to me when after I had sent him the letter.

Attorney Altman stated, the violation letter.

Director Weaver stated, the thing is the permit for the home was issued in 2000. The permit has actually expired on the home, so you know construction on the home should have been complete long ago also.

Robert Teumer stated, it will be completed this spring, like I said I had that stroke and it laid me up a little. I got a little use of this hand and it did lay me up that is why everything was delayed for a while. I want to finish the home up this year, this spring. I got to come in and get more permits I didn’t get the permits and I haven’t done nothing yet. I want to get the permits because it will be finished this spring.

Carol Stradling asked, when did you have your stroke Mr. Teumer?

Robert Teumer stated, just before 2001, I believe it was in October.

Carol Stradling stated, so the end of 2000?

Robert Teumer stated, yes, I had that stroke. Doctor Gutierrez is seeing me now.

Carol Stradling stated, so shortly after you got your building permit?

Robert Teumer stated, yes, no I had the building permit in April I think.

Director Weaver stated, October 20, 2000.

Robert Teumer stated, then it was right after that. I could look it up when I had the stroke, but it has been over a year.

David Scott stated, this probably doesn’t have anything to do with this, how close is your nearest neighbor?

Robert Teumer stated, my nearest neighbor, across the street which is, I have 3 ½ acres there. 2 ½ acres and I have another feet there on the water. The neighbors there are my friends. I pretty far from the neighbors maybe 150 to 200’ at least is the closes neighbor.

Carol Stradling asked, did you understand that when you picked up your building permit that it says the mobile home must be removed within a year.

Robert Teumer stated, I don’t remember that and we discussed that and if it has to be moved I will move it, but I was trying to subdivide it because my neighbor that helped build the house wanted to buy that piece of property with the trailer on it. If I have to take it off, I will take it off. It is a 14’ x 70’ and it was there when I bought the property. It has been there, I guess about 17 years. It is in good shape, it is not, I think it is in good shape.

Attorney Altman stated, your permit says it must be removed.

Robert Teumer stated, yes, but I don’t know if I can subdivide it and my neighbor take it. He wants to and I’ve tried to subdivide that property. If it has to be removed…

Attorney Altman stated, that is what it says in 2000.

Robert Teumer stated, I have been talking to Diann about having it subdivided and all of that.

Carol Stradling asked, how far along are you on the subdivision process?

Director Weaver stated, the subdivision hasn’t even been started yet. He hasn’t made it through the rezoning process.

Robert Teumer stated, there is no subdivision, I just want to divide that one piece of property. I don’t want subdivision. I moved to big trailers. There was a 10’ x 60’, 12’x 60’, I moved off.

Ronald Teumer stated, I’m Ronald Teumer. I have read some of the paperwork and I believe this area has already been subdivided. All he wants to do is cut off a piece of property.

Robert Teumer stated, one piece of property off for that 14’ x 70’. I don’t want to make a subdivision or nothing. I don’t know how that ever came up about a subdivision.

Director Weaver stated, because in order for you to legally divide your property the only way to do that is to go through a subdivision process. Your lot is not large enough for you to just break a piece off of it. The subdivision process is the only way.

Robert Teumer stated, I have over 2 ½ acres and that is not enough.

Attorney Altman stated, no it is not.

Ronald Teumer asked, what is the minimum on that? Is it done by square footage?

President Jerry Thompson stated, it is 3 acres in White County.

Attorney Altman stated, and it has to be each tract has to be 3 acres.

Robert Teumer asked, each tract? I don’t even have 3 acres there when I bought it.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what we are telling you.

Director Weaver stated, that is why you have to go through the subdivision process.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I mean seriously we are not, and this is what Diann said before. This doesn’t have anything to do with the violation.

Robert Teumer stated, I don’t want no mobile home or campers there. I have a home there and I don’t want them there. She did me a favor when she came there and I showed them the letter and they moved them right a way. I tried for 6 or 8 months to get them to move them and I couldn’t get them to move them. Then I took them the letter they moved them right a way. She did me a favor.

President Jerry Thompson stated, why don’t you have a set, we need to have a discussion here. Carol is there anything that you want to kick around?

Carol Stradling asked, there where 3 mobile homes on this property initially?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t verify that Carol. This is in Liberty Township we didn’t take over up there until 1993. I don’t know.

Carol Stradling asked, when did you purchase the home or property?

Robert Teumer stated, I have had the property for 15 or 16 years. Mel owned it. I would say 14 or 15 years. I built a home down there on the river first.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay back to you Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m just trying to get the sequence of events here and you lived there full time.

Robert Teumer stated, full time.

Carol Stradling stated, but you were living on the river before you built this one.

Robert Teumer stated, yes, I got divorced I had that trailer up there and I was living in the trailer because I couldn’t live in the house. She didn’t want me living in the house. I sold it and we split the…. I would never have built on this property if I would have been able to keep that house, but I couldn’t keep it. She said I was not going to live in there with another women.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Gary anything you want to discuss.

Carol Stradling stated, no I’m just trying to put the pieces back together.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott anything?

David Scott stated, you said that all of the little trailers are off of there.

Robert Teumer stated, yes, except for the motor home.

Ronald Teumer stated, except for the motor home.

Robert Teumer stated, and I gave that to him. It is on the road now and he is going to take it up North we are going to sell it. I don’t use it anymore, I had the stroke and I don’t want it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay Dave Stimmel.

David Stimmel stated, nothing really. Just trying to put the pieces together.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay back to Carol. Do you have anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, what do you need to do to finish the house.

Robert Teumer stated, I need a deck. I got a permit and I have got to get one for a deck in the front and I want to put a back porch on with a roof over it. I will come up there to get the permit.

Carol Stradling stated, so you don’t need these folks living there now to complete that correct.

Robert Teumer stated, no, my son is here to help me. He lives in Hammond. As a matter of fact the one that wanted to buy that trailer he just come down with cancer. He only has 6 months to live.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so is there anymore discussion concerning this.

Carol Stradling stated, it appears that we have two fines on record. I would move that we deal with this one at a time. I would move that the $500 fine for having a campground be waived. It doesn’t appear that he was trying to make money with it and it was set up to be a welcoming thing for helpers.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?

David Scott stated, I second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and Dave Scott you are seconding it. Okay all in favor signify by saying “aye”, all opposed the same. All voted in favor of waiving the fine.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that it was a condition of building the home that the mobile home be removed within a year. That would have put it October 2001. It sounds like that is when he came up with some physical difficulties with his stroke. It still has been a long time.

Ronald Teumer stated, it has been vacant a long time.

Attorney Altman stated, the board is having a discussion.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess my feeling is that there should be some fine.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Gary. Dave Scott? Dave Stimmel? I’m not putting anybody on the spot.

David Stimmel stated, Diann I only see one violation in this letter. Where is the second violation?

Director Weaver stated, it is all one letter.

David Stimmel stated, so in the first paragraph it says you maybe fined $500. The letter dated January 21, 2004.

Director Weaver stated, I’m trying to refresh my memory. It has been awhile.

David Stimmel stated, I’m just making sure this is clear in my mind.

Director Weaver stated, yes the first paragraph is regarding the mobile home and the fact that he did not follow through the rezoning and the subdivision. It did say you may be fined, yes.

David Stimmel stated, maybe fined $500. Then the other one you are not imposing the fine for, the other violation, which is the special exception.

Director Weaver stated, I am imposing the fine on that one for the campground.

David Stimmel stated, you are imposing that one, okay in my mind there is a little ambiguity there about the first fine even being imposed in the first place.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not going to say that I deny that, I did give him 30 days. The mobile home is still there.

David Stimmel stated, I understand what you are saying, but…

Director Weaver stated, I understand what you are saying.

David Stimmel stated, I’m just trying to clarify it in my mind.

Carol Stradling stated, the 30 days would have been the end of February and this is close to the end of March.

David Stimmel stated, but he was not notified of the fact that, that fine was being imposed is what I’m getting at.

Director Weaver stated, that is true, what was requested as a part of the rezoning was a letter stating whether the property was a wet land and then if it wasn’t a wet land if it could be drained and what size tile would be needed to drain the property. I have not yet obtained those and he did get a letter from the DNR and it was not the letter that we need telling us if it is a wetland or not. Actually Jerry and I were discussing a letter regarding this just today.

David Stimmel stated, okay, so the fine we waived was really not told to him that it was imposed.

Director Weaver stated, the fine for the campground was my intention. That is what he is actually appealing.

David Stimmel stated, that is the way I’m taking it.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so what is the board’s thoughts on the whole matter rolled into one here?

Carol Stradling asked, what is the ultimate goal here for this property?

Gary Barbour stated, to bring it into compliance.

Carol Stradling stated, to bring it into compliance. Two ways to do that. One would be to have the mobile home removed and the other would be to subdivide it.

Attorney Altman stated, he has a lot of problems with this piece of property that goes beyond the preview of these violations because he has matters in area plan before the area plan and that hasn’t been resolved also. That is what Diann is asking about in this letter to get more information so we can figure out certain drainage issues and problems that he has with this parcel. It is a big piece of ground in one sense. It still has a lot of water going through there and a lot of water problems. That has been setting in the Area Plan for how long Diann?

Director Weaver stated, the rezoning was filed a year ago.

Attorney Altman stated, there are a lot of issues here that just have not been resolved.

That is where we are right now. It isn’t just this, it is the other things and what you are doing tonight not going probably comes close to address the whole issues and problems for this matter that is before you.

David Scott stated, he needs to pull the trailer off to be in compliance. What Gary is saying without?

Attorney Altman stated, clearing compliance with a building permit that is minimum. That was a long time ago.

Director Weaver stated, there has not been any progress made with the rezoning request, it was tabled months ago. My intent tonight was to deal with the campground and if the board is not comfortable doing anything with the fine for the mobile home that….

Gary Barbour stated, how can we bring this thing to an end with the whole property and make it a win, win situation. That is ultimately what you want to do.

Attorney Altman stated, the problem is there are matters way outside these matters that are before you tonight, we can’t hardly address. It is like that drainage tile because you know of because of being on Area Plan.

Gary Barbour stated, how can we put enough bite in this that it gets resolved, I guess that is where I’m heading. How can we get them an incentive to get this thing drawn to a close?

Does that mean we impose a $500 fine and we give him the option of taking the $500 back if they get all of that information and get it brought to an end whether its this board or the Area Plan board. Can we do that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes we can.

David Scott stated, or pull the trailer off.

Attorney Altman stated, that isn’t the, pulling the trailer isn’t the end of it. He has got problems with his rezoning

Carol Stradling stated, he doesn’t need to rezone.

Director Weaver stated, he doesn’t need to rezone if he pulls the trailer off.

Attorney Altman stated, okay I’m with you.

Robert Teumer stated, I won’t have to rezone because he has cancer and he only has 6 months to a year to live. It doesn’t make no difference if I get rid of it or not.

Attorney Altman stated, or pull it off.

Robert Teumer stated, I will give it away if someone wants it.

Director Weaver stated, we give him 60 days to pay the fine. That would be a real good solution I guess is what I’m thinking. Then by the end of that 60 days fine be paid and trailer removed or rezoning resolved.

David Scott stated, I think it will take more than 60 days to get the rezoning done.

Director Weaver stated, well he has already had a year.

Gary Barbour stated, what do we have to get through the process for the drainage part of it. As I’m hearing it I guess that is where the major, major problems have been. What department?

Director Weaver stated, well I have talked to Dennis Sterrett from the Surveyor’s office about this talked, to him today or yesterday can’t remember what day. His suggestion was that Mr. Teumer contact the Army Corp of Engineers. You need to ask them though if it is a wetland. That is what you need to know. Is it a wetland and if it is not wetlands can it be drained?

Robert Teumer stated, I asked them and.

Director Weaver stated, we have to have it in writing.

Robert Teumer stated, I asked, them about the ditch, I don’t want to fill it, I want to put is put a drain in it. It only holds water in the springtime and we have all of the rain. They never gave me an answer. Here is the lady I talked too….

Director Weaver stated, I have the card.

Robert Teumer stated, she took pictures and everything and said I could fill it. I don’t want to fill it. I want to put a drain in. I won’t have to put a drain in if I have to get rid of the mobile home that was part of the deal with the trailer I was going to put the drain in to get rid of the water where the trailer.

Director Weaver stated, it sounds to me if he removes the trailer the situation is resolved.

Carol Stradling asked, can your friends move in with you?

Robert Teumer stated, I don’t know if he wants to come down here or not.

Carol Stradling stated, so he is up in Chicago now.

Robert Teumer stated, Hammond.

Carol Stradling stated, he is not interested in doing that right now.

Robert Teumer stated, he still is, but I don’t think he is going to do it. If I have to get rid of it I will give it to somebody. I will put an add in the paper. I’m not capable of tearing it apart.

Attorney Altman stated, the simplest thing to do is impose the fine and give him 70 days, that will give him 3 meetings at least to remove the trailer and waive the fine.

Carol Stradling asked, do you understand that.

Ronald Teumer stated, so in other words if we get the trailer moved in 70 days there will be no fine.

Carol Stradling stated, you do need to get a permit, not from us, but from Bureau Motor Vehicles to move the trailer.

Attorney Altman stated, it is up to you to get it off or pay the fine.

Ronald Teumer stated, if we get someone to move the trailer, isn’t it up to them to get the right permits to move it.

Carol Stradling stated, part of the negotiations.

Attorney Altman stated, we are saying you have to do it or pay the $500.

David Scott stated, the only thing wrong with that, if they don’t get the trailer moved when they pay the $500 that doesn’t fix it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, no, but another one could go in and replace it.

David Scott stated, it probably should be the $500 plus so much a month until it is removed.

Attorney Altman stated, is that agreeable to add to the motion? The motion is to impose the $500 fine, $50 a month after 70 days from date if the trailer is not moved.

Ronald Teumer stated, I thought it was 90 days.

Attorney Altman stated, no I said 70, or did I say 90 days.

Ronald Teumer stated, someone said 90 days at first.

Attorney Altman stated, I know, but I said 70 days.

David Scott stated, can’t we make it 90 days that gives them 3 months?

Carol Stradling stated, there is no one out there that is disturbed.

Attorney Altman stated, we have a letter from adjoining owner so it does disturb someone.

Carol Stradling stated, we don’t have a letter from anyone.

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t give them a copy of the letter because it didn’t deal with the campground.

Attorney Altman stated, the adjoining property owners are complaining about what is going on out there.

Carol Stradling stated, that is the first time that we have heard that. I guess we move Mr. Teumer has an option moving that trailer out within the next 90 days or paying the $500 fine, if it is not moved within 90 days and each month after that is $50 on top of that.

Gary Barbour stated, they still have the opportunity to subdividing it, if you get everything cleaned up.

David Scott stated, I don’t think that is going to happen.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m just saying that is an option.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think it will happen because most of his property is in the floodway.

Gary Barbour stated, he needs to find out.

David Scott stated, he can get into compliance two ways. Either subdivide it or move it out.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay Carol do you want to try again.

Carol Stradling stated, I move that Mr. Teumer with 3 options to bring actually 2 options to bring this property into compliance. One that it would be subdivided and the second would be that the mobile home be removed. Either one of those needs to be completed within 90 days. If at the end of the 90 days and the mobile home is still in place and it has not been subdivided then the $500 fine is in place and for every month after that, no action has been taken is an additional $50 fine on top of the $500.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there a second to that?

Gary Barbour stated, I will second that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Gary has seconded it and all of those in favor signify by saying “aye” all opposed the same. Motion carried.

Ronald Teumer asked, now are we open for comments?

Attorney Altman stated, no it’s over.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything. Okay you have a question, go ahead. I’m sorry.

Ronald Teumer stated, if we can get something from the Corp of engineer and get something done, then the trailer can stay.

Carol Stradling stated, yes the trailer can stay then.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question on a violation I have came across and because of the way that Board has acted on the pass fines. Before I send this violation out I want to make sure the board wants me to send this violation letter out. John Raines brought to my attention that there is a piece of property that has 3 old mobile homes on it, one piece of property. One of those mobile homes had a building permit issued for it. The other two did not ever have permits. They are new enough that I know that they should have had permits because the ordinance was in place. They have been there since before 1995, so I don’t know if the board wants me to pursue this and site them for a violation that is that old. There is also a new owner involved that purchased the property in the last year or year and half. I believe. I wanted to make sure before I sent out a violation letter on this what does the board want.

David Scott asked, what do they need to do to get into compliance or can they?

Director Weaver stated, they would have to divide the property up first before we could even consider issuing permits for each of these homes. They have enough ground that they could probably do that.

David Stimmel stated, my first impulse would be to send a letter to get their attention.

Attorney Altman stated, the problem is when you forgive and waive all of these fines it becomes toothless.

Director Weaver stated, we have followed a pattern when the previous owner that created the violation that we don’t….

Carol Stradling stated, can we educate them and let them know how they are out of compliance and then have them call your office and see what they can do to come into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, before we impose a fine?

Carol Stradling stated, before you impose the fine and then let them know in the communication let them know that we need to get this taken care because fines can be imposed and we do not wish to do that.

David Scott stated, if we give them the option the fine will be imposed. If you give them so many days or at least to start the process. If you talk about subdividing and things like that there are a lot of things that come into play. How long does that technically take?

Director Weaver stated, well I don’t know that they are going to have to subdivide. They are going to have to divide the property, but I don’t know that they have to subdivide it. I think they have enough acreage that they can just split it.

Gary Barbour stated, this is one owner that owns all of them?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, and these were put in when?

Director Weaver stated, I have established before 1995.

Gary Barbour asked, when did the new owner take possession?

Director Weaver stated, within the last 2 years.

Gary Barbour stated, they were not required to see if it was in compliance?

Director Weaver stated, either that or they paid cash.

David Scott stated, the original owner if he was suppose to get the permit and he didn’t, I would think would be subject to the fine, since they have changed hands and there is no check when you buy a piece of property. That is tough.

Attorney Altman stated, it is tough, but it is still a violation.

Carol Stradling stated, the point is to educate them.

President Jerry Thompson stated, my father in law is in the hospital and they are going to disconnect something’s here in a little bit.

David Scott asked, can you go back to the original owner for the fine?

Attorney Altman stated, there again you say that is to long.

Director Weaver stated, well I don’t know, how do you go back on an original owner when they no longer have an interest.

Gary Barbour stated, either way the property is out of compliance, we got enough fight with it we can make them bring it into compliance and not necessarily fine them.

Carol Stradling stated, the point of doing the $500 fine when we initiated it was that there were people filling out building permits, applying for building permits and they were misstating their intentions. Then when they build according, it wouldn’t be according to the permit. The point with the $500 fine right up front was for those people who are really trying to skirt the process.

David Scott stated, willingly.

Carol Stradling stated, would understand right away that we were not going to take that. I know it has other ramifications, but these people probably purchased it and have no idea that they purchased it out of compliance. So maybe our first step is to let them know that it is out of compliance, and there are ways to bring it in and have them contact the office or the fine can be imposed.

David Scott stated, that is exactly the way I feel about it. If this would have happened 5 years ago…

Gary Barbour stated, you are setting a precedent though. You need to state that there a fine imposed. You need to stay with the same program because if you don’t, down the road you are going to get bit by it.

David Scott stated, well….

Gary Barbour stated, we just need to let them know….

Carol Stradling stated, but I guess I was under the impression that $500…

Gary Barbour stated, that was the way it is stated.

Carol Stradling stated, was something…

Director Weaver stated, no it is not.

Carol Stradling stated, was something that they signed when they came in for the building permit to make them aware….

Director Weaver stated, a lot of them don’t come and get the permit.

David Scott stated, well if it was done in the last 5 years I have no problem with that. What about back before we imposed the fine, when things were let go.

Director Weaver stated, this is exactly why I brought it to the board before I did anything.

Gary Barbour stated, but it states in there that the fine is imposed and I think that there should be a fine imposed and explained to them however, the boards wishes are to bring it into compliance and if it is brought into compliance the fine can be waived. Not will be, but can be that way you fined out if they are going to work with you to bring it into compliance.

Carol Stradling stated, the other part of this, if we go according to what we did as a board at the time that situation was created.

David Scott stated, that means the automatic $500 fine would come into play from a year ago or 2 years ago when ever that was put into place. Anything prior to that time would fall under the old rule however, ….

Carol Stradling stated, which is still a rule, it was a rule then as it is a rule now. We were just enforcing it a little bit differently than we are now.

David Scott stated, I really don’t think that, I…

Gary Barbour stated, you have got to be consistent.

David Stimmel stated, I agree with Gary on that.

Gary Barbour stated, if you back off now it is going to bit us.

Director Weaver stated, the letter informs them that they can appeal it. I send them a copy of that fine policy. When I send out the violation letter, I send that fine policy right with it.

David Scott asked, even if the violation occurred before the fine policy.

Director Weaver stated, regardless.

David Scott stated, I don’t agree with that.

Carol Stradling stated, in the letter, it should state there are ways to bring this property into compliance, please contact my office at your earliest convenience. Then they become aware of how they correct the situation, do you see what I’m saying Diann. It is not a matter that we going out to get people, we don’t want that impression, but we also want people to know that it is, they need to comply. Your idea of having, there is a fine, but also saying this is what we need to do to bring you into compliance. We are willing to work with you.

David Scott stated, the letter should say a fine will be imposed, but to say that there is an automatic fine imposed for a violation that occurred before we put that in place. I think the letter ought to say you have so many days to get in here and start the process of getting into compliance and there will be a fine imposed if you don’t, but I think it needs to be stated.

Gary Barbour stated, that letter states there is automatically a fine imposed that you send out.

Carol Stradling stated, it is not a form letter necessarily.

David Stimmel stated, that it states you are in violation and that she is imposing the fine.

David Scott stated, a fine.

David Stimmel stated, a fine, which can be appealed. All they have to do is come to her.

Director Weaver stated, they White County Board of Zoning Appeals will issue an automatic $500 fine.

David Scott stated, I have no problem with that…

Gary Barbour stated, but in there you need to state that provided that it is brought into compliance, the board’s wishes are, if it is brought into compliance the fine be waive or could possibly be waived. That is the way you want to state it. If you say it will be waived….

Carol Stradling stated, how about in the letter it say that please contact the office at your earliest convenience so that we can discuss ways to bring this into compliance and address the issue at hand. I’m sure they will call about the fine and then you can say there is an appeal process, we need to take it to the board.

Director Weaver stated, well.

David Scott stated, but you know Carol to end this argument forever, I think we need to decide how we are going to do it and set a precedent and go with it. My opinion is whatever day we set the $500 fine that ought to be imposed that way.

Gary Barbour stated, the property still has to be brought into compliance.

David Scott stated, exactly, I have no problem with that.

Carol Stradling stated, they don’t know how to do that yet and this form letter that we usually send out.

Director Weaver stated, it is not a form letter

Carol Stradling stated, it is not a form letter, I think what I’m trying to get across is that these people need to know, they didn’t know. They purchased the property and yes I’m okay with the $500 fine being imposed, but I think it is important that we indicate that we are willing to work with them and help them bring it into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, which I do usually try to highlight what needs to be done to bring it into compliance. If it is something that I have not had any contact with them. I do try to, if they need to rezone, I tell them they need to rezone and send a rezoning handout.

David Scott stated, you can do that, and that is what I would like to see. Every violation be sent out a warning, you have.

Gary Barbour stated, every time you send out a warning.

Director Weaver stated, they will bring it into compliance and then.

David Scott stated, that is what we are after.

Gary Barbour stated, that is why we put the imposing the fine automatic. They have got to come in and deal with it and get it over with.

Director Weaver stated, that is the thing the way the policy is written up it tells me that I have to fine them. If I find a violation they are fined.

David Scott stated, I have no problem with that, as long as it is in a time span, from the time that we drew that up and now I have no problem with that. People know that we’ve got it and those things that fall before that should fall under the old rules, where there is a fine imposed, but we don’t know what it is.

Gary Barbour stated, in my opinion that is when you do them on individual cases.

Director Weaver stated, that is the advantage of being able to appeal and then they can come to you and they can plead their case.

Gary Barbour stated, if it is something like this one, you can’t fine someone who just purchased the property in the last year, in my opinion they really have no idea that it wasn’t in compliance.

David Scott stated, I wish there were someway to make people aware when they buy a piece of property they need to find out.

Director Weaver stated, yes, that is a thing that the Title Company should be searching permits and they are not. I don’t know of any way to enforce it. Okay I will send the letter out imposing the $500 fine and giving them their options of how to bring the property into compliance and go from there.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission