Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, July 15, 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: John Watson, Sherry Gee, Charles R. Mellon, Patricia Gioia, Tonya Wilson, George Wilson, Tony Gioia, Jeff Walker, Edwin D. Augenstine, Carri L. Augenstine, Donna Short, Lester Short, Eric Storm, Mitch Billue, Jerry All, Espiridion Estudillo, and Juanita Fishel.
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 April 15, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.
****
#2326 Anthony F. & Patricia B. Gioia; The property is located on 0.145 of an acre located North of Monticello at 5460 E. Albertson Court.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 25’ front setback variance and a 23’ rear setback variance to place a manufactured home on the property.
President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?
Anthony Gioia stated, I’m Anthony Gioia.
President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry let me back up here. (Jerry re-read the violation and request) Once again you are?
Anthony Gioia stated, I’m Anthony Gioia.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else to add to what I have read?
Anthony Gioia stated, no not really.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything on this?
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t, wait yes I do. They did request a variance last year I believe it was. It was passed. They have changed the size of the home that they want to put in there. That is why they are coming back to the board.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, in the records we have we have a statement from Twin Lakes Sewer. (Jerry proceeded to read the letter from Sewer District) see file for letter.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this variance either for or against? If not Carol do you have any questions?
Carol Stradling stated, as I look, and I know this is not a real good map. Diann you can see, is that community property there?
Director Weaver stated, I believe so.
Carol Stradling stated, so if every one of these homes were to build in relationship as large as he is, that would still be community property.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Carol Stradling asked, are you understanding what I’m talking about? This area in here.
Anthony Gioia stated, right.
Carol Stradling asked, is that, that would be to the rear of your property?
Anthony Gioia stated, yes, South of the rear.
Director Weaver stated, it would be the rear as far as the way Area Plan looks at it.
Carol Stradling stated, okay. Do you know if there are any plans to build in that area?
Anthony Gioia stated, no, nothing is ever going to be built there.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?
Carol Stradling stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave Scott or Dave Stimmel?
David Stimmel stated, I’m curious Mr. Gioia about the size of the house that you were going to put on before this variance. What size was it?
Anthony Gioia stated, it was 52’ x 30’.
David Stimmel asked, it was 52’ x 30’?
Anthony Gioia stated, yes, the deal fell through on it and that is why we had to find a different house.
President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else Dave?
David Stimmel stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?
Attorney Altman asked, is it single story?
Anthony Gioia stated, yes.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?
Without further discussion the board voted.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 25’ front setback variance and a 23’ rear setback variance to place a manufactured home on that part of the South half of the South half of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 3 West, Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, more fully described by: Basis of Bearings: Indiana State Plane Coordinate System-West Zone. Being a part of the land as described in Miscellaneous Book 1981, pages 1182-1183, White County Recorder’s Office. Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 28; thence North 01 Degree 45 Minutes 40 Seconds West a distance of 298.06 feet; thence South 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 90.80 feet to the point of beginning; Thence South 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 90.80 feet; Thence North 44 Degrees 27 Minutes 25 Seconds West a distance of 66.10 feet; Thence North 62 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 109.53 feet; Thence South 28 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 63.39 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.145 of an acre, more or less. Known as Tract No. 49.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5460 E. Albertson Court.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.
****
#2327 Shirley I. All, Owner; Jerry & Shirley All, Applicants; The property is located on lot 65 in Gingrich Addition, South of Monticello at 5861 E. Sheridan Road.
Violation: A detached garage was built in 1976 without a permit.
Request: They are requesting a 2’ rear setback variance and a 3’ East side setback variance to replace a detached garage.
President Jerry Thompson asked, and sir you are?
Jerry All stated, I’m Jerry All.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so you are Jerry All. Sir do you have anything that you would like to present to us tonight?
Jerry All stated, I have some plans that I drew up of the garage.
President Jerry Thompson stated, hold on to those for a minute. You have nothing else to add to this, but the plans for the time being?
Jerry All stated, for the time being yes.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann, do you have anything to add?
Director Weaver stated, I just want to clarify a little bit on the drawing that you have is to the foundation. I did call Mr. All after he applied and I got to looking at this and he is wanting a 1’ overhang. The request is reflecting a 1’ overhang. It will be 1’ closer to the property line than what is shown on the survey. Also regarding the violation I done some research on this and the garage that was built in 1976 was before the All’s owned it.
Jerry All stated, we just bought the property 3 years ago.
President Jerry Thompson stated, you did. So it is your opinion that.
Director Weaver stated, I did find a permit that could have been for this garage, but I couldn’t find where the name was, when the permit was issued or how the property was titled.
President Jerry Thompson stated, all right.
Director Weaver stated, so I don’t know what happened.
Jerry All stated, surely if 1976 is when it was built it could have been long before that.
Director Weaver stated, I went by the assessor’s records.
Jerry All stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, that is how I came up with that date of 1976 was from their records.
Jerry All stated, the reason I’m doing this, is we had a wind storm about 6 or 7 weeks ago and a lot of hail damage, wind damage and blew the roof off of the garage, the garage door blew in and torn up a lot of things.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have anything.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel do you have something for Mr. All?
David Stimmel stated, so you are going to replace the existing building and have a 1’ overhang and it is going to be a little wider according to the drawing.
Jerry All stated, yes. It will be actually with the overhang it will be 30’ x 26’.
David Stimmel stated, okay, it shows 28’ x 24’.
Jerry All stated, I didn’t realize the overhang was included.
David Stimmel stated, so it will be 28’ x 26’.
Jerry All stated, it will be 30’ x 28’.
David Stimmel stated, so a 1’ on the front and back.
Jerry All stated, yes.
David Stimmel stated, so you will be 3’ from the roadway and 2’ from the property line.
Jerry All stated, actually.
Director Weaver stated, from the eaves.
Jerry All stated, I will probably move it back 1’ each way, since the overhang was not counted as part of the garage.
David Stimmel stated, am I understanding this correctly, is this how it will look.
Director Weaver stated, yes, from the eave, he will be 3’ to the front property line and 2’ to the other, yes.
David Stimmel stated, okay.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?
David Scott stated, your eave is going to be 3’ off of the property line, is what you are saying.
Jerry All stated, yes.
David Scott stated, you are basically going to be on the same foot print of the old building, except you will be over 1’.
Jerry All stated, well, Diann was at there the other day. I was going to be on the same foot print, but the surveyor’s drawing is wrong.
David Scott asked, what?
Jerry All stated, there is a stake there and you can see it and it is not 3’ from the property line, it is about a foot and half.
David Scott stated, that is where the existing building is.
Jerry All stated, yes.
David Scott asked, so now you are going to be?
Jerry All stated, well I thought it was 3’, but because of this drawing, I got the metal detector out and found the stakes and it was only 1’5 away.
David Scott asked, so will the new building be 3’?
Jerry All stated, it will be 3’.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Dave?
David Scott stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour? Carol Stradling?
Carol Stradling stated, I hate to ??? this a little, but we have the front setback will be 3’ then and the side setback will be 2’.
Director Weaver stated, it is considered the rear setback Carol because this is on the water. The front is the waterside.
Carol Stradling stated, okay so the rear is 3’ and the side is 2’.
Jerry All stated, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, so you are using the farthest corner of the existing foundation as you can and setting it back as far as you can and still using the existing foundation.
Jerry All stated, yes.
Carol Stradling asked, so do we need to address the encroachment of the deck on SFLECC property?
Director Weaver stated, our request isn’t addressing anything but the home.
Carol Stradling stated, so, were you aware that your deck is encroaching on the SFLECC property?
Jerry All stated, no, it was there long before I bought the property.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, so if we approve this tonight that doesn’t approve that or disapprove it, it is not an issue at this time. Does that make sense?
Jerry All stated, I think so.
Director Weaver stated, maybe I can clarify a little. At the time, from the information from where I have researched it, at the time the decks went on, we did not issue permits for decks. There were no requirements for setbacks for decks.
Carol Stradling stated, okay. But our approval of this request does not grant permission, this doesn’t grandfather that in, that would need to be address by SFLECC is you were to build again in that location.
Attorney Altman stated, not a bit.
President Jerry Thompson asked, are you satisfied?
Carol Stradling stated, I think so.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so back to the violation. So the way it stands is I’ve never heard the term, it is not grandfathered.
Director Weaver stated, it is not grandfathered, no.
Carol Stradling stated, I move with the time lapse and inability to verify the record on the garage that we waive the fine.
David Stimmel stated, I will second it.
President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and second. Is there any discussion?
Director Weaver stated, the proper terminology I guess is a non-conforming structure, it is not in compliance with the ordinance.
Gary Barbour stated, it is out of the control of the current owner too.
Director Weaver stated, that is right.
Carol Stradling stated, it has been moved and seconded.
President Jerry Thompson stated, yes. Is there any other discussion? All of those if favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those opposed. Motion carried fine is waived by a vote of 5 to 0.
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 2’ rear setback variance and a 3’ East side setback variance to replace a detached garage on Lot 65 in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located 5861 E. Sheridan Road, South of Monticello.
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.
****
#2328 Walter W. & Mary Jane Wilson, Owners; George & Tonya Wilson, Applicants; The property is located on Lot 13 in Lake Meadow Addition, at 1103 Poplar Drive in Monticello.
Violation : None
Request: They are requesting a 32’ front setback variance from the West, a 10’ front setback variance from the North and a 6’ rear setback variance to replace a 6’ privacy fence.
President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?
George Wilson stated, George Wilson.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so you are George Wilson. Do you have anything that you would like to present to us tonight sir, other than what I have read?
George Wilson stated, I don’t believe so, it is just replacing the existing fence.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything.
Director Weaver stated, no I do not.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry? Anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Carol do you have anything?
Carol Stradling stated, so it will extend the entire perimeter of your property?
George Wilson stated, yes.
Carol Stradling asked, will it beside and along the sidewalk.
George Wilson stated, yes that is where it is now. The superintendent of the street department was down and we questioned that ourselves. He said they were not going to widen the road at any point and time and it was in far enough in. We took measurements across the road. He said if you had any questions that you could call him.
Carol Stradling asked, will it be the same type of fence?
George Wilson stated, no that is why I’m getting the variance.
Carol Stradling asked, what kind of fence will it be?
George Wilson stated, it is changing from ¾” by 12” wide boards to like a dog-eared style fence.
Carol Stradling asked, the same height?
George Wilson stated, the fence is different in height because of its condition. It ranges from 5’ to 5’8. This one will be the same height because it is in better shape.
Carol Stradling asked, is it 6’?
George Wilson stated, yes.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?
Carol Stradling stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave Scott?
David Scott asked, Diann when you went out and looked at it, it was not obstructing a view?
Director Weaver stated, well what my pictures don’t show, it kind of look like there use to be a cul-de-sac there or something. It is a real wide corner. Really it does not cause any problems. This is on a dead end street; this is not a heavily traveled road.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave anything else?
David Scott stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel?
David Stimmel stated, no.
Director Weaver stated, George you do realize that there is a utility easement on the back of the property.
George Wilson stated, yes.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If not are we ready to vote?
Without further discussion the board voted.
1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 32’ front setback variance from the West, a 10’ front setback variance from the North and a 6’ rear setback variance to replace a 6’ privacy fence on Lot Number Thirteen (13) in Lake Meadow Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 1103 Poplar Drive in Monticello.
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.
****
#2329 John A. Watson Sr. & Mary Ann Watson; The property is located on Lot 27 in Pleasant
Valley Addition #3, South of Monticello at 5702 E. Cedar Point Court.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 23’ front setback variance to build a detached garage.

President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?
Johnny Watson stated, I’m Johnny Watson Sr.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so you are Johnny Watson Sr. Okay thank you. Sir do you have anything that you would like to present to the board?
Johnny Watson stated, no sir.
President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Diann.
Director Weaver stated, no, I do not have anything on this.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, no.
Director Weaver stated, in your pictures the bottom left picture. If you look at the bottom right hand corner of that picture, you will see an orange flag. That is the property line and I took that picture to give you some idea of where his property line. The water is to the right hand side.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance either for or against? David Stimmel any questions?
David Stimmel stated, not at this time.
President Jerry Thompson asked, David Scott?
David Scott asked, are you going to have a driveway up next to the house to access this?
Johnny Watson stated, there is already a 12’ concrete drive along the side of my house from the front all of the way to the rear of my home. There will be an additional amount of concrete poured approximate 4’ to get to the garage.
Carol Stradling stated, the shed that is there with the gamble roof.
Johnny Watson stated, that will be gone.
Carol Stradling stated, okay and that is your shed and that is essentially where the new building is going to be.
Johnny Watson stated, that is correct.
Director Weaver stated, new buildings can be closer to the water than that.
Johnny Watson stated, pardon me.
Director Weaver asked, the new building is going to be closer that the shed?
Johnny Watson stated, then the shed, it will be 2’ closer to the water.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott do you have anything else?
David Scott stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson stated, sorry Jerry did you have something.
Attorney Altman asked, singe story structure?
Johnny Watson stated, yes single story garage with vinyl siding.
Attorney Altman stated, this is for storage and not human habitant.
Johnny Watson stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour? Carol Stradling anything else?
Carol Stradling stated, no.
David Scott asked, did you hear anything from the neighbors on the East?
Director Weaver stated, no, but I talked to the neighbors on the West.
David Scott stated, I mean the West.
Director Weaver stated, yes I talked to him when I was talking pictures. He told me that they were not going to be in attendance tonight. They had a concern about how close it was going to the water, but not enough to attend.
Johnny Watson stated, I had consulted with them before I applied.
President Jerry Thompson stated, that is good. Is there anything else? Any other questions from the board?
Carol Stradling asked, is there anyway to move it forward some?
Johnny Watson stated, actually no, it would be to close to the house according to your rules, you have to be so many feet away. If I moved it forward I would have to get a variance for that also.
Carol Stradling stated, okay. I guess I was thinking that you would attach it, but it is a completely different roof structure.
Johnny Watson stated, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, so attaching it would be rather difficult then.
Johnny Watson stated, yes absolutely.
Carol Stradling stated, that is a good size garage.
Johnny Watson stated, yes it is.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?
Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think so.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?
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 23’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on Lot 27 in Pleasant Valley Addition No. 3 in Union Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located 5702 E. Cedar Point Court, South of Monticello.
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.
****
#2330 Lester E. & Donna M. Short; The property is located on Lot 35 in Bedford Bay Subdivision #3, Southeast of Monon at 6390 N. Bedford Bay Court.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback variance to extend a 4’ chain link fence.
President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?
Lester Short stated, I’m Lester E. Short.
President Jerry Thompson stated, you are Lester Short. Do you have anything that you would like to present to us tonight other than what I read to the board?
Lester Short stated, no, it is just, I’m having it put up to keep my dog and my 9 grandkids in site. That is all. I think you would understand that.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?
Lester Short stated, we did talk to both neighbors and they did not have a problem with it.
Director Weaver stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry? Nothing? Does anyone care to address the variance either for or against? Carol any questions from Mr. Short?
Carol Stradling stated, you are leaving the existing fence there and you are extending it down to the water.
Lester Short stated, extending it. My neighbor’s existing fence is on the side and I’m bringing down that side.
Carol Stradling asked, and the other side is?
Lester Short stated, it is 10’.
Carol Stradling asked, you are extending it also?
Lester Short stated, yes, to keep my dog in from going over to the neighbors and scratch their kids.
Director Weaver stated, they have a permit for the fence now. They found out that they had to be 10'’from the water, so they decided to file this and extend it.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary? Carol are you finished?
Carol Stradling stated, that is fine.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott and Dave Stimmel?
David Scott stated, no.
David Stimmel stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any discussion? If not are you ready to vote?
Without further discussion the board voted.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned L-1, Lake District
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance to extend a 4’ chain link fence on Lot 35 in Bedford Bay Subdivision #3 in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 6390 N. Bedford Bay Court, Southeast of Monon.
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.
****
#2331 Lisa Graham; The property is located on 7.310 acres, North of Monticello off the West side of C.R. 600, between C.R. 400 N and C.R. 500N.
Violation: None
Request: She is requesting a 60’ rear setback variance to build a new home.
President Jerry Thompson asked, you are sir?
Bob Rentfrow stated, I’m Bob Rentfrow and I’m representing Lisa.
President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, just for clarification.
Director Weaver stated, I believe Lisa is here.
President Jerry Thompson stated, oh okay I did not know that, okay so it is okay for him to speak to you.
Lisa Graham stated, yes, he knows more about this.
President Jerry Thompson stated, we just want to make sure we have all of the proper people in their positions. Sir do you have anything that you would like to present to the board?
Bob Rentfrow stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no, we only have one picture, that is all I could get. I couldn’t get back to it to get more pictures.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, you keep asking questions about who is representing who, it very appropriate and necessary. I have not questions, oh wait how are you getting across the ditch?
Lisa Graham stated, it is across the creek.
Bob Rentfrow stated, it is across the bridge.
Director Weaver stated, if you look at the picture the creek is on the left-hand side of the edge of the picture.
President Jerry Thompson stated, let's move back here. What is your relationship to this?
Bob Rentfrow stated, just a friend.
President Jerry Thompson asked, you are not the contractor?
Bob Rentfrow stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson stated, okay I just want to make sure. Is there anyone here who cares to speak either for or against the variance?
Connie O’Neal stated, I’m Connie O’Neal a neighbor.
President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Connie O’Neal stated, we are the owners of the creek area. Just would like some verification of the flooding zone. They have a flooding zone. Is that right.
Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that, I don’t have the information here to answer that.
Connie O’Neal stated,
Attorney Altman stated, the only thing we can tell you is that the survey that Mr. Milligan did says the building site is not in the flood zone area.
Connie O’Neal stated, my husband has a copy, but I don’t. What about a septic tank area?
Director Weaver stated, I have a copy of their septic tank permit.
Connie O’Neal stated, so it is not going to go down to the pond or any sort.
Director Weaver stated, we can’t answer that, that is something that you need to talk to the Health Department on. They are the ones who gave the permission for that.
President Jerry Thompson stated, but it did meet their approval.
Director Weaver stated, evidently so or they wouldn’t have issued a permit.
Connie O’Neal stated, so she is not in a flood plain there.
Attorney Altman stated, the site is not.
Connie O’Neal stated, the site it not, okay here is our question. If she is not in a flood plan area, then why is out property in a flood plan area. We are paying for insurance for it every year.
Director Weaver stated, there are differences in the elevations. The elevations...
Connie O’Neal stated, her elevation is higher than ours.
Director Weaver stated, that would be why, if her elevation is higher than yours.
Bob Rentfrow stated, when Mr. Milligan surveyed that, he told me that where the site is at, is 17’ above the flood level.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do you visually see them up hill.
Connie O’Neal stated, well yeah, just up hill. We are up hill from the creek also.
President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, well maybe you ought to have yours checked.
Connie O’Neal stated, we did have it checked and they did say we were in a flood zone area because of the creek.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess I would have it re-checked.
Director Weaver stated, we do have the flood maps in our office. You are welcome to come in and we can look at it.
Attorney Altman stated, as far as their request you don’t really have any objections, you just want to know why yours is in the flood area.
Connie O’Neal stated, I don’t care if they build back there.
Attorney Altman stated, we just wanted to make it plain and for the record.
Connie O’Neal stated, I guess my thing was is if they are not in the flood zone why are we because it is basically the same avenue. They have a pond and we have a creek.
Director Weaver stated, that is really nothing that anyone here can answer, that is some thing that you have to go to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Attorney Altman stated, she has the maps.
President Jerry Thompson stated, she could help you probably.
Connie O’Neal stated, okay. Thank you.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone else either for or against?
Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m not for or against, but as I look closer at the survey, Diann is your picture taken right here at this point.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, so when you said they were crossing the creek.
Director Weaver stated, they are not crossing the creek.
Carol Stradling stated, oh okay. Just wanted to verify that you were staying on your property.
President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else Carol?
Carol Stradling stated, yes, where is the rear.
Director Weaver stated, the opposite side…
Carol Stradling stated, I see it now.
Bob Rentfrow stated, umm...
Carol Stradling asked, why don’t you put it further up, so that because of the elevation?
Bob Rentfrow stated, because of the elevation. Mr. Milligan actually told us that there was an area back there that was 200’ x 400’ that we could build on, but if you go too far over the elevation drops at the front. We talked to the gentleman who has the property right behind her and he said he didn’t have a problem with it. He was willing to sell her enough to build if that would help. We thought this would be the best way to go and try and get the variance.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, it seems to that the house is tucked back there in a real far corner and you have got lots of property and the elevation would explain a lot of it. Thank you.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol? Gary?
Gary Barbour stated, no sir.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott or David Stimmel?
Attorney Altman stated, just so you know you have a significant amount of real estate and with the variance and all it is effectively all married together and you can not sell off any of it then in the future. So long as you are using it as the variance is granted.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?
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 60’ rear setback variance to build a new home on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:
Commencing at a railroad spike at the Southeast corner of said Section 4; thence North 01 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along CR 600E and the section line 460.00 feet to a Survey nail and the point of beginning;
Thence North 86 degrees 57 minutes 37 seconds West 603.17 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 32 seconds East 210.82 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 24 seconds East 208.77 feet to a corner post; thence North 00 degrees 40 minutes 02 seconds East 423.46 feet to a corner post; thence South 87 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds East along the fractional section line 538.03 feet to a railroad spike on the section line; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds East 20.26 feet to a Survey nail; thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 49 seconds West 45.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 47 degrees 09 minutes 11 seconds West 200.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 26 degrees 04 minutes 11 seconds West 201.27 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 07 degrees 43 minutes 37 seconds West 128.80 feet to the centerline of Kean’s Creek; thence South 51 degrees 01 minutes 36 seconds West 101.70 feet; thence South 58 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds East 269.35 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 87 degrees 13 minutes 34 seconds East 163.04 feet to a Survey nail on the section line; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds East 185.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 7.310 Acres.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located off of the West side of C.R. 600 E, between C.R. 400 N and C.R. 500 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 10.10 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.
****
#2332 Addlee Gee; The property is located on Lot 7 on Arch Street in Wilson’s Addition, at 511 N. Arch Street in Monon.
Violation: Built a pool in 1999 without a building permit.
Request: She is requesting a 14’ front setback variance and a 4’ North side setback variance to build a roofed porch and to bring the existing home into compliance.
President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann we will start with you. Do you have anything to add to this?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so.
President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry ma’am, you are?
Sherry Gee stated, I’m Sherry Gee.
President Jerry Thompson stated, you are Sherry Gee. Your relationship to Addlee is?
Sherry Gee stated, her daughter-in-law.
President Jerry Thompson stated, you are the daughter-in-law. Diann or Jerry do we have anything?
Director Weaver stated, she did sign the application.
Sherry Gee stated, yes she did.
Attorney Altman stated, both of the names are on here.
President Jerry Thompson stated, sorry ma’am, but we see everything in here. Diann do you have anything?
Director Weaver stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to the description of what I read?
Sherry Gee stated, the only thing I wanted to see if we could add is can we go ahead and screen that in?
President Jerry Thompson stated, yes. Jerry do you have anything?
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think so at this time.
Director Weaver stated, I might add that a screen porch and the roof porch have the same setback requirements.
President Jerry Thompson asked, David Stimmel do you have anything?
David Stimmel stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?
David Scott asked, are we addressing the setback or the violation?
President Jerry Thompson stated, the request the setback.
David Scott stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?
Gary Barbour stated, not right now.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol?
Carol Stradling stated, no, it doesn’t seem to be that much further out than the adjoining homes. It is setting back from the adjoining homes.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else?
Carol Stradling asked, we are addressing the variance?
President Jerry Thompson stated, right.
Carol Stradling stated, no that is all of the questions I have or comments.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything? No. Okay anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Do you want to go ahead vote on the variance and then handle the violation.
Carol Stradling stated, sure. Since we are dealing with the variance sure.
President Jerry Thompson stated, we can back up before the vote.
Carol Stradling stated, let's move forward.
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 14’ front setback variance and a 4’ North side setback variance to build a roofed porch and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 7 on Arch Street in Wilson’s Addition to the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located 511 N. Arch Street in Monon.
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.
President Jerry Thompson stated, for the record let me repeat what the violation is. A pool was built in 1999 without a permit. Diann do you have anything you want to add to that?
Director Weaver stated, just that the pool appears from the survey, it is meeting the setbacks. They did come in, in 1998 and get the permit for the fence and the garage. I don’t know what happen with the pool, whether they didn’t know, I don’t know. Everything that they have done other than the pool has had the proper permits.
Sherry Gee stated, we were not aware that we needed a permit for the pool.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything?
Attorney Altman stated, nothing.
President Jerry Thompson asked, how does the Board want to address this? Gary Barbour we will start with you.
Gary Barbour stated, I guess did you ask when you came in if you needed a permit for the pool.
Sherry Gee stated, no I didn’t ask. We had talked with other people and were under the impression that we didn’t need a permit for a pool, otherwise, I would have came in and got one.
Carol Stradling stated, was it you intention when the privacy fence went up to put the pool back there.
Sherry Gee stated, yes it was at the time.
Carol Stradling stated, so it would have been very easy to include that pool with the permit. It wasn’t as though they didn’t apply for it to avoid being denied something that wouldn’t have been approved. It meets the setbacks and.
Director Weaver stated, it appears to, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I’m getting at, it seems that in the past the intent has been to get the appropriate permits and then it was done at a time when other permits where applied for and it sounds that she just assumed she wouldn’t need the permit.
David Scott asked, how much does the pool permit cost?
Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you at the time this was installed because I don’t know remember. Currently an above ground pool is $50.00.
David Scott stated, $50.
Gary Barbour stated, my point is, it is not like the last one we had where they went ahead a built knowing that they had a fine and had to pay.
President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
David Scott stated, I guess I make a motion that we.
President Jerry Thompson stated, hold up Dave Scott. Let's go Dave Stimmel. Everyone has had a turn.
David Stimmel stated, that’s all right I was just waiting to second Dave’s motion.
David Scott stated, reduce the fine to the price of the permit, plus a $25.00 for, I would say that we reduce the fine to $75.00.
Carol Stradling stated, so the fine is actually $25.00 and then the cost of the permit.
David Scott stated, yes.
Gary Barbour stated, so we are talking about a total of $75.00.
David Scott stated, yes, a total $75.00.
Gary Barbour stated, that is after the permit.
Attorney Altman stated, so it will be a $25.00 fine.
Carol Stradling asked, can that be incorporated into the permit for the porch?
Director Weaver asked, can what be incorporated into the permit?
Carol Stradling stated, the fee.
Director Weaver stated, we can do it all at the same time.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
President Jerry Thompson asked, are you following this ma’am?
Sherry Gee stated, yes.
David Scott stated, I move that the fine be reduced to $75.00.
President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved. Is there a second?
David Stimmel stated, I would like to hear some clarification. I thought I heard $25.00 and then the permit, and then I heard $75.00 and I’m not clear.
Gary Barbour stated, I guess what I heard was that since they are going to be able to get the permit for the pool with porch, that they are paying that anyway.
Director Weaver stated, they are going to pay the $50.00 anyway.
David Scott stated, they are going to pay the $50.00 anyway.
Gary Barbour stated, what I was hearing was the $75.00.
David Scott stated, I would like to restate this. I don’t think anything was done intentionally here and I would say that the fine would be $25.00 on top of the permit.
Director Weaver stated, she needs to get her permit and pay a fine of $25.00.
President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
David Scott stated, that would be my motion.
David Stimmel stated, I will second that.
President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and second. Is there other discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those opposed? Motion was carried by 5 to 0 vote.
****
#2333 Eric Paul Rusk, Owner; Edwin D. Augenstine, Applicant; The property is located on .03 and .20 of an acre, North of Buffalo at 6682 E. Palmers Drive.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 28’ front setback variance, a 2.6’ rear setback variance, and a 1’ North side setback variance to build a detached garage.
President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?
Edwin D. Augenstine stated, I’m Edwin D. Augenstine.
President Jerry Thompson stated, you are the applicant. Do you have anything to add to this?
Edwin Augenstine stated, I just have a question. I’m also planning on getting a permit to build a screen in porch off of the side of the house and on the second level and I’m wondering if that screen porch will then need a variance because of the proximity of the garage to the house.
Director Weaver stated, they have to be 6’ apart. You are going towards the garage?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes, there is, I don’t know if you saw it, but there is a little concrete pad area.
Director Weaver stated, no I didn’t.
Edwin Augenstine stated, there is a, I’ve got a drawing. I just thought of this.
President Jerry Thompson stated, just a second, what you present to us we keep.
Attorney Altman stated, we…
Director Weaver stated, wait we might have one of these here.
Attorney Altman stated, I was just going to check that.
Director Weaver stated, how is that, we can refer to our own.
President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Would you make that aware to the other board members please.
Edwin Augenstine asked, do you all have a copy of that?
Director Weaver stated, no, there is only one copy. Just for the record that is a property record card from the Assessor’s office.
Edwin Augenstine stated, I don’t know how close that would be.
Carol Stradling stated, according to the survey, if you go 6’, you would be 9’ away from.
Edwin Augenstine stated, so I’m coming out 7’10, so that will leave 15’ separation so I should have plenty of room.
David Scott stated, is says here on the survey 8’, is that what.
Edwin Augenstine stated, well it is really 7’10 out from the house. The screen porch would come down to the end here and follow the concrete pad here.
David Scott stated, you would be 7’ from the existing house then.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it would be attached to the existing house.
David Scott stated, you would be 7’ from the garage.
Edwin Augenstine stated, right.
President Jerry Thompson stated, show that to the other board members please.
(Currently showing the map to the other members.)
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything else on this?
Director Weaver stated, well I was going to clarify a little to the board. The property with the home on it, Mr. Augenstine currently owns that property. The property that he is putting the garage on he just recently purchased it.
Edwin Augenstine stated, the purchase hasn’t happen, it is contingent upon this approval. I have given him a $100 of earnest money.
Director Weaver stated, I just want the board to know that.
David Scott asked, the vacant track is that a potential building spot?
Edwin Augenstine stated, not according to Eric or myself. The previous owner want to purchase it and that is where his garden and everything is.
President Jerry Thompson stated, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, no, the way this would be transferred because it is an adjoining landowner doesn’t violate the subdivision control ordinance. So they can do that transfer.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance either for or against? Dave Stimmel do you have anything?
David Stimmel stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, David Scott do you have anything?
David Scott stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?
Gary Barbour stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol Stradling?
Carol Stradling stated, it is an awfully long garage. Is there a reason?
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is just not a garage, part of it will be a work shed, I do a lot of woodworking. I have a lot of wood working equipment setting in my son’s garage taking up space.
Carol Stradling stated, I’m just wondering having it 4’ from the, is it 4’ from the edge of the roadway or more of right-of-way.
Edwin Augenstine stated, no.
Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is actually about 21’ from the road right-of-way. That is why I’m surprised it needed a front variance. The front of the garage is going to BE setting actually 21’.
Carol Stradling stated, having it 4’ from the roadway concerned me, but if there.
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes, no, no I wouldn’t want it that way either. That would block the vision of the traffic. It is actually 21’ back from the pavement.
President Jerry Thompson stated, anything else Carol?
Carol Stradling stated, so your existing home is how far back from the pavement?
Edwin Augenstine stated, I would have to look.
David Scott stated, it is only 9’ from the property line.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is further back than what the garage would be.
Carol Stradling stated, yes, but it doesn’t look to me that you have, unless that is an awfully long vehicle. The survey indicates that your house is 29’ from your property line and that the proposed garage will only be 4’ from the property line. This is the existing house, so unless your home is actually…
Edwin Augenstine stated, no it is 29’ back, this, I’m not sure where the property line runs.
It is not at the road, there is a right-of-way.
David Stimmel stated, no, there is a right-of-way.
Edwin Augenstine stated, there is a right-of-way between the road and the property line. That is why it shows 4’ from the property line. The property line is actually set back 15’ back from the road. That is how I measured it. So I guess the setback is not from the actually road, but the actually property line.
Carol Stradling stated, it is from the property line.
Edwin Augenstine stated, okay then it would be 4’ from the property line. It is actually 19’, and I was saying 21’, but 19’ from the roadway.
Carol Stradling stated, what you are saying is your house 29’ from the road, or I mean 45’ from the road.
Edwin Augenstine stated, that seems to be inconsistent.
Carol Stradling stated, that is what I’m looking at.
Edwin Augenstine stated, I would say that it is 29’ or 30’ from the road.
Carol Stradling stated, then there is something wrong with the survey. If it is 29’ from the pavement, then you are going to be 4’ from the pavement with the garage.
Edwin Augenstine stated, I’m not 4’ from the pavement. It is 21’, about 19’ to 21’ from the pavement.
David Stimmel stated, Diann there is a red flag in the top right picture, lower left corner. Is that a stake or a post?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, I saw that out there, but I do not know.
Edwin Augenstine stated, that is the front where he has taken the measurements.
Director Weaver stated, the property line.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is 4’ back from here. This flag is 15’ back from the road.
Carol Stradling asked, is this another one?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes, that is one right across. Where the garage will be, will be behind these two trees here. Back behind the...
Carol Stradling stated, I guess what is really throwing me off is the picture of this vehicle here, looks like it taken up to the edge of the house. Would that be true?
Edwin Augenstine stated, no, not even close that is an optical illusion.
Director Weaver stated, there is a tree between that vehicle and the house, isn’t there.
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, well I hope there is a whole lot more room there, then just a tree too. That would make that vehicle 29’ long and I don’t think it is a bus.
Edwin Augenstine stated, no, the house is back.
Director Weaver stated, I’ll tell you from being up there, it didn’t seem 29’ to me, but.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is.
Carol Stradling stated, it actually would have to be 45’, if you have the 15’ right-of-way plus the 29’ back from.
Edwin Augenstine stated, that is not the case, but it is at least 30’ back from the road. That truck's wheelbase is 18’.
Carol Stradling stated, the building inspector would be out there to verify this would he not. Diann when this foundation is poured.
Director Weaver stated, he can verify the garage, especially since the property line is marked.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, leave those flags so the building inspector knows those lines.
Carol Stradling stated, I would move that we approve this contingent upon it being placed properly and not being 4’, I would like to see it being 19’ back from the pavement.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it would be.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there a second to Carol’s motion?
Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.
President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and second. Is there any discussion?
If there is no discussion, all of those in favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those opposed? Motion was carried by a 5 to 0 voted.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything else?
Attorney Altman stated, the only thing else is that you have two tracts of ground and you understand that if you get the variance and it is approved. These are married together forever as long as you use the variance, the property with the variance. You can not sell it off.
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes, I’m going to die there.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion?
David Scott asked, this property does it drop off towards the water?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes.
David Scott asked, that is why it is out towards the road so close?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, that is more than a creek back there.
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes, it was the gravel pits back there.
President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else have anything to add before we vote?
David Stimmel stated, questions about Carol’s motion and to what she is concerned about and I guess the more I look at it the more the drawing that building is going to be 4’ from the pavement.
Carol Stradling stated, that is the way the drawing shows it.
David Stimmel stated, that is what the drawing shows, I can rationalize the truck and the distance between the house and I can say I can come up with 29’. It doesn’t make sense to me, if I believe that, according to the drawing that tells me that the building is going to be 4’ from the pavement.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess the question is, when you look at the pictures can you see 45’, I can see 29’, but I’m not sure I can see 45’ from the house to the pavement.
David Stimmel stated, no.
Carol Stradling stated, that is what concerns me.
David Stimmel stated, I wonder if those flags are indicative of anything quite frankly because Palmer Drive, what we are looking at is the road right-of-way. Right Diann?
Director Weaver stated, Palmer Drive that should be the road right-of-way.
David Stimmel stated, that is the road right-of-way.
Attorney Altman asked, the White House is your house?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, the two-story.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess Dave the only thing that adds to that puzzle is, if I look at the size of the air conditioner and then I look at the size of the vehicle and I’m thinking there must be quite a bit of distance there. But in the picture, it looks like they are right next to each other. Then there is the size of the door right below it and it looks very small to be right next to the car, but it doesn’t show anymore room.
Edwin Augenstine stated, you need the side view to determine how far it really is. They should have taken the distance for the house from the property line, not be 29’ but whatever 15’ would be from 29’.
Carol Stradling stated, that would make your garage long enough then. If your garage is 58’, then that 29’ has to be right for that garage to fit in that parcel.
Director Weaver asked, does the road curve up there or is it straight?
Edwin Augenstine stated, at that point it is straight. The curve is on the other side of Verick's property.
Director Weaver stated, I was hoping that would help.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it fits because I have measured it. It is 19’ back from the road, I guarantee it. It is 58’ from there and back to just inside the rear flags, which are, I don’t know if you can see.
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t think that I could see them when I was out there.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I hear you saying, it seems to be pretty hard to resolve this unless you go out and review it.
Director Weaver stated, I can believe the house is 29’ from the road.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it is.
Director Weaver stated, I can believe that.
Edwin Augenstine stated, not from the property line, if the property line is back 15’, which I assume that it is.
David Stimmel stated, the bottom line is that there is something inconsistent with the drawing and the pictures for some reason. I don’t know what it is Diann, I really don’t.
Director Weaver stated, I agree and I was questioning Jerry about it. Something doesn’t seem to make sense and I’m not sure what it is.
Carol Stradling stated, it maybe when he took the measurements for the house, he took it from the roadway and not the property line. That is where he placed the house, so your house may actually be closer to the property line and then in that case your survey is wrong. I guess we can go ahead and vote on this contingent upon the building inspector verifying those flags and the fact that the garage is set 19’ back from the edge of the pavement. It would be nice to say the survey is correct and the house is in the right position.
David Stimmel asked, are we going to have another meeting this month?
Director Weaver stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, you have a motion Carol.
Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Augenstine you paid for the survey to be done correct?
Edwin Augenstine stated, that is correct.
Carol Stradling stated, since things are not jiving, could we, I guess I wondering if we could pass this contingent you having the survey corrected.
David Scott stated, the only thing that scares me is when they build the roads they don’t necessarily go down the middle of the road right-of-way. We have 60’ easements and 20’ roads and it maybe anywhere in that 60’.
Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know how he set his points though. I don’t know if he has a GPS unit that says okay this is where it starts, I don’t know how he did it. I doubt that he measured from the roadway.
David Scott stated, I can’t imagine a surveyor measuring from the road.
Gary Barbour asked, who put those flags in?
Edwin Augenstine stated the Milligan.
Gary Barbour stated, the surveyor did.
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes.
Carol Stradling asked, are you in a hurry to get this put up?
Edwin Augenstine stated, yes. I’m building it myself, I need it approved.
David Scott stated, as I look at these flags. I have no problem with him building 4’ off of those flags as long as those are correct, but I’m like you something is not right. If you built 4’ off of those flags, it doesn’t matter what the house is.
Carol Stradling stated, exactly.
David Scott stated, as long as we are sure those flags are where they should be.
Carol Stradling stated, but for the record you really ought to have that survey correct if it is wrong. If it is just an optical illusion then I guess it is fine. I hate to deny it and delay it for an optical illusion and there is no reason to delay it, if the house is wrong on the survey. If the garage is proper on the survey and the flags are proper.
David Scott stated, I can’t believe it is that much of an optical illusion when you do look at that truck here.
Edwin Augenstine stated, believe me it is. When you look at it, when you take a picture and you are looking from the angel and coming in this direction.
Several are talking at once.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so back to you Carol.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess I move that we vote on this contingent upon it being, the site being verified by the building inspector and I would recommend to you since you paid for a survey, you verify the dimensions.
Edwin Augenstine stated, Jim didn’t do this particular survey, he had two of his underlengths do it.
Director Weaver stated, but Jim’s name is on the survey.
Edwin Augenstine stated, he did a previous survey.
Director Weaver stated, the only thing that the building inspector can verify is that the building is 4’ from the flags.
Carol Stradling stated, I would be okay with that, unless he moves the flags up to the road. I would like for the building inspector to put it 19’ from the roadway.
David Stimmel asked, roadway or right-of-way?
Carol Stradling stated, from the roadway and 4’ from the right-of-way. I would hope you wouldn’t move the flags.
Edwin Augenstine stated, I guarantee it. The other thing is I’m building this behind the trees that you see here. That is the whole purpose because I don’t want to take any trees out. I’m dong everything to avoid taking trees out, that is back behind the trees.
Carol Stradling stated, if we didn’t have a building inspector it would be hard to verify, but we do and he can verify the foundation.
David Scott stated, he can’t verify, he is not a surveyor.
Director Weaver stated, he can verify.
David Scott stated, he can verify that he builds behind the flags.
Carol Stradling stated, that is all we can do, and if you would check on the house.
David Scott stated, the bad thing is, I don’t want to hold up your project, but this is a wishy-washy. There should be a survey line he should be able to work off of. I mean we are talking about sending the building inspector out there that has no, or who can’t establish those points legally.
Carol Stradling stated, how about if we do this. Since you have paid Mr. Milligan, you can have this resurveyed, we can make it contingent and you won’t issue the building permit until the survey indicates. If the survey comes back and the house is still 29’ off of the property line and it doesn’t visually line up, then we need to come back to the board. Can we do that Diann?
David Scott stated, if in fact.
Carol Stradling stated, if it just the fact that they put that house on the wrong place on the paper, then we are holding him up.
David Scott stated, we want to make sure that if that survey shows us right-of-way out here 4’ from the road.
Carol Stradling stated, then Diann says I can’t issue the building permit until we have corrected survey. Can we do that?
Director Weaver stated, I suppose, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, if he still has records of his measurements it may just a matter of making a phone call and saying is that correct and he would say oh no, or oh yes it is. Then we can delay him because we have reason to believe that there is a difficulty.
David Scott stated, when we vote on this, we are verifying that this thing will be built 4’ off of the right-of-way.
Carol Stradling stated, we are making the assumption that there is 4’ off of the property line. We are making the assumption that there is 15’ additional pavement.
Director Weaver stated, you have got to keep in mind that you are approving, he has already told you that the flags are his property lines. You are approving for it to be 4’ beyond that point, regardless where the right-of-way is on the house.
David Scott stated, we just trying to make it reference I guess.
Carol Stradling stated, the house is just a visual reference, correct. So if he can get confirmation from Milligan, then maybe we don’t even need that.
Edwin Augenstine stated, what you need to know is the property line, I guess basically the house is really perfuse, it has nothing to do with the building. What he is saying is that is 4’ back from the property line and if the building is 29, 19 or 83 it has no baring. Only that I’m 4’ behind the property line and that is where the property line is suppose to be.
Carol Stradling stated, correct.
David Scott stated, except for the 9’ here takes the property line out 4’ from the road, and then.
Edwin Augenstine asked, how can you do that?
Carol Stradling stated, what an issue is.
Edwin Augenstine stated, you can’t change the property line, all it is saying is the location of the building is supposable 29’. The property line has got to be 15’ off of the roadway.
Gary Barbour stated, you can think it would be, but that doesn’t necessarily make there.
Carol Stradling stated, it is that 15’ that is the issue.
David Stimmel stated, what we need to know is where is does that road right-of-way lay into relationship to the road itself. That would answer the question.
Carol Stradling stated, correct. So the pictures conflict with what the drawing is and what we really need to verify is that there is an additional 15’ there between the property line and the edge of the roadway. If you are building 4’ from the road then that is a problem and I don’t want that to happen.
Edwin Augenstine stated, I can guarantee that the flags are located at least 15’ away from the road, and we are building beyond that another 4’ to 6’. It will be at least 19’ from the roadway. Guaranteed.
Attorney Altman stated, guaranteed. If you make your motion that the building can not be any closer than that from the road right-of-way. Excuse me from the roadway. Then you have your 19’ Carol.
Carol Stradling stated, correct.
Attorney Altman stated, if you go anything else you are going to have to get different evidence than we have before us.
Carol Stradling stated, correct.
Attorney Altman stated, that is the long…
Carol Stradling stated, but you are guessing on the 15’, I mean if we say.
Edwin Augenstine stated, no.
Carol Stradling stated, you know it is 15’.
Edwin Augenstine stated, no, I have measured it several times.
Carol Stradling stated, I just don’t want you to end up short.
David Scott stated, I’m setting here going through scenarios through my head. We still need, and of course this survey and what we are allowing him to be 4’ from the property line. 10 years down the road they come in and change the road, widen it or something, he is going to be wrong. What we are doing, we are still making the setback from the property line, not from the side of the road.
Edwin Augenstine stated, correct.
Carol Stradling stated, correct.
Attorney Altman stated, that is right, you are making the assumption that it, right now is 19’ and that some day it could be as close as the 4’.
Carol Stradling stated, all right, so we are making it 4’ from the property line contingent upon there being 15’ from the property line to the roadway at present time.
Attorney Altman stated, you can make that and proceed.
Carol Stradling asked, can that fit?
David Scott asked, can we get him to have Milligan send him a letter verify those flags that we see on these pictures are correct?
Edwin Augenstine stated, I will call Jim Milligan tomorrow morning. I can’t afford not to get it resolved.
David Scott stated, I hate not going off of the survey line with what we do. That is the line and it could change everything else.
Attorney Altman stated, quite frankly that what I would suggest that you do. You can say you have 19’ there.
Carol Stradling stated, so we can grant it contingent 4’ from the property line contingent upon verification from Mr. Milligan that, that property line is 15’ from the current roadway.
David Scott stated, right, exactly.
Carol Stradling asked, would that solve all of the issues?
David Scott stated, yes, you are right.
Attorney Altman stated, for today’s issues.
Carol Stradling stated, current roadway.
Attorney Altman stated, some day it could be that 4’ you are talking about. Yes you can proceed.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is that in a form of a motion?
Carol Stradling stated, I move that we vote on this variance contingent. We vote to approve this variance with the property being. I’m sorry let me start over. I vote that we approve this variance, that the building be 4’ from the property line contingent upon verification from Mr. Milligan that, that property line is 15’ from the current roadway.
David Scott stated, I will second that.
President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and second. Any other discussion?
David Stimmel stated, yes. I just want to think about the, did Mr. Rusk consider Mr. Augenstine selling that other 10’ back to you. The only reason I’m asking is, if the variance instead of looking for a 28’ front setback variance, if that was a 20’ front setback variance. That would give you 12’ some number. I mean pick a number to set it back.
Edwin Augenstine stated, it drops off back there.
David Stimmel stated, it does drop off back there. It was just a thought.
Edwin Augenstine stated, right now I’m dealing with a 27” variation and then it just goes further down.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? We have a motion and second. No other discussion. All in favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those oppose. Motion was carried by a 5 to 0 vote.
Without further discussion the board voted.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential.
2. That the lot is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 28’ front setback variance, a 2.6’ rear setback variance, and a 1’ North side setback variance to build a detached garage on that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10; thence North along the quarter section line 1724.92 feet; thence South 83 degrees 30 minutes East along the South line of Palmer Road 903.37 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe found; thence South 26 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds East along the West line of Palmer Road 197.00 feet to a capped W/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set and the point of beginning; thence South 26 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds East 21.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe found; thence South 63 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds West 64.40 feet; thence North 26 degrees 17 minutes 23 seconds West 16.47 feet to an I.P. set, passing through and I.P. set a 1.00; thence North 59 degrees 49 minutes 25 seconds East 64.61 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.03 of an Acre, more or less.
And a tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, being described more fully as follows: Beginning at an iron stake which is North 00 degrees East 1724.92 feet, South 83 degrees and 30 minutes East 903.37 feet and South 26 degrees and 9 minutes East 218 feet from the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 10 and running thence South 62 degrees and 31 minutes West 149.3 feet to Moore’s Run Creek; thence downstream along said creek 57 feet, more or less; thence North 63 degrees and 51 minutes East 150.27 feet to an iron stake; thence North 26 degrees and 9 minutes West 59.71 feet to the point of beginning.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 6682 E. Palmers Drive, North of Buffalo.
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.
****
#2334 Espiridion Estudillo; The property is located on Lot 51 in H.P. Bennett’s Addition, at 717 S. Bluff Street in Monticello.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 16’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage.
President Jerry Thompson asked, and once again for the record sir, you are?
Espiridion Estudillo stated, I’m Espiridion Estudillo.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else that you would like to present to the board tonight?
Espiridion Estudillo stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so. When he got his permit for his house, we some how missed this. We did issue a permit for the garage to go in and he got ready to do the garage and Dave Anderson realized it was not meeting setbacks, so that is why you see a slab already. Mr. Anderson caught this. I don’t know how we missed it when he submitted his information for the permit, but we did.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, just for the record you are saying that the slab was put there based upon a permit being issued. After Dave was out there to see the site it was determined that it wouldn’t fit and needed a variance to proceed.
Director Weaver stated, no error on his part.
Attorney Altman stated, so there is no violation at all. It is just whether it is or isn’t granted.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance either for or against?
Eric Storm stated, I’m Eric Storm and I’m a neighbor behind him. I had a few questions. One is…
Attorney Altman asked, what lot?
Eric Storm stated, 714 S. Maple. Is it going to be considered an attached garage with no clearance or just a garage extension of the house?
Director Weaver stated, it is an attached garage.
Eric Storm stated, the concrete is right up against the house that is why I was curious.
Director Weaver stated, it is going to be an attached garage.
Attorney Altman asked, have you seen the survey?
Eric Storm stated, I know he has a permit and I don’t have a problem with that. My other questions is, by getting a variance is that going to effect anything else in the neighborhood for other people wanting variances like that or same nature. If someone else comes in and does the same thing, will they get a variance? The house looks fine, I don’t have a problem with that. I just wanted to know if it was attached or considered two different buildings?
Director Weaver stated, the permit was issued as an attached.
Eric Storm stated, attached, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, the proposal is for a continued being an attached garage.
Eric Storm stated, I just want to know if in a chain of events if we give to one, can anybody else go back in the neighborhood and get the same thing again.
Carol Stradling stated, it look like and I know along the alley for most of Bluff Street many of the garages are built right on the alley. He is actually farther into his property than many of the others. I would assume I mean you can’t speak for every situation, but I would assume that would be the norm for the board.
Attorney Altman stated, generally speaking our due process requires likes be treated like likes.
Eric Storm stated, got you, that is why I’m asking.
Attorney Altman stated, that is the equivalent of it. If it isn’t alike then it should be treated alike.
Eric Storm stated, in all fairness to the whole neighborhood is out of kilter anyway. There isn’t a straight angle in the whole place.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone else who cares to address the variance either for or against? If not, Jerry anything?
Attorney Altman asked, the proposed garage is it going to be single story?
Estudillo Espiridion stated, single.
Attorney Altman asked, it would carry on with the same type of roof structure and all as the house? The roof will look the same?
Estudillo Espiridion stated, yes, shorter a little bit smaller.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol do you have any questions?
Carol Stradling asked, there is a house at that location before?
Estudillo Espiridion stated, not that I know of.
Carol Stradling stated, no, okay. It was just a vacant lot?
Attorney Altman stated, there was one.
??? stated, it was a very narrow lot.
Mitch Billue stated, there were some nice trees.
Juanita Fisher stated, I am Juanita Fishel and I live right next door and there was never a home there. There has never been a house there. Mr. Young built that house and it was 1895 and lived there. He owned from there on down and then he sold it. He built his daughter’s house. It is a narrow lot and it has never had anything built on it. It is squeezed up in there. My home is a historical home and so that puts him right on top of me, which can’t be helped. I think I’m the one that is to close to the line. The house was built that way in 1895. There never was a house or anything there. He owned the other house, the empty lot and his daughter lived there and he owned clear down to the railroad tracks. He sold them off, and when he sold this one to his daughter he didn’t leave himself room, so it is a very narrow lot, but he is setting it this way with the lot.
President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else have anything to add to this
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 16’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage on Lot 51 in H.P. Bennett’s Addition in the City of Monticello, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 717 S. Bluff Street in Monticello.
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.
****
Appeal #1
To determine and vote on findings of fact, conclusions of Law and/or Judgement of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the same as deemed appropriate by the Board of Zoning Appeals of White County, Indiana and to respond appropriately to Robert W. Thacker, Judge, White Circuit Court. No testimony or evidence will be received or accepted. No arguments from any party or attorney for any party will be accepted or received, other than that of the White County Board of Zoning Appeals and it’s counsel and staff.
ORDER by Robert W. Thacker, Judge, White Circuit Court
Dated May 24, 2004
TOLEDO, PEORIA AND WESTERN RAILWAY CORP., RIGHT ANGLE MEDIA, INC., and HAWKINS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC, Petitioners
and
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA, and CITY OF MONTICELLO, Respondents
Cause No: 91C01-0305-MI-019
President Jerry Thompson stated, we have business now, no we have an Appeal.
Attorney Altman stated, this is the matter that is the response to the Circuit Court Judge on Finding of Facts conclusions on Law and Order. Effectively what I have set it up for is so that you each take your ballot and I think that you all have. Yes/No, Yes/No and vote it, if you have questions we can handle those, otherwise, again your determination upon the evidence that was submitted before us at the applicant’s appeal and proceed.
Carol Stradling stated, I wrote notes on mine.
Attorney Altman asked, do you have any extra one for her?
Director Weaver stated, I think so. If not I can go run one.
President Jerry Thompson stated, this is two years old.
Attorney Altman stated, you can discuss all you want among yourselves.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do we want to go off the record on this or not?
Attorney Altman stated, no.
President Jerry Thompson asked, you are going to let the tape run?
Attorney Altman stated, yes, you bet.
David Scott asked, are we going to go through this individually or together?
Attorney Altman stated, we sure can if that is what you want. Is that what you want Dave?
Carol Stradling stated, there are some I would have liked to have had discussion on, but.
David Scott stated, yes, I think if we go through them one at a time and if there needs be there can be some discussion on them.
Attorney Altman stated, okay let's go to the first one. 1. On August 23, 2002, Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway Corp. (“TP& W”) submitted to the White County Area Plan Commission (“APC”) and the Building Commissioners of White County, Indiana, and an application for an Improvement Location Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for an off-premises billboard. A copy of the application appears on Exhibit “A”. Is there any discussion on this, if not I think we can vote no that. We will get you a ballot and let you catch up on that.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
David Stimmel asked, do we initial it?
Attorney Altman stated, no you will sign the last page.
David Stimmel stated, okay.
David Scott asked, are you saying that they did?
Attorney Altman stated, they did submit the request. 2. That the Common Council of Monticello enacted an ordinance on October 9, 2001, called Building Code of White County Indiana amended ordinance no. 01-03-05-01 that controls the granting of building permits.
David Stimmel stated, you said 2004, don’t you mean 2001?
David Scott stated, I don’t remember is that a fact.
Attorney Altman stated, that is the fact.
Carol Stradling stated, that is just the ordinance that we have. It is not a special ordinance pertaining to the City handling of signs within the city limits?
Attorney Altman stated, no it is a regular building code.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, 3. Applicant was referred to the City of Monticello officials for a check to see if its application had or raised any issues other than the requested permits and certification. Applicant agreed with this referral. Again this is based on the evidence that was submitted to us.
If we don’t have any discussion, I’m going to go ahead with 4. If we have discussion please stop me.
Carol Stradling asked, didn’t we skip 5?
Attorney Altman stated, no, now I’m going on to 5. Reading
Carol Stradling stated, that is number 7 Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, oh, I’ve got the wrong copy, I have an old copy. I’m sorry, excuse me. I’m very sorry. Okay 3. Applicant was referred to the City of Monticello officials for a check to see if its application had or raised any issues other than the requested permits and certification. Applicant agreed with this referral. 4. Requirements: Each application for an Improvement Location Permit shall be accompanied by those supporting documents required by the Area Plan Director. Those documents may include: I’m not going to read this, it is taking it straight out of the ordinance book. The only thing that I did was add the Director’s name.
David Stimmel asked, is that a quote Jerry that those documents may include?
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
David Stimmel stated, or shall include.
Attorney Altman stated, maybe required. 5. That applicant’s referral to the City of Monticello was par of 7.1002 e. Do you have any questions on my clarity, I’m skipping some, but I think it is fairly simple. 6. Applicant has not stopped back in to the White County Area Plan Commission or to the White County Building Commissioner requesting the response for its application to date.
David Scott asked, is that right?
Carol Stradling asked, what is the normal procedure we someone applies and never checks back?
Director Weaver stated, well under the building ordinance we hold the permit for 3 months. Then normally, not always, but and it is not by ordinance that we do this, we normally send out a courtesy letter and just say, are you still planning on doing this, if not notify us and we throw away the information and they have to start over.
Attorney Altman stated, that is when it would be granted.
Carol Stradling stated, so in fact it really hasn’t been approved or denied.
Director Weaver stated, that is right.
Attorney Altman stated, at this stage.
Carol Stradling stated, at this stage, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, 7. Applicant acted as if its application was denied; as it filed its (this) appeal without checking with the White County Area plan Commission or White County Building commissioner for its or his response on its application; and,
David Stimmel asked, is there supposed to be two yes and no’s?
Attorney Altman stated, accordingly, its application was denied based upon the above-said inaction of applicant and the deficiencies in its application as hereinafter set out.
Continuing on to 8. The proposed sign consisted of a four panel, double-deck design with each of the four signs measuring approximately 25 feet in length and 12 feet in height, as shown by Appellant’s proposed design attached hereto as Exhibit “B”
David Scott stated, to the best of your recollection is that?
Attorney Altman stated, that was apart of the request, yes.
David Scott stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, that was apart of the request. 9. That the four proposed billboards consisted of two signs on two separate frames not mounted back-to-back but angled, as shown by Appellants’ design. 10. Section 2.1186 of the White County Zoning Ordinance requires that a site plan be submitted with all applications to consisting of “a drawing to scale” showing the location of all existing buildings and the proposed sign, as well as all adjacent streets and highways, the size of all entrances and exits from the land and a legal description of the land. That is basically coming out of the ordinance requirements. 11. Appellants submitted with their application a hand drawing shown on attached Exhibit “B”.
That is the exhibit that was submitted and it was not to scale. That said drawing is not showing the existing location and any existing buildings. I don’t have it here, but it did not. The drawing does not include any entrances or exits from the land. The legal description to the land is not included. The drawing reports to locate the sign 8’ West of 6th Street and 28’ from the front.
Carol Stradling asked, is that what it said? We are, I mean that was 2 years ago that we looked at that.
Attorney Altman stated, that is what it says. The drawing purports to locate the sign 18’ West of 6th Street, 28’ South of tracks.” That the paved portion of 6th Street is 20’ wide and the dedicated right-of-way of 6th Street is 30’ each side of the center line. All as shown by the Indiana State Highway Department plan of 6th Street, which is on file with the Office of the Director of the APC.
18. That Section 4.6002d of the White County Zoning Ordinance requires all off premises business signs to be 10' from the street right-of-way line to the leading edge of the sign.
Carol Stradling asked, is that a quote?
Attorney Altman stated, yes, as I understand that is a quote, right Diann.
Director Weaver stated, I believe so.
Attorney Altman stated, That installation of the proposed sign 18’ West of 6th Street would be within the dedicated right-of-way of 6th Street instead of the required 10’ minimum outside of the right-of-way.
Applicants hand drawing did not distinguish between the pavement of 6th Street and the dedicated right of way of 6th Street. Since it was not to scale it is impossible to determine the location of said proposed sign relative to 6th Street.
Carol Stradling stated, I’m struggling with that one because we just did that with another variance.
Director Weaver stated, you had a survey though.
Attorney Altman stated, you had a survey and
Director Weaver stated, that was to scale and this one is not.
Attorney Altman stated, you have a survey that is the difference. The other thing I would suggest that you made a limitation on it. That it was that, okay.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, I struggle with saying since it was not to scale, it was impossible to determine the location of said proposed sign relative to 6th Street because we couldn’t determine this gentleman’s property.
Gary Barbour stated, but it was contingent upon making him make sure that it was.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, in other words, yes you couldn’t, but you made sure that you approved something that was contingent on it being this minimum and what this says you can’t even determine that. I presume because it was you don’t have survey that shows that there is at least that minimum there. Like Gary said on the one you are talking about that you just approved had a survey that said that it was at least 4’ back from the lot line and you made a condition then that the distance between the lot line and the road surface was 15’. So you approve it based upon that limit. What you are saying here is because it wasn’t to scale, it was impossible to know that. You didn’t have anything that could make it so that you knew that.
Gary Barbour stated, if he is not that 19’, it is no good and he is starting all over again.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, here you don’t, because you don’t know what is there, it is impossible to determine that. That is what you are saying. Since applicant failed to provide a legal description to the land as required by the White County Zoning Ordinance, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed sign would be located on land owned by the applicant. The difference is if you go back to the one that you are talking about, we had the legal description on the survey. That makes it so you know better there on his land. That is the difference again.
Carol Stradling stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, section 4.6002(a) requires that any such sign contain no more than 2 signs per facing. That comes straight out of the ordinance. Applicant’s plan proposed 4 signs mounted at an angle such that all four signs would be visible at one time immediately adjacent to the sign as viewed from 6th Street. Section 1.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance provides as follows: “in their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be the minimum requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, and the general welfare.”
Conclusions of Law
That applicants’ drawing does not constitute a sufficient Site Plan under the White County Zoning Ordinance for anyone and all of the following reasons: It is not to scale; it does not show location of all existing buildings; it is not possible to determine the exact location of the proposed sign; it fails to locate entrances and exits from the land; there is no legal description whatsoever of the land;
That the applicants application was properly denied due to applicants failure to submit a site plan as required by the White County Zoning Ordinance.
Carol Stradling stated, but that, is that the bases that it was not, that it was denied. I think that minimizes the bases that it was denied.
Director Weaver stated, it was not denied.
Carol Stradling stated, well that is what we are saying that it was properly denied due to the failure to submit a site plan. I’m struggling, we say it was never. To me it was never officially brought before the office.
Director Weaver stated, that is what I have said all along.
Carol Stradling stated, so it is not properly denied, I mean I don’t feel comfortable denying something just because they don’t have a site plan.
Attorney Altman stated, okay then you vote no on that. That is was not denied because of that.
That due to all 4 signs being visible at one time as set forth in the above findings, Applicants plans consists of 4 signs per facing and there properly denied on this bases as well. That applicant’s application did not meet the minimum requirements of the White County Zoning Ordinance.
President Jerry Thompson asked, do we date it?
Carol Stradling stated, this was 2 years ago, it came before the board, and it was not a request for a variance. It was an appeal and it was an appeal of something that was never fully applied for.
Attorney Altman stated, it was an appeal. Therefore that was ground for denial because it was not fully applied for.
Carol Stradling stated, but it doesn’t say that anywhere in here Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, then you give me, or do you want that as a number 5 in the conclusions. In other words I’m going to page 2.
Carol Stradling stated, it was more than they just, that they didn’t have the right drawing, because people come in with the wrong drawings and we help them get the right drawings.
Attorney Altman stated, then say what it was.
Carol Stradling stated, but it wasn’t brought to us.
Gary Barbour stated, wait a minute go back to 7. (he is re-reading #7). That is where it was denied right there.
Attorney Altman asked, what do you want to add to this Carol. It can be done right now.
Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that we need to add anything it just makes it sound like we are denying it on. We are denying it because he didn’t have his T’s crossed and his I’s dotted. That is not true. The whole process was out of step.
Attorney Altman stated, part of way it was denied was because you couldn’t tell what it was. That is not having the survey not having these things. If you give me an idea of what exactly you want to put in here, we can put it number 5 right now to vote on it right now.
Carol Stradling asked, what was the statement on the appeals as they presented it Jerry? What exactly were they appealing to us when they came before us. I know they applied for a permit and I know they went to Monticello, the city council meeting. I know the City Council had a problem with their request and I know that there were deficiencies with the request. What exactly. I guess my feelings were they came before the board and it really wasn’t out issue.
Attorney Altman stated, well they came before the board because they didn’t proceed to take care of business as they should have. They didn’t come back and request an answer from Dave Anderson or this board or Diann and this is what we are trying to say here is that they did not do that. Then they took an appeal of that, they are not doing that and tried to tell this board that it must order it to happen when they didn’t go ahead and do it.
Carol Stradling stated, so they came to Diann’s office and they filled out and they made an application. It was incomplete. Diann sent them to the City of Monticello, which is what we do. Diann does not.
Attorney Altman stated, that is exactly right.
Director Weaver stated, that is exactly right so far.
Carol Stradling stated, the problem came with Monticello.
Attorney Altman stated, that is what they are saying and trying to focus on. The real problem came is they never came back.
Carol Stradling stated, it became very apparent to me that it was denied how did they proceed to make an appeal without finding out if it was denied.
Attorney Altman stated, they made the assumption that it was denied.
Carol Stradling stated, what was the statement of their appeal Diann. Do you have that?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t have it with me. Let me go grab it. I’ve got it setting over there.
Carol Stradling stated, I’m sorry I know everyone is tired but I’m just not sure that this address.
Gary Barbour stated, the last time we did this was the Indiana Beach one and we had highlighted limits from the other meeting.
Carol Stradling stated, yes, and this is two years ago.
Gary Barbour stated, this one here is and you don’t have anything to support or back up what we need to do. How soon does this need to be in Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, it is 60 days and we are effectively about 5 days from that.
Carol Stradling asked, you were here Dave?
David Scott stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, the Zoning Board of Appeals, I have it here. Reverse the decision of the White County Area Plan Commission and the Common Council of Monticello in refusing to issue or deny the application for the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit. Certificate of Occupancy. Require the White County Area Plan Commission to issue the applicable Improvement Location Permit and certificate of occupancy to the Appellants.
Gary Barbour asked, that is it right there?
Attorney Altman stated, that is what they said.
Carol Stradling stated, reverse the decision, so somehow they got the decisions.
Attorney Altman stated, that is what we are saying is, the decision was by them failing to come back, they decided that they were denied.
Carol Stradling stated, okay so their appeal had. Do we need to decide this tonight setting here or can?
David Stimmel stated, we need to have an answer in 5 days.
Attorney Altman stated, the answer to that is actually we have about 5 days before the 60 days is up of what the Judge has granted us to do this.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess statement #6 they say that section 7.1001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance provides that no building maybe under taken without an Improvement Location Permit. Which is what they applied for with regards to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit provides after the receipt of the information required for an Improvement Location Permit. The planning commission's designated administrator and that would be Dave or you.
Director Weaver stated, I’m the ordinance administrator.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, shall review the standards set in this ordinance, if the applicant has meet all required standards, then within 3 working days of the Improvement Location Permit shall be issued by the designated administrator. So our statement is that they didn’t meet it, so you didn’t have to issue with regards to the denial of an Improvement Location Permit. Section 7.1001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance provides if any of the major elements are clearly out of line with the standards, within 3 working days issuance of the Improvement Location Permit will be denied, with a written statement specifying the reasons for the denial. Is that part of our ordinance?
Attorney Altman stated, that is part of our ordinance, yes.
Director Weaver stated, but remember we don’t issue building permits anymore.
Attorney Altman stated, what they did is they took the suggestion to go to the City and they never came back and asked for the, until they came to this board for an Improvement Location Permit.
Carol Stradling stated, they came to this board to appeal the process, they went to Diann to get a permit, but it is not Diann who can do that.
Director Weaver stated, they came to my office to make application for a permit. My office handles the applications for both Area Plan and The Building Department. The Building Department issues the building permits.
Carol Stradling stated, so it goes back to Dave Anderson.
Director Weaver stated, I could deny an application once it is submitted, if it is not meeting something in our ordinance.
Carol Stradling stated, but it didn’t necessarily not meet something in our ordinance. It was just incomplete.
Attorney Altman stated, which is exactly something that doesn’t satisfy our ordinance. This is what we are determining that itself. You guys are deciding.
Carol Stradling stated, the APC refuses to issue the appellants Improvement Location Permit until the City of Monticello issues the Appellants a sign permit. Monticello ordinance 2002-12 is not applicable to the Appellants application to an Improvement Location Permit. There is no provision in the White County Zoning Ordinance requiring Monticello to issue a sign permit before an Improvement Location Permit for off premise signs within the City of Monticello.
Attorney Altman stated, that is right. We are not waiting on that and we haven’t been. As far as we are concerned we have never been waiting on that.
Carol Stradling asked, am I the only one that is confused here?
Gary Barbour stated, no you are doing a real good job of getting us more confused.
I make a motion that we ask for an extension and that we get more information and have a chance to read this.
President Jerry Thompson asked, can we have a separate meeting for this?
Attorney Altman stated, a public meeting yes.
Carol Stradling stated, I mean this was 2 years ago and here is the documentation, we’ve got it narrowed down to I don’t know 4 pages of legalese.
President Jerry Thompson asked, does anybody else want to go to that much effort?
Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know if I have the time, but I don’t.
President Jerry Thompson stated, well that is what I’m getting at, is that going to work out. What is August looking like?
Director Weaver stated, you are looking at a meeting on the 19th and the 26th already and we don’t have cut off until like the 29th of this month.
David Scott asked, what happens if this isn’t?
President Jerry Thompson stated, this needs additional discussion.
Carol Stradling stated, okay, so it is just not me asking questions.
President Jerry Thompson stated, we are listening. You do a better job of asking questions.
Yes Charlie.
Attorney Altman stated, no we can not take any testimony from anybody.
President Jerry Thompson stated, oh we can’t, okay, sorry Charlie.
Attorney Altman stated, we can not take any testimony.
President Jerry Thompson asked, what are your thoughts.
Carol Stradling stated, my feeling is if the appeal was, they were they shouldn’t have been before us anyway.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Carol Stradling stated, cloudy on the issues.
President Jerry Thompson stated, while Carol is contemplating, Gary what is your thought.
Gary Barbour stated, I think we need to get more information. When we did this for Indiana Beach.
Director Weaver stated, we had a special meeting for it.
Gary Barbour stated, we had a special meeting for it, we had a booklets made up with all of the different minute and stuff giving us all of the details of what it was so we had a chance to go through it before hand. It was a lot easier to follow and we knew more about what we were doing. I mean I hate to do it to you because you are really, I guess that is what I would like to see us do. That way as we go through this it is fresh in everybody minds on where we are at and what happened and what needs to go with.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t have a problem.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is it workable I mean with your staff?
Director Weaver stated, we will make do.
Carol Stradling stated, I guess I don’t know that this is a true statement of what the decision process was. I don’t know what is missing because I haven’t had a chance to and I don’t want to go through that stuff, but I feel that we need to go through that.
Attorney Altman stated, then I will certainly ask for an extension and trust that will be granted so we can have a special meeting.
Carol Stradling stated, I appreciate the thought of making it very simple, but I’m not sure what we have lost in making it simple and maybe it is all there. Maybe it is all there.
Attorney Altman stated, you have a motion and a second, or you need a second and then I will proceed.
Carol Stradling stated, the motion was that we have another meeting to discuss.
Gary Barbour stated, and more information.
Carol Stradling stated, more information.
Gary Barbour stated, so everything is going to be fresh on our minds. So we can review it
And see exactly how all of it transpired. Then we come back in here and do this.
Attorney Altman stated, we have to set a time for this special meeting.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so we have a 19th and a 26th of August already.
Director Weaver stated, the 19th and the 26th.
President Jerry Thompson asked, can we go the week earlier, will the 12th of August crowd you too much.
Director Weaver stated, as long as the room is open.
Carol Stradling asked, it doesn’t have to be on a Thursday, does it?
President Jerry Thompson stated, no it doesn’t.
David Scott stated, I guess my comment would be, this is going to take a lot of time and work. Not that we don’t want to put that into it, but Jerry is our Attorney and he is representing us and he has went through and this is what he has come up with.
Attorney Altman stated, I would be very happy to have an assistant in having you review it and make sure that it is exactly what you want it to be. It is appropriate. I don’t have any trouble with having another meeting, its just we need to decide tonight when it would be and it really can be anytime.
Director Weaver stated, I can’t be here on the 12th, I’m at the State Fair that day.
President Jerry Thompson stated, all right.
David Scott stated, we need to see if we can get the extension first.
Attorney Altman stated, that is true.
Director Weaver asked, how long of an extension do we normally ask for?
Attorney Altman stated, again if I could tell him when you have set, I think if I could tell the Judge, when you have set up for a special meeting, then I could certainly say.
President Jerry Thompson stated, the first week of August.
Director Weaver asked, when does the State Fair start?
Carol Stradling stated, the 22nd.
Director Weaver stated, no it is before that.
Carol Stradling stated, okay that is when it ends.
President Jerry Thompson asked, the first week of August. I’m just throwing things out there.
David Stimmel asked, when were the other two meetings?
Director Weaver stated, the 19th and the 26th.
President Jerry Thompson asked, the first Wednesday of august?
Gary Barbour stated, I won’t be able to come to that.
President Jerry Thompson asked, before or after?
Gary Barbour stated, I will be here on the 5th.
President Jerry Thompson stated, we will have 3 consecutive Thursdays. No that isn’t right. I’m okay with it
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know when we will be showing horses. I don’t know when she will be down there. I don’t know the State Fair schedule.
President Jerry Thompson stated, I just picked up the literature and I’m positive that it is no the first week of August.
Director Weaver stated, we go the first week before everyone else.
President Jerry Thompson stated, oh really didn’t know that.
Director Weaver stated, the horses go before everyone gets there.
Carol Stradling stated, it is almost a done deal by the time the fair starts.
Director Weaver stated, I would be attempted to think that maybe like the 10th or the 3rd would be work for me. Would that work for you?
Carol Stradling stated, I would prefer the 10th.
Gary Barbour stated, I would.
Carol Stradling stated, I would prefer the 10th just to get some time to go through this.
President Jerry Thompson stated, that is a Tuesday.
David Scott asked, the 10th of what?
President Jerry Thompson stated, of August.
Director Weaver asked, does that sound like that works for everyone? I’ll go down and look at the calendar, the second Tuesday. We will actually have an APC meeting the night before.
President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel does the 10th work for you?
David Stimmel stated, yes, that is fine.
Carol Stradling stated, I just feel like we were justified in voting against their appeal, but…
Director Weaver stated, the 10th is good.
David Stimmel stated, the recollection that I have is that made since to me is you can’t pass a law to forge someone’s application after they have already made the application.
Attorney Altman stated, oh yeah.
David Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
David Stimmel stated, that seems to me that is what Monticello tried to do.
Attorney Altman stated, that is what they did, however, that doesn’t still make their application satisfy our ordinance
David Stimmel stated, exactly and in my mind I’m trying to separate them very distinctly because they have nothing to do with each other.
Attorney Altman stated, and if you will not in here, my finding of facts I have nothing to do with that other stuff.
David Stimmel stated, so if you dis-stilled it down, what happened is they applied for the improvement permit, they gave inadequate information at that time and basically never came back to find out if they had been approved or denied. They just went on.
Director Weaver stated, we didn’t act on it because we felt it was an incomplete application and I mean that was my opinion. It wasn’t ready to be acted on because they were told when they brought in that it was incomplete.
David Scott stated, and that is what is said in here.
Director Weaver stated, that is what we say, they say something different
David Scott asked, is that covered in here?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know.
Carol Stradling stated, the original finding of facts that were determined for the appeal, 1. The applicant has or has not met their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. The applicant is or is not in title to relief prayed or requested in its above petition filed in this matter. 3. Applicant is or is not entitle to any relief as a consequence of the fact presented in this matter to the board. Therefore it is therefore ordered and judged and decreed by the board that judgement shall be and in the same is here by entered upon on each of the forgoing findings and the parties and each here by ordered and directed to carry out the provisions of this order. 1. The applicant shall receive or not receive all relief as requested in the above said petition. 2. Shall receive nothing. 3. Other.
Attorney Altman stated, the Judge said the findings of facts about things about the roads, location of the signs and where they are located on the permit.
Carol Stradling stated, but those they can, I mean if somebody came in typically we would say we need more information and they would be given the opportunity to get more information. That opportunity was, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, it has been open ever since they initially came in.
Director Weaver stated, you have to realize we never really reviewed the information that they did drop off because it was an incomplete application.
Carol Stradling stated, so they could apply and do a different drawing at this point and forget this whole legal process and they you would act on that.
Director Weaver stated, we can’t now.
David Stimmel asked, why not?
Carol Stradling stated, because Monticello has enacted that new ordinance.
David Stimmel stated, oh okay.
Director Weaver stated, and we have now changed our ordinance as well. The separation distance too.
Carol Stradling stated, so that is why they are pursuing it this way.
Director Weaver stated, that is right because they know they can not get a permit.
David Stimmel stated, it seems to me that they ought to be suing the City of Monticello as opposed to us.
Director Weaver stated, exactly.
Carol Stradling asked, why are they doing this?
Attorney Altman stated, because they applied through us. They applied to the White County Area Plan.
Director Weaver stated, they applied to the Building Department.
Attorney Altman stated, right and the building department.
David Stimmel asked, how did it get before us?
Attorney Altman stated, because we received an appeal of the department's decisions.
David Stimmel stated, but there was no decision.
Director Weaver stated, there was no decision. They reviewed are ordinance and completed ignored the fact that there was a building ordinance and that there was a building inspector that issued the permits. They have been following all along our ordinance as if there is no building ordinance.
David Stimmel stated, you lost me Diann.
Director Weaver stated, the building ordinance says they have 3 months to act on a permit. Our ordinance is the one that says we have 3 days. We never considered it a complete application so no body acted on it.
Carol Stradling asked, were they told it was incomplete?
Director Weaver stated, when they walked in the door I personally that we needed an approval from the City of Monticello, or they needed to go to the City Council.
Carol Stradling stated, they are saying that was not in our ordinance, which it wasn’t.
Director Weaver stated, in a sense, yes it is.
Gary Barbour asked, was it then when they applied?
Director Weaver stated, yes, there is a, if they are going to go by our ordinance we will go by our ordinance to.
Carol Stradling stated, well we need to whether they do or not.
Director Weaver stated, but this is about building permits. Improvement Location Permits requirements. Each application for an Improvement Location Permit shall be accompanied by supporting documents required by the Area Plan Director. Those documents may include and I will go down to E. Such other information as maybe required by the planning commission designated administrator for proper enforcement of the ordinance. Referring them to the City of Monticello is something that has been done prior to me working in the Area Plan office. My opinion that is where that requirement falls from.
Carol Stradling stated, because it was a sign inside the City limits.
Director Weaver stated, yes. Precedent was set that was the way it was always done. Dave has pretty much followed are precedent as to what he requires for a building permit. That is on page 55.
Attorney Altman stated, okay I think this matter will just be continued to the August 10 meeting at 7:30 p.m.
President Jerry Thompson stated, so it is the possibility of the 10th, 19th and the 26th for August. That is pending the August 19th meeting.
David Stimmel stated, I will not be here on the 26th.
Director Weaver stated, you won’t.
David Stimmel stated, I missed it by a day, I thought I had made my reservations, I missed calculated.
David Scott asked, isn’t that when the rabbit meeting is?
David Stimmel stated, I think so.
Director Weaver asked, were you going to abstain on that anyway.
David Stimmel stated, yes, I actually was because across the road from is my property, but I would hate to miss that.
Carol Stradling asked, what is the question?
Director Weaver stated, we are interpreting the ordinance. Does a rabbit fall under the kennel.
David Stimmel asked, does that have to be done in the setting of a meeting?
Director Weaver stated, I think you decided that it would be.
David Stimmel asked, how do you effect changes in the zoning ordinance as it sets now.
Director Weaver stated, you have to remember they have a violation. I have cited them as having a violation.
David Stimmel stated, okay. I was forgetting about that.
Carol Stradling stated, so we are voting on the violation.
David Stimmel stated, so we should blame Diann for this.
President Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other business?
David Scott stated, what have we done about changing the ordinance about the rabbits?
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that we have.
David Scott stated, in our meeting we decided to leave our ordinance alone and if the animal warden had something. I was telling Dave earlier because as a Town, I’m going to adopt that ordinance that Monticello has, but out in the Township.
Director Weaver stated, you have talking about the nuisance ordinance. I made comment to that to John Raines about that and he said it does not fall under his ordinance.
Attorney Altman stated, no, no, we are not talking about that, we are talking about the City of Monticello ordinance.
Director Weaver stated, I’m not talking about the city of Monticello’s ordinance either. I’m talking.
Attorney Altman stated, we are talking about the City of Monticello.
Director Weaver stated, the City of Monticello ordinance.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
David Scott stated, adopting.
Director Weaver stated, not the nuisance ordinance, I wasn’t aware of that.
David Scott stated, what I don’t like about it is, there are people out here, that we still haven’t addressed the fact that there is a lot of people in the townships that are in violation. I don’t want someone in violation for every 5 rabbits.
David Stimmel stated, if we interpret it as Diann did to levy the fine.
Director Weaver stated, we have to interpret it, we are in a situation we have to.
David Scott stated, domestic animals need to be defined and rabbits need to be put someplace else.
David Stimmel stated, my question is Diann. Do we have to interpret the ordinance in the setting of a meeting?
Director Weaver stated, we have to decide if he is in violation or not.
David Stimmel stated, understood.
Director Weaver stated, you have to interpret the ordinance to be able to decide that.
David Stimmel stated, you are going around the question, I’m still saying if this.
Director Weaver stated, to make the actual decision on the ordinance probably not.
David Stimmel stated, well that is what I’m getting at.
Director Weaver stated, but I think to deal with his violation, yes you do.
David Stimmel stated, if you act on the ordinance independently.
David Scott asked, is he in violation?
David Stimmel stated, then he is no longer in violation, if you change the ordinance and exclude rabbits from the definition of a domesticated animal.
Director Weaver stated, we are going to have to do it in a public meeting I think.
Carol Stradling asked, how long does it take to change the ordinance?
Director Weaver stated, you are looking…
Carol Stradling stated, what 2 out of 3 of the county commissioners.
Director Weaver stated, no it goes to APC first and then we usually discuss how we want it amended and then the following month it gets advertised and they vote on it and then it goes to the separate entities there after. It depends on how quick they act on it and some of them don’t act very quickly.
Carol Stradling stated, at this next meeting that we just address the fact.
David Scott stated, on that violation wouldn’t that fall back on to the way the ordinance was at the time of the violation.
Director Weaver stated, the ordinance hasn’t changed.
David Scott stated, for them we have to act on it and are they in violation of the ordinance is written now.
Director Weaver stated, that is what you guys are going to have to decide.
Attorney Altman stated, it depends on how you interpret it.
Director Weaver stated, that is what you have to decide.
****
The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Barbour, Secretary
Diann Weaver, Director
White County Area Plan Commission