Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, December 16, 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: Donald P. Wright, Randall J. Leise, Clay Watson, Charles R. Mellon, Rob Craig, Mark A. Colburn, Lynda H. Colburn, Rebecca Trent, Jeff VanWeelden, Donald J. Pauken, Fred Geyer, Mike Werner, Eric Holt, Terri Raines, John Raines, Kathy Cade, James Cade

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. David Scott made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the August 10, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the August 19, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. David Stimmel made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the August 26, 2004 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2380 Randall J. & Diane J. Leise, Owner; Eric Holt, Applicant; The property is located on .043 of an acre more or less and also Lot Number Seven (7) in Cedar Point Subdivision, South of Monticello at 5724 E. Cedar Point Court. Tabled from the November 18, 2004 meeting.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 25’ (from eave) front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance.

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

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the board know that the pictures that you receive tonight Mr. Werner had brought in some pictures yesterday showing the view from his home and I have made copies of those for you.

Randall Leise stated, I’m Randall Leise, good evening. 5724 Cedar Point Court. I trust that you all received the letter I sent to Diann Weaver on November 26. Unfortunately I was unable to


attend the November meeting. That same day we buried my mother in law who suddenly passed away. I was represented by Mr. Eric Holt. With that is there any questions in regards to what I sent if not I have additional photos that were taken today. I also have an aerial photo of the whole place. If there are any questions, I do have a lot of other information.

Attorney Altman stated, it does become evidence.

Randall Leise stated, well if need be more than what I’ve showed or mailed to Diann Weaver.

Carol Stradling stated, we do have a copy of that.

Randall Leise stated, right. I have additional pictures if need be.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you just keep those right now for the time being.

Do you have anything else sir?

Randall Leise stated, I’m sure it was explained in the letter that I sent to Ms Weaver that if you have any questions. We simply are not adding any square footage or anything to that portion of the home. We are doing it on the other end, but to be able to do that we need the variance to be in compliance. I’m aware that part of my land goes 15’ out into the water, which I can’t use. It is 15’ underwater. I just want to fix the roof now that leaks and the window I want to put it. I want to put a new roof on there to get the adequate heating. I just want to do that to that portion of the home, then the addition to the front part or street part of the home. Thank you sir.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you. Diann do you have anything to add to this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have any questions for him?

Attorney Altman asked, the room addition will it be single story?

Randall Leise stated, pardon me.

Attorney Altman asked, will the proposed addition be single story?

Randall Leise stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it will be consistent with the roofline of the present structure?

Randall Leise stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, the exterior will have the same quality of siding?

Randall Leise stated, correct. Once the addition is added it will be resided, re-roofed, and new windows and everything.

Attorney Altman asked, will it be similar to what it is now, only new?

Randall Leise stated, new siding, new windows, new kitchen on the other end around 14’ x 16’, which would be around $40,000. That is why I have to get the house in compliance because I’m spending more that half of its valued at.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone on the board have any questions for him?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a letter dated November 26, 2004 from you to Ms. Weaver and the 4th paragraph says, “when we last spoke last week I indicated to you that we are not putting on an addition or adding any additional square footage to this area of the home. We are simply installing a new roof to replace/repair the existing flat roof that leaks”. Then the last sentence of that says, “once again, no additional square footage is being added”. I’m looking at the survey and the proposed addition is on either side, there is an indication for either side of that sun porch. I don’t see any proposed addition anywhere else, I’m a little bit confused.

Randall Leise stated, okay, as I said to you. I guess to get into compliance we had to, there is no additional square footage or anything being added to that portion of the home. The addition is going to be on this side where I am in compliance and I have enough land and setback, whatever, but I understood it was tabled because this obstructed a neighbors view of the lake. That is why it was tabled. We live on a canal about 500’ from the lake. I can barely see the lake in the summer time because of the leaves on the trees. I have pictures of that. The survey at that time was….. we are not going out any closer to the water. Right now I’m doing nothing as my letter said to that portion of the home except putting a new roof on to fix the leaking flat roof.

Carol Stradling asked, your plans are to add on to the other end of the house?

Randall Leise stated, yes.

David Scott stated, could you look at my survey here and tell me.

Randall Leise stated, that is no longer, we are no longer doing that.

David Scott stated, you are not doing that.

Randall Leise stated, no, we are going to add on right here. I do have a survey from Mr. Milligan for that. That 16’ x 16’ is staying exactly what it is, we are just putting in new windows, new roof on that portion. The addition of the 14’ x 16’ is going on to the other end of the home. The North end of the home where I have room between neighbors, easements and encroachments.

Director Weaver stated, so you are not changing the foundation at all either.

Randall Leise stated, no, no.

Attorney Altman stated, the roof it will be come crown.

Randall Leise stated, that portion of home to take place of the roof that is leaking.

It will go up an addition 3’ or 4’.

Attorney Altman stated, the 16’ x 16’.

Randall Leise stated that portion of the home faces the lake.

Carol Stradling asked, can I ask have you considered, since you will be doing major repair to that sunroom and it looks like I don’t know what part of that you are going to save essentially. Have you considered removing that from the house and if you are going to add 14’ x 16’ in the back putting whatever functional room or whatever you were going to put in this sun porch, move that to the back of the porch and then open up your view and it would also open up Mr. Werner’s view even more than it is now.

Randall Leise stated, because of budget and other concerns that part of the home, we just want to make that part of the home more inhabitable. Better heat. It has heat right now, but it leaks right now, it is part of the home its on a slab and we wanted to continue. I don’t know if a view of the lake even exists.

Carol Stradling stated, we have pictures and it is indicating there is.

Randall Leise stated, I do to and I would like to submit those to you.

Attorney Altman asked, you have seen Mr. Werner’s?

Randall Leise stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to take a look at those.

Randall Leise stated, sure, at what portion do you need to stand to get a view of the lake.

Mike Werner stated, those were taken from my living room.

Randall Leise stated, these pictures were also taken from Mr. Werner’s property this afternoon.

Mike Werner stated, those were taken from my living standing in the door.

Randall Leise stated, those were taken.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m just looking at this picture of the sun room wondering what all is going to stay, I’m not a contractor or a builder, but.

Randall Leise stated, basically we are removing those windows that are in there and putting in 3 new windows and putting the new heat in the roof.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess my point would be that when you remove those windows that you remove a better part of the wall. I’m wondering what is going to remain once you remove those windows.

Randall Leise stated as you see in exhibit one that is what it will look like.

Carol Stradling stated, this is what it is going to look like this is what it looks now. When you take those windows out tell me what you are going to leave.

Eric Holt stated, I’m Eric Holt, architect for Design Services. Ms Carol what we are going to do the windows that he has there now are going to come out, but we are keeping walls that we have and the foundations. We are going to fill in those windows and raise the height so it matches the ceiling with the existing house into that sunroom and put new truces on it that you can see from Exhibit 1. They still are going to maintain foundation, maintain some walls that we are working with. We are not taking it clear down to the ground, there is no reason to. We are staying on the existing foundation. We are not making it any bigger. We are trying to elevate a leaking roof problem and a poor heat situation and make it look like part of the house, not just a shed addition on the back.

Carol Stradling stated, then you will be building on the other end of the house.

Eric Holt stated, yes, a separate project that we are still pricing out budget wise. This roof leaking is a have to thing that needs to be taken care of . The other part we are still exploring and it meets all of the setbacks from that aspect. Once this house is in compliance anyway, so we still are finalizing ideas, plans, and budgets on that part.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave Scott, Dave Stimmel?

David Scott stated, I was out to the property myself and stood under this gentleman’s porch and you don’t have much of a view anyway.

Mike Werner stated, I do from my living that is why I asked you to let me know when you were coming. That is where the pictures were taken from. I took those standing in my sliding door.

David Scott stated, the water is a half a mile a way.

Mike Werner stated, you’ve got the pictures.

David Stimmel stated, one of the questions we asked, when we were out there we were talking among ourselves that if Mr. Leise decided to put a row of pine trees along that property line would that be a problem.

Mike Werner stated, sure it would.

Randall Leise stated, I was just going to ask.

David Stimmel stated, I don’t think there are any permits.

Mike Werner stated, I have the same objection, the pictures that I’ve got I took from my living room door. Which is a higher elevation than what you are looking at if you were in front of my house. They show a clear view of the lake. The upper picture is a wider angle and you can see a tree trunk splits the picture. If you look to the right there is considerable branches. That blocks the view of the lake. The only view I have of the main lake is right over that roof. That is where he is going to block. That is the bottom picture is it is from the tree over. I can stand in my living room. The first thing people do is walk to the front room and see if there is a view of the lake. I really think this is really seriously going to compromise the value of my property if I can’t see that lake from my living room, that is the first thing people do when they visit my home is walk through and see the view of the lake. I will not have any if he raised that roof period. As far as the leak, I had a discussion with him several days prior to the 18th meeting date and asked him what he was planning on doing. He said he didn’t know yet, whether he was going up or back or putting a higher roof on the front. I mentioned the blocked view at the time. He said well I have never had any problems with the flat roof I don’t know if it needs to be changed. Those were his words, now he has a leak. Any how I put a rubber roof on my mothers flat roof and stopped her leak so if he has evidence I can so him how to fix it. I don’t think that is the point, is there some sort of County Ordinance or regulation as far as blocking someone’s view? Is there nothing like that on the books?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Mike Werner stated, there is not.

Attorney Altman stated, no there are setbacks, but no.

Mike Werner stated, I really think this is a detriment to the value of my property if this view is taken away. I think you can see from the pictures that a view does exist. That was taken with a digital camera. I can get my 35mm out with a zoom and get a better picture if you want. I don’t think it is 500’. I can see it better with the naked eye then those pictures show. You are welcome to look from my living room if you want.

Attorney Altman asked, what is your lot number.

Mike Werner stated, 9 and 10.

Attorney Altman stated, then it may be a good point to point out on this diagram.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the variance either for or against?

Randall Leise stated, is the issue of somebody’s view of the lake, if you wanted a view of the lake we would buy lake front property. As the one gentlemen said several acres away, trees, foliage, whatever, I can’t see the lake in the summer time. Recently at the end of our block two years ago there was 300’ of vacant undeveloped land and they just put in three two story brand new buildings. Was the view of the lake lost then, I’m sure it was. It was okay to build. Is there, he is asserting some kind of right to a view, which does not exist. I’m not incurring any property rights on my neighbors to the air space or easements.

Attorney Altman stated, the issue would be, you are asking for a variance in an area that is and he has pictures that show a view. Just as he may not have a right to stop you from blocking his view at least by ordinance and county law, there might be other laws that you can do that with, but by the matters before us tonight, he may not have that right, but you don’t have a right to a variance either. We take the equity of both situations in consideration. Just trying to balance it so that you understand why it is a very good point for us to consider.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes sir.

Randall Leise stated, just one more thing. What if I were to put in a row of trees or build a gazebo or things like that? Would there be a question?

Carol Stradling asked, would that fix your roof?

Randall Leise stated, no, but I think the question is the point of block view. Okay so the roof doesn’t get fixed or brought into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, anyone else care to address the board? Carol do you have anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, have we heard anything from the neighbors that are in between Mr. Werner and Mr. Leise.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, they have been contacted. Have either of you had any contact with the neighbor?

Mike Werner stated, I have.

Randall Leise stated, so have I, just before I left.

Mike Werner stated, I haven’t talked to him lately, but I did after the previous meeting. He doesn’t have an objection because he doesn’t have a view. My house is on a foundation and his is on a slab. His sets 3’ lower than mine.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, I heard that you had spoken to the neighbor also, do you care to state that or.

Randall Leise stated, nothing that would effect the complaints. Coming to the meeting stating his name is Randy. Never had a concern. I should the elevation of the house. There is not that much of a difference.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave Stimmel and Dave Scott? Any other discussion?

With out 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 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’ (from eave) front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance on a tract of land out of the Fractional Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Sixteen (16) Township Twenty-six (26) North, Range Three (3) West, beginning at a point, said point is South Zero (0) Degrees Forty-five (45) Minutes West a distance of Fourteen (14) feet and East six hundred twenty-six (626) feet from a stone on the East-West Section line between Sections Nine (9) and Sixteen (16), Township Twenty-six (26) North, Range Three (3) West, in the center of Michigan City and Lafayette Road, as traveled on March 18, 1946; and said stone is recorded in Record “B” page 9, in the Surveyor’s Office in White County, Indiana; said stone is numbered seven (7) of that survey as recorded; thence East a distance of Ten (10) feet; thence South a distance of One Hundred Eighty-six (186) feet; thence West a distance of ten (10) feet; thence North a distance of One Hundred eight-six (186) feet, to the point of beginning.

Also, Lot Number Seven (7) in Cedar Point Subdivision, as platted and recorded in Deed Record 132 page 454, of the Records of White County, Indiana, as platted upon the fractional Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Sixteen (16) Township Twenty-six (26) North, Range Three (3) West, all in White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5724 E. Cedar Point Court.


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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.


****

#2385 Fred J. Geyer II, Owner; FBI Buildings, Josh Westfall, Applicant; The property is located on 1.21 acres, West of Buffalo at 5900 E. State Road 16.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 77’ front setback variance, a 13’ East side setback variance, and a 1’ West side setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Fred Geyer stated, I’m Fred Geyer.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything else to present to the board other than what I read?

Fred Geyer stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything to add.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I would like to mention for the record is if someone has a question or a violation or put it into compliance like the last one was and this one is, the difference between a violation and being in compliance is when the building was built. The last one was built in 1949 and this one is built in 1975. There is a real difference on whether you have a violation with some of them that was built recently.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do you follow that?

Fred Geyer stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, this improvement was built in 1975 and that is what you are bringing into compliance. The other one was built in 1949.

Fred Geyer stated, okay.

President Jerry Thompson asked, the building is being used for?

Fred Geyer stated, warehousing.

President Jerry Thompson stated, just warehousing.

Fred Geyer stated, we just need to increase to put our trucks out there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here care to address the variance with for or against?

Dave Stimmel, Dave Scott, Gary Barbour and Carol Stradling any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, the 77’ setback is off of S.R. 16?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, how far are you off of, so the proposed addition is further back than the existing building.

Fred Geyer stated, yes, by 60’.

Director Weaver stated, on the pictures in the middle that is the back of the property.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else Carol? Anything else?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board of Zoning Appeals

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


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 77’ front setback variance, a 13’ East side setback variance, and a 1’ West side setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance on the North one half of that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 16; thence North 89 Degrees 15 Minutes West along the section line 412.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 15 Minutes West along the section line 412.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 Degrees 15 Minutes West 200.00 feet; thence South 528.00 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 15 Minutes East 200.00 feet; thence North 528.00 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Buffalo at 5900 E. State Road 16.


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.


****

#2388 Rangeline Properties, Inc., Owner; Jeff VanWeelden, Applicant; The property is located on 4.00 acres, West of Monticello on the Northeast corner of Division Road and County Road


300 E.

Violation: They are currently using this property for business use without being properly zoned.

Request: They are requesting a special exception for storage of business equipment.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing Rangeline?

Jeff VanWeelden stated, I’m Jeff VanWeelden.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay you are the applicant.

Jeff VanWeelden stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I need to give a little background on this property. There was a violation on it and a letter was sent out to them, they did appeal the fine and they are going to the APC and the fine was waived by the APC contingent that he file his rezoning and his special exception the December meeting. His rezoning went to the meeting Monday night to the APC and if I recall it received a vote of 8 no and 1 yes. It will not go to the County Commissioners until Monday. I did not know if the board wants to go ahead and act on this or if they want to table the request. That is the status of it at this point.

Attorney Altman stated, the special exception will not work with out the rezoning. It is worthless without the rezoning.

Jeff VanWeelden asked, can I ask what you said earlier, can we continue it until the following meeting.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so you are talking the January 20 meeting.

Jeff VanWeelden stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay that will be addressed January 20.

****

#2389 Georgia E. Day; The property is located on 14.374 acres, West of Monticello at 3230 E.


Division Road.

Violation: None

Request: She is requesting a 40’ rear setback variance to attach a garage to the existing home.

President Jerry Thompson asked, I assume that you are probably Georgia.

Georgia Day stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, please come forwards?

Georgia Day stated, I’m Georgia Day.

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

Georgia Day stated, not unless anyone has a question.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I bet we can find one or two. Diann do you have anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry is there anything?

Attorney Altman stated, I thought that there was a violation.

Director Weaver stated, no there is no violation. The garage was built but at this moment it is detached. There is no violation.

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

Carol Stradling stated, she is requesting a 40’ rear setback variance.

Director Weaver stated, this home sets clear to the back of the property along the railroad tracks. If you look at the pictures where the sign is that is her front of her property.

Carol Stradling stated, the proposed garage will be 60’ off of the railroad right-of-way. They have several feet.

David Stimmel stated, 50’.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary do you have anything. Dave Scott, David Stimmel anything?

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. This property has been divided since the ordinance was adopted.


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 40’ rear setback variance to attach a garage to the existing home on Fifty-four (54) acres off the West end of the North Half (1/2) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West.

EXCEPT a tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point Seven Hundred Forty (740) feet South of the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West; thence South on the center line of the Range Line Road Six Hundred Thirty-eight (638) feet; thence East along an established fence line a distance of Nineteen Hundred Sixty-five (1965) feet; thence in a Northerly direction a distance of Five Hundred eighteen (518) feet to the South boundary line of the P.C.C. & St. L. Railroad thence North Eighty-six Degrees (86˚) West along the South boundary line of the P.C.C. & St. L. Railroad a distance of Nineteen Hundred Fifty (1950) feet to the point of beginning, containing 25.96 acres, more or less.

ALSO EXCEPT a tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point One Thousand eight Hundred (1800) feet East of the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West; thence in a Southerly direction One Hundred Fifty-two (152) feet to a stake; thence East One Hundred Twenty-four (124) feet to a fence line; thence Following a fence line in a Northerly direction One Hundred Fifty-two (152) feet to the center line of Hanawalt Road; thence West following the center line of Hanawalt Road One Hundred Twenty-four (124) feet to the point of beginning, containing .43 of an acre, more or less.

ALSO EXCEPT a tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point One Thousand Eight Hundred (1800) feet East of the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West; thence South One Hundred Fifty-two (152) feet to a stake set; thence East One Hundred Twenty-four (124) feet to a stake set; thence South Eighty-five (85) feet to a stake set; thence West one Hundred Forty-four (144) feet to a stake set; thence North Two Hundred Thirty-seven (237) feet to the center line of Hanawalt Road; thence Following the center line of said road Twenty (20) feet East to a point of beginning, containing .35 acres, more or less.

ALSO EXCEPT a tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point which is South zero Degrees East (S 0˚ E) along the centerline of a public highway Two Hundred Seventeen and Five tenths (217.5) feet from the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Thirty-one (31) and running thence South zero Degrees East (S 0˚ E) along said center line Four Hundred Twenty-one and Four-tenths (421.4) feet to the North line of the Pennsylvania Railroad right-of-way; thence South Eighty-seven Degrees and Twenty Minutes East (S 87˚ 20’ E) along said line Seven Hundred Fifty (750) feet; thence North one Degrees and fifty-four Minutes East (N 1˚ 54’ E) Four Hundred Twenty-two and Two-tenths (422.2) feet; thence North Eighty-seven Degrees and Twenty-five Minutes West (N 87˚ 25’ W) Seven Hundred Sixty-four (764) feet to the point of beginning, containing 7.37 acres, more or less.

ALSO EXCEPT, That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at a railroad spike at the Northwest corner of the above said Section 31; thence North 89 Degrees 55 Minutes 07 Seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 480.00 feet to a Surveyor nail and the point of beginning; thence North 89 Degrees 55 Minutes 07 Seconds East 521.00 feet to a Surveyor nail; thence South 262.17 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 87 Degrees 29 Minutes 38 Seconds West 521.50 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 239.17 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.001 acres, more or less.

ALSO EXCEPT, That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by: Beginning at a railroad spike at the Northwest corner of the above said Section 31; thence North 89 Degrees 55 Minutes 07 Seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 480.00 feet to a Surveyor nail; thence South 239.17 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 87 Degrees 29 Minutes 38 Seconds West 480.02 feet to a Surveyor nail on the section line; thence North 00 Degrees 06 Minutes 56 Seconds West 217.50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.515 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Monticello at 3230 E. Division Road.

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.


****

#2390 Mark A. & Lynda H. Colburn; The property is located on 1.467 acres, North of Monticello at 6692 N. State Road 39.

Violation: The garage was built taller than the height requirement.

Request: They are requesting a 5’ height variance to bring the detached garage into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?

Mark Colburn stated, yes good evening lady and gentlemen. I’m Mark Colburn.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you, go ahead.

Mark Colburn stated, I guess I can only plea stupidity. This is first and only building that I have designed and built. Two things that caught me was, the height of the foundation and the span of the trusses where higher than I anticipated for the angle. They were higher than I thought they were going to be. As soon as I was aware of what was going on I came in saw Diann to see what I would have to do.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I did send a copy of the letter that I sent to him informing him that he was in violation, copy of the permit and copy of the fine policy.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the variance? Alright Dave Stimmel we will start with you.

David Stimmel stated, I’m curious Diann how you found out the building was out of compliance?

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Colburn told me.

David Stimmel stated, all right.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Dave?

David Stimmel stated, no.

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

Carol Stradling stated, it is taller than your home, but it look or appears shorter than the home to the other side.

Mark Colburn stated, the garage is 3’ lower than the main house roof. That is probably where you are seeing the difference in the roof.

Carol Stradling asked, is your house the brown house, it just looks taller.

Mark Colburn stated, this is the house, that is the shop, this is the garage area for the house.

Carol Stradling stated, so the violation is on this.

Mark Colburn stated, on this building.

Carol Stradling stated, you are saying that this is lower than the house.

Mark Colburn stated, no, that is the one that is to high.

Carol Stradling asked, how high is it.

Mark Colburn stated, it is 21’ 7” and it was to be 17’.

Carol Stradling stated, but this house is taller than your shop.

Mark Colburn stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, when did you begin building it?

Mark Colburn stated, August.

Carol Stradling asked, when did you contact you Diann?

Director Weaver stated, when he filed the variance or shortly before that.

Mark Colburn stated, that is when I started putting in the foundation and all of that. They did start actual upward construction of the building not until September. They put up the main part of the building when I was in New York for my son’s wedding. When I came back I couldn’t believe how high it was.

David Scott asked, are we going to address the fine first?

Attorney Altman stated, we customarily address the violation first.

David Scott stated, I make a motion that we reduce the fine to $50 because he came in and honesty is worth something.

David Stimmel stated, I will second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay it has been moved and seconded, any discussion.

Carol Stradling asked, is there anyway you can pass this fine on to your contractor since they did it while you were gone.

Mark Colburn stated, no really because I designed it, it is my responsibility. Let's face it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, back to the violation. Carol do you have a thought?

Carol Stradling stated, well I don’t know what I’m thinking. I appreciate your honesty, I like the fact that we are reducing the fine. I’m just wondering, do we set a precedence here that somebody can do it and come back in and apologize and then we reduce the fine to $50.

Attorney Altman stated, if you believe him I guess it does. It depends on whether you believe them and they apologize.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I understand what you are saying, but we have not had a lot of this.

Carol Stradling stated, no we haven’t. I don’t want to take the teeth out of the fine either.

David Stimmel stated, I wouldn’t either carol, but the thing that stands out to me is it is not infringing on anybody by that height and it is not an issue with someone else. Each individual situation to me stands on its owns.

Gary Barbour stated, but if the next situation may be the same and

David Stimmel stated, I agree Gary.

Director Weaver asked, did the building inspector come out and inspect this garage.

Mark Colburn stated, just when the foundation was poured, I was in and out and if anyone showed up I was not aware of it.

Carol Stradling stated, Diann I know you’ve talked about readjusting our height.

Director Weaver stated, we have adjusted it.

Carol Stradling stated, we have adjusted it and it still doesn’t fit.

Director Weaver stated, no, we changed it from 15’ to 17’.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we still have a motion and a second.

David Scott stated, the way the ordinance was written this building doesn’t look out of place, character, or I mean the roofline doesn’t look out of place. Should we readdress this height thing. I mean this isn’t going to help him, but before after Dave Anderson explain, I’m just throwing this out.

Director Weaver stated, this height variance is county wide. We have the same maximum height whether it is in town or out of town.

David Scott stated, right, but maybe if something is wider it might require a higher pitch. Now it is just 17’ and I was instrumental in getting that changed because it simplified things, but now I’m not sure. I was shown before and I was wrong because when things are wider the roof needs to be higher and you do that according to, I don’t know, I guess it is something to think about. I’m not sure a fixed height is the right way to go now that I’ve seen it.

Carol Stradling stated, the bottom line is that someone can request a variance before they build instead of after they build. Preferably it is before they build and then that location is taken into consideration and a little easier setting.

Mark Colburn stated, I would have done that I was surprised by the height. I have a 40’ span, but my trusses are 52’. According to my contractor they would not put them any lower because of the code. That really surprised me.

David Scott stated, that is the point I’m trying to make, I think the way it was written before he wouldn’t have been in violation with measuring off of the curve. I think that was the gray area.

Director Weaver stated, we measured from the mean level not the peak.

Carol Stradling stated, so the mean level on this roof is probably, I see what you are saying it probably would have complied. You have a motion and a second and we had discussion, and are we ready to vote. I don’t have anymore questions.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, all in favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those opposed. Motion was carried 5 yes and 0 no.

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 5’ height variance to bring the detached garage into compliance on Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana; thence North 01 Degrees 27 Minutes 10 Seconds West 493.04 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 88 Degrees 42 Minutes 21 Seconds West 287.50 feet; thence North 01 Degrees 27 Minutes 10 Seconds West 219.09 feet; thence South 88 Degrees 42 Minutes 21 Seconds East 287.50 feet; thence South 01 Degrees 27 Minutes 10 Seconds East 219.09 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.467 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 6692 N. State Road 39.


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.


****

#2391 Emil E. & Belinda C. Gutwein; The property is located on Lots 7, 8 and 9 in the Original Plat in the Town of Monon at 400 N. Pine Street

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 3’ side seatback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Gutwein's?

Emil Gutwein stated, I’m Emil Gutwein. I really don’t have anything else to add to this.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, two things. Several lots you realize that if the variance is granted the lots are married together forever as long as you use the property with the variance. The addition of the garage will it be with the same as the existing garage. Same siding, etcetera.

Emil Gutwein stated, yes

Attorney Altman asked, single story.

Emil Gutwein stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, not to high I hope.

Emil Gutwein stated, it will be the same height as the existing garage, 12’.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the variance. Carol anything?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary, Dave and Dave?

All replied no.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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

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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 3’ side seatback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage on Lots 7, 8 and 9 on Pine Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 400 N. Pine Street.


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.


****

#2392 Stanley & Amy Williamson; The property is located on Lot 1 in Block 6, in the Town of Brookston at 501 S. Prairie Street.

Violation: Built an enclosed porch without obtaining the proper permits and variance.

Request: They are requesting a variance of the side setback on Prairie Street from 8 feet to 3.2 feet so that the enclosed porch structure meets setback requirements, pursuant to the White County Zoning Ordinance.

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

Rebecca Trent stated, I’m Rebecca Trent, I’m Mr. Williamson’s attorney. Mr. & Mrs. Williamson, this has been going on for a number of years now so we have slowing gotten in front of the board this evening. Mr. Williamson has a home in Brookston that sets on the corner of Prairie Street, 5th Street, and also Ripley Street on the back of his home. He has, there was an existing patio on the side of his home facing 5th Street. Which is where he has a door and they use it as a front door for their home. They decided to enclose that patio area and make it a portion of their home. He began building that structure Mr. Anderson came by and had a discussion and decided since they were going to enclose it completely that he needed to apply for a permit. He came here to apply for the permit and was told he needed a variance. From there things went on to the crazy side, I guess you could say. He came down and hired me and we ended up in a lawsuit with the Area Plan Commission over what variance is required and not required. That lawsuit was finished in I believe in October of this past fall. The court decided that we did need to go ahead and apply for a variance request. Their was a $500 fine issued he was ordered to pay that fine and I believe he has not paid that fine. We are here this evening on the variance issue. My reading of your zoning ordinance would indicate the variance he would need would be a side setback variance from 5th Street, with the normal being 8’ from a municipal street. In this case the enclosed porch area that he constructed is only 3.2’ from the side lot line on the property. We are asking the board to approve this from 8’ to 3.2’.

President Jerry Thompson stated, once again do we address the violation?

Attorney Altman stated, it has been addressed by the Judge.

President Jerry Thompson asked, but has it been paid?

Attorney Altman stated, at this time as I understand it has not been paid.

Director Weaver stated, as of last week it had not been paid.

Attorney Altman stated, you believe it hasn’t been paid.

Rebecca Trent stated, I wasn’t sure if he had paid it or not, he may have been waiting for the outcome of the meeting and was going to do that all at the same time. I’m not sure if he understood when he was to pay that. He does know he has to pay it.

David Scott stated, then do we even need to address the fine.

Rebecca Trent stated, I don’t think so.

Attorney Altman stated, there is just one way I would look at that, I think the Judge has addressed it. I think if I were to consider voting for this or voting with a modification or against this I would indicate the applicant has to fully comply with Judge Mrzlack’s order in every way before the variance can be granted. I think that would be the position that I would put on this.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I used the wrong words when I said address, I just wanted to know if the fine has been paid.

Director Weaver stated, the last I knew it had not been paid. I have not checked this week.

David Scott stated, it appears that they have three fronts.

Director Weaver stated, my interpretation of the ordinance and the way the ordinance has been handled in the past is yes it does have 3 front yards. That is one of the things that has been disputed.

David Scott asked, does anyone know, are those streets 4 way stops.

Rebecca Trent stated, there is a two way stop on Ripley and 5th Street. Persons on Ripley stop at that corner. There are no stop signs at Prairie and 5th Street.

Director Weaver stated, they stop on 5th Street.

David Scott stated, oh Prairie is 43.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to talk about the point of the front yard. This is a good way to say it. Ms Trent just indicated that they used this as their front door and that is why in enforcing this Diann and I in court made that position. However, Judge Mrzlack indicated that it was a side and.

Director Weaver stated, no he did not make a determination on that.

Attorney Altman stated, that is right he didn’t.

Director Weaver stated, he did not make a determination whether it was a front or a side.

Attorney Altman stated, he said he had questions about it. That is what it did say.

Director Weaver stated, he could not give it a determination.

Carol Stradling asked, if it were a front how much a variance would he need.

Director Weaver stated, they would be required to be 32’ back from the proper lines, so approximately 29’.

Carol Stradling stated, the reason we are going for a side variance is because 5’ is a whole lot easier to ask for than 29’.

Attorney Altman stated, you would have to ask them why they filed it.

Rebecca Trent stated, my understanding of the ordinance and I have gone through it very thoroughly is my belief says that a corner property can only have one front and it is the shorter of the two abutting streets. That is what the ordinance say it is the shorter of the abutting streets and that would be Prairie St. The 5th street would be a side street the proper variance would be a side setback.

Carol Stradling stated, the shorter.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be Ripley.

Rebecca Trent stated, this is an odd circumstance for a home to have 3 streets around it. The most you would see is two. Your zoning ordinance section 2.1079 front lot line which is back to the relationship between property and street and paragraph B for a corner lot the line marking the lot and the shorter of the two abutting streets. I think your ordinance clearly indicates which is the front lot line. Which means Prairie is the front of the property and the side on 5th Street. The house originally had the front door facing Prairie Street. Long ago they decided to wall off that door and just use the side entrance and no longer going out on Prairie St. The majority of the houses along 43 in most of Brookston have their fronts on Prairie St.

Carol Stradling stated, I was just struggling with the shorter because the distance to the lot line is shorter on what we call the sides.

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

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 variance of the side setback on Prairie Street from 8 feet to 3.2 feet so that the enclosed porch structure meets setback requirements, pursuant to the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Number One (1) Block Number Six (6) in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 501 S. Prairie Street.

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.


****

#2311 Rob Craig; The mobile home is located at 10471 E. U.S. Highway 24.

Violation: He received approval of a Special Exception on May 27, 2004 contingent that he provide a title and pay his fine within 90 days which he did not do.

Request: He is requesting a special exception to allow a 1974 mobile home to be brought into compliance. The mobile home has already been located on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, sir you are?

Rob Craig stated, I’m Rob Craig.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you are Rob Craig.

Attorney Altman stated, the simplest thing to do is for Diann to address the record. It is simpler than it might be but I think you tell Diann what Mr. Craig presented to you.

Director Weaver stated, in December of last year 2003. Mr. Craig came into the office to apply for a mobile home on his property. The home was already there on the property, because of the age of the home we could not issue the building permit. Bare with me I need to refresh my memory also. The building inspector talked to him on 12/19 and told him to bring in the title for mobile home for proof of the age of the mobile home. January 2004 a letter was mailed to Mr. Craig from our department requesting him to apply for a special exception for a mobile home. February 9 of 2004 he called he stated he was getting his survey for the special exception. February 23, 2004 Mr. Altman sent him a letter giving him 10 days because there was nothing done. We gave him 10 days to get in touch with us. He then came to the office on February 25 and we discussed it and told me he had ordered a survey and had to go pick it up. There has been some confusion on who the owner of the mobile home was at that time. We do know have a title for it.

Attorney Altman asked, when did we get that title?

Director Weaver stated, it was received on.

Rob Craig stated, two weeks ago.

David Stimmel stated, says it was issued on November 22. It says it was received on December 6 down at the bottom.

Attorney Altman stated, that is an issue because of what the board said and the order. When they granted his special exception. You said he had to do it in so many days.

Director Weaver stated, we finally got to the special exception. That special exception was held on May 28, 2004. The board did approve the request contingent that within, I have given you a copy of that, Carol made a motion that they leave the fine as it was present at the $500 also moved that we approve the special exception contingent on him getting the title within 90 days. Then on down Dave Scott stated that if the title was not there in 90 days that the exception is void. Well this was approved on May 27, 2004, we didn’t receive the title until December. He did have a second inspection done on the home and received that in November, the fine was paid prior to that.

Attorney Altman stated, the point to the board is the time restrictions set out, neither I or Diann thought it was ours to decided whether the special exception was in compliance or not. We thought the board should address this issue. It is clear, it isn’t so much why, it is when he did it and the title wasn’t secured in the 90 days. However, he is here and we do have a copy of it.

Director Weaver stated, right, the only concern I have is that we requested variance for a 1974 mobile home and the title says it is a 1976. I’m assuming it is the same trailer, I don’t have any proof that it is.

Rob Craig stated, I do remember the plate on the trailer is the same. You are welcome to come out and look. I checked that myself that it was different.

Director Weaver stated, I do believe that Mr. Braaksma did inspect the trailer that is on the property. It did pass the second inspection.

Attorney Altman asked, does the board understand the point in question.

Rob Craig stated, yes, the point is we didn’t get it done in 90 days. We do have some circumstances with that. I run a facility out there with a whole bunch of animals, that I run by myself and a hand full of guys. We are swamped all of the time. This was something I needed to get to and it did get put off at times. I admit that. When I was here in May I was told that Jon Provo who was the guy who gave me this thing and claimed that he owned it. I started doing that after 30 days after sending him certified letter saying I had to have the title, after 30 days I got a letter from his attorney that he did in fact have the title they would locate it and give it to me. I never got it, and finally at one point Mr. Provo dropped off a copy of a title with Diann in someone else's name. Then the response to my request to send me a title was to send me a contract to purchase that they wanted me to sign agreeing to buy this thing. I contacted them back and said I won’t sign anything until I see a title. They still were never able to produce a title. Later in the summer another gentleman pulled in my driveway with legal papers and original title for the mobile home that was at my house. Showing that he was the true owner of the mobile home. He and I had several discussions over the weeks about how we were going to resolve the fact that there was a mobile home on my property that I was living in that he owned. Apparently he had some business arrangement with Mr. Provo. I don’t know how that all worked. The new gentleman was in the picture now. We went in to get the permit with Diann and she contacted me the day after we applied for it and said it had to have the final inspection done. My impression on the permit was you couldn’t do the work until you had the permit, so we didn’t do the work. Then we found out we had to do the work to get the permit. So we had to get the work done. Mr. Braaksma was away for quiet some time and some trouble hooking up for the final inspection. We got that done and the final inspection got back to Diann finally. I contacted her again, I said we had the title and everything was fine and she said no the title has to be in your name. Through all this time all I had read was that you had to see evidence of a title and we had provided that, so I wasn’t worried about that. Then I had to contact the new owner and renegotiate the terms that he and I had worked out so the title could be put in my name to satisfy what you had requested. That is what we finally did, it took two weeks to do it. The first day we came over to the license branch we had to come over and get a treasury report that was the day the computers were down. Mr. Triplet the owner at the same time was going on was in the process of caring for a son that was in Illinois back and forth and his son ended up dying and they had to do the funeral and stuff so that set us back a few weeks. Finally we got together again and got the title done, once that was done I brought in the application to show her we were working on it. We had to wait for it to arrive in the mail, once we received it Mr. Triplett brought it to me and we got it right to her. It was a few days later because the way the void comes up on the copy. That is where we are now. The mobile home has been inspected and everything has been done. Everything is completed. I want to pay the permit fee and be done with all of this. Now because 90 days has lapsed we had to come back to you guys. This was do to my misunderstanding and we didn’t get everything done in the time frame.

Attorney Altman stated, it is very clear, the facts. Just whether the board needs to say this is okay or not okay.

Carol Stradling stated, I think we did that to just give some certainly to the fact that it would be taken care of. I guess this is just a point where I’m glad we did because if we hadn’t put that stipulation it wouldn’t be taken care of, and you would be living in a trailer that you didn’t have a title to and you didn’t have a second inspection on.

Rob Craig stated, I think we would have gotten it done, the inspection was important and I want to make sure my family is safe. That is very important to me.

Carol Stradling stated, 6 months later.

Rob Craig stated, the work was ready to be done. The problem I had was I was under the impression I couldn’t do the work because we had to get the permit. So the whole title issue, their attorney the other guy threw a contract at me and I refused to sign until I saw a title. It wouldn’t make sense to sign something without seeing the title. They were not able to produce the title. Then when we found out we needed the final inspection the work was done. The last several weeks was just a misunderstanding, my impression was you need to see a title for a mobile home. We have produced that, I didn’t know it had to be in my name. That was originally the issue at hand, when this all started was, I didn’t have a title.

Carol Stradling stated, the issue was that you were living in a trailer that was improperly moved into White County or moved into position. That is the issue. I guess now that has been taken care of.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Charlie do you have something?

Charles Mellon stated, having trouble getting the title, I would agree with him and all of you people know the problems that you have had with Mr. Provo. There is one thing, it was Provo’s deal to start with.

Carol Stradling stated, it has been a year Charlie, I mean we did the variance in May, but it was an extensive ordeal before that. The fire occurred in November.

Charles Mellon stated, I know, I know all about it and I know Provo.

Director Weaver stated, I might add to I can’t find my dates we have actually fined suit to get the final paper work.

Rob Craig stated, the final paper work is date before the suit was filed.

Attorney Altman stated, the date.

Rob Craig stated, it was done, and you did file suit and I got the papers for the suit the papers arrived several days at least after the papers were done. So it had been done they had not caught up with it yet.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have any fees associated with that? Alright I guess I’m thinking, we were setting here and really trying to work with you and thought we had come up with a workable arrangement and 90 days is more, it was originally set at 60 days which is 2 months. We extended it to 90 days, this is 6 months later and we had from what I understand we had to pursue that and we had legal fees associated with that.

Attorney Altman stated, you will have.

Carol Stradling stated, because you were not communicating with.

Attorney Altman stated, make a motion you went this far.

David Scott stated, what do you anticipate the expenses to be for this.

Director Weaver stated, I guess Jerry would be the better one to ask.

Attorney Altman stated, I suspect that if this resolves it, then the...

Director Weaver stated, is that in that information, I can go get that.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m trying to remember just what I put down for that, this would resolve it. I think it is.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Charlie.

Charles Mellon stated, another thing I was trying to say the house, they’ve got to have some place to live and they got a chance at getting that, I think you ought to think about that to a certain extent. As far as the 60 or 90 days that time gets away pretty easy before things are done.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else have anything for Mr. Craig.

Carol Stradling asked, were you in communication with Diann when you weren’t able to get the title and telling her what you were doing?

Rob Craig stated, yes, I told her I was trying to get a hold of Provo and get him to respond and I had told her that he said he had the title and he had misplaced it and had to get it. We got a letter from him attorney that said she believes that he really does have the title and he can’t locate it.

Carol Stradling stated, that letter or some kind of communication from his attorney was in May when we did this.

Rob Craig stated, there was one in that packet and then there was one later when she sent me a copy of the contract, 45 days or 60 days later after that meeting. I contacted her back and I said I won’t sign a contract to buy something unless I see there is a title. You have to show me a title. Then she responded back to me that Mr. Provo has the title and we will try to find it. I assure you that he has it. In August or later one when Mr. Triplett made an appearance in my driveway and show me he in fact owned the mobile home and had legal paper work showing that. That is when Provo went away and conversation started with him and we working out adequate purchase agreement with him because the property I actually have is his.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann go ahead.

Director Weaver stated, we received a bill for $250.

Attorney Altman stated, that was the extent I would charge if this is not resolved.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay what are out wishes. Carol do you have any thoughts.

Carol Stradling stated, the reason we felt that we needed to pursue this with a suit was because Diann when you were gone I asked, Mr. Provo about any communications.

Rob Craig stated, I’m Rob Craig please don’t call me Mr. Provo.

Carol Stradling stated, sorry, what kind of communications Mr. Craig had, had with you with his progress with this process. He indicated that he spoke to you about having trouble getting the title and.

Director Weaver stated, once he started working on the title, he has had several contacts with me on and off through the last month.

Carol Stradling stated, through the last month.

Director Weaver stated, but there were long periods of time when I didn’t hear anything. He would call and say he would be in touch with me on a such and such date and I would not hear from him.

Rob Craig stated, those periods of times we were normally tracking down like Provo’s attorney thing where I would tell her well I’ve heard I’m getting the title and then and then I get the letter from his attorney, then the contact and I would go back to her and say show me something and nothing was happening on their end either. The was no information to pass on to her, it was just a matter of you know.

Director Weaver stated, other than if you would have communicated with me and let me know of the problems you were having we could have worked with you and would have been more aware of what the situation was.

Rob Craig stated, I understand that now.

Director Weaver stated, with no contact we have no idea.

Rob Craig stated, it has been an incredibly frustrating year for me.

Attorney Altman stated, we probably would not have filed suit either.

Rob Craig stated, understood.

Attorney Altman stated, make a motion Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, I would move that we find him in violation of what we had agreed to the $250 to cover attorney’s fees.

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

David Scott stated, let me think about it, I inclined to agree, but I hate to do something on his misfortune.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought it, if you read through the minutes what you explained just now is exactly what the process you went through the May exception and you know what we were looking for then was communication and trying to work things out. We came up with an agreement and it is the same story. We had to file suit to get you to appear or to resolve the issue.

David Scott stated, we gave him a time frame and if he couldn’t make that time frame he should have let us know.

Carol Stradling stated, explain why.

David Scott stated, explain why.

Carol Stradling stated, show what you were doing to move this forward instead of us having to get our attorney involved and file suit.

David Scott stated, I will second this motion.

President Jerry Thompson stated, any discussion. All in favor signify by saying “aye” and all opposed? Motion carried 4 yes and 1 no.

Director Weaver asked, do we have a time period that this needs to be done?

Carol Stradling asked, what do you think would be a reasonable time frame.

Rob Craig stated, 30 days, so my kids can have Christmas.

Attorney Altman stated, I would expand that to 60 days.

Carol Stradling stated, I was thinking about offering that, is 60 days.

Rob Craig stated, 60 days would be wonderful.

Director Weaver stated, we don’t dismiss the suit until it is paid.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, so you are aware of this, the suit will not be dismissed until this fine is paid.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing is the determination of the special exception.

Rob Craig stated, so if I pay the fine can I give Diann $180 more dollars and get my permit.

Attorney Altman stated, yes sir. If you don’t you have to remove it.

David Scott stated, if you can not pay the fine, go see Diann and get put on the agenda and we will or I will be willing to work with you, just don’t blow us off or disappear.

Rob Craig stated, okay. I understand.

****

Attorney Altman asked, do you have any thing else Diann?

Director Weaver stated, yes I have some business, I have one thing.

Attorney Altman stated, the bankruptcy of Jon & Tara Provo.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think they know what the ruling from the Judge was.

Attorney Altman stated, we got a judgement against Mr. Provo and for let me see, it is about $1400, which is attorney fees, damages, etcetera. We went to enforce it and proceed supplemental and we got an order for a $100 a month and now he is filing bankruptcy. He is doing a Chapter 13 and we are going to file a claim in his chapter 13. You are quite right Charlie that Mr. Provo has some problems and issues. That is the answer there.

Director Weaver stated, okay, I have one more. John Heimlich attended our meeting Monday night with the APC and, help me if I don’t remember everything, he could not be here tonight to talk to this board. They have awarded a contract for the new ordinance to HNTB. There is going to be a preliminary meeting in January. They are going to set up, I can’t think what he called it, but there is going to be a group that is going to over see this project that will consist of members from the boards, plus members from each town, and different entities. That meeting in January will be set up and hopefully those members that are appointed to the committee will be able to attend the meeting. There will be a meeting in January with the staff from the office. Then in February he stated there will probably be two public meetings held to discuss this with the public. Is there anything else I might have forgotten? The dates have not been set yet, so we will be informed of that.

Attorney Altman stated, in addition to that they are going to have people like from of Indiana Beach be involved in it and the Farm Bureau to be involved in it. We are really asking for other groups and developers somebody involved so that we’ve got input ahead of time rather than afterwards. Charlie do you remember anything else.

Charles Mellon stated, I think Diann has covered it all. The lady that is going to present those meeting is the one Mr. Stimmel went to a meeting and heard. He mentioned about that lady down there at Purdue.

Director Weaver stated, well she has been here also.

Charles Mellon stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, the board attended a meeting that she was at. You may be contacted by the Commissioners, any of you to be on this committee. He did say it was going to be time consuming and there will be work involved. If you are interested make sure you have the time.

Charles Mellon stated, Jerry, ask Dave Scott.

David Scott stated, it is pretty much covered.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Sir you have your hand in the air.

Clay Watson stated, I asked Diann if I could get on the agenda here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, can I have your name?

Clay Watson stated, I’m Clay Watson. First of the week I called Diann to see if I could be put on the agenda and she said she wasn’t for sure she would call me back and I never received call.

Director Weaver stated, I told you I did not believe I could.

Clay Watson stated, but you would call back.

Director Weaver stated, if I could I would call you back. The agenda was already set. That is beside the point.

Clay Watson stated, I’m asking you if you could hear me out tonight I would really appreciate it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, boy this is tough with this not being on the agenda. Just give us a hint as to what this pertains to.

Clay Watson stated, this pertains to building height. I’m in A-1 and I have a principle building she says that I have an accessory building as a pole barn structure she wants me to get a variance. I’ve got 260 acres and it would cost me a mint to get this surveyed. I’m a United Way agency. I’m trying to conserve the money.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay stop right there. Jerry the situation.

Clay Watson stated, he knows the situation.

President Jerry Thompson stated, well no, not exactly with him being on the agenda tonight. We are pretty limited on what we can do here.

Attorney Altman stated, totally limited.

President Jerry Thompson stated, well I wanted to hear it from you.

Carol Stradling asked, did you want us to make some kind of a decision tonight.

Clay Watson stated, I want you to make a recommendation tonight to Diann to let this go through and quit this horsing around. I don’t see the problem. I’m zoned A-1 and I’m building a principle building. I’ve got a 30’ height variance and I’m building a 23’ building it is not an accessory building. An accessory building is like any other farmer has a pole barn structure. I’m storing my machine to mow to take care of the property.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you have been here before.

Clay Watson stated, yes. You guys discussed my problem and you told me I couldn’t speak.

President Jerry Thompson stated, just a second here, why have you never been on the agenda. This is not your first visit. I recognize you and I understand, why have we never…

Attorney Altman stated, he has never filed an application.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay that is what I wanted.

Clay Watson stated, I have to pay $70 to file an application.

Carol Stradling stated, if you want a decision from us then we need to have you on the agenda.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Charlie.

Clay Watson stated, do you want to throw away your United Way money so I can file a $70 application.

Charles Mellon stated, if he has been here before you ought to know he is the Ranger from the Boy Scout Camp.

Attorney Altman stated, we understand that.

Clay Watson stated, you have discussed my…

Charles Mellon stated, the United Way money is being used and everybody at that facility up there all of you know what it does for younger kids this and that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have any questions about that, but we can’t make a decision unless you file an application.

Charles Mellon stated, the biggest thing is why did Diann tell him he couldn’t get on the meeting tonight then. She says she couldn’t if he was on the phone if she was on the phone why didn’t she say the agenda was full, she didn’t tell him. Didn’t tell him one word, and didn’t call him all week.

Attorney Altman stated, he has got to file an application for something before and give notice before something can be decided by the board. That is all there is to it.

Clay Watson stated, I have to spend $70 to file an application.

Attorney Altman stated, you’ve got to pay the appropriate cost for whatever application you are going to file, yes sir. If you are appealing her decision then you appeal her decision and file the application to do that. I can’t be your lawyer, but I can tell you as the attorney for this board and the APC that is the requirement. I don’t necessarily like that anymore than I hear you do. That is the way the law requires. That was like the last time you were here. You didn’t have an application so we can not give you an answer. We can’t give you any decision to file a petition.

David Stimmel asked, do you understand why?

Clay Watson stated, no I don’t, I have no idea why.

David Stimmel stated, so if I speak out of line Jerry let me know. My impression would be #1 there is no exception for the United Way Agency or other organizations to…

Clay Watson stated, okay I can live with that.

David Stimmel stated, #1, okay #2 if you are not on the agenda and I can’t answer why you are not that is a he said she said thing.

Attorney Altman stated, he never filed the application.

David Stimmel stated, if you don’t file and you are not on the agenda other people have not been given notice that you are going to be on the agenda to speak for or against whatever you are wanting to present to the board.

Clay Watson stated, but I’m within the law. I feel that I’m within the law.

Attorney Altman stated, that is where you have to appeal it.

Clay Watson stated, can you let me speak for a minute.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Clay Watson stated, you…

President Jerry Thompson stated, sir.

Attorney Altman stated, mostly because it is not on the agenda and we can not give you an answer.

Clay Watson stated, why can’t you say we are going to stand up to Diann’s decision. Then I will go back and file my application and I will get my several thousand-dollar survey of the property to present this to you.

Attorney Altman stated, sorry we have to have an application.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I have questions, but we can not answer you until it is legal.

Clay Watson stated, why do I have to file the $70 application to meet with you, I don’t understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, everyone has to do it. It is the law, it is the regulation.

Clay Watson stated, no, this is a public meeting.

Carol Stradling stated, if the general public is not aware of what the decision is to be made concerning your particular property and we make a decision, we are showing favoritism to you and we are ignoring the rest of the population and that is not what this board is set up to do. We can not make a decision without informing the public what decisions are to be made at this meeting.

Clay Watson stated, I’m asking you to go outside the law, I’m not asking for a variance, I’m asking to what the ordinance says. I think Diann and Mr. Altman have made the wrong decision. All you have to do is say yes it is in law or no it is not, go file.

Attorney Altman stated, to do that you have to file an appeal of her decision before this board.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if you feel this strongly and you have others that feel that way, why not file and bring that group with you and plead your case.

Clay Watson stated, okay, do I have to file the $70 application fee.

Attorney Altman stated, yes you would.

Clay Watson stated, so if I file the $70 application fee I may as well go for the variance. It is not making sense.

Carol Stradling asked, is the appeal different from an application?

Attorney Altman stated, sure would be.

Carol Stradling stated, so do you have to file for an appeal?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, that is what has been done in the past.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, as an example TPW.

David Scott stated, if he files the appeal and wins does he get his money back.

Attorney Altman stated, no, just like no one gets their money back. The variance people got their application.

David Stimmel stated, isn’t that because the fact that we, she has to advertise and there are expenses incurred to inform the public that this is gong to be on the agenda.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

David Stimmel stated, I would think that seems to be valid.

Carol Stradling stated, if it is routine and fits within the normal that was established in the ordinance then it doesn’t have to come before the board. If they are asking for something that is different that doesn’t fit the ordinance then they would need to come before the board and request the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, or appeal the decision. That is just how it is.

Clay Watson stated, I think this an atrocity, I totally disagree with this.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is your right, you are entitled to your thoughts.

Carol Stradling stated, let's put it this way, if your neighbor up there felt that it was his right to put up a confinement hog barn or whatever and it didn’t fit the ordinance and he didn’t want to pay to come make an appeal because he thought he was right and he ran into us on the street and came here before the meeting and we said sure. You could come in screaming to us because you didn’t know anything about it. One you were not notified, and two you were not able to present your case, three we made an inappropriate decision.

Clay Watson stated, all I’m asking you is, is it in the ordinance or out of the ordinance if I need an exemption for it. That is all I’m asking you. If it is within the ordinance I’m within the law, public doesn’t need to be notified if I’m out that is fine. I’ll go back and file and do my time period and pay the $70. That is all I’m asking for you to hear me out and see if I’m within the exemption or not.

David Stimmel stated, first the decision on that is Diann’s and she is disagreeing with you. Your only appeal to that is I understand that is to file and come before the board and argue your case. It is just that simple.

Director Weaver stated, my I say before we issued the permit for it to be 17’ tall, Dave Anderson looked at this application with me to see if any of it could be charged as a farm structure and it was all charged as a commercial building. He could not verify that any of that could be considered a farm building.

Clay Watson stated, you need that in writing for #1 and…

Director Weaver stated, need what in writing.

Clay Watson stated, that Dave said that. I don’t think Dave said that.

Director Weaver stated, well Dave did say that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I think we need to cut this off and go through the appropriate process. We treat others the same, so okay. Is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I have nothing else.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I want to thank Diann, the staff and Jerry. Merry Christmas.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission