Get Adobe Flash player

x

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, January 20, 2005 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: David Uttermohlen, Tom Fee, Butch Moody, Terry Beasy, Bill Dibell, Charles R. Mellon, Edwin D. & Carri L. Augenstine, Clay Watson, Doug Zimpfer, Lisa Searcy, Ruth Ann McClintock, Noel F. Lyons, Mary Crum, James Crum, Abby Lietz, Trent Wright, Dave Dellinger, and Joe Shidler.

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 September 16, September 23, October 21, October 28, and November 18, 2004 meetings. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we need to have our yearly organization.

Attorney Altman stated, the floor is open for the nomination for President.

David Scott asked, can I make a motion that we leave everything as is?

David Stimmel stated, I will second that.

Attorney Altman stated, the motion is that the officers stay as they are as they are presently. That is consequent to any other nomination for these three offices.

President Jerry Thompson stated, for the record should you name the names out loud.

Attorney Altman stated, sure, you as President and Carol Stradling as the vice President and Gary Barbour as the secretary. All of those in favor signify by saying “aye” and all of those oppose? Motion carried 5 to 0.

****

#2384 Tom F. Fee, Owner; Butch Moody, Applicant; The property is located on Part of Lots 11


& 12 in Bass Riffle Park, North of Lowe’s Bridge at 5162 E. Quiet Water Court. Tabled from the November 18, 2004 meeting.

Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 6’ front setback variance, a 5’ East side setback variance and a 6’ West side setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing house into compliance.


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

Tom Fee stated, I’m Tom Fee.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what do you have that you would like to present to us sir?

Tom Fee stated, okay the last time we were here I’ve gone over my drawing and I have pulled it in 4’ from 30’ to 26’ which Carol suggested at the last meeting. By doing that from what I understand on the survey I see here. The one whole side would be with in the 8’ from the property, which is legal. There is not much I can do with the 4’ going down from the existing house on the fence. That was not an issue because it wasn’t built so close to the house. From what I see here the front of the house and correct me if I’m reading this wrong, from the front even with the 30’ my map shows me 10’ off of the property line, so that is legal. Correct? See right here on the front and it shows an arrow 10’.

Director Weaver asked, where is he talking about?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I believe he is right here.

Carol Stradling stated, that would be the South corner.

Tom Fee stated, yes that would be the new addition, this right here. Here is the existing house and if we go over the 30’ it says 10’ off of the property line. Which is legal.

Director Weaver stated, the home is required to be 30’ off of the water’s edge easement.

Tom Fee stated, we are not talking about that, the house is up by the water, we are talking about the back end of the house. The house is existing.

(The board is going over a survey.)

President Jerry Thompson stated, before you pass those out to the board, we keep those, is that all right.

Tom Fee stated, that is fine. So you get a little better idea.

Attorney Altman stated, one second, Diann is his application with the sketch he is giving us which is a rough hand written sketch, he, rather than being 30’ wide he will be 24’ wide.

Tom Fee stated, it is 26’.

Carol Stradling stated the sketch says 24’.

Tom Fee stated, oh okay, if I did put down 24’ it should be 26’. With the 10’ we are 14’ off of the property line. We are almost doubled.

Director Weaver stated, but the setbacks go from the eave so are you going to have an overhang on this?

Tom Fee stated, yes a normal overhang of 16”

Director Weaver stated, you have to include the overhang.

Tom Fee stated, or whatever so water doesn’t run down the house. Here is what you are saying.

(He is passing out a photo to the board.)

Tom Fee stated, as I come back on the property, the lot narrows. It is wider in the front towards the lake and as we come to the street it narrows down. That is the part I’m having the easement. Three quarters of the house is still within the 8’ off because on the front it is 10’ without giving it any or leaving it at 30’. The part that comes to the 5’ is right here at the end and that is the garage, not the house. I figured if I came in 4’ making it 26’ x 60’ that would clear me of all of the hurdles on the one side. I will be 14’ and 4’ and 5’ make it 9’ and I would be over 9’ away from the property which make this all legal. On the 4’ side the house is built and that has a fence and considerably far away from my neighbor. He has a shed next to the property that I show that I would be building up next to. He is within 4’ of the property line. You are supposed to be 8’ away. You said to compromise, I have compromised. I’m within the one whole side, like I said the front is 10’ away at 30’. We are not talking that much easement right on or even close to the property. He is 12’ away with the garage. That would be 17’ that is if we left it. I said all right, I’ll compromise. I don’t want a bunch of problems so I took 4’ off of the 30’ and made it 26’. That would make the one whole side legal and the other side is where the house was originally built.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol do you have the pictures?

Carol Stradling stated, yes I do, the shed is really not on the survey. The property to the East. It would be right in here wouldn’t it?

Tom Fee stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay for the record we have your survey prepared by Mr. Milligan. Is it your intentions to modify your variance request by reducing the….

Tom Fee stated, by reducing from 30’ to 26’ down the one side.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, so it would still be 4’ on the North East Side and it would be 9’ and 14’ respectfully on each end of your proposed addition.

Tom Fee stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, the 9’ and the 14’ is to the wall or to eaves.

Tom Fee stated, that is to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand to the property lines, but on the building is that to the wall or the eaves.

Tom Fee stated, to the wall.

Attorney Altman stated, so it would be a little more variance to allow the eaves.

Tom Fee stated, you have that with the 14’ and the 9’.

Attorney Altman stated, again we are just trying to make sure what you are asking. Then we can figure out it is something the board can approve.

Tom Fee stated, correct.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, I would just like the board to know that the Lombardi’s were here at the last meeting and I did receive a phone call just before the meeting started that they were not going to be able to make it because of the weather.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and they are which?

Director Weaver stated, they are lot 12.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so they have anything to pass along.

Director Weaver stated, just that they wanted to put a privacy fence up.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.

Tom Fee stated, so they are not opposed if I wanted to go back to the 30’.

Director Weaver stated, they didn’t state that, so I’m not going to say that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that part really doesn’t involve them.

Tom Fee stated, I felt ambushed when I was here last time.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the height of the building? Is it single story?

Tom Fee stated, yes, single story.

Attorney Altman asked, what kind of structure?

Tom Fee stated, I have some pictures I want to show you, it will be siding.

Attorney Altman asked, is it a FBI building?

Tom Fee stated, no, it is a home, it is a house on the lake. It is an old house that we remodeled.

Attorney Altman stated, the addition will be a home with aluminum siding.

Tom Fee stated, yes. We were on septic, but now we are on the sewer and we can use the septic field to build on.

Attorney Altman stated, so you are on the sewer line.

Tom Fee stated, yes, I’m on the sewer line and I can build on.

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

Mary Crum stated, I’m Mary Crum. I wish the Lombardi’s were here, but their not.

President Jerry Thompson asked, where are you in relationship to this property.

Mary Crum stated, the property to the left. We have the shed.

Carol Stradling stated, lot 11.

Mary Crum stated, their biggest concern was that the corner of where he wanted to come out is where they have swing. These two gentlemen were nice enough to come out and look at the property and they understand the concern of Lombardi’s. We are on the 4’ side and so it really doesn’t affect us. Since they are not able to be here tonight, I think definitely that they would not want 30’. They would probably accept the 26’ or 25’, but if he wants to try to get 30’ pushed in again I know they would not be happy with that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Thank you. Carol Stradling do you have anything?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at your drawing and it really isn’t to scale. It looks like the living room is going to be 15’ x 26’ and the garage portion of that is 25’.

Tom Fee stated, 25’ or 24’, I didn’t get an architect and say this is what I’m going to build. You asked me for a rough schedule and where the rooms. It was 30’ x 60, two bedrooms, a bathroom, living, hallway, and a garage.

Carol Stradling stated, that leaves you a total of 20’.

Tom Fee stated, 33’ from the back of the garage to the road.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not talking about the outside at this point. I’m looking at your drawing and if it is 60’ long and you’ve got 1 of those walls as 15’, the garage wall is 25’, that leaves you a total of 20’ to put in two bedrooms and a bath.

Tom Fee stated, no, it is 60’ long. The garage should register, most garages are 24’ x 24’.

Carol Stradling stated, when you submit paperwork we need to see what your plans are. So far you have given us a piece of paper and said it is not 24’, but it is 26’.

Tom Fee stated, okay 26’ let's leave it the way it is. I don’t mean the confusion and I don’t want, I didn’t know you were going to say okay, I was just trying to get the 60’, the bedrooms can be.

Carol Stradling stated, what you have given us is not realistic. I really don’t see that this document helps us lay things out because you’ve got a 15’ x 26’ living, a 24’ x 25’ garage and then you’ve got 20’ to get in two bedrooms and a bath.

Tom Fee stated, okay let's do it this way, let's take the garage out. I was just trying to give you a rough what I was going to put in the 30’ x 60’.

Carol Stradling stated, we need to know specifically what you are going to put in this space, that is what we are approving tonight. If you don’t need 24’ or if you don’t need 26’, I want you to look at what we need to make your property to work. Then we can say it is justified to come as close as you’ve got it.

Tom Fee stated, okay, do you want me to redraw it and spend a few minutes on it and do it correct.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it is going to be hard I think talking to the board.

Carol Stradling stated, I hear you saying lots of different things and we need to know what it is you are going to do because that is what we are going to approve. When you keep going back and forth and you will do whatever we want, we need to know what your plans are.

Tom Fee stated, okay the 26’x 60’, that is what we are here to approve. In that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, understand, just a second now. We hear you, but I don’t think that you are hearing Carol. I think the board will agree with what Carol is bringing up here. We just can’t accept a free handed sketch, not saying this won’t work, but it has got to be little bit more as she says to scale or a little bit more official. If we allow free handed sketches from everyone, this would be one mess.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know if it needs to go to an architect, but it needs to be to scale.

Tom Fee stated, okay. It was just a guestimate and I didn’t set and say what are we going to have two bedrooms, a bathroom and garage.

Carol Stradling stated, I would imagine that before you go to build you are going to want something not a rough estimate, you are going to want to know what you want to build.

Tom Fee stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, we need to know what you want to build.

Tom Fee stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, is that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we will get another view on this. Sir.

Butch Moody stated, I’m Butch Moody, I’m the one that made the application. What we would like to do in this case would like to table this and bring back at the next meeting a proper drawing so that it can be properly voted on. We will go ahead and take the drawing and have it done to scale. I think we need to table this.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I think that is a good idea and be more professionally done. I think that is a good idea.

Carol Stradling stated, I would feel a whole lot comfortable, I mean numbers don’t change, so if we could have something more.

Tom Fee stated, that is fine. When is the next meeting?

Director Weaver stated, I believe it is the 17th.

President Jerry Thompson stated, the 17th of February. Hold on a minute we might have something on this.

****

#2386 Edwin D. & Carri L. Augenstine; The property is located on 0.03 of an acre, more or less and .20 of an acre, more or less, North of Buffalo at 6682 E. Palmers Drive. Tabled from the December 16, 2004 meeting


Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 3’ height variance to allow for a second floor for a detached garage.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this request? Yes sir, do you have anything to add to the description?

Ed Augenstine stated, I’m Ed Augenstine.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, you have nothing to add. Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, well you might recognize the property, you did a setback variance back in August of last year.

Ed Augenstine stated, I would have like to incorporate both of those if I’d know about it.

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

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Jerry.

Director Weaver stated, I did send the board a copy of the permit that has been issued and the plans submitted at that time. The permit has been issued with a maximum height of 17’.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else have anything? David Stimmel? Dave Scott, or Gary Barbour? Carol Stradling do you have anything?

Carol Stradling stated, I think what we were concerned about at the time was whether there was really the footage that was indicated on the survey. So did you in fact have that.

Director Weaver stated, I have the picture you might want to see.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything Carol? Any other discussion?

David Scott asked, the house to the… Is there a house to the North?

Director Weaver stated, there is a house there, if you look at the pictures, the top one to the right is the neighbor’s house.

Ed Augenstine stated, he actually has two lots, he is the one I purchased part of his second lot from and got the garage and everything up there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, any fan mail from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are then anymore concerns? If not let's vote.

Carol Stradling asked, this is not living area?

Ed Augenstine stated, no.

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 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’ height variance to allow for a second floor for 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 North of Buffalo at 6682 E. Palmers Drive.




7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 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 5affirmative and 0negative.


****

#2393 Sandra Whitewing and Uttermohlen Properties LLC, Owners; Uttermohlen Properties LLC, Applicant; The property is located on 2 ½ acres off of the South end, and the West ½ of the


North ½ of Lot 14 in James C. Reynold’s Fourth Addition, in the City of Monticello at 215 S.


Beach Drive.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 20’ rear setback variance and a 103,127 sq. ft. space variance to build 35 units on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing this?

You have a look at our face is that not right.

David Uttermohlen stated, 103,127 sq. ft.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes 103,127 sq. ft.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is the size, that can not be right.

President Jerry Thompson stated, 103,127-sq. ft. variance.

David Uttermohlen stated, I’ve David Uttermohlen for the record. The total lot size is a total of 150,000-sq. ft., but can I offer a suggestion that subsequent to the area plan commission meeting we made some revisions in the plot plan, so I will pass that out.

Director Weaver stated, let's bring it up to speed first.

David Uttermohlen stated, oh all right.

Director Weaver stated, prior to the property that is owned by Sandra Whitewing, he just went to the APC last week and requested that, that be rezoned to from R-2 to R-3. It got a no recommendation from the APC and went to the city council for them to vote on the rezoning and was tabled at that meeting. That is what he is referring to, just to bring you up to date on that. The big part of the property is zoned R-3.

President Jerry Thompson stated, a no recommendation.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it was do you remember the vote.

Attorney Altman stated, I think it was 2 to 6.

David Uttermohlen stated, it was 5 to 3.

Charles Mellon stated, it was 3 to 5.

Director Weaver stated, if the majority doesn’t vote one way or the other then it gets a no recommendation.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so 5 to 3 not.

Director Weaver stated, no because it is a 10 member board.

David Uttermohlen stated, subsequent to the APC meeting there were several issues brought up by the APC members and issues that were brought up by some of the speakers, the public that spoke at that meeting. We have a revised plot plan, I have copies here. The difference to what you had received before and what you are receiving tonight. The entrance, which you had before, shows the house that was sectioned off with a 140’ lot. The one I passed out tonight shows that house removed. You will see the not and it shows the house removed. The one that we passed out before shows a curved drive that goes around that house and exits on to beach drive approximately 50’ or so from Woodlawn Street. On the new plan you will see that the drive is straight and in line with Woodlawn Street. The sidewalk for the project is now in line with Woodlawn Street. This solved a issue that was brought up in the APC meeting where it was mentioned that there really is no side walk on that side of the street, and unless you have a sidewalk lined up with a sidewalk, you are basically playing dodge traffic to get across. This plan shows a sidewalk lined up with a sidewalk on Woodlawn. Now Woodlawn School is directly across form this property. That would provide us an opportunity to put in a crosswalk and a pedestrian sign, so we will be assured that there is a safe place to cross. This plan also, one of the other differences is this plan I noticed this is dated today, the big difference between this plan and the plan that was submitted, is this shows a fire hydrant in the middle, which was left off the previous plan. Are there any questions on the plan?

President Jerry Thompson stated, well I guess not so must have missed the plan, but Diann do we need to go back to the description here or is that not important yet.

Director Weaver stated, I think we are still covered.

Attorney Altman asked, what do you mean the description?

President Jerry Thompson stated, well he acted like this 103,127 didn’t fit, I’m not sure where it come from. I’m not putting words in your mouth, but you gave me an express like…

David Uttermohlen stated, well the….

Attorney Altman stated, that is the way the application is submitted, 103,127-sq. ft. variance.

David Uttermohlen stated, well can I amend my application to substantially reduce the request for variance.

Attorney Altman stated, sure, do you have a number.

David Uttermohlen stated, 17,500.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the space variance that you are asking for.

David Uttermohlen stated, the space variance that I’m requesting.

Attorney Altman stated, that allows you to have the 35 units in.

David Uttermohlen stated, with approximately 4,518-sq. ft. per unit, so I’m asking for 4,500 sq. ft per unit.

Attorney Altman stated, or 17,500.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is 35 times 500 would be 17,500.

Attorney Altman stated, you certainly can amend it that way. Does everyone understand what the applicant is done?

Carol Stradling asked, has someone done the math to make sure this is right?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I’m trying to do it in my head.

Carol Stradling asked, is that what is required Diann?

David Uttermohlen stated, on the plan on the lower right hand corner is the dimensions of the lot and the number of units and the math for the results of sq. ft. per unit.

Attorney Altman stated, so you are asking 35 times 500.

David Uttermohlen stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.

David Uttermohlen stated, okay. In addition as a result of moving the house and straightening the house and straightening the drive we now have approximately a half an acre of setback. It will be about a 150’ setback from the road to the first building. There is a rather large ravine on that lot and no buildings are planned for the area in front of the ravine or North of the ravine. That will give a half an acre of open space as a buffer between the street and the apartments. That is the main difference between the one I gave before and the one you received tonight. There is one more, please forgive me there is one more difference. This shows 3 impound areas for drainage and that is on the recommendation of James Milligan who I’m sure you have seen his name many times. As a potential, as the likely spot for impound ponds on this property in order to meet the county drainage regulations. I have a letter from him that discusses the drainage issues for this lot and the drainage issues, just as a synopsis. The letter says the only, there is one lot that runs a risk that has any drainage issues. All of the other abutters are above grade. There would be no drainage on to their lots. There is one lot where a couple built a house on a natural watercourse. They built two dams, one dam to make a fish pond and the other dam to act as a retainer for the water from the ravine. That upper dam that retains the water is failing and it is my intention to avoid at all cost adding any water going on their property. I’m planning on adding a third impoundment area where that old dam was, it has failed so essentially so it really isn’t a dam anymore. Make sure that there is no additional water that goes on to their property. Okay.

David Scott asked, can I ask you a question here?

David Uttermohlen stated, sure.

David Scott stated, the drainage is this a natural drainage, you have a culvert under your proposed road. Is this natural drainage? It appears that.

David Uttermohlen stated, it is a deep ravine.

David Scott stated, it is a ravine. You are not because some of that ravine appears to be on the next lot. There is a church or something over there.

David Uttermohlen stated, yes a church.

David Scott asked, you are not going to change anything to that ravine? It is going to remain?

David Uttermohlen stated, it is going to stay a natural watercourse.

Carol Stradling asked, are you going to build a new dam?

David Uttermohlen stated, it is an impoundment area. In order to insure to replace the impoundment area the property owners to the East had previously built. They built according to the County Drainage Code, and according to State Law. You are not allowed to restrict the flow of water on a natural watercourse without a permit from the County Drainage Board. They built and in fact my father built that house for them some 20 years ago. That was when that whole thing happened. Their upper impoundment area is already failed, so they are getting water now running across their property. I’m merely offering to put an additional impound area to keep water off of their property. In the letter from Mr. Milligan, one of the suggestions is, should we not be able to engineer a dam of adequate size with adequate percolation so we are not threatening their property. I have asked the City of Monticello to increase their variance or easement that they had previously granted us for sewers to include a private drain, so we won’t have…. We will drain the two impounds in the center of the lot as you see marked near the building. Those two impound areas will drain around the property and dump in to the ravine further to the West closes to the water.

David Scott asked, do we need a drainage plan? He will have to get a drainage plan.

Director Weaver stated, he will have to go before the drainage board before he can construct.

David Scott stated, okay we can do our part before we have something from the drainage board.

Attorney Altman stated, you can, but you are not obliged too. We can indicate that it must meet with the specifications and approval of the drainage board. We can require that be done and bring it back to before we approve it here or some variation of that.

David Scott stated, I’m not opposed of this, I’m just asking questions because I don’t want to create problems for the church. By looking at this I can’t tell what is going to change.

David Uttermohlen stated, nothing, I have already talked to the church and they have already agreed since they are dumping their parking lot and their run off into that ravine, they have already agreed that basically whatever I can do to help solve the drainage problem. They are willing to go along with it. I have an agreement with the head of trustee head of the elders, unfortunately I didn’t bring it, I wasn’t going to discuss the drainage and that in great detail. Basically my point on the drainage is that I have a public commitment to Monticello City Council to make sure that our drainage plan will not cause the Vigus’s the property to the East any additional run off.

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

David Uttermohlen stated, I do have additional information. Can I just finish up my presentation and then I have additional information if you are interested? This should look familiar we have appeared before this board twice with a similar plan. The first time was for 25 units with an exit on to Main Street, along side the easement that is marked at the bottom of the plan. Down here where it says on the lower left-hand corner, existing ROW improved for emergency response. Previously we had secured some property to make it into a full 50’ wide, 50’ on the street type thing. The second time I was here we had an exit through the Better Corporation property, which is the office of Family and children services. That was again 50’ on the street. The City Council objected to that. They approved it unanimously, but the concerns that they have had with this has been that they don’t like Main Street, at that point is off at an angle. So in order to get off of Main Street and turn into the property, you be taking a real hard turn. They were concerned that people would slow down to much and get rear-ended. At their request I pursued acquiring an additional piece of property which is Sandra Whitewing's and have the exit be on Beach Drive. Now Beach Drive is a major thorough fair. It serves several neighborhoods down by the lake and it serves, it runs past Woodlawn School. It is a mixed neighborhood from a zoning standpoint. It has business, churches, schools, in home business, and residential areas. I felt that it was consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and the City discussed it and came so close to do the zoning. Just to clarify the legal situation of the zoning. That property is currently zoned R-2. I’m not going to ask you to read all of this. This is just for your information. If you would go to the second page under new business, it says consideration of rezoning request by Sandra Whitewing and Uttermohlen Properties LLC from R-2 to R-3. If you go down near the bottom of the page after, several council members expressed their views on this project and after extensive discussion it was decided that Mr. Uttermohlen would come back to the Council with a contingency commitment for the approval for the approval of the zoning. This is they said, we only want to grant the zoning if you are doing this project, we don’t want to permanently change the zoning. So where we are setting now is trying to figure out what is necessary to get a contingent zoning back to the City and that is why it was tabled. Now just to complete the packet, I have a letter from the City of Monticello Police saying that he sees no impact of this project on the police, same for the fire department. I have letter from the wastewater treatment plant saying that there is adequate sewage available. From the water works is the next one that says there is adequate water and we will run a line from St. Mary’s over to Beach Drive to provide a loop for the city. The next package or the letter is from the Mayor’s office where they state we do have an easement across their property to run a private sewer line. That is the one I would ask for drainage should we not be able to get adequate impound or storage on the property to avoid any drainage problems for the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are there any questions for Mr. Uttermohlen at this point? Is there any one here tonight who cares to address this variance either for or against?

Lisa Searcy stated, my name is Lisa Searcy and my husband and I own the property to the West of the property he is trying to rezone. We are against this for many, many reasons. I have been in front of all of the boards so far voicing our concerns. What I have here and I don’t know if you want it, but it is all of the abutters in the area. We are against it for several reasons. One is the traffic, drainage, the you know, he says it is for the elderly, but in the same side he says that a couple like myself could move in there as long as grandma was with me. You know we are afraid of a situation like the complex behind Krogers and being that close to the school that is an issue. I mean I really don’t want to stand here and go all in to that, I just wanted to make you aware that there are several, several people against this and the ravine starts on my property and we do have drainage issues. I mean the hole street floods down that way and in a heavy rain the neighbor to the West of me yet they flood and I flood, if any change is done to that ravine it is going to back up and it is going to come to us. That is another concern.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?

Bill Dibell stated, I’m Bill Dibell, I’m an adjoining property owner as well. I have a couple of questions that I need answered before I can proceed.

President Jerry Thompson asked, where are you at to relationship?

Bill Dibell stated, I’m the first two lots back where he is asking for the variance of the setback. The first two lots to the West, those labeled on your drawing 104.67’ and 102.75’. I previously lodged a complaint for consideration the last time he was here one of many. I have a question. How can you possibly proceed with a variance on a piece of property that hasn’t been properly zoned yet? I don’t see, isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? Can someone show me in writing where that is acceptable?

Carol Stradling stated, we’ve made it contingent before. We won’t do it without the rezoning, but we will grant it contingent upon the rezoning.

Bill Dibell stated, so in other words I can come in here and say I want to put a 115 apartments on my property and you would go all through this and if I never ask for a zoning and then it wouldn’t apply. Okay question 2 and I realize we are not addressing issues of drainage that this is not your boards thing, but the fact that you are granting a variance for the number of units does add to the amount of water that is going to be handled as run off and not be percolating into the ground. The issues that immediately come to mind is that currently that entire area is used to percolate the water, including the ravine. Any encumberment of that ravine means water backs up in there. It becomes a pond for a certain length of time until it goes down into the ground. That to me even though we are told that we have a letter from the Church, I think they probably doesn’t understand that could be a pond back there for significant amount of time. Additionally I question whether an impound area of a parking lot is acceptable as an area to store water while you wait for it to go down hill somewhere. Then on the issue of the spacing if we already have rules and regulations that specify what the best use of the land, why do we constantly come back and say well those are just recommendations, why don’t we do it this way. If he wants to build on this property with number of units that are acceptable, that is one thing, but he is constantly asking for more, and more and more. Additionally by his drawings this lot keeps growing and shrinking. On one drawing we have that was done by a certified engineer, we have a 150,000 –sq. ft., 158,000 square foot of land in the two pieces of property. On the one that was given to the zoning board he only shows 141,873 sq. ft., so it keeps changing constantly. My question is what is correct? What are we really asking for?

David Uttermohlen stated, can I address that?

President Jerry Thompson stated, just a second. Do you want him to address that right now.

Bill Dibell stated, whoever. I mean do the lots grow?

David Uttermohlen stated, as I noted the original plot plan had a house with a lot and the difference in the square footage is due to that part of the lot that was set aside for that house. Since that house no longer exists we do not have that set aside. Therefore the full 150,000 plus sq. ft are going to be used for this project.

Bill Dibell stated, well I’m not sure that answers my question because I thought the area requirements were based on the square footage of the lot not having to do with having the structures on them. One other last issues, there’s not one abutting property owner that is in favor of this project. I have yet to find one and I have talked to 80% of them, so there you be.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you. Okay just on second. Ma’am you spoke just a minute ago and you presented a list of signatures are you the only one present from that list.

Lisa Searcy stated, no Bill is here and Ruth McClintock is here and the Vigus’s wanted to be here but they are an elderly couple and they have been to the last several meetings. I went to see them tonight and Dwight seriously did not think he could handle it. He asked me to come on his behalf as well as Roger, Shirley Hintz and Mary Bushing across the street from the project also asked me to speak on their behalf. One other thing that was said was that Vigus’s property would be the only one affected on the East Side. That is not true, all of this drainage goes clear down to Blue Water and as is, there is every time it rains there is down by the lake the people who lives down there, it floods their rooms, it just, all of the water just rushes down there. There are other homes on that East Side that will deal with it. So there is just not one. Like Bill said I have been around the whole block, I’ve been talking to everyone and I can find one that is for it either.

Director Weaver stated, I will commit that the Vigus’s were at the APC meeting.

President Jerry Thompson stated, did you get any phone calls?

Director Weaver stated, no.

David Uttermohlen stated, having not seen that list.

Attorney Altman stated, he is looking at it now.

David Uttermohlen stated, let me correct her terminology, this is not a list of abutters

Attorney Altman stated, you can respond.

David Uttermohlen stated, the abutters on the list that have been sent to this committee and most of these people are not on this list. The Better Corporation is not on this list, the church is not on this list, the City is not on this list of the abutters who are affected by drainage. I’m talking about a natural watercourse that has been maintained by the city and there is only one and that is the Vigus's and I have a letter from a registered land survey who states that. Other incidental drainage problems due to the street, due to other sources of water are not relevant to this application. Mrs. Searcy has questioned whether this would increase a drainage problem for her property again. We are 75’ down a deep wide ravine with a county approved culvert that should more than handle the water that comes off of her property, the Better Corporation, the street and any other improvements that we are proposing to make that will be handled by the County Drainage Board and will be required to be adequate size and design to avoid being plugged up and causing any back up.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Mr. Dibell.

Bill Dibell stated, I have a request for Diann, could you get those pictures that we made as evidence at the APC and present them to this board before they vote on the issue. I took pictures of the so-called pond or dam that exists and the height difference and the Vigus's property, again Mr. Vigus becomes very distressed over this issue, is very substantial. Yes those are the pictures you might pass those around. That would be the most Western or Eastern point of that impoundment area and that is the most bottom point of that ravine.

David Scott stated, they want a contingent commitment for approved zoning. What exactly?

David Uttermohlen stated, that is a zoning, my understanding is that is a zoning change specifically for this property for this project. If this project is withdrawn then the zoning would revert to R-2. Mr. Altman can correct me if I’m wrong.

Director Weaver stated, I have spoken to Jay Clawson and what he told me, that there were 3 things that they were wanting to see with this commitment. One if the R-3 is approved for Uttermohlen and if the project does not go through then it would revert to the R-2. That the road would line up with the road that is existing beside the school, and that the front would be a green space where the home existed.

David Stimmel stated, the other variances have been passed already, what is the status of those now. Are they null and void because this is a totally different project or are they still in effect?

David Uttermohlen stated, are variances good for two years?

Director Weaver stated, well the…

David Stimmel stated, the only reason I’m asking is because of the fact that the plan has changed substantially since those variance were approved and in such we are showing a 6’ side setback.

Director Weaver stated, the last variance that was approved is still valid as long as it is done according to the plans.

Attorney Altman stated, correct, but this changes it so that the variance would be nothing.

Director Weaver stated, there access on the last request that this board saw was off of Main Street.

Attorney Altman stated, so when they change that they are not complying with that variance and the simplest thing would be to withdraw it, the practical of it is null and void.

David Stimmel stated, as the drawing exist as we have been given then the only variance is needed is for the 24’ rear setback and the 17,500’ space variance.

Director Weaver stated, I’m sorry.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Officer Lyons could we get you to close that door back there. Thank you.

David Stimmel stated, what I’m asking is given the drawing that we’ve received is the 24’ rear setback variance and the 17,500 space variance the only variances we need, that needs to be considered for this project.

Carol Stradling stated, so in other words those figures weren’t derived in addition to those variances. Those variances would no longer be appropriate and the 24’ rear setback is from the line and not a previously granted setback. I kind of had that question too.

David Stimmel stated, yes.

David Uttermohlen stated, my first understanding is that a variance is good for two years and if you don’t pull a permit in two years it expires.

Carol Stradling stated, you’ve got one from March of 2004.

Attorney Altman stated, it is still valid.

David Uttermohlen stated, I would stipulate that the plan that we submitted is the sole variance that we would be interested, so we are not looking for any setback from a previous setback variance or a variance off a previous variance. This in itself the only thing that we are seeking.

Director Weaver stated, the standard setbacks in an R-3 zoning are 32’ from the front road right-of-way and 30’ from the rear property line and 6’ off of the sides.

David Stimmel stated, okay that answers my question.

Attorney Altman stated, this plan he presented as it is situated where it is and the sidewalks and the streets and the parking and other implements and improvements as such. The dam and the culvert and that sort of thing have to be built where they show on this survey, this last survey that they submitted tonight. That is required that they.

David Scott stated, well what if they go to the drainage board and they want something different.

Attorney Altman stated, then he has to come back with a different request for a variance. Assuming they need another variance.

David Scott stated, I’m not comfortable voting on this without a drainage approval and city council approval.

Attorney Altman stated, then your remedy is to table it.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that they would be comfortable proceeding without our recommendation. I think someone needs to start with a contingency and it seems like the APC…. Mr. Uttermohlen how many units could you build in order not to need a variance?

If I’m doing the math correctly if you dropped off this 5-unit building here at the end you would no longer need this space variance nor would you need the space variance.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is probably correct, but these are low-income housing and given the added burden of buying that extra acre that would not be economical feasible. I’m asking for considerably less space variance than what was previous granted on this project. I was fairly confident that a with an addition of the open space and the reduction in the radio covered to uncovered surfaces that we would be acceptable to this board. If I drop those it would drop back to the existing on Main Street and allow the option on the property expire. I had to tear down a house that I was originally going to sell, so the economical is getting a little more marginally.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour do you have anything for Mr. Uttermohlen?

David Stimmel?

David Stimmel stated, I guess I have questions for the people that spoke and apologize that I don’t remember your names, but I would like to see on the drawing where you are located and where the people on the list are located.

Lisa Searcy stated, okay, I’m right here. (She is showing locations on the map to Dave Stimmel.) The Vigus's are right here.

David Stimmel stated, here the Vigus's are here.

Lisa Searcy stated, I don’t understand that one.

David Stimmel stated, this is just a bigger diagram.

Lisa Searcy stated, and Mary Bushing is across the street from him, then there is Perry Powers, he would be over here.

Bill Dibell stated, he is South of my property.

Lisa Searcy stated, I can go on, on, on. Roger & Shirley Hintz are over here, they are on the side of me, they have water issues as well. Again when the water, we get all of the run off from the road. There isn’t like a drain, so we get all of the run off in our yard, and we rely on that ravine big time. Bill Andre is across the street from me, Crosby’s are behind him. It is significantly around him. I have even gone down to Bluewater and talked, to some of the people there that get all of the run off.

David Stimmel stated, what I’m confused about is if the ravine dumps out and there is an existing dam basically failing.

Lisa Searcy stated, the existing dam doesn’t exist.

David Stimmel stated, right you can see it through the pictures that the existing dam doesn’t exist, I agree.

Lisa Searcy stated, Mr. Vigus explained at the last meeting that he basically dug it and blocked it with sticks. That is what it is.

David Stimmel stated, so the question is, what would be the new purpose of the dam. Is this something that will be required for drainage for water control? What is the purpose of the new dam?

David Uttermohlen stated, to prevent water from flowing from this project onto the Vigus's property. It is not, according to State law you can not obstruct a natural watercourse. In fact since they are backing water or did back water up on my property I could have asked, them to remove the dam. I’m not trying to get them to remove the dam, I’m not trying to get them to reduce the use of the land, I’m trying to protect them from any impact of this project. My surveyor has stated that all of the abutters that have been mentioned are in fact above the grade of the property so they are not going to get any additional run off, and while I leave the run off from the road could be an issue it is not relevant to this hearing because it exists now and it is not going to be increased at all. Water doesn’t flow up hill and like wise the culvert under any fill that is put in that ravine has to be approved by the County drainage board. I have not approached them as to whether they will pass a drainage plan for an unapproved property.

David Scott stated, I still don’t know what the dam does.

David Uttermohlen stated, you know it is optional. The purpose of the dam was simple to keep the run off that currently runs down that ravine whether we add another drop as a result of this project. There is currently water running down the ravine.

David Scott stated, so this would slow it down.

David Uttermohlen stated, it would impound it to a point, it is very sandy there and would hold it up long enough that it would be absorbed by the ground. If we, we are not going to put Hoover dam there, we are going to put a small retainment pond that will allow the water that comes down that ravine anyway from the street currently, from the Whitewing property, from the Church’s property currently. We will impound that, if we can take and meet the County Drainage Board requirements by having or picking up the two-impoundment areas here, and here. If we can’t then again I have requested the City and I have no doubt that they will grant it a private drain around their property. The only purpose for that dam is to keep the Vigus’s dry.

Carol Stradling stated, Mr. Uttermohlen, I believe that this corner is higher than this corner, so I know water flows down hill, but it would flow from this corner down to that.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct.

Carol Stradling stated, so if that water is already flowing from this corner down to the end area and this is paved, then that paved area would not have percolation that it originally had so that impoundment area that is currently there would increase in size because the flow is going to increase by the time it gets there. It is not percolated by the time it gets there.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct. The county drainage ordinance has very specific mathematics formulas that includes a lot of parentheses and a lot of square roots and stuff that I’m not going to try and explain. Basically the ordinance says that you can not allow a flow of water great than a two-year storm in as a result of any improvements.

Carol Stradling stated, not 100-year flood, but a two-year storm.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct, a two-year storm. So that you have to design your drainage system to impound sufficient water and that parking lot is an allowable impound. You can’t have it more than 7” inches deep. That parking lot is an allowable impound. That has to release, has to reduce the flow to the point that they, that ravine would not receive any more water than it would on the average of every two years. That is the County Drainage board. The method that they use to calculate it is, as water flows across the ground it gets absorbed. That will have approximately it is about 3 ½ acres, it will probably be about roughly 2 acres of that will still be open land. That will still be absorbing water. That will then will be considered a wash, and then only the remaining hard surfaces has to be impounded to the point that it does not flow any faster or at any higher rate than what it currently does every two years. I’m sorry if that is confusing.

Carol Stradling stated, it sounds to me as though he has made a commitment that if there is a drainage problem or drainage issue increased on your property that he will address it and that if there is currently a drainage problem that the County Drainage Board is not addressing and hasn’t really looked at it to make any amendments for, but when he submits his plans to the drainage board then they will then. I don’t know where they get their figures or how they get their figures, but it sounds like it may be a way for engineering to look at all of the factors. I’m not really familiar with and it may solve your problem.

Lisa Searcy stated, I understand that, but again.

Attorney Altman stated, if you are going to talk again you have to come to the mic.

Lisa Searcy stated, the drainage is just one issue, that is why I just come up and said I mean. Traffic is another issue, there are two churches, there is a school, a lawn and garden, you know. The parking at the school is already hazardous, I mean it is a high risk for those kids. I mean I live right across the street and it scares me to death. I mean it is an issue and to increase the traffic flow is another issue of all of the neighbors. That is one thing, and I don’t know if you have it or not, I do, the letter that Bill Andre presented to the last meeting. It addresses the traffic issue. I mean in the summer we have the public assesses and people fly. It is really, I don’t know, we have so many issues and I know that they all don’t concern you. I mean drainage is just one.

President Jerry Thompson stated, just a second, we need a little discussion here.

Carol Stradling asked, what are the issues we need to address at this point, there are a lot of issues that maybe need to be address else where. Square footage is one and the rear setback is another. Those are the two issues before us. Is that correct.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, the property to the South of this property is a cemetery? There are no homes there.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct, that is the city lot, if you look on your map. (he is currently showing Carol where the vacant lot and cemetery is located.) It is vacant and it is used for storage of sand, gravel, over burden from water repairs, pipes, they use to put the snowplows there. They don’t put them there, they have that nice new garage. It is land locked. There is no suitable access for improvement for development on that property. I have submitted the plot plans that you have received. Both plot plans have been given to the city and I have submitted them all to the department heads, all the city council members, the mayor’s office and none of them have had any issues with the 10’ setback or 24’ variance. If I might address traffic quickly. One of the things that came up in the APC meeting, Mrs. Searcy actually spoke at that meeting about the difficulty she had in getting her child safely to school. She reported that she had to stand and watch him as he jay walked across Beach Drive. That got me thinking about a group of elderly persons trying to accomplish the same feet but with canes, so I redesigned the project to remove the existing house and allow the sidewalk from the project to align with the sidewalk at Woodlawn. I suggested the city allow us to paint a cross walk and place pedestrians crossing signs there to a ford the tenants and that child a safe place to cross. In terms of the volume of traffic on Beach drive is a major through street. In terms of the speed of the traffic all of the traffic in front of that school that is caused by this project is either going to be coming from a dead stop at the driveway and accelerating away or coming to dead stop or close to a dead stop to turn into the driveway. If you would notice on that plan there is in fact a decelerating lane identified, so if anybody who is turning into that property will be further removed from the school. That is all I can do as far as traffic, everything else is up to the city.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay thank you. One more time Bill.

Bill Dibell stated, okay one more time. I have a question and a comment. The question is I just read in this piece of paper that there is only 2 ½ acres of land that we are discussing and a moment ago on the record you said that there were some 5 acres of land and that there would be 3 acres of percolated land left. I do not follow that map. If the whole project is only 2 1/2 acres and you cover an acre of it with asphalt and roof tops there is not 3 acres to percolate. Am I correct?

David Uttermohlen stated, I don’t know what you are looking at?

Bill Dibell stated, I’m looking at the legal description of the property involved.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is the 2 ½ acres which is the South half of lot 14 of JC Reynolds 4th Addition of the City of Monticello. We are including an additional 50,000 sq. ft of 1.150 acres that is currently owned by Sandra Whitewing and is described as the West of the North half of lot 14, so we now have an additional 50,000 sq. ft.

Bill Dibell stated, okay that property lies at an elevation higher than the 2 ½ acres. Is that correct?

David Uttermohlen stated, given the ravines, it is possibly yes.

Bill Dibell stated, okay therefore that piece of property can not add to the percolation other than the water there. Does not take care of the percolation of the rooftops and asphalt. That is not your issued, but I do have a comment to make. All of the objection to this projects whether they be traffic, whether they be drainage or whatever, they all are going to be augmented by you passing this variance. If you require him to stay within the given guidelines that the county has set for these types of projects, you in effect eliminate a portion of all of those things that the property owners are complaining about. If there is less units there will be less traffic. If there is less units there will be less pedestrians. If there are less units there will be less non-percolated drainage. So my question is if we have rules and regulations that govern the square footage requirements and the setback requirements of property already in existence, if you will follow those recommendations you will in part give the property owners the feelings that they are being listen to. If you grant the variance you are doing nothing but augmenting the problems that this particular project will create on its own.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is the board’s wishes? I personally think that we have spent a lot of time on drainage not that it is not important, but it is something that is out of hands. We do not vote on drainage. What are your thoughts? Carol? Do you have enough information to make a judgement? Do you want more information? Gary I will move onto you.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m ready to vote anytime everybody else is.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, Dave Scott? You mentioned earlier about tabling it.

David Scott stated, we don’t need to make it contingent on the drainage board that stands on its own.

Attorney Altman stated, you sure would. You want it contingent upon rezoning, being approved by the city council, drainage board approval, drainage and dam per appropriate engineering specifications and installed and built that way, handle all the areas of curbs, sidewalks, and that the apartments are restricted in usage by the age restrictions that you have talked about. The people who are in the apartments, have age restrictions as to who can be in there and you need to give us a copy of those restrictions.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Dave?

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Uttermohlen do you intend to build a project there no matter how we make it work, don’t you?

David Uttermohlen stated, I intend to build a project there because we own 2 ½ acres of land locked land in the city of Monticello that is going to waste. It is not merging for us, it has been developed before and it has been, the house that was on it burnt down, it has a fair amount of down town Monticello on it because when the tornado came, they dumped a lot of stuff on it. We figure to generate 31,500 a year is the best estimate Union Township Assessor for taxes for the City, it is a 3.5 million dollar project to provide jobs for the city and it will house approximately 200 plus seniors in the county. The are 83 in the city and over a 100 in the county who needs this kind of housing. That came from Mitchell Appraisals and that is a marketing survey company located in Indianapolis. I’m going to build there and if it isn’t with this, I was ready to abandon the project and people came to me and told me it is something that is really, really needed. It is something that is needed for the county. The people who live on the street may not like it, but I own my property, I think I should be given the right to build something that is within zoning requirements and benefits the citizens of Monticello. Even though unfortunately it may change the neighborhood. The answer is yes, if you deny this I will be back again. Whatever changes you need.

Carol Stradling stated, you could still build with the variance from last March.

David Uttermohlen stated, that is correct and all the issues that have been raised, like drainage, traffic and everything else will still exist. There is no difference with this project this proposal then the ones that you have previously approved. The only difference is we have more open space lower density and we are existing, instead of make a sharp turn off of Main Street, we have a straight in shot from Woodlawn Ave. Which by the way also services another Senior Complex on the corner of Fisher and Woodlawn, which is of similar size. It is 30 units, it is consistent with the area. I have not change much in the neighborhood.

??? (someone yelled this out from the back)asked, why not go with the variance you have?

Carol Stradling stated, he indicated because of the access off of Main Street.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Bill Dibell asked, can I ask a question?

President Jerry Thompson stated, no, just a second. I want to address the board here. Is there anything else Carol? Gary? Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, not right now.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel.

David Stimmel stated, I have heard enough.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay one last time Bill.

Bill Dibell stated, okay is it my understanding that if you don’t grant any of this, he still has the zoning that he got previous at the other meeting? The variances at the other meetings, but he has to build the project the way it was designed at that point? Is that correct? So if he can’t build the project that way, that is null and void, the size requirements and setbacks. Okay. So I understand. One last comment, at the previous board meeting I was told by the Board members that sometime this board votes for the lesser of the two evils. If you that tonight you will have him stick with the zoning as it is today with no variance or the other part of that evil is to grant the variance. That is just a thought.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay no other discussion let's vote.

David Scott stated, I would like to vote contingent on the City of Monticello zoning approval and the drainage board approval.

President Jerry Thompson asked, do we have a second to that motion?

Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it has been second.

Carol Stradling asked, say that again?

David Scott stated, I’m not sure I’m saying it right.

Carol Stradling stated, I would certainly like to give the approval or the option to approve it back to the City because they are affected in many was in addition to be a adjacent property owner. They looked at each one of these plans.

David Scott stated, they are ultimately to have the drainage, traffic problems and all of these things are addressing.

Carol Stradling stated, so contingent upon their approval of the project.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

David Uttermohlen stated, I have no problems with that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, is has been moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying “aye” and all opposed. Motion carried.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:


1. That the property will be properly zoned R-3, Multi-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 20’ rear setback variance and a 103,127-sq. ft. space variance to build 35 units on Two and One Half (2 ½) acres off of the South end of Lot Number Fourteen (14) in James C. Reynolds Fourth Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said lot; thence North on the West line thereof 327 ½ feet; thence East on a line parallel with the South line of said lot 332 ½ feet to the East line thereof; thence South on the East line of said lot, 327 ½ feet to the Southeast corner of said lot; thence West on the South line of said lot to the place of beginning.

ALSO, the West Half of the North Half of Lot number Fourteen (14) in James C. Reynold’s Fourth Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 215 S. Beach Drive.


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

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

****

Appeal #3 Sagamore Council of Boy Scouts of America, Inc., Owner; Clay Watson, Ranger,

Applicant; Appealing the decision of the Executive Director of the White County Area Plan Commission concerning the letter issued November 4, 2004 and the Director’s ruling that this building is not a principle structure.

President Jerry Thompson asked, you are representing the Boy Scouts?

Clay Watson stated, yes, I’m Clay Watson.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I thought so, but I just wanted to hear you say it. Do you have anything to add to what I have read?

Clay Watson stated, no I do not.

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

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann anything at this time?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol any questions?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess the way I look at it, I’m going to ask a lot of questions tonight, but before we get started my son is boy scout and we spend a lot of time at Camp Buffalo. I am in support of what you do, but at this time I’m setting at this table and I need to ask questions to make sure. I don’t know if you are anything like me, when you are dealing with a large project like this it is near and dear to your heart and it can be touchy.

Clay Watson asked, can I clear the air first on the newspaper article that was written today?

President Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t see it so it doesn’t matter to me, it is up to the board.

Carol Stradling stated, I haven’t seen the paper either so.

Director Weaver stated, asked, are you questioning the statement that was in there?

Clay Watson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that statement was not mine, it was misquoted. I was not happy about that one either.

President Jerry Thompson asked, how many members of the board are aware of it?

Carol Stradling stated, I have not read today’s paper, last week something was.

Director Weaver stated, it was an article in the paper about security. I will go on record and say I was misquoted in that article and the comment was not made.

Clay Watson stated, I asked Abby…

Attorney Altman stated, we need to go on to the matter.

Clay Watson stated, well I think this is very important and this is dealing with the creditability of the Boy Scout and.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Clay Watson stated, yes it really made it.

Abby Lietz stated, that is fine I’m not aware of the quote I guess I wrote the article.

Director Weaver stated, I’ll be more than glad to show it to you, but there needs to be a retraction, that was out of line.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you can deal with that later.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with Clay it sounded terrible.

Clay Watson stated, it deals with this committee.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I can’t hear it and no one here is aware of it, so let's move on.

What is done is done, let's go on.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess when we opposed this building as being a principle building for that site, I wonder what did you did with the site before without the building if this is principle to that site.

Clay Watson stated, okay if I’m not mistake there can be more than one principle building on a lot by definition.

Director Weaver stated, in some situations that is possible.

Clay Watson stated, does that answer your question.

Director Weaver stated, it does not clarify in our ordinance that there can only be one principle building, I will agree with that.

Clay Watson stated, the other issue is not only the variance it is being zoned as special exemption. To get my zoning height I need a special exemption. I am appealing that decision, why should I have to apply for a special exemption?

Carol Stradling asked, what would he be classified to not get a special exception to have a campground.

Director Weaver stated, in our ordinance a campground is required to have an A-1 zoning with a special exception.

Carol Stradling stated, no matter even if it was zoned something different, he would still have to request a special exception. No matter what it is zoned. Even if you change the zoning from an A-1 or I’m sorry.

Director Weaver stated, a campground is only allowed in an A-1, C-1, B-2 and B-3 and they all 4 require a special exception.

Clay Watson stated, why was it zoned special exception back in 1995 when zoning came in to Liberty Township, why is this….

Attorney Altman stated, because that is the way it was done.

Director Weaver stated, there were no new maps done at that time.

Clay Watson stated, why is it my problem to bring it up.

Attorney Altman stated, because you own it.

Clay Watson stated, can I finish my statement please. Why is it my problem to change my zoning when Sagamore Council has been there for 60 plus years and we have not changed our purpose or use in those 60 years? So why is it my problem to bring it up, it is your guy’s problem to change that zoning is where I feel like it is.

Director Weaver stated, the zoning itself is proper, but Jerry even on the zoning maps none of those no use on the zoning maps have a special exceptions brought in with a zoning map.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I believe that is correct.

David Scott asked, is there a cost to get a special exception?

Director Weaver stated, just like any other variance.

David Scott asked, what is that cost?

Director Weaver stated, $75.00 filing fee, sign deposit.

Clay Watson stated, a survey.

Director Weaver stated, and the cost of a survey.

David Scott stated, why don’t we just give him the special exception and since it is the Boy Scouts just waive the fee. Can we do that?

Carol Stradling stated, that is kind of shaky precedence.

Director Weaver stated, yes, you are setting precedence.

Carol Stradling stated, to waive the fee.

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t have the authority to waive the fee.

David Scott stated, what is the next thing on the agenda here.

Attorney Altman stated, it is a special exception.

Director Weaver stated, no it is a height variance.

Dave Dellinger stated, I’m Dave Dellinger, I’m a local attorney. I have practiced here for about 40 years and I have been on the Boy Scout board involved with the Boys Scouts for about 45 years. I’ve very familiar with this project, we are attempting to raise over 1,000,000 to invest in Camp Buffalo, thanks to this screwing around with the zoning our fund raising has been hurt substantially. We have had several large donors that have backed out of it. We own 265 acres out there. We’ve owned that 265 acres since 1944. We have a building that maybe at the maximum height of what you approve for this, but we are moving it back further in the woods. So it won’t be as visible from the road. What we would like to do is put a building back there which is larger than the one we currently have. We can store things up in the top of it for example canoes in the winter, we have several other things we would like to do with that building. Basically we are going to build the main clubhouse we have out there out of this building. We need to have a place where we can work year around. We missed this year’s construction season through the winter because we didn’t have this building to utilize. Had we had this building the volunteers that we have that do a lot of the work that we do. We have couple setting back here. We haven’t had the opportunity to work there through the winter. We got stopped at such a time when we just poured the cement to hold up the rafters that go on the inside. Then we were shut down. We are not law violators or anything of the sort. I think if this board would work with us and try to cooperate and let our volunteers who are going to carry this burden and do their work out there we will get this camp built. It is difficult to be turned down everytime you come to the County Board Meeting for anything. When we are trying to promote a community project such as this. We haven’t had very many projects of this size in White County and there aren’t very many organizations like the Sagamore Council. Sagamore Council consists of 14 Counties. All 14 of those counties currently are interested in approving this project out here at Buffalo. The problem we have and when I say we I mean we White County Boy Scouters is we could very well loose this project because the other 12 or 13 counties just as well prefer to have this project located in their county. So we are kind of fighting here for our existence in order to have this project constructed in this county. Sorry to take your time.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you.

David Scott stated, so they still need a special exception to build in this area? The special exception is not on the agenda to night.

Director Weaver stated, the special exception is not on the agenda.

David Scott asked, does that have to be advertised?

Director Weaver stated, they have not filed that request as of yet. I told them I didn’t feel it was necessary before this building was constructed since it was for storage and warehouse use. They are proposing to do a dining hall and I told them that it had to be done prior to issuing a permit for the dining hall.

Attorney Altman stated, Dave the only thing I can tell you is we told them when they meet with us in October or maybe earlier than that, that this is what we thought the ordinance required and that all they needed to do is file and get their special exception and what ever they needed. We quite frankly tried to cooperate and help them along, but requiring them to do what the ordinance states. It isn’t trying to stop them, we tried to help them, but I know that you know that they appeared at least 3 or 4 meetings and essentially we have said the same thing. You need this and please do that. I think we would cooperate as a board and what have you. It just hasn’t been us stonewalling or trying to stop anybody. I think the ordinance requires a special exception for this anywhere in White County. We would be happy to entertain an application for that. It has not been filed and we can’t give something that the ordinance doesn’t allow.

John Heimlich stated, John Heimlich. Mr. Watson has talked to the Commissioners on a couple of occasions about this situation and I have discussed it with Diann on a couple of occasions. I’m certainly not here to tell you people how to do you job or what your proper action is in this case. The one thing with a campground and I realize the definition in the book is just campground, this is different. This not a public campground, in other words, I just can’t go up there and camp, it is for Boy Scout. It is different then the other campgrounds in the area. Whether you can waive the fee or not I don’t know, in talking with Mr. Watson before the major cost that he was going to incur was the survey. That is what I wonder if we couldn’t you know grant him some slack in that area. I know with the drainage board and our ordinance if we’ve got a out in there that we can grant a waiver from the ordinance if for instant, if a farmer is building a tool shed out in the middle of a 160- acres field that is all his ground. It obviously not affecting anybody else, and this is kind of the way I see this situation with this situation in the height variance. I mean it is a building that is 1000’ from the property line. You know there is no body around that this is going to affect. Maybe it is just a matter of miss communication along the line, but I would hope that we could make some accommodation with the requirement on the survey. The detail anyway that so he is not paying $500 or $600 survey that really isn’t necessary in this case.

Attorney Altman stated, I can tell you there that Mr. Dellinger's son talked to me about the survey. About this issue and the survey and I was under the understanding that Dow said that they had something that would be similar enough to qualify for a survey. I fully expected this had been about two months ago that I talked to Dow saying, and I thought we would have our application for special exception and we would have passed it no later than December. I’m surprised after talking to Dow that this hasn’t happened. I thought Dow indicated that there was sometime use area that would qualify for survey and an inventory of the area. Quite frankly Mr. Heimlich I thought this would have been done a long time ago.

John Heimlich stated, well may be it was miscommunication.

Attorney Altman stated, maybe Dow didn’t know what they had in the way of resources. I understood that was in existence and usable. Sounded like something you said that it might not quite be a survey, survey, but would be something that would qualify as a survey and get this down the road.

David Scott asked, can we classify this other than a campground? It is not.

Carol Stradling asked, why do we need to do that?

Clay Watson asked, can I try to get some stuff?

President Jerry Thompson stated, hold on, we have a discussion with the board right now.

Carol Stradling asked, why do we need to call it something other than a campground?

David Scott stated, because a campground needs to be a special exception and needs advertised.

Clay Watson stated, I can give you that answer.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, what do you want to call it?

Clay Watson stated, we can call it a park. Did you guys read my letter that...

Carol Stradling stated, I did.

Clay Watson stated, it addresses the special exception.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think you went into detail on why you would call it a park.

Clay Watson stated, we have quite a bit of usage out there, we do have over night usage, but we do have a lot of day usage. I would say it is about 50 – 50. We have a community swim program, we have cub scouts come out during the day, we have school classes come out during the day. We have the sheriff department, Monticello Police use it during the day. A park is day usage and if you look in your zoning ordinance.

Carol Stradling asked, so are you saying that no one is there during the night?

Clay Watson stated, no, I’m saying 50 – 50 we have over night campers and day usage people who just come out for the day. It is not a paid public campground. If you look in the zoning ordinance a park…

Carol Stradling stated, it is not a public park either.

Clay Watson stated, no, I’m not saying public park, I’m saying park.

Carol Stradling stated, is there a definition of a park in our zoning ordinance that could grant him any leniency on what he wants?

Clay Watson stated, no there isn’t.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know if there is.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t see where classifying it as a park would be your advantage and I don’t see it as a park. We can discuss that if I could see where that would be to your advantage to classify it to a park.

Attorney Altman stated, it is not defined in here.

Carol Stradling stated, so there would be no advantage to it being a public park.

Clay Watson asked, what advantage is it to be a campground?

Carol Stradling stated, well because.

Clay Watson stated, why, why…

Carol Stradling stated, Mr. Watson because then we would be arguing semantics. All we have here is two issues before us. One is the appeal and two is the height variance. It could be very simply for us to deal with both issues without addressing whether it is a park or a campground. What I’m feeling right now is that we have been accused of delaying your project when this is the first time it has come before the board. This is a very simple issue for me to address both of those without being accused of delaying the process and causing your project delays. I see a building permit that was requested October 4, 2004 and I see I letter of denial on November 4, 2004, and this is the first that and at the last meeting you approached us to try to side skirt all of that process. It is very simple, you come and you request a variance. It is a height variance no matter if it is defined as a park we could change that, I don’t see that it would do you any good. We can call it a campground, vote on a height variance and be done with this without changing what you are calling it.

Joe Shidler stated, I think that is fine, I think that is fine.

Clay Watson stated, wait.

Carol Stradling stated, all you want is a height variance let's address the matters of that without addressing what you are called and your zoning because we can’t change the zoning.

Joe Shidler stated, I’m Joe Shidler and I’m a member of the properties committee at Camp Buffalo and I don’t see a problem with this. It sounds pretty simple with what the Commissioners have said and it sounds pretty simple. Please excuse us for coming before you and for you taking this the wrong way. Let's just get the ball moving. Does that sound good.

David Scott asked, what about the special exception?

Carol Stradling stated, that is not even before us, they haven’t applied for that.

Joe Shidler stated, it is my understanding that we just need to apply for that.

David Scott stated, they can get the permits and everything that they need and everything without that special exception.

Director Weaver stated, they can for this structure. My opinion is they can not when they get ready to do the dining hall. I feel that they need the special exception prior to doing the dining hall.

Joe Shidler stated, that is fine can we go ahead and get this one since this is the one that we are worried about.

Director Weaver stated, I have not had a problem with that at all.

Joe Shidler stated, please forgive us for. We want to stay on good communications with White County. The camp has a lot of good for the community and can help us, we’ve got a lot of good volunteers from this community and other communities. We want to work hand and glove with this committee and the rest of White County. Thank you.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to step back and address the survey. Mr. Watson did present to us off of the GIS a map and when working on is file I pulled the building permit file and I sent copies of his plans to the board tonight because I felt that there is a site plan on those plans that is actually better than what Mr. Watson presented for his request. It might satisfy what the board wants.

Attorney Altman stated, this is what Dow indicated that they had to take care of this. I’m amazed it wasn’t filed a month or two ago.

Carol Stradling stated, the date on this is 8/25/04. How high do you want to build this building Mr. Watson?

Clay Watson stated, 23’.

Carol Stradling asked, there are no additional structures or anything?

David Dellinger stated, it is in the middle of the woods, the middle of 265 acres.

Several are talking at once.

Clay Watson stated, I don’t think you are even on, I mean we haven’t even finished one topic yet. You are starting your other.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we are backing up here, just a minute. Diann ask Jerry what you just asked me, I think we do.

Director Weaver asked, don’t we need to vote on the appeal before we move on?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, let me ask you this. Even if it isn’t a principal building, we can vote on the height variance and get it passed. So the appeal becomes irrelevant if we pass the height variance.

Director Weaver stated, that is exactly why it is on the agenda before the variance because if you agree with his appeal there is no reason to do the variance. That is why the agenda is done the way it is.

Carol Stradling stated, I see. So we are setting in a position to determine semantics as to whether or not this structure is a primary/principle when actually… Was there a fee for the appeal?

Director Weaver stated, no, on our schedule we do not have a fee set up.

Carol Stradling stated, but there is a fee for the variance?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so in other words if we approve the appeal and we determine against your decision then that would make the variance not necessary.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so you care to vote on the appeal now?

Carol Stradling asked, do you see what I’m saying Dave? If we go with Mr. Watson and approve the appeal then he doesn’t need to pay the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, he already has.

Director Weaver stated, the variance fees have already been paid, and it is not common practice to refund once something has been filed.

David Scott asked, if we deny his appeal then we go ahead and vote on the variance?

Director Weaver stated, that is right.

David Scott asked, there is no monetary difference either way?

Director Weaver stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, I was trying to determine if there was a monetary difference if we went with one over the other.

Attorney Altman stated, one thing I can tell you is that is a very poor zoning to consider it that way.

Carol Stradling stated, I would agree.

David Scott asked, we need to deny the appeal?

Attorney Altman stated, you need to vote on all of the merits of all of these matters, whether something is or isn’t.

David Stimmel stated, in sense that it is a principle building, that is the issue, to me in a campground and I use that term very loosely. But not in a campground, but in a Boy Scout camp. There can be in my opinion many principle buildings because of the different uses of the camp. The dining hall might be one, the rangers quarter might be one and this pole barn might be one. There might be a half of dozen that are principle to this activities to the particular facility. That is probably the way if it comes to a vote. That is probably the way I would vote.

Clay Watson stated, can I, everyone has been side skirting me and I need to state my principle here. I’m a Boy Scout and I teach Boy Scouts, I’m a Boy Scout leader and I teach Boy Scouts principles and they way the government works, and that I why I’m here today to stand to my principle how government works. I could be like everyone else and pay my fine, pay my things and go on with this situation. Not express my what my concerns are. Where I think things should go. I’m representing an organization that teaches youth how the government works and I want to set a precedence and I want to show the youth in this community that the government does work for the people. That is what I’m trying to do, if you guys do this to make things, to make yourself look good I don’t know where you guys are going. It is really frustrating to me, I tried to resolve this several different times and I came to you a couple of times to resolve this and you would not listen to me and it wasn’t discussed contrary to what Mr. Altman said.

David Scott stated, wait Diann, and this board and everyone else has to go by some set of rules and that is what she has done and what we are trying to do by following this book. Now we may or may not like what is in it, but basically we are following the rules.

Clay Watson stated, I understand that.

David Scott stated, what we are doing here right now is working this out, so that you can continue with what you want to do. I’m sorry that it has cost you some time, but we can’t go back and make that time up. It sounds like the board is going to let you have what you want.

Terry Beasy stated, my name is Terry Beasy, and I teach several of the troops at Camp Buffalo and do a lot of volunteer work and we just want to say that the principle use of this building is to support the activities on camp. It is to store equipment that is used in the wildlife and tree preserves, it is to perform maintenance on the mowing equipment that maintains the camp. It is also has a sideline limited use of some of the storage of materials that are currently in camp but the growth of scouting and the growth of Camp Buffalo have made it necessary to create the second principle building for those uses. Would also like a little bit of clarification one of the major hurdles that the scout camp has setting before it, it is the cost of the survey to do the variance for a campground. Because of the wording in the application for a variance if it should come back to this board. It indicates that you have to have a professional PE stamped survey, it also indicates that all buildings on the premises must be on that survey. If I’m understanding the board correctly I understand a survey of that magnitude might cost as much as $3500 because of the raw size of Camp Buffalo. Would an aerial photograph of Camp Buffalo that shows the whole acreage in addition to the map that you currently have suffice as that survey with the building on it to be viewed by the board as something that they could vote on.

David Scott stated, I think what you have now is sufficient.

Terry Beasy stated, so what we are really talking about this evening we are trying to decide if this is a principle use building that is the crutch of the matter that stands before the board. That fits within the definition of the supporting the principle use of the camp and I believe it does qualify as a principle structure.

Carol Stradling asked, have you seen this Mr. Beasy?

Terry Beasy stated, no I have not seen the existing site plan. The biggest problem that we felt in conversations was the fact that it doesn’t show distances from buildings to property lines. It states right in the application that you have to identify all of the structures on there so it was the sentiment of the Camp Steering Committee, and conversations with Clay that this would not likely fit the goal of the request statement of a property survey because it doesn’t identify property corners. It doesn’t identify parcel location, so we had questions as to whether or not the board would look at that as a viable map or if you would want to see something. There is no PE stamp, which is a requirement for a land surveyor stamp. If the board will accept this as a drawing that can be used for that, that is fantastic. It is a end run to the $3500 survey cost that the Scout Camp would have to bare. To correct a 60-year-old zoning issue or special use exception. The point that Clay was coming to was the fact that when it was zoned, when zoning was adopted it was as it is today. It was a scout camp so if the zoning was adopted A-1 Diann which is concurrent with what it is why wasn’t the special use exception automatically applied to that since it was existing. The sentiment is that the requirement of the survey and the cost structure it puts a burden on the Boy Scouts that should have been a burden placed on whoever adopted the zoning. However, if this drawing can be used by the board then that kind of puts an end of a run on the survey cost.

David Scott stated, my opinion is where the buildings are that you are wanting to do, where they are at now they aren’t close to property lines. As far as I’m concerned it is sufficient and if you come back to build something close to a property line I would recommend a survey.

Terry Beasy stated, one of the things that the camp and the steering committee is not wanting to jump into is we all understand that we are dealing with a specific building right now. There has been several references to other buildings. There is a dining facility that is needed at Camp Buffalo because we have exceeded the current size of our current dining facility. That will be built in proximity of a county road for the ease of delivery of the food and stuff. It is not typical of Camp Buffalo for Clay or the steering committee to build anything that is on a property line and would infringe any of the neighbors or on a road that would endanger scouts. It is common sense approach. I would love to see the board to understand that the new dining hall will be closer to Boy Scout Road than, which is still in the center of the property, but next to a road right-of-way.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I want to say something briefly and I’m not here to stir up something new. But Mr. Watson I didn’t appreciate you saying or referring to the fact making us look good. All of the board members here are appointed, we are not elected and we don’t go and ask for these positions. There are 4 good board members sitting here and they put a lot of time and they try to make good solid decisions for the people of White County. I’ve been on the board longer than anybody, and as a matter of fact too long. I need to get off, they all know that. I don’t know that I have ever seen anybody set up here and try to make themselves look good and I didn’t appreciate it. Let's move on.

Carol Stradling stated, there have been times when we have had to consider variance issues without a survey, when that has not been the appropriate thing to do.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is right.

Carol Stradling stated, there are lawsuits involved with that. I think for us to set here and say because you are Boy Scouts we can waive things, and make things happen without going through the proper steps or ignore the guidelines that the county has voted in place would not be the proper thing for us to do. We are grateful that you came to us before this meeting tonight so that we can final deal with the issue. We were not ever in a position where we…This board could not vote on anything that you talked about until tonight.

President Jerry Thompson stated, that is right.

Carol Stradling stated, there was no way that we could make any decision before you came before us tonight. I’m sorry that your project was delayed, but I’m glad to see you here tonight so that we could finally address the issues. I think with the size of the property and with the representation being to scale and the one we looked at earlier his plan was obviously not to scale. We have positions.

Several answered there is a scale on there.

Carol Stradling stated, it is as a representation to be to scale.

Terry Beasy stated, the footage is all, the exterior is the actual footage.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it exceeds the one we had in front of us 10 times.

Carol Stradling stated, okay we have the appeal before us, so if we need to address that I need further clarification on what is principle building. In a farm situation is a new barn or if they have a new barn is it also considered principle building.

Director Weaver stated, a barn is not considered a principle building. A barn is considered an accessory building. Even on a farm.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what do you have Jerry?

Clay Watson stated, right here on your White County Zoning Ordinance, accessory buildings in A-1 do not include farm related structures such as silos, barns, etcetera.

Director Weaver asked, where are you talking about?

Clay Watson stated, in your zoning book, in the standards.

Director Weaver stated, that is talking about the setback requirements.

Clay Watson stated, no, it is stated right here the height. The height.

Terry Beasy stated, they are looking for the definition of a principal building.

Clay Watson stated I can give that to her to.

Director Weaver stated, but that…

Clay Watson stated, she chose that one for the barn and it states that directly right there.

Director Weaver stated, that doesn’t mean that it is not an accessory building.

Clay Watson stated, right here is the definition of a principle building.

Carol Stradling stated, I will read this out loud. A principle building a non-essential building in which is conducted the principle use of the lot on which it is located.

Director Weaver stated, okay you need to read the definition of an accessory building.

Carol Stradling stated, an accessory building or use is a subordinate building located on the same lot with the main building or a subordinate use of land. Either is of which is incidental to the main building or the principle use of the land. An accessory building or use includes, but is not limited to: a children’s playhouse, garden house, private green house, That would be an accessory building. A garage, a shed, yard barn or building for domestic storage, incinerators, storage of merchandise normally carried in stock on the same lot of any retail service of business use, unless that storage is prohibited by district regulations. That is the definition of an accessory building.

Director Weaver stated, okay the application that was made for this structure was made, the proposed use was for a warehouse and a shop. The State release is for a B occupancy, which I can not tell you what the B occupancy is, and an S-2 and my understanding from Dave Anderson is the S stands for storage. That is what I based my decision on.

David Stimmel asked, can I ask you a question? What if I look at this plot on the drawing, which of those buildings would be the principal building?

Carol Stradling stated, I would say the large dining hall.

Director Weaver stated, I would say a dining hall.

David Stimmel asked, why would it not be the ranger’s house?

Director Weaver stated, the Ranger’s house would also be the primary.

Clay Watson stated, why not my warehouse.

David Stimmel stated, precisely.

Director Weaver stated, a warehouse is normally for storage.

Carol Stradling stated, I would think a warehouse would be a principal building on a merchandise.

Director Weaver stated, in an industrial.

David Stimmel stated, functions of the.

???(someone from the back of the room stated this) stated, he works in there everyday.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess what I’m hearing what Diann said is, that was not what he put on the building permit.

Director Weaver stated, on the application, and that is where the confusion has come in. That is not the way it was submitted.

Clay Watson stated, if you would look at the plans, it labels the rooms in plans. One room is a shop, one room is a bay, one room is vehicle storage, and one room is storage of materials to maintain the camp.

Director Weaver stated, storage is an accessory use. Vehicle storage is an accessory use, a garage for a residential structure is an accessory building.

Carol Stradling stated, when you described more coming before us what the use of the building for it becomes more apparent how it will be used.

Joe Shidler stated, which is a…

Carol Stradling stated, but Diann received a building permit dated October 21 proposed use, warehouse and shop. For a Boy Scout camp when you are serving boys and children a warehouse/shop in my mind is not.

Joe Shidler asked, can we change that tonight, is that possible to amend that?

Carol Stradling asked, do we even need to?

Terry Beasy stated, or vote it as is.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think we need to if you make a decision if it is primary structure or an accessory structure. You make that decision and that is on. The application was denied anyway.

Carol Stradling stated, I think Diann gave it justification for why she gave the decision that she did. I guess you would have to look at the appeal, are we ready to vote on that. Is that a valid vote we need to fill out.

Attorney Altman stated not necessarily. I would suggest that the appeal is either denied or granted. You can do that by hand vote or oral vote.

Carol Stradling asked, part of the process with the appeal is that presents more information, which is what they’ve done. I understand what Diann based her decision on, but now after hearing the information for the appeal.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to go with what was submitted in the record at the time and then deny it.

David Stimmel stated, I would make a motion that we accept the appeal or grant the appeal and consider the building in question as a principle building.

Carol Stradling stated, in fact of the introduction of new evidence.

David Stimmel stated, that is correct and that is my motion.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay do we have a second?

David Scott stated, I will second that.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay it has been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? Do you have that down Diann?

Carol Stradling stated, I want to make it clear that it has been accepted because of the addition of the information.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes. All in favor and all opposed? Motion was carried by a 4 to 1 vote.

Joe Shidler stated, we really appreciate this.

Carol Stradling stated, now the variance. You brought the two issues before us, first we dealt with the appeal and now we need to deal with the variance.

Director Weaver stated, no, since you found that this was a principle building he no longer needs the variance.

David Scott stated, now did you say, do they need to in order to do the cafeteria, do they need to have a special exception.

Joe Shidler stated, so do we just need to see Diann and get the paperwork, I’ll take care of that.

Terry Beasy stated, so one last clarification. The board will then accept that as the plot plan and survey is that where we are headed?

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Terry Beasy stated, fantastic, we appreciate that.

Carol Stradling stated, it is to scale and you are certifying it to scale, and we can do that. Can we do that Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that is exactly what Dow Dellinger said he was going to do 2 months ago. They never did.

****

#2394 Sagamore Council of Boy Scouts of America, Inc., Owner; Clay Watson, Ranger, Applicant; The property is located on 40 acres and 78 acres, more less, Northeast of Buffalo at 9400 N. Boy Scout Road.


Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 6’ height variance for a pole barn constructed building on the Boy Scout Camp.

President Jerry Thompson stated, variance #2394 has been with drawn.

****

#2395 Farmers State Bank of Brookston, Owner; Zimpfer Development Corp, Applicant; The property is located on 88’ off of the East end of Lot 8 in Hay’s Addition, in the Town of Brookston at 300 W. 4th Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a special exception for off premise parking.

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

Doug Zimpfer stated, good evening, Doug Zimpfer and I would just be here any questions that you might have.

President Jerry Thompson stated, all right. Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, yes, in the ordinance it states that parking lots have to be in a B-2 zoning. This property was zoned R-2, so he did request the property be rezoned, and it did go to the APC and was approved and has went on down to the Brookston Town Council. I’ve gotten a copy of their ordinance back and have supplied you with a copy of that. They have agreed to grant the rezoning pending that drainage is address and a hard surface is installed, so he will have to take care of those two things as a part of the rezoning.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are you aware of that?

Doug Zimpfer stated, we are aware of that and we are working with Mr. Sterrett and an engineer.

Director Weaver stated, the ordinance also states that since this parking is off premise from the structure that it does have to have a special exception.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance either for or against? Dave Stimmel any questions? Dave Scott, Gary Barbour, Carol?

All members stated, no.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a special exception for off premise parking on Eighty-eight (88) feet off of the East end of Lot Number Eight (8) in Hay’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 300 W. 4th Street.


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

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


****

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

Director Weaver stated, just that I supplied the board with a copy of an amendment that was proposed at the last APC meeting. It will be advertised for approval. I just thought you would like to look it over.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I do not have anything.

President Jerry Thompson stated, the next meeting is the 17th.

John Heimlich stated, first of all I hope you don’t misunderstand where I was coming from. Some people get the heat of the moment and they don’t realize what they are getting for what they came for. Jerry your comments were entirely appropriate. The overhauling of the Zoning ordinance Cynthia Bowen from HNTB is suppose to call me tomorrow and give me a list of dates for that first meeting. I would like to ask tonight for anyone here who wishes to be on that steering committee, we are going to have the steering committee will be from 30 to 35 people. They will be meeting monthly with her and maybe someone else from HNTB as we go through the process. Anyone from this board or the APC board that wishes to be on that committee please let me know. I need to get that finalized within the next week. If you have any questions about what is involved in this, you can ask me afterwards. I certainly want to give everyone here the opportunity to be a part of that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, how many again?

John Heimlich stated, around 30 to 35, she said not anymore 35 and that is going to include we want to get representation from all over the county. We want certain groups we would like to have a couple of developers on there. Maybe somebody from Farm Bureau and the Pork Producers, different groups like that, so you can get to 30 to 35 pretty quick. I do want to make sure that anyone from the two boards be on this.

Attorney Altman stated, I would like to be on the board and help out.

David Stimmel stated, I would like to be on the committee also.

John Heimlich stated, well just let me know. I know that first day she is going to be meeting with the staff and the steering committee. That will be a full day when she comes up.

David Scott asked, will they let people set in and not be on the committee, I’m not sure I’ve been involved enough to be on the committee. There are some issues around our town that I would like addressed.

John Heimlich stated, I don’t think any of us have set on a steering committee before, so I think you are qualified as I am.

There will be public meetings, we will have one here in Monticello, Fairgrounds, and one in Wolcott. We plan on having 3 public meetings.

Carol Stradling stated, so these meetings will be taking place over the next 6 months.

John Heimlich stated, probably the next year to year and half. Hopefully one of the things we want to do was brought out tonight. Liberty Township and I know there are some areas to that have things are grandfathered and obviously aren’t in compliance and the code and something like this comes up, why all of a sudden I have to rezone. That is one thing I didn’t bring that up when he was here was about the fees. I would have assumed if we took care of all of this as a part of the zoning that will be done without a fee.

Carol Stradling stated, something if there is a property, or a use that should have a special exception to grandfather that in even when they are expanding the use, I think that needs to get addressed by the board. I don’t think you can grandfather everything just because it is there.

John Heimlich stated, that was basically what was done 10 years ago. Basically that was what was done.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think that it is appropriate.

Attorney Altman stated, it was 10 years ago.

John Heimlich stated, everything was brought in, even though the proper zone, special exception or whatever…

Attorney Altman stated, the maps probably went back to 1972.

Director Weaver stated, this is true. That was the biggest down fall. There were no new maps done at the time that liberty township was brought in. They reverted back to what was done in 1972 when Area Plan started.

Attorney Altman stated, that was the problem. It went all they way back to 1972.

Director Weaver stated, that has caused a lot of problems.

John Heimlich stated, hopefully we can during this process address that to where all of those properties are brought into compliance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else? Everyone knows Steve.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary


Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission