Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, Carol Stradling, and Jerry Thompson. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.


Visitors attending were: Joe Bumbleburg, Constance Bumbleburg, Al DeLaunay, Greg Budd, Ron & Diane Busler, Brian & Sandy Kearney, Scott Lee, Bill Pyle, Don Pauken, Don Wright, Jay Clawson, William S. Gatewood, Kevin Jasinski, Terry Beasy, Nan Lyons, Noel F. Lyons (Deputy Sheriff), Bob and Marge Welsh, Georgia Day, William ???, Tom Spackman, Essy Williams, Don Williams, Dow Dellinger, Jeff VanWeelden, ???, Leae Williams, Tammy Chiafos. Jim Wooten was also in attendance but did not sign in.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken.

President Thompson stated, this leads into the next part of the meeting. We have minutes from the April 28th meeting and the May 19th meeting of this year and to the Board members, do you…

Carol Stradling stated, I would like to make a motion that we table this until we have more board members…

President Thompson stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, to read the minutes.

President Thompson stated, we can do that.

Carol Stradling stated, okay I haven’t had a chance to read the minutes and we’re missing a couple members

President Thompson stated, yes we are…

Carol Stradling stated, and I don’t know if they are coming.

President Thompson stated, yes we are, we’re two short, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, if we could, that’s my motion.



President Thompson asked, second to that?

Gary Barbour stated, second.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded that we table addressing the April 28th and the May 19th meeting until hopefully next meeting and that is July….

Director Weaver stated, 28…

President Thompson stated, 28th, thank you. I had better write that down, I might have to say that again tonight. Once again, microphone, address yourself when you come to the microphone, give your name. This helps the staff in the office tremendously just like even though we tabled them this is one, this is one set of minutes, one meetings minutes, another one. Like I say every word that is said in the room will be put on paper and it helps the ladies in the office tremendously if you will at least give your name when you address the Board tonight. Also those of you that have applied for variances you do have a few options available to you and I will call upon our Attorney Mr. Altman to explain those to you if you would.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much. First thing, please do like I do and turn the cell phone off right now. We deduct a couple votes if we hear the phone go off. Now that’s a joke but we don’t like it very much if we do that because it’s just, very distracting. Second thing, would everyone remove hat, indoors please. This is a Board of 5 persons this evening we have 3 here to have any matter adopted you need 3 votes. You do the arithmetic. Any person asking for a variance has a right to table your request if you wish to do so up to 2 times. You do the arithmetic so if you haven’t done that you would come in and request tonight to do that. The Board may table your request they often times do so they want to go look at it, they want to get more evidence, they want to think about something. You may want to do so because you may want to get more evidence here this evening or the next meeting to be tabled to the next meeting, monthly meeting. Does anybody have any questions about that? You must do so before the vote is started, okay, that’s all. Thank you, yes.

Don Pauken asked, before the meeting is started here or….

Attorney Altman stated, no, before the vote on your request, your variance.


Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2426 Steve S. Sproles; The property is located on Lot 13 in Russell’s Addition in the Town of Brookston at 604 E. 4th Street.

Violation: None

Request: He is requesting a 10’ front setback variance, a 3’ East side setback variance, and a 5’ rear setback variance to attach the existing garage to the house and build a second story. This will replace variance #2421.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Steve Sproles stated, I am Steve Sproles.

President Thompson stated, I know you but I’ve got to hear you say it. Do you have anything extra that you want to add to that other than what I read?

Steve Sproles stated, no, it’s the same thing as it was, it’s just the survey was 5’ off in the back the last time.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, just that this request was acted on, he had another variance last month that the Board had looked at and approved. There was an error on that survey that was presented to the Board and that’s why he is coming back. That’s why we are requesting to replace that previous variance.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, okay, Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman asked, the error is that is 25’ or is there 25’ lot more?

Steve Sproles stated, only 25’.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, rather than 30’?

Director Weaver stated, right, the garage wound up being closer to the alley right-of-way than what was on the previous survey.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, nothing else has changed.

Carol Stradling asked, but the garage, you are really not changing the garage, the garage, you’re just adding…

Steve Sproles stated, second story.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, second story in between the house and the garage.

Steve Sproles stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so your not going any closer to the alley than you currently asked?

Steve Sproles stated, true.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against the variance? Gary Barbour do you have anything for him? Carol do you have anything else? If no one else has anything are we ready to vote on this?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously I think since we have received evidence last time it would be appropriate to incorporate the evidence that we had received on his variance last time. That’s number what Director Weaver, his last variance?

Director Weaver stated, 2421.

President Thompson stated, 2421.

Attorney Altman stated, 2421 into the record of this matter just seems to be very appropriate.

President Thompson stated, okay…

Attorney Altman stated, no objections same as done.

President Thompson stated, all right, that’s fine, we’ll go ahead and vote.

Attorney Altman stated, now that’s when you should ask for you variance to be tabled if you wish to do so, just for the record.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance, a 3’ East side setback variance, and a 5’ rear setback variance to attach the existing garage to the house and build a second story. This will replace variance #2421 on Lot 13 in Russell’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 604 E. 4th Street.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed sir.

Steve Sproles stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

Steve Sproles asked, pick up the other stuff next time or what, sorry.

Director Weaver stated, there’s your sign deposit and then you need to come in and get your permit.

****

#2427 Robert L. & Imogene Wolf, Owner; Ronald & Diane L. Busler; Applicant; The property is located on 1.252 acres West of Buffalo at 9273 N. State Road 39.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting an 82’ rear setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home.


President Thompson asked, and you are?

Ronald Busler stated, Ronald Busler.

Diane Busler stated, Diane Busler.

President Thompson stated, you are the Busler’s, you are the applicant, all right.

Director Weaver stated, we have a letter in the file from Robert L. Wolf and Imogene Wolf stating that they are agreeing to sell this property to the Busler’s if this request goes through.

President Thompson stated, okay, Attorney Altman, do you have anything to add to that?

Attorney Altman asked, be single story of course?

Ronald Busler stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and will you be on the sewage system when it comes in through this area or is it already on there?

Diane Busler stated, no, we’re on septic.

Attorney Altman stated, on septic. Will it be sewer though?

Ronald Busler stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, when the sewer system…

Ronald Busler stated, no, no

President Thompson asked, are you wanting to enter this officially or is it not necessary?

Attorney Altman stated, oh, I’m sorry, I would be glad to read that into the minutes, if you want.

President Thompson stated, well, I think that Director Weaver just did…

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson stated, it’s the same thing but I didn’t know if you wanted to make that official or not.

Attorney Altman read out loud to the Board and the audience an agreement to sell, dated May 19, 2005.

President Thompson asked, okay, all right. Do you have anything that you would like to add other than what I read for the record?

Ronald Busler stated, no, I don’t think so.

President Thompson stated, back to you Director Weaver, do you have anything other than that?

Director Weaver stated, no, we did have one inquiry about the request other than that, I don’t have anything to add.

President Thompson asked, but, nothing to enter for the record necessarily?

Director Weaver stated, I have no letters or anything.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have else?

Attorney Altman stated, no I don’t, thank you.

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

Carol Stradling asked, there are two mobile homes on the property?

Ronald Busler stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, the one will be removed and that will be your living quarters? I take it that the other mobile home is for the Wolfs?

Diane Busler stated, that’s my parents, right.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, and that will remain.

Diane Busler stated, until…

Carol Stradling stated, okay, all right, that’s all that I have.

President Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Nothing? Anyone else? If there is nothing else, are we ready to vote?

Carol Stradling stated, one more thing…

President Thompson stated, sorry.

Carol Stradling asked, is there a reason you don’t want to or can not put it within the setback requirements?

Ronald Busler stated, I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Carol Stradling stated, you’re requesting an 82’ rear setback variance, is that for the replacement home or is that for the mobile that’s also on there Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, no that’s for the replacement.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so essentially they should be 100’ from the barn that’s on the existing property…

Director Weaver stated, from the property line…

Carol Stradling stated, from the property line, okay, which is the barn to the East.

Director Weaver stated, the barn is actually on another piece of property or will be on another piece of property. That is your property line right there…

Carol Stradling stated, this, this is the dimension that we’re looking at.

Director Weaver stated, right and that is to the property line.

Carol Stradling asked, did you consider another placement for the home?

Ronald Busler stated, there really isn’t any other place.

Carol Stradling asked, can you explain that to me a little bit?

Diane Busler stated, what’s going to happen is that the land, all of the land is going to be in, I will inherit that part of the land. So it and to stay close to them we just want to put exactly where we’re living now and have been for 14 years. Did I explain that well enough?

Ronald Busler stated, with the other home there, there is just no other place to put it.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson asked, anyone else have any questions or comments? Ready to vote? Carol, satisfied?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?

Ronald Busler stated, tomorrow.

Diane Busler stated, I’ll get it tomorrow.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 82’ rear setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home. The mobile home on the north side of the property is for custodial care on that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 9; thence North 00 Degrees 21 Minutes 00 Seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along SR 39 and the section line 247.50 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 54 Minutes 00 Seconds East 237.09 feet to a capped W/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set, passing through an I.P. found at 40.00 feet; thence South 05 Degrees 45 Minutes 44 Seconds East 127.17 feet to an I.P. set; thence South 40 Degrees 40 Minutes 53 Seconds West 159.73 feet to an I.P. set; thence South 89 Degrees 54 Minutes 00 Seconds West 144.22 feet to the point of beginning, passing through an I.P. found at 104.22 feet, containing 1.252 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Buffalo at 9273 N. State Road 39.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Diane Busler stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2428 Brandywine LLC, Owner; Dave Jordan, Applicant; The property is located on 5.626 acres, in the City of Monticello at 728 S. Sixth Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting an 18 sq. ft. size variance for an on-premise free standing sign.

President Thompson asked, is that right?

Dave Jordan stated, that’s it.

President Thompson stated, okay, name please.

Dave Jordan stated, Dave Jordan.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Dave Jordan stated, what we have out there is actually a pole and there is two signs on the top of it and we want to come down off of that there pole approximately 4’ from the second sign and add a third sign there.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, and the sign will be for on premise advertisement right?

Dave Jordan stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Dave Jordan stated, well, it will be like a marquee we can give time and temperature it will be you know, we can advertise events that are going on, that sort of thing.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, but they will be on premise type events and that sort of thing?

Dave Jordan stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, no other than, than Dave Jordan and I have talked about this, there is a temporary sign on the property at this time that will need to be removed.

President Thompson asked, the one in your picture right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, the lower left, okay. Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I have nothing so far.

President Thompson stated, Gary, you first.

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t have anything.

President Thompson asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, so this sign will be one that the letters change?

Dave Jordan stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, you post the letters up and change…

Dave Jordan stated, no, it’s computerized.

Carol Stradling asked, computerized, lighted?

Dave Jordan stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay. That’s it.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to, for or against?

Attorney Altman stated, about changing, it won’t be one that changes constantly it will have a message that will change and leave it for a while…

Dave Jordan stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and some of them have it so they rotate almost every minute.

Dave Jordan stated, yes, it will be stuff that reads across, we can set a sign up that just stays on all of the time. It’s basically like someone that’s coming to town welcoming an event, you would like to see this out front when you come, someone getting married or something, this is what it’s for. Just advertising our facility is there, the time and temperature will probably be up there so when people drive by they can pick that up too.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, anything else? One more time, Carol, Gary, ready to vote? Let’s vote.

With no 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 is a lot of record and properly divided.

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 18 sq. ft. size variance for an on-premise free standing sign on Part of the real estate conveyed to Kraybill Farm, Incorporated, as recorded in Deed Record 76, Pages 57-61 in the Office of the Recorder for White County, Indiana (ORWCI), being part of the East Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southeastern corner of the said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89˚ 35’ 47” West along the Southern line of the said Southeast Quarter of 156.51 feet to the Western right-of-way line of South Sixth Street; thence North 00˚ 51’ 39” East along the said Western right-of-way line for 0.76 feet; thence North 00˚ 36’ 00” East along said Western right-of-way line for 1046.14 feet; thence North 89˚ 24’ 00” West for 220.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 89˚ 24’ 00” West for 307.13 feet to the Western line of the said East Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32; thence North 00˚ 12’ 13” East along the Western line of the said East Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter for 547.37 feet to the Southwestern corner of the Hubbard real estate as described in Deed Record 94-01-0002 (OR WCI); thence South 89˚ 12’ 00” East along the Southern line of the said Hubbard real estate for 530.92 feet to the western right-of-way line of South Sixth Street; thence South 00˚ 36’ 00” West along the said Western right-of-way line of South Sixth Street for 345.51 feet; thence North 89˚ 24’ 00” West for 220.00 feet; thence South 0˚ 36’ 00” West for 200.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 5.626 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 728 S. Sixth Street

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need a building permit before you proceed.

Dave Jordan asked, building permit Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, no, he doesn’t need one.

Attorney Altman stated, oh.

Dave Jordan stated, yes, because it’s on an existing pole. Thank you. I want to introduce Julius Wilson here too the manger of the complex. He is new in town so a lot of you know me but that’s it. Director Weaver I didn’t bring your sign in because I thought that I had better not I might have to, so I’ll see you tomorrow on that.

Director Weaver stated, okay, that’s fine.

Dave Jordan stated, thank you.

****

a

#2429 Brian T. & Sandra L. Kearney, Owner; White County Board of County Commissioners, Applicant; The property is located on Lots 11 and 12 in Lackner’s Locust Hill Addition, also Out S NE 100 feet by 15 feet, 17-27-3, .033 acre, West of Indiana Beach at 2648 N. West Shafer Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 25’ front setback variance for the existing track and fence and a 10’ front setback variance for the existing building to bring them into compliance from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project.

President Thompson asked, Mr. Bumbleburg, did I make an error on that description in any way there?

Attorney Bumbleburg stated, I don’t know, we have the engineers here, I try to make it an effort not to practice engineering and sometimes I’m successful and sometimes not. For the record, I’m Joe Bumbleburg I’m with Ball-Eggleston in Lafayette, Brian and Sandy Kearney are here with me today. The business that the Kearney’s operate was a conforming operation until the time when the right-of-way was to be acquired for the road. I think probably what all the, the substance, the legal substance of what they are asking you for is a variance in order that with the road take that they would again be conforming. Rather than my trying to explain to you what the engineers are doing out there, I have the engineer here. I’m going to ask leave of the Board to let him take my place here and kind of explain that to you for fear that if I do it will be all messed up.

Kevin Jasinski stated, my name is Kevin Jasinski, I’m with American Consulting and on behalf of White County we are designing the road project for Sixth Street. The reason why the right-of-way was necessary was due to a, the road is approximately 2’ wider at that point so we have a curb line and also there is a storm sewer that we’re placing in that requires that we have that within a permanent right-of-way. So due to those two factors we have additional right-of-way necessary so we have moved closer to the business.

Attorney Altman asked, and you are an engineer?

Kevin Jasinski stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, your qualifications please.

Kevin Jasinski stated, I’m a professional engineer and licensed in Indiana and I’m also the project manager for the project.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything to add?

Director Weaver stated, no, other than when I was working on this I did notice that when they passed the variance that was stated that the building was a single story, would be a single story with possibly a loft later and my understanding from Mr. Kearney is that this is a two story building. Other than that, I don’t have any questions on it.

Brian Kearney stated, yes, it’s two stories tall…

President Thompson asked, name please?

Brian Kearney stated, Brian Kearney.

President Thompson stated, why don’t you come forward please.

Attorney Altman stated, folks, Mr. Thompson is not kidding you, we try to have a record and it does not pick up from the back of the room so please come up and talk and give the microphone a chance to pick up what you’re saying.

Brian Kearney stated, okay, my name is Brian Kearney, I apologize for that.

Attorney Altman stated, no problem.

Brian Kearney stated, the building is 2 stories tall and it does not have a second floor in it now but we may add a loft at a later date but that is irrelevant to this variance here now. As the engineer stated the road is only coming approximately 2’ closer so really nothing much is going to change other than the storm sewer will be under the ground in their easement.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Brian Kearney stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you. Stay handy here please, just in case. Attorney Altman do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I think Mr. Bumbleburg is correct, I think that the record shows that this was a varied, varied use some time ago. And from what I can tell from looking at the record it is in conformance to that variance and we do have a situation where this whole area is being changed by a road construction and widening. I think that’s about all of the record really other than of course what the applicant wants to put in but I think that’s change involved here.

President Thompson stated, leave this for later, I don’t think that it pertains to tonight. Does anyone here care to address the variance for or against? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I would just like to address my question to the engineer and that 25’ seems like a lot on Sixth Street and I guess I just want to, I don’t want to be a part of allowing something that in future will cause White County problems in traffic or water flow. Could you state anything pertaining to that, that the approximately of or granting this request would not in any way inhibit the flow of water in this easement and traffic flow.

Kevin Jasinski stated, really, as far as the roadway is no different than it currently is like I said it is like I said just a couple of feet different.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Kevin Jasinski stated, we will be capturing the roadway water and the existing drainage on the lot will stay similar to the way that it is now. Really, the lot will drain towards the roadway and then the water will go towards the bay area. As far as traffic or other things we have looked in the area of where this would be and there’s no reason to be concerned about traffic patterns or anything of that nature.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, that’s all of my questions.

President Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t have anything.

President Thompson stated, nothing.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to clarify that this variance does not, is not for the sign that is on the property. The free standing sign is not included in this request but a sign is not required, a sign is only required to be 10’ back from the road right-of-way so I’m assuming that they will meet that requirement.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything else?

Attorney Altman stated, I have nothing further.

President Thompson asked, were you done I’m sorry.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, no other discussion, are we ready to vote. Carol, are you satisfied?

Carol Stradling asked, am I overlooking some kind of survey or placements or anything?

Director Weaver stated, we have a drawing from an engineer and your copy I noticed does not have a signature on it but the original does have a signature on it.

Gary Barbour asked, are we talking about this Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, no, no there should be another one in there.

President Thompson asked, this, the one Milligan signed?

Director Weaver stated, no, there’s his signature right there.

Attorney Altman stated, oh, the signature…

Director Weaver stated, it’s not actually on it.

Carol Stradling stated, there we go I’ve got it. I’m sorry, I’ve got it, I’m sorry.

President Thompson asked, alright, is there anything else from anyone? Let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 25’ front setback variance for the existing track and a 10’ front setback variance for the existing building to bring them into compliance from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project on Lots Numbered Eleven (11) and Twelve (12) in Lackner’s Locust Hill Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana. Also Out S NE 100 feet by 15 feet, 17-27-3, .033 acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Indiana Beach at 2648 N. West Shafer 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 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0negative.

Attorney Altman stated, this won’t need a building permit here either. Variance is granted.

Brian Kearney stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2430 KirTac Inc., Owner; City of Monticello, Applicant; The property is located on Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all in Block 2 in Lake Drive Subdivision in the City of Monticello at 1009 N. Main Street.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 16’ front setback variance for the existing building to bring it into compliance from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project.

Jay Clawson stated, hi.

President Thompson stated, hi.

Jay Clawson stated, I’m representing the City of Monticello. I have representatives from the engineering and Broadway Acquisition people if you have any questions, we’re scheduled to begin utility construction later this summer so this is just getting our project in order. We did have two variances that we’re requesting for our Main Street project.

President Thompson asked, okay, Director Weaver, anything?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, and again, the structure is not being increased at all, what is happening is road again, like the last one we had is going closer to the use and the structure.

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s really all of the change there is here.

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay thank you, I have nothing further I believe.

President Thompson stated, okay. Anyone here care to speak in behalf or against? Gary Barbour, anything for them? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m a little bit confused as to why the City of Monticello is the applicant in this variance.

Jay Clawson stated, because the corporation, we have the right-of-way acquisition and engineering guys here. KirTac is from out of town, they didn’t have a representative, it’s hard to get representatives and they asked me if I would stand in to talk. If you need to speak with them.

Greg Budd stated, I’m with HGI Land Aq, we’re the right-of-way managers for the land acquisition portion of this project. It came to our attention that we needed to get a variance for this property late. Since they are located out of town they did ask that we have the City apply and I believe that I just submitted a fax where they, we have an application from the actual owners now but to get it to meet the deadline for this we applied on, as the City applied on behalf of the property owner. I believe that Director Weaver has a current copy of the application.

Director Weaver stated, yes, there is, he has provided me a fax a copy of the signed application from the company.

Greg Budd stated, we will submit an original we should have it in the mail momentarily, next day or two.

President Thompson stated, okay, Carol do you have any questions for him while he is there?

Carol Stradling asked, how close will that put it to the roadway?

Greg Budd stated, as far as the actual pavement, how close will it be to the pavement, I know the right-of-way is going to be…

Al DeLaunay stated, I’m with CTE Engineers and I’m helping to move the project along to get it constructed. The roadway is getting widened about 2 to 3 feet in that particular location and there is a curb and gutter section and then the grass sodded area between that and the building face. So in reality, it’s getting about 2’ closer to the building itself. The right-of-way is the biggest push back. It basically is being used to accommodate the proposed storm sewer system that’s going to be running along the corridor.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, underground of course?

Al DeLaunay stated, yes, underground yes, and there will be inlet in the front so drainage won’t get out to the road it will be captured on the site because it’s put out.

Carol Stradling asked, will they lose any parking?

Al DeLaunay stated, no, actuality what they have right now is they have a, a little patio are that they are going to be removing…

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Al DeLaunay stated, at their own desire and they will just re-landscape the parcel in the front.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol? Gary? If there is no other discussion are we ready to vote?

With no 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. The request is for a 16’ front setback variance for the existing building to bring it into compliance from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project on Lots Numbered Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8), Nine (9) and Ten (10) all in Block Two (2) in Lake Drive Subdivision to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1009 N. Main Street.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, this will not need a building permit either.

President Thompson asked, is that correct Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, I thought so, okay, you’re welcome.

****

#2431 Indiana Beach Inc., Owner; City of Monticello, Applicant; The property is located on .40 of an acre more or less in the City of Monticello on the East side of North Main Street just North of Northbrooke Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback variance to relocate an existing billboard from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project.

President Thompson asked, and again?

Jay Clawson stated, hello, I’m Jay Clawson representing the City of Monticello on this project. Again, the right-of-ways had to be bought encroaching the sign and there is no way that you can move the sign back on the lot any at all because of the Ghost Hollow ditch so we’re asking for the setbacks to be varied by 10’ to accommodate the sign.

President Thompson stated, okay. Director Weaver, once again.

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t have anything but I was just sitting here thinking my understanding is that the sign is actually going to be moved, is that correct?

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I just wanted to clarify it, after I was looking at this I wasn’t sure.

Greg Budd stated, Greg Budd with HGI Land Aq again.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Greg Budd stated, with this particular case, if you are familiar with the Ghost Hollow area this sign is currently about 36’ wide and they are going to change the shape of it. We wouldn’t be able to fit that on there because it drops off so drastically on the back part of the lot so they are going to change it. Then I think what will really help especially with the road project is that, I believe that they have, when Director Weaver and I was talking about this, I think that they can have it as high as 45’ in that area but their plan is to lift that up. Which will be nice because if you’re familiar with the current situation there is a little drive that’s right behind it and when you try to come out the one side, there is a sight problem, seeing traffic coming up there. So this will really help that area quite a bit and help people that are pulling into that little business there that is next to it. On our request here is not to encroach the right-of-way but to abut the right-of-way because of how shallow that lot is to allow Indiana Beach to keep their sign.

Attorney Altman asked, how high will the bottom edge of the sign be?

Gregg Budd stated, that hasn’t been determined yet by Indiana Beach. They are creating a new sign but they weren’t sure how high they could make that sign but I know that their intention is to lift it up a little higher on there again it will help visibility.

Attorney Altman asked, so you don’t know how high it will be?

Greg Budd stated, correct. It currently sits, I think right on top of the ground.

Attorney Altman stated, I see in the pictures, it’s right on top of the ground, maybe a foot off of it, maybe.

President Thompson stated, by changing that…

Director Weaver stated, for the height, not if they don’t exceed the height requirement.

President Thompson stated, okay. Anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver what is the height requirement there or the limit?

Director Weaver stated, I believe he’s correct it’s 45’.

President Thompson asked, Carol do you have anything?

Carol Stradling stated, no, I was just concerned with if we’re moving a sign away that a vehicle would be able to see from that roadway…

Greg Budd stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, and you addressed that.

Greg Budd stated, sure, and I think that they are going to clean out some of the trees through there as well so it will corridor…

President Thompson stated, that’s what I asked Director Weaver, Carol, I wondered if that would be a separate issue in itself but time will tell I guess once you determine what you want to do with that probably so.

Greg Budd stated, sure.

Carol Stradling stated, I do think that it’s important to be able to see.

Greg Budd stated, absolutely.

Carol Stradling stated, on that roadway.

Greg Budd stated, and I know that Mr. Spackman in talking with them they want to raise the sign up for visibility purposes so I think that it’s a win, win situation.

President Thompson asked, before I go to Gary, does anyone here care to speak in favor or against? Gary Barbour do you have anything? Nothing? Carol, are you satisfied? Anyone else? Are we ready to vote?

With no 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 Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to relocate an existing (Indiana Beach) billboard from the new right-of-way line due to the proposed street widening project on A triangular tract of land beginning at a point one thousand seven hundred and forty one feet (1741) East of the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest quarter (1/4) of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

This point of beginning being the Northwest corner of land described and also being in the center of Blacktop road named the Michigan City and Monticello Road. Thence South twenty three degrees 30 Minutes East 300 feet along the center line of the above name road; thence North one degree East 270 feet; thence West 127 feet, 6 inches to point of beginning, containing (.40) forty hundredths of an acre more or less. Being out of the S. E. ¼, N. W. ¼, Section 28, Township 27, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of North Main Street just North of Northbrooke 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 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


Jay Clawson stated, I would like to thank the Board for their time.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

****

#2432 Bank of Wolcott, Owner; Scott D. Lee, Applicant; The property is located on the West ½ of Lots 23 and 24, 20’ off the North side of Lot 34, Lots 35 and 36, 10’ off the South side of Lot 37, Lot 38, and a strip of ground 20’ wide off of the South side of Lot 39 in the Town of Wolcott at 123 E. Johnson Street.

Violation: W ½ of Lot 23 and W ½ of Lot 24 is already being used as a parking lot.

Request: They are requesting a special exception as per Article 4.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow for off premise parking and a 15 space parking variance to allow them to have 26 spaces instead of the required 41 spaces.

President Thompson asked, I hope that I didn’t botch that up too bad, and you are sir?

Scott Lee stated, I’m Scott Lee, Registered Architect, State of Indiana.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Scott Lee stated, my employer is the Aspen Group and we are in a contract with the Bank of Wolcott to design a proposed addition to their main bank location in Wolcott. The expansion will require them to take a portion of their site that is now used for parking. The bank has been using and adjacent lot for parking that was requested for rezoning which was, was approved on this Monday, past Monday night to be rezoned to B-2 so they could park on it. We have submitted a proposed site plan showing how we would lay out the 26 spaces on the lot. Also with me tonight is Barry Haskins, Vice President of the Bank of Wolcott.

President Thompson asked, okay, alright. Mr. Haskins, do you care to say anything before we, nothing okay. Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I really don’t have anything to add other than the violation is on the 2 half lots that are back across the alley from the existing bank and the violation is because it was not zoned properly. Since it is not on the same property as the building it is required to have a special exception prior to being used for parking.

President Thompson stated, okay, Attorney Altman we have a response from the Town of Wolcott, I believe.

Attorney Altman stated, about the violation, we generally in fact consistently rule that the, a public way whether it’s a street or an alley divides property so that though this is across the alley it is considered not contiguous. Therefore it creates the reason for the violation as I understood from the violation hearing on the rezoning that was before the White County Area Plan Commission where they waived the fine. They did not know that they had this problem and as soon as they did they filed to get the, this taken care of. We do have a letter here also from the Town of Wolcott addressed to the department reference this violation.

Attorney Altman read the letter out loud to the Board and audience members.

President Thompson stated, okay. Do you have anything else to add Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, yes, tell us about the future addition the size versus the present size would be one or two story?

Scott Lee stated, one story.

Attorney Altman asked, would be the same as the present bank’s structure then?

Scott Lee stated, yes, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and it will blend in and be similar or at least the whole structure will be similar and architecturally pleasing to the eye?

Scott Lee stated yes, and we have an option to change the roofline. We don’t know if the bank will approve that yet or not. But the entire building would look as one building no matter which addition we, they decide to build.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

Scott Lee stated, you’re welcome.

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to address the variance for or against? Gary, start with you, do you have any questions for Mr. Lee? Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, the, the violation, are we dealing with the violation first or the variance?

Attorney Altman stated, the variance, the special exception…

Carol Stradling stated, the special exception…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what we usually do first and then we handle the violation.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so the special exception is, doesn’t have really much to do with your new building it has more to do with the parking lot?

Scott Lee stated, yes. The addition there is current parking here…

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Scott Lee stated, and we need to use it to make up some of that parking but generally the special exception is that this is not on the same lots as the buildings that has required us to get the special exception or to ask for it.

Carol Stradling stated, no other questions.

President Thompson asked, okay, like you said Carol, so does the Board wish to vote on the Special Exception and then address the fine or the violation. Excuse me, not the fine.

Carol Stradling stated, sure.

President Thompson asked, Gary is that fine for you?

Gary Barbour stated, alright.

President Thompson asked, okay. Are we ready to vote then?

Attorney Altman stated, you might ask if anyone has anything, anyone from the public has anything.

President Thompson stated, I can do it. Does anyone care to address this for or against? I think I asked but maybe I didn’t, I made one mistake already tonight. Okay, let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is currently zoned B-1, 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 Requesting a special exception as per Article 4.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow for off premise parking and a 15 space parking variance to allow them to have 26 spaces instead of the required 41 spaces on The West Half of Lots 23 and 24 in the First Addition to the Town of Wolcott, Indiana

Also, Lots Numbered Thirty-five (35) and Thirty-Six (36) in the First Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana

Also, Twenty (20) feet off the North side of Lot Number Thirty-Four (34) and Ten (10) feet off the South side of Lot Number Thirty-seven (37) in the First Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County Indiana

Also, Lot Number Thirty-eight (38) in Addition Number One (1) to the Town of Wolcott in White County, Indiana

Also, a strip of ground Twenty (20) feet wide off of the South side of Lot Number Thirty-nine (39) in the First Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 123 E. Johnson 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to see Director Weaver about other matters and get everything and building permits and all that.

President Thompson asked, okay, the violation, I will read again, once again, the W ½ of Lot 23 and W ½ of Lot 24 is already being used as a parking lot. Okay, Director Weaver do you have anything you would add?

Director Weaver stated, nothing more.

President Thompson asked, okay, Attorney Altman, anything?

Attorney Altman stated, other than what they talked about at the meeting no I really don’t.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, they, the zoning meeting.

President Thompson asked, okay, Carol, questions?

Carol Stradling stated, I was not at the zoning meeting.

Attorney Altman asked, Gary, do you want to talk about it? You were a member there…

Director Weaver stated, Gary wasn’t there either.

Attorney Altman stated, Gary wasn’t…

Carol Stradling asked, can you tell me how long this has been used as a parking lot?

Scott Lee stated, I’m going to have to defer to Barry on that.

Barry Haskins stated, hi my name is Barry Haskins. Approximately one year ago we purchased a residential real-estate property that was somewhat depilated somewhat of an eye sore. Being this location was convenient to the Bank of Wolcott we raised that building and converted it into a parking lot. We probably have been using it approximately 9 months as a parking lot. Years past we had purchased adjacent properties they were already zoned B-2 we failed to realize the need to rezone. It was an oversight on our part.

President Thompson asked, okay. Do you have something to say Mr. Lee?

Scott Lee stated, no.

President Thompson stated, okay, that’s fine, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, it is designated parking for customers and employees and has been used as for parking I’m sorry, I’ll wait until you sit down again and then we’ll ask another question.

Barry Haskins stated, yes ma’am, primarily we the employees use that parking and then the prime spots are more convenient for our customers.

Carol Stradling stated, thank you, I don’t think that I have any more questions.

President Thompson asked, okay, discussion? Attorney Altman, do you have anything to add?

Attorney Altman stated, nothing to add.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, so our options are, leaving the fine at 500 dollars…

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, waiving the fine, raising it or lowering it.

President Thompson stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right. Need a motion.

President Thompson asked, Gary, do you have any thoughts?

Gary Barbour stated, I make a motion that we release the fine 25 dollars.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not recalling at this point and time any precedence that we have set in establishing or changing fine in any kind of situation like this. Have we had any situation like this before Director Weaver that we have had to fine that we have a precedence set.

Director Weaver asked, parking is that what you’re saying for parking?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, or maybe use of a purchased property that, I don’t recall any.

President Thompson stated, no, I don’t either, so what you’re, you had something in the back of your mind.

Carol Stradling stated, I just wanted to be sure before we changed it…

President Thompson stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, that we kind of had a review of what we have done in the past so we can keep it comparable…

President Thompson stated, similar…

Carol Stradling stated, and I don’t recall any so I was just kind of looking at the collective memory of the Board to see if there was any other similar situation.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t know of any yet.

Carol Stradling asked, you moved 25 dollars so you’re looking for a second?

Gary Barbour stated, or an amendment.

Carol Stradling asked, was it an eyesore before hand?

Gary Barbour stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t recall the property and it’s being kept up now?

Director Weaver stated, it’s gravel, currently gravel.

President Thompson stated, and I believe that someone did make the comment that once they realized that they were in violation they came to your office.

Director Weaver stated, actually, they came in to file for the rezoning and the variance before, I didn’t know that there was a violation until I went and got pictures after they filed.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, they had already filed. I went to get the pictures and realized that they were already occupying the property.

President Thompson stated, okay, motion.

Carol Stradling stated, I’ll second.

President Thompson stated, move and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor?

The Board stated I.

President Thompson stated, okay, got that Director Weaver?

Scott Lee asked, is the parking reduction variance, is that passed?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Scott Lee stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you are done.

Director Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?

Scott Lee stated, no, we have to do that.

President Thompson stated, okay thank you.

Scott Lee stated, thank you.

****

#2433 Robert J. Welsh & Marjorie J. Welsh Trust; The property is located on Lot 16 in Pleasant Valley Addition South of Monticello at 2513 S. Pleasant Valley Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 4’ north side setback variance, a 6’ south side setback variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to attach the detached garage to the existing home.

President Thompson asked, and sir you are?

Robert Welsh stated, Robert Welsh.

President Thompson stated, you are Robert Welsh. Do you have anything additional you would like to present to the Board?

Robert Welsh stated, not really.

President Thompson stated, okay, alright. Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I just might add that they did go through an elevation variance last year an a height variance last year and since they have done that they have now decided that they want to, I believe it’s a breezeway that you’re going to connect this with?

Robert Welsh stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, and therefore this is no longer meeting the rear setback and that’s why they came to see us.

President Thompson stated, okay. Attorney Altman? Anyone else care to address the Board tonight, the variance? Carol, do you have any questions for Mr. Welsh.

Carol Stradling asked, the survey that I’m looking at has proposed garage and garage to be removed. Is that garage already removed and…

Robert Welsh stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, the proposed garage, okay. So…

Robert Welsh stated, I was in last year and the garage was moved last year, we had a permit for that.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, even though the survey says April, okay, I’ve got it, never mind. Was the proposed breezeway on the survey in 2004?

Robert Welsh stated, no that was added.

Director Weaver stated, he didn’t change the date did he?

Robert Welsh stated, he didn’t update that, he didn’t change of that survey. There was just two dimensions on there that wasn’t changed or that Director Weaver wanted, he added those.

Director Weaver stated, he did update, I mean he did alter the drawing but he didn’t change the date. I would assume probably the reasoning behind that is he probably didn’t go back on site did he?

Robert Welsh stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I guess that would be the reasoning, he had all of the information that he needed in his office in order to alter his survey.

Robert Welsh stated, that’s what he said.

Carol Stradling stated, Mr. Welsh, I would feel more comfortable since this survey, I mean it indicates that there is a garage to be removed and that garage is removed and that there is a proposed garage and that garage is currently on site and then that proposed breezeway. I can see a conflict if we were to look back on your old surveys and they had the same date as, as this one. I guess I would like the survey to be updated.

Robert Welsh stated, I can have him change the date, I’m sure he just, it was an oversight.

Carol Stradling stated, well, but if that date is changed then I would like the garage, I would like to reflect what is currently there.

Robert Welsh stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, this survey would match the previous request that you made except that there is a breezeway added.

Robert Welsh stated, that’s all that’s, and two dimensions we’re missing that Director Weaver wanted put on there I think they were the side dimensions.

Carol Stradling asked, do you understand what I’m asking for?

Robert Welsh stated, yes, I can have…

Carol Stradling stated, does the Board…

President Thompson stated, I think that it’s a good idea. Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I agree.

President Thompson stated, simple but I think it’s a good idea…

Robert Welsh stated, yes, I think that it should be a simple move for him to do.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, it helps me see what is there…

President Thompson stated, you bet.

Carol Stradling stated, but I think for the record it really needs to be clear what we’re voting on.

President Thompson asked, does that need to be in the form of a motion necessarily Attorney Altman, or just on the record as it is?

Attorney Altman stated, on the record…

President Thompson stated, as far as our request…

Attorney Altman stated, I think on the record as it is.

Robert Welsh asked, can we just update this for Director Weaver then?

Director Weaver asked, so what you’re looking for Carol is for the garage that was to be removed to be taken off of this survey and the date to be updated, is that correct?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, that’s it, thank you.

President Thompson asked, Gary do you have anything?

Gary Barbour asked, what were the dimensions that you were asking for on this Director Weaver because, there is a discrepancy between the two as far as one of the dimensions also.

Director Weaver stated, I believe it’s the side.

Robert Welsh stated, it was the two side dimensions.

Director Weaver stated, yes, one of them would have been the side, the, I’m trying to figure out, it would be on the right hand side of the house.

Gary Barbour asked, between the property line and the corner of the house?

Director Weaver stated, yes, yes…

Gary Barbour asked, that 5’ and what else?

Robert Welsh stated, I think it was a 4’ or something on the other side a 4 or 6.

Director Weaver stated, well, the 4’ is on the old one.

Robert Welsh stated, oh, okay.

Gary Barbour stated, because here’s what I’m thinking, on this one drawing it’s got 6’ and the other drawing has 5’, where’s its showing between the two…

Robert Welsh stated, okay, that was…

Gary Barbour stated, the proposed garage and the house.

Robert Welsh stated, that was done when we applied for the building permit remember because of the gas line and we shifted it 1’ closer to the house and you said that wouldn’t be a problem so we updated that.

Director Weaver stated, no I don’t remember about that.

Robert Welsh asked, you don’t remember?

Director Weaver stated, no and I apologize for that.

Carol Stradling asked, I would just, would like a survey to represent what is actually there.

Robert Welsh stated, we can get that, not a problem.

Carol Stradling stated, and I see some problems with this one.

President Thompson asked, so Attorney Altman, we can vote on this pending Mr. Welsh bring in a corrected survey?

Attorney Altman stated, that is possible to do it as long as the Board is absolutely convinced that the situation is as the survey will show I guess. If you’re not then you wait, if you are then you can proceed ahead.

President Thompson stated, yes, okay, Gary, what is your, do you have anything else or what is your…

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t have anything else.

President Thompson stated, okay, Carol, anything? So…

Carol Stradling stated, I would vote to, in favor of this contingent upon a correct survey being in Director Weaver’s office before you start.

Robert Welsh stated, okay, fine, not a problem.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion? Are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, has that been seconded and adopted?

President Thompson stated, that was just a request, that wasn’t a motion.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, okay?

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is that agreeable with everybody? Thought so.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned L-1, Lake District

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 4’ north side setback variance, a 6’ south side setback variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to attach the detached garage to the existing home on Lot 16 in Pleasant Valley Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 2513 S. Pleasant Valley Court.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit and you also need to get your survey that complies with our request, okay.

Robert Welsh stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, before you begin.

Robert Welsh stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

****

President Thompson stated, okay, we have an appeal this evening.

Attorney Altman asked, can I request about a 5-minute continuance?

President Thompson stated, recess…

Attorney Altman stated, recess…

President Thompson stated, okay, we can do it. Take a little 5 minute break here before we begin the appeal process, everyone can stretch their legs a little bit.

There was a break by the board and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, well, everybody ready, that a quick 5 minutes. If everyone will take their seat lets get started. That was a quick 5 minutes but, okay, how many is out in the hall any?

Attorney Altman stated, not very many, I think they’re coming, they’re coming.

****

President Thompson stated, okay hopefully they didn’t go far, alright, okay, we have an appeal, appeal number 4.

Appeal #4 Don Pauken and Bill Pyle, Appellants; Appellants are appealing the Area Plan Director’s determination (interpretation) of Article 9.4002 of the White County Zoning Ordinance at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005.

President Thompson stated, you have the floor.

Don Pauken stated, I’m Don Pauken.

Bill Pyle stated, I’m Bill Pyle.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Don Pauken stated, I would like to ask for a little clarification first at, against as far as the voting goes tonight in the ordinance under Board of Zoning Appeals. It indicates that you have to have a quorum which is 3 and there must be 3 members of the BSA present to constitute a quorum. Any action approved by the majority of those present shall be considered lawful final decision, isn’t that 2 if there is 3, and that’s not the only place, that’s 8.1005 that’s also stated the same way in 8.1002.

Attorney Altman stated, State Law says 3 has to, we have to have majority of the full Board and State Law controls…

Don Pauken asked, well, why don’t we just say…

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s 3.

Don Pauken asked, three has to be period no matter how many are here, why do we say…

Attorney Altman stated, because, because if there were 5 members here we only need 3.

Don Pauken stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, and there’s 3 members here, so we need 3.

Don Pauken asked, State Law says that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Don Pauken asked, why hasn’t this been corrected?

Carol Stradling stated, we’re working on that.

President Thompson stated, it’s in the process right now sir.

Don Pauken stated, I thank you for that clarification. Alright, to give you a little background, the, we talked to the Commissioners about the two rezoning petitions for Rangeline Properties and at that meeting in April we said that there was a problem with failure to appear as set forth in the ordinance and of course that’s 9.4002 and we said that the petitioner had not been in attendance for the February and March meetings at that time, Area Plan, the Commissioners said, sent it back to Area Plan for their discussion and that discussion occurred on May 9, 2005 and first of all I want to hand out the failure to appear, the petitions or the excuse the parts of the ordinance which we are going to be talking about presently and I would like to put that on the record Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, received into the record, parts…

Don Pauken stated, I have highlighted the different things that I will be taking about, the first one is the failure to…

Attorney Altman stated, I will mark it exhibit A.

Don Pauken stated, exhibit A, will be the failure to appear.

Attorney Altman stated, the whole thing will be exhibit A.

Don Pauken stated, it, correct. The first thing that I want to talk about is on the front page there. At the May meeting, there was a discussion with the Area Plan Director and at that time she voiced her opinion by saying that she felt it was not a failure to appear simply because we were notified before each prior meeting that he would not be in attendance, I talked to Jerry Altman, our attorney and he agrees with me. Now let me go on here and go to…

Someone asked, do you want to read this?

Don Pauken stated, yes, you can do it, you want me to read the failure to appear?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Don Pauken stated, when a petitioner or authorized representative has failed to appear to present his petition at either of two consecutive meetings, the petition shall be dismissed. Now lets address first the two consecutive meetings. Those meetings that we are talking about are the February and March meetings and if you’ll hand a copy of each one of those, some of the, some of the minutes of the meetings not all of them, it’s just to show that initially the attendance sheet…

Attorney Altman stated, we’re marking that exhibit B.

Don Pauken stated, that’s the February one. The March one will be Exhibit C?

Attorney Altman stated, it will be exhibit C, yes.

Don Pauken stated, on the front of each one of those is the attendees and if you could, nothing is highlighted because Mr. VanWeelden who happens to be the petitioner of these two petitions that we’re talking about was not in attendance and those are the two consecutive meetings. The uh, so we say we failed to appear and there may be some argument about the, about the wording in this particular article now, I have here, if you look on the next page of your, of your petition…

Attorney Altman stated, exhibit D.

Don Pauken stated, pages, of your, look at the next page that we provided as far as notes out of the ordinance under Chapter 2, Rules and Regulations there is highlighted 2.0010 any words not defined in 210 shall be construed in their general accepted meaning as defined by Webster’s Dictionary latest addition. Now there are a couple of words that we have defined for you and that’s appear and it’s also highlighted it’s a verb to be or come in sight to show up to come formally before an authoritative body. Now the word present, it’s highlighted it’s a verb it means to bring before the public and it’s a intransitive verge sense to make a presentation so Mr. VanWeelden nor an authorized representative were at two consecutive meetings as shown by the minutes of the meeting there and so therefore the petition shall be dismissed. Now the word shall and again that’s on page 2 of your rules and definitions from the ordinance is mandatory and not discretionary so it shall be dismissed, it must be dismissed now there are avenues which could have been taken and Area Plan did not take these measures and that’s on page 3, 3 and 4 that’s highlighted on 3 and 4 of the ordinance sheet exhibit A, 9.3004 Commission Decision the commission at it’s discretion may continue or postpone the hearing of any petition upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present. The next page suspension of the rules 9.5002 the suspension of any rule of the commission may be ordered at any meeting by unanimous vote of the commission members present now the added pages hooked onto the minutes of those meetings I’ve highlighted the two petitions that Jeff VanWeelden had at Rangeline properties and no motion was made by Area Plan Commission so therefore no vote was taken so therefore the meeting he was not attended he did not take care of properly the by voting, making a motion and voting affirmatively to allow that to happen.

Director Weaver asked, could…

Don Pauken stated, so in looking at the present ordinance if we are going to follow the rules and regulations of the ordinance, on the last page by the way of that the zoning administrator 7.00 says an Area Plan Director shall be appointed by the Area Plan Commission to enforce the ordinance so we are saying that, that paragraph, failure to appear 9.4002 must be enforced. Her description by saying or definition or determination of allowing someone to call in or communicate with her outside of the meeting room it doesn’t work.

President Thompson asked, okay, does anyone want to…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s up to him to make his case.

President Thompson stated, okay. Comments, Carol?

Attorney Altman stated, I think maybe you should ask if anyone else has anything else to present.

President Thompson stated, I will.

Carol Stradling stated, there’s a part of this, well there are a few parts that trouble me and I hope that we address those with the new ordinance but as I read failure to appear and I’ll read it out loud, I know that we have heard it, when a petitioner or authorized representative has failed to appear to present his petition of either of two consecutive meetings, the petition shall be dismissed.

Don Pauken stated, it says at either.

Carol Stradling stated, at either…

Don Pauken stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, to me, I don’t, I’m not an English major but to me if you say either they need to, they are a failure to appear unless they appear to both if it’s a failure to appear to present his petition at either of two consecutive meetings that could be interpreted as if they miss one consecutive meeting then it would be dismissed.

Don Pauken stated, he missed two consecutive meetings.

Carol Stradling stated, but if you read that further and if you would apply that to votes that we have made tonight in order for it to be approved a petitioner needs to appear at both consecutive meetings in able for it to be approved…

Don Pauken stated, lets go back to the…

Carol Stradling stated, that word either really troubles me here.

Don Pauken stated, lets go back to the rules and definitions, that 2.0010 any words not defined in section 2.10 shall be construed in their general accepted meaning.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, either means one or the other. Either does not mean both, either does not mean two it means one or the other.

Bill Pyle stated, so two is twice as many.

Carol Stradling stated, so I guess what I’m saying is if we choose to read the ordinance as it is written as verbatim then for any, or, for any petition to be approved then someone would need to appear at two consecutive meetings for it to be properly approved if they miss either consecutive meeting then it is not approved. Am I the only one that reads that either?

Bill Pyle stated, 9.4002 is…

President Thompson asked, can I have your name, can I have your name please?

Bill Pyle stated, I gave my name earlier.

President Thompson stated, well, one more time please.

Bill Pyle stated, Bill Pyle, this 9.4002 does not discuss being there it’s failure to appear.

Carol Stradling stated, at either of two consecutive meetings.

Bill Pyle stated, no, it’s addressing failure to appear. It’s not addressing whether you’re there two or not, it’s failure to appear. It’s addressing the failure to appear.

Carol Stradling stated, so unless you appear at two consecutive meetings…

Don Pauken stated, no…

Carol Stradling stated, it would be failure to appear.

Bill Pyle stated, it is addressing failure to appear.

Carol Stradling stated, correct.

Bill Pyle stated, it’s not whether you are there two meetings it says it’s failure to appear it’s addressing failure to appear.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to present any information this evening?

Dow Dellinger asked, good evening ladies and gentlemen, is that fine or do I need to be a t the front?

President Thompson stated, come on, come forward…

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, that would be the best I don’t even know if that was plugged in…

Dow Dellinger stated, I’m Dow Dellinger I’m here on behalf of Indiana Waste and Jeff VanWeelden the issue before you folks this evening I think we’re missing part of the point although the ordinance is important to be read, to be read what initially happened with the second meeting was that it actually got tabled and unfortunately we probably need to look at more rules, we need to look at the Roberts Rules of order which the table means it’s passed on to the next meeting. Mr. VanWeelden didn’t fail to appear because he contacted Diann, which she arranged however that happened for the issue to be tabled to the next meeting. You can table the, an issue of an infinite amount of times it would be just like if the gentlemen tonight appeared brought forth a survey and wanted to table it to the next meeting it just continues the issue and that’s what a table is Roberts Rules of Order would say that the issue could be tabled an infinite amount of times. The ordinance says that the failure to appear you have to fail twice but the problem that we’ve got tonight is that you have to take action on that issue, I think their objection is that you didn’t take action but you guys did in initial in essence take action and that you tabled it to the next meeting which Mr. VanWeelden appeared at.

Attorney Altman stated, see, this Board didn’t take action.

Carol Stradling stated, we did not take action…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s Area Plan Commission…

Carol Stradling stated, it was not this Board.

Dow Dellinger stated, I understand that they, I shouldn’t say this Board the Area Plan Board, I’m sorry Attorney Altman…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s alright…

Dow Dellinger stated, the Area Plan Board tabled the action to the next meeting, which Mr. VanWeelden appeared at. I mean the issued should have been addressed that night if someone objected to the tabling they should have made an objection at that point and time and forced a vote to table it or not table the issue and that’s not what happened the issued got tabled to the next meeting so there really isn’t a failure to appear that’s dismissive in this case.

President Thompson asked, anyone?

Don Pauken stated, Don Pauken again…

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Don Pauken stated, the ordinance allows for this to take place by simply asking to have it tabled and this was not done.

Attorney Altman stated, it was too, I was there, it was asked to be tabled and it was tabled by our President and the minutes reflect that.

Don Pauken stated, I agree the minutes reflect, it was tabled…

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s…

Don Pauken stated, but there was not motion made.

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t require by a …

Don Pauken stated, I think it does.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, that’s for this Board to decide but it was in fact, from a facts point of view tabled by our President both times and the minutes reflect that and that’s all that I’m trying to say is what actually happened the board then, this board has to decide if that’s sufficient but in fact the minutes before you and your exhibit shows that it was in fact tabled as Mr. Dellinger just said.

Don Pauken stated, and what I’m saying is there was not motion that it be tabled.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, that’s true, that’s true.

Don Pauken stated, and that could have easily been done and cured the whole problem by not only a representative but Mr. VanWeelden himself.

Attorney Altman asked, anything else they want to present?

Don Williams asked, may I say something?

President Thompson stated, yes you may, come forward please.

Don Williams stated, my name is Don Williams and I live out on Hanawalt and if there would have been a motion for this to be tabled on those meetings, I was here at both of those meetings and at that time I would have stood up and tried to argue that motion but it was never offered to us as we come up, there were several of us come up and as we come through the door we was told this had been tabled until next month and we were here before the time of the meeting was suppose to start and they said that it had been tabled so we’ve got to come back next month. If like I say there would have been a motion made to table it there would have been several people that would have said no, we need to address this now. Thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Bill Pyle stated, Bill Pyle, if I’m not mistaken that was made, that suggestion by Mr. Anderson was made before the meeting had been brought to order.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s reflected in the minutes.

Bill Pyle stated, it’s been added in.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not been added.

Bill Pyle stated, you just made, you just added that, you change the minutes didn’t you and added that to the, for that meeting didn’t you Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, we did amend some of the minutes…

Bill Pyle stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, at the, at Monday nights meeting.

Bill Pyle asked, and that did start before the meeting he made that statement before the meeting adjourned, or started…

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t…

Bill Pyle stated, was brought to order…

Attorney Altman stated, no it did not…

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so…

Bill Pyle stated, he did…

Audience member stated, he did…

Don Pauken stated, he did…

Bill Pyle stated, he stood up and said you folks that are here for this meeting we have tabled it and what he has done isn’t right but he can do anything he wants, that was the words that I think Director Weaver put into the minutes and he made that before the meeting was started…

President Thompson stated, hold on.

Attorney Altman stated, hold on please…

(The tape was changed at this time)

Director Weaver stated, I’m looking for mine.

President Thompson asked, of which meeting now are you speaking of?

Bill Pyle stated, you’ll have to ask Director Weaver that, we haven’t got a copy of that yet so far.

Attorney Altman stated, okay…

Don Pauken stated, March the 14th…

President Thompson stated, March 14th…

Attorney Altman stated, March 14th, minutes are here and…

Bill Pyle stated, the original minutes don’t show that meet, that conversation.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but the present minutes are corrected to show that what he did and he did, shows it as being done after the meeting was called to order.

Bill Pyle stated, well, that’s not true.

A female audience member stated, that’s not true.

Other audience members stated, that’s not done.

Bill Pyle stated, that is a lie.

Attorney Altman stated, wait a second, excuse me, I have misread…

Bill Pyle asked, okay is it before or after the meeting started?

Attorney Altman stated, it was called to order after he said that and then called to order after he said that.

Bill Pyle asked, so that was not in the meeting, correct Mr. Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m checking the minutes.

Bill Pyle stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, page 7 and 8 of the minutes of the March 14, 2005 meeting indicates I guess it’s actually on page 8 that the request is tabled until April 14, 2004 and the second one, 874 it says exactly the same thing that the request is tabled until April the 14, uh 11, 2005 as well as the conversation that you just related occurred also so both are in the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, is that what Charlie Anderson said before the meeting started or after, that’s what my, that’s my comment.

Attorney Altman stated, there is conversation that Mr. Anderson said before the meeting started and then after the meeting started it is set forth that these requests both of them are tabled until April the…

Bill Pyle asked, how can there be two?

Attorney Altman stated, 11, 2005…

Bill Pyle asked, how can there be two, how can there be two in the minutes? Also, I was here that day…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m just reading what they say…

Bill Pyle stated, okay, all right…

Attorney Altman stated, and I’m telling you that’s what it says before you…

President Thompson stated, what, what, what he has done is he has waited, he followed the order of the meeting according to the minutes and when he come to variance number 873 Rangeline it shows here like Attorney Altman said, that it shows on the record that this request is tabled until April 11, 2005 and then he went on to variance 874 and repeated that. That’s according to what I see here in front of me.

Bill Pyle stated, okay, Mr. VanWeelden showed up that night and brought a note if I’m not mistaken…

Director Weaver stated, not on March the 14th.

Bill Pyle asked, not on March 14th, he didn’t show up for the meeting?

Director Weaver stated, that was at February 14th’s meeting.

Bill Pyle asked, why did that have to be brought back into the minutes and added to the minutes if it was before the meeting started?

Attorney Altman stated, I suspect to accurately reflect what occurred. You would, someone could complain about it not being in there because it occurred and since it occurred we the Board considered it appropriate to have the minutes reflect what occurred.

Bill Pyle stated, but the meeting wasn’t brought to order and…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not arguing that…

Bill Pyle stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not arguing that I’m saying is the minutes clearly reflect what Mr. Anderson, President Anderson said occurred like you said before the meeting was called to order and also clearly reflects that on page 8 that as President Thompson said the request was tabled…

Bill Pyle stated, if you can remember that night, there was a lot of us here and I think he wanted to release us from the meeting and that’s why he did that.

Attorney Altman stated, you can think all you want it’s just, it isn’t on the record.

Bill Pyle asked, what isn’t on the record?

Attorney Altman stated, what, what you think, what you think…

Bill Pyle stated, oh.

Attorney Altman stated, what I think.

Don Pauken stated, I’m Don Pauken…

President Thompson stated, yes.

Don Pauken stated, there was some irregularities that happened with these minutes that I think you should be aware of. Originally that’s why you got two pages on the one that says a corrected or changed on a certain date and if that’s when the statement was put into the minutes and this is not in accordance with Roberts Rules to do this. Once the minutes are approved, once the motion is made to approve them and they are approved which it was done, that’s why you have two sheets for the one that I handed to you, once you do that you can not go and change history that’s done, you can amend it and the way it’s amended is you go in at the next meeting or at another meeting which they did, they went in and changed the wording at the meeting or added something into it into that, that doesn’t change, that particular set of minutes it does not change it. Those amendments go in the meeting where the amendment was made and they have not done that. We don’t know what else has been changed in there. We have asked for the tape, no you can’t have it. Also in the discussion where we had at the May meeting where the Area Plan Director indicated what her reading of the ordinance was what her interpretation of it was I was not allowed to speak at that discussion. I thought that it was a public meeting and the funny thing is in looking in at the May minutes that discussion that happened at that meeting is not even in the minutes and they have been approved. Now something is wrong. What else has been changed in the minutes that are pertinent? We don’t know.

Bill Pyle asked, my name is Bill Pyle and I would like to ask Director Weaver a question. Did you delete those from the minutes Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t do the minutes. I don’t type the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, well how did they, why, if Mr. Altman is telling us they want them accurate and they put things in them why were deleted out?

Director Weaver stated, like I answered, I don’t type the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, well who does? You’re the Director, who is responsible?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t do all the work in that office…

Bill Pyle asked, who is responsible for typing…

Director Weaver stated, Paula Norwood does the minutes, she types the minutes.

Bill Pyle stated, why would they delete your testimony as to why you feel…

Director Weaver stated, I can not answer that, I don’t type the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, would you mind trying to look into that and tell us why they were deleted? That seems like evidence tampering or someone, that does not look good I don’t care how you say it that they took something out of the minutes.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe that it’s intentional and what, what part are you referring to, I’m looking here…

Bill Pyle stated, that part where you make a definition of how you felt and Mr. Altman’s name being used in there.

Director Weaver stated, it’s in here.

Bill Pyle stated, it’s in the old one, it’s not in the one you just posted.

Don Pauken stated, no, no, no…

Director Weaver stated, that was on May the 9th, we did not amend…

Don Pauken stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, that part of those minutes.

Don Pauken stated, let me give just a, Don Pauken, clarification on that particular item I looked at the minutes, I was looking at the minutes in the Area Plan Office of the April meeting and the rough draft of the May minutes were in that booklet and in that was the discussion of this 9.41 of the failure to appear it was on the agenda the discussion was to be held it was held even though I wasn’t allowed to talk. That was in the rough draft. Today I looked in the minutes of the meeting for may that was not there. No discussion of that was in the minutes and they have been approved and recorded. I’m worried that there are other things that have taken place that have tried to tilt this thing one way or another, I don’t know.

Director Weaver asked, are you talking about the April minutes?

Don Pauken stated, I’m talking about the May minutes, May minutes.

Director Weaver asked, and what is missing that was in the rough draft?

Don Pauken stated, it was the discussion that was made between Mr. Altman, yourself, Mr. Ward made a statement and Charlie Anderson.

Director Weaver asked, at the end of the meeting, is that when you’re referring?

Don Pauken stated, at the end of the meeting where the discussion was held where I tried to speak and Mr. Altman said you can not speak. It was an open meeting and that’s a violation also.

Director Weaver stated, to my knowledge, there has been no change to that part of these minutes.

Don Pauken stated, there is.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not saying there isn’t…

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a set…

Director Weaver stated, I’m saying to my knowledge there isn’t…

Bill Pyle stated, the one that is in the office, the book…

Don Pauken stated, yes, it’s not there.

Bill Pyle stated, they got approved.

Don Pauken stated, they are approved.

Carol Stradling asked, page 11?

Don Pauken stated, they are approved.

Bill Pyle asked, I just have another question too, I would just like to ask, how many days do you have to amend minutes? I mean I have seen Mrs. Stradling tonight request that it be tabled because she hadn’t read, but they went back two months Monday night and they amended things that happened two months ago. How long do you have to amend something? Is there any definition on that? That looks hokey, again.

President Thompson stated, I can’t answer for them, I only know how this Board operates and we do it just for the fact of what happened tonight, we’re short…

Bill Pyle stated, that makes sense…

President Thompson stated, we’re short Board members, we want to hold off.

Bill Pyle asked, I’m wondering could they go back 6 months, a year and amend testimony?

Carol Stradling stated, I know for a fact…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that it has any relevant…

Carol Stradling stated, that the girls in the office try to keep the business moving forward…

Bill Pyle stated, that’s not what I’m…

Carol Stradling stated, would you please wait sir and let people finish…

Bill Pyle stated, okay, yeah sure.

Carol Stradling stated, I have seen you interrupt Director Weaver on several times…

Bill Pyle stated, no you haven’t.

Carol Stradling stated, yes…

Bill Pyle stated, I haven’t interrupted anyone tonight.

Carol Stradling stated, you’re interrupting me now…

President Thompson stated, let her have the floor a minute…

Carol Stradling stated, please stop.

President Thompson stated, please.

Carol Stradling stated, I do want to hear what you have to say but I now that the ladies and the staff in that office work very hard to move the business of the county forward. It includes typing up the minutes it also includes dealing with building permits, addressing phone calls, and several other things. The minutes that they type up are quite lengthy, they are quite lengthy. It takes a lot of time to listen to what is said and to type it up and to proof it and correct it and then to get it out. I received the minutes last week and my preference is to take time for each of us to review those minutes to assure that they are correct. Sometimes that may take a couple of months. I know that everyone works as diligently as they can and that’s what the Board does tonight and that’s what we’re trying to do in listening to your appeal and in determining the ordinance.

Bill Pyle stated, I’m real glad to hear everybody works well in the office, okay, I’m glad to hear it, that has nothing bearing on what we’re talking about tonight. I asked a question how many years, months, weeks can they go back and amend minutes?

Carol Stradling stated, you had an answer to that and the Attorney’s answer to that was there is no set, there is not set date and then you said that it looks hokey and that’s where I interrupted and said no the girls work very diligently.

Bill Pyle asked, does that answer that question when something looking hokey that the girls work very diligently. Does that, is that your answer to me? Is it?

Dow Dellinger stated, if the chair would allow for just one moment…

President Thompson stated, name please again.

Dow Dellinger stated, Dow Dellinger.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Dow Dellinger stated, the problem that we’re running into here is that I mean, this is a quasijudicial meeting, or the meeting was a quasijudicial meeting which is recorded and the transcript is the actual meeting minutes I mean if someone wants to review word for word what happened the minutes are only a summary of the meeting. The meeting is actually on tape so there is a word for word as much as the microphone can pick up of course…

President Thompson stated, that’s right…

Dow Dellinger stated, record of what happened at that meeting. What’s important and what you folks need to look at tonight is that at that meeting Roberts Rules of Order require that if there is an objection procedural objection that needs to be taken up at the time of tabling again, when it was read, when the ordinance number came up and it was read and said that it was tabled there were lots of opposing people here and at any point and time they could have stood up and object to the tabling and said because of the rule he has missed two meetings we want it to be dismissed at that point and time they should of either dismissed the petition or ruled on, gone ahead and ruled on the tabling. No one asked for that to happen at the meeting. I mean the reason why you can’t come back and be a half time shooter on this issue is just so we don’t stop the procedure and look back procedurally and object to something that has happened the previous meetings month after month after month. Roberts Rules require when there’s a table if someone objects to the tabling they must object at that point and time, that point must be addressed then it has to vote on the table. No one objected to the tabling, no one here objected to the tabling, so unfortunately we can’t go back and look at it now. The tabling was granted and Mr. VanWeelden appeared at the next hearing. Unfortunately tonight’s meeting I don’t think that there’s anything that they can do. If they want to go back and look at the record or listen to the record or ask to pay for a transcript I think that the parties could get that but I don’t think that it does them any good. So I think tonight what we need to focus on is what they can do under Roberts Rule if they simply can’t come back and object to the, to the table now, they needed to do that the night of tabling.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Don Pauken stated, unfortunately….

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I can tell you to answer your question page 11, 12 and I think going on to 13 of the minutes that Director Weaver just brought is exactly transcript of the record that occurred relative to Article 4 point, or 8.4002 I’m looking at it right here, it’s in the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, so there’s nothing, they can go back a year if they want to and change them?

Attorney Altman stated, well, I’m talking to Mr. Pauken….

Don Pauken stated, no, this is….

Bill Pyle stated, I don’t…

Attorney Altman stated, the statement he says that isn’t in the minutes and I’m looking at it here and it is in the minutes.

Bill Pyle asked, it’s in the, the one, the one voted the ones that haven’t been approved?

Attorney Altman stated, no, this is May the 9, 2005 minutes of our meeting pages 11, 12…

Bill Pyle stated, and Director Weaver’s conversation and definition…

Attorney Altman stated, and 13…

Bill Pyle stated, of the ordinance is there?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s, that’s right.

Bill Pyle stated, okay. I apologize for that and in response to Mr. Dellinger, is that it?

Dow Dellinger stated, Dellinger.

Bill Pyle stated, Dellinger, not everyone knows Roberts Rules of Law and we can’t all be Attorney’s.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s why I told you to hire one to start with.

Bill Pyle stated, well if the ordinances are…

Attorney Altman stated, and we’re far field right now so please continue your appeal.

Bill Pyle stated, if the ordinances were enforced like Director Weaver is suppose to do, we wouldn’t need a lawyer we could walk in here and do this ourselves.

President Thompson asked, ma’am, you had something to add did you?

Leah Williams stated, well I was going to, my name is Leah Williams…

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Leah Williams stated, and I was going to ask a question that was already been answered by Mr. Altman, I apologize, I’m just an ignorant citizen. You know, I come here because of ordinance and laws and everything that is going on and to listen and to give opinions and I’m sorry, I didn’t know that I had the right the night of this that I was told that, that meeting was tabled and to go home. I did not know that I had the right to come in here and say I object to this so my question has already been answered, you’re in trouble if you’re an ignorant citizen. Thank you.

President Thompson asked, yes ma’am?

Tammy Chiafos stated, hi, my name is Tammy Chiafos and I don’t really know what has been going on tonight but I was here I believe it was Monday May 16th at the 8:30 Commissioners Meeting when they did bring up the problem with Mr. VanWeelden not showing up at the two meetings and I remember Channel 18 was here and so was the Journal and Courier and Don stood up in front of the Commissioners and said that this needs to be dismissed that he hasn’t showed up to the two meetings and according to the ordinances, I don’t know the wording for it he said it needed to be dismissed according to the ordinances or guidelines. Does that not count as what Mr. Dellinger is saying?

President Thompson stated, you said Don, Don?

Tammy Chiafos stated, Pauken.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much…

Tammy Chiafos asked, does that not count though?

Attorney Altman stated, actually it has to be at the meeting like Mr. Dellinger said.

Tammy Chiafos asked, so the Commissioners meeting isn’t the one that counts then?

Attorney Altman stated, that wasn’t the meeting when it was tabled originally. It was the February May meeting when it was tabled.

Tammy Chiafos asked, okay so then what was the meeting for May 16th where it went before the Commissioners about everything?

Attorney Altman stated, well, the Commissioners tabled it there so yes, that was tabled by the Commissioners but the matter that Mr. Pauken and, and, and, Mr. I’m sorry I forgot...

Bill Pyle stated, Mr. Pyle.

Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Pyle, I’m sorry, Mr. Pyle your name escaped me for a second the tables, they are appealing on are the February and March ones not the one before the County Commissioners. I don’t try to state your case Mr. Pyle and Mr. Pauken but I think that’s correct that the two tables that you’re talking about and make basing your appeals on are the February and March tablings and the White County Area Plan Commissions meetings on February and March of this year.

Bill Pyle asked, my question is this, Bill Pyle, if Mr. Anderson advised us that it had been tabled and we all left the room and then the meeting was brought to order how would we have a chance to question it? We left, everyone in the room that was there maybe for a few we left. We left the meeting, he advised us it wasn’t going to be business as usual tonight for that petition, we left.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that Mr. Dellinger gave you, your answer.

President Thompson stated, sir, just a second, I will give you another shot, we have a couple more that have not had a chance. We’ll come back to you.

Don Williams stated, my name is Don Williams again and as an attorney sitting on the Board is it not…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not sitting on the Board…

Don Williams stated, okay as an attorney for the Board…

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Don Williams asked, and it’s the board’s position that they are supposed to be unbiased to one side or the other, would it not be a fair assumption to think that the Board’s Attorney would say you know is there anybody that doesn’t understand what’s going on you have a right to argue this. Like I say the night that we’re really talking about that first meeting there were people all of the way down that hallway almost to the elevators when that, before that meeting started and like I say I’m just a, a stupid fireman here in town and I don’t know the laws and regulations and I can’t afford to bring an attorney to a Board meeting to make sure that I’m not looking stupid. Now as like I say I think that it would be fair if everybody is unbiased to one side or the other that we would have had that opportunity to object that night before when everyone left the Court House because you know as a citizen I’m trusting you guys’ judgement I think that it should be fair but if we’re told to go home before we can voice our opinion were assuming that by you folks telling us to go home that, that’s what we need to do. That we’re not going to get taken after we leave and I’m not suggesting that you folks was taking us but what I’m saying is that created a loop hole for one side or the other. Thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you, yes sir.

Don Pauken stated, Don Pauken, relative to tabling I have the minutes of the meeting of the April 18th of the Commissioners and that’s when those rezoning of 873 and 874 of Rangeline Properties came up and let me read you just what Commissioner Burton did. Commissioner Burton made a motion to table rezoning petition 873 and rezoning petition 874 until May 16th vote unanimous. What I’m saying is they are going to table it, they make a motion that is correct procedure to make a motion and table it as pointed out prior to this time.

Bill Pyle stated, I would like to address you Mr. Altman, didn’t you in that May meeting say that you agreed with Director Weaver when she said defined, doesn’t that in itself show bias to this Board that you’re here tonight representing this Board?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Bill Pyle asked, it doesn’t?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I guess that I look at your definition of appear and it says…

Bill Pyle asked, you haven’t made any comments tonight about this and joined in on it?

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly have, but I certainly don’t think that it’s bias. I look at your definition of appear and one of the highlighted matters that you presented and your definition section here as second definition highlighted in front of me to come formally before an authoritative body. This is precisely what this body is and the people, Attorney’s, other people appear before us formally by an appearance and this is what I saw that Mr. VanWeelden did when he requested his continuances his tabling I’m sorry and did so in writing isn’t as formal as I’m sure his attorney tonight would have recommended he do but I understood that he was doing it in the usual ordinary way that we’ve consistently done this for the last 33 years, allowed people to do this before the Board of Zoning Appeals and Area Plan Commission and uh, and that’s why I agree not because I have any bias I don’t care at all what the vote is on anything. I just care what is correct and that we do things consistently, attempt to do that consistently and I attempt to do an opinion that is consistent with past practices and what I believe is the law and that’s all.

Bill Pyle stated, thank you Mr. Altman that makes me feel a lot better.

Don Pauken stated, Don Pauken again, the analogy of we did it all the time or we’ve done it for 33 years…

Attorney Altman stated, no I don’t mean it all the time…

Don Pauken asked, what…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not trying to interrupt…

Don Pauken asked, no this, if the speed limit on a highway is 55 mile an hour and you go 65 and after 10 years you get pulled over just because you say I’ve done it all my life for 10 years now I can be dispensed of it no that doesn’t the law is still 55, the ordinance is still the law and what we’re saying follow the law. It’s your law it’s my law it’s White County’s Law that Zoning Ordinance and we expect everyone to follow it.

Bill Pyle stated, not only that we expect Director Weaver to support those ordinances, that’s her job and I don’t feel like she’s doing it.

President Thompson asked, yes ma’am.

Tammy Chiafos stated, I’m Tammy Chiafos again.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Tammy Chiafos stated, and I don’t know if this has any relevance on tonight’s meeting or not because I was at a ball game all night but Mr. VanWeelden came to my home and what I do not understand is he told me that this wasn’t even his idea to have his property rezoned. He told me that the zoning Board came to him and said well the rest of your property is already rezoned so why don’t you go ahead and do the front lot where the house use to be so it’s all the same property so I guess what I don’t understand is what’s the big fuss if the Zoning Board is the one that went to him and asked him and why is the Zoning Board going to the middle of you know Range Line and Hanawalt Road and asking him to rezone his property. That makes no sense to me and then he also made statements to me that what would you like to see me do with this property how can I make you happy and he, I said well first of all I really don’t want to see your trucks driving up and down the road you know they come flying by well I’ll work on that I said well you’re the boss, tell them what to do well I’ll work on that then I said you know it’s unsightly be nice if you would have a fence put up. We I can’t work on the fence until I get this taken care of I only want to do one thing at a time and he reiterated the fact that the Zoning Board is the one that came to him and asked him to change the property zoning. Another thing I said was you know it would be nice if you could put in writing that you’re not going to open up a transfer station well that’s something that I’ll consider. So you know every thing that he said that he would do nothing has happened really he did move the trash trucks I did say it’s unsightly to look at all of those trash trucks sitting on the edge of the road not really that you know I’m out in the country I would like to see a nice view so he did move the trash trucks back on the property line and I appreciate that but now that I’m not working at the school because of summer vacation you would not believe how many times trash trucks go up and down the road I mean I had to call the police because we almost got ran over by a private citizen who thought we bicycler didn’t have the right on the road and you know it has nothing to do with him and his trash trucks but the traffic has not decreased he’s not asking his drivers to go down the State Highway if you see the trash trucks come off of 300 onto Hanawalt if there is a car right there at the intersection, they have to back up because the road is too small and you can’t have a trash truck turning off of the road so you know it’s um…

President Thompson stated, appreciate it…

Tammy Chiafos asked, what do you do I just you know I don’t see why we’re having such an argument if it was technically no big deal for him in the first place to have that property rezoned why are we having the argument.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Tammy Chiafos stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you. Anyone else in attendance have anything to add? Yes sir.

Jim Wooten stated, I’m sure everyone is curious, my name is Jim Wooten and I live 2 miles North of the existing station on that ladies statement I would just like to say I also moved to the country for the view and the ambiance where I live there is 11, 3 acre zoning, 3, 3 acre parcels for a little bit above starter level houses and the money that property currently makes off of agricultural taxes whatever it is I’m sure is less than the money it would make in taxes from residential being 3 I had 5 acres 3, 5, 9 however many acres and I don’t think that people are going to want to move there and buy those other 10 lots to have the country ambiance the view the peace and quiet if there is a transfer station right down the road from their houses. The same as this lady I moved there for that specific reason and we’ve got a quarter of a million dollars invested and I can’t see this fellows uh if I’m correct in assuming that he wants to put a transfer station there I can’t see his transfer station helping my property values or the potential gain on those residential lots that still haven’t been built on yes that was it, that’s all that I want to say.

President Thompson stated, okay thank you.

Jim Wooten stated, okay.

An audience member station, I have one more thing that I failed to mention…

President Thompson stated, okay, just a second please.

Carol Stradling stated, Attorney Altman, we’re not here to determine whether or not there’s a transfer station there and we’re not here to determine whether or not it’s rezoned or what happens there, we’re here to determine whether or not the Area Plan Office made the correct interpretation of Article 9.4002.

Jim Wooten asked, may I respond? Since, were you answering were you talking in regards to what I said?

An audience member stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, if you can relate that to how Director Weaver made the decision that would be great.

Jim Wooten asked, so you’re answering my question, okay. I see, again, Jim Wooten.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Jim Wooten stated, and my opinion is the same as his, you guys need to follow the law you need to interpret the, it’s already interpreted for you now do the right thing and kick this out of here. Do what the law tells you to do. How’s that for relating it to what you had to say.

President Thompson asked, yes ma’am?

Essy Williams stated, my name is Essy Williams and to get back to whether it was right to table or not table and I was here the first meeting I was here the second meeting. The first meeting we were told to go home if we were told that we had the opportunity to argue whether we want it to be tabled or wanted it to be heard, we would have stuck around for later minutes however late you guys said that you went down through your listing of who needed to be heard and said and brought forth. If we knew that it would have knew that it was going to be voted upon later that night I’m sure most of us would have stayed so that we can give our opinions and our discrepancies then instead of waiting until second meeting where you told us tabled or don’t worry about it because he’s not going to show or whatever the case may have been and then we waited for the third meeting and there was a lot of heated arguments there well not arguments but statements and we have voiced our opinion and this, the third meeting would not have had to of happened if we would have been told in the first or the second that if you stuck around and argumented, argued the fact or just stated your opinion later in the minutes when you guys addressed whether or not it was tabled or wouldn’t have been tabled. Thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Don Pauken stated, Don Pauken again, in light of the discrepancies in the minutes and whether they were appropriately handled and so forth and whether things were left out of the minutes and put back into the minutes properly and so forth. I think that we need to investigate this a little bit farther so we are requesting that you table this discussion until the next meeting. Can I hear a motion that you will table it?

Attorney Altman stated, I think to ask Mr. Dellinger to respond.

President Thompson stated, yes sir, come forward.

Dow Dellinger stated, fact of the matter is, it got tabled that’s what you guys need to be focusing on tonight not what’s right or what’s wrong or all of the issues with the transfer station or the fact that the minutes may not be exactly right, what you guys need to focus on is what the interpretation was. It is what it is, it got tabled and if they object, if they want to sue the Area Plan Commission they can but tonight your just here to determine if the procedure was followed…

Attorney Altman stated, excuse me, we won’t interrupt you if you don’t interrupt him, please.

Dow Dellinger stated, and it got tabled so that’s unfortunately what you have in front of you tonight so I think that we just need to stay you know the theory of tabling this issue I don’t think that there is any need to table this issue to go back and look at minutes or go back and listen to the tapes because it really doesn’t have anything to do with it I mean the thing got tabled twice and no one objected to it so we’ve heard a lot of testimony tonight about a lot of things that have nothing to do about the issue that you have in front you guys.

President Thompson stated, exactly.

Don Pauken stated, we have uh, we have the privilege as expressed by Mr. Altman at the beginning of the meeting before the vote is taken because there is only 3 of the Board members here to table and the vote has not been taken yet so I want that privilege to be able to table this meeting until the next time.

Attorney Altman stated, I said variance, a variance has the right to table, that’s what I said twice…

Carol Stradling asked, is…

Attorney Altman stated, however the Board may entertain his motion to table his appeal and that’s what is before us right now to decide.

Carol Stradling asked, your reason for wanting to table it Mr. Pauken?

Don Pauken stated, my reason to table it is because of the irregularities with the minutes. The tampering of the minutes that was not handled properly and we don’t know what else has been taken out or put into the minutes.

Carol Stradling asked, is, do you have a method of verifying that with the Area Plan Commission or with the, I’m sorry the Zoning Board, I mean I’m not on that Board, I was not present at that meeting, I could review the minutes but unless I took the time to compare the minutes with the transcript there’s nothing this Board could do to elevate that…

Don Pauken stated, I under…

Carol Stradling stated, do, I mean we could table it is there a way…

Bill Pyle stated, you know as much as we do, we were at that meeting and they didn’t read what they were going to change, and we don’t know, that’s why we’re telling you this they adopted some rules and they took a vote and it was unanimous and they didn’t read what they were amending, can you believe that? Ask Director Weaver.

President Thompson stated, lets go back…

Director Weaver stated, I did read part of it to you.

President Thompson stated, sorry.

Bill Pyle stated, part of it? How much of it? I, I…

Director Weaver stated, I read the one-minute, the one meeting to you and I can’t tell you which one it was at this point. I did read it to you.

Bill Pyle stated, I don’t recall that, I’m sorry Director Weaver.

Director Weaver stated, I did.

Bill Pyle stated, you know as much as we do Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, well I guess when you’re asking to table it what do you want to gain from that?

Bill Pyle stated, we would like to hear the tape.

Carol Stradling stated, excuse me just a minute. What would you like to do Mr. Pauken in the meantime?

Don Pauken stated, we need to investigate and look at, listen to the tapes and find out what has been, and look at what was changed in those minutes.

Carol Stradling asked, is that even possible? Is that possible?

Don Pauken stated, now something’s were put in before the minutes, before the motion to start the, before the meeting was put in, well that’s why I gave you two pages or two front pages to that one meeting is because they inserted a paragraph into that minutes of that meeting.

Bill Pyle stated, Carol, there is something else, we filed a complaint that the dumpsters are still there and part of the amendment in that meeting went back and the original meeting was that after the commissioners meeting Jeff VanWeelden would have 30 days to remove those dumpsters…

Gary Barbour stated, that’s not true, that’s not true, that’s not a true statement.

Bill Pyle stated, you asked for it.

Gary Barbour stated, I made the statement, the statement was that he had until the Commissioners made a decision….

An audience member stated yes.

Gary Barbour stated, before he removed the dumpsters…

Bill Pyle stated, okay, I’m not, I’m not…

Gary Barbour stated, that’s the statement that was made

Bill Pyle stated, okay Gary, I’m not, that’s not my point and you’re letting me go on. What I’m saying is two issues that we’re contesting the complaint, that the complaint and we haven’t heard or got a letter back we were, it’s suppose to get a letter within 30 days what they have done we have heard nothing and I think that tomorrow is 30 days so that has to do with our case…

Carol Stradling stated, you, you lost me, complaint in 30 days…

Bill Pyle stated, we had…

Carol Stradling asked, is that just what Gary was talking about?

Bill Pyle stated, yes it is.

Carol Stradling stated, they haven’t made their decision so the 30 days hasn’t come in.

Bill Pyle stated, so they amended the minutes to say the original minutes didn’t say that and they amended the minutes…

Gary Barbour stated, well, they didn’t say that…

Bill Pyle stated, thank you.

Gary Barbour stated, that’s what I called them on.

Bill Pyle stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I called them so that it was made correct.

Bill Pyle stated, so you see that’s the other issue that we’re contesting here…

Gary Barbour stated, that was before…

Bill Pyle stated, not here…

Gary Barbour stated, that was before the minutes were approved at that meeting also.

Bill Pyle stated, I don’t think so, I don’t, no, I don’t think so Gary, she has changed, she’s gone back two months on some things.

Gary Barbour stated, I called on it.

Bill Pyle stated, I appreciate that.

Gary Barbour stated, I caught it in the minutes when I read them and I called them on it.

Bill Pyle stated, okay, Carol back to you, that’s the one issue, the other issue…

Carol Stradling asked, have we not resolved that here?

Bill Pyle stated, oh we’re not, that’s not even in or here.

Carol Stradling stated, you’re telling me that it’s one of the issues, Gary to my mind addressed that issue I think it’s no longer an issue.

Bill Pyle stated, no, we’ve still got the complaint, the dumpsters have been there almost 8 months…

Gary Barbour stated, the County Commissioners haven’t made a decision yet.

Bill Pyle stated, I understand that but they changed the minutes to where, maybe it’s right what they changed it to…

Gary Barbour stated, changed it to reflect what was actually said.

Bill Pyle stated, but, but that changes our complaint that we were looking forward to seeing what would happen and it’s not going to happen now until there’s a vote. We read those minutes you see what I mean and we believe that he had 30 days to take care of it and now they have changed them this is what we’re trying to tell you, you know, I don’t know whether we need a lawyer or we need to talk to the Prosecutor because things are changing around here with everything that we get involved in.

President Thompson stated, let’s back up.

Carol Stradling asked, you wish to table it Mr. Pauken?

Don Pauken stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and what do you intend to gain in the meantime?

Don Pauken stated, further information about what is in the minutes and what was changed in the minutes.

President Thompson stated, okay Carol, just a second…

Don Pauken stated, I am…

President Thompson stated, I’m going to help or hurt here but when anytime that we have an applicant for a variance and they step forward and want to table it, it’s their right. As they are appealing are they to be treated the same?

Attorney Altman stated, I would think so.

President Thompson stated, he has asked to appeal it, so or excuse me, table it, excuse me, table it, end of conversation.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Don Pauken stated, there’s, there’s…

President Thompson stated, is any of that your choice?

Don Pauken stated, right because there’s only three of you here.

President Thompson stated, and no vote, there’s no vote involved, you’re telling us to table it.

Attorney Altman stated, very good.

President Thompson stated, one Board member to another is not suggesting it, you’re suggesting you would like to have it tabled correct?

Don Pauken stated, I would like to have it tabled.

President Thompson stated, okay then so therefore what I’m saying is grant his wishes we have not vote in it, if he want’s to table it correct, Attorney Altman right?

Attorney Altman stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, and you’re tabling it to get more information?

Don Pauken stated, yes, well also since there is only three Board members…

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Don Pauken stated, that is enough.

President Thompson stated, okay, I don’t see that we have any choice, do you?

Carol Stradling stated, I…

Attorney Altman stated, before we, before we….

Carol Stradling stated, I guess the only station I wanted to make Attorney Altman is that we, one of the comments was that can we find a conclusion to this and know if you feel that you can get some more information by tabling it then fine we would have more information and if not then when you wish to pursue it I suppose we would pursue it.

Bill Pyle stated, it’s been tabled.

Attorney Altman stated, before it was we received exhibit A, B, C and D from the objector anything else? I just want to make sure that we record right.

President Thompson stated, okay, so therefore this will automatically be heard on, at our next meeting…

Attorney Altman stated, right…

President Thompson stated, or not necessarily automatically.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s tabled to the next meeting just like anybody else would table.

President Thompson stated, okay, then that will be July 28th right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, did everyone hear that? We’re, we normally meet the third Thursday of each month but due to the White County Fair we have chosen to back up a week that’s why we’re going to the end of July just so everybody understands what we’re doing here. I believe the county, I know the County Fair we stuck with our third Thursday it would interfere.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, okay, so Director Weaver, anything else tonight?

An audience member was mumbling in the audience

Director Weaver stated, just that I presented to the Board….

President Thompson stated, we still have a meeting here sir, please…

Director Weaver stated, I have given a copy of my proposed budget for next year to each of you and I’ve also given a copy of and Attorney Altman I still need to get this for you for Gary and Jerry Thompson a copy of what was presented to us at last nights steering committee and the next meeting is going to be July 7th at 6:30, here.

President Thompson stated, okay, all right.

Director Weaver stated, it’s on the bottom of that paper too I think, I wrote it on there for you Gary.

Gary Barbour stated, okay.

An audience member stated, I didn’t see you sitting there, how has everything been going?

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, the only other thing is that as a consequence to this whole thing I suggest…

Several audience members talking…

President Thompson stated, we’re still having a meeting please.

Attorney Altman stated, suggested that I get copies of the minutes when you get copies of the minutes at least that early so that I can review them like you do because until recently well I haven’t received copies of the minutes so I really don’t know until I get here what’s in the minutes and I think that and Director Weaver is of course going to do that but I just want to…

Director Weaver stated, I have already relayed that message to Paula.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good, thank you.

President Thompson asked, either of you have anything? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no I was just very pleased with the way that the meeting went last night, the steering committee for the new ordinance and…


Attorney Altman stated, sure hope that they send us a copy of what they’re proposing pretty quick, I mean just attentively…


Carol Stradling stated, yes, there’s just a awful lot of things that…


Director Weaver stated, I didn’t get that impression.


Carol Stradling stated, no, it’s…


Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so…


Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I’m afraid of I would like to meet with, I think that would be very helpful for everybody to look at.


Director Weaver stated, they say they’re writing stuff, but I don’t know what.


Attorney Altman stated, okay, I think we need to have some stuff presented.


Director Weaver stated, I…


President Thompson stated, okay…


Carol Stradling stated, I think they are kind of waiting for us to get them what they need.


Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that’s the Board’s to do really, I think we have given them an input.


President Thompson asked, anything else? Move to adjourn?


Carol Stradling stated, I would move, I’ll second.


President Thompson stated, motion, second meeting adjourned, the next meeting is July the 28th say it again.


The meeting adjourned.


Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission