Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Dick Bertram, Judy Bertram, Charles R. Mellon, Brad Smock, Carrie Smock, and Terry Beasy.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Tabled the October 27, 2005 minutes to have them rechecked on page 3 of the Myron Anderson variance. David Stimmel made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the November 17, 2005 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2484 Richard W. & Judith A. Bertram Trust; The property is located on Part of Lots 9, 10 & 11 in Failing’s 1st Addition, located in the City of Monticello at 556 S. Illinois Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 3’ front setback variance and a 16’ rear setback variance so the existing building can be converted into a dwelling.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Bertram’s? Yes, do you have anything to add? If so please come forward. The board might have questions for you so please come forwards.

Richard Bertram stated, I’m Richard Bertram.

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

Director Weaver stated, I just want the board to know that they are in the process of rezoning the property, they went to the APC on Monday night. The request was to rezone from B-2 to R-2 was approved by the APC and that was forwarded on to the City Council for them to vote on Monday night.


President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry any questions?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Carol any thing?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m going to wait until he sets down and make him get back up. It says that there is a current pole building being built.

Richard Bertram stated, it is there.

Carol Stradling stated, it is there. It has been there for awhile.

Richard Bertram stated, no, we built it.

Carol Stradling asked, you built it for personal storage?

Richard Bertram stated, yes basically.

Carol Stradling stated, now you want.

Richard Bertram stated, a change of plans.

Carol Stradling stated, so when it was built it was within the setbacks.

Richard Bertram stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, for a pole barn.

Richard Bertram stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, but not for a residence.

Richard Bertram stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, okay thank you.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, is our vote contingent upon the City Councils decision. If the zoning doesn’t change the setbacks are they different then.

Director Weaver stated, if the zoning does not get passed then they can not put a dwelling in the building. It will not be properly zoned for a dwelling.

Carol Stradling asked, but it is okay for storage?

Director Weaver stated, it is zoned B-2 currently.

David Scott stated, so do we need to put that on our ballots.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it is always good to do that.

David Scott stated, they need to understand that.

Judy Bertram stated, we understand that, if the City Council doesn’t approve it, we understand.

Richard Bertram stated, what happened, it was going to be a part time living area and this probably doesn’t have anything to do with it at all, but it was just for 4 or 5 months out of the year short term. We built it originally to store a motor home in it when we are home and the rest of the time we are going to be out of here. We are here a lot of the time in the summer. We spend 10 or 12 weeks of the year at White Oaks. Not that this means anything. As far as living there permanently we don't intend to. Whether that means anything or not, but that is the intention. Circumstances changed and then we were into this situation here.

Carol Stradling stated, but once it is zoned to R-2 and once we approved this, whether you live there or someone else lives there.

Richard Bertram stated, I understand that. I just wanted to make my point of what happened initially and what occurred afterwards that caused us to do what we are doing. A big change of plans. In doing so, we are right in a residential area anyway you know. It is residential on the other side of us to the South and it is grandfathered. Dirty Hairy's, I don’t know if you are familiar with it or not, but anyway it is a dog grooming joint. The point is that there are people that live beyond us too in an apartment. The other way is residential also. We are not in an area that is industrial.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott anything else?

David Scott stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, David Stimmel?

David Stimmel stated, no.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for 3’ front setback variance and a 16’ rear setback variance so the existing building can be converted into a dwelling Part of Lot Number Nine (9) and Part of Lot Number Ten (10) in the Mary Failing’s Addition to the City of Monticello, Indiana as recorded in Deed Record Book 76, Page 187, White County Recorder’s Office described by:

The East 83.00 feet of even width of Lot No. 9 except the North 15.00 feet of even width. Also, the East 83.00 feet of even width of the entire East end of Lot No. 10 in the Mary Failing’s Addition to the City of Monticello, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

Also, The East 83.00 feet of even width off Lot Number Eleven (11) in the Mary Failing’s Addition to the City of Monticello, Indiana as recorded in Deed Record Book 190, Page 143, White County Recorder’s Office.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 556 S. Illinois Street.


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


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


Attorney Altman stated, this is contingent upon the City Council’s approval. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.


****

#2485 Hanenkratt Grain Co., Inc; The property is located on 4.32 & 2.89 acres Out SW NW 31-27-3, located West of Monticello at 471 S. 300 E.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 95’ height variance and a 40’ East Side setback variance to build a grain bin.

Brad Smock stated, Brad Smock, this mainly stems back from what we did in Idaville about a year ago.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I need for you to hold up. I know who you are. Do we have anything saying he can represent Hanenkratt’s? That is where I’m coming from.

Director Weaver stated, no

President Jerry Thompson asked, what is your relationship to Hanenkratt Grain?

Brad Smock stated, I’m the assistant Manger and Dan is my father-in-law.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I did not know that.

Carrie Smock stated, I’m his daughter.

Attorney Altman stated, that is good enough.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I did not know that, and we are pretty cautious on who is representing who and start over.

Brad Smock stated, Brad Smock, Dan Hanenkratt’s son-in-law. This mainly stems back from what we did in Idaville where we were going to build a bin. Judge Thacker had to make a ruling on whether we could build the bin or not. Now that has been okayed and we can build it in Idaville, if not, we went ahead and bought the bin because the price of steel was going up. If we didn’t go ahead and buy the bin…I’ve got a copy of the canceled check where we bought the bin. Our thought was if we couldn’t build it in Idaville then we would end up building it here. We were hoping there wouldn’t be problems here like we ran into in Idaville. We talked to the neighbor to the East and he is the only person affected and he said it is our property and we can do what we want to do. So that was the main reason to have a back up to put the bin if we couldn’t get okay from Judge Thacker to do it in Idaville.

Attorney Altman stated, you still want to proceed.

Brad Smock stated, yes, because we can be appealed so we want to go ahead.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay, I’m just curious, the size of the bin what will that hold?

Brad Smock stated, 489,000.

Carol Stradling asked, how much taller will it be over the other bins?

Brad Smock stated, um…

Carol Stradling stated, here is says height 145’, but it doesn’t have a height for the other bins.

Brad Smock stated, if I were, I’m over at Idaville all of the time so I know they were 110’, there is nothing that tall over there. I’d say the leg is taller than the bin.

Carol Stradling stated, that existing bins that are there, how tall are they?

Brad Smock stated, I’m shooting in the dark and say they are 75’ or 80’.

Carol Stradling stated, so this one is almost twice as tall.

Brad Smock stated, I’m wrong, that one can’t be 150’ there is no way.

Carol Stradling stated, it says 145’ for the proposed grain bin in the survey it is 81’ in diameter.

David Scott stated, is that 145’ the leg coming out of the top.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what I’m wondering.

Brad Smock stated, we weren’t going to put a leg in that. We were going to service the leg.

David Scott stated, it says 81’.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that is the diameter.

Brad Smock stated, that bin in 119’, it is the exact same bin we were going to.

(They are going over the survey.)

President Jerry Thompson stated, I know it isn’t that much, what kind of base is it setting on. How tall is the base, I know it isn’t 19’ or 20’ base.

Brad Smock stated, no, here is a copy of the base. Do you want to see the base?

President Jerry Thompson stated, it is up to you.

Brad Smock stated, it is 119’ because it is the same exact bin we were going with.

Attorney Altman asked, it that to the peak?

Brad Smock stated, that is to the loading height. Eave height is 106.9 and peak height is 128.7 that is what it says. I bet that is what they dig in the ground for the foundation to the total height of the peak. I know at Idaville we have to go 22’ into the ground.

Attorney Altman stated, if it is 128’ we don’t have any problem with that.

Brad Smock stated, 128.7’ is the peak height. The bushel capacity is 489,569.

Attorney Altman asked, does that answer your questions?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, so the ones that are there the tallest one there is 75’?

Brad Smock stated, yes, the leg.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not an ag person what is the leg?

Brad Smock stated, the leg carries the corn to the top of the bin.

Carol Stradling stated, I would have assumed that.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are you done?

Brad Smock stated, yes.

President Jerry Thompson asked, any responses?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything?

Attorney Altman stated, how will you fill it?

Brad Smock stated, we will run a conveyer from 17 bin (showing on the pictures) it will go from this one to this one.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone care to address the variance either for or against? Dave Stimmel anything?

David Stimmel stated, I’m just trying to clear this up in my mind. You are wanting approval to build out here on Rangeline?

Brad Smock stated, yes.

David Stimmel stated, is there, the intention is to build it in Idaville first?

Brad Smock stated, correct.

David Stimmel stated, the wheels fall off you will be out here.

Brad Smock stated, right now we’ve got the day after we submitted this, the day Judge Thacker said we could go ahead and go through with it in Idaville. What we figured they still have 30 days to appeal it to the state, so we are going to go ahead and do this because the bin is coming and we’ve go to take delivery in February of the bin. That way we could go this way if for some reason they would appeal it to the State.

David Stimmel stated, the other question that I had. I’m looking at Milligan’s survey here and I see US 24 and the right of way line and the new scale. Is that a new scale that you are putting in there or is it already built?

Brad Smock stated, it is already there. The other side is the old one that is the 50’ and we put in a 70’ 10 years ago.

Carol Stradling stated, I think you had the survey done then and I remember then looking at the new scale 10 years ago.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, what are the setbacks suppose to be?

Director Weaver stated, the side is 20’ or equal to the building heights.

Attorney Altman stated, this one is about 15’ short is what it amounts to.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else?

David Scott stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol anything else?

Carol Stradling stated, back on the height thing down at the bottom here it says maximum height of 50’.

Director Weaver stated, that is for the height.

Carol Stradling stated, the 95’, that is where the 145 comes from because 50 and 95 is 145’ and you said it wasn’t going to be that tall.

Director Weaver stated, I went with what was on the survey to come up with the variance request.

Attorney Altman stated, so you know what in and what is out. It is wrong on that so it is wrong on our variance.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I used the survey for to determine how much of a variance we needed.

Carol Stradling stated, okay. Bottom line is that 95’ will cover you ,but you aren’t going that tall.

Brad Smock stated, we are going to be over 95’.

Carol Stradling stated, 95’ variance will cover you, you are not going to need all of that.

Brad Smock stated, right.

President Jerry Thompson asked, any other discussion?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for 95’ height variance and a 40’ East Side setback variance to build a grain bin Beginning at a point 1084 feet south of the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼) of Section thirty-one (31), Township twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West, this point being the Northwest corner of land to be conveyed, thence South three hundred seven (307) feet to the centerline of State Road No. 24, thence in an easterly and north-easterly direction following the described degree curves of State Road No. 24 center of curved line a distance of 633 feet and six (6) inches to a point of tangent, the above six hundred thirty-three (633) feet six (6) inches being described as follows, thence East one hundred fifty-seven (157) feet six (6) inches, thence North eighty-seven (87) degrees east three hundred fifty-seven (357) feet, curved line, thence North seventy-eight (78) degrees east one hundred nineteen (119) feet; thence due North from center line of State road 273 feet to a stake, thence West 625 feet and six (6) inches to center of public highway or point of beginning, containing 4.32 acres, more or less, and out of the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section thirty-one (31) in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

Also, That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana described by:


Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the above said Section 31, thence South along the section line 897.41 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 187.19 feet; thence North 87 degrees 05 minutes East 740.72 feet; thence North 00 degrees 42 minutes East 149.50 feet; thence West 741.60 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.86 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Monticello at 471 S. 300 E.


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


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


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

****

#2486 Brad R. & Carrie A. Smock; The property is located on 3.00 acres on Part SE SW 29-27-2, located West of Idaville on the North side of Division Road.

Violation: The foundation has been started.

Request: They are requesting a 985’ separation variance from a Hog Confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract.

President Jerry Thompson stated, so I will start with you, unless you want Brad to have his say first.

Director Weaver stated, I really don’t have much to say other than I did provide the board with a copy of the foundation release that was issued. You should have also received a letter from me stating even though this foundation release shows setbacks requirements, Area Plan has not granted any kind of approval for this project.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we have some correspondence, Jerry you have those?

Attorney Altman stated, two letters here. (He proceeded to read them, see the file for those letters.)

Brad Smock stated, Brad Smock, you all know what the deal is.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here care to address this variance either for or against? Carol anything?

Carol Stradling stated, what we discussed the last time was that on the record. You said you all know.

Attorney Altman stated, I think the tape was running. It was noticed up so it was I guess.

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to incorporate that into this or do you want to repeat?

Attorney Altman stated, we can incorporate that with a reference yes, that is fine.

Carol Stradling stated, do you want to summarize where the house, the hog building and your father lives.

Brad Smock stated, there is 50 acres that Carrie and I own 5 acres out of the middle and that is where the hog barns are and where my house is currently. We are going to go West of that on my Dad’s property, it is actually my property now, we broke off 3 acres to build a house. The letters that Jerry had and read are the adjoining property owners to that 3 acres. We own the hog barns that set on the 5 acres in the middle of the 50. We went ahead and started the foundation with the foundation release was just purely because of the weather and because of financially to get the things done before the price increase. The weather hasn’t really worked for us so we are not completely done. They did pour a little bit of concrete yesterday. I guess I don’t know what else.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I would suggest that if that when you vote on this, that it show on the record that they do have unity of ownership and that this piece of real estate ought to have in the variance ought to show that it is build closer than the ordinance would normally require and that it is essentially condition on this home. No one can complain about it later on. They have notice of it. I think that is exactly what we are doing here.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol any other concerns?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m trying to place. We just show your parcel. Then on this diagram…is this where the hog confinement is?

Brad Smock is showing her on the map where everything sets and what he owns.

Carrie Smock stated, we would rather smell our own crap then there.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol anything else?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary anything else?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, the only thing that concerns me and I think I mentioned this before we are making an exception to let you build a house closer to a hog confinement facility. Do we have an obligation to the lending institution to make them aware that they are lending money to build a house next to a hog confinement building. Is that not our business?

Director Weaver stated, I’m understanding that the lending institution is very well aware of this situation.

Brad Smock stated, they know.

Carrie Smock stated, Deb Maxwell at Lafayette Bank and Trust, she knows and I think she called and talked to John Heimlich.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel?

David Stimmel stated, no nothing.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


2. That the lot 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 985’ separation variance from a Hog Confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract.



That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 2 West, 2nd Principal Meridian, Lincoln Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a PK nail found at the Southwest Corner of said Section 29; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East (S 89 20’ 18” E) (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along Division Road and the South Section Line 1331.61 feet to the Southwest Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 29 and the point of beginning; thence North 0 degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds West (N 0 31’ 59” W) along the Quarter Quarter Section Line 390.08 feet, thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East (S89 20’ 18” E) 335.08 feet; thence South 0 degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds East (S 0 31’ 59” E) 390.08 feet to the South Section Line; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West (N 89 20’ 18” W) along Division Road and the South Section Line 335.08 feet to the point of beginning; said described tract containing 3.000 acres, more or less.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Idaville on the North side of Division Road.


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


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


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


President Jerry Thompson stated, we do have the violation. How do we want to address that?


Carol Stradling stated, this is kind of new ground. We have not had the whole separation thing issuing permits and all of that. That is new and it hasn’t been an issue as long as the building inspector waits for Area Plans release.


Attorney Altman stated, I will tell you in the distant past we haven’t issued a foundation permit. I’m going on memory here and we have done this before as a body and that such it wouldn’t be the first time that someone was basically issued that type of permit, they basically proceeded on their own. They could have been turned down. It isn’t the first time it has happened. Whether you treat it as a violation or what you do about the technical violation is up to you. It has happened before several times since 1972.


David Stimmel stated, under the circumstance I would move that we not considered it a violation because of the circumstances surrounding it.


David Scott stated, I will second it.


Carol Stradling stated, primarily I just want for the record, there is no home there. And if this did not go through then you would not build the home. So essentially there is a foundation there and the foundation can be there because it is not a home until it is a home. There is nothing in the ordinance about a foundation being close to a hog confinement.


Carrie Smock stated, right.


Carol Stradling stated, can we incorporate that into the meeting, so if it comes up again we know how we made our decision and they don’t say well.


President Jerry Thompson stated, you just did. Okay we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying “aye” all opposed? Motion carried 5 to 0.


****

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay to you Diann.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything.

President Jerry Thompson stated, oh you don’t.

Director Weaver stated, the July meeting for 2006 again is going to fall the same week of the County fair so I want to know what the board wants to do about that. I was working on the calendar.

Attorney Altman asked, what did we do the last time?

Director Weaver stated, we moved it back a week, moved it later I the Month.

Attorney Altman asked, does that work as well?

Director Weaver stated, I thought it worked fine.

Attorney Altman stated, no I mean in this 2006.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes we can do it. If you want to move it back a week.

Carol Stradling stated, so instead of the 3rd Thursday, you are going to move it to the 4th Thursday.

President Jerry Thompson stated, probably have to meetings in July anyway.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I have. I have the result on the appeal and I left a message to announce that. Oh the other thing Mr. Pinn I investigated, I didn’t realize I’m sorry when the last time I said we would have the Sheriff service him on that violation. I didn’t realize he was in Chicago. That is my own fault. To serve that up there it will cost us $100 to process that up there. I just wanted the board to know that.

Carol Stradling asked, can you refresh my memory?

Attorney Altman stated, he is the one who built the Martin property.

Director Weaver stated, the Dan Martin property, the deck, patio, fence, and they were not meeting setback requirements.

Attorney Altman stated, the Martin’s came in and they paid.

Carol Stradling stated, it was on SFLECC.

Director Weaver stated, it was, it isn’t now. They cut it off.

Attorney Altman stated, you basically fine them $250 and you told them that the builder had to come in. Diann sent the notice out and the guy.

Director Weaver stated, it came back unclaimed.

Attorney Altman stated, so what I was going to do was serve process. You have to have a process serve.

David Scott asked, can we change that from $250 to $250 and expenses?

Attorney Altman stated, we would actually have a new post it fine on him. You talked about the fine half-and-half and then you decided the best thing to do was to have him come in. I remember. Then he didn’t come in after we tried to notice him up. I’m just saying I just didn’t realize he was in Chicago. Normally you get something served up there, you have to hire someone.

David Scott asked, now did we fine those people $250 and they paid the fine?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I believe so.

David Scott stated, wouldn’t we just be well to drop it.

Carol Stradling asked, what do we want to do when Mr. Pinn comes in, tell him not to build in White County any more?

Director Weaver stated, you can’t do that.

Carol Stradling stated, no we can’t.

Director Weaver stated, I tried not to have setbacks on a foundation release and I got put in my place so.

Attorney Altman stated, you guys can do what ever you want. I think this is a fairly important principal. You need to go through with it. I don’t like to spend anymore. I really think how much and how close this was, it wasn’t close it was way beyond. I think that something ought to happen, I really do. We give him notice and have it on record. You guys decide.

David Scott asked, is there a better way to do it? Can we just levy a fine?

Attorney Altman stated, not an absentia. You’ve got to give him notice. That is the problem.

Carol Stradling stated, we had them and they presented at the meeting and I remember being there and we tabled it. I missed that meeting so, but the first meeting is where we requested the builder to be there and I think it was to get more information.

Attorney Altman stated, well we did and then when you levied the fine you also.

Carol Stradling stated, I was not here for that.

Attorney Altman stated, you directed the office and myself to get him noticed and get him in here. At least give him notice so we can proceed on him.

Director Weaver stated, that first meeting, they were not squared away with SFLECC. They had that to take care of also.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m just wondering if he does come here, what do we do once he is here.

Attorney Altman stated, we are noticing him up on a violation.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, this isn’t just to come in and talk about the situation.

Carol Stradling stated, okay so he is in violation and he needs to appear.

Attorney Altman stated, what he built was in violation, it was to close, it was on someone else’s property and didn’t have a building permit.

David Scott asked, was he just the contractor or just the owner?

Attorney Altman stated, he was the contractor.

Director Weaver stated, we already fined the owners.

David Scott stated, and we can fine a contractor legally.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, he built without a permit, even if he built for someone else.

Carol Stradling asked, when we sent him the notice, was he given the option to pay the $500?

Director Weaver stated, no he was requested to attend.

Carol Stradling stated, he was requested to attend. How is this different then the $500 when they build outside the permit? The permit was granted and then he came to build.

Attorney Altman stated, no he builds before.

Director Weaver stated, there was a new home built. A permit was issued for a new home. The new home was built and at the same time he built the patio, deck and fence without a permit.

Carol Stradling stated, well I guess what I’m saying is the permit was for the home and he extended the home outside the permit. So does that not the $500 fine and he can just choose to pay that and not show. I’m missing something here.

Attorney Altman stated, he didn’t get notice of the violation. It was only sent to the homeowners.

Director Weaver stated, are you asking can we notice him of the violation and impose a fine.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m just wondering why we are having come in. I understand that he did something wrong, but.

Attorney Altman stated, he needs to answer whether he did something wrong. We don’t have the evidence, we just have their say so that he did the building. He hasn’t had a right to come in with his evidence about that.

Director Weaver stated, can we impose a $500 fine on him based on their testimony and say if he.

Attorney Altman stated you can if you give him notice. You have to give him notice, so he has the right to know what is going on and has right to appear and give evidence.

Carol Stradling stated, so according to what we have done in the past Diann would send him a notice saying that you according to the homeowners you constructed this home and it is outside the ordinance or outside the permit that was issued. Our procedure is to fine you $500 you have the right to appeal this. Was that a yawn or grin.

David Stimmel stated, no. I apologize.

Carol Stradling stated, I just wasn’t here and.

David Scott stated, given the fact that he doesn’t live here can we fine him the $500 plus expenses because we are going to have expenses?

Attorney Altman stated, that is what you decide when he comes in.

David Scott stated, Jerry is going to have expenses.

Carol Stradling stated, we won’t if we send him the letter with the $500.

Attorney Altman stated, we are not doing that, we are telling him that he is a violation and come in and answer to your stewardship.

Gary Barbour asked, what if he never comes in?

Attorney Altman stated, if we give him notice we can go ahead with a hearing based upon him given notice and impose what ever you decide to do. Or forgive the violation if you decide to.

Director Weaver stated, we have similar situation that would be the previous owners that we did this past winter and we requested that they come in and they never did.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the way it is with court things it doesn’t happen quickly.

David Stimmel stated, has this contractor ever had any other experience in this county that you are aware of.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t recognize the name.

Attorney Altman stated, I have heard the name before from people that have testified. I remember people talking about Bob Pinn before as a contractor up in that area. I can’t tell you it is more than 2 times.

David Stimmel stated I would pursue it, if this is the only time he has done it is White County if he, I guess with the thought in mind in Diann’s office. The bad check list or dead beat list some kind of way of highlighting it.

David Scott stated, probably the bad thing is if I was going to build a new house and have it contracted out and I came in and got the permit my self. Do you ask who the contractor is going to be?

Director Weaver stated, the building department asks who the contractor is, that is their information, we don’t deal with that. That will be definite come January 1.

David Scott stated, I guess what I’m thinking is if we are going to go to all of this trouble $500 doesn’t seem to be enough money.

Attorney Altman stated, you aren’t limited.

Gary Barbour stated, once we notice him up then we can set a meeting and then we can determine $500 plus expenses and attorney’s fees or extra fees.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, what happens if we just let it go, we live to regret it at a later date on another issue?

Attorney Altman stated, maybe you never know. He may never come back.

Gary Barbour stated, it may not be him, it could be someone else and then we have set a precedent.

Attorney Altman stated, you have let him mess it up really bad.

David Scott stated, I think we need to go ahead with it.

Carol Stradling asked, how far are we willing to take this? If I were him and I got a letter from White County I’m not going there.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m going to record it up in the Lake County Illinois as a judgement. When he goes to see his house then he will have problems. I’m not going to go to Lake County and recover it. It will come back.

Carol Stradling asked, how do you mean he would have trouble selling his house then?

Attorney Altman stated, a judgement of record.

President Jerry Thompson stated, it would have to be settled before he can close on his house.

Carol Stradling asked, so if he doesn’t do anything it is just on record, we aren’t going to take him to court here if he doesn’t come in and see us are we?

Attorney Altman stated, no, not unless you ask for it.

Carol Stradling stated, I just see this long procedure and I don’t think it is that big of an issue.

President Jerry Thompson asked, anything else?

David Scott asked, what did we decide?

President Jerry Thompson stated, Jerry is going to notice him up.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m going to proceed.

Carol Stradling stated, so it will be on record in Lake County so if he doesn’t show in a month we are going to see this again and we are going to take him to court him. We are going to notice him up and it is just on record there in Lake County and we are done with it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay next meeting January 19, 2006. Thanks to the ladies in the office.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission