Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 20, 2006 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, and David Stimmel. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Paul J. Couts – C & S Engineering, Didier Glattard - Cornerstone, Arthur Tufts, Dow Dellinger, Jeff VanWeelden, Herb Parrish, Larry R. Noe, Myron Barnes, Henry DeParis, Don Pauken, Chris Thompson, Lisa Thompson, Robert G. Kinser, Floyd L. England, William Gatewood, Brian LaHa, Don Wright, Troy Paluchniak, Tom Parsley, Terry Beasy, Shelly Beasy, Dan Alvarez, Sherry Benzinger, Paul Benzinger, Jim Wooten, Rhonda Wooten, John Raines, Terri Raines, Charles R. Mellon, Stan Hockema, and Doug Barnard.

The meeting was called to order by President David Stimmel and roll call was taken. Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the March 16, 2006 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****


#2507 Gregory L & Linda Onken; The property is located at the SW SE 27-28-3 on 1.086 & 0.883 acres, located South of Buffalo at 6091 N. State Road 39.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 4’ Height variance to add an addition onto an existing detached garage.

President David Stimmel stated, #2506 I believe has asked to be moved to the end of the meeting. Would that be before or after the Appeal?

Director Weaver stated, I did not specify where we would put that. He just requested that it be put on later on the agenda.

President David Stimmel stated, to me it would be the end of the meeting. End of the meeting is the end of the meeting. Any objections to that? So #2507 will be moved to the end.

(At the end of the meeting President Stimmel reread the request)


President David Stimmel asked, you are sir?

Dough Barnard stated, I’m Doug Barnard, I’m here representing Greg and Linda Onken.

President David Stimmel stated, thanks Doug. Do you have anything that says?

Director Weaver stated, we do have a letter in the file that I received from the Onken’s stating Doug would represent them.

President David Stimmel asked, Doug is there anything you want to add to what we read?

Doug Barnard stated, I don’t think so I have floor plans and anything else if you want to see what the building looks like.

President David Stimmel stated, excuse me Doug, if you guys are going to chat will you please take it outside. Go ahead Doug.

Doug Barnard stated, first of all the Onken’s are sorry they could not be here this evening, they had a death in the family and ask me to step in and come and answer any questions. I thank you for moving it back and allowing me to go to my fifth grade music program at Frontier. They are wanting to put a full 18’ addition onto the existing garage to make the roof line work to get the height they need in the addition we need the variance to be able to keep everything to blend in on the property.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone who wants to speak about the variance?

Director Weaver asked, do you know how tall the existing garage is?

Doug Barnard stated, it is 3-car garage, yes I do.

Carol Stradling stated, 14’.

Doug Barnard stated, yes that is very close.

Carol Stradling stated, that is why the survey says.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave anything?

David Scott stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary or Carol?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, ready to vote?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 4’ Height variance to add an addition onto an existing detached garage.

Tract I


That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27,Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the above said Section 27, thence North 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate Grid System) along the quarter section line 350.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds West 220.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 33 seconds East 215.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds East 220.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 33 seconds West 215.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.086 Acres, more or less.

Tract II

That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:


Commencing at a survey nail at the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 27, thence North 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate system) along the quarter section line 570.00 feet to a Survey nail and the point of beginning; thence North 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds West along the quarter section line 192.47 feet to a survey nail thence South 83 degrees 23 minutes 55 seconds East 217.11 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 43 seconds East 165.66 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 33 seconds West 215.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.883 of an acre.


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


The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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


****

#2508 Arthur W. & Denise L. Tufts; The property is located on Lot D, E, & F in O’Connor’s


Riverside Addition, located East of Monticello at 641 E. Sandy Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 4’ side setback variance to build a new room addition.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing the Tuft’s?

Arthur Tufts stated, I’m Arthur Tufts.

President David Stimmel stated, thank you sir. Do you want to add anything to what was read?

Arthur Tufts stated, I don’t think so, my intentions are, I laid out the building additions with the 8’ side setback in mind and got the room all plan out and all of that and discovered that the roof overhang counted. I said okay rather than redesign the room, I’m petitioning for a variance for that. That is really going to take me to about a 2’ infringement on that 8’ side yard setback. I’m requesting 4’ just in case there is any construction errors or surveying errors. I do not plan on going any closer than 6’ with the roof overhang. You should have in your packets a letter from the nearest affected neighbor to the West.

President David Stimmel stated, okay.

Arthur Tufts stated, stating they do not object to the plans.

President David Stimmel asked, is there any other fan mail?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, so when the survey says proposed room addition 8’ from the lot line.

Arthur Tufts stated, that is from the foundation line. It didn’t include the roof over hang. I have nothing further.

Director Weaver stated, I believe the board received a copy of his elevation certificate and DNR letter along with a copy of the letter from Steve and Sharon Table.

President David Stimmel stated, on the drawing Mr. Tufts it shows that the nearest house is 30’ I believe from their property line. Is that correct?

Arthur Tufts stated, I can’t confirm that.

President David Stimmel stated, I was just looking at the drawing itself. It shows a house 30’ and that is the only building it shows.

Arthur stated, that would be the Table’s house.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, no I don’t have anything.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, if I’m reading the flood elevation certificate the top of the bottom floor is setting at 622.9 and Lake Freeman sets at 613. So you are 9.9’ higher than the lake.

Arthur Tufts stated, I believe that is true.

President David Stimmel asked, anything else? Let’s vote.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 4’ side setback variance to build a new room addition on the part of Plat B in O’Connor’s Riverside Addition in Section 34, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, described by; Commencing at the intersection of the East line of the West half of Northwest quarter of the above said Section 34 and the South right of way line of East Washington Street, thence South 466.5 feet; thence South 71 degrees 45 minutes West 218.42; thence South 04 degrees 59 minutes East 30.82 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 04 degrees 59 minutes East 180.50 feet to the Northern Indiana Public Service Company line thence along said line South 63 degrees 44 minutes West 18.47 feet; South 71 degrees 34 minutes West 92.90 feet and South 65 degrees 13 minutes West 40.87 feet thence North 04 degrees 59 minutes West 188.22 feet thence North 71 degrees 45 minutes East 150.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains part of Lot D, Lot E, part of Lot F, and .17 acre more or less.

Except the following described real estate: Commencing at the intersection of the East line of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the above said Section 34, and the South right of way line of East Washington Street, thence South 466.5 feet thence South 71 degrees 45 minutes West 218.42 feet thence South 04 degrees 59 minutes East 30.82 feet thence South 71 degrees 45 minutes West 127.66 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 04 degrees 59 minutes East 185.52 feet to the Northern Public Service Company line, thence South 65 degrees 13 minutes West along said line 23.11 feet thence North 04 degrees 59 minutes West 188.22 feet thence North 71 degrees 45 minutes East 22.34 feet to the point of beginning.


The above described parcel begin part of Lot F in Plat B. and 0.0275 of an acre in Plat B in O’Connor’s Addition.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Monticello at 641 E. Sandy Court.


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


The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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


****

#2509 Dwayne & Elizabeth L. Starostka; The property is located on Part S ½ NE 29-27-3 on 5.353 acres, located in the City of Monticello at 1210 N. Sixth Street.


Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 41’ front setback variance from the current right-of-way to put up a 6’ privacy fence.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing this variance? Evidently not. Does the board want to go ahead with this or do you want to table it. By rule this is tabled.

Attorney Altman stated, this is continued until the next meeting and that is May 18.

****

#2510 Troy D. & Danielle L. Paluchniak; The property is located on Part S S 21-27-3 on 7.761 acres, located in the City of Monticello at 114 Francis Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting an 8’ East Side setback variance to build additions and to bring the existing home into compliance.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

Troy Paluchniak stated, I’m Troy Paluchniak.

President David Stimmel stated, anything you want to add to this?

Troy Paluchniak stated, no.

President David Stimmel stated, just hang loose for a minute. The real reason for the variance is really to bring the existing home into compliance. The addition does not require a setback.

Troy Paluchniak stated, the addition on the back side of the house the North side will require a variance.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott asked, the driveway there, is that a private road?

Troy Paluchniak stated, that is a public road. It is public highway use.

Director Weaver stated, I think there is an undeveloped subdivision back in there.

Troy Paluchniak stated, the side of the hill going down to Norway there is subdivided into like 10 lots.

Director Weaver stated, this is where they access from.

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes.

David Scott asked, how wide is that access 25’ wide?

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes.

David Scott stated, so the driveway is at the top of the easement.

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t have anything.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

David Scott asked, is there anyway, who lives over here on the East Side property...

Troy Paluchniak stated, Gene Fultz.

David Scott stated, to the East, how far over. I guess what I’m getting at is.

Troy Paluchniak stated, he has a garage probably 50’ from the corner of the house and it is probably 20’ on the other side of the stone wall there.

David Scott asked, I just wanted to know what it would take to move the easement so it would be right before where the stone road is? You are only a 1’ off of the easement right now. The road could be right next to your bedroom. I guess is what I’m saying.

Troy Paluchniak stated, well I don’t intend for there to be a lot of traffic in there.

David Scott stated, well she just said.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I own the property behind and the lots on the side of the hill. We are going to build a house in the back and that is all going to be combined at some point here.

Carol Stradling stated, this area in black it is easy to see that the house is there. You also own, is that part of the same lot.

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes and all of the lots on the side of the hill there.

Carol Stradling stated, so this road way in between here is actually just goes to the back of the property.

Troy Paluchniak stated, it goes back and wraps around the back of the property line so they have access. That is why that was deeded, my grandparents and great grandparents deeded these properties. When they wanted to build this house they thought they ought to be protect and have a road way to get back to here in case they ever did build back here. That is actually a deeded road way back there.

David Scott stated, so they do have front access. That is just a rear access to those properties?

Troy Paluchniak stated, no that is the only access to that end house there.

Carol Stradling asked, if need be, if that were developed would it be possible to take the road to the West side of the property and come out this way?

Troy Paluchniak stated, well until I bought it that is the way it was surveyed. Some how when I bought it from my Grandparent’s estate the house was on a small parcel and when it went through the estate some how when it got surveyed it got combined with the house per the survey. That is why that all that black is there. The house would have been on a separate parcel from all of the rear property.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Troy Paluchniak stated, that was the intent they had 50’ or 60’ on the West side of the house that was access to the back if anything was ever developed back there.

David Scott asked, what setback would make this in compliance, 8’?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, I guess I go back to my original questions. Is there a way to move the easement? Does this have to be accepted to that.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I’m not sure, I don’t know, we’ve never considered it.

David Scott stated, I don’t want to stop your project, but…

Troy Paluchniak stated, it would be nice.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be nicer.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I’ve thought about that too. We are going to remodel the house and sell it and then when we move in the back there, the house will be sold so for the future owner. There isn’t going to be a lot of traffic going by the road there. It would be nice because if someone bought the Fultz’s house they could say I don’t want that drive going because it is on their property. It is encroaching.

David Scott stated, if you build back there, there is going to be more traffic than there is now.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I don’t know what the process would be.

David Scott asked, Gary would that be a hard thing to do or, since the road is already on the property is there some law it becomes a road?

Attorney Altman asked, how long has it been used as a road?

Troy Paluchniak stated, a long time.

Attorney Altman asked, 20 years?

Troy Paluchniak stated, more that that.

Attorney Altman stated, if it is more than 20 years, they would have to get the consent of the users to get in vacated and transferred over. As I hear what the rights are here.

David Scott asked, are you in a hurry?

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes.

David Scott asked, can we vote contingent on him trying to move the easement and bring the thing into compliance if that doesn’t work?

Attorney Altman stated, you can’t use the word trying.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I can blame it on my grandparents they did it.

Chris Thompson stated, I’m the house at the end of the road of that lane, I don’t have a problem, the only reason I’m here is that Dean showed this to me and I just had a question about the road.

That is my only access to my house.

Attorney Altman stated, that roadway is your access in and out, if you were to come long the west side of Troy’s lot would that be a problem to you, would that give you the same access.

Chris Thompson stated, if I understand you want to extend the driveway.

Troy Paluchniak stated, my driveway here down and around like that.

Attorney Altman stated, that would allow that 25’ to be added to the applicant’s present house and lot and get the room use.

Chris Thompson stated, I don’t care as long as I can get into my house.

Troy Paluchniak stated, no one can take this away. That is a deeded roadway.

Attorney Altman stated, we are not talking about taking the road away, we are talking about doing an agreement that would effectively add this to this house and lot and give your house and lot access the same way. Troy you are going to want access when you build your house.

Troy Paluchniak stated, our plan was to put a drive on the West Side of the house because I don’t like coming out of that drive.

Chris Thompson stated, it would be a lot safer if the drive was on the West Side of the house because of people coming up the hill.

Carol Stradling stated, deeding this to the roadway would not give him this property, if that is a deeded roadway he would be loosing a 25’ strip on the West Side of his property.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be vacated and go with his lot.

Carol Stradling stated, would it go with his lot or with the neighbor’s lot.

Attorney Altman stated, it could go half-and-half.

Carol Stradling stated, I would just hate to have you move the driveway over to the West Side of the property and then not get that 25’ back.

Attorney Altman stated, right there would be no questions you would get half of it. The question is where the property came from.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I think in the over all view of it, it would make the property worth more rather than have the drive go up along the corner of the house. I mean…

Attorney Altman stated, I agree I would have your attorney check and see how that was dedicated off.

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes, I was going to do that anyway because I wanted to…

Attorney Altman stated, and see what it takes to vacate it.

President David Stimmel asked, but do we want to go ahead and vote regardless of the status of this? Do you want to somehow tie this together Dave? I don’t know how we can tie this together and vote on it now. The only way to do that is table it and give him some time to work this out.

David Scott asked, can we vote contingent on him moving the driveway period? If they vacate this he doesn’t need a variance.

Carol Stradling stated, let me ask this. If you own this property along in here that is not developed…

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so for you to develop it, you would need roadway access so maybe just not allow him to develop that property.

Troy Paluchniak stated, I’ve already got roadway access. It doesn’t matter. I just don’t want the project to go on and we end up selling out house and not having a house renovated for us to move into. If we get two months down the road and we are not going to have enough time.

David Scott stated, how about we do this so he can get started on his property.

President David Stimmel stated, lets give him his variance.

David Scott stated, well what if he doesn’t do it?

President David Stimmel stated, well I think you are going to have to address that at a later point I don’t see how you can address this at the same time.

Troy Paluchniak stated, at a later point I’m going to have to subdivide anyway, so I don’t know if it can be brought up at that point.

President David Stimmel stated, I guess.

Troy Paluchniak stated, it is all spread out as one lot and I have to split off this house in order to do anything in the back.

President David Stimmel stated, because this has been brought up it would just be common sense for you do anything that you address this.

Troy Paluchniak stated, yes, I will contact George Loy.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to make it contingent upon…

President David Stimmel stated, we are not making it contingent upon anything. It is going to be based on the fact if he does anything else he will have to address this issue.

With out 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 an 8’ East Side setback variance to build additions and to bring the existing home into compliance on that part of the South Half of the South Half of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana, described by:

Basis of Bearing West Line of Section 21 as being North-South

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest quarter of said Section 21; thence North along the Section line and the center line of Sixth Street, a distance of 1342.79 feet; thence South 89 degrees 23 minutes 15 seconds East along the Fractional Section line, a distance of 1284.64 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East along the fractional Section line a distance of 340.77 feet to an iron pipe set at the Point of Beginning; Thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East along the fractional Section line and the South Line of the Pine View, Inc. property as described in Deed record 1985 Page 1156-1159, White County Recorder’s office and partly along the South Line of the Queisser property as described in Deed Record 1989, Pages 17377-1738, White County Recorder’s office, a distance of 585.62 feet; thence South 08 degrees 59 minutes 29 seconds West along the Westerly Line of a 25 foot roadway as platted in Cowger’s addition, Deed Record 148, Page 206-208, White County Recorder’s office a distance of 279.46 feet. Thence South 33 degrees 59 minutes 28 seconds West along the Westerly Line of said 25 foot platted roadway a distance of 258.2 feet to an iron pipe set. Thence South 59 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds West along the Northerly Line of a dedicated roadway as described in Deed record 207, Page 301, White county recorder’s office, a distance of 224.19 feet to an iron pipe set; thence South 23 degrees 13 minutes 00 seconds East along the Westerly line of said dedicated roadway, a distance of 291.00 feet; thence South 52 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds West along the center line of Norway road, a distance of 132.75 feet. Thence North 22 degrees 53 minutes 50 seconds West along an existing fence and occupation line, a distance of 282.20 feet to an existing iron pipe located at the Northeasterly corner of the Hornback property as described in Deed record 198, page 253, White County Recorder’s office; thence South 58 degrees 55 minutes 04 seconds West along the Northerly line of said Hornback property, a distance of 100 feet to an iron pipe set; thence North 01 degrees 23 minutes 47 seconds West along the East line of the Hornback property as described in Document Number 96-06-2818, White County Recorder’s office, a distance of 747.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 7.761 acres which includes a certain 0.35 acre tract with tax i.d. no. 021-05590-00. Subject to the right-of-way of Norway Road.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 114 Francis 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2511 Henry L. & Deborah J. DeParis; The property is located on Lot No. Part 1 in Barr’s Addition, located in the City of Monticello at 221 S. Bluff Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 31’ front setback variance (Jefferson St.) and a 7’ height variance to replace the existing detached garage.

President David Stimmel asked, and you are?

Henry DeParis stated, I’m Henry DeParis. There are several reasons for our request for variance. #1 the currently structure is rotten at the base and ready to collapse Hopefully in our favor East of Bluff on that little stretch of Jefferson there are only 3 houses. Two of them have garages myself and Mrs. Upchurch and both of the current garages are on the property line. The request will actually set us back a little. If you can see from the picture here the 5’ requirement we will be hanging off of the hill. There is you know it is going to be impossible to build up that kind of foundation. Also I think anyone would agree any new structure should reflect the current style of that house. It is a beautiful Victorian and any little tiny garage with a hip roof is going to do it. Also if I don’t get a variance for my wife’s garden I’m going to be shot.

President David Stimmel stated, just wait for a second

Attorney Altman stated, photos exhibit A.

David Scott asked, is this a dead end?

Henry DeParis stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, it goes down and over a cliff Dave, that is why they call it Bluff Street.

Henry DeParis stated, if you are curious it is 69’ from the water level to the top of the hill.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol anymore questions?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Henry DeParis stated, no 2 story to go with the house.

Attorney Altman asked, what will be in the top floor?

Henry DeParis stated, strictly storage.

Attorney Altman stated, habitat?

Henry DeParis stated, negative.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 31’ front setback variance (Jefferson Street) and a 7’ height variance to replace the existing detached garage on lot One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) in Barr’s Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, except that part thereof heretofore conveyed to the Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company, as shown by Deed Recorded in Deed Record 122, Page 215, also EXCEPT a strip of ground fifteen (15) feet in width off of the entire North side of said Lot (156) feet in addition, deeded to Harry Boothroyd etux and recorded in Deed Record 130, page 626.

Also, a strip of ground twenty (20) feet in width lying South of Lot Number One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) in said Barr’s Addition to the Town, now City, of Monticello, Indiana, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 158, running thence South along the East line of Bluff Street in said City a distance of Twenty (20) feet, and running thence East to the land owned by the Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company; thence North along said line of said Power Company, to the South line of said Lot 158, and running thence West along the South line of said Lot 158 to the place of beginning.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 221 S. Bluff 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2512 Brian G. & Betty J. La Ha; The property is located on S ½ of S ½ of 28-28-3 on 0.048 of an acre also known as Tract #35, located off of East Shafer Drive at 6074 N. Harding Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 30’ front setback variance, a 17’ rear setback variance, a 3’ South side setback variance, and a 2’ North side setback variance to build a new home. Also a 1’ rear setback to build an unroofed deck.

President David Stimmel asked, and you are sir?

Brian LaHa stated, I’m Brian LaHa.

President David Stimmel asked, Brian is there anything that you want to add to what was read?

Brian LaHa stated, I don’t think so.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone in the audience that wants to address this variance?

Paul Benzinger stated, I’m Paul Benzinger and I just bought the property right next to him and after we closed on it, then I saw the sign in the back of the trailer and so I come up to the planning office and they gave me the survey. My main concern is if this is going to set to where I’ve got a view of the lake and I would be opposed if he put something in there that would block the view. I gave a lot of money for the thing and I think when you are on the water front and if you’ve got a view of the water it dictates the price of something. I’m looking at this surveyor’s plat and it looks like he is going to have a 8’ front porch and I don’t know, the trailer that he has in there is a 10’ wide, is 10’ x 51’. Is the front of the trailer, is the front of the home going to be forward from where it is now.

Brian LaHa stated, the existing mobile home that is on there is a 10’ x 51’. What this gentlemen is referring to is actually the rear setback, the front is where you drive in.

Paul Benzinger stated, okay.

Brian LaHa stated, the rear setback borders a common ground. The existing home is set back from the front lot line 9’. The new home will be 3’ plus a 8’ porch. So it will be 11’ before the main structure, so it will set back a little bit farther. It is my understanding your concern is if someone comes in there and screens in the porch you will loose your view.

Paul Benzinger stated, no, I’m concerned about, well I don’t know about screening in the porch where the thing is going to set. I went to the, place where you bought the house and the guy showed me something that was real similar to what he is putting in there and it has a 8’. This thing here says it is an enclosed porch it is an open porch that has pillars with a railing. The guy at Kokomo told me, on the new models I asked him if they made a 15’ wide and he said what they do is measure I guess to transport the things, the government makes them go to the widest points of the trailers so he said if it is a 16’ wide trailer and it has an overhang that would be a 15’. My basic concern, is also the guy in Kokomo told me that where this picture here, well I guess an older model home went up like a 7’ side wall, the new ones will go up 8’ and it makes it look bigger on the inside, it is going to make this. He is wanting to come over to the South. I guess I need to worry about being dwarfed.

President David Stimmel asked, you are in track 34?

Paul Benzinger stated, yes 34. The only notification I got was the white sign after we closed we went up to the office and they told me they were going to send out notifications and I didn’t see one. We knew from the sign, tonight was going to be the meeting.

Brian LaHa stated, what you don’t know is 20 years ago I put that home he purchased and the window he is talking about is the lake view, I personally installed. I took into consideration and I address the board president Art Klaczak.

Attorney Altman asked, this was your letter?

Brain LaHa stated, that is the letter I gave to the President of the Associations. The Golden Beach Club has their own rules and regulations on the setbacks and they require 18”. I’m 36” all the way around minimum.

Attorney Altman stated, I was handed two things.

Paul Benzinger stated, that is the picture of the home with the 8’ porch.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the 8’ x 15’ area that is called an enclosed porch on the survey of Mr. Milligan dated March 7, 2006.

Paul Benzinger stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t show the sun deck on there.

Brain LaHa stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, it shows a like home that you are proposing to put on the lot.

Brian La Ha stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, this is a letter March 28, 2006 to Mark Klaczak. (He proceeded to read the letter, letter is in the file). This is exhibit B.

President David Stimmel stated, just hang loose. Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I wish tract 34 and 36 would have been sited on the survey so, I mean.

Director Weaver stated, you have a survey with your pictures I requested that information from Attorney Altman. You have a revised survey.

Carol Stradling stated, I need to see where the other trailers are, we have the tract, but that doesn’t show where the trailers are situated.

(Going over the new survey.)

Carol Stradling asked, do you need this Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, I can put that in as Exhibit C. This is a tract set up for this area in question.

Brain LaHa stated, everyone in the mobile home park owns their own property. We have 5 acres of common grounds and 600’ of sea wall.

Director Weaver stated, this was done before Liberty Township was in Area Plan.

David Scott stated, we don’t recognize their 3’ setback rule or whatever.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, and from the evidence we don’t know that it has ever been subdivided.

In the sense that there has been a subdivision. This shows tracts if you look at that. It doesn’t show them as lots. I’m making an assumption.

President David Stimmel asked, Diann in your research has there been other variances on Harding Court?

Director Weaver stated, the only ones I’m aware of are out on East Shafer Drive. I’m not saying there hasn’t been, but those are the only ones I’m aware of. Those are larger lots.

David Scott stated, I don’t like this situation because of the setbacks. I mean if one trailer catches fire 6 of them are going to catch fire.

Paul Benzinger stated, I’m a retired firefighter and I guarantee it.

David Scott stated, but this is the way they are laid out and we are going to ruin someone’s property values, ruin a piece of property period. If we don’t grant the variance and at what point are we responsible for this.

President David Stimmel stated, the existing, what I was asking had there been variances in Harding Court have we allowed those changes and she is not aware of any there.

Brian LaHa stated, my neighbor Vinci put up a pole barn.

Director Weaver stated, that is where you pull in.

Brian LaHa stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes that would be that building right here.

Carol Stradling stated, the other night on the new ordinance we were talking about recreation vehicles in a RV campground, we decided they needed 10’ in between them and that is just a temporary Recreation vehicle and we are looking at less than that for a permanent dwellings. Am I looking at this wrong.

Brian LaHa stated, if you look at the existing home it is not much bigger than the existing home.

Carol Stradling stated, no it not.

Brian LaHa stated, as far as the foot print. I just want to try to get rid of that 1961 piece of whatever it is there.

Paul Benzinger stated, I don’t have a problem with this guy improving it, I think it will help my value. My concern is if I can still see the water, and it looks like with this 3’ and the 8’ porch from where your old trailer is at, it looks like it is going to go a couple of feet.

President David Stimmel stated, can I ask…

Carol Stradling stated, have you seen this survey that we received from Jim Milligan what this does is sites this would be the edge of your mobile home and this is your deck and this would be the proposed mobile or dwelling and this would be the deck on that. This is the mobile just north of him and their deck. I’m not sure where your window sets in there. This dotted line is where the current trailer is setting.

Gary Barbour stated, this is it right here, this is the window and deck.

Paul Benzinger stated, that is just a wooden walkway from where you come around from the front deck to go into the trailer.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know if that helps you visualize your view of the lake.

Brain LaHa stated, his view of the lake would be through the 8’ porch and his biggest concern is he looses his view. This is a house of speculation going right on the market. I wouldn’t have any control is someone decided to screen in the porch.

Carol Stradling asked, is this what you are seeing at the lake now?

Paul Benzinger stated, and also the window we are talking about is coming down this side here. This trailer comes forward even when he listed this with the Real Estate, the Real Estate had a view of the lake.

Carol Stradling asked, is this utility pole insight between you and the lake?

Paul Benzinger stated, yes, that utility pole is on concrete.

President David Stimmel stated, the thing I’m concerned about is have we granted variances in Harding Court before? And I’m curious as to what the other size of the trailers are. Is this appropriate to the area, do you know what I mean. What scares me you know the next guy comes along and says okay well gee I want a variance 2’ more to the North and the next thing we have ½ foot variances all the way around.

David Scott stated, I’m uncomfortable granting it because of how close they are, any of them.

President David Stimmel stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, isn’t a reason to expand.

President David Stimmel stated, I would recommend that he do it on the same footprint that he already has.

Brain LaHa stated, that will give them less view then. That would move the home up 2’.

President David Stimmel stated, no I mean the house that currently exist that you not move outside of that, in other words do not grant the variance.

David Scott stated, grant a variance for a hazard. That is my problem. I think we can get around the view and everything else, we are setting trailers 6’ apart from each other. If we don’t grant it.

Brian LaHa stated, they are all setting there.

David Scott stated, I know they are all set in there.

Brian LaHa stated, there has been a lot of variances some of these people are taking up 2 lots and putting up a double. They are getting more room out of it. That was my intentions at one time when I picked it up.

President David Stimmel stated, that would make sense.

Director Weaver asked, where do you park at? When I was up there…

Brian LaHa stated, there is common parking, guest parking. A spot in front of the house.

Director Weaver stated, which is actually the drive into.

Brain LaHa stated, yes, see the Association owns all of these roads and everything.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary what do you think?

Gary Barbour stated, I’m like Dave I don’t like it.

President David Stimmel asked, do you want to hear anymore?

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t know what to do about the lot.

David Scott stated, I don’t want to keep them from improving their property, but…

Attorney Altman stated, they do have the option of doing what they have in the way of an improvement, but to expand they need a variance. It isn’t like it is nothing or this. It is what they have or what they are asking for. This is on the septic system?

Brian LaHa stated, sewer system. That is why I’m putting the home in because I’m getting a $50 bill every month.

President David Stimmel asked, is the board ready to vote or more discussion?

Carol Stradling stated, Diann one more time. The setback that they set up in Golden Beach Club that was before our ordinance was in place.

Director Weaver stated, in this Township, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, in this Township. So they could do that then.

Director Weaver stated, Area Plan had no jurisdiction there.

Carol Stradling stated, no Area Plan had no jurisdiction there. Which is why this is set up. We really did deal with that in the new ordinance meeting. Which is not in affect now, but the ordinance we have in affect now would indicate that you would need 30’ on one end and 17’ on another.

Brian LaHa stated, no one will be able to do anything in there if you pull rules like that.

President David Stimmel stated, if he replaces the structure will he have to get a variance to bring it into compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be the only other direction could this evening at least allow him to do that. He has an advertised variance extended on replacing it. The board has two things to do 1. Would be no or a yes vote or allow him to replace what he has now in the same foot print.

Brain LaHa stated, this is a trailer park folks.

Carol Stradling stated, it is what it is.

President David Stimmel asked, are you ready to vote? Dave do you want to make a motion or anything like that?

Brain LaHa stated, can I ask the board to post pone this and come out to the Trailer park?

President David Stimmel stated, that is your prerogative if you want to table it.

Brain LaHa stated, I don’t want to be turned down here.

David Scott stated, I can see what it looks like.

Attorney Altman asked, do you want to table your request for this evening sir?

Brain LaHa stated, I think so.

President David Stimmel stated, this is tabled.

Director Weaver stated, you need to leave your sign up.

****

#2513 Jack & Ruby Isom / Indiana Beach Inc., Owners; Cornerstone Group, Applicant; The property is located on SW ½ of the NW ¼ of 33-27-3 on 1.696 acres more or less, located in the City of Monticello at 802A, 802B, and 804 W. Broadway.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to modify the required off-street parking spaces from 148 spaces required to 79 spaces provided. 2. Variance to allow a non-conforming Pylon Sign with LED readerboard, Walgreen’s Identification Panel and Indiana Beach Direction Panel; 150 Sq. Ft. permitted, 210 Sq. Ft. proposed.

President David Stimmel asked, you are sir?

Didier Glattard stated, I’m Didier Glattard, I’m with Cornerstone.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anything that you want to add to what I had just read?

Didier Glattard stated, yes I would. I would like to give a little bit of testimony about the parking and the signage. We are Walgreen Developers and we do a lot of work with Walgreen’s and we are very familiar with their requirements and have asked them to… They are a big organization and everyone knows. They do studies of their stores and calculate a lot of statistics and they have given me some statistics about their store customer’s counts. An average Walgreen store has an average customer visit of 13.5 minutes. There is an average number of customers in the store in one hour while they are open for business, it is 25 customers. The average maximum peak of people in the store during peak hours 34 customers plus 10 employees. Each one of those customers have their own car and each employee has their own car that is 44 cars. The point of this testimony is to show that 79 cars is actually a lot more cars than a Walgreen store generally needs in order to handle their customer flow. I also wanted to address the signage. Currently, there is an existing Indiana Beach directional sign, which would considered an off premise, sign on the location. According to the zoning codes at least what I’m understanding we are allowed in a B-2 zoning district to have because we have two street frontage we are allowed to have two ID signs each which can be 150’. We are also permitted to have off premises sign on the property, which can be a maximum of 800’. What we are trying to do here is to de-clutter the site and combine all of the signs into one sign. In order to fit our client’s requirements on the site, we need the sign size to be slightly larger than the 150’ that is allowed for the ID sign. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

President David Stimmel stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, tell us how the combination will look like.

Didier Glattard stated, there is an exhibit.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand that, but will they be rotation of the Indiana Beach sign.

Didier Glattard stated, oh no.

Attorney Altman stated, so it will actually be a solid sign.

Didier Glattard stated, there is a picture of the sign.

Attorney Altman stated, it won’t move, there won’t be any movement or change.

Didier Glattard stated, there is no change, the signs do not physically move. The light in the LED panel changes. Everything else is fixed. The panel is internally illuminated sign panels.

President David Stimmel stated, there are no setback requirements this is strictly parking space.

Director Weaver stated, right, that is correct. Also I might mention that with your pictures there was a letter from the Consulting Firm. I have sent with the road widening of 6th St. I have sent a copy of the survey to I believe it is AB Consulting to review these plans and they have sent a letter back to me. Just so you know he has marked on what he sent back to me the proposed right-of-way will be. It will not interfere with their parking or the sign.

Carol Stradling stated, can you give us a brief history of the parking requirements that are set out in our ordinance. My understanding is we had an issue with parking and we amended the ordinance.

Director Weaver stated, well we attempted to amend the ordinance in 1997 and Monticello did not adopt the amendment and if they had adopted the amendment then this variance for parking would not be necessary.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have anyone here from the City of Monticello to…

President David Stimmel asked, any fan mail at all on this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this variance? Dave?

David Scott stated, I don’t think so. There was a lot of discussion on signs is this in conflicting with that.

Director Weaver stated, under the new ordinance I can not answer that.

Carol Stradling asked, can you tell me the current size of the Indiana Beach sign there?

Didier Glattard stated, it is roughly, it is about 8’ off the ground and 8’ high. It is 16’ wide.

Carol Stradling stated, so it is going to be as tall as it currently is, not as wide, but a little bit higher than currently.

Didier Glattard stated, yes a little bit taller.

Carol Stradling stated, higher off of the ground.

Didier Glattard stated, the Indiana Beach sign will be smaller than it currently is.

Carol Stradling stated, all right, I think that is where I needed to start. The Indiana Beach sign is smaller than what is currently there. That gives me a perspective of how big this sign is going to be. What you are saying is you could have two of these or two smaller than this.

Didier Glattard stated, we could put a Walgreen’s sign on each street and leave the Indiana Beach sign where it is as is. We would prefer to just have one sign and have it at the corner and clean up the rest of the site.

Carol Stradling stated, if we approve this tonight and make it contingent with approval from the City of Monticello.

Director Weaver stated, that sign will not go to the City of Monticello for approval.

Carol Stradling asked, how about the parking?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, it won’t.

Didier Glattard stated, I have spoken to Mayor Fox at lengths on this.

Carol Stradling stated, he is supportive?

Didier Glattard stated, he is supportive, I thought he had spoken to the board about this.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think he has talked to the board, but I have talked to the Mayor on this regarding this project.

David Scott asked, he didn’t have any objections?

Director Weaver stated, no, no one has contacted me.

Attorney Altman stated, this has been rezoned.

Director Weaver stated, no, not this part.

Attorney Altman stated, I mean part of this has been rezoned, this was presented that has the proposal. I don’t think anyone showed us a copy of this. The city council has seen a copy of this and I have heard anything negative on this.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that the Mayor is in support of this project, but I was just hoping there would be something for the record or someway it could go on the record. That can’t happen.

President David Stimmel stated, it just did basically.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot 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 to modify the required off-street parking spaces from 148 spaces required to 79 spaces provided. 2. Variance to allow a non-conforming Pylon Sign with LED readerboard, Walgreen’s Identification Panel and Indiana Beach Direction Panel; 150 Sq. Ft. permitted, 210 Sq. Ft. proposed on a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, Union Township, White County, Indiana, being more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the southwestern corner of he said Northwest Quarter; thence North 02 16’ 49” East along the western line of the said Northwest Quarter for 273.60 feet; thence North 88 31’ 00” East, parallel with the southern line of the said Northwest quarter, for 30.75 feet to the eastern right of way line of Sixth Street and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 88 31’ 00” East for 329.25 feet to the eastern line of a 0.27 acre tract conveyed to Billy Jack Isom and Ruby J. Isom as recorded in Document Number 060200650 in the Office of the Recorder for White County, Indiana; thence South 01 16’49” East for 237.51 feet to the northern right of way line of U. S. Highway 24 (Broadway Street) thence South 88 31’ 00” West along the said right of way line for 239.84 feet; thence North 75 32’ 16” West along the said right of way line for 47.77 feet; thence North 45 34’ 53” West along the said right of way line for 23.98 feet to the eastern right of way line of Sixth Street; thence North 09 44’ 57” West along the said right of way line for 209.32 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.696 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 802A, 802B, and 804 West Broadway Street.


7. That the special exceptions 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 special exceptions 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 special exceptions under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.


The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

Appeal #5 Rangeline Properties, Inc. and Jeffrey T. VanWeelden, Appellants; Appellants are appealing the White County Area Plan Commission decision to deny the applicant’s access across the two lots as set out in your letter of January 27, 2006. This was tabled from the March 16, 2006 meeting.

President David Stimmel stated, Mr. Dellinger.

Dow Dellinger stated, good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back. I don’t know how many times, hopefully this will be our last time. I brought packets to everyone with our exhibits, it is the same as before.

President David Stimmel stated, I was going to suggest if I may, the only person I believe who has not heard all of the previous testimony as been Gary. We can dispense with a lot of repetitive verbiage.

Dow Dellinger stated, that is what I was going to work through. I made everyone copies unless you don’t want them. I was going to file one on the record tonight. Um…

President David Stimmel stated, I think that is fine.

Dow Dellinger stated I want to submit that on the record.

President David Stimmel stated, Mr. Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I was going to start out by saying, Dow what you said but we’ve previously had a 2 to 2 vote and that makes no official decision. For various reasons this is first issue that has come back to us for a decision. The record of the prior meeting fully sets out what I presumed what everyone had to say and I presumed what everyone has to say now and this is the record of the matter. If there are questions to be raised by the members uh then I think we need to address those. If there aren’t questions, I think little else needs to be presented before the vote. Each member has or will receive a ballot. I will do that in just a second, but and each member may vote as 4 members have voted previously. Uh each member can vote tonight.

President David Stimmel stated, the issue will also be, not the issue, but the point will be there are 4 members again, but there is a different 4 members by one.

Dow Dellinger stated, we have a different 4 member and we will roll the dice and see if we can’t get something beside what we had.

Attorney Altman stated, we have the vote of Mr. Thompson, so actually he has voted on this matter, uh and he doesn’t appear tonight I think we could have all 4 or 5 members having voted on this.

President David Stimmel stated, so is there any need for the 3 of us to vote again or is….

Attorney Altman stated, you may if you wish to do so.

Dow Dellinger stated, well we don’t, that is not the way I read the ordinance. The way I read the ordinance is the only people who can vote have to be here because we thought about asking for uh I looked at asking for a proxy vote and I don’t think we can do that. I thought about try to ask for a proxy vote at a meeting and I don’t think there is anywhere in the ordinance we can ask for that.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I can suggest is we had a meeting with facts presented and we have a vote and at that vote we have Mr. Thompson. Uh and um I don’t think we can count him out because he is not here this evening uh when he voted on this matter having heard all of the evidence that the parties wanted to present. And um I think, I think that is where we are, uh we can’t throw his vote out and I don’t however, this is the same matter that is being brought back for a vote because we had a 2 to 2 vote. That is all.

President David Stimmel asked, Don something new?

Don Pauken stated, I think this procedure is incorrect Jerry. There is some additional new information that I would like to put out and uh obviously Mr. Barber has not heard a lot of it and to try to digest everything that was said by reading it is difficult.

President David Stimmel stated, I agree with you Don to a certain degree, but Gary has had more time quite frankly to digest the information that was presented that night then what we had that evening.

Don Pauken stated, well that…

President David Stimmel stated, I think that would probably have had ample time to do that.

Don Pauken stated, there is a couple of things that I want to reemphasis because it was not..

President David Stimmel stated, I would rather not, if it is new information I have no problem with that. I think we could go ahead, but I think if it's just a repeat of what we have already heard and already a part of the record, I think we should dispense with it in everyone’s interest.

Don Pauken stated, well then other thing is uh anything new obviously Mr. Thompson isn’t hearing it either…

President David Stimmel stated, that is correct.

Don Pauken stated, and that is why I wanted to uh clarify a couple of points that were made that were incorrect and correct those items and I also wanted to uh clarify one point that was not very clear on my point, on my part.

President David Stimmel stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I can just, I can only say that we actually have all the evidence. In other words the parties have given evidence and rested and it is not back to the board to make a decision. This isn’t before us uh to receive more evidence uh we have receive argumentation from the parties, but not evidence and that is why I say this you know we have had a vote. And we have one vote one person on the board who has voted who is not here this evening and the way I read the law he is, his vote is just as valid as any vote this evening would be.

Don Alvarez stated, sorry, my name is Dan Alvarez.

President David Stimmel stated, yes.

Dan Alvarez stated, Mr. Altman for them to paraphrase what you are saying is we will have a 5 member vote even though we only have one missing. My only contention and only change is the man had his chance to come in front of you and we all spent hours out of our time continuing to keep coming here and if you vote against this tonight and it is a 4, 2 to 2 situation, how many times does the man get to come to the well asking for his variance?

Attorney Altman stated, actually until he gets an official.

Dan Alvarez stated, there are only 4 members here, the man can continuing keep coming here until he gets a yes from you or we can get actually 5 physical people in this room and 3 say no and we can finish this, is that what you are saying.

Attorney Altman stated, until you have an official decision, which is a 3 vote either way.

Dan Alvarez stated, but…

Attorney Altman stated, you can have that with 3 members or…

Dan Alvarez stated, but to continue to say we can because there is only 4 members here. What I’m saying is, are we going to keep playing this game because someone isn’t here?

Attorney Altman stated, no, you need 3 votes yea or nay, it doesn’t matter.

President David Stimmel stated, you’ve already got one vote.

Dan Alvarez stated, what I’m saying is his vote from the last meeting going to count.

President David Stimmel stated, as I’m understanding Mr. Altman yes.

Dan Alvarez stated, thank you.

President David Stimmel stated, Gary, is there any information uh, you’ve looked at the record ectera is there more information that you would want to have.

Gary Barbour stated, I don’t know that I really need any.

President David Stimmel stated, okay. Carol are you ready to vote? Dave?

Carol Stradling asked, so we have voting again?

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t have to.

President David Stimmel stated, you’ve already cast a vote.

Attorney Altman stated, you may vote. The way I read the law and it was sited to me today down in Tippecanoe for an example they had a matter last month that had a 7 – 6 vote and didn’t pass, 3 members changed their votes this month and it was adopted as I understand. What I’m trying to say is the condition this is until we have an official action we don’t have an action. I’m saying is you do have the liberty to vote if you wish to do so or leave your vote alone as you and two other members have done that.

President David Stimmel stated, okay I understand what he is saying. Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, I don’t have anything.

Carol Stradling stated, I have one further question Mr. Dellinger. What activity will take place on lot 1?

Dow Dellinger stated, well access egress/ingress will take place on lot 1 because we haven’t gotten our, we ask to rezone the lot and that wasn’t accepted, we didn’t get that passed so the only thing we can do is access for ingress/egress. Of course there will be drainage on that, but the drainage board has approved the drainage on that lot as well. Drainage can go on level just like access ingress/egress can be in any zoning level at all. Those will be the only permitted use he will have with lot 2 is just access across lot 1.

President David Stimmel asked, ready to vote?

Carol Stradling stated, we shouldn’t have to.

Dow Dellinger stated, I guess if Jerry wants to take the position that the votes are all the same it looks like Mr. Barber is the only one who can vote. You can’t change if you think it is a continued vote.

President David Stimmel stated, ready. Don what do you need?

Don Pauken stated, I’m objecting to this completely uh why didn’t he just vote in absenteeism or whatever and this is...

Attorney Altman stated because you can vote in absenteeism...

Don Pauken stated, well like I said I wanted to clarify a couple of things it is not, I’m not adding anymore exhibits all I’m trying to do is clarify there was some mistakes made and for the record I can’t get on the record with them. Mr. Barber is reading things in the minutes that are not correct.

President David Stimmel asked, Don how long will it take you?

Don Pauken stated, 5 minutes.

President David Stimmel stated, that is all. It is my opinion that we should give him 5 minutes that may or may not be apart of the record.

Carol Stradling stated, 5 minutes will not make a difference. I think he deserves 5 minutes.

Don Pauken stated, my point being.

President David Stimmel stated, hold on just a second we need to change the tape.

Director Weaver stated, okay Don.

Don Pauken stated, we are talking about egress/ingress and part of the access that he is talking about having this particular drawing is the proposed that went to the IDEM for the permit. This is lot 2 which has the proper zoning, this is lot 1 not properly zoned. I have put in the retention pond there, the action of the trucks coming in, come in here dump off the empty container, go on the lot 1 and then back in here to pick up the loaded container of the compacted material. Come back out in this area crossing into lot 1 now if that isn’t operating part of the transfer station I don’t know what it is. He backs out dumps off the container picks up the empty one and comes back onto lot 1 into that. That is operating the transfer station now this green line here is what is in their access agreement that they want. That including the pond is over 50% of the total of lot 1. Its use of the property for the business this is use of the property. Dumping the containers off and picking them up and backing back and forth across that line. That is use of the lot. IDEM controls transfer station, why does IDEM because it is an environmentally sensitive type of thing of trash transferring and that is why they are doing it. I want to make sure you understand this is not only ingress/egress going out it is operating part of the facility. Thank you.

President David Stimmel stated, thanks Don. Dow 2 ½ minutes.

Dow Dellinger stated, I don’t need that long.

President David Stimmel stated, okay.

Dow Dellinger stated, there is no trash dumping, there is no container setting, there is no operation being done on that property, it is access to lot 2 to get into the transfer station. This is IDEM approved. IDEM approved the drawing, the only reason we are here is because our Environmental Officer contacted IDEM and said we are improperly zoned, which isn’t true. My only plea to you is look at the zoning ordinance. If you can find any where in that zoning ordinance where it says there is a restriction on access for ingress/egress, it is actually stated in there. The only place 3.2003 actually mentions access for ingress/egress and it only has to do with mining of sand and gravel. There is a reason why you can access ingress/egress anywhere. There is a reason. I’m the only one giving you cases to review the reading of this zoning ordinance to say that we can't traverse across a different zoned lot. When you own both lots to travel back and forth for ingress/egress is preposterous it is not in here. It is not a law. This has been going on since November and the reason why we provided you with cases because that is the law in the State of Indiana. The reason why your counsel hasn’t done it is because it is not the law in the State of Indiana. You can’t traverse across a differently zoned lot. The only reason why Mr. Pauken keeps coming in here and talking about drainage and 50% use of the property it is because they can not come up with anything else. The ordinance does not limit access. So that is my 2-½ minutes.

President David Stimmel stated, close enough. Okay board. Anybody want to change their vote, or vote period? I’m leaving mine the way it is. Carol are you ready to vote?

Carol Stradling stated, let me read this again.

President David Stimmel stated, absolutely, I’m not trying to rush you.

Attorney Altman stated, I have then submitted this evening 3 votes. We have uh 1 yes and 2 negatives. Originally we had 1 yes of Mr. Scott’s that stands and 1 no of Mr. Thompson’s that stands. We rule that the vote taken on this matter is 3 votes no and 2 votes yes. The appeal was denied.

Dow Dellinger stated, thank you for your time and Diann we will need the copies of the votes.

Attorney Altman stated, we will certainly give you that tomorrow morning.

Appeal #5 Rangeline Properties, Inc. and Jeffrey T. VanWeelden, Appellants:

Appellants are appealing the White County Area Plan Commission decision

To deny the applicant’s access across the two lots as set out in your

Letter of January 27, 2006.

A. That the Lot No. 1 owned by Appellant, Rangeline Properties, Inc. is the subject matter of

this Appeal is zoned A01, Lot No. 2 also owned by Appellant, Rangeline Properties, Inc. is

zoned I-2. Each of these lots abut along the East lot line of Lot No. 1 which is the West lot line

of Lot No. 2. That the lots have an offset that requires Appellant said lots to abut along the

created East/West Lot Boundary.

B. There was an objection by Don Pauken as to the adequacy of the Notice of the Appeal

(see attached Notice) the board found that the Notice was a reasonable notice and it could

proceed Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No (4/20/06)

C. The Board determined that an accessory use of Lot No 1 must be consistent and an

Accessory use of the allowed principal use that Lot No. 1 is zoned i.e. A-1. Vote 3 yes, 2 no.

D. That the uncontroverted evidence and representation of Appellant’s counsel was presented

To the Board was that the Appellant’s use for which it was going to use Lot No. 1 was.

(1) to put a drainage pond on same as said pond was required to support the I-1 use

of Lot No. 2,

(2) To allow Appellant’s trucks to take the full containers from it’s transfer station

and replace same with empty containers to be filled by driving onto part of Lot No 1

with the truck, back up into the transfer station, picking up the filled container,

driving out across Lot No. 1 and this would be repeated to install on empty

container to be refilled and this process is repeated.

SEE STATEMENTS OF MR. DON PAUKEN AND MR. DOW DELLINGER.

“Dow Dellinger stated, “We can address several things, and I’m not sure I’m

going to get all of them. First of all, the drainage easement is in pursuant to

the request of the drainage board. The Drainage Board demanded an easement and

put in permanent record so that is what we did. As far as the access easement goes

that is an access easement. The easement is for access, not for use, for access for

ingress/egress. That is the term we use and that is what the access easement is for.

It is for ingress/egress there will be no processing of garbage whatsoever on Lot

No. 1. It is Lot No. 2 with the processing of garbage will be done on.”

President David Stimmel asked, Can I ask you a question? Are the maps and the

Process as described accurate?

Dow Dellinger stated, No, I don’t know where those maps came from. So I can’t

Say if those are accurate or not. I know I’ve never seen the line drawn of the

Drainage for I have no idea if those are to scale or who prepared those. I can’t

State whether or not those are accurate or not.

President David Stimmel asked, Let me as you?

Dow Dellinger stated, Does it look similar, that looks similar.

President David Stimmel asked, is the concept there? Is it in fact the trucks pull

Ahead?

Dow Dellinger stated, that is right, yes, the trucks will be utilizing the area to pull in

And out of the building, that is the definition of access. As far as we use that lot

A-1 anything that is acceptable in A-1. You know their insinuation that we can’t

Use Lot No. 1 for anything that is related to the business. We could use it for

Anything that is acceptable in, uh, in an agriculture-zoned property, which would

Be drainage for instance, access for instance. There will be no building of an

Industrial unit, there will be no operation of industrial unit, other that for access

For ingress/egress.

President David Stimmel stated, thank you, Dow.

(3) Also see responses of Mr. Dow Dellinger, Attorney for Appellant to

Questions of President David Stimmel that the Appellant had access and egress for

Lot No. 2 off and on to Hanawalt Road.

E. Ballots

1. Was objection filed within 30 days? Vote 5 Yes, 0 No.

2. Did Objector carry it’s burden of proof that it’s proposed interpretation of the White County Zoning Ordinance is correct? Vote 3 Yes, 2 No.

3. Does an accessory use that a lot is proposed to be used for have to be an accessory use consistent with the zoning of the lot in questions? Vote 4 Yes, 1 No.

4. Was the Director Weaver’s interpretation of the Ordinance correct as set out in her letter dated January 27, 2006 to L. Dowal Dellinger or is Objector’s correct? Vote DIRECTOR 3 votes, OBJECTOR 2 votes.

5. Should the appeal of Rangeline Properties, Inc. of 1/30/06 be granted? Vote 2 Yes, 3 No.

(Gregory Onken’s variance was heard at this point as requested by their representative.)

****

President David Stimmel asked, is there any other business?

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

David Scott seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission