Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Ronald M. King, Marion B. Ballard, Robert E.R. Hutter, Charles R. Mellon, Terry Smith, Doug Krintz, Penny Krintz, Kent Kiester, Kathy Kiester, Joan Wallace, Jerry All, Shirley All, Nancy Downey, David Kelly, Bonnie Kelly, Jim Rudhman, Kim Robinson, Tadd C. Maudlin, Daniel L. Hahn, and Chad Hodgen. Also attending but not signed in was Tom Orlus.

The meeting was called to order by Attorney Altman and roll call was taken. Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the May 18, 2006 meeting. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

David Scott stated, I make a motion that Jerry Thompson handle the meeting.

Gary Barbour stated, I vote we go with experience.

Jerry Thompson stated, you’ve been here just as long.

Attorney Altman stated, as acting person I recognize that we have a motion and a second that Jerry Thompson the former President of many years take over as the officer.

****

#2518 Ronald M. King and Marion B. Ballard; The property is located on Lot 8 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, located North of Monticello at 4997 N. Canyon Loop.

Violation: Built a room addition out of compliance with the setback requirements.

Request: They are requesting a 17’ front setback variance to build a room addition, also a 3’ South Side setback variance to bring the house into compliance.


Jerry Thompson stated, first of all I think it is procedure that we deal with the request then the violation make sure we are being fair. Is there anyone here representing the King’s?

Ronald King stated, I’m Mr. King and I live on Canyon Loop at 4997. In regards to the setback to the lake on the East Side, I’m wondering if you have come to a decision on the variance. That building was already up there, it is an older building and actually what I’m trying to do is remodel it. It is in bad shape so I thought it was best to tear it down and rebuild it, but in order to get a drainage pitch on the roof like 12’4 or something I have to set the rafters back a few more feet. That is why I’m asking for a 3’ setback over there. I don’t know if you have ruled on that or not, I was wondering if I could get an answer on that.

Director Weaver stated, let me clarify a little bit. Where is he going to do the proposed addition as you see on the survey he is going to tear a portion of that part behind it as well and build it back and extend as well.

Ronald King stated, extend the rafters all the way to the main building to the peak of the main building. I was going to rebuild it with 12” rafters 16 on center and to make a better building out of it. I did request like 3’. It would give me 2’ on the wall, 1’ on the overhang. Which would be the 3’ I requested.

Jerry Thompson stated, well to answer his question.

Attorney Altman stated, that is what we are deciding right now, we are hearing evidence and testimony about your request for a variance right now. Then that is what is before us to vote on right now okay Mr. King.

Ronald King stated, if I could say one more thing.

Attorney Altman stated, oh yes we are going to let you say a lot.

Ronald King stated, as far as the room that is on there now is beyond repair. There is a flat roof, no drainage on it, it leaks up there every time it rains, it is like a bathtub that holds water. The only way to drain it off right is to bring the rafters all the way to the main peak on the building that was first erected 30 years ago. So I either have a choice of tearing it down and loosing the living space and putting up a deck there instead. The building is not that big to begin with so I would like to keep the building and enlarge it 3’ and make it 9’ x 20’ instead of 7’ x 20’. That is all I wanted to say.

Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address this variance? Diann, anything else on this?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received any letters or phone calls from the neighbors that I’m aware of.

Jerry Thompson stated, we have a copy of a letter that you sent.

Director Weaver stated, that is about the violation.

Jerry Thompson stated, yes. Gary any questions?

Gary Barbour stated, no not at this time.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, I don’t think I have anything.

Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone care to speak either for or against the variance this evening?

Attorney Altman stated, okay Mr. King the improvement that you are going to put in will be single story?

Ronald King stated, that is right, that is correct.

Attorney Altman asked, it will be very similar to the style of the rest of the building that you are adding on to?

Ronald King stated, that is right the whole building will have new siding on it.

Attorney Altman stated, you are not adding any bathrooms or bedrooms?

Ronald King stated, it is a setting room to watch the lake and the boats go by.

Attorney Altman asked, are you on septic or sewer system?

Ronald King stated, we do have a grinder pump located next door to us which we pay $15.00 a month for sewage.

Attorney Altman stated, so you are hooked up.

Ronald King stated, yes.

Jerry Thompson stated, back to you Dave?

David Scott stated, I don’t have anything.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, there are buildings in this where are they in relationship to the house on the property. There is nothing shown on our survey.

Director Weaver stated, the shed that is in the bottom right hand picture is towards the water on the North side of the house.

Gary Barbour stated, the Northeast side.

Director Weaver stated, yes, and the shed on the top left picture is not their shed, that is the neighbor’s shed. There is a carport there that is theirs. I believe that is a temporary type structure.

Jerry Thompson stated, do you have something to say.

Tom Orlus stated, I’m Tom Orlus, I’m relation to them. I was just wondering, he said he didn’t see anything with a proposed addition on it. Is that what you have or not.

Gary Barbour stated, it didn’t show any of the buildings on it that is why I was asking.

Jerry Thompson asked, any other discussion?

Without any 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 17’ front setback variance to build a room addition, also a 3’ South Side setback variance to bring the house into compliance on Lot Number Eight (8) in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, as recorded in Deed Record 134, page 521, in the Office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, located in Monon Township, White County, Indiana. The House is on the sewer system and will remain on same.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 4997 N. Canyon Loop.


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


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


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


Jerry Thompson stated, okay now the violation on the matter. Diann will explain that to us.


Director Weaver stated, yeah they came in and got a permit to build a room addition on to the home in 2004. When they did so they showed the room addition was 8’2 from the South property line. When we received the survey from Jim Milligan it didn’t now show that there was 8’ to the South property line. There has been some confusion if you look at your information that I gave you tonight, you have to additional survey’s one of those is marked that was the survey that we received with the application. Then after that we received a second survey on May 16 2006 this is the one that showed the violation it showed it only 5’ from the property line.


Jerry Thompson stated, I understand that, but mine says April.


Director Weaver stated, our information is at that top. If you look at the back of your staff report the final survey we received shows the room addition is 6’ from the South property line. They are all signed by the same surveyor and where we stand on this I’m really not sure. This is the information we have. The addition if you look at your picture in the left middle the room or the building you see to the left is the room addition. I’m showing you the south side where the fence is. I don’t know if the fence is on the property line or not, but Mr. King did measure the distance between the room addition and the fence when I was out there and it measure 8’.


David Scott asked, what is it supposed to be?


Director Weaver stated, when he submitted his information for his building permit, he stated he was 8’2".


Jerry Thompson stated, okay we have an 8’, 6’ and a 5’.


Attorney Altman stated, they are dated.


Director Weaver stated, the one with the staff report is dated May 17.


Attorney Altman stated, the one dated the 24th is 8’, the other two would support a violation.


Director Weaver stated, this is why their request was tabled last month because of the discrepancy in the surveys, we had to re-advertise the request.


Jerry Thompson stated, so are you suggesting we…


Director Weaver stated, I can’t…


Jerry Thompson stated, the most recent one.


Director Weaver stated, I believe that is the one Mr. Milligan told them was his final survey.


Jerry Thompson stated, the one received on May 16.


Director Weaver stated, May 17.


Attorney Altman stated, that shows 6’.


Gary Barbour stated, it is 8’ to the fence.


Director Weaver stated, it is 8’ to the fence.


Gary Barbour asked, who owns the fence?


Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.


Ronald King stated, I own the fence. When I purchased the property the fence was already in there, it was like a split post fence and it was painted white and had lumber on it for a fence. That use to be the property line, until Mr. Milligan got in touch with it and he moved it further south giving me more room for that room addition. I didn’t even need the extra room, but I measured 9’2 before that building was even built and I had 3 inspections on it before the building permit was issued. Mr. Rupel from Dave Anderson’s office came over he measured it. Dave was over and he said don’t worry about it. Another man came over and inspected the building and said there is a requirement at the east entrance. So I put a light at each entrance. There is more that 8’2, there is 9’2. The problem is there are conifers there, these trees are very had to look through. There is spruce and cedar, there is pine and it is hard to run, you can’t run a laser through them. If you go up the hill and look down there, the property line is way over on the neighbors, so this here point of saying that I’m in violation, I don’t go along with that at all because like I said I know when they built it I made very sure that it was not violating any building laws. I had people over that were in the construction business and saying you have plenty of room and you can build wider with this if you want. I know what I can get away with and what I have and I only let the contractor build it that knows what he is doing and telling me how far it was. That is all I have to say.


Gary Barbour stated, the problem here if you look at the last survey dated May 17 is that the fence is begin on the neighbors property. So if you are measuring from the fence you are not measuring from the property line.


Ronald King stated, I don’t think the person who owned my property before would put a fence up on the neighbor’s property. Further more this all started when Mr. Milligan’s grandson came out there instead of him to measure this lot, the South line, he put in a measurement of 4’, that is when you sent this threatening letter for $500 and $50 a month after that if I didn’t come into compliance with it. That was because someone turned in a 4’ measurement then after that there were 3. Now of them compare to each other, what do I go by, I know what is out there. I can’t cut those trees down to give you a surveyor’s mark, there are 20 cedar, spruce, conifers. That would be very expensive for someone.


Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else care to address the matter?


Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I can say, you are obviously here to address a violation and as a board you can look at the equities as to whether or what the intent of the applicant is or the potential violator is or whether he is a violator and whether there are some things that excuse his conduct, his placement of this structure and those sort of things. The fact that there are 3 surveys showing 3 different distances and positioning the home differently 3 different ways. The fact that he measured from a fence that may or may not be his boundaries isn’t necessarily relevant but it is certain, we hear that often. In fact that the survey is 3 different ways strongly as to whether he had any intent to violate the ordinance by misplacing this structure, if he did misplace it.


Gary Barbour stated, I just wanted to make him understand that measuring from the fence is not his property line and he needs to find out where it is.


Ronald King stated, like I said I would have to cut 20 trees.


Gary Barbour stated, no there are ways to determine the property lines.


Ronald King stated, I thought measuring the lot because my deed is 60’ I only have 57’, they’ve taken my driveway away, and they kept pushing the lines over further and further. Now if there is another 3’ taken off then I will be there with a 54’ lot and I’m paying for a 60’ on taxes. I had this invested 3 different times my Mr. Anderson’s office and before he issued that building permit that is in the satchel he said going ahead and build it, I’ve got a building permit stating that. The building permit is not any good.


Jerry Thompson asked, is the adjoining neighbor here? I’m surprised.


Tom Orlus stated, there are no complaints from the neighbors, I mean the neighbors are probably wanting to get this settled too because one believes the trees are theirs and one believes because the property line is messed up, it is bad over there, it is very hard to get a line through there. Even trying to see where the marks that they put out there, when you stand out there and eyeball it, he is not in violation I mean he would not do that. He doesn’t even want to take the fence down and take the neighbors property away he is saying he has another 1’ on the other side. He isn’t even saying that. All he wants to do is get this thing cleared up so he knows he didn’t do any violation especially when he obtained all the property permits and proper surveys and there was no attempt.


Jerry Thompson stated, I understand that, I’m thinking on down the line if he or the neighbor ever chooses to sell this is going to come to reckoning day someday. Finally there is going to have a lot.


David Scott stated, I would like to make a motion considering the discrepancy in the surveys and even though he is not meeting setbacks he is not encroaching on someone else’s property that we waive the fine, but he needs to establish where the property line is before he continues.


Jerry Thompson stated, we have a motion to waive the fine in lieu of all of he discrepancy and the neighbor isn’t here to represent himself. Gary do you have any questions?


Gary Barbour stated, I don’t have any problems just as long as he make sure before there is any other construction at that place after the fact here, that he determine exactly where the property line whether he has to survey his property and the neighbors property or what. I will second the motion.


Jerry Thompson stated, it has been moved and seconded that we waive the fine. All in favor say “aye”. Motion was carried 3 to 0. Fine removed.


Attorney Altman stated, file a petition on the courts to establish the line and you get a survey that is recognized by order of court is how you establish it if you have a factual dispute.


Jerry Thompson asked, is his son a licensed surveyor?


Attorney Altman stated, not yet.


Jerry Thompson stated, not yet.


Attorney Altman stated, that is the answer. That is exactly what you are saying Gary that he needs to do so he doesn't have this issue come back and cause him a problem in the future.


David Scott stated, what bothers me is this fellow paid for 3 surveys and they are all different.


Attorney Altman stated, that is the contract, I agree but.


David Scott stated, if I want my property surveyed I should pay for one survey and I should get what I pay for. What do we do about it.


Jerry Thompson stated , if this would come to court how would it be handled, would it be the most recent survey, how would they address the 3.


Attorney Altman stated, this is what you are doing this evening you are looking at it making your best judgement as to what is correct. You just have to make that judgement. Which isn’t always the… it is just final, it is made a final decision.


****

#2524 James N. & Judith A. Rudhman; The property is located on the S/E E Frax NW 5-27-3 on .129 of an acre, located West of East Shafer Dr. at 4286 E. Taft Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 21’ front setback variance to remodel and add a loft to the existing home.

Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Rudhman’s?

Jim Rudhman stated, I’m Jim Rudhman.

Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to present other than what I have read?

Jim Rudhman stated, the remodeling setback is for, we are building within the existing structure. The main reconstruction is the roof, we are reorienting the roof from a shed dormer type roof to a 4 12 pitch and within the house of the 4 12 pitch over the bedroom section we are going to put a loft area in there for storage. The house is less than 500’ and we need all the storage we can have. Additional remodeling will be windows and sliding doors. The overhang on the roof looking for on the setback is a 12” overhang it is probably 10.

Jerry Thompson stated, make mention that the plans he has…

Attorney Altman stated, he has building plans as exhibits as the improvements are to be constructed, and the loft inside the house on the survey.

Jerry Thompson asked, Diann anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no, but I will add that in the pictures the bottom right hand the house on the right hand side is the neighbors house that received a variance a couple of years ago.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else here care to address the variance? Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave do you have anything to add?

David Scott stated, no, I didn’t hear what you said.

Director Weaver stated, I just thought you would be interested in the house next door has had a variance on it as well.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the lower left in the photos. He isn’t going any further to the water.

Director Weaver stated, no further than what he is existing.

Jerry Thompson asked, anything for Mr. Rudhman? Gary said no. Dave anything?

David Scott stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, is this on sewer?

Jim Rudhman stated, yes. Just hooked up this week.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone in the audience have any questions?

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, that applicant is building within the existing structure just higher. It is on the sewer and will remain the same


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 21’ front setback variance to remodel and add a loft to the existing home on a parcel of land out of the North half ½ on the Northwest Quarter ¼ of Section Five (5), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West, more clearly described as follows: Beginning at a point that bears West a distance of One thousand three Hundred fifty-four (1354) feet and South One hundred ninety six (196) feet and South One (1) degree fifteen (15) minutes East five hundred two (502) feet and East three hundred twenty-five (325) feet from the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section Thirty-two (32), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range three (3) West, in White County, Indiana: thence South One (1) degree fifteen minutes (15) East one hundred four (104) feet to the line of the Indiana Electric Power Company thence meandering with said line South fifty-three (53) degrees West twenty-six (26) feet; thence South eighty-six (86) degrees thirty (30) minutes West Twenty-seven (27) feet; thence North one (1) degree fifteen (15) Minutes West one hundred nineteen (119) feet from the line of the Indiana electric power Company; thence East fifty (50) feet to the place of beginning, containing .129 acres, more or less.

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


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


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

****

#2525 D.G. & J.K. Wallace Trust; The property is located on E/S W SE 19-27-2 on 1.637 acres, located between C.R. 900 E and C.R. 1000 E at 9698 E. Timmons Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting an 8’ height variance to build a pole barn with a roofed porch.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Trust?

J.K. Wallace stated, I’m J.K. Wallace of the Trust.

Jerry Thompson asked, do you have anything that you would like to present to the board tonight?

J.K. Wallace stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors on this, I do have a question. When I was working on the information for the building permit today I noticed that on the survey it shows the building being 42’ x 56’ and on your information for the building permit we have a 42’ x 54’ pole barn with a 42’ x 10’ roofed porch.

J. K. Wallace stated, it is by 54’.

Director Weaver stated, it is, with the 10’ addition for the porch, I just wanted to clarify that.

Attorney Altman asked, so is it properly advertised then?

Director Weaver stated, it is properly advertised because of the 4’.

Jerry Thompson asked, is this a storage facility?

J.K. Wallace stated, yes.

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

David Scott stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no sir.

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, and is for storage only and a roofed porch.


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’ height variance to build a pole barn with a roofed porch on Part of the East side of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 27, North, Range 2 West in Lincoln Township, White County, Indiana, described by Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 19, said point located on the centerline of White County Highway 1000 East at the centerline of an open ditch; thence North along the centerline of Highway 1000 East 1458 feet to the centerline of Timmons Road; thence North 77 degrees 58 minutes West along the centerline of Timmons Road 1311.60 feet; thence North 75 degrees 46 minutes West along said centerline 590.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 0 Degrees 14 minutes West 510.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes West 132.40 feet thence North 0 degrees 14 minutes East 569.05 feet 59 a point on the centerline of Timmons Road; thence South 65 degrees 46 minutes East 145.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.637 acres more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located between C.R. 900 E and 1000 E at 9698 E. Timmons 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2526 David L. & Bonnie L. Kelly; The property is located on Lot 1 in Southlawn Subdivision #3, located in the City of Monticello at 500 S. Park Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 23’ front setback variance (Blain St.) to build an addition on to an existing detached garage.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Kelley’s?

David Kelly stated, I’m David Kelly and we would like to build a 16’ extension fronting on Blaine Street to our garage, which we built in 1991. Then it would be 48’ long, it is a storage facility and it doesn’t have any additional openings to the street. It doesn’t create any hazards as far as the automobile access. The garage door to the street remains the same. It is simply an extension for storage.

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

Director Weaver stated, no I do not.

Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, the survey shows it will be 64’ from the street if the proposed garage addition is granted and that the right of way would be similar to the right of way to the rest of it.

Director Weaver stated, Jerry did I miss understand you, did you say it was 64’ from the road.

Attorney Altman stated, from the East it says so here.

Director Weaver stated, the road is to the South and to the East.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be to the North.

David Kelly stated, the garage sets to the East, Blaine Street is east. We are on a corner lot.

Jerry Thompson asked anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, is there a utility easement through there?

David Kelly the utility easement runs across the back of the lot line and across the front in the street. That is back where the mini barn is.

David Scott stated, the utility easement appears on our survey it goes through the existing garage and the proposed garage, it appears to me.

David Kelly stated, there is a 10’ in the back and 15’ on the side. There is a gas line that comes around the front corner around the edge of the house. There are no utilities where the garage is, none at all.

Director Weaver stated, if you look at the lines they are different, to the East.

David Scott stated, that is the setback line, sorry.

Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone else care to discuss this matter?

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 23’ front setback variance (Blain St.) to build an addition on to an existing detached garage on Lot numbered One (1) in Southlawn Subdivision Part III, in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 500 South Park Drive.


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


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


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

****

#2527 Ronald Kent & Kathleen Ann Kiester; The property is located on Lot 10 in Shady Haven Subdivision and Part of Lot 14 in Restview Bollers Lakeview Addition, located North of Monticello at 6916 N. Apple Knob Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 16’ rear setback variance to build a room addition and a roofed porch on the existing home and to bring the home into compliance.

Jerry Thompson asked, you are the Kiester?

Robert Hutter stated, I’m Robert Hutter and I will be speaking for the Kiester’s.

Jerry Thompson asked, are you the contractor?

Robert Hutter stated, yes. Most of that is preexisting there, it was only when we tore it off that we realized there was no foundation under that section.

Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Robert Hutter stated, that is when we decided to stop and come in for this variance and get a foundation underneath it and get it put back. I have a letter here from the neighbor’s that I would like to submit that shows that they are all accepting of this and it is signed by all.

Jerry Thompson stated, without copies we keep those. That will be kept in the file.

Robert Hutter stated, that is find.

Attorney Altman stated, exhibit A.

Jerry Thompson asked, Diann anything?

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

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here care to address the matter for or against?

Nancy Downey stated, I’m Nancy Downey, Monon Township Trustee. I don’t see a problem with it either, I have watched these folks and they have had some pretty rough times with this house they bought and they are just trying to put it back so they can live right.

Attorney Altman stated, this was in existence before the subdivision and zoning ordinance took affect in 1972.

Nancy Downey stated, right, they’ve done nothing to change the home. This is the way it was when it was bought.

Attorney Altman stated, that is why it is not a violation because it was there before the ordinance went to effect.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else care to address the matter? Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, anything else?

Attorney Altman asked, is this on sewer?

Robert Hutter stated, yes.

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. It is on the sewer and will continue to be. Their proposed is the existing prior structure.


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 16’ rear setback variance to build a room addition and a roofed porch on the existing home and to bring the home into compliance on

Lot Number Ten (10) in Shady Haven Subdivision being a subdivision of a part of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest quarter (1/4) of section Thirty (30), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West, in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.


Also Lot Number Fourteen (14) in Rest View Boller’s Lakeview Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, Except Ten (10) feet off the Southeast corner of said Lot Number Fourteen (14) as set out in the deed recorded at page 29 of Deed Record 205 in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, also except that part of Lot 14 in Rest View Boller’s Lake View addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Beginning at a ½ inch iron pipe found at the Northwest corner of said Lot 14; thence South 80 degrees 30 minutes East (plat bearing) along the North line of Lot 14 a distance of 10.00 feet to a capped w/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set; thence South 04 degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds West 103.43 feet passing through a I.P. at 100 feet; thence North 62 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 10.86 feet to an I.P. set at the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; thence North 04 degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning;

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 6916 Apple Knob Drive.


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


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


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

****

#2528 Daniel L. & Debra K. Hahn; The property is located on Lot 21, 23, & 25 in Pleasant Valley 1st Addition to Pleasant Valley, South of Monticello at 2403 S. Pleasant Valley Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 25’ front setback variance to replace an existing shed.

Jerry Thompson asked, you are?

Daniel Hahn stated, I’m Daniel Hahn and I do have some photos for the board. I’m sorry I only made 1 copy for you. I’ve got them numbered 1, 2, and 3 are the existing barn and surrounding property and the canal I live on. 1, 2, 3 and 4 actually, then 5, 6, 7, and 8. I have marked out where the proposed new mini barn will be. It is going to be a larger mini barn, but it is actually going to be farther away from the water than and the property line next to the water then the existing was.

Jerry Thompson asked, Diann anything?

Director Weaver stated, I just had a couple of corrections on the agenda it says that it is lot 21, 23 and 25, it is a part of lot 25 not the whole lot and on the staff report the lot that is darkened, it is also the two to the left of that. I have not received anything from any of the neighbors.

Daniel Hahn stated, I do have the neighbor to the left or to the West of me.

Jerry Thompson asked, how many lots do you own there?

Daniel Hahn stated, it is about 2 ¼ lots. Lot 25 is a ¼ of a lot.

Attorney Altman stated, if the variance is granted you will marry the real estate together.

Daniel Hahn stated, yes. When I had the pole barn, which I’m not sure if it shows, I do have an existing pole barn there that I already got a variance for several years back.

Director Weaver stated, they have a copy of that staff report and survey.

Attorney Altman stated, he submitted some photos and they are marked 54. 1 through and including 8 showing the proposed lots as it presently is.

Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone here care to discuss the matter either for or against?

Chad Hodgen stated, I’m Chad Hodgen, I have lived next door since 1999 and being familiar with the property, that would be the preferred location to put such a storage barn because it is kind of a corner tucked behind my shed that has been there for several years. It is back out of the way and doesn’t see any problem with obstructing anything.

Jerry Thompson stated, he said earlier that you are adjoining, but which direction are you.

Chad Hodgen stated, I’m to the West, it neighbors the property lines that come up to my property.

Attorney Altman asked, so you own part of lot 25 also?

Chad Hodgen stated, yes.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else? Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no sir.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no not with this, but what is the deal with the boathouse.

Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that. I don’t know when it was built.

Attorney Altman asked, is it on the sewer?

Daniel Hahn stated, yes.

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. This will not cause visibility problems


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 25’ front setback variance to replace an existing shed on Lot Number Twenty-one (21) and Lot number Twenty-three (23) in Pleasant Valley First Addition to Pleasant Valley Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana and Lot Number Twenty-five (25) in Pleasant Valley First Addition to Pleasant Valley Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana; EXCEPT Thirty (30) feet of even width off the entire West side thereof.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 2403 S. Pleasant Valley 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2529 Douglas W. & Penny Krintz; The property is located on Part of Lot 742 in WWR 2nd Addition, in the Town of Chalmers at 209 W. Main Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 19 ½’ front setback variance to replace an enclosed porch.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Krintz’s?

Douglas Krintz stated, I’m Douglas Krintz. All I want to do is rebuild the front porch just exactly the way it is.

Attorney Altman stated, so on the photo it shows a front porch there, you are going to take it off.

Douglas Krintz stated, I’m going to take that off and put it back I the same foot print that it is in right now.

Attorney Altman stated, it won’t be bigger just new.

Douglas Krintz stated, no. I’ve got to get rid of a lot of rotten wood in there. I need to get it off of there and put it back the way it sets.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone care to address the matter either for or against? Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour 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. The home will be built as it was on prior foot print.


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for requesting a 19 ½’ front setback variance to replace an enclosed porch on Part of Lot No 742 in William W. Raub’s Second Addition to the Town of Chalmers, White County, Indiana: Beginning at a point 64 1/3 feet West of the Northeast Corner of Lot No. 742; thence running West 64 1/3 feet thence South 149 feet thence East 64 1/3 feet parallel with the North line of said lot thence North 149 feet parallel with the West line of said lot; thence North 149 feet parallel with the West line of said lot to the place of beginning, in White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Chalmers at 209 W. Main Street.


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


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


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

****

#2530 Shirley I. All; The property is located on Lot 65 in Gingrich Addition, located South of Monticello at 5861 E. Sheridan Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 22’ front setback variance and a 6’ East side variance to build a new home on the property.

Jerry Thompson asked, and sir you are?

Jerry All stated, I’m Jerry All, Shirley’s husband. We are replacing a mobile home an older trailer with a modular home. That is just about all I can say.

Jerry Thompson stated, I appreciate it. Diann?

Director Weaver stated, skip me.

Attorney Altman stated, you have two lots, you understand that if this variance is granted you basically are married together.

Jerry All stated, even though this variance doesn’t affect the other one.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Jerry All stated, I would have to sell all.

Attorney Altman stated, all or none. Or stop using the variance as requested.

Jerry All asked, how do I do that?

Director Weaver stated, no, Jerry we have only requested the variance on Lot 65.

Attorney Altman stated, oh.

Director Weaver stated, the survey does show both lots, but we have only requested the variance on 65.

Jerry All stated, I’m not bothering 66 at all.

Attorney Altman stated, sorry I presumed I didn’t listen to that, it is only the variance for that lot. I’m sorry I thought it was for both lots.

Director Weaver stated, he does own both lots.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone else here to discuss this?

Director Weaver stated, okay, I’m ready, there was a variance granted for this mobile home to be on this property and that was done in 1985 and a variance for 2004 for the detached garage on the back of the property. That is all I have.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott asked, the front is the SFLECC line on the front?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, the side is to be 9’ and it is only 3’.

Director Weaver stated, it is a minimum of 8’.

David Scott stated, I guess my question would be why do you want to be 3’ off of the property line on that one side, is there some reason.

Jerry All stated, to get symmetry with the garage, I had a pole barn there and it got wiped away two years ago with the wind and so I replaced it with a garage and just decided in the last two or three months to replace the trailer because it was so old. As well the neighbor to the East his house sets on the property line or 1’ away to his neighbor, so it just makes more symmetry to the neighborhood.

Jerry Thompson asked, we got no correspondence from the owner of lot 64?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Jerry All stated, no he is very happy with what I’m doing.

Jerry Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, is it on the sewer?

Jerry All stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, is the overhang on the garage going to be the same as the proposed house?

Jerry All stated, I’m sorry what was that.

Gary Barbour asked, is the overhang on the garage?

Jerry All stated, yeah, it is a 1’.

Gary Barbour stated, so the foundation is going to be 3’ from the property line. So basically…

Jerry All stated, actually the overhang of both are 3’ from the property line, the overhang is not showing on the survey that he showed.

Gary Barbour stated, to the garage?

Jerry All stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, but it will all be completed in line when you look down there.

Jerry All stated, yes the overhangs will.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave anything else?

David Scott stated, no.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary are you?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

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. The home is on the sewer and will remain on sewer.


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 22’ front setback variance and a 6’ East side variance to build a new home on the property on Lot Number Sixty-five (65) in Gingrich Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5861 E. Sheridan Road.


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


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


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


****


#2531 Tadd C. Maudlin; The property is located on Part NW NE 28-28-3 on 0.27 of an acre, located North of Lowe’s Bridge at 5570 E. Lake Road 74 E.


Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 22’ front setback variance and a 6’ East side variance to build a new home on the property.

Jerry Thompson asked, and sir your are?

Tadd Maudlin stated, I’m Tadd Maudlin.

Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Do you have anything else to present to the board tonight.

Tadd Maudlin stated, no not at this time.

Jerry Thompson stated, Diann you go first.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe I have anything other than I might mention last fall Mr. Maudlin did request a variance to build a new home on the property and he has changed his plans and that is why he is coming back.

Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, so you have leaving the existing cottage and house on there and putting them together.

Tadd Maudlin stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, you would no longer need the previous variance you requested.

Tadd Maudlin stated, correct.

Jerry Thompson asked, anyone here care to address the matter either for or against? Dave Scott any questions?

David Scott stated, I don’t think so.

Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, on the sewer?

Tadd Maudlin stated, yes, phase 3.

Director Weaver stated, that is not up and running yet.

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. It will be on the sewer phase 3. The variance will only allow the improvements to be joined.


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 22’ front setback variance and a 6’ East side variance to build a new home on That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 28; thence West along the south line of said quarter quarter 807.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence West 165.00 feet to the Northern Indiana Public Service Company line; thence North 47 degrees 00 minutes West along said line 87.96 feet; thence East 227.93 feet; thence South 01 degrees 20 minutes East 60.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.27 of an acre, more or less.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5570 E. Lake Road 74 E.


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


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


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


****

Jerry Thompson stated, okay that concludes the variances, now past business. We have a violation on Variance #2520 Mark L. Stern. Kimberly Robinson come forward please.

Director Weaver stated, Ms Robinson came to the board last month requesting a variance to place two awnings on the existing buildings. At the time when I went down to get the pictures for the hearing the awnings were already on the building and therefore we have now cited her with a violation and asked her to come to tonight’s meeting. I have also provided copy from the Assessor’s record with the awnings that were there previously because she stated she was replacing awnings, so I did get this picture so the board would know what was there previously and I also made the copies of last months meeting so you would know what the new ones looked like.

Kim Robinson stated, I’m basically repeating I’ve got a copy of the, so what I brought tonight was a copy of the purchase agreement it says that we purchased the building and that is including the awnings. I’ve got pictures from when we first purchased the building of December 2004. I also have pictures of the new awnings and the business up and going. I would like to present this to the board.

Jerry Thompson stated, we may already have that. We have the current and the old one. If you want us to have them we will take them. For the record when you purchased the building the old awnings were intact.

Kim Robinson stated, right.

Jerry Thompson stated, the day you took possession.

Kim Robinson stated, correct.

Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry anything?

Attorney Altman stated, we asked before you got the building permit that you get approval from the Town board or authorities to approve that, and as I understand that is what you have done and you got the approval.

Kim Robinson stated, yes, I brought a letter and dropped it off.

Attorney Altman stated, you did get a building permit after that as required by our ordinance.

Kim Robinson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I do have that file with me and you do have a copy of the letter from Brookston.

Jerry Thompson asked, Dave any questions for Kim?

David Scott stated, you purchased this and there were awnings already there?

Kim Robinson stated, yes.

David Scott stated, you took them down.

Kim Robinson stated, no, the tenants that were in the front space they took the awnings with them.

David Scott stated, if I owned a building and my awnings were old and I wanted to take them down and put up new ones would I have to get a permit for that.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Jerry Thompson stated, to replace them.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, the other thing I question is we have given a variance for encroachment on State Highway property and I’m not sure we can do that. I think the permission should have come from the State Highway Department. I’m satisfied with what she has done here, but I would think if I did any work on Main St. in Monon I have to get a permit from the State and I didn’t feel right last week, I didn’t want not let her start her business. I didn’t feel right giving the variance for an encroachment without first her having State permission to start with. The town doesn’t own the property there.

Attorney Altman stated, I think you are right.

David Scott stated, I think it would also be good to go to the Town board for permission in case they are doing something that comes into play.

Kim Robinson stated, the State didn’t contact me when they put in the new corner post and they took a little bit of our property so I don’t know. They didn’t let us know, they just did it. I don’t know, who would you contact, I have no idea where you would even start.

David Scott stated, the highway department. I don’t want you to have to do that.

Jerry Thompson stated, that does seem to be the proper place it really does.

David Scott stated, to me and I don’t want to undermine what Diann is doing or Dave Anderson because they are doing a tough job and to me an awning isn’t significant to require a permit and that is my opinion.

Director Weaver stated, the building department requires a permit so they can inspect how they are mounted on the buildings that is the purpose.

David Scott stated, and that is a good point.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest that is a very good purpose if people walked in and got hit and the general public would have a lot more opportunity to do that. That is why it is regulated.

Jerry Thompson asked, is your extended further than the flower shop?

Kim Robinson stated, the one facing 18 doesn’t, no. The new one doesn’t extend further, you know how the building is kind of jogged so our main shop it actually sticks out further that the ice cream shop, even with the new awning it is still sticking out further.

David Scott stated, I guess I have stated my peace, Gary do you have anything to say, I have a motion to make. I would like to see the fine significantly drop.

Attorney Altman stated, make a motion.

David Scott stated, I don’t know what you feel about it Gary, I think the significant here isn’t there and then again Diann and Dave have a job to do.

Kim Robinson stated, can I add something, I mean we were suppose to open May 1st so I’m already looking at 18 days of lost revenue. We hired people to start working the 1st of May they had to set and wait. My sign guys can’t be paid until the awning goes up so they are waiting on their paycheck. The awning guys don’t get paid until the awning goes up so they are waiting on their paycheck. My construction guys they are waiting on their paychecks because they know they won’t get paid until the construction is finished and my business is up and going. So kind of feel like that is why the awnings went up two days earlier.

David Scott stated, I hear what you are saying and I can appreciate that and I’m on your side, but it is your responsibility to get the proper permits and everything when you build.

Gary Barbour stated, if we sat here and said okay and then everyone would just go ahead and did their construction.

Kim Robinson stated, I understand.

Gary Barbour stated, when you are setting in this position here we see it time and time again where people knew well ahead of time oh I should have got that permit and didn’t and when they were told you better not being doing that and they go ahead and continue to do it. If we allowed everyone in White county to do that we would set here until 2 or 3 o’clock in them morning.

Kim Robinson stated, I understand, but when I get a call from the awning guy and he tells me, I can put it up on the 16th other than that you have to wait until after the holiday. The new shop is tourist based traveling we want people to stop who is traveling through. I’m not going to miss Memorial Weekend one of the biggest traveling weekends just because I can’t get my business open because of the awning.

David Scott stated, I’m going to make a motion to reduce the fine to $50. My reason is for what it is it is not an actual building, she is just replacing what was there.

Director Weaver stated, she did enlarge the one to the West. It is out farther from the building.

David Scott stated, the one to the West.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I just made the statement I would have done the same thing, but I wouldn’t have expected to get my wrist slapped I would have expected a fine. I guess to me $50 is a wrist slap, I guess I’m looking at $100 or $200.

Jerry Thompson stated, put a number on it Gary.

David Scott asked, what do you think?

Jerry Thompson stated, I had a $100 in mind. I think $50 is light and I think $500 was to severe and I’m all for small town business, I wish we had something popping up in Chalmers, but they don’t and that is why I don’t want to go to severe and don’t want to hinder small town business.

We are setting here on a County Board and we do nothing them why are we here.

David Scott stated, I will make a motion to $100.

Jerry Thompson stated, I will second it. All in favor say “aye” and all opposed? Motion carried 3 to 0. Fine of $100.

Jerry Thompson asked, is there any other business?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we do have the appeal of the determination of Diann’s interpretation on Range line is correct. That is now in Circuit Court, they county has entered it appearance and they have asked for an extension. I have done the same entered appearance for the BZA and have an extension on that.

Director Weaver stated, Jerry just got his tonight and Carol just got here.

Attorney Altman stated, so we will have some input from you from the next meeting.

Director Weaver stated, no the next meeting is July 27.

Attorney Altman stated, the extension was to the 19th.

Director Weaver stated, I was thinking the 12th.

Attorney Altman stated, please read it and give me a call especially if you have any thoughts on that. You guys have a lot of good thoughts and I certainly need that to properly proceed.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission