Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: David Scott, Charles Mellon, Jerry Thompson and David Stimmel. Also attending were Attorney Attorney Altman and Director Diann Weaver.
Visitors attending were: Greg Roth, Martin Culik, Dan Hanenkratt, Don Pauken, Harry DuVall, Lynn Teel, Benny Teel, Jonathan Okos, John Doster, John Tomisek, Dianna Tomisek, Connie M. Neininger, Brad Smock, Ralph Widmer, John R. Kent, and Kevin Ward (White County Sheriff).

The meeting was called to order by President David Stimmel and roll call was taken. Charles Mellon made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the, February 15, 2007 meeting. Motion was seconded by and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.
****

DISCUSSION of the Judgment of the White County Circuit Court regarding RANGELINE PROPERTIES, INC. and INDIANA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. vs. WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA, through its Board of Commissioners, THE WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION, THE WHITE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, DIANN WEAVER, as Director of the White County Area Plan Commission and JOHN J. RAINES, White County Environmental Officer Cause No. 91C01-0605-PL-0008
President Stimmel asked, we were talking about having a special meeting for, about Rangeline Properties, right? Or Indiana Waste Systems, Rangeline Properties.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
President Stimmel asked, what is the plan right now still?
Director Weaver stated, I think that’s what you guys need to decide this evening what your plan definitely is going to be.
President Stimmel stated, ok, I think what we actually decided is that we were going to have a special meeting, right on the 29th is what we targeted as a date.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, that’s just temporary but it’s just the target date that we set. And the reason for that is because we are going to have at least one, possibly two board members and we’re going to hear or be able to go through all of the evidence again for those two board members. So we want to make sure that they have an opportunity to vote with a knowledgeable set of information, just like we all have. That’s the reason why we think a special session is actually in order for something like that.
Jerry Thompson asked, do we need a motion?
President Stimmel asked, do we or do we not? Let’s go ahead and…
Director Weaver stated, I would think that you would need a motion.
Jerry Thompson stated, as far as setting the time.
President Stimmel asked, setting the date and the time?
Jerry Thompson asked, the 29th is on what?
Director Weaver stated, two weeks from today.
Jerry Thompson stated, ok so basically you need a motion to set the time and the date?
Director Weaver stated, well you need to decide too that that’s what you want to do is have a hearing for that.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, because I believe the options were to appeal it or to go ahead and have a hearing on it. So first you need to decide that and then you need to decide on the date.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
David Scott stated, sounds all right to me.
President Stimmel stated, yes sir.
Don Pauken asked, Don Pauken, What exactly would the hearing be?
President Stimmel stated, the only thing Don, the only thing we are trying to do is to try to give the two new board members, which we think there will be an opportunity to hear some of any additional evidence that be Charlie and whoever is the fifth member. That’s really the only reason for it. We, the other three of us have seen and heard all that information and actually we’d rather not sit through, quite frankly.
Don Pauken stated, but it’s been a year since it was presented.
President Stimmel stated, right, what we wanted to do Don was to give anybody who had new information, new evidence an opportunity maybe 20 minutes or so 15 minutes, something like this to present that information and that would bring everybody up to speed then hopefully.
Don Pauken asked, would this be the formal meeting, or is this the hearing?
President Stimmel stated, no this is the meeting we would take a vote on. We would vote at that meeting.
Jerry Thompson stated, we want to put it to rest as much as anybody else, trust me.
President Stimmel asked, what is your concern Don?
Don Pauken stated, I have a couple of concerns but at this time I won’t get into them. Well, as I understand the order is to completely present it again.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Don Pauken stated, in its entirety is the way it reads right by the order. I have the order right here.
President Stimmel stated, right. We’ve all read it.
Don Pauken stated, you say you’re not going to do it.
President Stimmel stated, well, are interpretation of that,
Don Pauken stated, this is the Judge’s orders.
President Stimmel stated, I understand what it is Don. I honestly do. I understand what it is but I think we also understand that all those meetings and all that information is in the form of minutes and evidence that’s already been presented, a great deal of it and our intent right to begin with right now is to do just what we said, and that is to give those two new members the opportunity to look at that information and read through it etc. And to take any new information that might be available.
Don Pauken stated, I don’t think that will fly.
President Stimmel stated, well, we’ll see.
Don Pauken stated, because it’s been a year there’s things that’s been forgotten. I forget things.
President Stimmel stated, that’s why we have the minutes and the, we have the minutes and the recording.
Don Pauken stated, but you don’t get the same emphasis in the minutes as you get as by a direct presentation.
President Stimmel stated, all I can tell you right now is that is our intent at least at this point in time unless something changes our mind here in the little while.
Don Pauken stated, I just have the order here and the order is pretty clear to me.
President Stimmel stated, they’re always subject to interpretation Don I can tell you that every single one of them.
Don Pauken stated, and the words shall are in there. That means it will be reheard completely.
President Stimmel stated, ok, I hear you.
Jerry Thompson stated, before Jerry gets his breath, we’re doing this and you’re right it’s been a year. We’re trying to keep the consideration of time, that’s number one. We have got to realize that this board, we have a new member right here in Charles Mellon. We’re anticipating another member. It’s not a done deal and we’re hoping that we have a five member board at that time to make the final decision at that time to make the final decision on this. I’m not speaking ahead of our president but I do think that’s our wishes as a board, right?
President Stimmel stated, I want to bring Jerry up to date here. What we have done is we already passed the minutes. We started without you a little bit.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s all right.
President Stimmel stated, because we’ve got a full agenda. The other thing we started to discuss was the Rangeline Properties and the Judge’s order and the fact that we were planning to have, at least our intent was to have a meeting on the 29th to hear additional evidence and to give opportunity for people to present that at that point in time and then make our vote at that particular meeting. Don has stood up and he’s opposing that in the sense he thinks that we ought to have to hear every single bit of evidence over again. That’s what his interpretation of the Judge’s order is. That’s my comment. That I respect his interpretation, but our interpretation is we can use the evidence already in existence to educate the other folks. So what we were questioning Jerry I think at this point in time do we need to have a motion to proceed to have that meeting on the 29th or do we just say.
Attorney Altman stated, yes a motion to have that matter set and heard on that day.
President Stimmel, ok. Do I hear a motion?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’ll move.
Charles Mellon stated, second.
President Stimmel stated, so the 29th at 7:30 we’ll hear additional evidence.
****
#2593 Lake Co. Trust Company, Owner and Thomas Roche, Applicant; The property is located on Lot 28 and part of Lot 29 in Kean’s Bay North Addition, property located South of 400 N. at 5234 E. Bay Front Court. Tabled from February 15, 2007.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 20’ front setback variance to build a new room addition on to the home.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
John Kent stated, my name is John Kent. I am co-owner of the property. Thomas couldn’t come today so he asked me to come. I understand that there is no problem with it but I guess the surveyor didn’t have the survey right at the time last month so in the mean time the surveyor redid our survey and it should be correct now.
President Stimmel asked, is that the one we have Diann?
Director Weaver stated, yes. Each Staff Report has the new survey on the back of it.
President Stimmel stated, all right and do we have anything allowing this gentleman to..
Attorney Altman and Director Weaver stated, he’s the owner.
President Stimmel stated, he is one of the owners ok. Am I not reading it right because I don’t see his name on it any where.
Director Weaver stated, it’s on his survey is the only place that I know.
President Stimmel stated, ok, John I see it now. Is there anything you want to add to it.
John Kent stated, no sir.
President Stimmel asked, ok. Jerry any questions?
Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to him?
President Stimmel asked, yes. Is there anybody here opposed to the variance?
Jerry Thompson stated, I have nothing at this time.
President Stimmel asked, Dave?
David Scott asked, do you mind telling me what is this ten foot wide section that is coming out in front of the house, what is the purpose for that?
John Kent stated, they were going to put a hot tub in there sir.
Dave Scott stated, the reason I asked is I was out looking at the property and there’s room to the east of the property that I don’t see a hardship in needing to build in that setback and the rest of the properties in that particular area are back off. They have adequate setbacks and I was just wondering if there was a way that you could redesign this so that you don’t need a variance, so that you could meet the existing setbacks.
John Kent stated, well yes it is quite a bit off of the water and basically we just wanted to have it out in the front there, so we could sit there and look at the water and have a view and everything so that the view is clear. Basically the whole idea was to be able to have the view of the lake there. When we first designed this I didn’t realize that we had a problem at all because the surveyor showed that our property was different from the lake front and it wasn’t until the survey came out here and the other thing is I don’t understand even now, why it’s not a straight line from the property line across but the surveyor must know what he’s doing.
President Stimmel asked, you done Dave.
Dave Scott stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, Charlie.
Charles Mellon asked, I think he got everything fixed out that he was supposed to from the last meeting didn’t he Diann?
Director Weaver stated, yes that’s with your new survey, yes.
Charles Mellon stated, ok, that’s all I was interested in. That’s necessary I think its ok.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
President Stimmel stated, I’m kind of leaning towards what Dave Scott is saying and that is the fact that you have an ample amount of room there and I was with, Dave and I went out to see the property and it just seems like there is an ample amount of room. All the other houses in that area are setback at least at the minimum setback or more in most cases. What happens is we continue to keep edging out everybody gets a 10 foot variance or a 20 foot. The next thing you know is everybody is out on the lake and the variances and the setbacks are just a joke. I guess what I would, my opinion would be to just ask you to just set it back and move it within the setbacks that are required. That’s just my opinion we’ll have to vote on it but that’s the way I see it.
John Kent asked, well isn’t the difference only like 2 feet?
President Stimmel asked, I think its 10 feet isn’t it?
Director Weaver stated, you are required to have 30 feet back from the property line, waters edge easement and your survey is only showing 10.
John Kent stated, well that’s what we’re applying for and I just hope that you can consider it. We’ve been trying to find a contractor and do this for the last year. We’re just about ready to start now if we can get the variance. We’ve been talking to the neighbors and none of the neighbors seem to care about it. They think it’s a great idea.
Jerry Thompson asked, you don’t have anything Diann?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so, no.
Jerry Thompson stated, ok.
President Stimmel asked, ok, anymore comments, Jerry?
Jerry Thompson asked, ready to vote.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie are you ready to vote?
Members of the board all stated, yes.
Director Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?
John Kent stated, yes I did.
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 and neighbors of property agreed to this request; but question of hardship.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 20’ front setback variance to build a new room addition on to the home on Lots numbered Twenty-eight (28) and Twenty-nine (29) in Kean’s Bay North Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
Except a parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 9, Township 27, North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:
Beginning at a point which is one hundred and fifty-four and seven tenths (154.7) feet south twenty-nine degrees and four minutes East (S29° 4’ E) of the Northeast corner of Lot number Twenty-nine (29) in Kean's Bay North Addition and running thence North Twenty-nine degrees and Four minutes West (N 29° 4’ W) one hundred and fifty-four and seven tenths (154.7) feet; thence South eighty-two degrees and thirty minutes West (S 82° 30’ W) four (4) feet thence South Twenty-eight degrees and eleven Minutes East (S 28° 11’ E) One hundred fifty-five and eight tenths (155.8) feet; thence along the water’s edge of Lake Shafer Six (6) feet to the point of beginning, containing two hundredths of an acre (.02), more or less.
This tract of land being off of the East side of Lot Twenty-nine (29) in Kean's Bay North Addition as recorded in Deed Record Book 126, Page 516 in the Office of the White County Recorder.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of 400 N. at 5234 Bay Front 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 received a vote of 2 affirmative and 2 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, the matter is not concluded as it is not 3 votes either way. The best I can say is to continue this until the next meeting when we may have the fifth member to vote on that and revote by the full membership.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Attorney Altman asked, that will be when, Diann?
Director Weaver stated, April 19th.
Attorney Altman stated, April the 19th.
John Kent stated, this is the second meeting I’m at. The last meeting my brother-in-law said that everything was okay with this and the only thing that needed to be changed was our surveyor's report. I don’t understand. I was coming here thinking everything would be ok with this.
President Stimmel stated, the only thing I can tell you is that before, as I recall some of the other members can comment about this before we ever heard anything about the variance we knew that the survey was incorrect as I recall and that we wanted you to get the survey corrected before we took any action on it at all and if somebody gave the impression that everything was ok other than that, it was the wrong impression to give and shouldn’t of been, in some way or another, because the variance really had never been heard until that survey was completed correctly.
John Kent stated, as far as I know, I know that there was nobody that complained.
Attorney Altman stated, it wasn’t voted. It is voted now. There is nothing left to discuss except for it will be continued to the 19th presumably we will see if we can get 3 votes on either side. That’s all I can tell you.
President Stimmel stated, so you have to have 3 one way or the other, is what you’re saying.
Attorney Altman stated, 3 one way or the other.
John Kent asked, the19th at what time?
Director Weaver stated, 7:30.
John Kent stated, 7:30, ok thank you.
****
#2595 John F. & Dianna J. Tomisek; The property is located on Lot 23 in Elmer Girtz’s Camp, property located East of Lowe’s Bridge at 4713 E. Elmer Girtz Drive.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5’ front setback variance and a 4’ East side setback variance to build a room addition and bring the home into compliance.
President Stimmel stated, your name please.
John Tomisek stated, my name is John Tomisek.
Dianna Tomisek stated, and Dianna Tomisek.
President Stimmel stated, thank you very much. Do you have anything you want to add to what we read?
John and Dianna Tomisek stated, not so far no.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody in the audience have anything to say about this variance? Any fan mail Diann?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so, no.
President Stimmel stated, ok. Give us a chance to digest things a little bit if you don’t mind.
Director Weaver stated, I might mention to the board, I did your pictures a little different tonight there is one set at each table for you to review. I got more pictures than normal but just one set for each of you.
Dianna Tomisek asked, can we see the pictures?
Members of the board stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry any thoughts?
Jerry Thompson stated, no, I have nothing, any response Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no I don’t believe so. I don’t believe we’ve had any response.
Jerry Thompson stated, other than the attached here.
Director Weaver stated, well that’s their letter of hardship to you.
Jerry Thompson stated, right, ok. No I have nothing else.
Attorney Altman asked, is your hardship for the room addition, I understand to bring it into compliance, I think. What is the hardship that you have that you’re talking about when you’re talking about when you’re talking about adding a room?
Dianna Tomisek asked, what exactly, what we’re doing with the room is that what you're…
Attorney Altman stated, no, what is the hardship?
Charles Mellon asked, do you need more room?
John Tomisek stated, we do we have a lot of grandkids and they’re just no room.
Dianna Tomisek stated, it’s a very tiny place if you look at the dimensions of it.
John Tomisek stated, it’s a small cabin really now so.
Dianna Tomisek stated, we’re looking to be able to have a utility room where we can have a washer or dryer, a hot water tank that’s bigger than 20 gallons.
President Stimmel asked, is that the 11 x 14 addition, ma’am?
Dianna Tomisek stated, I’d have to look at the picture.
President Stimmel asked, the front?
Dianna Tomisek stated, the road side.
Attorney Altman stated, 28 x 15 ½.
David Scott asked, Diann does the existing house, were also bringing into compliance, what is out of compliance?
Director Weaver stated, I think so.
David Scott asked, what’s out of compliance? The side setback?
President Stimmel asked, the side would be ok here wouldn’t it, with the existing houses?
David Scott stated, looks like it would be all right.
Director Weaver stated, yes the side would be ok for the…
Dianna Tomisek stated, it’s probably the front.
David Scott stated, it’s the front, it’s 25.
Director Weaver stated, yes it is the front the front is 25 it should be 30.
President Stimmel asked, what about the shed would it bring it into compliance also?
Director Weaver stated, we aren’t doing anything with the shed.
Dianna Tomisek stated, but we’re just lining it up with the existing. I mean apparently whenever that other addition was done, I don’t know what they did. Because the 11x14 would just be lining up with what is existing and apparently the existing piece, I guess was different.
David Scott stated, your 28 x 15 ½ addition that’s what?
Dianna Tomisek stated, that’s a bedroom, a bathroom and…
John Tomisek stated, and a utility room.
David Scott stated, across the rear of the property the 28 wide by …
Dianna Tomisek stated, yes, a bedroom and a bathroom.
David Scott asked, a bedroom and a bathroom?
Dianna Tomisek stated, yes.
Charles Mellon stated, it lines up with the rest of the house.
Dianna Tomisek stated, right.
David Scott stated, and that appears to be five foot wider that what the existing house is.
Dianna Tomisek stated, yes it would be lining, yes. Well actually it’s four feet 7inches.
David Scott stated, ok it goes to the overhang.
Dianna Tomisek stated, yes.
David Scott asked, you can’t get what you need by making it the same width of the old house so that you don’t need a variance?
Dianna Tomisek stated, well based on the way the architect drew the plans for us he didn’t advise it because he said it wouldn’t be accessible within the house, as far as like to make the doorways wide enough to be accessible in the event that you needed them to be accessible to put a wheelchair through or something. We don’t right now but who knows. I guess when you do remodel you should make everything accessible.
John Tomisek asked, do you have interior plans?
Dianna Tomisek asked, do you need to see a set of interior plans?
David Scott stated, no I don’t care what’s on the inside I was just
Dianna Tomisek stated, but that would show the doorways and stuff.
David Scott stated, I was just wondering if you couldn’t bring it back to where you don’t need a variance outside of bringing the front into compliance. You’re going to be within four feet of you’re neighbors property line there.
Dianna Tomisek stated, only at one spot. It actually runs at an angle.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Dianna Tomisek stated, it’s really kind of unusual.
President Stimmel stated, four to five feet actually is the distance.
Dianna Tomisek stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, when Dave and I were out there yesterday looking at that and all the other homes in that drive may be, with one or two exceptions have a pretty good setback distance. There are a couple that are a little bit of a problem.
Dianna Tomisek stated, this is the smallest lot that whole Girtz Camp plan unfortunately.
John Tomisek stated, it’s only a 50 foot lot. Most of them are 75 to 100.
Dianna Tomisek stated, this is the only 50 foot lot.
President Stimmel stated, I’d be more inclined to vote in your favor if you were going north and south if you will, with the length of the house as opposed as to east and west with the house because the side setbacks would become critical after awhile. We just keep building closer and closer to property lines and it becomes problematic.
Dianna Tomisek stated, but the house to, what side is that, there’s 25 feet from us.
John Tomisek stated, its north of us, 27 feet.
Dianna Tomisek stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, but then they come in and say I want to go 4 foot.
Dianna Tomisek stated, they can’t because the grinder is over there on his property.
Attorney Altman stated, they move grinders.
Dianna Tomisek stated, it’s pretty costly, it was just put in.
President Stimmel stated, but just what you said though would be really unfair to him. Would it not? In the sense that he couldn’t get as close to the property line as you could. Why is the grinder on his side of the fence.
Dianna & John Tomisek stated, because we share it.
President Stimmel stated, because you share it and it’s on his property.
John Tomisek stated, that was decided between us.
President Stimmel stated, because he’s got the room.
Dianna Tomisek stated, we have the piping on our side. We have the room but they didn’t want to put it where there was room to put it. They could have put it exactly where your saying going more toward the road.
President Stimmel stated, yes, I believe that.
John Tomisek stated, as a matter of fact I originally wanted to put it up by the lake. It wasn’t our decision.
Dianna Tomisek stated, no it wasn’t our decision.
President Stimmel stated, oh really, ok.
Dianna Tomisek stated, but that’s not really good for the lake. I mean that defeats what you’re trying to do.
President Stimmel stated, I’m just concerned about everybody getting and it’s typical of the lake property that the 50 foot lots everybody wants to build out right next to the property line and unfortunately that’s a tough thing. I’m talking too much. Charlie do you have anything you wanted to add?
Charles Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, ok I’m sorry I bypassed you there.
Dianna Tomisek asked, if we go anywhere further out like your saying there’s going to be like no land and you really don’t want to have any green space for water absorption for your run off or anything like that. You know we’re trying to leave 30 feet of green space at least to have some land there. Do you understand what I’m saying?
President Stimmel stated, sure.
Dianna Tomisek stated, like toward that so if we were to come out further that way then that would be taking more of that too.
John Tomisek stated, and also one of the reasons we didn’t go straight across to is because of the grinder and we’re leaving the original building exactly where it was. It’s just going to bump out in two spots.
Dianna Tomisek stated, right that leaves the connection for the grinder and everything exact same opening as it was when they put it in. Nothing’s being changed in that area.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Dianna Tomisek asked, any other questions?
President Stimmel stated, Jerry any comments?
Jerry Thompson stated, no I’m ready to vote.
President Stimmel stated, ok, Dave you ready to vote?
Dave Scott stated, I guess my question would be to our attorney would the lot being narrower than the others constitute a hardship?
Attorney Altman stated, not in the sense of our variance.
Charles Mellon stated you need more room is the main thing, not a hardship.
Attorney Altman stated, more land.
John Tomisek stated, well we wish we had a little more.
Charles Mellon stated, well yes.
John Tomisek stated, talking about that same thing the house to the south of us if you look at that survey they’re within a foot.
Dianna Tomisek stated, a foot.
David Scott stated, yes and that’s just what we’re saying.
Dianna Tomisek stated, well that’s why we’re trying not to do anything there either to leave a decent where at least the house to the other side is 25 feet away.
David Scott stated, because he’s there you can’t be there. If he would have met his setback...
John Tomisek stated, we’re landlocked or whatever, that’s the hardship and that’s the problem.
Dianna Tomisek stated, we’re trying to make it so that it will be year round for us is what we’re looking at to pick up the space for that.
John Tomisek stated, we’re hoping some day we’re here in that place to so we’re trying to make a livable building.
President Stimmel stated, ok, ready to vote Dave?
Dave Scott stated, yes I think so.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Director Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?
Diana Tomisek stated, yes.
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 but the Board questioned the hardship.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 5’ front setback variance and a 4’ East side setback variance to build a room addition and bring the home into compliance on Lot Number Twenty-Three (23) in “Elmer Girtz’s Camp” in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowe’s Bridge at 4713 Elmer Girtz 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 received a vote of 2 affirmative and 2 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, this matter will be continued until the next meeting which is April 19th for a revote of that on this matter.
Dianna Tomisek asked, can I ask a question?
President Stimmel stated, sure come up please.
Attorney Altman stated, come up to the.
Dianna Tomisek stated, you know based on what your setbacks are, if we were to go the other way we would have to be asking for a variance again.
Attorney Altman stated, and that may be. There is no guarantee that you’re allowed to build.
Dianna Tomisek stated, I understand that.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess I’m just taking the position that the ordinance allows you to build within the setbacks and when you ask for a variance it’s up to the board to decide whether it’s appropriate or not. I’m not trying to be cute or what have you. I’m just saying that’s the way it is and you’re allowed to have what you have and be within the variances or within setbacks. You can ask for anything you want, the board may or may not give you that, ok. That’s all I’m trying to say. Thank you.
Dianna Tomisek stated, thank you.
****
#2595 South Farm Land Trust, Duane Schieler Trustee, Owner and Horizon Wind Energy, Applicant; The property is located on W ½ of S/W ¼ and part of the N/W ¼ of 31-26-5, property located West of I-65 at the corner of SR 231 and 700 S.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting an installation of meteorological tower for the purpose of conducting studies of wind speed and wind direction and collecting other meteorological data.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Martin Culik stated, I’m Martin Culik representing the Horizon Wind Energy.
President Stimmel stated, thank you sir. Is there anything else you’d like to add to what we read?
Jerry Thompson stated, I know Mr. Schieler, first of all, I’ve met him. Do we have anything that says he represents the owner?
Director Weaver stated, I believe the owner signed the application with Horizon as the applicant and I believe we have a copy of the lease agreement as well.
Jerry Thompson stated, ok, just be safe all the way around, that’s all. Have you seen that Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, I haven’t looked.
Director Weaver stated, it should be in there.
Attorney Altman stated, the owner indicates that Duane Schieler signed this application and there is a deed to that effect and I was looking for a lease and I thought I saw it, yes. I find the lease or the documentation to Mr. Schieler indicating that he, it’s not signed by Horizon Wind Energy but it is signed by the South Farmland Trust. Do you have anything to prove your association with Horizon Wind Energy?
Martin Culik stated, yes, I think I signed that application as well.
Attorney Altman stated, ok.
Martin Culik stated, I certainly have a business partner.
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry to do this but I’m surprised that the property owners aren’t present.
Director Weaver stated, I believe one of his business cards are also attached to the file Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, that may be, yes it is.
Martin Culik stated, this is my signature here.
Attorney Altman stated, ok I couldn’t read that for sure. I thought that maybe that was one of the trustees. All right, very good. I think he is as applicant and entitled to represent this man.
President Stimmel stated, ok sorry for the hassle Duane but we’re trying to keep straight and that’s right.
Jerry Thompson stated, I know the man, I know he’s a good man but I, for the record I want that clarified.
President Stimmel asked, and Duane that you didn’t have anything else you wanted to add to it?
Martin Culik stated, I’m Martin.
President Stimmel stated, I’m sorry Martin, I’m sorry.
Martin Culik stated, that’s all right. Duane is the owner of the property.
President Stimmel asked, right. Do you have anything you want to add to the reading of the variance or not?
Martin Culik stated, no I think we submitted drawings pictures of what we’re planning to put up there.
Attorney Altman asked, is that this?
Martin Culik stated, that’s correct, yes sir.
Attorney Altman stated, ok so I’m going to put that as exhibit A.
Martin Culik stated, we have shared that same information with the owners and they’re in agreement that’s appropriate use for that property.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Attorney Altman asked, how long would this be a use for this property?
Martin Culik stated, we’re anticipating that they would up for 3-5 years, and we’ve also spoken to most if not all of the land owners adjacent to that property directly and they have seen the pictures as well of the met tower, meteorological tower.
Attorney Altman asked, so your special exception is for a period of 3-5 years?
Martin Culik stated, right.
Attorney Altman asked to put this tower up?
Martin Culik stated, that’s correct. There is no excavation involved. It’s a pole sitting on top of the ground with guide wires and they will be farming around that.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Director Weaver asked, can I clarify one thing?
Martin Culik stated, sure.
Director Weaver stated, In talking to you it was my understanding and correct me if I’m wrong that you have the agreement on the whole property, are you only going to put one of these towers on this property or are you going to put more than one?
Martin Culik stated, no there is only one tower on the property. And I think I submitted a survey drawing with the location identified on that.
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s the sight plan that I have here. You have good eyes make sure and that would be exhibit B.
Charles Mellon asked, is that Rockfield Decker the property you’re talking about, the owner?
Martin Culik stated, no the owner is Duane and Dave Schieler from Wolcott. Duane lives in Lafayette and his brother Dave lives in Wolcott.
Charles Mellon stated, ok.
Martin Culik stated, I think it was referred to as the Bullock farm in the past.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, it is the Bullock farm. Diann to you, this is not a wind farm generator?
Martin Culik stated, no.
Jerry Thompson stated, this is a test station. I don’t think everybody’s clear on this.
Director Weaver stated, it is just a test station but it is.
Jerry Thompson stated, when you asked how many on this side that’s what…
Director Weaver stated, I was under the understanding it was only one but I wanted to clarify.
Martin Culik stated, this is only to collect wind data and temperature data and it will be at different heights on that tower. You can see in that picture there.
Director Weaver stated, I might mention too that the actual wind turbins are not addressed in our current ordinance but a tower is and it was my feeling that this is very similar to a cell type tower so that is why he is going through a special exception process because that was the most similar type thing that I felt that we had in our ordinance.
David Scott asked, this thing about 400 feet in the air is it?
Martin Culik stated, no this is only 60 meter tower. It’s just shy of 200 feet about 194 feet. Anything above 200 feet has to be lit for FAA. This is less than 200 feet so it does not have to be lit.
David Scott stated, ok.
Jerry Thompson asked, would you explain to the board, only because you and I have had conversation ok just to make that the board understands this is just kind of a stepping stone towards the wind powered generators. These are the test stands and you take it from there.
Martin Culik stated, yes these meteorological towers are really the first step that we take in looking at land for wind power generation. We have to collect insight wind data from a series of test towers in the area that we are considering for wind farm and that data has to be collect a minimum of 12 months usually we have those up longer until we’re ready to start construction of the project assuming that the data that we collect is adequate for a wind farm. So we have two, the next application is the same thing there is two in White County and two in Benton County.
Charles Mellon stated, you’re talking about the highest part of that farm.
Martin Culik stated, yes sir.
Charles Mellon state, yes, on the old Bullock farm, since you said that we lived 14 years ½ a mile east of that farm.
Martin Culik stated, right, good spot right?
Charles Mellon stated, oh yes that’s a high field. We got the wind off of it.
Dave Scott asked, you’re going to be 200 feet off of the road, it looks like here?
Martin Culik stated, yes.
Dave Scott asked, will you be 200 feet from the homestead also?
Martin Culik stated, well there is no homestead there now. The homestead was removed. It’s just grass and I think there is cement in the ground where some well or something like that but there is no home there now. There is no home nearby.
Charles Mellon stated, it’d be about where that home was then.
Martin Culik stated, just south of it.
Charles Mellon stated, just south of it, yes.
Martin Culik stated, that’s where the land owner preferred that we put it so that we minimized any impact on the farming.
President Stimmel asked, is there any questions from anybody in the audience? Are we ready to move on?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m ready to move but I would ask that maybe he come back another time and explain maybe to the board what we’re faced with in the future.
President Stimmel stated, I’ve been on your website to this afternoon and done some exploring. I gave Charlie some information. There’s a lot of information out there and also the American Wind and Energy association has a lot of good information.
Martin Culik stated, be glad to come back in the future.
President Stimmel stated, ok ready to vote.
Attorney Altman stated, vote on the special exception.
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 Special Exception of a meteorological tower for the purpose of conducting studies of wind speed and wind direction located on The West half of the Southwest Quarter and part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 26 North, Range 5 West, West Point Township, White County, Indiana described by:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 31; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds West along the Section Line and Centerline of State Highway No. 53, a distance of 5267.66 feet to the Northwest corner of said Section 31. Thence south 87 degrees 52 minutes 41 seconds East along the Section Line and Centerline of County Road 600 South, a distance of 1929.77 feet; thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of the State of Indiana Property (interstate no 65), as described in deed record 220, page 566, White County Recorder’s office, along a curve concave to the Southwest of Radius 5549.58 feet through a central angle of 05 degrees 59 minutes 56 seconds, a distance of 581.04 feet; thence South 00 degrees 55 minutes 57 seconds East along the quarter section line and fence line, a distance of 2213.80 feet; thence North 88 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds West along the quarter section line and fence line, a distance of 1322.59 feet. Thence South 00 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds East along the fractional section line, a distance of 2623.61 feet. Thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 21 seconds West along the section line and centerline of County Road 700 South a distance of 1079.88 feet to the point of beginning, containing 204.091 acres of which 139.810 acres are in part of the Northwest quarter and 64.281 acres are in the West half of the Southwest quarter
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of I 65 at the corner of US 231 and 700 S.
7. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance. The met tower allowed by special exception is built per specifications in the file and for 3 to 5 years maximum.
The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, the special exception as requested is granted. You need to get your building permit before you proceed.
Martin Culik stated, thank you.
****
#2596 Prairie View Farms, Owners and Horizon Wind Energy, Applicant; The property is located on the East ½ of 2-25-5 in Prairie Township, located West of SR 43 at the corner of 450 W and 800 S.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting an installation of meteorological tower for the purpose of conducting studies of wind speed and wind direction and collecting other meteorological data.
President Stimmel stated, for the record your name again.
Martin Culik stated, my name is Martin Culik, representing Horizon Wind Energy.
President Stimmel stated, ok Martin thank you.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody from the audience that has any comments about this one?
President Stimmel stated, Jerry.
Jerry Thompson asked, do you anticipate any more sites other than these two?
Martin Culik stated, no, at this time these are the only two, right.
President Stimmel asked, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charles Mellon stated, no
President Stimmel asked, are you ready to vote?
Attorney Altman stated, and I gather that it’s again for 3-5 years like you just testified in the previous matter and that your exhibit A would be here and your specifications for the tower and your exhibit B is the site plan where you intend to put it?
Martin Culik stated, that’s correct.
Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much Martin.
Jerry Thompson stated, Dave I do have one other thing. I don’t mean to be a stickler.
President Stimmel stated, no that’s fine.
Jerry Thompson stated, I know Prairie View Farms, I know this gentleman but do we have something that says…
Attorney Altman stated, yes, the same evidence, he signed the application.
Jerry Thompson stated, just wanted to make sure.
President Stimmel stated, and Prairie View Farms is who?
Jerry Thompson stated, John Darrel Thompson.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Director Weaver asked, did you bring your signs back?
Martin Culik stated, no I have to go collect them tomorrow.
Director Weaver stated, ok.
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. There are not homesteads near it.
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 installation of meteorological tower for the purpose of conducting studies of wind speed and wind direction and collecting other meteorological data located on The East half of Section 2, Township 25 North , Range 5 West in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana described by: Commencing at a railroad spike found at the Northeast corner of said Section 2, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 36 seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the East section line 5195.98 feet to a railroad spike reset at the Southeast corner of said Section 2; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 56 seconds West along CR 800 S and the South Section line 2692.75 feet to a survey nail set at the South quarter corner of said Section 2; thence North 1 degree 00 minutes 38 seconds West along CR 450 W and the North/South Quarter Section Line 5201.30 feet to a survey nail set at the North quarter corner of said section 2; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 36 seconds East along CR 700 S and the North Section line 2676.30 feet to the point of beginning said described tract containing 320.287 acres more or less.
Also; that part of the West half of Section 1, Township 25 North, Range 5 West in Prairie Township White county Indiana described by:
Commencing at a railroad spike found at the northwest corner of said Section 1, said point being the Point of beginning thence south 89 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds East along CR 700 S and the North Section line 955.82 feet to a survey nail set; thence South 1 degrees 11 minutes 36 seconds east 5197.77 feet to a railroad spike set on the South section line; thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West along CR 800 S and the South section line 955.86 feet to a railroad spike reset at the Southwest corner of said Section 1; thence North 1 degree 11 minutes 36 seconds West along the West Section line 5195.98 feet to the point of beginning; said described tract containing 114.000 acres more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of SR 43 at the corner of 450 W and 800 S.
7. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance. The met tower allowed by special exception is built per specifications in the file and for 3 to 5 years maximum.
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 your building permit.
****
#2597 Okos Family Farms LLC, Owner, and John Okos, Applicant; The property is located on 156.38 acres, Out W ½ SE 35-26-4 and 80.00 acres, SW 36-26-4, located at the corner of C.R. 150 E and C.R. 700 S at 1955 & 1965 E. 700 S.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 1206’ separation variance from a hog confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
John Okos stated, I’m John Okos.
President Stimmel asked, thanks John. Is there anything else you’d like to add to what we just read?
John Okos stated, no there’s not.
Charles Mellon asked, are you going to tear down the old one?
John Okos stated, yes that’s the idea put the new one right on top of it and the variance because the new one is exactly 41/2, 5 feet longer than the old one.
Dave Scott asked, who lives in the house?
John Okos stated, Mr. Benny Teel.
Dave Scott asked, is he here?
John Okos stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this variance? Does that mean that you’re not going to talk Lynn? Ok.
Jerry Thompson asked, are you going to make use of the pit that is already there?
John Okos stated, actually what we’re doing with the pit is we’re going to take the rest of the pit out. The pit is actually a half pit and we’re going to make it a full pit. We’re going to use the same hole we’re going to utilize that to under the new idem specifications extend that out 5 feet and then put the nursery on top of it. But yes we are going to be removing the whole broken down sight that’s right there. It’s unusable right now. The pictures would probably show.
Charles Mellon asked, do you think there would be any trouble if that area would change hands? Have any trouble in the future? Do you intend to keep it in your family?
John Okos stated, the goal is I think there is a first right of refusal on that house but the goal is that Benny will be probably living there for quite some time and so we don’t see a foreseeable problem in the future.
Jerry Thompson stated, good.
President Stimmel asked, any other questions, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no I don’t have any.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry?
Jerry Thompson stated, no, I don’t have any.
President Stimmel asked, are we ready to vote?
Members of the board stated, yes.
John Okos stated, and I did not bring the sign back.
Attorney Altman stated, we’ll put your site improvement survey in as an exhibit. Charlie look at number 5 please.
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 and in agricultural area and applicant and it’s use will modernize and keep modern it’s use. It will control all emissions having newest and least intrusive emission result.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a separation variance from a hog confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract located on The West half of the Southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 26 North, Range 4 West. The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 26 North, Range 4 West, Excepting that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 26 North, Range 4 West of the Second Principal Meridian in Big Creek Township and more particularly described by: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 35; thence West, assumed bearing along the centerline of County Road 700 S and the south line of section 35, a distance of 473.38 feet; thence North 00 degrees 25’ 30” East along the centerline of a private drive, a distance of 944.58 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 88 degrees 46’ 30” West along an existing fence line a distance of 255.70 feet; thence North a distance of 514.00 feet thence South 89 degrees 44’50” East a distance of 308.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 43’30” West, along an existing fence line a distance of 516.65 feet; thence South 88 degrees 35’ 30” West along an existing fence line a distance of 46.45 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.62 acres, more or less.
The Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 26 North, Range 4 West; 60 acres off the west side of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 26 North, Range 4 West Except, part of the South half of the South half of section 36, township, 26 North, Range 4 West of the Second Principal Meridian in Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly described by: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 36 marked by a railroad spike; thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East (basis for bearings Grid Bearings based on Indiana State Plane Coordinate System – West Zone) along the south line of said Section 36 and along the centerline of County Road 700 South a distance of 2,633.93 feet to a railroad spike at point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds West a distance of 282.50 feet to a wood post; thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 238.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 00 degree 41 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 282.50 feet to a railroad spike; thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds West along the south line of said Section 36 and along the centerline of County Road 700 South a distance of 238.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.544 acres. Also Except that part of the South half of the South half of Section 36 Township 26 North Range 4 West in Big Creek Township, White County Indiana further described by; Commencing at a railroad spike (RR) found at the Southwest corner of said Section 36 thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along CR 700 S and the section line 2,563.93 feet to a survey nail w/I.D. (SN) set at the point of beginning thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds West 282.50 feet thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East 70.00 feet to a corner post found thence South 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds East 282.50 feet to a RR found on the section line thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East along said line 70.00 feet tot eh point of beginning, containing 0.454 of an acres, more or less. Also except that part of South half of the South half of said Section 36 further described by Commencing at a RR spike found at the Southwest corner of said Section 36 thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East along CR 700 S and the section line 2,871.93 feet to a RR found at the point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds West 139.37 feet to a capped w/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set, passing through an I.P. set at 15.00 feet thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East 73.66 feet to an I.P. set, thence South 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds East 139.37 feet to a SN set on the section line, passing through at I.P. set a 124.37 feet thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds West along said line 73.66 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.236 of an acres, more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at the corner of 150 E of 700 S at 1955 & 1965 E. 700 S.
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, the petition and variance is here by granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
****
#2598 Ralph L. Widmer; The property is located on .30 of an acre, Out S ½ S ½ 34-27-3 & Tract D .047 of an acre, located in the City of Monticello at 1201 E. Ohio Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 7.2’ North side setback variance to remove the existing home and detached garage to build a new home with an attached garage.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Ralph Widmer stated, I am Ralph Widmer.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Ralph. Do you have anything you want to add to what we said Mr. Widmer?
Ralph Widmer stated, well, it’s a pretty nice neighborhood down there and I’d like to improve it and I think one way we can improve it is to build a new home down there.
Charles Mellon stated, ok your first place east of you, maybe not the first place, Jack Kingsbury.
Ralph Widmer stated, yes sir.
Charles Mellon stated, I was down through there the other day.
Charles Mellon stated, the biggest thing looks like to me is that area needs that road widened.
Ralph Widmer stated, that’d be all right. Do you think you can get that done for us?
Charles Mellon stated, no but I think it’s up the people that’s on it to do it you know the people on down there’s got theirs wider up there on the hill.
Ralph Widmer stated, I’m not sure what the history is on that there hasn’t been water or sewage or road improvements made so we’re within the city limits.
Charles Mellon stated, the city don’t pay much attention to it.
Ralph Widmer stated, I’m not sure what, I’m not going to say too much about that.
Director Weaver stated, it still doesn’t show that house but it shows the well.
Charles Mellon asked, are you going to tear all those building down?
Ralph Widmer stated, yes sir.
Charles Mellon stated, its 2 or 3 of them there it looks like to me.
Ralph Widmer stated, there is a 2 car attached garage and a home there.
Charles Mellon asked, is the new house going to be any closer to the lake?
Ralph Widmer stated, no sir.
Charles Mellon stated, it looks like you’ve got plenty of room.
Ralph Widmer stated, it should be just over 30 feet off the property side on the lake side.
Director Weaver stated, the board does have a revised survey that shows the well and the septic area. It wasn’t with your pictures. It was with the other paper work.
Attorney Altman asked, that’s the one received 3-13-07?
Director Weaver stated, that sounds right, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, it does show the well on there and shows the leach bed area.
Charles Mellon stated, your lot widens as it goes south.
Ralph Widmer stated, the lake side is the widest area then it tapers back off of the road.
Charles Mellon stated, that’s the first one I went out to see so I know about it.
Dave Scott stated, I got to ask the question.
Ralph Widmer stated, sure.
Dave Scott asked, why can’t you build within the setbacks?
Ralph Widmer stated, well the architect of the house is conducive to a 2 foot overhang so right there is 4 foot that we’re having trouble with. The house itself is well within the setbacks it’s when you start adding on the garage that becomes a problem.
Dave Scott asked, this portion back here must be the garage?
Ralph Widmer stated, yes sir.
Dave Scott asked, does somebody live east of you?
Ralph Widmer stated, that’s the Kingsbury’s. Jack and Betty Kingsbury. They’re approximately, I don’t know, I didn’t measure it but it’s like 50 some feet off of their property.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, Dave if you look at your pictures they have a brick house you see a brick house that would be the house.
Attorney Altman asked, cream color or red color is that it?
Ralph Widmer stated, it’s this one right here.
Attorney Altman stated, yes that’s what I’m thinking well maybe that isn’t right.
President Stimmel asked, any fan mail.
Director Weaver stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry does this attachment need to be read into the record or not?
Attorney Altman stated, the, your talking about?
President Stimmel stated, from Mr. Widmer.
Director weaver stated, would be the letter of hardship.
President Stimmel stated, I’m asking. I don’t know.
Attorney Altman stated, no, it does not, that’s where he has to make his case and if that’s part of it he has to figure out how to do that before us.
President Stimmel stated, just checking.
Dave Scott asked, are you going to enter the ground from the west then?
Ralph Widmer stated, yes, it’s kind of an odd shaped lot and I’m trying to build as nice a home for that area that I can and do the best that I can for the neighborhood because it is a nice neighborhood.
Charles Mellon stated, you got plenty of room on the front and widen that road.
President Stimmel stated, Mr. Widmer my concern would be if somebody, if your neighbor to your east would like to build 2 feet 8 inches offs the property line. How that will effect you and that really does concern me, that we set a precedence for doing this that’s the struggle and I can’t express it enough how I hate doing this but I get really frustrated because if everybody does it you might as well throw the zoning laws out the window and 2.8 feet is close even with the overhang, that’s close.
Ralph Widmer stated, I understand.
President Stimmel stated, and if he was building a garage next to your property at 2.8 feet off of the property line it would, right now it looks good but it would sure detract to the over all look of the place. I just struggle with it.
Ralph Widmer stated, I’ve been working with an architect and we’ve tried to do everything that we can and quite frankly…
Attorney Altman asked, what just moving the garage so it isn’t off set 9 foot?
Ralph Widmer stated, because it would block the front door.
Attorney Altman asked, what about moving the front door?
Ralph Widmer stated, well than we’re starting from scratch again.
Attorney Altman stated, I understand.
Ralph Widmer stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, I’m just saying you understand that’s the issue and the ordinance requires you prove a hardship. I’m not trying to be funny about this, just sort of being the devils advocate is you got to show a hardship.
Dave Scott stated, and we don’t want you not to build.
Ralph Widmer stated, that’s probably what will happen. I can make a profit off the property the way it and if I can’t put the type of home that belongs there I will probably sell the property as is. That’s just being right straight up with you.
Attorney Altman stated, yes I understand.
Wayne Findlay asked, can I make a comment?
President Stimmel stated, sure. You’re name sir?
Wayne Findlay stated, Wayne Findlay. I own the vacant lot to the west of Mr. Widmer’s property and I live across the street at 1202 E. Ohio Street and it is a very nice neighborhood and there is nothing more than I would like to see than that house and barn to come down. I would, anything you can do I would certainly appreciate and I’ve looked at Mr. Widmer’s plans and I know what he is facing. That lot is slightly pie shaped and no matter which property line you set it on it don’t work and then the fact that the city has not brought well and septic down there restricts him more. I’m going to be facing the same thing because I’m going to build on the property next door if the house and barn come down. I know what he is facing and not that this has anything to do with your decision I know what the setbacks are Mr. Kingsbury is in Saddle Shores Estates which I believe has a 50 foot setback from the property line so without a variance, I understand what your facing. I just wanted to throw something in there. There is nothing more you’re in the neighborhood. I’d like to see that house and barn come down.
President Stimmel stated, I understand.
Wayne Findlay stated, thank you very much.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie anything?
Charles Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Dave anymore?
Dave Scott stated, no that’s all.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry?
Jerry Thompson stated, no I’m ready to vote.
Diann Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?
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. Neighbor requested the Board to pass this variance.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 7.2’ North side setback variance to remove the existing home and detached garage to build a new home with an attached garage located A tract of land located I the south half (1/2) of the South Half (1/2) of Section Thirty Four (34), Township Twenty Seven (27) North Range Three (3) West in Union Township White County Indiana, and described more fully as follows:
Beginning at a pint which is Northern Indiana Public Service Company Monument Number 225 and running thence South Sixty Degrees and Fifty One Minutes West (S 60° 51’ W) Along Northern Indiana Public Service Company line Eighty (80) feet; thence North Forty Two Degree and Sixteen Minutes West (N 42° 16’ W) Two Hundred Eleven and Two tenths (211.2) feet to an iron stake; thence North Sixty two degrees and fifty minutes West (N 62° 50’ E) Twenty Six (26) feet to an iron stake; thence South Sixty Nine Degrees East (S 69° E) Eighty Seven and Six Tenths (87.6) feet to an iron stake; thence South Forty Seven Degrees and Thirty Four Minutes East (S 47° 34’ E) one hundred forty five (145) feet to the point of beginning, containing thirty hundredths (.30) of an acre more or less.
Also Part of Section 34, Township 27 North, Range 3 West Union Township, White County, Indiana, being a part of the land conveyed to H.J.H., Inc. as recorded in Deed Record 97-02-0856 in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana (ORWCI) described as follows: Beginning at concrete Monument No. 225 on the Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company line (deed record 116 page 332, parcel 107, (ORWCI), also being a corner of the said H.J.H. Inc., land thence North 45° 37’ 56” West along the Southwestern line of the said H.JH. Inc. land for 145.00 feet thence north 67° 11’ 11” West along the said Southwestern line for 60.16 feet to the Southern line extended of an existing access easement for ingress and egress (commonly called Ohio Street); thence North 64° 47’ 41” East along the Easterly extension of said Southern line for 13.45 feet thence South 67° 11’ 11” East for 53.84 feet thence South 45° 37’ 56” east for 148.77 feet to the said Indiana Hydro-Electric power Company line thence South 54° 57’ 17” West along the said Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company line for 10.18 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.047 acre more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1201 E. Ohio 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 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, the variance is now granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
****
#2599 Brad R. & Carrie A. Smock; The property is located on 7.931 acres, Part SE SW 29-27-2, located West of Idaville at 10357 E Division Road.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting an 805’ separation variance from a hog confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract.
Brad Smock stated, I’m Brad Smock and I guess it’s all pretty self-explanatory, I guess.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Dave Scott asked, is that your house Brad?
Brad Smock stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody here opposed to the variance, any other comments on the variance? No fan mail Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, we do have the consent of Brad and Carrie Smock to allow the variance in the file.
President Stimmel stated, ok. Jerry is there anything you want ask?
Jerry Thompson stated, just a finish building, Brad? It’s not a farrow, not that it’s a big deal.
Brad Smock stated, I don’t know if you got a survey.
Jerry Thompson stated, we do.
Brad Smock stated, ???
Jerry Thompson stated, ok just curious.
Brad Smock stated, the other one sits closer to my house now than what that one will be.
Jerry Thompson stated, ok thank you.
President Stimmel asked, Dave any questions?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charles Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, ready to vote?
Charles Mellon stated, yes.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.
2. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting. The use will be consistant with applicable and appropriate practices to manage all emission from this use.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for an 805’ separation variance from a hog confinement building to the nearest dwelling not located on the same tract located on That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 2 West of the Second Principal Meridian in Lincoln Township, White County, Indiana described by: commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along the section line 1,780.49 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 42 seconds East 490.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East 705.07 feet; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes 42 seconds West 490.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West 705.07 feet to the point of beginning, containing 7.931 acre more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Idaville at 10357 E. Division Road.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, the variance is hereby granted. I believe that this is done where there isn’t a need for a building permit, right?
Director Weaver stated, no they need a building permit.
Attorney Altman stated, oh they do.
Director Weaver stated, yes they definitely need a building permit.
Attorney Altman stated, oh ok you need a building permit.
****
#2600 Hanenkratt Grain Co., Inc.; The property is located on Lot 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 in O.P. Hanna, located in the Town of Idaville at 107 E. South Railroad Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 15’ front setback variance to replace the existing building.
President Stimmel asked, Brad, are you going to represent that one?
Brad Smock stated, yes the feed mill on the drawing there the building will more or less be the same size however the front setback will be anyway as the which I don’t know to be? That would be coming down and they will meet the same setbacks. The only difference is the building actually won’t be as long.
Dave Scott asked it will be the same as for the setbacks it will be the same as what it is now.
Brad Smock stated, the other feet mill is there. We’re looking for the setback here because we’re tearing that one down and putting another one right over same but the fact this part here would be gone. Do you need me to show you?
President Stimmel stated, yes if you don’t mind Brad.
Attorney Altman stated, anybody else of course won’t see…
Brad Smock stated, this building here will be coming down which is feed mill now and then the feed mill will be over the top to that dotted line because this part back here won’t exist.
President Stimmel asked, ok where is the variance then?
Brad Smock stated, from the road.
President Stimmel asked, it will still be in the same footprint then?
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Brad Smock stated, well yes.
Director Weaver stated, on the front side of it.
President Stimmel asked, but you’re not going any closer than 10 foot?
Brad Smock stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, ok. Sir you want to state your name into microphone please. That’s fine but I just want to know who you are.
Harry DuVall stated, my name is Harry DuVall.
President Stimmel stated, ok Harry, thank you.
Harry DuVall stated, I understand what you’re doing this is the existing building right now what do you want, do you want to have a setback from here are you going to?
Brad Smock stated, we will meet the exact same setback we have now.
Attorney Altman stated, so it’s going to be the same line of the existing building.
Brad Smock stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, you’re going to use the same footprints. You’re not going to be any wider?
Brad Smock stated, no it won’t be as long probably. It will be the same width just shorter this way.
Brad Smock stated, I don’t know we’d have the true blueprints of the building, what was it 40? I think the building 21 is to the bottom of the eve. But 24 is the peak, I think or 26, something like that.
President Stimmel stated, well we’re not requesting a variance for height.
Attorney Altman stated, height has?
President Stimmel stated, no problem.
Diann Weaver stated, Dave Scott, on the top of that survey it states that, it tells you how tall the buildings are going to be.
David Scott stated, oh ok right here. Height 29 feet 7 inches there, 82, whatever that is it’s probably an existing, I’d say that building there.
Brad Smock stated, the building will be exactly where it’s at and then back a truck where they load the feed in.
Charles Mellon asked, is this new building 22 foot?
President Stimmel asked, do they need a height variance?
Dave Scott stated, well he may but he’s getting a variance for 29 feet 5 high at the peak.
Brad Smock stated, this part here sits in off the setbacks. We can do that right now. That fits inside everything we need to do.
Dave Scott stated, he’s not asking for a height variance.
Brad Smock stated we’re just basically replacing that Quonset type building with a pole like building.
Dave Scott asked, so this is the setback here?
Brad Smock stated, no this is 10 feet here. Everything else has to meet the county ordinance.
Director Weaver stated, and they can go as tall as 50 feet in this zoning.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Jerry Thompson asked, he’s not going to expand any dimensions?
Dave Scott stated, even though these are only 50 feet wide lots he could come over a foot of the lane and go up 50 feet with that.
Director Weaver stated, he can go up 50 feet.
President Stimmel asked, because he’s got those tied together to, doesn’t he?
Director Weaver stated, yes he does.
Brad Smock stated, 35 feet to the property line and I think the setback is 30 rights?
Dave Scott asked, what is the side setback for that?
Director Weaver stated, side setback is equal to the building height.
Dave Scott stated, ok so he can go up to 35 feet high with that building. Yes and I’m not sure that’s what that is.
Brad Smock stated, yes I don’t have any idea.
Dave Scott asked, is this going to be changed too?
Brad Smock stated, that’s more or less going to be a cluster of bins that you drive a truck under.
Dave Scott stated, ok.
Jerry Thompson asked, but that’s not in this request for tonight is it?
Brad Smock stated, no it doesn’t have to be it shouldn’t, it’s in compliance. It’s just on the drawing.
Jerry Thompson stated, I understand that’s not what you’re asking for tonight.
Brad Smock stated, no but I think that’s what Harry’s concern is.
Jerry Thompson stated, I understand.
Harry DuVall stated, my concern is my residence is at the end of lot 48 and there is quite a bit of height to the west of me ok, and there just going to keep getting more and more there and another thing is I wonder why you’ve got to have a setback for 5 lots when they’re only going to build on one, maybe two.
Director Weaver stated, the lots have been tied together already from past variances.
Harry DuVall stated, future.
Jerry Thompson stated, they are treating them as one is what you’re saying.
Director Weaver stated, they are treated as one yes.
Attorney Altman stated, but their variance is for just this building and they can’t expand that later on ok, in other words while that variance couples all these lots together this specific variance that they are asking for is only effects this one building.
Harry DuVall stated, which will still be the existing length. The building is going to stay the same.
Brad Smock stated, I believe as far as your north south length.
Harry DuVall stated, yes.
Brad Smock stated, no it will be shorter to the north end probably 20 feet, 30 feet.
Harry DuVall asked, what about, south’s going to be the same. Ok.
Brad Smock stated, south’s going to be exactly the same.
Jerry Thompson stated, but I think the part your concerned about is not the issue tonight.
Harry DuVall stated, ok which are the bins.
Brad Smock stated, your problem I’m sure is the part to the east which would be west to you witch we don’t need a variance or a setback or nothing for. We don’t need anything for that. The only thing we, on this whole project from that whole there the only thing we need approval on is the 10 foot front setback and the building that’s already there is 10 foot front setback.
Harry DuVall stated, your going to shorten the building from the north. Why don’t you just….
Brad Smock stated, put the building to the north?
Harry DuVall stated, yes I’m wondering, you know. I’m concerned on my property.
Brad Smock stated, because we’re trying to utilize what’s already there.
Harry DuVall stated, I think I have a little concern there.
President Stimmel stated, the fact that your house actually only sits 4 foot from the line. Doesn’t it? Is that right?
Harry DuVall stated, it’s pretty close to the…
President Stimmel stated, it says 4 foot on the print. So you’re right up next to it on a 50 foot lot. Not that that means anything it just that you are close.
Harry DuVall stated, that’s all I have other than that. I’m just concerned about my property.
President Stimmel stated, ok we appreciate it.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s why we have these meetings you know.
President Stimmel asked, any other comments? Jerry, Dave?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m ready to vote.
President Stimmel asked, ready to vote?
The Board finds the following:
1. That the building site is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That was one objector present but that the use was not appropriate for this area.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 15’ front setback variance to replace the existing building located on Lots numbered forty-three (43) and forty-four (44) in the original plat of the Town of Hanna now Idaville, in Lincoln Township, White County, Indiana. Except the following: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot numbered forty-three (43) and running South twenty-two (22) feet more or less to the center of a wall of adjoining property on the south; thence East along the center of said wall fifty-nine (59) feet; thence North to the South line of P.C.C. & St. L. Railroad land; thence West along the said South line of Railroad land to the place of beginning; Also except that portion described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the above said lot forty-four (44) thence South 91.42 feet along the East line of said lot 44 to a point 45.83 feet north of southeast corner of said lot 44 thence north 89 degrees 25 minutes, West 41.00 feet thence North 86.58 feet thence North 83 degrees 41 minutes east along the North line of above said lot 44 for a distance of 41.25 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to the following described tract to the used as an alley for the benefit of the adjoining property, and to revert to grantor if it should be closed up or used for any other purpose, as follows: Beginning sixty (60) feet East of the South West corner of lot number forty-three (43) in the original plat of the town of Hanna or Idaville thence East nine (9) feet thence North twenty one (21) feet thence west nine (9) feet thence South to the place of beginning.
Lots numbered 25, 26, 45, and 46 in the original Plat of the Town of Idaville, White County, Indiana. Also that part of lot 44 in the original plat of Hannah, now Idaville, White County, Indiana described by Beginning at the Northeast corner of the above said lot 44 thence South 91.42 feet along the east line of the said lot 44 to a point 45.83 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 44; thence North 89 degrees 25 minutes West 41.00 feet; thence North 86.58 feet; thence North 83 degrees 41 minutes East along the North line of the above said lot 44 for a distance of 41.25 feet to the point of beginning.
Lot number forty-seven (47) in the original plat in the town of Hanna now Idaville, White County Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Idaville at 107 E. South Railroad 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, the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
****
#2601 Shirley Mae Boessel, Owner and Eric Lilly, Applicant; The property is located on 10’ N/E Lot 3, all of Lot r, Ex 25’ N/S Lot 5 in Bollers Lakeview, located North of Monon Rd. on C.R. 300 E.
Violation: None
Request: She is requesting a 12.2’ front setback variance to build a home on the
property.
President Stimmel stated, variance #2601 has been tabled.
****
#2602 Gregory W. & Tiffany L. Roth; The property is located on Lot 21 in Isle of Homes Subdivision, located North of Monticello at 5124 E. Oriole Drive.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 3’ East Side setback variance to build an enclosed porch and a 4’ West side setback variance to bring the home into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Greg Roth stated, I’m Greg Roth.
President Stimmel asked, anything you want to add to it Jerry?
Greg Roth stated, no not really I understand what you’ve been talking about tonight though with building here and there but we looked at, my neighbor and I that wrote the letter he’s a lot closer than that I think there’s still I’m not really sure by looking at it but I think there’s probably at least 15 feet in between the house’s at any point even if we do that, 15 something like that. The reason it got a little closer the same thing as the house it’s really the overhang. It won’t be hanging out toward his side. The roofline comes this way and this way like this so you’ve got 6 feet to there.
Dave Scott asked, will that be to the building a little bit over-hang that way you even though it’s going this way.
Greg Roth stated, that’s why so it will be actually there’s 6 foot to the wall but it will be 1 foot overhang. It’s like one.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t see the lot width on here.
Greg Roth stated, 78 feet at the lake.
Dave Scott stated, ok, maybe it’s the same all the way.
Director Weaver stated, just to clarify I did call Jim on this survey. The wavy line towards the water is actually the waters edge. The property line is out in the water.
Dave Scott stated, out in the water?
Greg Roth stated, yes most of them there are.
Director Weaver stated, I got that clarified.
Dave Scott stated, that’s good that was an issue last time.
Director Weaver stated, yes that’s why I made sure I got that clarified. Also we did receive a letter from a neighbor on this request and you each got a copy of that letter.
Attorney Altman stated, Stiles and Tomchey.
Greg Roth stated, Bill Stiles and Olek Tomchey.
Attorney Altman stated, you might tell them that come in and sign the letter.
Greg Roth stated, ok he faxed it I think.
Director Weaver stated, I think so.
Attorney Altman stated, it still isn’t signed. It’s pretty important to have that. It makes a difference as to whether they.
Greg Roth stated, who faxed it. I can do that when he’s up here next.
Charles Mellon stated, I don’t think we got that.
Director Weaver stated, yes you got a copy it was laying on the table tonight. We didn’t get in your packet Charlie. Do you want to see mine?
Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t get it either Charlie. That’s all right .
Attorney Altman stated, well it was on the table.
Director Weaver stated, yes it was on the table. It wasn’t in your packet.
Attorney Altman stated, we only got it yesterday or Tuesday I guess it was. It couldn’t have been mailed to you really.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s fine.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess I would say that because of this and probably both lots are basically if this is granted would be stopped from building any closer.
Greg Roth stated, yes unless we build together.
Attorney Altman stated, I mean both of them unless you like you said and the brick doesn’t match up.
Greg Roth stated, no it’d be a problem.
President Stimmel stated, in the same breath you can make that 16 foot you can make that 14 or what ever it is to come within the existing footprint of the existing deck and make it longer and come within and stay back your 8 foot that you need to be, I would think unless it gets into some windows or something like this it’s a real trouble.
Dave Scott asked, he needs 3 foot, is that what he need Diann?
Director Weaver asked, for?
Dave Scott stated, on the east side, he needs 4 foot.
President Stimmel stated, to meet the setbacks.
Greg Roth asked, does it have to be 8 foot on that side? Is that what it is supposed to be?
Director Weaver stated, well it has to be a minimum of 8 foot on one side with a total of 18 between the sides so it doesn’t matter which side is which but it had to be a total of 18 and no less than 8.
Greg Roth asked, can my grand father’s side be 8?
Attorney Altman stated, unfortunately it’s not there.
Greg Roth stated, no I know.
Jerry Thompson asked, is it 7 foot or 8?
Dave Scott asked, I’m just being nosy you don’t have to answer this what is this going to be?
Greg Roth stated, a screened in porch with a fireplace on towards the house so it won’t be sticking out that much.
Dave Scott stated, ok. You can’t design it so that it’ll, for east side setback you need to move back 3 feet which would make it 13 feet wide.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie anything?
Charles Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry?
Greg Roth stated, no I agree that I could probably set it back but right now the deck is 12 feet and with the table in there, there is not much room to walk around the outsides so we wanted to get the extra 3 feet so that we could walk around it. I understand that it could be done. I just looked at all the houses through there and I thought that I could get the 3 feet so I understand what you’re saying today well if you guy builds out and the other guy builds out. We’re just trying to make the neighborhood nicer that’s…
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, it’s a good looking home.
Greg Roth stated, I can’t really argue with you.
Jerry Thompson stated, well it is. You have a nice place.
Greg Roth stated, why I came to get it now, we’re trying to figure out when we put in the front steps we’re going to fix the sidewalk around and that will judge where the steps go up to that. I’m going to have it in the middle so I need to know where the sidewalks going to go now.
President Stimmel asked, any other comments? Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no I guess not.
President Stimmel asked, are we ready to vote?
Members of the board stated, yes.
Director Weaver asked, did you bring your sign back?
Greg Roth stated, yes.
Charles Mellon asked, do you want this back?
Attorney Altman stated, not that was Dave’s.
Charles Mellon stated, ok I thought you had to have one back.
Attorney Altman stated, I do have one in the file.
Charles Mellon stated, to get them to sign.
Brad Smock stated, he should be here this weekend or next and I’ll have him come over. Can you come on a weekend or should I just have him sign a new copy and bring it?
Director Weaver stated, we aren’t open on the weekend.
Brad Smock stated, no, I didn’t think so. He’s only here on the weekend.
Attorney Altman stated, a new one would be fine.
Brad Smock stated, ok.
Charles Mellon stated, signed.
Attorney Altman stated, yes signed.
Brad Smock stated, ok.
Attorney Altman stated, the voting on the petition # 2602 is 2 votes in favor of granting, 2 votes is in favor of denying it and this is not adopted it is continued to the meeting the 19th of April for, hopefully for further action and disposition.
Greg Roth asked, can I ask just one thing?
President Stimmel stated, Greg yes sure.
Greg Roth asked, can we just, I don’t really want to come back. I’d love to meet with you guys at Riverside or something but not here.
President Stimmel stated, I understand.
Greg Roth asked, can I just get the one setback for the one side that’s already there for you guys to ok that so if the house did burn down it could be put back where it is and then take off the other, I didn’t even know about that but then Paula said something about you should get the variance for the side, the preexisting. Can I do that or do I have to come back? Can you guys…
Director Weaver stated, to bring the home into compliance.
Greg Roth asked, or do I have to come back?
Dave Scott stated, I don’t have any problem with that.
Jerry Thompson asked, I would think we could make a motion because it’s existing, right?
Director Weaver stated, well but you’ve voted.
Jerry Thompson stated, we’ve voted.
Director Weaver stated, that was my concern.
Dave Scott stated, it’s been advertised.
Attorney Altman stated, well no, it’s at the meeting the vote has just been announced and we have gone from this matter at all. It is still under consideration and it’s subject to a motion by a person who has voted to deny the variance to have reconsideration.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Greg Roth asked, so what’s that mean?
Dave Scott stated, I’ll do that.
President Stimmel stated, I will too, Dave you make the motion.
Director Weaver stated, he’s amending the request though to just bring the home into compliance.
Members of the board stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, but we can reconsider his request.
President Stimmel asked, to allow the variance on the west side, right?
Attorney Altman stated, and as I understand his request now is being modified to just be the….
Greg Roth asked, how many feet would that let me like on this drawing what would I do, if you could show me that real fast I think that’d be fine.
Attorney Altman asked, your talking about amending it so the 7 foot is right, Diann?
Director Weaver stated, I’m looking Jerry. I’m pulling my survey back out.
Greg Roth asked, sorry am I holding everybody else up?
Members of the board stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, we’re not rushing you.
President Stimmel stated, you’re the last one.
Director Weaver stated, one foot on the west side would make that his 8 foot side so the east side then would be 10 foot so you’d have to be at least 10 foot off that property line to build without a variance.
Greg Roth stated, oh so I got to go way, I might as well come back next meeting.
President Stimmel asked, well wait a minute, can we discuss this or not?
Attorney Altman stated, yes sure it’s up for discussion.
President Stimmel stated, you got an existing deck that’s what 12 foot you said Greg?
Greg Roth stated, yes, 12.
President Stimmel stated, which would make it about, what Diann said you’d have to be back 10 feet so you’d have to actually have to come back inside the width of the existing deck to be in compliance, ok. Would you be willing to consider if we make the motion to the effect that it will fit within the existing proposed for the existing deck line?
Greg Roth stated, yes, if I could make it 12 x 16 I’d be…
President Stimmel asked, does that make any sense to anybody or just in other words…
Greg Roth stated, basically I’d just put where the deck existed, yes that’s fine.
President Stimmel stated, now there is going to be a little difference because you’re going to go along, your going to extend along the north side of the house.
Greg Roth stated, yes that’s the only difference it’s going to be 4 foot north not out.
President Stimmel stated, right it’s going to actually bring you closer then the 10 foot, 9 feet.
Greg Roth stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, it won’t be the same but it’s still going to basically follow the line. Am I making any sense here with this?
Director Weaver stated, I’m trying to understand.
President Stimmel stated, ok because of the angle of the lot…
Director Weaver asked, so from the house to the east property line you’ll only be going 12 foot instead of 16, am I understand right?
Greg Roth stated, yes I’m going to keep the same width of the deck coming out of the house but I’ll make it longer down the side of the house.
President Stimmel stated, because actually what will happen Greg is it shows on the print that there is 5 I think 5 feet.
Greg Roth stated, I think it’s 6.
President Stimmel stated, maybe its 6 ok. The only thing I’m trying to say is that that distance will narrow as it goes further north and the setback will actually be less than 10 feet I know it will. It will actually be less 9 probably because it will get closer.
Greg Roth stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, but it will not be..
Greg Roth stated, it will probably about 9 feet, yes.
President Stimmel stated, yes something in that ball park.
Greg Roth stated, it will be 9 something.
Attorney Altman stated, but it will be 12 foot parallel all along the house.
Greg Roth stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, but it won’t be parallel to the property line.
Greg Roth stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, just so we have, we’re plain what we’re talking about.
Greg Roth asked, does it need to be parallel? I don’t know how you do that.
President Stimmel stated, I don’t think you could, I mean.
Greg Roth stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, well if you don’t have it parallel it’s a mess building.
President Stimmel stated, I’m just throwing this out.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s fine, this is the time.
President Stimmel stated, I’m not, because I’m like you guys I want him to build it but I’m just telling you, you know we want it as close as we can, ok. That’s all I’m trying to do. It needs to be as close as we can and be reasonable.
Jerry Thompson stated, it fits within…
Dave Scott asked it will be 16 in height?
Director Weaver asked, so your allowing him to go 12 foot out from the house and how deep?
President Stimmel stated, the problem right now, I can’t be exactly what the setback is going to end up is what I’m struggling with ok.
Dave Scott stated, the back corner is 6 feet.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Dave Scott stated, so 6 and 16 is, if you take it in 4 feet the back corner should be 12 feet off the building or…
President asked, 6 and 4 is 10 Dave, it would be 10 foot off of that part wouldn’t it?
Jerry Thompson asked, no matter what he does there he’s going to be ok isn’t he?
President Stimmel stated, no because that dog gone house sits at an angle on the property line Jerry so it’s going to continue to get narrower.
Greg Roth stated, it’s going to be between 9 and 10 feet. It’s going to be like 9’ 6” or something.
President Stimmel stated, if he makes it longer than 16 foot north to south it will only continue to get closer to that property line.
Dave Scott stated, yes but if he just back 16 feet though he’ll be able to have a 12 foot deck.
Greg Roth stated, if I go 15 foot I’d be in the clear another foot so it’s 12 x 15.
President Stimmel stated, I thought what you said Greg is…
Greg Roth stated, I did, I said 12x16 but if you move that back another foot that takes us that 10 foot.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Greg Roth stated, if you go 12 x 15 on the deck.
President Stimmel stated, ok. I’m not concerned about how it’s going to end up the only thing I’m concerned about it is having a document here that we can live with in the end without having to make him go back and get another survey and go through another months worth of this.
Greg Roth stated, but basically even if I did like 12x15 that’s actually, I wouldn’t need a variance so I would never have to come back unless the neighbors argued it.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Director Weaver stated, that’s right.
President Stimmel stated, ok.
Greg Roth stated, which they wanted the 16x16 so that doesn’t matter. I understand what you guys are…
President Stimmel stated, yes, I know.
Director Weaver stated, but you could approve him to go 12 x 16.
President Stimmel stated, yes, you could go 12 x 16. You could even go…
Director Weaver stated, 12 x 16 would, I mean if the board would want to you would be needing a little bit of a variance maybe a foot.
President Stimmel stated, and that’s what I’m getting at but in order to do that you’re going to have to re-advertise the dog gone thing and we go through this…
Director Weaver stated, no because we asked for him to have a 3 foot side.
Attorney Altman stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, so it’s less than, ok.
Director Weaver stated, it’s less than so you could approve for him to go farther from the property line what he’s showing here.
President Stimmel stated, as long as it’s not more than the requested variance.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
President Stimmel asked, is that the way to say it?
Members of the board stated, right.
President Stimmel asked, do you want to put all that into a motion Dave?
Attorney Altman stated, the simplest thing to say that he has modified his variance request to be 16’ x 12’.
President Stimmel stated, now Greg let’s be sure. Are there any thoughts that you might want to go further than 16 feet north to south?
Attorney Altman stated, well then he’s outside of the advertised area.
Greg Roth stated, well there’s windows on the outside of the house that I don’t want to cover up.
President Stimmel stated, ok all right, I’m just…
Greg Roth stated, I’m fine now. I just wanted to make it 16 x 16 so it’s easier to move around in there to have more of a square room but I mean I understand if that’s what everybody. I understand all the, I went and looked at all the different houses along the road there and ours are actually one of the further ones apart. Its fine I understand, I’m not, like I said I’d rather go to Riverside with you than come back here.
President Stimmel asked, ok so we’re going to modify the, do we need to revote though or just modify?
Attorney Altman stated, modify and it needs to be re-voted.
President Stimmel asked, ok can I have my ballot back then?
Director Weaver asked, do you need new ballots?
Attorney Altman stated, Jerry do you need, you voted in favor of it.
Jerry Thompson asked, I did but does Greg need to restate this or not?
Attorney Altman stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, do we need to have a motion?
Attorney Altman stated, we did make the motion that it would be 12 x 16.
President Stimmel stated, ok so…
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what we’re voting on and that’s what I understood, Greg basically modified his application to.
Jerry Thompson asked, so you’re asking for the motion.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Greg Roth stated, you granted one foot…
President Stimmel stated, you’re actually granted a variance up to as long as it doesn’t go over that your existing request.
Director Weaver asked, Jerry do they need new ballots or just change theirs?
President Stimmel stated, there is a compromise in there Greg believe it or not.
Greg Roth stated, no I understand that.
President Stimmel stated, I appreciate it.
Greg Roth stated, I’m sat and listened and I totally understand.
President Stimmel asked, all in favor?
Members of the board stated, I
Attorney Altman asked, Jerry you voted the other way you now vote for it in your written ballot would stand for voting for it the same, right?
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
Attorney Altman asked, and Charlie the same thing right?
Charles Mellon stated, the same thing.
Attorney Altman stated, and I’ve now been received a ballot from Dave Scott and this is your to replace the ballot that you just re-voted and would vote in favor of it right, for the record.
Dave Scott stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, do we need to state that on the ballot or not? No.
A member of the board stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, and the same thing with you Mr. Stimmel.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, your now voting for the modified request.
President Stimmel stated, right.
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 and the modified size of 12’ x 16’ is not intrusive and is an appropriate size in this area.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the amended request is for a 1’ East Side setback variance to build a 12’ x 16’ enclosed porch and a 4’ West side setback variance to bring the home into compliance located on Lot Number Twenty-One (21) in Isle of Homes Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5124 E. Oriole Drive.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, after reconsidering this matter and re-voting and modification and a re-voting the announce, I’m going to announce the results of the balloting of the petition #2602 as 4 votes cast, 4 votes now vote for the variance to be granted. You need to get a building permit.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess from procedure point of view I think that while we’re at the meeting and everybody’s right here and we have somebody, I think Robert’s Rules of Order says that you have somebody that vote against it they can make a motion to reconsider and reconsidering now then we have a modification and then we had to revote.
Director Weaver stated, well and the vote wasn’t decisive. If the vote had been decisive he couldn’t have done that, is that correct?
Attorney Altman stated, no, no at the same time you can reconsider.
Director Weaver asked, he still could have?
Attorney Altman stated, as long as it’s somebody that voted against it.
President Stimmel stated, which would have been easy to do had there been a compromise proposed, I think that’s the whole concept.
Director Weaver stated, ok.
****
Attorney Altman stated, yes. You just need to approve the memorandum of the Executive Session is all.
President Stimmel stated, we did…
Director Weaver stated, and we didn’t do that earlier.
President Stimmel stated, and now you’ve had a little bit chance to think about what Don had spoke of in the sense of wanting to have all the evidence presented again.
Attorney Altman stated, well that’s what I think quite frankly will be decided at the meeting, the special session.
President Stimmel stated, let me ask you this Jerry is it not, would it not be appropriate to ask the Judge, I mean would Bob just tell us, I mean is he talking about the whole thing or is he talking about the…
Attorney Altman stated, the whole thing.
President Stimmel stated, yes but I mean…
Attorney Altman stated, how you do it is up to you just as long as you do it legally.
President Stimmel stated, ok, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s all.
President Stimmel stated, go ahead. Don do you want to speak? Go right ahead. On the record?
Attorney Altman stated, well we don’t have anybody here. We’re not noticed up to hear anything.
President Stimmel stated, so there’s no evident to..
Don Pauken stated, I was just reading the order in saying according to the way I read it, it says it has to be reconsidered and I’ll read that part of it. Consideration by the BZA shall be reheard and reconsidered fully by the BZA in such a manner as to be procedurally and substantially compliant with due process in rule of law.
President Stimmel state, and I think that’s what we’re saying.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s what the devils in that detail. I think that is in compliance with due process.
Don Pauken asked, what’s that Mr. Altman?
Attorney Altman stated, to accept previous testimony, if it’s similar, but then we…
Don Pauken stated, but then the thing that I’m arguing about is that we have two new members or we should have two new members and for reading it is completely different than listening to the testimony. And it’s been a year. It’ll be a year almost.
President Stimmel stated, but honestly Don, that’s how the Judge made his determination was not by listening to the oral arguments he made it by reading all of this, wasn’t it?
Attorney Altman stated, and the truth is we can’t make that decision tonight.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, the decision isn’t to be made until whenever.
Don Pauken stated, I know that but his decision was not necessarily against the evidence it was the procedure that he nailed and therefore the rest of it’s out.
Jerry Thompson stated, but which we did Don. We actually did that before we allowed the evidence that previously existed from the earlier meetings and that’s no different than what we’re doing now.
Don Pauken stated, I don’t have a problem with, if we had the same people and it was two months ago.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
Don Pauken stated, I wouldn’t have a problem. I have a problem in understanding what the Judge is saying Jerry.
Jerry Thompson stated, I think it’s strictly a matter of interpretation. I think the way we’re choosing to interpret it right now is as we stated.
Don Pauken stated, well we’re back to interpretation again and that’s where we started.
President Stimmel stated, but it all is Don, honest to god it is. It’s all interpretation.
Don Pauken asked, like you said is there a way to find out from Thacker or just …
Attorney Altman stated, no seriously there’s not. Seriously there’s not. He sent it back to us to follow the law.
Don Pauken stated, certainly you’re going to let us not only present anything new but briefly give a run down of what….
President Stimmel stated, we’re going to give opportunity…
Jerry Thompson stated, we discussed that, we are going to do that.
President Stimmel stated, yes absolutely.
Jerry Thompson stated, there’s going to be time for response but it’s going to be within reasonable time restraints.
President Stimmel stated, you got to be reasonable. I mean I don’t know how…
Don Pauken stated, I have no problem with…
President Stimmel stated, I don’t know what reasonable is, I mean how much time does it take to restate what you need to restate.
Don Pauken asked, well when there’s 15 problems, can I have a sentence on each one?
President Stimmel stated, ok well yes but I’m asking you can you give me some kind, and I’m really just asking for guidance. How much time do you think it will take to present your evidence?
Don Pauken stated, probably 15 minutes with, not counting a rebuttal.
President Stimmel stated, right, right, and I think we’re going to be well...
Don Pauken stated, that’s only me.
President Stimmel stated, I know but I’m saying that we’re well within that in our discussions that we’ve had.
Jerry Thompson asked, how many people could you represent do you think?
President Stimmel stated, Charlie you had a question.
Jerry Thompson stated, well that’s where we’re coming from, we don’t have a problem with you doing that if you represent a fair percentage of…
Don Pauken stated, 15, 20.
Charles Mellon stated, if some way you could get Barbour back here I’ve heard all that evidence even in the back end.
President Stimmel stated, I know we’ve been through that Charlie and I’m telling you I wish to god there was a way.
Charles Mellon stated, well Barbour was in on it.
President Stimmel stated, I know but we’ve talked to Steve Burton and Jerry Altman and by god we’ve talked to everybody I’m telling you there is no way to get Garry Barbour back on this meeting. We’re faced with a situation where obviously you’ve heard it and we’re going to have a new member who hasn’t heard it and we’re going to have to give him an ample opportunity to read the minutes from those meetings and try to digest as much as possible and then give a fair hearing to Don and anybody else who wants to speak on the 29th to say here’s the new evidence and here’s kind of a synopsis of where we were before and that’s 15 or 20 minutes or 30, whatever we decide it’s going to be and go on. I mean everybody’s going to have a chance to do that and I think that’s as fair as you can possibly get.
Director Weaver stated, and that’s if we have a…
Jerry Thompson stated, I think your opening, when you address the start of the meeting that’s when you’ve got to make that point that we are going to allow you x amount of minutes, period.
President Stimmel stated, right we’re going to set it.
Dave Scott stated, we want to hear everybody’s testimony but we don’t want to hear a bunch of repetition. You know, the same people getting up and telling us the same story.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s right yes we’re not here to ???
President Stimmel stated, you know the same people getting up and telling us the same story, you know. My guess is Don right now you’re going to get 20 or so minutes for everybody to do that and not including rebuttals. There is going to be a chance for everybody to do that and I think that’s a fair enough thing to do you know some guys will be less, some guys more.
Jerry Thompson stated, I think there will be ample time for you to you’re…
Attorney Altman stated, and technically you’re not entitled to rebuttal.
President Stimmel stated, probably not.
Attorney Altman stated, they present the case, you present your case and they rebuttal.
President Stimmel stated, and that’s the end of it.
Attorney Altman stated, they rebuttal and that’s the end of it.
Don Pauken stated, if I do it right I could probably do it in 2 minutes.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’d be nice.
Don Pauken asked, will this be noticed?
Attorney Altman stated, sure is.
President Stimmel stated, absolutely.
Attorney Altman stated, we didn’t know until tonight but yes.
President Stimmel stated, it has to be.
Jerry Thompson asked, so he will get a letter?
Don Pauken stated, no, not necessarily.
Attorney Altman stated, oh yes we intend to give everybody that we are aware of …
Director Weaver stated, I believe we did it last time.
Jerry Thompson stated, well I just want to hear him to hear..
Director Weaver stated, it would be a copy of the agenda.
Jerry Thompson stated, I want him to hear it, what we are getting at so..
Director Weaver stated, a copy of the agenda is what I normally send to them.
Jerry Thompson stated, I thought so.
Attorney Altman stated, thanks??
President Stimmel asked, motion adjourned, are we done? Is there anything else?
Director Weaver stated, well you have to vote on this.
President Stimmel stated, we have to vote on this, ok I’m sorry. We have to vote to accept the memorandum that we had from the Executive Session is what we had to do. All I’m asking for is a motion to accept that.
Jerry Thompson stated, moved.
President Stimmel stated, so moved, seconded.
A member of the board stated, seconded.
President Stimmel stated, and all in favor.
Members of the board stated, I.
President Stimmel stated, the memorandum is accepted as presented.
Director Weaver stated, thank you.
Jerry Thompson stated, one quick thing Jerry what happens if Gerald turns it down where do we go? We got to have somebody here.
Attorney Altman stated, good question I don’t know.
Jerry Thompson stated, I mean come on I’m not blaming anybody but…
Dave Scott stated, no the ones we turned down tonight these people have an opportunity to come back.
Director Weaver stated, well that’s what you told them that they are continued until the next meeting.
Attorney Altman stated, they come back and you revote it.
President Stimmel stated, I’m sure your following the law but I really have a problem with that. I think if they don’t get the 3 votes or the majority of the votes then it’s not approved.
Director Weaver stated, but it’s got the majority to decide it one way or the other.
President Stimmel stated, but the majority of the 5 but there’s not 5 on the board. Majority of what?
Dave Scott stated, the State says 3.
President Stimmel stated, the state says 3. You got to have 3? I believe that’s true. I was sure Jerry was doing it right so if you don’t have 3 you’re sol.
Dave Scott stated, well then we’ll never come to the end of some of these if everybody votes the same way every time.
President Stimmel stated, not unless you one of you guys come to your senses.
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m going to give him a call. I am I’m going to call Gerald. I don’t know what he’s balking on.
Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s totally appropriate for you guys to call and tell him how much fun you have.
Charles Mellon stated, I’m going to talk to him, it’s not going to be that big of deal.
President Stimmel stated, tell him we need him.
Charles Mellon stated, that’s what some people may think.
President Stimmel asked, what’s that?
Charles Mellon stated, that’s it’s been going on for years and it’s going to be a big deal and they don’t want on the board.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and that may be.
Charles Mellon stated, the same way with Twin Lakes Sewer Board. They aren’t going to get anybody to go on that.
Jerry Thompson stated, Gerald was all, I thought he was very enthused about being on the board. I really did.
Charles Mellon stated, he missed his regular meeting that night on the Area Plan board.
Director Weaver stated, he’s on another board the same night.
President Stimmel stated, really.
Director Weaver stated, yes he’s on two boards that meet the same night as APC.
President Stimmel stated, good lord, it makes us feel like paupers we’re not on enough boards.
Director Weaver stated, so he has to meet, Farm Bureau.
Charles Mellon stated, he’s on the Farm Bureau board. That 29th is…
President Stimmel stated, you need to be on more boards Jerry.
Charles Mellon asked, Dave did you want me to take these.
President Stimmel stated, you’re welcome to take them and read them Charlie that’s why I brought them. I really would. You said you weren’t using the internet on it and this is stuff I got off the internet. It’s just information.
Charles Mellon stated, ok.
Director Weaver stated, ok well I’ve given you guys some stuff too. We’re going to have to adopt an ordinance pertaining to these wind turbins. I have given you tonight a copy of Benton County’s ordinance so that you can look it over. I have also sent it to the APC members but I thought you guys would want to look at it as well.
President Stimmel asked, you did? You mean it’s in here?
Director Weaver stated, yes, don’t throw it away.
Attorney Altman asked, did you give me a copy of it?
Director Weaver stated, yes I gave you a copy too.
****
The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott, Secretary
Diann Weaver, Director
White County Area Plan Commission
“I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.”
____________________________________