MINUTES

WARRICK COUNTY AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular meeting held in the Commissioners Meeting Room

Third Floor, Court House

Boonville, Indiana

May 26, 2004, - 6:00 P.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Willis, Chairman, Don Mottley, Vice-Chairman; Duane Erwin, William McCune, Richard Medcalf, John Peninger, and Dennis Taylor.

Also present were: Sherri Phillips, Executive Director and Secretary; Leslie Shively, Attorney; Susan Weigman, staff.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

MINUTES:

A motion was made by Duane Erwin to approve the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals held April 28, 2004, as circulated. The motion was seconded by Don Mottley and unanimously carried.

The Chairman explained the Rules of Procedure to the audience.

CONDITIONAL USES:

BZA-CU-04-18 – Applicant: Hobby Horse Acres by Sabrina Hillstrand, Director Owners: Andrew & Sabrina Hillstrand and Pearllean Thorpe, James Thorpe and Jill Taylor.

Premises – Property located on the W side of Inderrieden Rd. (W 700) approximately 1100’ N of the intersection formed by Inderrieden Rd and Heim Rd. (N 50) Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) 733 Inderrieden Rd.

Nature of Case - Applicant requests a Conditional Use approval to allow horse breeding, boarding, training, riding lessons, clinics and retreats in an “A” Agriculture Zoning District. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Andrew & Sabrina Hillstrand.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips asked if any of the individuals are present that own the other piece of property.

Mrs. Hillstrand stated no.

Ms. Phillips asked if the Thorpe’s and Taylor still owned the piece of property or if the Hillstrands had purchased it.

Mrs. Hillstrand stated they still own it, but they have an offer contingent on the Conditional Use being approved.

Ms. Phillips stated that our rules of procedure state that all property owners must be present at the meeting. She stated she wants to explain this application and then ask the attorney a question. She stated on this application for 27 acres, the Hillstrands own 17 acres and the Thorpe’s and Taylor own 10 acres. She stated the Hillstrands are wanting to purchase the property, however they have not, as of yet, and are listed as owners. She stated she was going to recommend that it be a condition placed on any approval that the 10 acres owned by the Thorpe’s and Taylor be transferred before it became an approved part of this application. She asked if the Board could hear the application.

Attorney Shively asked if these were contiguous parcels.

Ms. Phillips stated yes.

Attorney Shively stated the plan is to own all the parcels, they just have not closed on the 10 acre one.

Ms. Phillips stated that was correct.

Attorney Shively stated he does not have a problem doing it that way. He stated we need to find out the pleasure of the Board in order to proceed. He stated since it is a modification, it would be ruled and a matter of record, and would not necessarily be an indication of whether or no they are going to approve it.

Ms. Phillips stated it does state that all applicants and property owners and/or their attorney or a recorded power of attorney must be present.

The Chairman called on the Board for their pleasure.

Mr. Willis stated he did not see a problem if the Board puts a condition, if it would pass tonight, by modifying the rules and hearing it this evening. He stated he is just one person.

Richard Medcalf stated basically they own 17 acres and want the conditional use to be for the 17 acres and the 10 acres they are planning on purchasing as well.

Mr. Willis stated the problem is the owners of the 10 acres are not present, so we have to modify our rules to hear it this evening. He stated we could continue it to the next meeting, but he did not know what that would do to the purchase agreement the Hillstrand’s have with the Thorpe’s.

John Peninger asked if the applicant had the blessings of all the adjacent property owners, to their knowledge.

Mrs. Hillstrand stated to their knowledge they did. She stated a couple of the neighbors had concerns about the manure and the compost pile which they have addressed.

Ms. Phillips asked if there were any remonstrators against this application.

The Chairman stated there were in the audience.

Ms. Phillips stated she would like to apologize, the staff took in the application, she would not have taken it in with two property owners. She stated it should have been two separate applications, so that is why she was going to put in the condition about the 10 acres. She stated this is an unusual circumstance because normally there would not be two pieces of property owned by two different people on the same application.

Mr. Medcalf asked if the Board could hear the application for just the property they own and have them come back after they purchase the property.

Ms. Phillips stated the plot plan shows what is proposed on all the property and the only thing shown on the 10 acres is riding trails. She stated so the Board could hear the application based on just what they own now.

William McCune asked if it would make a difference on how much land there is and how many horses they can have on just the 17 acres.

Attorney Shively stated what Mr. McCune is saying is that the Board may look at 17 acres differently than 27 acres. He stated it is up to the Board, but technically this application should not have been accepted and should have been two separate applications or should have waited until they have completed their transaction.

Ms. Phillips stated she thinks there is problem because the Thorpe’s and Taylor are not here to answer any questions a remonstrator may have regarding the application.

Attorney Shively asked the applicant when they were going to close on the property.

Mrs. Hillstrand stated it is contingent on the Conditional Use being approved. She stated if the Board delays it, it will delay the closing. She stated it is not the end of the world, but she would make sure one of the Thorpe’s could be here.

Mr. Peninger stated that would also give them 30 days to meet with any remonstrator to try and work out any concerns they would have.

John Peninger made a motion to continue this application until the June 23, 2004, meeting to allow for all property owners to be present.

The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin and unanimously carried.

VARIANCES:

BZA-V-04-16 – Applicants & Owners: Robert & Jane McConnell

Premises – Property located on the S side of Kelly Rd (N 600) approximately 1.1 miles W of the intersection formed by Kelly Rd and Moss Rd (E 350) Skelton Twp. (Complete legal on file.) 2455 E Kelly Rd

Nature of Case – Applicants request a Variance from the requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indiana, to allow the location of an unattached storage building on property with an existing 9’ x 14’ unattached storage building and no principle dwelling in an “A” Agriculture Zoning District. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Robert & Jane McConnell.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated all return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated the applicants are requesting a Variance to allow the construction of a 24’ x 40’ unattached storage building on property with an existing storage building and no principle dwelling. She stated the property is approximately 15 acres zoned “A” Agriculture with the surrounding property being zoned the same and vacant. She stated the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a unattached accessory building to be built at the same time or after the principle dwelling. She stated on agriculturally zoned property an unattached accessory building can be built before the principle dwelling; however they have to certify they will build a residence within two years. She then stated the applicant states on the application, “We would like to build a 24’ x 40’ pole type barn on the property so that we will have a place to store our tractor and tools so as not to have to bring them back and forth back to our home in Boonville. This building would take the place of a small building already on the property which will only house our small tractor. Currently we have no plans to build a house on this property as utilities are not at or near our land. If utilities should become available within the next 10 years we may reconsider. However, the barn we are applying to build would allow us to get all our equipment stored inside and less susceptible to theft.” She stated the Board may want to consider a time limit on the approval to build a home on the property or to come back before the Board to ask for an extension, if approved. She stated she does not know if the Board wants to put time limits on approvals or not.

Attorney Shively stated the problem he sees with having a time limit, is this is in an agriculture area and is going to be an agriculture type building. He asked would it not be exempt from permitting.

Ms. Phillips stated for an agriculture building the primary use has to be for the raising of live stock, crops, or fowl. She stated the applicant would also have to supply the Area Plan Commission office with a schedule F that is filed with taxes.

Attorney Shively stated there are certain criteria for Variances and without the Variance are these folks going to impose a hardship. He stated if the Board approves this with a time period, is the Board going to go to court and file a mandatory injunction to tear it down. He stated it is up to the Board.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything to add to the staff report.

Mr. McConnell stated he did not, but he does not know if they will ever be able to build a house out there. He stated until utilities are made available, they wouldn’t, you can’t build without utilities.

The Chairman called for questions by the Board.

Mr. Peninger asked if they tore down the old building and built the same size would they still have to get a Variance.

Ms. Phillips stated they would need a Variance because she did not know who put up the first building or even if they got a permit. She stated they would still need an Improvement Location Permit. She then asked if the applicants had considered wells and septic.

Mr. McConnell stated yes, but there is no electric or phone.

Mr. Willis stated there are no utilities.

Mr. McCune asked if they had to submit building plans for the pole barn.

Ms. Phillips stated not for our office, but for the Building Department they would have to. She stated when they get the Improvement Location Permit it will be for a storage building only, if you are concerned about living quarters. She stated the building inspector will shut down the project if it has living quarters in it.

Mr. Willis asked how long the McConnell’s had owned the property.

Mr. McConnell stated since June 13, 2003.

Mr. Willis asked what their intention were when they bought the property.

Mr. McConnell stated we where just trying to buy something out in the country. He stated we just want somewhere to go to get out of the hustle and bustle of the city.

Don Mottley asked if the property next to him has electricity and gas.

Mr. McConnell stated that is the oil company and it is private.

Mr. Willis asked if they use public utilities.

Mr. McConnell stated it was not public.

Ms. Phillips asked if the building would be for the lawn mower.

Mr. McConnell stated yes and they do fish out there.

Ms. Phillips stated there are a lot of people who buy property as an investment and then need a place to keep tractors and mowers to help keep the property up.

Attorney Shively stated the Board could just approve the Variance without putting a time limit on it.

Duane Erwin stated that at any time the applicant wants to build a house, they will have to get all the permits and the office will know what is going on. He stated he can understand what they are doing and can appreciate it.

Ms. Phillips stated she would rather the Board not put a time limit on it, it should be approved or denied.

Mr. Peninger stated by caring for the land it will eventually enhance the utilities into running the lines out there. He stated if it remains barren, they never will.

Mr. Willis stated there is a hardship with there being no utilities, that is not self created.

Mr. Mottley asked what they use for facilities.

Mr. McConnell stated they try not to go, but they do have 15 acres.

There being no remonstrators and no further questions by the Board, the Chairman called for a motion.

Duane Erwin made a motion to approve BZA-V-04-16, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to an Improvement Location Permit being obtained.

2. Subject to any required Building permit from the Warrick County Building Department must be obtained.

3. Subject to the property being in compliance at all times with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

4. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place

The motion was seconded by Don Mottley and unanimously carried.

BZA-V-04-17 – Applicant & Owner: Everette Curtis

Premises – Property located on the E side of SR 62 approximately 2100’ S of the intersection formed by SR 62 and Degonia Rd (N 100). Skelton Twp. (Complete legal on file.) 3194 E SR 62

Nature of Case – Applicant requests a Variance from the requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indianan, to allow the construction of an unattached storage building as living quarters on property with an existing residence in an “R-1A” Single Family Dwelling and “A” Agriculture zoning district. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present was Everett E Curtis.

The Chairman called a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated all return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the construction of an unattached accessory building as living quarters on property with an existing residence. She then stated the property is approximately 2.5 acres zoned “R-1A” Single Family Dwelling and “A” Agriculture with all the surrounding property being zoned the same. She further stated there are residences to the North and South, the property to the East and West is vacant. She stated the applicant states on the application, “I live in the house that I own and I am going to let my granddaughter have the 2.5 acres. I will build a pole type 24’ x 32’ garage building and make it into a living space for me to live the rest of my life. They will look after me as I am getter older and have limited function ability.” She stated Mr. Curtis is wanting to deed over his property to his granddaughter, who will move into the existing home and Mr. Curtis will build an unattached garage with temporary living quarters. She stated once Mr. Curtis no longer needs the residence, the living quarters will be removed. She stated if the Board chooses to approve this application a condition should be that when Everett Curtis no longer needs the living quarters within the building the living quarters will be removed.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything further to add to the staff report.

Mr. Curtis stated there had been a variance issued on the property before back in 1972, they moved his mother-in-law into a mobile home until she passed.

The Chairman called for questions by the Board.

Mr. Willis stated this is very similar to moving a mobile home onto property.

Ms. Phillips stated yes it is.

Mr. Willis asked if Mr. Curtis is going to let his granddaughter live in the house and Mr. Curtis is going to live in the garage.

Mr. Curtis stated yes. He stated there is an existing septic that was approved and inspected when they put the mobile home on the property in the 1970’s. He stated the house has it’s own septic.

There being no remonstrators and no further questions by the Board, the Chairman called for a motion.

John Peninger made a motion to approve BZA-V-04-17, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to the property being in compliance at all times with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

2. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place.

3. Subject to an Improvement Location Permit being obtained.

4. Subject to any required Building Permit from the Warrick County Building Department.

5. Subject to all rules and regulations of the local Health Department.

6. Subject to all living facility being removed from proposed accessory building after no longer needed for Everett Curtis.

7. Approval for Everett Curtis only, not for rental property.

The motion was seconded by William McCune and unanimously carried.

BZA-V-04-19 - Applicant: Beverley A. Crum Owners: Danny & Suzanne Deters

Premises – Property located on the W side of Yankeetown Rd. (W 200) approximately 400’ N of the intersection formed by Wildwood Dr. and Yankeetown Rd. Anderson Twp. Lot 19 Wildwood Estates. 5655 S Yankeetown Rd.

Nature of Case – Applicant requests a Variance from the requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indiana, to allow the location of a mobile home for a residence on property with an existing residence in a “Con” Recreation and Conservancy zoning district. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Danny & Suzanne Deters.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated all return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the location of a mobile home for a residence on property with an existing residence. She stated the property is lot 19 in Wildwood Estates zoned “CON” Recreation and Conservancy with the surrounding property being zoned the same, except to the East being zoned “R-MH” Mobile Home Park. She then stated there are residences on all the surrounding property. She stated the applicant states on application, “My 80 year old mother needs constant care and we feel the best way to take care of her is to have her living on the premises. Our intention is to have a mobile home put on the premises for her to live in.” She further stated a letter from the Health Department stating they have no objection letting both residences use the existing septic system has been submitted. She then read the letter. (Letter on file.) She stated if the Board chooses to approve the application a condition should be that if the mobile home is no longer needed for Mrs. Crum, it should be removed or the property must be properly divided.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything further to add to the staff report.

Mr. Deters stated he did not.

The Chairman called for questions by the Board.

Richard Medcalf asked how many acres does Mr. Deters own.

Mr. Deters stated about 4, 3.8 to be exact.

Mr. Willis asked where does Mrs. Crum live currently.

Mr. Deters stated in a house in Newburgh.

Mr. Willis asked if she needs to be closer.

Mr. Deters stated yes and she will not wear her medical alert necklace. He stated she has a tendancy to fall and then they get a call about 2 AM.

Mr. Medcalf asked what their intensions with the mobile home are when it is no longer needed.

Mr. Deters stated they would sell it or giving it away to their son.

Ms. Phillips stated they could subdivide the property and keep the mobile home on the property if it meet all the requirements.

Mr. Peninger asked in front of the mobile home, what the crescent shape object is.

Mr. Deters stated that is a flower bed.

There being no remonstrator and no further questions by the Board, the Chairman called for a motion.

Don Mottley made a motion to approved BZA-V-04-19, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to all rules and regulations of the local Health Department.

2. Subject to any required building permit from the Warrick County Building Department must be obtained.

3. Subject to the property being in compliance at all times with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

4. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place.

5. Subject to mobile home being located as shown on the plans filed with the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.

6. Property must be properly maintained at all times.

7. Should either residence be sold, property must be properly divided per the Warrick County Subdivision Control Ordinance.

8. Subject to mobile home for Beverly Crum or immediate family only, not rental property.

9. Should the mobile home no longer be needed, the mobile home must be removed or the property properly divided.

The motion was seconded by Richard Medcalf and unanimously carried.

BZA-V-04-20 – Applicant: Connie Hayes Owner: Dennis Knotts, Sr

Premises – Property located on the N side of Barnhill Cemetery Rd approximately 500’ E of the intersection formed by Polk Rd and Barnhill Cemetery Rd. Skelton Twp. Lot 20 Deer Haven Sub. 1488 Barnhill Cemetery Rd

Nature of Case – Applicant requests a Variance from the requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indiana, to allow the location of a mobile home for a residence on property fronting on a dedicated but not maintained road right of way in a “CON” Recreation and Conservancy zoning district. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Connie Hayes and Dennis Knotts, Sr.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated all return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the location of a mobile home for a residence on property fronting on a dedicated but not maintained road right of way. She stated the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires, before any Improvement Location Permit can be issued, that each lot must front on a dedicated and maintained right of way. She stated this was dedicated on the Deer Haven Subdivision Plat, but was never accepted by the County for maintenance. She stated normally in this case if the Board does approve it, the applicant and owner should enter into a hold harmless agreement with Warrick County, in case something would happen where a fire truck or ambulance could not get to them, the County would not be responsible. She stated the property is Lt 20 in Deer Haven Subdivision and zoned “CON” Recreation and Conservancy with the surrounding property being zoned the same with residences on them. She stated there is a cemetery to the South. She then stated there had previously been a mobile home on the property and the applicant states on the application, “I want to put a newer mobile home on this piece of property to live in and the county does not maintain the Barnhill Cemetery Road.” She stated this subdivision was platted and the developers never built the road to county standards, the County did take over a few of the roads on the school bus routes.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything further to add to the staff report.

Ms. Hayes stated she did not.

The Chairman called for questions by the Board.

Ms. Phillips asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Knotts is going to own the property and Ms. Hayes is going to live in the mobile home.

Mr. Knotts stated that was correct.

Mr. Peninger asked where the driveway comes from.

Mr. Knotts stated it looks like you are driving in the cemetery but then you take a left and it is right there. He stated the Wilson’s live on the corner and the drive for this property is the next driveway.

Mr. Willis asked if this was replacing the existing mobile home.

Ms. Hayes stated that was correct.

There being no further questions by the Board and no remonstrators, the Chairman called for a motion.

William McCune made a motion to approve BZA-V-04-20, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to Mobile home being located as shown on the plans filed with the Area Board of Zoning Appeals for a time period of 5 years.

2. Subject to applicant entering into a Hold Harmless agreement with Warrick County.

3. Property must be properly maintained at all time.

4. Subject to all rules and regulations of the local Health Department.

5. Subject to the property being in compliance at all times with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

6. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place.

7. Subject to any required Building Permit from the Warrick County Building Department.

The motion was seconded by Dennis Taylor.

Ms. Phillips stated there needs to be a condition that the existing mobile home be removed after they have moved into the proposed mobile home.

Duane Erwin asked why there was a time limit of five years on the approval.

Ms. Phillips stated that has just been the practice for 30 years, but she does not know why. She stated and the applications are always just renewed unless the Board specifically tells them to come back or if it is in violation of one of the other conditions.

Attorney Shively stated if there is going to be a time limit, he would think it would need to be about a year, because if there are going to be conditions not met, it will happen in the beginning. He stated if this Variance is going to run with the land then a time limit is another problematic situation, in theory if they sell the land, will who ever purchases it have to file another Variance.

Ms. Phillip stated she personally does not think there should not be a time limit, because if they break one of the conditions, the neighbors will let the office know.

Attorney Shively stated the issue is that the property is on a dedicated, but not maintained road way. He stated he is not telling the Board what to do, but to him it should be permanent and run with the land.

Ms. Phillips stated then it should read, ”Subject to mobile home being located as shown on the plans filed with the Area Board of Zoning Appeals”

Attorney Shively stated precisely, that way it does not encumber these folks if it is sold or transfered. He stated this situation will not change ever, unless the County decides to maintain it.

Mr. McCune withdrew his motion and Mr. Taylor withdrew his second.

The Chairman called for another motion.

William McCune made a motion to approve BZA-V-04-20, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to mobile home being located as shown on the plans filed with the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.

2. Subject to applicant entering into a Hold Harmless agreement with Warrick County.

3. Property must be properly maintained at all time.

4. Subject to all rules and regulations of the local Health Department.

5. Subject to the property being in compliance at all times with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

6. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place.

7. Subject to any required Building Permit from the Warrick County Building Department.

8. Subject to the existing mobile home being removed 30 days after applicant has moved into the proposed mobile home.

The motion was seconded by Dennis Taylor and unanimously carried.

BZA-V-04-21 – Applicant: Amanda Cundiff Owners: Amanda & Kevin Cundiff

Premises – Property located on the S side of Lancaster Dr approximately 0’ E of the intersection formed by Lancaster Dr and York Ridge Dr. Ohio Twp. Lot 18 York Ridge Sub.8423 Lancaster Dr.

Nature of Case – Applicant requests a Variance from the requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indiana, to allow the location of an existing unattached storage building not meeting the minimum distance of 10’ from the principle dwelling in a “R-1A” Single Family Dwelling zoning District. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Amanda & Kevin Cundiff.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated there is a problem with the return receipts. She asked Mrs. Cundiff if she mailed the notice certified with return receipt service.

Mrs. Cundiff stated that they were all certified, and the lady at the post office told her she could pull up on the internet when they were received.

Ms. Phillips stated our policy is that we have to have the return receipts signed by the individual to prove they were noticed of this meeting. She stated so we cannot hear the application, so come into the office to get a new notice to mail to the adjacent property owners certified mail with return receipt.

Don Mottley made a motion to continue this application to the June 23, 2004 meeting.

The motion was seconded by John Peninger and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:

BZA-SE-04-22 – Applicant: Castle County Academics by Carolyn Peter & Denise Lynch, Co-Directors Owners: Erwin T & Marline Raphael

Premises – Property located on the S side of Haley Dr approximately 0’ E of the intersection formed by Haley Drive and Peachwood Dr. Ohio Twp. Lot 8 in Warrick Place III. 3775 Haley Dr.

Nature of Case – Applicant request a Special Exception from the district requirements as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in effect for Warrick County, Indiana, to allow for a public preschool in a “C-4” General Commercial Zoning District. Advertised in the Boonville Standard on May 13, 2004.

Present were Caryolyn Peter, Denise Lynch, and Jim Biggerstaff, Engineer.

The Chairman called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated all return receipts from certified mailing of notice of this meeting to adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated the appplicant is requesting a Special Exception to allow for a public preschool. She stated Jim Biggerstaff does have a recorded Power of Attorney to represent the property owner. She stated the property is lot 8 Warrick Place III Suite C zoned “C-4” General Commercial with the surrounding property to the North, East, and West being zoned the same. She then stated the property to the North is vacant, the East is St. Mary’s Doctors office, and the West is Buehler’s Buy-Low Grocery. She stated the property to the South is Vacant and zoned “C-3” Highway Commercial. She then stated the applicant did meet with the Commercial Site Review Committee on April 27, 2004, and were told they would need to file a Special Exception to allow a public preschool. She stated there will be a required 6 parking spaces and the plot plan shows a total of 10. She further stated the plot plan shows a play area being located within a 15’ public utility and drainage easement on the subdivision plat. She stated the applicant will need to get consent agreements with all utilities to be able to place any playground equipment in it. She then stated Karen Barnhill, County Surveyor, has submitted a letter that they have no objection to equipment being in the drainage easement.

Attorney Shively asked if the plot plan shows any structures to be located in the easement.

Ms. Phillips stated it shows the playground area and fence in it.

Mr. Biggerstaff stated they moved the playground area and now will not be in the easement.

Attorney Shively asked if Ms. Phillips was satisfied with what the plot plan shows.

Ms. Phillips stated yes.

The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything further to add to the staff report.

Mrs. Peter stated no.

The Chairman called for questions by the Board.

Mr. Peninger asked what the different was between a public and private preschool.

Mrs. Peter stated there will be a tuition that has to be paid for children that attend, instead of being paid by public taxes.

Mr. Peninger asked if that is what makes it a private or public.

Mrs. Peter stated yes, if John H. Castle would offer a preschool program, it would be paid for by the County taxes.

Mr. Willis stated there is not a public preschool program in Warrick County; however there is a public kindergarten program, but it is just half days.

Ms. Phillips stated she was mistaken, the drainage and public utility easement is across the front, not the back of the property.

Attorney Shively stated if they are showing it within the easement, they will need a consent agreement or encroachment agreement from all considered utilities. He then asked what utilities the applicant had to normally have consent agreements from.

Ms. Phillips stated water, sewer, electric, gas, and telephone.

Mr. Willis stated now with cable TV they are into internet and phone lines. He stated he thinks the State now recognizes them as utilities, so they should probably be included.

Ms. Phillips stated that is probably a good idea. She then asked but there are several companies, do they have to get them from all or just the ones in that area.

Attorney Shively stated Adelphia, Insight, and Sigecom do not have their own lines. He stated this is a none exclusive utility easement, any public utility can go in there.

Mr. Willis stated he understood that, but you have to know what is on your property and the only way to know that is if they have registered it in the Recorder’s Office.

Mr. Medcalf asked if the easement is already established and there are utilities in it or is it proposed.

Mr. Biggerstaff stated everything is in the rear of the lot.

Ms. Phillips stated the easement is on the recorded subdivision plat.

Attorney Shively stated they could vacate the Easement and therefore they do not have to divulge this laundry list on who to contact and who not to contact, you simply recognize the utilities that are already there, but to vacant anyone else from locating.

Ms. Phillips stated we require letters from all the utility companies for a vacation too.

Mr. Biggerstaff stated this is a playground area, there are to be no structures in the area.

Mr. Willis asked if they are not going to anchor the swing sets and stuff into the ground.

Mr. Biggerstaff stated there will not be a swing set and the playground equipment is for 3-5 year olds.

Mr. Willis stated if there is nothing being put in the ground there should not be a problem.

Mr. Medcalf stated there is going to be a fence though.

Ms. Phillips stated we usually accept letters from the utility company stating they have no objection and that way we would not need an encroachment agreement.

Considerable discussion was held on what utilities might be in the easement and how to find out.

Attorney Shively stated no matter what the Board chooses to do this evening, nothing will effect the rights the utility companies have to the easements.

Mr. Biggerstaff stated he had no problem getting letters from all the utilities. He stated after this approval they have to go to the administrative building council to change the inside for the children, and then there is a State License permit. He stated so this is pretty involved.

Mr. Willis stated he thinks there is a need for a preschool in Warrick County, his wife is a kindergarten teacher and over the dinner table she tells him there is not enough preschools in Warrick County.

There being no further questions by the Board and no remonstrators, the Chairman called for a motion.

Don Mottley made a motion to approve BZA-SE-04-22, subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to any required Federal, State, or Local permits being obtained.

2. Subject to any required Building Permit from the Warrick County Building Department.

3. Subject to the property being in compliance at all time with the applicable zoning ordinance of Warrick County.

4. Subject to all public utility easements and facilities in place.

5. Subject to consent agreements from all utility companies being submitted.

The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin and unanimously carried.

OTHER BUSINESS: None

ATTORNEY BUSINESS: None

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUSINESS:

Ms. Phillips stated there is going to be a hearing on the new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on June 9, 2004 at 7:00PM.

Being no other business the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.

Larry Willis, Chairman

ATTEST:

The undersigned Secretary of the Warrick County Area Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby certify the above and foregoing is a full and complete record of the Minutes of said Board at their monthly meeting held May 26, 2004.

Sherri Phillips, Executive Director & Secretary