MINUTES
WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
WAYNE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8,2001
5:30 P.M.



Chairwoman Mary Ferris called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Commissioners 
Meeting Room of the Wayne County Administration Building.

A roll call indicated the following members present: Mary Ferris, Ed Pollock, Roger 
Casey and Harold Routson. Mr. Howell was not present. 

The members present constituted a quorum.

Also present were Laura Winchester, Assistant Planning Administrator, Elaine Reed, 
Secretary for the Planning Department and Ronald Cross, Plan Department Attorney.

Mrs. Ferris stated that we did not have a secretary to do the minutes from the last meeting 
and they are in the process of being transcribed so they will not have minutes until the 
next meeting. She asked if was alright to postpone the reading of those minutes.  The 
other members were agreeable.  She then asked if there were any announcements. 

Mrs. Winchester announced that Elaine Reed was the new secretary for Planning and 
Zoning.

Mrs. Ferris welcomed Mrs. Reed as secretary. She also asked if there were any 
communications.

Ron Cross stated that Mrs. Madden was attending a seminar and that is why she was not 
in attendance.
 
Mrs. Ferris gave a brief description of what takes place at the BZA Meetings.
 
PUBLIC HEARINGS

BZA 01-05	Petition of Phillip and Theresa Buchs, for a Variance of the 
Developmental Standards, to construct a 50’ x 100’ pole building 
prior to a home being built, property located as follows: Being part 
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, and part of the Northwest 
Quarter of Section 16, both in Township 17 North, Range 14 East 
in Green Township, Wayne County Indiana containing an area of 
12.865 acres and being subject to the right of way of State Road 35 
North and any easement of record.

Mr. Cross stated that the publisher affidavit established that BZA 01-05 through 01-14 
were duly published on February 21,2001 according to IC 531 and is in order and should 
be a part of the minutes.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Mrs. Ferris asked the first petitioner to state his name and address.

Mr. Phillip A. Buchs  and his wife, Theresa,  currently live at 2237 East Main Street, 
Richmond, IN. They had purchased 13 acres of land on 35 North by Williamsburg with 
the future plans of building a home. At this time they would like to put up a pole barn for 
storage. Mainly it is difficult to keep 13 acres mowed down and keep it attractive looking 
when you have to drag lawn mowers back and forth from the city. They have at this time 
an 11’ x  15’ portable storage building there, but they do not feel that it is secure enough 
for tractors and other tools to keep the land up. He is also building the barn large enough, 
with the anticipation of building the house, that they would be able to store the supplies to 
build the house in the barn for security reasons. They do not want to have to worry about 
their materials when they leave at night. So basically what they are asking is to be able to 
put up the 50 x 100 x 16 foot pole barn  first before the house goes up. He also stated that 
what he presented to the board shows a site plan of where he wants to put the barn and 
where he wants to put the home.

Mrs. Ferris asked why the building would be 20 feet from the side line.

Mr. Buchs stated that he would like to put a natural barrier such as trees at sometime. He 
would like the trees along the property line. The building side setback has been changed 
to 50 feet. He wants to be able to get a mower or tractor between there even after the tree 
line is in. 

Mrs. Ferris stated that the drawing the board had  showed 20 feet and should actually be 
50 feet.

Mr. Buchs stated that his drawing is 50 feet. He said they should have a copy of his 
drawing.

Mrs. Ferris said that she had 50 on one side and 20 on the other side.

Mr. Buchs stated that the barn is 50 foot wide, but it is 50 foot off the property line too. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Casey asked Mr. Buchs what his occupation was.   

Mr. Buchs answered that he does an on sight RV repair. He has a 22-foot mobile truck 
that he takes around to the campgrounds in the area and work on recreational vehicles, 
motor homes, travel trailers and such in the summer time.

Mr. Casey asked if this building could be used as part of his business.

Mr. Buchs answered that not at the present time. Eventually maybe. Basically what he is 
looking for is storage right now and to be able to store the truck inside after he is able to 
move up there. He has no future plans of moving the business up there.

Mr. Casey asked Mr. Buchs if he had a business location or if just operated out of his 
home.

Mr. Buchs  answered that the office is in the home. Right now he is renting a building 
over in New Westville in order to store the truck, simply because they do not like to leave 
the truck sitting outside, especially in the winter. He stated that it is hard to secure and he 
has quite a bit of money invested in this truck and the supplies inside it. That is one of the 
reasons the building is as large as it is because He wants to build it once. They don’t want 
to have to modify it in the future.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any more questions. She also stated that she could see by 
their letter that they intend to build a home in 2 to 3 years. 

Mr. Buchs replied that that was correct. 

Mrs. Ferris thanked Mr. Buchs and told him that they may have more questions for him. 
She asked if there was anyone else there to speak in favor of this petition. She then asked 
if there was anyone to speak in opposition.

Mr. Edwin Shaw, 7183 US 35 North , asked where the building was going to be located 
on the property. He stated that all he got was a letter stating that Mr. Buchs wanted to 
have the barn built.

Mr. Buchs showed Mr. Shaw on the map where the barn would be placed. 

Mr. Shaw was worried about the (water) run off coming out of that field right across his 
property.  He wanted to make sure it didn’t add to the problem they already had.

Mr. Ferris asked if this (the site plan that was shown to him) answered his question.

Mr. Shaw replied yes.

Mr. Casey asked if Mr. Shaw could show him where the water problem was on their 
maps or drawing.

Mr. Shaw stated that that property was so rolling and that water stands. He then showed 
the Board where the water stood. He showed them where his property line was. He said 
that they couldn’t farm it very good because it stayed so wet.

Mrs. Ferris stated that it looked like the water problem was pretty far removed from 
where the building was going to be placed. 

Mr. Shaw agreed.                    

Mrs. Ferris thanked Mr. Shaw. She then asked if there was anyone else that had a 
question or to speak in opposition.

Vince and Star Crawley of 7149 US 35 North came forward. He stated that they too were 
interested in where the building was going to go. They also knew there was a water 
problem since they had lived there nine years.

Mrs. Ferris stated that it looked like it was going to be alright as far as avoiding the wet 
spots. She asked Mrs. Winchester to show the drawing to the Crawleys.   

Mr. Crawley asked what would happen if he does put the building up and it does cause 
more water to be pushed on his and his neighbors land. He stated that where the Buchs 
are putting the house is a pretty wet spot.

Mrs. Ferris stated that Mr. Buchs said that it was a high spot. 

Mr. Buchs also replied that was a high spot where the house would be.

Mrs. Crawley stated that if Mr. Buchs put his house there the water runs right beside it 
and that is going to create run off from his house.

Mr. Buchs stated that Mr. Potter was already involved in it and is already working on 
trying to decide what to do. He’ll try to find field tiles. He guessed there were not any 
field tiles close. The closest field tile is clear on the other side of New Garden Road and 
that is almost impossible to get to from the Buchs  property . So their suggestion would 
be eventually to put a pond in that corner to absorb the water. And some tiling put in so 
that it would run over to the pond. It would actually help the rest of the land.

Mrs. Crawley stated that they just did not want the extra run-off  running in to their 
property. She felt the pond would help. 

Mr. Buchs said what he is trying to do will actually help all the property around because it 
would go to the pond versus distributing out across the property.

Mr. Crawley asked where the pond would be.

Mr. Buchs showed him on the map.

Mr. Crawley stated that they just didn’t have any information so they were just curious.

Mrs. Ferris asked if they were feeling more comfortable with where it was going to be.

Mr. Crawley replied yes for the moment, as long as it doesn’t run into any problems.

Mrs. Crawley was also concerned that they not use the building for livestock.

Mr. Buchs replied the only livestock they have is a dog.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any other questions or concerns about this petition.

There were none.

Mr. Casey made a motion that they close the public hearing. Mr. Pollock seconded which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

Mrs. Ferris asked if they had Mrs. Madden’s notes on this petition.

Mr. Pollock moved to proceed to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Routson seconded which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Casey moved "that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community”, Mr. 
Routson seconded the motion, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll 
call vote.
2.	Mr. Routson moved "that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner,” Mr. Casey seconded the motion, which passed with a 
four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.
3.	Mr. Pollock moved “that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property,”  
Mr. Casey seconded the motion, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) 
roll call vote. 

Mr. Pollock moved to approve BZA 01-05 subject to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Routson 
seconded the motion, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris advised that the petition had been approved.

Mrs. Winchester advised the Buchs to come in and obtain their building and zoning 
permits both for the new structure and the existing temporary structure on the property.


BZA 01-06	Petition of Beals surveying, representing Rosa Tan-Ang, for a 
variance of use, to subdivide an 86.5 acre parcel, a 13.89 acre 
parcel an 11.32 acre parcel, and a 2.15 acre parcel, property located 
as follows: Being a part of the northwest Quarter of Section 14 in 
Township 17, Range 14 East, and a part of fractional section 13, 
Township 17 Range 14 East in New Garden Township, Wayne 
County Indiana containing an area of 109.39 acres more or less and 
being subject to the right of way of the Grand Rapids & Indiana 
Railroad, Pleasant Plain Road, Edgerton Road and any easements 
of record.


Public Discussion:

Mr. Andy Craig, 122 so 8th St, Richmond, Indiana for Beals Survey, stated that he was 
there to represent Domingo & Rosa Tan-Ang.  They are asking for a usage variance on 
the property. It is 109.39 acres by deed.  It is in the northeast and southeast quarters of 
section of 14-17-14. and part of fractional section 13-17-14 and New Garden Township 
here in Wayne County. The property is bordered by Pleasant Plain Road on the south, by 
Edgerton Road on the west, by Quack Creek on the north and the Pennsylvania Railroad 
right-of-way on the east. He said would like to go over the little handout he had given to 
the Board.  What he had done was given them a site plan that shows the area where the 
109 acres are.  The second handout was a copy of the USCNGS map.  It was blown up a 
little bit bigger and what it does is show the contour of the land. He stated you could see 
they were going anywhere from 1130 all the way down to 1080 (feet above sea level).  So 
there is about a 50-foot elevation change across this land.  The third handout is a copy of 
the soils map.  The small handout lists the types of soils that affect this land as defined by 
the Wayne County Soil Book.   There are 9 different types of soil that cross this land. He 
said they are looking to have somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 lots here but there has 
not been a complete design made. With the amount of development that is going to be 
made here the usage variance is the first step that the Angs wanted to go through to get 
the right to do so before they came in with a complete plan with how the lots are going to 
be. He stated they are looking in the 2.5 to 4 acres per lot. They are not going to be small 
lots. They are looking at homes being stick built homes. There will be no manufactured 
homes. They will start in the $110,000.00 range and go up to $250,000.00. The Angs 
want this to be a nice looking subdivision when it is done. In the preliminary look, Mr. 
Craig  said there is nothing set definitely. What he drew up roughly were three (3) cul-de-
sac streets running north off of Pleasant Plain Road and then homes on either side and the 
homes around the cul-du-sac at the north end. He said that as far as having anything on 
paper right now to show, nothing has been done. There have been no soil borings done at 
this time either.  They are relying strictly with the soils as defined in the Wayne County 
Soil Book.   In ending his presentation he asked that if there is more information needed, 
soil boring information, or if the Board needs a plot lay out or whatever they might want 
he would like for this (petition) to be tabled and let him give his client the opportunity to 
authorize him to go ahead and spend this additional money and provide the information to 
the Board. But if the additional information will not be an influence in the Board’s 
decision in granting this usage variance then the Angs would just as soon know that now, 
rather than go to the additional expense of the soil borings that are going to be needed. 
They would rather know that up front, than to come back with the soil boring saying they 
can do their project and then be turned down with the usage variance. He said that he 
would be happy to answer any questions if he can. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions for  Mr. Craig.

Mr. Pollock said that the soil survey shows some pretty severe limitations on the sections 
here.

Mr. Craig replied that down on the west end it does. He stated that they had looked at the 
Westland soils and the Eldon-Loam soils they almost recommended they not put septic 
systems in there. The one indicated that if you couldn’t get good drainage in the Westland 
soils that you could probably get an awful high water table and also there would be a 
good bit of ponding.  The Eldon soils indicated that if you put septic systems in, that there 
is a chance of contaminating your ground water. He said that probably the other soils, the 
Miamis, the Straw-Clay-Loam soils, (he had gone through these types of soils before) 
where they recommend that there are strong limitations on type of septic systems when 
there are septic systems going in but they do state also that with additional absorption 
fields that those limitations can be overcome.  With the size of the lots they are planning 
on putting in they feel that if the soils that the maps show in Wayne County Soil Books 
are good then they will get an approved septic sight on each lot, before they would 
present it to the planning commission for approval.  With as much contour as they have 
got to the land they don’t feel that if they would need to put in subsurface drainage around 
these leach fields or they are going to have any problem at all in getting a release for these 
perimeter drains that might be used.   None of this has been looked at as of yet because 
they are here with the first step.  He said that the east side has better soils for development 
than those down on the south end. He stated he did talk to the client somewhat and they 
had talked about maybe putting a park or somewhat of a common area down on the south 
end on the ground where they are not going to be able to develop into residential lots or it 
will be included with a larger lot to either be used as pasture which the Westland and the 
Eldon-Loam (soils) both indicated that they are good for pasture and grassed areas.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions for Mr. Craig.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there was anyone there to speak in favor of this petition. She then 
asked if there was someone in opposition or had any questions.

Glen Conley , 512  North West Fourth St Richmond, IN. He stated the Board would hear 
him twice in opposition. He said he came representing Richmond Conservation Club and 
as a person who used to live up in that area. Richmond Conservation Club, probably 
everyone has been familiar with, has been around for a good number of years since he 
was a child. Typically they average around 225 members a year. They own the property 
adjoining and immediately north of the Petitioner's property. From the stand point of the 
conservation club they have a rifle range along the old track bed on the east side. They 
have a trap range basically off center of the middle of their acreage there. They have a 
pond next to the club house. There are concerns that if a housing development were to go 
in the first thing that would be shut down would be the rifle range. Children might come 
into the rifle range from the housing development. Second, these guys have been trap 
shooting for a number of years. It is noisy on Sundays or Saturdays, whenever they have 
their trap shoots, and the neighbors would be complaining about trap shooting and they 
would lose that segment of the club. Third, what would happen with the pond and what 
would happen with liability insurance from the stand point of children, (the pond being 
regarded as attractive nuisance by Indiana Law) coming in off of this neighborhood. He 
stated that the Club was concerned about the public welfare. One of the questions 
everybody has in this county is if we turn all this farmland into housing developments and 
we have all these people living there, what are we going to feed them. Mr. Conley felt this 
is a serious question. He requested that these concerns be written down on behalf of the 
Richmond Conservation Club. 

Then Mr. Conley stated he had some pictures he would like to share as a past resident. He 
said that Mr. Craig was just talking about a 50 foot drop in elevation coming off the old 
railroad track bed. If you would follow that down and go up to the west of that coming in 
off of Pleasant Plain Road you will see that is a big creek bottom. That is a basin that has 
Nolands Fork drainage. 

Mrs. Ferris stated that Mr. Conley had lost her.

Mr. Conley showed Mrs. Ferris on the map from Pleasant Plain Road go down to the 
corner of Edgerton then go back to the north. What Edgerton basically describes is a 100-
year flood plain.  If you check a zoning map that would catch a 100-year flood plain using 
Edgerton.  This means that every 100 year Nolands Fork Creek is going to run up over its 
bank to that point.  From that standpoint, that doesn’t count watershed that basin starting 
at Pleasant Plain and the old railroad track bed at the corner of the property in question 
that basin runs almost northerly it goes up and follows the Edgerton Road again on the 
100 year flood plain, but going to the west you will find again this big basin formed there.  
Nolands Fork Creek flash floods at the drop of a hat. There are a lot of springs there in 
that area.    Richmond Conservation Club pond is fed by a spring.  Just north of that there 
is another spring that feeds a ditch line by the old railroad track bed. The same area was 
in question a few years ago by EPA out of Chicago when Fountain City had to go to the 
lagoon system for their septic systems up there.  There were two attempts to put a lagoon 
septic system in the same basic creek bottom, which wasn’t allowed because of the water 
conditions part of the time of the year.  He told the board members that on the map they 
are looking at they could see the bend in Edgerton Road.  Right at the conservation club 
property and property in question.  He stated that he had photos here. This is after spring 
rains. That ground up there stays basically saturated where it squishes a good part of the 
time during the month. Clay lime, there is no limestone but sand, etc.  That’s basically the 
way it runs.   Fountain City got its name for being over this large aquifer.  Originally it 
was Fountain City because an artesian well was in the middle of town.  It was changed to 
Newport News then back to Fountain City.  He stated he was told during the lagoon deal 
up there, the that aquifer runs from Fountain City to Connersville.  He stated he was 
under the impression that is only 30 feet down.  That’s what he was told a few years ago.  
Concerns into the location of that lagoon were because of human waste getting into this 
aquifer.  So if you start perforating this skin, this aquifer over that with drilled wells, just 
like the skin is the first layer of defense, so he would have to say there would be some 
concern.  Two years ago in Wayne County, fish out of our waters couldn’t be eaten 
because they contained contaminates.   We were one of the last counties in the state to be 
put under the food advisory on fish.  That is kind of like the coal miner carrying the 
canary in the mines.  That would be an indicator so from the standpoint of septic systems 
and wells it would be of great concern.  He then gave the board some pictures.  They were 
pictures that would be right at the curve and looking back you’d see a tree line in the back 
of this photo, that would be the north boundary of the property in question.

Mrs. Ferris asked if this was Edgerton Road.   

Mr. Conley replied yes and she was looking due south.  Then he stated that field she was 
looking at there, typically in the past that has been as much as a 6 ft ditch that goes 
around that field.   It runs from the conservation club down around the curve on Edgerton.  
Where the water is standing in the front yard is where he lived and then across the road 
there at the curve that would be the conservation club property.   You could see that water 
standing right there.  He had always been under the belief that was a tiled field too. That’s 
not true though.

Mrs. Ferris asked if Mr. Conley had lived on the north side of Edgerton Road.

Mr. Conley replied yes right there on the curve. Her map would be showing Williams 
Road.  This would be an old map because this would be showing Williams Road but it 
got changed to Edgerton.  Right there on the corner is actually a curve. In the first photo 
you see the 86.5 acres.  The first photo where the water is standing in the field would be 
at the West side of the 65-acre plot there.  That elevation there should run about the same.  
Again Edgerton Road would be the 100-year flood plain boundary as it is shown on 
county flood maps.  He had more pictures basically looking to the south.  In these you can 
see the conservation club and the trap-shooting house in the background.

Mrs. Ferris asked when the pictures were taken.

Mr. Conley answered that they were taken a few years ago, but he didn’t have any dates 
on the photos.  He guessed at about 1990-91 somewhere in there.  This was on of the 
worst extremes.  He guessed it was one of those things that only happen every few years. 
Once the ground gets saturated (there is a clay layer not a great distance underneath this) 
then what happens is you have basic ground saturation.  When there is a wet winter then 
that ground is already wet and when it rains it drains into a broad and shallow basin that 
is there.  He showed a picture that was the backside of the house. There you could see 
where Edgerton makes a jog.

Mrs. Ferris asked if she was correct in that all the water that is standing in the pictures is 
water that is on the conservation club property.

Mr. Conley answered no this property (where he lived).  All the pictures were taken from 
right around the house (his house at the time) aimed at the conservation club property.

Mrs. Ferris asked if he was showing any water on the property for the petitioner.

Mr. Conley replied no. He then stated this was just a topical map it should run about the 
same elevation all along Edgerton Road.  He then explained on the maps and pictures 
what he was talking about to Mrs. Winchester.

Mrs. Ferris thanked Mr. Conley then asked if anyone else would like to speak.

Bill Little, 6954 Edgerton Road.  His property is west of the (petitioner’s) property. His 
main objection to this is that this is good farmland being farmed right now and has been 
farmed for the last several years. He really hates to see good farm ground being divided 
up like it has been around the county for some time. He stated he is a member of the 
Minor Subdivision Plat Committee. He has been on this committee for 14 years. He said 
he has gone through this every so often on minor subdivisions and he really hated to see 
good farm land being divided up, especially in this area, which has already been stated is 
not very good for septic tanks which will have to be taken care of.   He feels like in this 
area on Pleasant Plain they have had a lot of divisions, minor subdivision in that area and 
they have a lot of traffic and a lot of people in this area. He stated he does not believe they 
need another subdivision in that area. He also said Northeastern School doesn’t need 
more children.   He states he would keep this very brief, but his main concern was that 
they are plotting up good farm ground. 

Mrs. Ferris asked who was farming this land.

Mr. Routson answered that was Tim & Don Toschlog

Mr. Little stated again that this ground has been farmed for years and it is good ground.
It is bottom ground because our ground is next to it and I really hate to see good farm 
ground go.

Mrs. Ferris invited the next person to come forward.

Tim Toschlog 1547 W. Pleasant Plain Rd stated that currently he and his dad do farm the 
ground and it is very good farm ground. Last year their corn averaged around 160 bushel 
per acre there. There are four fields there. The productivity is very good there. Another 
thing, living right across the road the water table is very high. He said that it was probably 
about 11 to 12 feet before we hit water in his well. He also said they put up a garage 
about 4 years ago and when he was digging the post holes he hit water there. 

Mr. Ferris asked where he lived in relation to the property.

Mr. Toschlog answered that he lived right across the road on 1547 W. Pleasant Plain 
Road. Where the old house used to be, a little bit to the east. He said he was between the 
house and Flatley Road.

Mrs. Ferris asked how long he had farmed the land.

Mr. Toschlog replied that he had farmed it for about 3 years and last year definitely was a 
good year and the year before was a drought year. It wasn’t very good but any crops 
around weren’t.

Mrs. Ferris asked if the Angs had owned it all this time.

Mr. Toschlog stated they have for as long as he has farmed it. Terry Anderson, which is a 
neighbor that lived near by, farmed it for years and years before that. The local well 
driller said that they are sitting on an underground lake, which would be the aquifer that 
they are talking about.  The water table is very high. It just wouldn’t work very good for 
him having septic systems in there contaminating all the water.  There is a lot of slope in 
the back north field, which heads towards the gun club.  Really the whole farm is very 
wet. You have to wait until it dries out good before you can go in there.

Mr. Casey asked if he was saying this farm that they are looking at is wet.

Mr. Toschlog replied yes. It is a wet farm. There are quite a few side waterways running 
through it and it was pretty muddy in there and it takes a while for it to dry out. 

Mr. Casey asked if he was saying that most of the drainage is to the north rather than to 
the west.

Mr. Toschlog replied that there are four field there and the four fields are almost divided 
equally.  The west fields all drain towards the west and the east fields drain mostly 
towards the north. Very little along Pleasant Plain will drain towards the south, the 
majority drains towards the north.  You get into the backfield and there are some pretty 
good size waterways back there that they can’t even cross with a tractor. 

Mrs. Ferris thanked Mr. Toschlog. She then asked if there was anyone else to speak.

Tobias Oester, 7887 Morgan Creek Road. He states he has the property directly across 
from the farmhouse.  He is planning on building this fall on the south side of Pleasant 
Plain Road, directly across from the driveway. He said he moved here from Ohio to live 
in the country not to live in another subdivision. His is concerned about the water table.  
His biggest concern is the wells. He will have to drill for a well too. With the water table 
being that low, putting in 30 or 40 homes with septic systems, he can see there being a 
real problem there.
 
Mrs. Ferris asked Mr. Oester if he had done borings for his septic system.

Mr. Oester replied yes.

Mrs. Ferris then asked what were the findings.

Mr. Oester stated that he had to have a perimeter drain and dirt hauled in. There are quite 
a few feet of leach bed that he needs. That is going to be rather costly but can be done.  
But he is one home not 30 or 40. 

Mr. Casey asked what size his lot is.

Mr. Oester replied 4.308 acres.

Mrs. Ferris thanked him and asked if there was anyone else there to speak.

Michael Johnson, 1965 W Pleasant Plain Road. He stated he owned 15 acres across from 
the land the Angs own. His concern would be with 30 or 40 homes. With the traffic they 
have now they had to put in a new stop sign at Flatley Road. He is concerned about 
busing the kids. The kids’ buses are already crowded. He is also concerned about the 
septic systems and would hate to see good farmland turned into a subdivision. He feels 
there is other land available that would be more suitable.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there was anyone else to talk about the petition. She then asked Mr. 
Craig if he had a respondent statement.

Mr. Craig stated that what they have listened to tonight are the typical concerns against a 
subdivision. His clients are people who want to develop the land. They would like the 
opportunity to do so. They bought the land.

Mrs. Ferris asked when the Angs bought the land.

Mr. Craig said that he had the deed with him. It just got recorded recently.  They 
purchased the land from the Rosenbaums He checked to see if the deed has the date on it. 
The Rosenbaums signed the deed the 13th day of May 1975.

Mrs. Ferris asked if the Angs have owned it since 1975. 

Mr. Craig replied yes.  The deed wasn’t recorded until January of this year, but the deed 
was signed by the Rosenbaums back in 1975.

Mrs. Winchester asked if everyone had a chance to read the recommendations by the 
director.

Mr. Casey moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Pollock seconded, which passed with a 
unanimous voice vote.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

Mr. Casey stated that his concern is that with all the wet problems and possible drainage 
and septic system problems.  He thought they are looking at too many lots for the type 
soil they are dealing with and the water problems.  He said that he hated to cause 
additional expense, but his feeling is they need more information on percolation.  
Particularly with the septic systems, as to what they are looking at, practicality as far as 
lots.  He stated he might be wrong, but in his own mind he felt like they are estimating 
too many for the types of soil they have got here.  He stated that with the gentleman they 
have across the road that had four acres and he has to have a perimeter drain around his 
septic system, he assumes they are looking at this type of system on these lots as well.  
There is a lot of opposition from the conservation club and he knows that is a concern.  
He stated it was his feeling that the conservation club was there first.  So at this point he 
felt they should table this until next months meeting so that they could get more 
information and see if there are any others that want to speak for or against this petition.

Mr. Ferris asked if Mr. Casey wanted them to go ahead with the platting.

Mr. Casey said no.  Their concern is basically whether the percolation is there for the 
septic system.  He didn’t feel they have the right to determine the number of lots.  They 
should have some kind of indication as to what they are kind of thinking of. 

Mrs. Ferris said maybe they could use additional information from the highway 
department and the school system.

Mrs. Winchester referred to Mr. Cross as to whether or not the Board of Zoning Appeals 
would look into that or whether that is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. She 
said she didn’t know .

Mr. Cross said this is a difficult line drawing because you are required to make findings 
of fact and those findings should be based on evidence of some sort.  He didn’t think it is 
realistic to ask the petitioner to come to the board with a full-blown preliminary plot plan 
for a subdivision, but by the same token the points that have been raised are valid ones.  
He said there may be a lot of difference between 30 lots and 40 lots.  He also stated he 
understood that just some of the soil information is recent.  As far as Mr. Craig being 
made aware of it and there may very well be a need to enlarge the lots from the acre and a 
half to 2 acres planned lots to larger lots.  He felt it is up to the pleasure of the board.  He 
said the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show entitlement to a use variance and this 
board isn’t comfortable that this burden has been met.  The board can do one of two 
things they can deny the petition or they can table and give the petitioner an opportunity 
to present additional evidence.  It should be understood, however, that if they decide to 
table it, that that is not an implied assertion that they’ll eventually grant it, if the 
information is forth coming he didn’t want to mislead anyone.  He thought the issues that 
have been raised, both by the board and those who spoke and have concerns, are 
substantial issues.  He also thought it would be up to the petitioner to decide whether they 
choose to make the investment necessary to give the board all the information they might 
like.

Mr. Routson said he hated to see Mr. Craig go through all this stuff and the a board look 
at the findings of fact, and with the conservation club being north of this property the fact 
that they are out there with their firing range it would be a concern with the first finding 
“safety, morals and general welfare of the community”. You could say that if one of them 
is defeated then the whole petition is defeated.

Mrs. Ferris stated that was what she was thinking also something about the second 
Finding of Fact also.

Mr. Casey made a motion that they table the petition until next months meeting. He stated 
have Mr. Craig follow through with the recommendations that the Board had given, not 
plot plans, but they do need more information on the soils.

Mr. Pollock said that he felt it was way too many lots especially with the water problems 
that need to be resolved.

Mrs. Ferris stated if you made it a motion we can have a second and we can vote yes or 
no.

Mr. Pollock seconded it and was brought to a vote.

Mr. Casey and Mr. Pollock voted in favor. Mr. Routson and Mrs. Ferris voted against.
 
Mr. Cross said there may be another motion to be entertained.
 
Mr. Routson  said the only other reason he would change his vote to table it is that Mr. 
Howell would be there then they would have a majority.

Mr. Pollock stated that he is concerned that it would take a lot to prove that this area is 
suitable for 30 to 40 lots.

Mr. Cross said unless the chair thinks it can develop a motion that would get the support 
of three members then he thought that it would have to be carried over.  He thought the 
petitioner may need to address certain concerns of the board and it will be up to any 
additional information the petitioner would choose to provide the board or perhaps the 
determination to withdraw the petition between now and next month.

Mrs. Ferris asked if they could go to the Findings of Fact and see what happens with it.  
But, then we have already voted to have a continuance and that was denied.

Mr. Casey stated the purpose of his motion basically was to give the petitioner an 
opportunity to convince the board that this petition should be passed.  He said at this 
point they are all in doubt and probably would not look favorably upon it.  So rather than 
have them turn it down he would like to give them the opportunity to provide the board 
with more facts.

Mr. Ferris asked Mr. Craig if he sees how the board is divided on this. 

Mr. Craig said the question he had for them is the septic and the drainage.  The big 
question here was that he doesn’t want to come back to the board and find differences in 
the soil and drainage and then be turned down because its prime farmland.

Mrs. Ferris stated that right now she feels the board is feeling negative about it and if they 
had to vote right now it might be in the negative.  She felt part of it is because of the 
conservation club and part of it is traffic and the density of the number of lots and 
whether Mr. Craig wanted to take a chance on it.  She also stated that she knows how Mr. 
Howell feels about farmland generally-----if they had to vote tonight they would probably 
deny it unless Mr. Craig could come up with something that could convince the board 
otherwise. So she guessed it is up to him whether or not he wanted to come back next 
month or if he wanted to withdraw.  She then asked if that was a fair statement.

Mr. Craig stated he didn’t want to make that decision. He wants to go back to his clients 
and see how much they want to get involved. Going out and taking boring soil on a 109 
acres is going to be costly in order to find out if septic systems could be put on this 
property.  They know there is a water problem on the west end but not necessarily up on 
top on the east End. They (the Angs) might come back and say they just want to do a 
portion of it and leave it as farmland.   I guess I would like to have that opportunity  to do 
so.

Mrs. Ferris stated they might want to make that motion again.

Mr. Casey stated to Mr. Craig his concern is the percolation of the soils and the water 
problems existing as the land lays now.  He said he doesn't want to say that Mr. Craig 
needs to make soil borings.  He said maybe if he decreased the number of lots that may be 
the answer to the problem without further expense.  To clarify his position he needs more 
information with 30 or 40 lots.

Mrs. Ferris asked Mr. Casey to make a motion again.

Mr. Casey made a motion that they table BZA 01-06 to the next months meeting with the 
idea that the petitioner will provide them with further information.  Mr. Pollock 
seconded.  It passed with a unanimous voice vote.



BZA 01-07	Petition of Phillip Ringley, for a variance of the developmental 
standards, to construct an attached two car garage to existing 
garage, property located at 1253 W. Pleasant Plain Road, property 
located as follows: being part of the southwest quarter of section 
13, township 17, north range 14 west, and also a part of the south 
one-half of fractional section 13, township 17 north, range 14 east 
in Webster Township, Wayne County Indiana containing an area of 
2.51 acres, 1.00 acre, and .75 of an acre and being subject to the 
right of way of W. Pleasant Plain Road and any easements of 
record.

Public Discussion:

Phillip Ringley, 1253 W. Pleasant Plain Road.  

Mrs. Ferris stated that she thinks the Board understands what Mr. Ringley wants to do 
there. She asked if he is turning the present garage into a part of the house.

Mr. Ringley replied yes they will.

Mrs. Ferris asked if this was a two car garage.

Mr. Ringley replied yes.

Mr. Pollock asked if it would be east of the present two-car garage.

Mr. Ringley again, replied yes.  It would be 24 foot wide and the same depth as the house.

Mrs. Ferris stated that it puts it a little too close to the road which is why they were here.

Mr. Casey asked if they were going to end up with a 4-car garage or is that present garage 
going to be changed into a room.

Mr. Ringley answered that the present garage would be turned into part of the house.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Cross stated that this is the type of request that they hope to eliminate having to come 
before this body and we are in the process of changing the ordinance.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there was anyone else to talk in favor of the petition or if there was 
anyone to speak in opposition of the petition.  Mrs. Ferris asked those in the audience 
who were having a conversation in the back of the room to take their conversation out of 
the room. 

There was no one else to speak in favor of this petition, and no one opposed to it.

Mr. Routson moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Casey seconded which passed with a 
unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Routson moved to proceed to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Pollock seconded, which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Pollock moved “that the approval  will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community”, Mr. Casey 
seconded which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.
2.	Mr. Casey moved  “that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner”, Mr. Routson seconded which passed with a four (4) to 
zero (0) roll call vote.
3.	Mr. Routson moved “that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property", 
Mr. Pollock seconded which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call 
vote.

Mr. Pollock moved to approve BZA 01-07  subject to the finding of facts.  Mr. Casey 
seconded, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris told Mr. Ringley to just come in and fill out the necessary forms.

Mrs. Winchester advised that Mr. Ringley has already applied.
 
BZA 01-08	Petition of Sherman L. and Rhonda S. Swearingen, for a Variance of the 
Developmental Standards, to construct a new home on existing 
foundation, with a 45 ‘ front yard setback, at 4736 Turner Road, property 
located as follows: Being part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, 
Township 14 North, Range 1 West in Wayne Township, Wayne County 
Indiana containing an area of 1.5 acres and being subject to the right of 
way of Turner Road and any easements of record.




Public Discussion

Mr. Sherman, 1212 South 22nd Street. He stated he just purchased 1.5 acres on Turner 
Road. He wants to get a variance to build a house back where the old house stood. A 
house stood there 6 years ago. There is a standing garage he wants to put the house back 
where it stood before.

Mrs. Ferris asked when they purchased the property. 

Mr. Swearingen said they had purchased the property in the last month or so. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if that was their intent, to put a house back.

Mr. Swearingen replied yes.

Mr. Pollock asked if it went by the chimney.

Mr. Swearingen said that was not a chimney. It was like a concrete barbecue pit.
Everything else is gone.

Mrs. Ferris stated she didn’t even see a foundation.

Mr. Swearingen replied it has all been taken out. The well and the septic are still here 
even coming up out of the ground. They plan on putting in a new septic so there shouldn’t 
be a problem there. He said they won’t have to worry about having it checked out because 
they are putting new in.

Mrs. Ferris said the petition talks about putting on the existing foundation. She asked if  
there is something there?

Mr. Swearingen answered no. He said just where the house stood before the highest point 
it is all staked off.

Mr. Routson asked if they bought 1.5 acres and does it go out to the end post that is out in 
the corn stalks.

Mr. Swearingen replied that yes it was the big post out there now. They had just put those 
in. That is the back boundary line.

Mr. Casey asked if there was a reason the house could not be moved back farther from the 
road.  

Mr. Swearingen yes. There is a natural gas line right through the middle of the property.

Mrs. Ferris stated that was what she wondered about. There was a note on it.

Mr. Swearingen stated he also wanted to be able to get to the garage.

Mr. Routson asked if the gas line ran through the old property line just by the garage.

Mr. Swearingen replied almost midway, closer to the rear, there is a 30-foot variance. 

Mr. Routson said a 30 foot easement.

Mr. Swearingen stated if you had to go 100 feet off the center of the road the face of the 
house would be standing over the gas line itself.  He didn’t want to put it back any farther 
then they had to that is why they want to put it back where it stood before.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Swearingen.

Mrs. Winchester stated that Mrs. Madden wanted to know if the garage was existing she 
didn’t have a chance to look.

Mr. Swearingen replied yes, there is a two-car garage there.

Mrs. Ferris stated that if you put the house in the back, the garage would be in the front. 
She asked if there was anyone else here to speak in favor of this petition or anyone to 
speak in opposition.

There was no one in either case.

Mr. Casey made a motion to close the public hearing, Mr. Pollock seconded and it passed 
with a unanimous voice vote.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

Mrs. Ferris stated that Mrs. Madden's recommendation was for approval.

Mr. Casey stated  according to their notes they have other homes that are just as close to 
the road on that same road.

Mr. Casey moved to proceed to the Findings of Fact.  Mr. Pollock seconded, which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.





FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Pollock moved, "that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community", Mr. Casey 
seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote. 
2.	Mr. Casey moved,  “that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner.”, Mr. Routson seconded and it passed with a four (4) to 
zero (0) roll call vote.
3.	Mr. Routson moved, “that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.”, 
Mr. Pollock seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call 
vote.


Mr. Pollock moved to approve BZA 01-08 subject to finding of facts.  Mr. Routson 
seconded, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition had been approved.

Mrs. Winchester stated that the Swearingens needed to apply for both zoning and 
building permits and have a driveway checked.

Mrs. Ferris told the Swearingen to go to the office and that they would get help and give 
them what they need to have.  She told them they need to come into the office and get the 
necessary permits.

BZA 01-09  	Petition of Clyde Callahan, for a variance of the developmental 
standards, to construct a 24’ x 60’ pole building, and retain a 8’ x 
20’ tool shed, property located as follows: being part of the 
Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 17 North, Range 14 
East, in Webster Township, Wayne County Indiana containing an 
area of 2.28 acres more or less and being subject to the right of way 
of C. & O. Railroad, US 35 North and any easements of record. 

Clyde Callahan 4100 S A apt 117, Richmond, Indiana, 47374.

Mrs. Ferris asked Mr. Callahan to tell the board what he wants to do on the property.  She 
stated they have it written out, but she would like him to explain it a little more.  She also 
told him that the board has been by the property.

Mr. Callahan apologized for the condition of the property.   He stated that he has medical 
reasons for why it is in this shape.  He said he still has about two more months with the 
doctor and then it will be definitely changed.

Mrs. Ferris asked what he intended too do.

Mr. Callahan stated when he was sick he had a lot of wood tools and his boys went out 
and built a little temporary shed on runners that they could move, tear down or sell or 
whatever. He had no place to put his stuff.  He said he brought a truck and a couple of 
vehicles form North Carolina which were licensed down there and when he was sick the 
plates ran out so they are sitting there until he is able to change them over to Indiana.   
That is the main clean up he thought. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if wants to build a tool shed there.

Mr. Callahan replied yes. 

Mrs. Ferris asked what would be the purpose of this.

Mr. Callahan stated he was just tired. He said they had talked about building a small 
house and a barn but due to his health problems they decided to see if they could just 
build a pole barn, a hobby shop to store his stuff in.  He said that is what he wanted to do 
that at this particular time.

Mrs. Ferris asked  how long he had owned this property.

Mr. Callahan replied about a year.

Mrs. Ferris asked what he had in mind when he bought the property.   She asked what 
was he going to do.

Mr. Callahan stated that is what he had in mind.  What he just explained there.

Mrs. Ferris asked if he meant build a house or just a storage barn.

Mr. Callahan said he talked to planning and they said it would be better if he built a house 
first.  He said if that was a problem he would build a house, but then after things went on 
and the doctor shut him down he went to planning and told them he would just like to 
build a pole barn.  A place to put his stuff. He could go out there occasionally and work 
and take care of things.

Mr. Casey asked if he could be more specific about what he was going to do in this pole 
barn.  He said Mr. Callahan mentioned it was his hobby.  He asked him what his hobby 
was. 

Mr. Callahan stated he works in cedar wood. 

Mr. Casey asked if he made wood objects for resale.   

Mr. Callahan replied no.  Just for friends and the kids and stuff.  Just a hobby.

Mr. Casey asked if he needed that large a building to do that.

Mr. Callahan said he has a truck and he wants to put his camper in there to store.  He 
added he has a tractor and a lot of personal tools and things and he figured that is the size 
he would like.  He said it would be a 24' X 60' pole barn.

Mr. Casey stated that with layout of the land, would he kind of be building on the side of 
the hill with this barn.

Mr. Callahan replied no.
 
Mr. Casey asked if it is flat there.

Mr. Callahan stated it might be off a foot or so.  He said he was going to level it off, but if 
it is more than a foot he didn’t think it was.

Mr. Casey asked if it would take some fill. 

Mr. Callahan answered he didn’t believe it would take any fill.

Mrs. Ferris asked who would be building the barn.

Mr. Callahan answered he would.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions. Then she asked if there was anyone to 
speak in favor of this petition or anyone to speak in opposition.

Tom Milligan stated he resides in Richmond.  He said he is a practicing attorney. He was 
not here in a professional relationship with Cardinal Greenway.  He is a member of their 
steering committee.  He said he would like to introduce several persons who are here 
from Cardinal Greenway.   James Davison is the convener of the group.  Randy Crowe is 
in charge of looking after the right-of-way and the property the group owns.  Jim Daggy is 
the secretary of the steering committee locally.  And Bill Frazier is the historian and 
expert on all kinds of restoration.  Diane Roush is the executive director of Cardinal 
Greenway in Muncie and she the liaison member from the Muncie board of Cardinal 
Greenway to the Richmond board and as executive secretary provides a lot of staff 
support and she is full time with Cardinal Greenway.  Then he introduced Stan Lambert, 
superintendent of our parks dept. here in Richmond.  He is also a member of Richmond’s 
Cardinal Greenway Board and they are coordinating Cardinal Greenway’s project 
throughout Wayne County at sometime with the Cardinal Greenway stretch that has been 
constructed within the city limits that was open last fall and also the city’s park 
department extension of the trail, which hopefully will be open sometime this summer all 
the way down to Test Road.  He stated they have a great deal of concern with this petition 
by Mr. Callahan. First of all he acquired the property in 1999 from  James and Norma 
Flemming. He said Phil Thornburg prepared the survey he gave to the board at 
approximately the time the Flemmings acquired the property.  It is 2.28 acres.  Mrs. 
Fleming was related to the Wickett family.  On the survey the land on the other side of 
Cardinal Greenway's land which is designated centerline of the C & O Railroad Cardinal 
Greenway, basically owns a 100 ft. strip.  They own it.  It is not a right-of-way.  It is a fee 
simple interest because the bulk of the CSX right-a-way which was formerly know as the 
C & O through Wayne County which was by deed rather than right-a-way grant.  So this 
is actually the property line. They have property line 50 feet on each side of the center of 
the road bed and so there is a 100 foot strip that is owned by Cardinal Greenway.  
Cardinal Greenway is a not for profit corporation and they have of course acquired 
basically all but 10 miles of the CSX Railroad bed from just behind the Richmond baking 
Company in the center of the city all the way to the city of Marion.  There is a 10 ft. strip 
around Gas City, Indiana that they did not acquire, but the rest of the roadway was 
acquired.  Then of course, on the left side almost diagonally from the lower right corner 
or the upper left corner that is U S 35 designated there as Richmond and Williamsburg 
Turnpike and the right-of-way on each side of U S 35 is a uniform 37.5 feet on this 
drawing from the blue prints of U S 35 after it was last improved that are in the Wayne 
County Surveyor's office.   That right-of- way actually varies from 35 feet to 45 feet.  But 
when Phil Thornburg drew this plat he basically made it a uniform 37.5 feet that is a 1 
inch scale and that is exactly what it runs. It is 3/8th of an inch all along there. In actuality 
it runs between 35 and 45 feet.  The problem Mr. Callahan has is that if you consider U S 
35 as his front line, he has to setback 75 feet from the right-of-way of U S 35 and his rear 
yard requirement is 50 feet. I f you had a scale with you the widest part of the long strip 
of land is exactly 125 feet, 75 feet would be consumed by the required front yard setback 
and 50 feet the entire balance of the widest part would be consumed by the required 50 
feet setback for the rear yard the side yard lines are not involved in this request, but in 
practical matter this is an non-buildable piece of ground.  He wanted some background on 
the transaction that took place.

Mr. Routson stated he could save Mr. Milligan a lot of time because this same tract came 
before the BZA two or three years ago and it was turned down.  He said he hoped Mr. 
Callahan didn’t pay too much for this, because the board said the same things Mr. 
Milligan said that this was a non-buildable lot. 

Mr. Milligan stated that if that is the position shared by the rest of the board then he 
would sit down. He just wanted to make sure that was a uniform feeling.  The discussions 
that the sellers had with Mr. Callahan’s son, who did all the negotiating, was the proposed 
buyer every time they talked.   It was discussed that you couldn’t build anything on the lot 
and his son said he just wanted a place that he would be able to pasture a mule and a 
horse. That is what he told the sellers.  The sellers used it for haymaking and for grazing 
cattle.  And they of course own the land on the other side.  They live up on Pleasant Plain 
up on the north side of the tract.  As a result their full discussion was that it was non-
buildable then.  When it came time to close, he said that his father was going to come up 
with the purchase money. So it was purchased for $1750.00.  There aren’t any building 
lots in Wayne County selling for that today and so the purchase price reflected that it was 
a non-buildable lot.  He said he would curtail my remarks and if they had any questions of 
the persons from Cardinal Greenway here or him, he would be happy to answer them.  In 
lieu of Mr. Routson remarks he said he would curtail them.

Mrs. Ferris thanked Mr. Milligan. She stated she didn’t think they really need anyone else 
to speak because the issue is settled just on the basis of the facts of the dimensions of the 
lot. She asked Mr. Callahan if he wanted to say something.

Mr. Callahan said he was hoping they would give him the land instead of selling it to him 
for that much.  He said he knew that you folks know more than he does.  But after they 
were talking about the zoning law 75 ft back from the 35 right-of-way he thought he had 
that, the 50 ft from the C & O Railroad after that is taken off he thought he had 70 feet 
left and he wants to put a 24 ft building on that.

Mrs. Ferris said that they just had the information that the widest part of his lot now that 
is considering what Cardinal Greenway owns and considering the right of way of 35.

Mr. Callahan said after you take the right-of-way off from 35 the 75 feet there is 70 feet 
left up to the 50 feet that Cardinal Greenway is supposed to own.

Mrs. Ferris stated that according to the information that they have on the dimension there 
is not room for the building.

Mr. Callahan asked is that considered to be his back property line.

Mrs. Ferris asked what would be considered his back property line.

Mr. Callahan stated Cardinal Greenway.

Mrs. Ferris questioned where his back property line is located.

Mr. Milligan stated it is 50 feet from the railroad. 

Mrs. Ferris stated  they own 100 feet in other words.

Mr. Callahan replied no, they own 50 on his side and his understanding is, and honestly 
he had checked, the state law, that on your back property line, approved by the board, you 
can build within 3 ft of that property line.

Mrs. Ferris told Mr. Callahan that they do have our own zoning laws in Wayne County 
and that is what they are going by are the Wayne County Zoning Laws.  According to the 
information that the board has, and there are other reasons too, Mr. Callahan cannot build 
a house there and he cannot have an accessory building without a house.  There are 
several reasons, it was her understanding, that he had been given this information in the 
past and have proceeded anyway with some things you were doing without permits.

Mr. Callahan stated he did everything he was asked to do. He got the driveway, he got the 
deed, he got the septic permit and he had all of that.  He was told when he got that he 
should have no problem with getting a permit to build and the footage is there. 

Mrs. Winchester stated that no Mr. Callahan that was not correct.  She instructed him 
herself, that an accessory structure on this property, while in the A-1, is not a permitted 
use prior to a principle use.  She also informed him that this property went before the 
Board of Zoning Appeals by the previous owner and was turned down for a home, so he 
knew what he was up against in that regard.  She added she instructed him that this 
needed to go before Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance, to see if they would allow 
him to have an accessory structure prior to a principle use.  And she told him what the 
setbacks are for an accessory structure.  It is correct that it can be 3 feet from the rear and 
side property lines for an accessory, not within 3 feet, but 3 feet and no closer.  That is the 
bare minimum for an accessory structure in the A-1. 

Mrs. Ferris said but an accessory structure implies that there is a main structure.

Mrs. Winchester answered that is correct.  They don’t have a main structure so the board 
would have to address that issue.   Also this accessory structure cannot be considered a 
principal use structure.  So if they were to approve it, they could allow it to be 3 feet from 
the rear.  That is correct in that aspect.  But unfortunately Mr. Callahan chose to go ahead 
and place a structure, which he is calling a temporary structure, on the property.  The 
board should be advised that this structure is larger that 120 sq. ft., which building code 
requires that it have a permanent foundation and not just runners, but regardless of the 
120 sq. ft., any new structure requires a zoning and building permits and he was 
instructed in that regard.  

Mr. Callahan stated ok.  But he doesn’t understand the reason that he can’t build because 
he knows that by law he is allowed to build.

Mrs. Ferris stated what you are allowed to build is an accessory building, which means 
you have to have a main structure.  If your lot were big enough to have a house there you 
could have an accessory structure 3 feet from your property line, but you have to have a 
main structure. But you are not able to build a main structure.  She asked if that was 
correct.

Mr. Cross stated the board is in a position it could approve your request but it would have 
to be upon condition you building a primary construction and that is an impossibility 
given the dimension of the lot you have Mr. Callahan.  He added he didn’t think that he 
would advise the board to engage in the practice of creating conditions that are totally 
impossible to achieve.  So he thought that’s the dilemma Mr. Callahan finds himself in 
and that’s why the lot was deemed non-buildable under the prior ownership when the 
issue came before this board.

Mr. Callahan said thanks and that it was time to go to work.

Mr. Casey made a motion to close the public hearing, Mr. Pollock seconded and it passed 
with a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Casey made a motion to move to facts of finding Mr. Pollock seconded and it passed 
with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS
	
1.	Mr. Pollock moved, “that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health safety, moral an general welfare of the community", Mr. Routson 
seconded and the findings were four (4) to zero (0) in opposition in a roll 
call vote.
2	Mr. Casey moved, “that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affect in a substantially 
adverse manner”, Mr. Routson seconded and the findings were four (4) to 
zero (0) in opposition in a roll call vote.
3	Mr. Routson moved, “that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in the practical difficulties in the use of the 
property", Mr. Casey seconded and the findings were four (4) to zero (0) in 
opposition in a roll call vote.

Mr. Routson moved for denial of BZA 01-09 based on the finding of fact.  Mr. Pollock 
seconded, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition was denied based on what they were talking about 
before, the dimensions.  There cannot be an accessory without a principal structure and 
you cannot have a principal structure.  She told Mr. Callahan that he would get a letter.

BZA 01-10	Petition Of Gregory Dale, representing Voyle Dale for a variance of the 
developmental standards, to reduce the frontage requirements from 80 ft to 
54 ft, in order to split off 1.52 acres for developmental purposes, at 15854 
Hoover Road property located as follows: Being part of the center corner 
of Section 10, Township 17 North, Range 12 East in Jefferson Township, 
Wayne County Indiana containing an area of 27.095 acres more or less and 
being subject to the right-of-way of Hoover Road and any easements of 
record. 

Gregory Dale, 15854 Hoover Road, Hagerstown,

Mrs. Ferris stated they have drawing and they understand that he wants to split off some
property there and he is asking for a variance there.

Mr. Dale answered yes, he is looking at a reduction from 80 feet to 54 feet for the
proposed site for his father.  He couldn’t take his house out of specifications that is why 
he had to shrink that 80 feet to 54 feet to keep his 27.9 acres and road frontage in 
compliance.  

Mrs. Winchester stated he needed to maintain the 250 feet because of the lay out of the 
land. If he gave at least 80 feet to the new property he would lose the minimum 250 feet 
along the road, all though the minimum is 80 feet along the road he couldn’t even 
maintain the 250 in front of the home which is the absolute standard so the 250 has to 
remain along the road for the existing home.  He is not allowed to bring an existing home 
out of compliance.  The new lot is not subject to the subdivision ordinance because this 
property has not been split for developmental purposes since March 10, 1993 so if 
approved this does not need a variance of use it would just be a regular first time split.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dale.

Mr. Casey asked if the driveway for this proposed home was on the east side of those 
existing homes along Hoover Road.

Mr. Dale replied yes.

Mr. Casey asked if Mr. Dale lived in the house that would be directly west of the drive 
then.

Mr. Dale replied yes.

Mr. Casey asked if this proposed house would sit behind his house.

Mr. Dale replied yes, it would.

Mr. Casey said it was his impression that when he drove along the road he saw several 
ponds back there. He asked if there was room to build a house back there.

Mr. Dale replied one of those was his and yes.  He said his dad is definitely is going to 
have the scenic plot but you do that for your dad.

Mr. Casey asked if  there is sufficient land to build a reasonable size home.

Mr. Dale answered correct.  The lot he came up to is 1.52 acres on the drawing and the 
dimensions were laid out to accommodate the size of the house and the garage and have 
ample setbacks from both the back lines and the side lines with ample frontage.

Mrs. Ferris stated that she had a note from Mrs. Madden.  She is a little concerned about 
the sight of the house because of the septic.  They are going to need a large septic system. 
She is stating that the whole back yard is going to have to be a septic system.  Mrs. Ferris
asked if he was aware of what he needed to do?

Mr. Dale replied that whatever the county requires for that system the funding of such a 
system won’t be a problem. It is going to be a 3-bedroom structure and require minimal 
excavating so to speak.

Mrs. Ferris asked if the total that he owned is 27 acres.

Mr. Dale replied yes.

Mrs. Ferris asked if he was taking out 1.5.

Mr. Dale replied yes 1.52.

Mrs. Ferris asked if this is actually going to be platted off and deeded to him. 

Mr. Dale stated that that is his plan.

Mrs. Ferris asked if he had the health department out.  She asked if he had checked with 
them.

Mr. Dale stated that he had not.  He wanted to see if the proposed sight was something 
the board would approve for his first split with reduction of the frontage.  He said he 
didn’t want to put any money or my eggs in a basket if the basket is not there.  This is sort 
of his starting step.

Mrs. Ferris said ok.  Her thought was as he checks into the drainage and realizes that he 
needs to have a little bit more property he would have the property available to add to it.

Mr. Dale replied absolutely.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any more questions.  She then asked if there was anyone to 
speak in favor of this petition or anyone to speak in opposition.

Mr. Casey made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Pollock seconded, which 
passed with a unanimous vote.

Board  Discussion:

Mr. Casey stated that he didn’t have a problem with this since he owns the property and 
he is going to allow another home to be built behind his.  He didn’t have a problem. 

Mrs. Ferris stated she understands the frontage, but she didn’t understand it when she first 
saw it.

Mr. Pollock stated if he proceeds to build the house out there he will have to have a septic 
system that meets code.

Mr. Routson moved that they proceed to the facts of finding.  Mr. Pollock seconded 
which passed with a unanimous vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Pollock moved, “that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the community", Mr. 
Casey seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.
2.	Mr. Casey moved, “that the value of the area adjacent to the property 
included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse 
manner", Mr. Routson seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) 
roll call vote.
3.	Mr. Routson moved, “that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property", 
Mr. Pollock seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call 
vote. 

Mr. Pollock moved to approve BZA 01-10 subject to the finding of facts.  Mr. Casey 
seconded the motion, which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition was approved.  She asked if he needed to come in and 
get anything in the office.

Mrs. Winchester replied no.  He just needs to go through the proper procedure and have it 
surveyed and platted and it will hit her desk at some point.

BZA 01-11	Petition of Lawrence & Saralee Yandl for a variance of the developmental 
standards, to reduce the side yard setback from 50 feet to  40 feet when a 
mobile home is replaced with a manufactured home at 2811 W. Fountain 
City Pike, property located as follows: Township 17 North , Range 14 East 
in New Garden Township, Wayne County, Indiana, containing as area of 
1.00 acres more or less and being subject to the right-of-way of W. 
Fountain City Pike and any easements of record.

Ted Yandl 2811 W. Fountain City Pike stated he is here as an agent for his father.  They 
are wanting to remove the existing mobile home there and either build a modular or build 
a small 3 bedroom house.  They only have 1.00 acre and he understands he needs 1.5 
acres. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if he is planning to proceed as soon as he gets approval.

Mr. Yandl replied yes.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Casey asked if they were going to remove that mobile home before they build. 

Mr. Yandl replied no, he'd like to live in it while they build.

Mr. Casey stated according to his drawing the new home is going to set east of the 
driveway.

Mr. Yandl said the mobile home is west of the driveway. 

Mr. Casey stated the setback is ok.  They are just talking about the side yard.  He asked if
that is right. 

Mrs. Winchester said that the deed states an acre or more and because of the placement of 
the new home the owner believes there would be 40 feet from the line on the side.

Mrs. Ferris asked if he could see that the board is a little unsure of what he is going to 
Build.  Does his drawing show the largest the house would ever be?

Mr. Yandl said yes, after they get okayed and decide to build a house it wouldn’t be any 
bigger. 

Mr. Casey asked if according to the drawing the house is going to sit side ways on the lot.

Mr. Yandl stated right.  It will sit north to south.  He thinks that is the only way to put it 
the way his lot is shaped.

Mr. Casey stated unless he removed that mobile home first.

Mr. Yandl said then he wouldn’t have the frontage on that side.  His property is an L 
shape. 

Mr. Casey stated the drawing may be incorrect.  He asked how far back is that mobile 
home back from the road.

Mr. Yandl replied 100 feet to the front of mobile home, but then he only had about
another 40 feet the neighbor’s property line.

Mrs. Ferris asked if there were anymore questions or anyone to speak in favor of the 
petition is there anyone in opposition.

Mr. Casey made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Pollock seconded, which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.
 
BOARD DISCUSSION:

Mr. Casey stated that they need to include in their approval that this mobile home be 
removed.

Mrs. Ferris said it would have to be removed after they finish putting the new home in.

Mr. Yandl asked if they could live in it while they build.

Someone replied yes.

Mr. Yandl stated that is no problem.

Mr. Pollock made a motion to proceed to Finding Of Facts, Mr. Casey seconded which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Pollock moved, "that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community", Mr. Casey 
seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.
2.	Mr. Casey moved, "that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner", Mr. Routson seconded and it passed with a four (4) to 
zero (0) roll call vote.
3.	Mr. Routson moved, "that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property", 
Mr. Casey seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mr. Pollock moved to approve BZA 01-11 subject to the findings of fact, with the 
stipulation that the trailer must be removed.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the mobile home had to be moved after the new home is built.

Mr. Routson asked if they were going to give 30 days. 

Mr. Yandl said it won’t take that long.

Mr. Casey said that it might not hurt to just stipulate that we will give them 30 days.

Mr. Routson then seconded the motion.  It passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition had been approved.

BZA 01-12	Petition of Donald & Allene Hypes for a variance of the developmental 
standards, to build a room addition onto the rear of their existing home 
which is sixty feet from the right-of-way of North US 27 at 5434  North 
US 27, property located as follows: lot number Eight(8) in Cummings’ 
Brothers Subdivision first addition, an addition to the New Garden  
Township, Wayne County, Indiana and being subject to the right-of-way of 
US 27 and any easements of record.

Donald Hypes, 5434 US 27 North.  He stated they would like to build a room addition on 
his home.  Right now they have a patio with a wood deck with a metal cover over it and 
they would just take that out.  He said that he had contacted Ingle Builders to build this 
room.  It is his understanding that they are 60 feet from the right-of-way and they need to 
be 65.

Mrs. Ferris stated that this is just a little glitch and they are hoping to get this changed so 
that people like the Hypes don’t have to come in and do this because obviously they’re 
not going to be less in compliance when they do this.  She asked if there were any other 
questions.

Mr. Casey asked to clarify where the porch is now that that is where the family room is 
going to go.  He asked if they are going to put a porch on the side of it.

Mr. Hypes replied yes.  That will sit in the southwest corner, which is the back of the 
property and right to the north of that they are putting in a small wood deck.

Mr. Casey replied ok.

Mr. Hypes stated that one roof will cover all, including the new patio.

Mrs. Ferris asked if  there was anyone else to speak in favor of the petition or anyone to 
speak in opposition of the petition.

Mr. Routson made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Casey seconded which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.  

Mr. Routson made a motion to proceed to finding of facts.  Mr. Pollock seconded which 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Casey moved, "that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community", Mr. Pollock 
seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

2.	Mr.  Pollock moved, "that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner", Mr. Casey seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero 
(0) roll call vote.

3.	Mr. Routson moved, "that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property", 
Mr. Casey seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) call vote.

Mr. Routson made a motion to approval BZA 01-12 based on finding of fact. Mr. Pollock 
seconded which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition had been approved just come in to the office to fill out 
the necessary papers.

BZA 01-13	Petition of Todd B. Cates for a variance of the developmental 
standards to replace an existing home with a modular home with 
front covered porch to be attached to the existing detached garage 
with a new front yard setback of 76.84 feet at 7656 Brooks Road, 
property located as follows: being part of the Southeast Quarter of 
Section 36, Township 18 North, Range 13 East, in Green 
Township, Wayne County, Indiana, containing an area of 11.137 
acres and being subject to the right-of-way of US 35 North and 
Brooks Road and any easements of record.

Todd Cates, 8047 Brooks Road, stated he wants to tear down the existing house and put a 
modular on the west side of the garage which is only 80 ft off the road.

Mrs. Ferris asked if they are going to tear down the old house first.

Mr. Cates  replied yes.

Mrs. Ferris asked if it is going to be attached to the garage.

Mr. Cates replied yes.

Mrs. Ferris stated it looks like the present house is actually closer to the home than the 
new home will be.  She asked if that is correct.

Mr. Cates stated the existing home is closer than the one they will be building. 

Mr. Casey asked if Mr. Cates was going to live in the house.

Mr. Cates replied yes.

Mr. Ferris asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Cates or anyone else to speak in 
favor of the petition. 

Mrs. Winchester stated Mr. Cates had discussed placing a covered porch so it would be 
76 feet if they were to approve it.  She asked if he wanted them to approve the distance 
that they were needing.  She told him he wouldn’t want to have to come back before this 
board.

Mrs. Ferris asked if that took away from the 76.

Mrs. Winchester stated when he first said 80 feet, she was concerned because if the board 
were to approve 80 feet and he came to the office wanting 76, they could not proceed 
with that.

Mrs. Ferris asked if 76 feet is okay.

Mr. Routson stated that Mrs. Madden had made a recommendation here about removing 
the existing structure before a new one goes in. 

Mrs. Ferris asked if it was her understanding that they are going to tear down the existing 
house before, because if they didn’t they would have two houses on the property.  She 
then told Mr. Cates he could have 60 days to tear down the old house.

Mr. Cates stated that the house was already down.

Mrs. Ferris asked if it is down now.

Mr. Routson stated that it wasn’t down yesterday.

Mr. Routson made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Pollock seconded and it 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Routson made a motion to proceed to finding of facts.  Mr. Pollock seconded and it 
passed with a unanimous voice vote.

FINDING OF FACTS:

1.	Mr. Pollock moved, "that the approval will not be injurious to the public 
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community", Mr. Casey 
seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

2.	Mr. Casey moved, "that the use and value of the area adjacent to the 
property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially 
adverse manner", Mr. Routson seconded and it passed with a four (4) to 
zero (0) roll call vote.

3.	Mr. Routson moved, "that the application of the terms of the Zoning 
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property", 
Mr. Casey seconded and it passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mr. Pollock made a motion to approve BZA 01-13 subject to the finding of facts.  Mr. 
Casey seconded which passed with a four (4) to zero (0) roll call vote.

Mrs. Ferris stated that the petition has been approve.  She told Mr. Cates that he could 
stop by the office and fill out the necessary papers.

Mr. Routson stated that the property the Yandl’s owned his sister owned it at one time 
that trailer was there and they split it off that way because they had their horse riding 
arena in that L shape.

Mr. Routson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Casey seconded which passed 
with a unanimous vote.

There was no further business; meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.






By: _________________________________
       Mary Ferris, Chairwoman



Attest: _______________________________
	Lynn Madden, Secretary












11

36