VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING MEETING

July 21, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 21^st day of July, 2003 in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding. The rezoning petitions began to be heard at 6:19 p.m. during the Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners regular meeting.

President Mosby: First reading, VC-14-2003, petitioner, Robert Fraser and Bonnie Fraser, 4011 Wolcott Street, request change from R-1 to M-2. VC-15-2003, petitioner, Warren W. Spurling, 5100 Spring Valley Road, request change from C-4 to C-2. VC-16-2003, petitioner, Louis M. Zeller III, and Cynthiana B. Zeller, 9301 Cynthiana Road, request change from Ag to C-4. Do I have a motion to adopt first readings?

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Which brings us to third and final reading of rezoning petitions. Is Tammy gone? I needed her to go over and get Steve Bohleber.

Kevin Winternheimer: I’ll go get him.

President Mosby: Steve’s going to be in City Council, so just holler at him. Final reading VC-10-2003, petitioner, Fred Puckett, 6318 Peacock Lane, request change from Ag to C-2. Is the petitioner here?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

President Mosby: Okay. Or a spokesman for the petitioner?

Ken Colbert: Good evening.

President Mosby: Good evening.

Ken Colbert: The name is Ken Colbert. Quick introductions, Fred and Jodie Puckett are the actual petitioners. The owner of the real estate is Mr. Walter Bunner.

Madelyn Grayson: Mr. Colbert, do you have an extra copy for the record by any chance?

Ken Colbert: Yes, I do. Do you need any extras?

Madelyn Grayson: Whatever you gave the Commissioners.

Ken Colbert: The request is obviously to rezone it from agricultural to a C-2, special use commitment for an antique shop. Under the C-2 classification, as you’re probably aware, there is approximately 110 different classifications that are available, and the Puckett’s request is to only have the rezoning for one exclusive purpose, and that’s for their home based antique shop. In front of you are some photographs actually taken from the property surrounding it. Directly south of it there is a single family dwelling that has been a rental unit where they’ve had, regrettably, some drug activity. They’ve also had some non-conforming zoning take place, there was an upholstery shop there at one point. You’ll notice too that the northwest corner is also, it’s currently agricultural, but it is being marketed by the Remax office for commercial application. Same way with the northeast and the southeast, that’s the Woodward development. Directly west there is currently an operating business. There’s a photograph of the actual truck on the property. The aerial view of the Lynch Road extension may help to clarify that photo as well. Directly north there is a strip of land that is currently zoned agricultural, that is currently being marketed by ERA as commercial development. My point is, the Peacock property, literally all around it, is currently commercial or being marketed as commercial real estate. When the developer of this property, Mr. George Peacock, developed this approximately 50 years ago, there have been a number of home based businesses on a non-conforming use that have been taking place. I mentioned one of them which is directly west known as Kuper Trucking. There is also another one at 3300 Durre Lane by a Jeff Norrington. There is currently two pole barns that he uses to manufacture different types of craft items that he sells throughout the community in different locations. Directly south, again, there was a non-conforming upholstery shop. My point is, historically there has been some type of commercial activity that’s been occurring on that particular lane for a number of years. Almost all of it non-conforming. Regrettably, Mr. Bunner was having difficulty in selling his real estate as strictly a residential property, which would be the ideal purpose, but because of the recent development that has occurred, it’s left the Bunner’s with very limited options to be able to divest themselves of that real estate. They either do nothing with it, or, obviously, rent the property out, which is obviously a detriment. It’s been proven based upon even the rental property directly south of there, where they had the drug runs. Or obviously Mr. Bunner could impact his investment by substantially reducing the price of the real estate. We believe that the best use of that real estate would be to still have it as a single family dwelling, but with the condition that it be allowed to promote and market an in-home antique shop, based upon this special use commitment. The Puckett’s have no plans to do any further exterior modifications to the property. It would still be maintained as a primary residence. In their use and development they also said that they would not allow or permit any type of billboards to be erected, which is available in the C-2 classification. There was concern in front of the Area Plan Commission about the excess use of traffic being generated. Obviously, the real estate is on the corner of Lynch and Burkhardt, and if any traffic would occur, it would not even be going down that particular lane. The Puckett’s had been talking to a number of the people in the community about their intent to have the property rezoned. There were a number of them, one particular individual that had commented that they were not adverse to the antique shop, but asked that the property not be rezoned, which basically they were asked just to continue doing it, even though it was non-conforming. The Puckett’s with the integrity that they have, are asking for the property to be rezoned for that application. There was also further concern that perhaps if the rezoning was made available, that it would open up Pandora’s box, or the opportunity to do something different with the real estate. With the use and development, obviously, it’s for one sole purpose, and it would have to go through the entire process with the Area Plan Commission to make those necessary modifications, based upon a different type of use. The Puckett’s have been in business, Puckett’s Treasures and Collectibles, for over 50 years. They are now down sizing. They’ve had shops throughout the community, in different states, and their intent is to literally divest themselves of the majority of their holdings, and have a mom and pop organization directly in the family room, which is approximately 400 square feet. There’s currently 20 houses in this particular development, which would include Peacock Lane, Fitzgerald, and Durre Lane. They are currently either zoned agricultural or residential, at this point. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Is there any questions of Mr. Colbert? Seeing none. We’ll give their attorney a chance to speak, and then if you want to have a two minute rebuttal, you can.

Ken Colbert: Thank you.

Kevin Winternheimer: Mr. President, what we just passed out by the Area Plan Commission staff, a petition I believe that was received at the APC meeting against the rezoning. We want to make it a part of the record of the meeting.

President Mosby: Okay.

Steve Bohleber: Yes, members of the County Commission. Welcome, my name is Steve Bohleber. I represent Bob and Shirley Kuper, and Mike Kuper, who are sitting behind me, and some of the neighbors along Peacock and Fitzgerald Road who are opposed to this petition. This is for many of them their fourth time to be down here to voice this opposition, and they do come armed with a significant number of their neighbors in petition form, and I do ask that that be made a part of the record. I also ask that my previous comments and the records of the Plan Commission be made a part of the record as well. The assertion that this is surrounded by commercial is certainly not borne by the maps that you have been given. With the exceptions of the properties to the east of Burkhardt, everything along this section of Burkhardt, to the west, is residential or agricultural. The Plan Commission recognizes this and has drawn a line saying that, in their opinion, it is not a good idea to develop commercial activities on the west side of Burkhardt along this section. To do so would be contrary to the comprehensive plan, which is intended to protect this residential development. In the past this Commission, although not the current elected members, has steadfastly refused to rezone property west of Burkhardt in this neighborhood. In July of 2000 after a significant public debate, the Commission unanimously rejected a petition to commercially rezone property south of Peacock and west of Burkhardt. My clients respectfully disagree with the petitioner and the realtor representing them, if this property is zoned C-2, the residential character will be forever altered. Peacock would become a commercial conduit. A commercial drive would need to be installed on the property. Commercial property, paved parking with aisles would need to be installed. Based upon my experience with the County Health Department, there would even be careful scrutiny about the septic system that serves this unit, and may even require a commercial system, which wouldn’t even probably fit on that lot. As currently presented, to rezone this property would create a non-conforming residential structure when the entire lot becomes C-2. That means the house can’t be enlarged, remodeled, or changed. It would become frozen in place, and a hostage to the commercial zoning classification. As you’re well aware, if a residential, non-conforming structure ceases to be residential for a period of time, it forever loses that ability. The net effect of doing this would destine, not only this property for greater commercial development, but would invite others up and down Burkhardt on that side to attempt the same thing. Because this has appeared three times before the Plan Commission before it got to you folks, the first time I was not present, but because of comments by your engineer, John Stoll, and at the urging of the Plan Commission members, the petition was continued to ask the petitioner to submit a use commitment. That was done. Unfortunately, that falls far short of protecting this neighborhood. All it does is generically limit the property to an antique shop, without limitation on the square footage, and also prohibits billboards. Nothing prohibits the use of this entire parcel for commercial purposes. Nothing guarantees a continued residential use. If this business is successful, and the proposed owners have been successful antique dealers for decades, it’s logical to believe that the entire structure would be consumed by that commercial purpose. Obviously, if this happens, there would be increased traffic, parking would be adversely affected, and it would create the very congestion that these folks fear the most. Such a development would only encourage the contiguous properties to seek commercial status. My clients have reason to believe that an adjacent owner to this property is anxious for this to be rezoned, so that he can use this rezoning to bootstrap his own ambitions to seek commercial rezoning for his property. My point is with the use commitment, if they intend to use 420 square feet, why isn’t that in the use and development commitment? With respect to signage, the use commitment only prohibits off premises advertising, or as we call them, billboards. Your C-4 classification, or C-2, excuse me, allows a 200' on premises sign at 50' that can be lighted. The possibility of that sign just advertising this little home business is frightening enough. Such a sign would be just as undesirable to this neighborhood as any billboard. Likewise, and again, I wasn’t at the first meeting of the Plan Commission, but I get the impression talking to my clients that the Plan Commission members felt that a more viable approach to this, if it was to be passed at all, would be something in the use commitment to require the owners, whoever they might be in the future, to come forward again and rezone the property back to it’s current rezoning if it ever ceased to be a antique shop. That’s not included. I realize that’s kind of unusual, but I’ve used that mechanism many times to solve some knotty problems, and gain some favor from the neighborhood. Sixty people have signed that petition. The opposition is strong. It’s dedicated. These people have been here four times. They vigorously oppose this petition. They believe it will only lead to a destruction of the Peacock Road residential neighborhood that they all cherish. As you notice, this does come with a relatively strong “do not pass” recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. I think there’s some folks back here, just about everybody here is probably, who is opposed to this? Raise your hand, stand up. This is probably a smaller turn out than they’ve had at some meetings, but there’s been a resolute and steadfast opposition to this. I ask the Commission to do what this Commission did last time someone attempted to rezone property for commercial purposes on this side of Burkhardt. I ask the Commission to do what the Area Plan Commission did a couple of weeks ago, and that’s vote no on this petition. Thank you.

President Mosby: Any questions of Mr. Bohleber?

Commissioner Fanello: I have one question for Mr. Bohleber.

Steve Bohleber: Yes, ma’am.

Commissioner Fanello: Mr. Bohleber, we’ve heard, I’ve heard conflicting stories about, and Mr. Colbert I think just stated a few minutes ago about other commercial type businesses. Can you explain there? Do you have anything to offer?

Steve Bohleber: I have no knowledge of commercial businesses in that area. I have a long standing knowledge of that lane, because my former secretary lived there. I think various people spoke at the Plan Commission meeting and denied that. Some of them are here this evening.

Commissioner Fanello: I read that in the Area Plan Commission minutes. That’s why I’m asking.

Steve Bohleber: I didn’t go out and do a house to house search, okay? But, my clients tell me that that’s not accurate. They told the Plan Commission that’s not accurate. It sort of begs the question, because if somebody’s operating illegally, we should shut them down. We’re not talking about illegal operations, we’re talking about whether we should legalize a C-2 classification here. That’s the peril.

President Mosby: Is there any...was there any other questions of Mr. Bohleber?

Commissioner Fanello: Not unless anyone has anything to add to that?

President Mosby: Was there any other neighbors that wanted to speak? Okay. Let’s just start this a way, and we’ll work our way to the right.

Lisa Kohl: Hi, my name is Lisa Kohl. I live at 6113 Peacock Lane. I guess, my big question is, why with so much opposition and in this particular stage in life that these individuals want to start a business in an area that is so adamantly opposed against it. I think that there’s bigger things going on here. I fear that the adjacent property across the street will indeed, if this passes, come before you to again be passed to a C-2. It is for investment type purposes. The individual owns that property and front footage of the other properties. I would also like to note that in back of us on Fitzgerald, there is residential development right now. So, as far as I know there’s not any commercial development on our side of the street. I think that you’re doing a great injustice. I mean, we are already there, and we should offer some protection. You have a recommending board, and that was the Area Plan Commission, and so, I hope that you will take their recommendation into consideration. I don’t want to keep going over the same thing, but it’s very important, you know, it’s our property. I can understand Mr. Bunner’s frustration with, you know, we did have, we did suffer some damage with the rezoning of the Woodward development across the street. I mean, that’s a fact, but that’s the way that it is. There are other properties, if you go up and down Burkhardt...at the Country Trace Subdivision, when they widened, he’s not the only property there that’s been hurt by that. All of those people still maintain their residence. So, you’ve got, you know, not just our small neck of the woods, but you’ve got residential development behind us, and over 100 homes right across the cornfield that would be greatly affected, because you are going to pick it to pieces, because people wanting to make a quick buck, or make more money off of the property by rezoning it in a commercial area. You know, I think you need to be fair to the property owners that already live there. So, I would appreciate a no vote. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Any questions? The next gentleman.

Charlie Sumner: My name is Charlie Sumner. I live on Fitzgerald Road. I’ve been to four of these now, and actually I think Mr. Colbert should consider a career change from real estate to fertilizer sales. I’m very offended by some of the remarks he’s making about our neighborhood. We do not have a retail operation in our neighborhood, nor do we want one. That’s why we’re fighting this so hard. That is, that’s everyone in this neighborhood. Most of the people that have been showing up, we’re about half of what have been at the meetings. Those people are out of town or working and couldn’t be here, otherwise we would have a bigger force here. We’re really hoping that you will go with the decision made a few weeks ago, and listen to our voice. It’s our neighborhood. Please save our neighborhood. Thank you.

President Mosby: Any questions? Thank you.

Jeff Norrington: I’m Jeff Norrington. I live at 3300 Durre Lane. My wife and I had a craft business in our garage, in our home for 12 years, but contrary to what you heard tonight, we never sold out of there. We took our stuff, loaded it in the truck, took it to craft shows. We never, ever created a problem, had people in buying stuff. That never happened. So, I just wanted to clarify that, and let you all know what the deal was. Now we’ve been out of business for three years. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Did anybody else want to speak? Did you want to speak?

Bob Kuper: My name is Bob Kuper. I live on 6319 Peacock Lane. I guess, I’m the guy that caused the trouble with the truck you all got a picture of. This truck hasn’t been, I’ve been retired for four years. It never done any commercial stuff except for Mulzer Crushed Stone. After I retired from one job, I got another job with Mulzer’s. But this truck was just drove by me back and forth and parked. It seems like everything...there’s a home that was sold across the street from Bunner, is waiting for a C-2 too. It’s just a matter of if it gets it now, all of it will be. This neighborhood has always been people that had two jobs, and, you know, in the 60's and 70's you had to do this. Times weren’t that good. So, that’s why people done odd things like this, but they never created a problem, or somebody would have complained in the neighborhood. These people all stick together. I think we’ll have a real traffic problem at that intersection, because the younger generation, they can’t come off of Burkhardt like it used to be, they gotta keep moving. Thirty feet from that intersection is going to be cars selling antiques, bringing them, and buying them, and looking and not buying. Too many vehicles at that corner, if you all have ever been there and took a good look you would know what I’m talking about. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. The gentleman behind him, did you want to speak?

Ken Larmore: My name is Ken Larmore. I live at 6108 Fitzgerald Road. Pardon me. My wife and I built the house, actually the second house on the first block of Fitzgerald in 1998, and were welcomed by many of the neighbors who had lived there for years and years. There are more young families coming into the area. I know my neighbor who has been here to all of these meetings has three children. My wife and I just had a child. The kids are prevalent in the neighborhood. There are more and more of them riding their bikes, just being kids. It would be a shame to see any kind of a commercial establishment encroach not only in our neighborhood, but also on the east side of, rather the west side of Burkhardt. I almost resent the gentleman’s assertation that there’s a drug problem in the neighborhood. I know that there was a rental property at the end of Peacock where there unfortunately was some difficulty, but this is a very close knit neighborhood, and there is not a drug problem in this neighborhood. One of the things that scares me about the potential commercial development with this property and potentially others is that it will lock us back in this little corner, where none of us, should we choose, would be able to move out of. I have seen that happen in some different areas in Evansville, and I think that the Planning Commission has addressed some of those problems certainly with the future development. My hope is that you will continue to recognize that, and vote your conscience. So, thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Did you want to talk? I’m looking behind you, did you want, and then I’ll.

Unidentified: I wasn’t going to get up anyway. I can’t even hear good enough to be up there.

President Mosby: Then I’ll come around the front.

Rosa Lateulere: I wasn’t going to get up. I’m a little nervous.

President Mosby: We’re not forcing you. No, go ahead.

Rosa Lateulere: I am Rosa Lateulere. I live at 6211 Peacock Lane, which is the third house on the left from the Bunners, the residence that is in dispute. The only thing that I want to say is that the street is very narrow, very close to the intersection. It is extremely difficult to get in and out of there anymore, because we don’t have a light, but when they used to have their parties, Christmas parties, when they used to live there, the traffic just from the people that work at school, I guess, their friends, would come and the traffic would be very bad, and the very narrow road. They had to park all the way down to the front of our house, and that creates a problem. That was only once a year, so, it’s okay, but now that they want to put a business and bring all that stuff in there, and trucks in and out , like the other neighbors said, that’s going to really create a problem, because then we won’t be able to go in or out. When you are coming in, you have to go in fast, or you’re going to get out fast. If you have cars parked on each side, and who is going to go and make sure that the cars are not parked on the street, because there is nobody going to do that. It’s just going to be very difficult to get in and out. Like the other neighbor said, there’s kids that live on that road, and there’s busses that go on that road, down that road, those big busses from school, and they have to come around. So, there’s no room for commercial properties in there. There really isn’t, unless they are going to widen the road. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Jim Oglesby: I won’t say too much. I’m Jim Oglesby, I live at 6109 Peacock Lane. I hope that you had drove out and kind of looked at our little cul-de-sac, so to speak, since it’s not a thoroughfare, it’s just a little lane. A very narrow street, no curbs, or nothing of this nature. It’s nice and tranquility, and a nice place to live. I was hoping that you would get out there and kind of look it over and see if you could find any commercialism that’s going on anywhere in the block, either on Fitzgerald or wherever out there. It’s not commercial part of the district. There’s too many other places here in the city of Evansville that are vacant, especially along Burkhardt Road for God’s sake that’s got all kind of houses down there for sale, just perfect for any kind of a business such as this kind of a business he’s trying to endeavor. But that’s beside the point, I just want to thank you very much and come on out and look at it.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Unidentified: Could I give you some pictures of the neighborhood to look at?

President Mosby: Sure. Just start them right down here.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Away from mike.) A few of them here are just being built. These people don’t even know about this.

President Mosby: Okay. Did you want to speak, sir?

Unidentified: No.

President Mosby: Did you want to speak?

Unidentified: I can.

President Mosby: No, I mean, we’re not forcing you.

Richard Clouse: They claimed that I was a, my name is Richard Clouse, I live at 5701 Peacock Lane. Years and years ago I did have a private stable back in the woods, but I wasn’t part of the Burkhardt addition. But, my bottom line is, I’m the furthest away from this. Is it going to adversely affect me? Well, traffic wise, yes, because I step on brakes at least eight times when I’m going north on Burkhardt before I try to turn left on Peacock Lane, because I don’t want to get backsided by somebody. Sometimes they barely miss you, and sometimes they just “whew” blow you off the road, when they don’t realize that you’re not turning at Lynch Road. My point is, the integrity of the neighborhood. This has been an established residential neighborhood since 1947, as far as I know. That’s as long as I’ve been alive. There is a situation to where when you have an established neighborhood for families and children that’s residential, like a number of the other neighbors have said, you’re going to open a Pandora’s box. The Plan Commission says that they really don’t feel like they should do that. They didn’t feel like things were properly prepared. My concern is not for myself, it’s for the other neighbors and their children. I do not want to see people who are searching for a particular business where there isn’t a sign, and there shouldn’t be anyway, because that’s going to cause a problem with traffic on Burkhardt. Looking for a place and not paying attention where somebody’s kid is riding their bike. That is not right for the youngsters, it’s not right for the families. This is a family residential neighborhood. There are a number of new homes being built up, single family residences, that’s the way it was established in the Burkhardt addition in 1947, and I would ask you to help it remain that way. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Is there anybody on the remonstrance side that didn’t get to speak, that would like to speak? Mr. Colbert, did you want a rebuttal? Okay. You have a couple of minutes.

Ken Colbert: Thank you. I also believe Mrs. Puckett would like to say a few words too, is that possible?

President Mosby: Okay. Sure, she can come up now if you want before.

Mary Jo Puckett: I only have two things to address about this. Number one, we did have an in-home antique shop when we lived in the south. I wish that we could have a big business with people coming in and out, but if any of you have ever been antiquers and go to little individual shops, you find out you might have a customer, or maybe two one day, and you may not have anyone the next day. We are not anymore, my husband’s age has prevented us from doing shows now, and we used to have Puckett’s Treasures at Washington Square Mall. We sold three years ago. Now we’re just getting too old to even think about doing all that with the antiques. So, we are going to down size, and it would be a very small business. There would never be a large sign. This light business and all that, we’re not going to put that kind of money into having a huge sign out there. But, the main thing, and the main reason that we have gone ahead with this, on a Sunday before the first Commission meeting, Area Planning Commission meeting came about, my husband and I saw Mr. Kuper, Mike Kuper next door drive into his driveway and we were out at the house looking around at the outside. So, we stopped to get acquainted. When we started talking to him that we had applied to begin the process of getting it commercially zoned, he said don’t do that. He said, this neighborhood all works together, there’s no problem. You can have an antique shop and nobody will say a word. I’ve had a business for 20 years. If you’ll look at the first month’s meeting of the Area Planning Commission he related the very same thing to them. That’s where we’re getting the business bit. It was said personally to us, it was said personally to them. I said, no, we have paid our $500, and we are going to either do it right, or not do it all. He insisted that we should just forget it, and go right ahead with our business. So, that’s really the whole story in a nutshell. That’s why we went ahead and continued to try to get it there. We want to do it properly. Thank you for your time.

President Mosby: Thank you. Is there any questions by any member of the Commission?

Ken Colbert: Mr. Bunner, do you want to say anything? Do you mind?

President Mosby: No.

Walter Bunner: I would like to address the traffic issue, and I suppose as much as anybody here I lived on Peacock Lane for almost 50 years, so I know the area. They talk about the narrowness of the street, I was there when it was a gravel road, so I know the condition of the road and the traffic and everything else. 6318 is located on the corner of Peacock Lane and Lynch Road. Anyone going to 6318 Peacock Lane would not travel 50' on Peacock Lane. They would turn off Lynch Road, or Burkhardt Road and directly on into the driveway at 6318. There would not be going up and down the road and running over kids on bicycles, and things of that nature. I would take exception to some of the things that were said up here, but I expect I’d better not. I’m just happy my wife’s not here. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Ken Colbert: Just another comment, if I may on the traffic issue.

President Mosby: Sure.

Ken Colbert: Interesting this weekend there was a rummage sale on Peacock Lane. In fact, the amount of traffic was far greater than what the expectation would be with an antique shop.

Unidentified: That’s a one day affair.

Ken Colbert: Rose Zigenfus from the Transportation department, actually, I think it is part of your packet had also made the requirement that the necessary parking had to be there based upon the square footage, and that they could not back out on Peacock Lane. The aerial photo also shows there’s more than enough access to be able to turn around for that one client per day that would be coming in. In regards to the drug issue, that was actually communicated by one of the residents there at Peacock Lane. It was brought up during one of the rezonings that had taken place. I don’t have first hand knowledge of that, but that was communicated by one of the residents about the drug activity. In conclusion, again, our request is to have the rezoning, based upon what you heard the Puckett’s say as well, to only have the in-home antique shop with the use and development, of not wanting to do any exterior renovations to the property or expansion. Mr. Puckett is 79 years old, I don’t anticipate him wanting to develop his business any further. Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you. Are there any questions by any member of the Commission? Seeing none, the chair would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Fanello: Just so everyone understands, in case you’ve never been to a rezoning, we have to make a motion to approve this to get it on the floor, and then we take a roll call vote. So, motion to approve VC-10-2003.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion to approve VC-10-2003, 6318 Peacock Lane. We will have a roll call vote. Commissioner Crouch?

Commissioner Crouch: This has been a very difficult rezoning. I’ve been there with most of you through the four meetings. When you look at the aerial photo it becomes very apparent to me that at some point in time this is going to be commercial, or there is going to be a commercial zoning that is going to affect you either by being near you, being right next to you, and being somewhere closer than where you want it. I appreciate and respect the Puckett’s for wanting to do what’s right, and to follow the process and the procedure. I just don’t think that right now is the time for this particular rezoning. I think it’s coming at some point in time, but not today. So, I vote no.

President Mosby: Commissioner Fanello?

Commissioner Fanello: I would echo some of those same comments, and while I appreciate the fact that I doubt that an antique shop would probably bring a lot of people during the day, I’m very hesitant about voting for a C-2 in a residential area at this time. So, I vote no.

President Mosby: And myself, and I will vote no. There being three nays, no ayes, this motion is defeated.

Unidentified: Thank you.

President Mosby: Is there any further business to come before the Commission?

Seeing none. Yes?

Commissioner Fanello: Do I need a motion to adjourn here?

President Mosby: I will accept a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

President Mosby: Okay. Second. Second and so moved. So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS:

         Commissioners:

         Jail expenses: Baker Daniels, Kevin Winternheimer, United Consulting

         Travel Requests:

         Health Department                   County Clerk

         Employment Changes:

         Circuit Court                             Coroner                County Clerk

         Sheriff Department                   Burdette Park

         Request for Service: County Highway.

         Treasurer: Submit Monthly Report for June 2003.

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne M. Crouch

         Bill Fluty                          Kevin Winternheimer      Tammy McKinney

         Madelyn Grayson           Don Burton                     John Stoll

         Dennis Hudnall               Gary Hohman                 Lisa Kohl

         Charlie Sumner              Jeff Norrington                Bob Kuper

         Ken Larmore                   Rosa Lateulere               Jim Oglesby

         Richard Clouse               Mary Jo Puckett              Walter Bunner

         Steve Bohleber               Others Unidentified         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

David W. Mosby, President

Catherine Fanello, Vice President

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.