Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETI NG

April 19, 2018

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met Thursday, April 19, 2018, at 6:00 p.m.in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Present: Randy Conwell, Abbey Gross, Stan Minnick, Dennis Sterrett, Chris McWhirter Also attending were Executive Director Colin Betts and Board Secretary Annette Cobb Absent: Abigail Diener

Visitors attending were: Chad Mayhill, Dave Mayhill, and Jeff Campbell

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Sterrett at 6:00 P.M.

*****

Minutes & Findings of Fact: Randy Conwell noted that Vice Chairman Dennis Sterrett needed to be corrected to read Chairman Dennis Sterrett. There was a motion by Randy Conwell and a second by Stan Minnick to approve the meeting minutes and findings of fact dated March 18, 2018 with correction. Motion was carried unanimously.


April 19, 2018

Note: At the Introduction of each case hearing, Director Betts introduced the Staff Report and affiliated documents into the official record of the meeting, to be used as supporting documents for developing the Findings of Fact for each hearing.

Variances & Special Exceptions

#2972-Mayhill

Executive Director Colin Betts read the staff report and presented photos of the subject Site. Director Betts explained that this request is for a 17' Front {1st St.) setback and an 11' rear {South) setback for a personal storage addition to the existing building. The subject building was an accessory structure, but due to proposed addition principle setbacks now apply. There were no questions from the board for Mr. Betts, so Mr. Chad Mayhill stepped to the podium to represent the request. Dennis Sterrett asked for clarification of the building location in relation to the picket fence to the North of the subject parcel. Mr. Mayhill explained that the building addition will be located further back then the said fence. Randy Conwell asked how tall the building will be. Mr. Mayhill conferred with his contractor and stated it will be approximately 20' to the peak. Mr. Betts stated that a principle structure in an R-2 is allowed a maximum height of 35'. When there were no further questions for Mr. Mayhill from the Board, Executive Director Colin Betts passed out the ballots.

After tabulating the ballots, Chairman Dennis Sterrett read the following results into the record: Variance Petition #2972 -5 votes cast;5 votes to grant,0 to deny; Petition Granted

#2973-White County Agricultural Association

Executive Director Colin Betts read the Staff Report and presented photos of the subject site. Director Betts explained that this request is for a 25' front setback off of 25 N for a goat barn addition. The building already enjoys a 14' front setback to Fairgrounds St. granted in 2003; Variance File # 2214. There were no questions from the Board for Mr. Betts, so Jeff Campbell stepped to the podium to represent the request. Mr. Campbell is a member of the Goat Committee and past member of the White County Ag Association. Mr. Campbell pointed out that the Extension Office is positioned closer to the road then where the proposed structure will be located. Randy Conwell asked what the plan is for the area between the building and

the roadway. Mr. Campbell conferred with the Ag Association Owner who stated no parking will be allowed in the area and grass would be planted. The proposed addition will be open sided with the same building height extended 112'. They are proposing, based on wind conditions, to put in 8' panels on each end to reduce the wind draft through the building. There were no further questions from the Board, so Executive Director Colin Betts passed out the ballots.

After tabulating the ballots, Chairman Dennis Sterrett read the following results into the record:

Variance Petition #2973-5 votes cast; 5 voted to grant, 0 to deny; Petition Granted

There being no further business, Abbey Gross made a motion the meeting be adjourned with a second from Stan Minnick. Motion carried unanimously, meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Annette Cobb, Secretary

Area Board of Zoning Appeals

Colin Betts, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission

Document Prepared By: White County Area Plan Secretary Annette Cobb "I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY THAT IHAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT SOCIAL

SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.


April 19,2018

AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Visitor Registration

Please Print Legibly


0

.::- ''cc"" . White County Building & Planning

- 110 N Main St. PO Box 851 Monticello, IN 47960 Phone:(574)583-7355 Fax: (574)583-4624

www.whitecountyindiana.us

FINDINGS OF FACT

FILE #

Variance # 2972

 

APPLICANT

Chad E. Mayhill

LOCATION

Parcel #:91-74-33-005-002. 900-007 Tax ID #: 022-68050-00

REQUEST(S)

The applicant requests a 17' Front (1st St.) setback vs.30' required and an 11"Rear (Southside) setback vs.20' required.

PURPOSE

The applicant requests the setbacks to add a 70' extension to the existing building for personal storage••

HEARING DATE

April 19,2018

The Area Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter referred to as "Board") of White County, Indiana, at a public meeting, properly advertised pursuant to IC 5-3-1-2 and IC 5-3-1-4, having heard testimony and reviewed evidence related to the following request(s), does now enter the following Findings of Fact:

1) The site location is lot One and 10' oft' the entire North side of Lot Two in Block Five of the Original Plat of the Town of Reynolds in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana, more commonly known as 200 E 1st St., Reynolds, Indiana.

2) The subject site is identified by Parcel ID #: 91-74-33-005-002.900-007-;

3) The property is zoned R-2, One & Two Family Residential;

4) Surrounding properties are zoned R-2, One & Two Family Residential, B-4, General Business Dense Development, and B-1, General Business;

5) The applicant provided a survey dated March 28,2018 (see file);

6) The survey includes the existing structure and proposed addition with dimensions, and existing and proposed setbacks;

7) The site currently meets the Bulk Use Standards for R-2, One & Two Family Residential;

8) The applicant requests the setbacks to expand an existing principle accessory structure with a larger footprint;


9) The county setbacks for the R-2 District, are 30' Front (2 Fronts), 20' Rear, and 4' Side;

10) Proper notice of this variance request was given by mail to adjoining property owners; a variance request sign was posted on the property by the

Staff as required by BZA rules and legal notice published in two newspapers; 11) The Staff received no community communications;

12) Colin Betts, Executive Director of the White County Planning Department, presented the Area Plan Office Staff Report as well as general information about the site development, the surrounding area and a history of the site and presented pictures for the Board and the audience. His summary included the following:

A) Director Betts entered into the record, the Staff Report, the site photos taken by the Staff, all documents provided to the Board members in their pre-meeting packet and all documents within the Petition File pertaining to the requests at hand;

B) An explanation of the purpose of the variance request;

C) A review of the site plan and survey submitted by the applicant;

D) A review of the subdivision plat and previous variance history;

E) A historical review of building and improvement location permits issued and requested for the property.

Ordinance Consideration Criteria

1) The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Board finds that the increased building footprint would not be injurious to neighboring properties.

2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance requests will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The Board concludes that the proposed addition is consistent with current uses of the same district

3) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The Board concludes that the strict application of setback standards would unreasonably prohibit the ability to conduct an activity associated with the use of the site that is in common with surrounding properties.

4) The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Board determines the request to be reasonable and the most minimum allowance which could be granted and still allow for the proposed addition.

5) The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. The Board concludes that the expansion of the structure would not change the use of the site or the character of the surrounding area.


6) The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properly owners in the same vicinity and district; but which is denied to the property in question. The Board establishes that the variance requested is for the expansion of a structure which preserves the owner's rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area.

7) The variance request is not the result of an action, or lack thereof, of the applicant, property owner, contractor or any other party affiliated with the property to which the variance is being sought The Board deems that the requested relief is based on the size of the lot and is not based on action of the property owner.

8) The need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. The Board concludes that the need for this variance is for the private enjoyment of a site which is granted to other property owners of the same district

The Board finds that the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make need for the formation of a general regulation under an amendment of the Ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property; the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact and that said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance as provided for in the White County Indiana Zoning Control Ordinance.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Board APPROVED the request for a 17' Front setback (1st St.) and an 11' Rear setback, and it was so ordered, April 19,2018.

Area Board of Zoning Appeals

Annette Cobb, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals


White County Building & Planning

110 N Main St. PO Box 851 Monticello, IN 47960 Phone:(574)583-7355 Fax: (574)583-4624

www.whitecountyindiana.us

FINDINGS OF FACT

FILE #

Variance #2973

APPLICANT

White County Agriculture Association

LOCATION

Parcel #:91-74-27-000-000.500-007 Tax ID #: 022-71500-00

REQUEST(S)

The applicant requests a 25' Front setback (25 N) vs.30' required.

PURPOSE

The applicant requests the setbacks to extend the current goat building 112'.

HEARING DATE

April 19,2018

The Area Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter referred to as "Board") of White County, Indiana, at a public meeting, properly advertised pursuant to IC 5-3-1-2 and IC 5-3-1-4, having heard testimony and reviewed evidence related to the following request(s), does now enter the following Findings of Fact:

1) The site is located Out S SW SW 27-27-4 and Out NW NW 34-27-4 Honey Creek Township White County, Indiana, more commonly known as 12 N. 25 E, Reynolds, Indiana.

2) The subject site is identified by Parcel ID #:91-74-27-000-000.500-007;

3) The property is a split-zoned parcel of 19.327 acres zoned A-1, General Agriculture and 0.57 acres zoned B-2, General Business;

4) Surrounding properties are zoned A-1, General Agriculture, R-2, One &

Two Family Residential, and B-2, General Business;

5) The applicant provided a survey dated March 21,2018 (see file);

6) The survey includes existing buildings and proposed expansion to the goat barn with dimensions, and existing and proposed setbacks;

7) The site currently meets the Bulk Use Standards A-1General Agriculture District;

8) The applicant requests the setback for expansion of the current goat barn;

9) The county setbacks for the A-1Agriculture District, are 30' Front, 4' Rear, and 4' Sides;


10)Proper notice of this variance request was given by mail to adjoining property owners; a variance request sign was posted on the property by the

Staff as required by BZA rules and legal notice published in two newspapers; 11) The Staff received no community communications;

12) Colin Betts, Executive Director of the White County Planning Department, presented the Area Plan Office Staff Report as well as general information about the site development, the surrounding area and a history of the site and presented pictures for the Board and the audience. His summary included the following:

A) Director Betts entered into the record, the Staff Report, the site photos taken by the Staff, all documents provided to the Board members in their pre-meeting packet and all documents within the Petition File pertaining to the requests at hand;

8) An explanation of the purpose of the variance request;

C) A review of the site plan and survey submitted by the applicant;

D) A review of previous variance history;

E) A historical review of building and improvement location permits issued and requested for the property.

Ordinance Consideration Criteria

1) The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Board finds that the increased building footprint would not be injurious to neighboring properties.

2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance requests will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The Board concludes that the proposed addition is consistent with current uses of the same district

3) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The Board concludes that the strict application of setback standards would unreasonably prohibit the ability to conduct an activity associated with the use of the site that is in common with surrounding properties.

4) The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Board determines the request to be reasonable and the most minimum allowance which could be granted and still allow for the proposed addition.

5) The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. The Board concludes that the expansion of the structure would not change the use of the site or the character of the surrounding area.


6) The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properly owners in the same vicinity and district; but which is denied to the property in question. The Board establishes that the variance requested is for the expansion of a structure which preserves the owner's rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area.

7) The variance request is not the result of an action, or lack thereof, of the applicant, property owner, contractor or any other party affiliated with the property to which the variance is being sought The Board deems that the requested relief is based on the size of the lot and is not based on action of the property owner.

8) The need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. The Board concludes that the need for this variance is for the private enjoyment of a site which is granted to other property owners of the same district

The Board finds that the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make need for the formation of a general regulation under an amendment of the Ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property; the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact and that said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance as provided for in the White County Indiana Zoning Control Ordinance.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Board APPROVED the request for a 25"Front setback, and it was so ordered, April 19, 2018.

Area Board of Zoning Appeals


Colin M. Betts, Executive Director White County Area Plan


Annette Cobb, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals