Get Adobe Flash player

 


BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 19, 2009

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Gerald Cartmell, David Scott, Charles Mellon, David Hall and Carl Hites, Jr. Also attending were Attorney Kevin Riley, Director Joseph Rogers, Secretary Gayle Rogers and Deputy Ben Woodhouse.

Visitors attending were: Dow Dellinger, Dave Stimmel

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gerald Cartmell. A motion was made by Dave Hall, seconded by Charlie Mellon and unanimously passed to accept the meeting minutes of October 15, 2009 as written.

****

#2830 Four Soar LLC; A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter (1/4) Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 6586 N East Shafer Drive

Violation: None

Request: Requesting a 13’ front setback to add a deck, rather than the required 30’; a 12’ rear setback instead of the 20’ requirement to build an addition to the home; and a 7’ side setback to build a deck rather than the required 8’ setback. Continued from 10/15/09.

Joe Rogers explained the request showing photos and the survey on the wall. He stated there were no complaints or objections and one letter of support..

Dow Dellinger was present to represent the petition. Mr. Dellinger pointed out that this is an odd shaped lot making designing burdensome. The proposed decks do not impede anyone’s view as one deck is located on the lake side and one on the road side. The land on three sides is owned by the applicant. The land on the fourth side (east) is owned by the neighbor who sent the letter of support. The proposed decks allow for substantive foundation work and make the property safe for enjoying the lake. The addition allows for room inside to create a landing making the stairs safe and bringing them into code. The petitioner is proposing to turn a dilapidated cottage into a $300,000 - $500,000 lake home with materials purchased from local businesses. Without the addition the home is 14’ from the property line. With the addition, the home would be 12’ from the property line, at the closest corner. Use of the lake is difficult without the decks. The decks allow for consistent use with the neighborhood as far as lake enjoyment. Following the strict application of the ordinance would result in no outdoor living space. This is a small, funny shaped lot that does not allow for neighborhood consistency in lake enjoyment without a variance.

BZA Minutes November 19, 2009 Continued

BZA Minutes November 19, 2009 Continued


Dr. Hites was the only board member to ask questions. Could the foundation work be done without constructing the decks? Dow Dellinger answered yes. Could the inside stairway be made safe without the 6’ addition to the structure? Again, Dow’s answer was yes. Is it possible to grant/deny one variance request and not another? Joe answered yes because a separate ballot would be provided for each variance request. Much discussion ensued as to whether this change should be made with a request that has been continued from a previous hearing in which only one ballot was used. Dave Hall moved to use one ballot to vote on this variance. Charlie Mellon seconded. The motion passed with a 5 – 0 vote.

Dave Scott made a motion to vote on the variance with a second by Dave Hall.

Findings of Fact

  1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 4-1
  2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4-1 Decks too close to water 13’ instead of 30’; deck 12 ft inside & 20; deck too high off the ground
  3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 5-0
  4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. 4-1
  5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. 3-2 Too big house for size of lot
  6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building. 3-2 Would be too much departure from the provision of zoning ordinance

Result: Five votes cast. Denied: 1 grant; 4 deny

****

BZA Minutes November 19, 2009 Continued

#2831 Ronald L & Myra J Nearon; Lots Numbered Eighteen (18) and Nineteen (19) in

Gano’s Camp Second Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana; and the 5’ x 151’ walkway between lots 18 and 19.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 3634 E Bailey Rd, Monticello

Violation: None

Request: Requesting a 14’ rear setback rather than the required 20’ setback to build a detached garage in an L-1 zoning district.

Continued from October 15, 2009 hearing. Withdrawn by Ron Nearon 10/16/09.

****

Joe Rogers spoke to the board regarding a sign violation case. Michael Lattimore has had

three citations issued to him totaling $500. All three have been ignored. A discussion

ensued as to fines being too small. At the very least, fines for repeat violators should be

higher. Joe will keep this in mind when amending the sign chapter of the ordinance.

Dave Scott made a motion with a Carl Hites second to have the attorney take this to small

claims court. The motion passed with a unanimous 5-0 vote.

****

Joe informed the board that Mr. Hanif was issued a warning ticket for a trailer parked

behind his restaurant that is not legally registered. He did not respond. He then received

a citation. Within a week he called the office. He was in the middle of a religious fast

and would call or come in the following week. Several weeks later he stopped in the

office. Joe was not available. Mr. Hanif said he would be back or call. No word has

been heard in over four weeks. His fine is now up to $3200. The options are to file in

small claims court or to file suit or to file suit and ask for an injunction to require the

trailer be removed. Dave Scott motioned to file a lawsuit with an injunction to have the

trailer removed. Dave Hall seconded. The motion carried with a unanimous 5 – 0 vote.

****

Dave Scott brought up the subject of multiple ballots when a variance has more than one

request. Dave Hall voiced concern that the public would not know about this. Joe

explained that the area plan office informs the public of such things. He further

explained that his office was instructed by the attorney after the October BZA meeting to

begin issuing multiple ballots for variances. Joe stated it makes no difference to his

office how it is done. It is entirely up to the board, the only requirement by the area

plan office is that it is done the same for all variances so his office may be consistent.

Carl Hites moved and Dave Scott seconded to begin using multiple ballots for variances when needed. The motion passed with a 3 – 2 vote.

****

BZA Minutes November 19, 2009 Continued

Attorney Kevin Riley told the board his firm would not be continuing in 2010 as county funds were unavailable for an increase.

****

There was no further business. VC Gerald Cartmell adjourned the hearing at 8:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

David Scott, Secretary

Board of Zoning Appeals

________________________________________

Joseph W. Rogers, Director

White County Area Plan Commission

 

Document Prepared By: Gayle E. Rogers, White County Area Plan

“I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.” ________________________________