Get Adobe Flash player

 

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY DECEMBER 17, 2009

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, December 17, 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 and Secretary Gayle Rogers.

Visitors attending were: Larry Deel, Randy Bell

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gerald Cartmell. A motion was made by Charlie Mellon, seconded by Dave Hall and unanimously passed to accept the meeting minutes of November 19, 2009 as written.

****

#2832 Larry G. Deel; Lot Number Three (3) in Golden Hill First Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 5782 East Cedar Point Drive, Monticello

Violation: None

Request: A 21’ east front setback (requirement 30’) and a 14’ north front setback (requirement 30’) to build a new home in an L-1 District with an attached garage and covered porch.

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 from the adjoining neighbor on the south, which he read into the record.

Larry Deel was present to represent the petition. He had nothing to add. He answered a couple questions – the proposed garage is 24’ x 24’ to accommodate storage also as there is not much room on the property for a shed; the 6’ porch will be screened in. Dave Scott moved to vote on this variance. The ballot was distributed for the 14’ north front setback variance.

Findings of Fact

BZA Minutes December 17, 2009 Continued


  1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 5-0
  2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 5-0
  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. 4-1 Blocks neighbor’s view
  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 Has room to be different
  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. 5-0
  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. 4-1 To large for north side of lot Shorter garage

Result: Five votes cast. Granted: 3 grant; 2 deny

The ballot was distributed for the east front setback of 21’.

Findings of Fact

1 The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 5-0

2 The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 5-0

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. 3-2 Has room to meet setback

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. 4-1

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

Result: Five votes cast. Granted: 3 grant; 2 deny

****

BZA Minutes December 17, 2009 Continued

#2833 Walt Owens/Devin Bell; A tract of land being a part and parcel of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five (25), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Six (6) West, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of Market Street and the West line of Range Street; thence West along the South line of Market Street, Ninety (90) feet; thence South at right angles to said South line of Market Street, Thirty-four (34) feet; thence East parallel with the South line of Market Street about Ninety-one (91) feet to the West line of Range Street; thence North along said Range Street on said West line Thirty-four (34) feet to the place of beginning. Located in the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: 123 W Market Street, Wolcott, IN 47995 (now 100 S. Range St.)

Violation: None

Request: Requesting a Special Exception Use for a restaurant in a B-1 zoning district.

Joe described the request to the board utilizing photos projected on the wall. He stated there were no complaints or objections received by his office and six letters of support which he read into the record.

Randy (Devin) Bell was present to represent the petition. He had nothing to add. When asked about parking, he stated the parking lot across the street is for the structure in question. Joe Rogers pointed out that parking is not a requirement in a B-1 district. Dave Hall motioned to vote on the request. Dave Scott seconded.

Findings of Fact

1 The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 5-0

2 The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 5-0

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. 5-0

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. 5-0

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. 5-0

Result: Five votes cast. Granted: 5 grant; 0 deny

****

BZA Minutes December 17, 2009 Continued


Dave Hall moved to adjourn. Charlie Mellon seconded. Passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 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.” ________________________________