Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETING OF JUNE 22, 1999

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Ray Butz, Carol Stradling, Jerry Thompson, Jeff Saylor and Gary Barbour. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Brian Kearney, Ron Pawloski (Continental), Michelle Reynolds, James M. Reynolds Jr., Elden Gutwein (Gutwein Properties LLC), J. Vincent Oneal.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken.

President Thompson stated, at this time I will turn the meeting over to our Attorney, Mr. Altman due to the fact that the first meeting of each year we do have to have election of new officers and that has to be done right now.

Attorney Altman conducted the elections of officers. Gary Barbour made a motion that the Board and the Attorney remain the same with Ray Butz seconding the motion. All voting was unanimous.

President Thompson stated, next are the minutes. Prior to tonight we received the minutes. Ray Butz made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the June 22, 1999 and the July 15, 1999 meeting. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1080 Gutwein Properties, LLC; Requesting a 41’ front setback variance to build a warehouse addition onto the existing structure on 11.39 acres. The property is located South of Reynolds at 10 E. 100 S.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone representing this request?

Elden Gutwein stated, on behalf of Gutwein Properties, LLC, we’re requesting a variance there over at Reynolds as it’s been explained here. We want to add on about a 30,000 square foot warehouse and for efficiency of our operation we felt that even though the setbacks right now are less than what we’re requesting. We’re requesting 41’ added on, that’s what we’re requesting and this would allow us to utilize that property out closer to the road, which we felt would as far as it didn’t conflict and we didn’t think that it would with anything, it’s going to be 20 or 25’ off of the actual road itself and this would be more efficient for our overall operation. It would keep our warehouse in a closer proximity to our production facility so this is what we’re requesting.

President Thompson asked, just to back up a little, I know that you said that you’re representing Gutwein, what is your relationship with the variance?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, I’m President and CEO of Gutwein Company and part of the Gutwein property.

 

President Thompson asked, have we received any correspondence?

 

Director Weaver stated, we haven’t received any mail but one of the secretaries received a phone call yesterday from a nearby resident, they have concerns about the additional semi traffic that will be on Shields Road. There’s some problem with the railroad tracks from what I understand that’s where the concern is.

 

Elden Gutwein stated, there will definitely be more traffic because we are increasing there and right now we’re working also with the Department of Economic Development to try to get some infrastructure into there and increase that. I’m well aware and I think that some of the concern there is not related to this building but concern is that there is a lot of traffic that crosses that track, that’s a very dangerous track. We’re also working now with Chris Larson and he is going to spearhead and get this going on the crossing there which we would like to get signals put in. It has nothing to do with this but that’s one of the projects that we need to improve too getting off of that highway and turning. I think that’s what his concern was and I’m going to talk to him too and let him know that we are working on that. We have probably 3,000 to 5,000 trucks a year coming in and out of there right now and that’s not even counting the Co-op and just local traffic, it’s a dangerous crossing so we do want to fix that.

 

President Thompson stated, they need cross arms there, they need something there.

 

Director Weaver stated, it’s bad.

 

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Gutwein, in the interest of the safety and traffic and making it safer, if it came to on your side of the road, not all of the way of course to this proposed addition but to the area that is West of this addition, if it were seem fit to make that 4 lane would you be willing to allow the second lane to be on your side of road there just in the interest of safety?

 

Elden Gutwein asked, you mean if they would widen the county road right there?

 

Attorney Altman stated, yes, so that on your side just allow for it to be 2 lane on your side and then of course go for the other real estate on the North side.

 

Elden Gutwein stated, that wouldn’t bother us, I really don’t think that the 2 lane, I really don’t think that it’s necessary to make it a 4-lane road there.

 

Attorney Altman stated, no, I’m just talking about in the area, near that intersection, the railroad and that intersection.

 

Elden Gutwein stated, we’re willing to work to make it better.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure that you would have but just so that you decide on the record.

 

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance?

 

Attorney Altman asked, your proposed addition would be roughly the same height of the present addition?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman asked, and will look similar in appearance and that sort of thing so that they wouldn’t, the coloration would be similar?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, yes, Tillett Engineering of course does their construction and everything would be the same of what is there right now.

 

President Thompson asked, is there anything else Director Weaver?

 

Director Weaver stated, no.

 

President Thompson asked, are there any concerns from the Board?

 

Carol Stradling asked, you say that it’s a warehouse full of doors, will there be a loading dock and an unloading dock?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, nothing facing the road, it will all be right here, so in other words, it will not obstruct, all of the locating is still the same. It’s still right where it is right now so it’s like you have to turn in to the plant and go clear around where it’s totally, our loading and unloading has nothing to do with the road or anything.

 

Carol Stradling asked, so there won’t be any more docks on this addition?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, no.

 

Carol Stradling asked, the loading docks will remain where they are?

 

Elden Gutwein stated, yes, we won’t add any loading docks on this addition, if that time comes they will be added to the South, way off of the road, it will have nothing to do with this.

 

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns?

 

The Board stated, no.

 

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote?

 

With no further discussion the Board voted.

 

The Board finds the following:

 

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

 

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

 

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

 

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

 

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

 

6. That the request is for a 41’ front setback variance to build a warehouse addition onto the existing building on a tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 26 North, Range 4 West in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:

Tract 1:

Beginning at an iron stake at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 4 and running thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes West along the Section Line 454.7 feet to an iron stake on the East right-of-way line of Monon Railroad; thence South 1 degrees 7 minutes East along said line 1122.7 feet to an iron stake; thence South 90 degrees East 431.95 feet to an iron stake on the East line of the above said Section 4; thence North 0 degrees 3 minutes East along said line 1116.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 11.39 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located south of Reynolds at 10 E. 100 S.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation 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, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1081 Ronald and Vonda Kirkham; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a 1980 New Moon mobile home in White County.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Director Weaver stated, he is not here.

President Thompson stated, we will move on then.

Attorney Altman stated, this matter will be tabled.

Director Weaver stated, you have an adjoining property owner here.

James Reynolds asked, I live adjacent to Mr. Kirkham and I was wondering why he was actually asking for this variance? It says something about a 1980 new mobile home, I thought that he had to have all of the proper paperwork in line before any kind of achievement was to be…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not actually a variance. If a mobile home is at a certain age it has to have a special exception to allow it to be in White County.

Jim Reynolds asked, what age is that age limit?

Attorney Altman asked, what is that limit Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, 1981.

Jim Reynolds asked, so it just falls under?

Attorney Altman stated, what we’re looking for is to make sure that it has the right wiring, it has the furnace inspected, the plumbing and that sort of thing. That’s why we have someone like Fire Chief Braaksma that has inspected this and given an approval on the mobile home that he is proposing to site in White County. It’s not a variance, it has to be placed exactly where it’s suppose to be.

Jim Reynolds asked, is there any way that I can obtain the information showing me, or is that any of my business?

Attorney Altman asked, showing you what?

Jim Reynolds stated, where that’s going to be located at.

Director Weaver stated, we don’t have that information at this time. This is just to allow him to even think about putting it on the property.

Jim Reynolds asked, this is just the beginning procedure?

Attorney Altman stated, in White County.

President Thompson asked, you are adjoining property?

Jim Reynolds stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, you have the right to know that but we’re not to that stage yet.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re not to that stage. After that, let’s assume that it got approved, then he would either put it some place where it doesn’t require a variance or rezoning or anything like that and get a building permit and if he can’t do that then he would have to get a variance. In other words, what I’m saying is if it fits on his lot, this Board will never see it, it would just be given a building permit by our Director and it would be allowed to be sited somewhere in White County. This is to make sure that it’s a safe mobile home to live in, that’s all that it’s really looking at and it doesn’t have anything to do with where it would be specifically, next to you or next to me maybe, if it were possible where I live. It’s just whether it does or doesn’t be allowed to be in White County.

Jim Reynolds asked, if Mr. Kirkham is not here we kind of put that aside, what is the agenda for that now?

Attorney Altman stated, it will be at next meeting.

Director Weaver stated, that will be heard at the next months meeting.

Jeff Saylor stated, there is not going to be any action taken on this, he will not be allowed to move the trailer into White County.

Director Weaver stated, it’s already in.

Michelle Reynolds stated, there’s 2 of them right beside us, right beside our lot.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s already there but what he can’t have, he can’t have anyone living in it.

Director Weaver stated, next months meeting is February 17th.

Attorney Altman stated, same time.

President Thompson asked, he will not be notified again will he?

Attorney Altman stated, should be, we will send him a letter.

President Thompson stated, 3rd Thursday of each month is the easiest way to remember.

Attorney Altman stated, come with your concerns, if you really want to know the situation, go ahead and look at the file, it’s public record, you can look at it.

President Thompson stated, call a day or two ahead of the meeting at the office and they will fill you in whether it’s on the agenda or not.

Attorney Altman stated, we have no idea whether he will be there for sure because we expected him tonight.

President Thompson stated, but if he’s not on the agenda we won’t.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but he would have to pull himself off of the agenda and we would know that.

Michelle Reynolds asked, the neighbors around us are concerned about it too but they are scared to approach because of his past history and we want to know if we can sign a petition if that would help us get some of the trailers out of there? I heard from a good source that he has 3 other ones, not now, but he did.

Director Weaver stated, he has already been informed that he can’t bring those trailers on there.

Michelle Reynolds stated, that’s the only reason…

Director Weaver stated, he has to remove the other one as well.

Attorney Altman stated, the other one is going or we’re going to be in court, not here.

Director Weaver stated, just bear with us, we’ll get it taken care of.

Attorney Altman stated, but as to this one…

Michelle Reynolds asked, there’s nothing that none of us can do?

Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t say that, you can come and give your concern and please do so if they don’t want to come they can sign a petition. We will accept them but you have to decide yourself what you do and how you do it.

Michelle Reynolds stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I always felt like coming and talking to the Board is the best way.

President Thompson stated, it is the most impressive.

****

#1082 Monticello Associates, LLC; Requesting to amend the parking space requirement for a retail building on Out Lot #1 in Wal-Mart Subdivision. The property is located West of Monticello on U.S. Highway 24 in front of the new Wal-Mart.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Ron Pawloski stated, I work for the Continental Company and I’m representing Monticello Associates the developer.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to present to the Board this evening?

Ron Pawloski stated, no, I believe that what Director Weaver has prepared would be enough information.

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any calls or concerns on this. I did bring, he has supplied me a set of the full plans for him to get his building permit so I did bring those with me if anyone would like to see those.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response from anyone? Does the Board have any questions?

Attorney Altman asked, what is the business that is going to be in here?

Ron Pawloski stated, at this point right now it’s not known. It’s a strip, saying that it’s going to be leased space, the original plan is for 6 tenants, rumor has it it’s going to be down to 4 now. I think that the developer is real close to signing 2 tenants at this point so it looks to me that there are going to be 4 tenants. I don’t know exactly who they are at this point, it’s just the rumors. The space is 14,200 square feet that will be put in 2 larger sections at each end and 2 smaller sections in the center. Director Weaver, I don’t know how close we are from not needing the variance.

Director Weaver stated, you’re about ½ of what’s required.

Carol Stradling asked, which way is North on this plan? The building is here I would take it that North is….

Director Weaver stated, North is to the retention pond.

Carol Stradling asked, I take it that U.S. Highway 24 is the front of the building?

Ron Pawloski stated, that’s correct.

There was discussion among the Board members and Ron Pawloski.

Ron Pawloski stated, at this point again, we’re proposed to have a retail space approximately this size on this end and retail space approximately this size and 2 smaller ones in the center.

Carol Stradling asked, so entrance is off of?

Ron Pawloski stated, right here off of the front.

Carol Stradling asked, from U.S. Highway 24?

Ron Pawloski stated, from U.S. Highway 24 it will be right into here, this existing drive along in here and come around to the parking lot. There is another out lot right here for future development.

Attorney Altman asked, to the East?

Ron Pawloski stated, to the East.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, the existing drive that he’s referring to is one of the entrances for Wal-Mart as well.

Ron Pawloski stated, that’s correct.

Director Weaver stated, it’s not going to be additional, it’s going to be the same.

Ron Pawloski stated, it’s known as an existing drive because in Wal-Mart’s contract they brought this drive all of the way out to U.S. Highway 24. There is also another entrance into Wal-Mart over here. This shows the site map in general.

Attorney Altman asked, so there will be no additional on/off of U.S. Highway 24 going anyway but to the existing drives that are shown on the Wal-Mart Subdivision?

Ron Pawloski stated, that’s correct.

Carol Stradling asked, these numbers 22, 18 and 20?

Ron Pawloski stated, depicts the quantity in that row. There are 18 parking spots, 22 parking spots, 20 parking spots.

President Thompson asked, are there any other comments? Does the Board have anything further?

Gary Barbour stated, this is not against this one here but, this is one of several that we have had now in the past few months about parking spots, we’re giving variances for parking spots. I guess looking at either one if we don’t have that requirement or just quit bringing it up here for variances issues.

Attorney Altman stated, we have the modification of the ordinance, proposed.

Director Weaver stated, but it was not adopted.

Attorney Altman stated, but it was not adopted. We did have that, so they don’t have the latitude other than to make this request, and cordially we have to review them.

Gary Barbour asked, what is the current ordinance? What does it say that you have to have for parking spots for this size of a project?

Director Weaver stated, it goes by the type of establishment, on retail it requires 1 per 100 square feet of building area.

Attorney Altman stated, so that would be 142, reading off of his request as they are proposing that it be 78.

Director Weaver stated, which is more than what the amendment had required if the amendment has been passed.

Attorney Altman asked, would this be similar to what is in front of Kroger or is that more than what is in front of Kroger?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t remember. To the best that I can remember, I’m thinking its close.

Attorney Altman stated, that was what I was thinking in my memory, it’s very close to the variance that was allowed with the Kroger application.

Gary Barbour stated, like I said, I’m not against it or anything but I think that we need to push it through that Area Plan get that order changed I guess.

Director Weaver stated, everyone except Monticello, Reynolds and the Commissioners passed the amendment, so your small towns did pass it with the exception of Reynolds.

President Thompson asked, what do we need to do to bring it to their attention?

Attorney Altman stated, talk to the Commissioners.

Gary Barbour stated, this is a time waster. Obviously, they have more than enough to do in their office for one and now you’re involving the general public.

President Thompson stated, we have one a meeting at least.

Director Weaver stated, we have had several in the last year.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that and the City Council.

Gary Barbour asked, could we adopt a letter to those people stating our feelings on this from the Board of Zoning Appeals?

President Thompson stated, I don’t see why not.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that would be appropriate. What, stating the fact that we consistently have these type of applications, almost one a month, as what you’re saying and that we believe that something like this is adequate, parking. I’m just trying to phrase and you would seriously recommend that they adopt the proposed ordinance allowing for this type of parking.

Gary Barbour stated, or at least get back with us and let us know why they don’t want to adopt it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s fair.

President Thompson asked, do we have a form of a motion?

Attorney Altman asked, is that a consensus of the Board?

President Thompson stated, I think that’s a good idea.

Attorney Altman asked, does everyone agree with that as a letter to the jurisdictions that did not adopt the ordinance to the modification?

Carol Stradling stated, I think that we need some type of communication.

Attorney Altman stated, we will do that.

President Thompson asked, was there any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance? Is there any other discussion from the Board? Are we ready to vote?

Carol Stradling stated, retail, your not expecting large groups there.

Ron Pawloski stated, again, I do not know, all that I know is some of the rumors, but that could change over time as well. All that I know is the shell of the building is contracted, the shell of the building, the size. My personal opinion, I think that there is going to be more parking spots than what will be needed.

Carol Stradling asked, like a skating ring, where you would have large groups of people?

Ron Pawloski stated, that could be possible.

Director Weaver stated, that would have a different parking requirement so this specific variance would be for retail purposes only.

Ron Pawloski asked, I believe that it could only be retail, is that correct?

Director Weaver stated, well, it’s zoned for retail.

Ron Pawloski stated, it’s zoned for retail so there would have to be some other steps taken if it was going to take on another function, would be my assumption.

Gary Barbour asked, so if it was a skating rink it would be a different quantity per square foot?

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, this variance wouldn’t apply, this special exception would not give them cover. They would have to come back if they wish to have something in the way of an exception, it would be only for retail and that’s what this is limited by, in other words, B-2.

President Thompson asked, are we ready to vote? We shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.

2. That the lot is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is to amend the parking space requirement for a retail building to 78 parking spaces on Out Lot #1 in Wal-Mart Subdivision.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located west of Monticello on U.S. Highway 24 in front of the new Wal-Mart.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation 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, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would add to that is with a special exception it must be commenced within 1 year or it’s lost.

Ron Pawloski stated, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand.

****

#1083 Wanita K. Harrison, Owner; Brian Kearney, Applicant; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to extend an existing go-cart track on Lot #11 and #12 in Lackner’s Locust Hill Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 2648 N. West Shafer Drive.

President Thompson asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Brian Kearney was representing the request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything further to add?

Brian Kearney stated, only that it would give me more parking and it would give me a place to store the cars, in the winter time. I have to take them off premise to store them and by doing this it would increase my parking as I said. As far as I know I have had no objections from the two neighbors to the South. I have talked to them both and went over the special exception variance from Mr. Milligan, that was drawn up, and showed them and they said that they had no objections as far as I know. As far as Mr. Spackman on the other side of the campground, I don’t believe that he had no objections at least when I talked to them, they didn’t at that time.

I would also like to say that we have had a good safety record out there. We have not had an ambulance or police call out there in the 3 years that we have been in business. Extending the track, we’re not talking about doubling the size of the track or anything. It’s a minute expansion but what it’s going to do is give me a little more exposure because as it is right now it’s hidden right behind a house. Actually, I was going to call it the Backyard Brickyard but now that the house is gone you will be able to see the track a little bit better. It should do a little bit better for the business and the 99% of the business is walk up. We have never had a parking problem, because we are right next to the campground.

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any calls on this. I do want to let the Board know that with your pictures that I had here for you tonight there is a new survey. He has changed where he is going to locate the pole building from the survey that you had gotten previously so there is a new survey. There was a special exception granted for this use on this property in 1997 and I do have that file here also if there is anyone that would like to see that.

Brian Kearney stated, I just want to note that I’m sorry for making a change at the last minute, I’m flipping the thing, from one side of the building to the other. Either way that I would have done it would have been cracked, in other words, all the dimensions are the same, number of parking spots. It’s just that the track would come out on one side as opposed to the other so that’s why I had another survey drawn up. I didn’t know if I had it for this side if I could do it on that side so it would be more financially better for me to build it on the revised, second, basically where the house is.

Director Weaver stated, actually the enlargement of track is going to take it farther away from the residence too.

Brian Kearney stated, yes it will.

Attorney Altman asked, the house is going to be torn down, the garage is going to be torn down and a proposed building is going to be put up instead right?

Brian Kearney stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it would be single story?

Brian Kearney stated, yes, it would be 20’ high.

Attorney Altman asked, pole barn style?

Brian Kearney stated, yes. Is there a difference, if it’s going to be 20’ high but I may put a loft in at a later date but it’s not going to be a second story.

Attorney Altman asked, it’s not going to be for habitation though?

Brian Kearney stated, no, not what so ever.

Attorney Altman stated, if you change the use you need to have a new special exception.

Brian Kearney stated, no, there’s not going to be habitation at all.

Attorney Altman stated, if you put a loft in you probably should get it approved before you do it. It’s like a change in year, it’s different than the old special exception so you need to have it approved before you change it.

Brian Kearney asked, is this exemption for the track or for the building?

Attorney Altman stated, for the track and the pole building but it’s the use of the pole building that your talking about changing. You want to make sure that you get that approved.

Brian Kearney stated, I won’t use if for anything different as far as that goes. I’m not putting like a loft, apartments, or anything like that in there. Director Weaver already instructed me that that’s absolutely not allowed.

President Thompson asked, are there any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, is the house the solid line?

Brian Kearney stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, that encloses the 30’ x 39’?

Brian Kearney stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, then the hashed line?

Brian Kearney stated, is where the building will go. Actually it’s showing here that the building will be 40’ x 50’ but I would like to cut that back to 45’. That’s basically what I intend to build is 45’ x 40’ but I didn’t cut it down to that because I figured I didn’t want to build it bigger. I wouldn’t say build a 50’ building and then trying to sneak 60’ or something but in this case I would like to cut it back to a 45’ building so it would be 40’ x 45’.

Carol Stradling asked, he is right next, can he do that right next to the property line?

Director Weaver stated, yes, he has a 0’ setback.

Brian Kearney stated, I had discussed that with the two neighbors to the South and that’s where the building is going to go and they have absolutely no objection at all. That building is going to be actually 1’ from the property line because I’m going to have a 1’ overhang of bended soffit so therefore the building will be 1’ off and the overhang will bring it right to the line.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? If there is no other discussion are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is for a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to extend an existing go-cart track on Lots 11 and 12 in Lackner’s Locust Hill Addition and 15’ x 100’ in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located north of Monticello at 2648 N. West Shafer Drive.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation 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, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed and just a word of caution, 0’ setback means still that everything that you are doing is on your property, not on someone else’s.

Brian Kearney stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s close and I just want you to understand that we can’t let you do anything on someone else’s property that you don’t mean to.

Brian Kearney stated, exactly.

****

#1084 J. Vincent and Margaret Oneal; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance to build an attached garage on Lot #16 in Christian Park Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 306 S. Park Drive.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone representing this request?

J. Vincent Oneal was representing the request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to present tonight sir?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, other than our family is getting bigger and we just need some more living space.

Attorney Altman asked, your proposed additions would be single story I gather?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not had any calls on this.

President Thompson asked, is there any discussion from the Board?

The Board stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing? Are we ready to vote then?

Carol Stradling asked, I’m sorry, I see the setback line there and I see the house on lot #15, you’ll be out farther than the house on lot #15.

J. Vincent Oneal stated, by a matter of feet.

Carol Stradling asked, by 4’?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, did they go through a variance?

Director Weaver stated, I looked that up and evidentially that house was built before Area Plan was in existence. I could not find a building permit or a variance or anything on that.

Carol Stradling stated, I know that most of those houses along there are pretty well along the setback line. Have you thought about, is there a reason why you’re coming out that extra 4’?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, we just think that coming forward with the garage is going to be more economical to us than adding off of the back of the house.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, none of the neighbors are opposed?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, the neighbor in that lot called my wife after we put the sign up and she was just wanted to know what we were doing and I just kind of explained to her. Of course, she knows that we have several kids and just kind of explained to her and she didn’t express any objections. That’s their garage too and I don’t think that there are any windows on that side of the garage that is going to be blocking their view. I think that their concern might have been could they still see their parking as their backing out of their driveway.

Carol Stradling asked, you still have plenty of room on your driveway with 20’ to park your cars?

J. Vincent Oneal stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, if there is nothing else are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is for a 20’ front setback variance to build an attached garage on the property located on Lot 16 in Christian Park Subdivision in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 306 S. Park Drive.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation 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, and the board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

J. Vincent Oneal asked, where do I get that?

Director Weaver stated, you need to get your city permit first, which is over at the Fire Department and then come and see us after 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

****

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Ray Butz seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Butz, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission