Get Adobe Flash player

 

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

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

Visitors attending were: Joe Bumbleburg (Ball Law Firm), Constance Bumbleburg, Kimberly K. Nagel, Brian Kearney, Sandy Kearney, Larry Bush, Loretta Rasmussen, Emery N. Rasmussen, Bill & Peggy Barzycki, Robert & Colette Criste, Craig & Patty Bruinsma, Charles Mellon, Joseph D. Techy, Janet Novak, Robert G. Novak, Greg Jacobs and Dean Chaney.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Jeff Saylor and roll call was taken. Ray Butz made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the November 18, December 16, 1999, January 20, February 17 and March 16, 2000 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board and audience members.

****

#1090 Gregory and Jerrielyn Jacobs; Requesting a 25’ front setback variance from both South Street and 4th Street to be able to replace the existing building on lot #6 in Block #20 in the Original Plat of Brookston. The property is located at 310 South Street. Tabled from March 13, 2000.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Greg Jacobs stated, basically, you might recall a few months back we were sent here and obtained a variance to demolish an existing building connected to 2 buildings and since then this building is really under condemnation. After researching the cost to refurbish the existing block building, I will submit these pictures here, Exhibit A. What we’re wanting to do is demolish the front building which would be to the West on your survey and the existing building currently sets 1 ½’ over the property line to the West and 1’ to the South. What we’re basically asking to do is to bring it back in line with the West and the South property line.

Ray Butz asked, you want to bring it back in on your own lot?

Greg Jacobs stated, right, at this point, we don’t really have plans other than to just get rid of


what is now an eyesore and an unsafe building.

Attorney Altman stated, the exhibits that you’re submitting this evening appear to be different than what we have had before. Again what I’m doing is more for the record than anything to get them properly identified.

Greg Jacobs stated, what I’m trying to do with that is, I’ve taken pictures from different angles across the street and buildings that are to the North that show similar situations. There are approximately 4 buildings on each corner of the two intersections there, the intersection of 4th and State Road 18 and in my corner. So the pictures that I’m trying to illustrate there is that the surrounding buildings are very similar on the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record the applicant has given us two sheets of photos, that each have 4 photos on them and that’s marked sheet #1. The second sheet is marked 5 through 8 and I’m just identifying them as a unit, Exhibit A.

Ray Butz asked, you’re going to tear down the whole corner, aren’t you?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes. One of those currently shows, and I’m not sure if it was down when your pictures were taken but, the middle building that we first wanted a variance for is now down and it’s two separate buildings. One of those pictures illustrates that but right now we just wanting to demolish that existing building and have the ability to come back in and build on the property lines.

Director Weaver asked, Greg, the pole building is going to stay up right? That was my understanding.

Greg Jacobs stated, right.

Ray Butz stated, that building has not been there very long.

Attorney Altman asked, which one of these photos shows your building, Mr. Jacobs? Maybe there are several but please identify that.

Greg Jacobs stated, this is a shot from the back, which is to the West so it’s facing East. This building right here is the building that would come down.

Attorney Altman asked, and that’s number what?

Greg Jacobs stated, that’s number 2.

Attorney Altman stated, number 2.

Greg Jacobs stated, number 3 is a South elevation of the building that would come down, also showing the pole building to the east that would stay. Number 4 is a picture of the pole building, picture of the East elevation.

Attorney Altman asked, the pole building will stay?

Greg Jacobs stated, right. Number 5 basically shows both buildings now separated. Then number 6 shows what it use to be, the condition that it use to be, when we first obtained that variance.

Ray Butz stated, this one here is in the worst shape.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, take the whole building down.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any questions from the Board?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe that we have received any calls on this in the office either.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address this variance request?

Attorney Altman asked, would you just give us a summary of the condemnation proceedings that you’re talking about, is that by the town?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, the Town Inspector Max Eldridge received a complaint from someone and he asked if he could do an inspection of the building and brought in an engineer that was hired through the town to check the structural integrity of the building. It was deemed to be an unsafe building. I think that it all stemmed from some kids that had broken into the back of the building and tore some bricks out and created a hole there where they could crawl in but, the end result was, it was really an unsafe building. When we looked at the cost of the tuck point and pointing and a new roof and everything it really didn’t make sense to put that kind of money into a building.

Attorney Altman asked, it’s a 2-story building?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, it’s a single story building. There is currently a sign on the front that the town put up there that basically, when we had to go in there we had to seek permission first, and basically states that it is an unsafe building.

Attorney Altman asked, and your proposed addition that you would put in there would be a similar one story building?

Greg Jacobs stated, we’re not really proposing anything at this point. We have had inquiries, anything from the whole thing being a parking lot, that would be removing the pole building. Realistically the type of structure that would go back in would be very similar to the pole building that is in the back. Possibly could be some glass in the front if there was retail or an office, or brick fascade half, 3 or 4 feet up and then siding, steel siding on the rest. I really don’t know, we don’t have any real definite plans for it, other than we just want to get rid of the current unsafe building and have the ability at a later date when that decision is made to build something that co-allows.

Attorney Altman asked, so you don’t know if it’s single story or a 2-story building?

Greg Jacobs stated, I couldn’t imagine it being a 2-story building. I can’t say, whatever it co-allots, I think the code may be 35’ tall to the peak of the roof. I can’t tell you, I don’t have any plans for a 2-story but there just aren’t any definite plans at this point. Whatever we do would obviously be within the existing ordinance and be a definite improvement to what is there.

Carol Stradling asked, why are you requesting the variance at this time, if you don’t know what you’re going to put there?

Greg Jacobs stated, we can’t tear it down, if we tear it down then we basically loose a great deal of property, we have to come in 25’ from the West and 25’ from the South. It just basically makes it almost impossible to do anything with what is left of the property. We just want to know if we have the, we could go back into the original plans and add on between the buildings and put the investment into the improvements but, that really isn’t the best option. We just don’t want to tear it down and then not be able to do something.

Ray Butz stated, anything that he puts in there is going to be an improvement, a real big improvement.

Attorney Altman asked, even if it’s 2 or 3 stories high, Ray?

Ray Butz stated, I can’t see anything wrong with 2 stories, there is an apartment house next door.

Attorney Altman asked, and it’s 2 stories?

Greg Jacobs stated, the property to the North is 2 ½ stories tall, I don’t know if that meets the ordinance, I’m not sure what that is, if it’s 35’ or whatever.

Attorney Altman stated, just trying to pin down plans.

Greg Jacobs stated, to be honest with you, other than tearing it down there aren’t any. Knowing what the need in Brookston is, it’s most than likely going to be a pole type building with some offices or complete warehouse space like the one that is, shop space like we are using in the back there, storage. It certainly isn’t going to be apartments.

Ray Butz stated, the way that things look they are going to need some office space because Bartlett’s is turning part of his into it so there must be a demand for it.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously it would not be replacing the existing building in it because, that’s what the variance request is. He’s coming back and getting it back on his lot and I think I hear what you’re saying and he can do that, I guess I have no objections to the man building on his own lot. We couldn’t allow him to be on his boundary lines and we’re not doing that in our request tonight and he’s not asking for it either, just to be fair here. Other than that, I think that it would have to be very similar to the existing building as he has indicated and requested on his variance.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other concerns from the Board? Does anyone else wish to address the matter? If not, at this time the Board will 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. The lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.1114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, and existing 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 25’ front setback variance from both South Street and 4th Street to be able to replace the existing building Lot #6 in Block #20 in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 310 South Street.

 

7. That the variances 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 findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, as modified by my statement that he is obviously coming back within his lot and he would essentially, as he has applied for, replacing the existing building. Accordingly, the petition was granted. You need to get your building permit before you proceed.

****

#1091 David J. & Patricia L. Loner; Requesting a 4’ height variance to build a detached garage on lot #9 in Shepard’s Park Addition. The property is located in Liberty Township at 8861 N. Shephard Park Court.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Joseph Techy stated, I represent the owners. I would like to extend my appreciation to the planning people they have extended their courtesy. The request that I have before you has been approved, the permit was granted back in 1976 or 1977 allowing the project to go, unfortunately, it wasn’t executed and after 2 years of course, the expiration elapsed. What we would like to do is add a second story to an existing cottage and build a needed garage. Both items would be a post beam type construction, it would be eye pleasing and we took the current situation into consideration so that it will be adversely effected. I would be more than glad to go over the price if you would like.

Director Weaver asked, are you questioning why there are 2?

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I will explain to you, one is a survey that is done by a registered surveyor, which shows you lot numbers and everything and no structures. The engineer did the other so we have provided both of them so that you could get a better overall picture of it. They are both acceptable, the plan from an engineer is acceptable under our ordinance, and we just don’t normally get them from an engineer.

Carol Stradling asked, there is no structure on the property now?

Director Weaver stated, the home…

Joseph Techy stated, there is an existing cottage.

Director Weaver stated, yes, single story at this time, correct?

Joseph Techy stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but, the survey doesn’t show?

Director Weaver stated, no, but, your engineer’s drawing does.

Attorney Altman stated, we have that, I think.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I think that’s what Angie has copied for you, she has just made it a smaller version.

Attorney Altman asked, what is there now? Is that the residence?

Joseph Techy stated, yes, that’s the residence and that is the proposed garage.

Attorney Altman asked, what do you intend to do to the existing residence?

Joseph Techy stated, add a second story, totally independent from the existing structure.

Attorney Altman asked, what do you mean totally independent from the existing structure? Will it be an apartment?

Joseph Techy stated, no, mainly an office.

Attorney Altman asked, on the second floor?

Joseph Techy stated, yes, the existing structure was here and it is on a block foundation and what we will be doing is providing a post frame so that it doesn’t effect the foundation of the existing building.

Attorney Altman asked, so you’re looking at this view here?

Joseph Techy stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so you see what he is doing. This is indicated in our plans, you might explain that to them, sir.

Joseph Techy stated, the existing structure is over here and by doing this type of construction we totally maintain the integrity of the existing foundation. The reason that we are going to go above and below grade is that in case you get high water you’re not going to effect it. The view of the riverside, this is existing, and this is new. This is what it would look like on the river. This is existing and that will be retained but, you will never see it.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any questions from the Board at this time? Would anyone care to address the variance request? I would like to let everyone know that if you have a concern, you’re more than welcome to come up and look at the evidence that has been presented to the Board.

Attorney Altman asked, so the existing residence, the addition to that would be an office area?

Joseph Techy stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that’s the only thing that it can be used for?

Joseph Techy stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman stated, and on the existing garage that will….

Joseph Techy stated, there’s no existing garage.

Attorney Altman stated, excuse me, on the garage that is proposed that would be a 2-car garage and you say storage, would that be up above?

Joseph Techy stated, above, yes there will be scissor trusses to create the headroom for storage.

Attorney Altman asked, and that area would never be occupied by anything other than storage right?

Joseph Techy stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, just storage.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any questions from the Board at this time?

Ray Butz stated, let’s vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned L-1, Lake District

2. The lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.1114.

3. 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 4’ height variance to build a detached garage on Lots 9, 10 and 11 in Shepard’s Park in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 8861 N. Shephard Park Court.

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 the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

 

Attorney Altman stated, as applied for, the restriction on the addition to the home is for office area only and that there will be nothing but storage in the higher area of the garage, it will be a two-car garage, application #1091 was approved. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let everyone know also that the office is closed tomorrow, the Court House is closed tomorrow so no one can come in for a permit.

****

#1092 Brian T. & Sandra L. Kearney; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to build onto an existing go cart track and fence on Lots #11 and #12 in Lackner’s Locust Hill Addition and 15’ x 100’. The property is located North of Monticello at 2648 N. West Shafer Drive.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, I’m an attorney, and I represent the Kearney’s in this matter. The Kearney’s have come to me and they brought me a file, and what I have discovered is something that I suspect those of you that have been around Board of Zoning Appeals a long time know and that is occasionally when people start up and try to do things in their own way it somehow does turn out badly. When the Kearney’s gave me the file I said what are all of these drawings and they gave me a whole mess of drawings and I ended up putting sticky notes on some of them. I will be giving them to you for the record but, I suspect that you already have them from the previous special exception. Sadly in these processes, and by the way Jerry, I’m here because they did take your advice you’ll remember that you told Mr. Kearney and he listened on that issue.

Attorney Altman stated, getting a lawyer.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, the Kearney’s run a business as you well know, and they wanted to expand that business and they came to get a special exception to do that. You have what is a very good rule that you have some sort of drawing that is done by someone like an engineer. Brian had down a drawing of his own, Exhibit 1, this one and he took this to his engineer and said this is what I want, having done that….

Attorney Altman asked, will you be putting that into evidence?

Joe Bumbleburg stated, yes, I will be putting that in as evidence.

Attorney Altman stated, let's mark it Exhibit 1.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, so he did that, then he discovered that was not going to be good enough then he goes to Jim Milligan and says, I need a plan. Then they come up with, what I have put a sticky note on, as the first plan, Exhibit 2.

Attorney Altman stated, I will mark that as Exhibit 2.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, then, I have two sheets if you want to mark that as Exhibit 3 Jerry, and this one is Exhibit 4. They looked at that plan and there is a neighbor, Mrs. Blevins, who is a really nice lady and they get along fine with her. They decided to take the plan that Jim drew because Mrs. Blevins lives to that side of it and that it might be nice to accommodate her. They flipped the plan so that the impact of the property on Mrs. Blevins would be diminished. Mrs. Blevins has, as a matter of fact, written a letter approving this, and suggesting this is not a problem for her but, Brian was trying to be a good spirited neighbor. So he went to Jim Milligan and said flip the plan, and there we start to get the problem. What they wanted is now the document that got to be Exhibit 3, except somehow in the whole process in the exception meeting you ended up voting on Exhibit 4.

Then thinking that they had the flipped plan they went out and started to work, only to discover that when the Executive Director came out and said now wait a minute, you can’t do that because your special exception was granted against a site plan and what your doing now is not the site plan that you used. A great big light bulb went up and they thought oh my goodness, what kind of mess are we in, and that’s where they are.

The problem with the site plan is that set a 45’ setback which exceeded the ordinance requirement. As a matter of fact what they thought that they were getting was a 30’ setback and pretty soon you can see how this thing has gotten out of everyone’s control.

So what we have here then is confusion that is compounded with the fact that they have went back and looked at some of their old records and the minimum setback previously was 25’. The concept of having the ordinance updated and everything is not necessarily one of those kind of things that, ordinary laymen kind looks at because they don’t deal with it every day. So now they have to come in because they have a question against the site plan and they wanted to have a 30’ setback. The 30’ setback frankly, if you look at many pictures of the area, it is not something that offends the area.

There are many people who’s encroachment towards the street, and I mean encroachment is a very generalized term, is significant in the area and you can pass these around and you’re going to know this area far better than I. So to look at it so what we have here is a question of is what they want really something that offends health, safety, morals and general welfare and the answer to that is, no. Is this something that offends and causes the neighbors to have diminution of property values and there is a campground on one side and Mrs. Blevins on the other side of who we already have Mrs. Blevins letter that says this is fine with her.

Carol Stradling stated, this is not what we’re talking about, this is not Kearney’s property.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, no this is another piece of property in the area that shows you what the Kearney's are asking for is not unusual. Life is enjoyed by other people in the area, and is the same kind of thing that the Kearney’s are really asking for, to permit them to do. So what I’m saying is the question in the ordinance is, if there is any harm by adjacent areas and that sort of stuff is not likely because of the rights already enjoyed by other folks.

So what we have here is a system that has simply got out of whack and I don’t think through anyone’s fault. I think that it was just one of those things that happened and it happens in Board of Zoning Appeals on a regular basis, and more regular I think than probably Jerry and I and the Diann’s of this world like. Mainly it becomes a problem for the Boards to try to resolve it.

So we have here is the need for this couple to have a 30’ setback from the street and that’s what they’re really asking you for. Actually, what we’re doing I think then, is this variance cleans up the record and then probably sets in the Area Plan Commission files a better record of what has been approved or what would be approved in this general area. As I went through this whole process and tried to put it together it clearly came to me that the real problem came about when they decided to flip the plan. It would have been a mirror image on the other side simply because they were trying to be good neighbors to Mrs. Blevins, which is something that we should try to encourage. From that point on, then the mistakes multiplied themselves and the mistakes had multiplied themselves to everyone’s disadvantage, that would be another story but the mistakes here have multiplied themselves only to the disadvantage of the Kearney’s. He essentially has been out of business, he can not finish up the work that he needs to do, he cannot get into business, and I suspect as you people all know that the tourist season is about on us. If he were to just get going then he has been a victim of his own processes here and like I said I have done enough of this that I see the neighbor coming in and having a real problem and then there is a conflict between neighbors and then it really never gets resolved. All of a sudden now, I have a case where the potential of conflict by the neighbors and what happens is the whole problem gets out of hand.

So what the Kearney’s are asking for here is not as if they were talking about a 5’ setback off of that road, that would be a health and safety issue, a 30’ setback is probably, in many respects, harms no one, certainly not the one person that may have a real key to think about that. Mrs. Blevins has said that it doesn’t bother her a bit. We would respectfully request that you grant this variance and let these people rectify this, this is a mistake that was made and because there is no harm to anyone if you would do so. Thank you very much.

Vice President Saylor asked, does the Board have any questions at this point?

Attorney Altman asked, do you want me to read the letter into the record, Mrs. Blevins’ letter?

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, let me read Exhibit 5 that the applicant has given to us and just obviously, it’s Mrs. Blevins’ letter, it’s dated March 22, 2000. This letter was read into the record. Again, for the record, I would mark for the record the photos number Exhibits #6 & #7 are photos that the applicant had given to us earlier. Then photos Exhibit #8 through and including #15 were the photos that Mr. Bumbleburg has given us this evening. I’ve so marked them showing businesses that he has just testified.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address the variance request? Do we have any other concerns from the Board?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this.

Vice President Saylor stated, with that being so, the Board will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

Attorney Altman asked, I think when I heard your testimony you said that’s what they intend to do?

Joe Bumbleburg asked, no, that was what was approved?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what was approved.

Joe Bumbleburg stated, we think that is what the special exception was granted against.

Attorney Altman asked, Exhibit #3 is what you’re wanting….

Joe Bumbleburg stated, that’s what they were wanting.

Attorney Altman asked, that’s what you’re asking to be approved tonight?

Joe Bumbleburg stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I had seen the plan in the file and I wasn’t sure that they were the same.

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 10’ front setback variance to build onto an existing go cart track and fence 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 10.10 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 the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

 

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver, do they need a building permit? I would suggest that you stop in and check that the previous building permit that they applied for is consistent with this application and do so Monday or Tuesday if not tomorrow.

****

#1093 William P. & Margaret S. Barzycki; Requesting a 10’ North side setback variance and a 30’ front setback variance to roof and screen the existing deck on .20 of an acre. The property is located in Liberty Township at 4814 N. Mallard Drive.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

William Barzycki was representing the request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything further to add?

William Barzycki stated, no, I think that we have it all squared away. There was one thing about the property lines, Director Weaver came out and we clarified that.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I was concerned with the survey as to how close it showed this being to the property line. There was a great deal that was going to overlap the property line, so the one picture that you have of the property does show that one property line from the North side.

William Barzycki stated, that measured 2.4’ from the deck, existing to the stake, and we’re going with a 1’ overhang.

Director Weaver stated, this property at one time did have a variance on it to build an addition on the South side of the property. What they are doing now is on the North side of the property, so I just thought that the Board might be interested in knowing that.

Attorney Altman asked, did they build in accordance to that variance, on the South side?

Director Weaver stated, to the best of my knowledge, yes.

William Barzycki stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, that is now in place and consistent with that variance?

William Barzycki stated, with the old variance, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, the old variance was built to and the improvement is there right now?

Director Weaver stated, right, yes it is.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record.

Carol Stradling asked, is that what the hash marks are on our survey? Did you cover a garage and breezeway kind of a thing?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

William Barzycki stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I have that file with me if anyone would like to see that.

William Barzycki stated, that’s the old garage. This is the deck that we’re going over.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what they will build out beyond.

Director Weaver stated, he’s not going beyond. He is staying within his lot line. I was concerned about him going beyond.

Attorney Altman asked, so this easement is not going to be used?

Director Weaver stated, this is on the North property line, yes he is still encroaching on S.L.F.E.C.C. property. I was concerned this way.

Attorney Altman asked, so he is staying totally on his lot?

Director Weaver stated, yes, even with the overhang other than going to the property line.

Carol Stradling asked, so he has a 1’ overhang and from the edge of the deck you’re 2.4’?

William Barzycki stated, not 2.4’, 2’ 4”.

Carol Stradling asked, so even your overhang isn’t…

William Barzycki stated, under, it’s within.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s within your property line. Was the deck there?

Director Weaver stated, I think so.

Carol Stradling stated, when I read the consent to encroach at the bottom of the first page; Now therefore, S.F.L.E.C.C. hereby grants only to the extent that it’s title permits it do so on to said property owners, their heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, it’s consent to the encroachment as set forth on Exhibit “A”. Is Exhibit A the survey?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that it was.

Carol Stradling asked, or was Exhibit A something else?

Attorney Altman stated, I’m looking at the recorded document…

Director Weaver stated, I believe that survey was…

Carol Stradling stated, well, it says; that the real-estate is illustrated in red on Exhibit B and then below that is what I read on Exhibit A.

Attorney Altman stated, Exhibit A is a description of, apparently, the real estate purchased by William P. Barzycki.

Director Weaver stated, it’s a copy of their deed.

Attorney Altman stated, so it appears to be, you bought the place September 30, 1988?

William Barzycki stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, from a James A. Hendrick and Margaret Ann Hendrick?

William Barzycki stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, received a deed from them, apparently, a 2 page deed and that’s the Exhibit A that is spoken of on the consent to encroach that your talking about, Carol.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, I was concerned because no where in that consent to encroachment did it mention that you would be putting a roof on a deck and screening it in. Were they aware of your plans for the deck?

William Barzycki stated, that was the original intent of the plans.

Attorney Altman stated, the exhibit, which is Exhibit B says with a proposed roof on it, on the exhibit. That’s part of the consent to encroach.

Carol Stradling stated, we didn’t have Exhibit A or Exhibit B. That’s what would clarify what they were given consent for.

Attorney Altman stated, consent to the roof.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other comments? Are there any other questions from the Board? If not we will proceed with the voting.

Attorney Altman stated, one thing that I want to recite for the record. Mr. Barzycki, you understand that the consent to encroach is a condition upon what they’re voting today. If this consent is revoked or changed in any way then this consent, or this variance, would be effectively limited by the revocation of that consent. In other words, if S.F.L.E.C.C. would withdraw this consent and it has limitations on it.

William Barzycki asked, same as N.I.P.S.CO. did right?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and if they withdrew that or limited what you could do in any way, or flooded the area, as they are able to do so that is a condition that limits this variance also.

William Barzycki stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, and our voting would limit what you could do. It’s no bigger than their consent, is what I’m really trying to say.

William Barzycki stated, right.

Vice President Saylor stated, at this point the Board will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned L-1, Lake District

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 10’ North side setback variance and a 30’ front setback

variance to roof and screen the existing deck on a tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at an iron stake which is North 306.8 feet, West 734.2 feet and North 5 degrees 30 feet from the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the above said Section 5 and running thence South 89 degrees and 43 minutes East, 60.3 feet to an iron stake; thence North 8 degrees and 10 minutes East 86 feet to an iron stake; thence South 87 degrees and 58 minutes West 118.2 feet to an iron stake on the Northern Indiana Public Service Line; thence along said line South 11 degrees 82 feet to an iron stake; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes East 29.78 feet to the point of beginning, containing .20 of an acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 4814 N. Mallard Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are 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 authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1094 Emery N. Rasmussen Jr. and Loretta Rasmussen; Requesting a 4.5’ East side setback variance, a 2.5’ West side setback variance and a 19’ rear setback variance to build a room addition and a 23’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on part of Lot #30 in H.P. Bennett’s Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 111 Cleveland Street.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Joe Rasmussen stated, I’m Emery Rasmussen Jr., some of you know me by Joe. My wife and I bought this property. It had a flat roof on part of it, the back part of it, where I’m asking for the variance to tear that 16’ x 8’ room off of the back. I’m going to put it back and bring it over and make it 24’ wide, the same width as the rest of the house. There is no foundation or footing under this 16’ x 8’ room. We would like to tear it off, pour footings and put a new room back there, square it off and make it an 8’ x 8’ addition and square it off and make it part of the house. It has a flat roof on it and it’s settling now because it’s just 2’ x 4’s right on the ground which we found out later and it’s starting to pull away from the rest of the house.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, you’re leaving the other walls there?

Joe Rasmussen stated, yes, just tearing down the 16’ x 8’ and we’re going to move the door from where it’s at now back to the South side there.

Carol Stradling asked, so the door is what, over here on the West side?

Joe Rasmussen stated, no, it’s on the East side. It’s over here now and we’re going to put it back over to here.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything and I don’t believe that we have received anything in the office.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to comment? Are there any questions from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, the addition would be single story and just fit on to the rest of the building as the present one does but, of course not a flat roof right?

Joe Rasmussen stated, right, it’s going to be a gabled roof and it will be the full 24’ wide instead of the 16’ x 8’ or the 24’ x 8’.

Director Weaver asked, are you changing the roofline of the rest of the house at the same time?

Joe Rasmussen stated, when we do this, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, what change will you do there?

Joe Rasmussen stated, put a gabled roof on it.

Attorney Altman asked, on the front?

Joe Rasmussen stated, the front, the North side of it is already a gabled roof, the South 2/3’s of it is a flat roof and we’re just going to tie on to it. You’re showing the North side, that’s a gable. The South….

Carol Stradling asked, the South side is going to be…

Joe Rasmussen stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, and then tie into back there?

Joe Rasmussen stated, yes.

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 4.5’ east side variance setback, a 2.5’ west side setback variance and a 19’ rear setback variance to build a room addition and a 23’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on 35.00 feet off the west end of Lot 30 in H. P. Bennett’s Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 111 Cleveland Street.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are 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 authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

 

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

****

#1095 Kimberly Nagel; Requesting a 3’ South side setback variance and a 3’ rear setback variance to build a detached garage on the property. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 312 Walnut Street.

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

Dean Chaney stated, I’m here to speak for Kim Nagel. What we’re wanting to do is put a garage on the Southwest corner of our lot, Director Weaver said that she was going to have some pictures that she was going to take, if you need I have some extras here, Exhibit #1 through #5. We are asking to move it 3’ closer to our property line here and the property line is at these posts here. You can see and this is a stake where the corner of the garage is proposed, it’s 6’ and we want to move it 3’ closer. There is still plenty of room almost 7’ between the edge of the alley and the property line which would give us plenty of room for entering our garage. Also, we’re asking for 3’ closer to the South side of the property line, which is shown here. The property here is the chain link fence, instead of 6’ from the property line it would only be 3’ and that’s what these pictures show here. It really wouldn’t object to their view of anything. They have a storage building and Spruce Street is right there from the property line. The property owner does not have any objection to it whatsoever. Director Weaver has the site survey that was done by Mr. Milligan that shows the proposed garage here, this is an existing garage and we’re tearing this one down.

Attorney Altman asked, that’s the 12’ x 20’?

Dean Chaney stated, yes, the 12’ x 20’ we’re taking it down. It’s in very bad condition and it needs to come down so we’re going to set the garage on the other corner and it will give us plenty of yard space.

Carol Stradling asked, would you ever do a covering to get access from the garage to the rear of the house?

Dean Chaney stated, there is an existing porch here that showed on this. The property owners before Kim bought this had proposed an attached garage to the back but they never did anything with it. They put up a building instead of this so there is a little porch there but it’s just a walkway to the garage and garden area. So this is all going to be yard and garden then. This survey doesn’t really show, he showed the whole area but there is quite a bit of space, there is plenty of entry for the garage, we are doing some other work.

Carol Stradling asked, does anyone else want to see this?

Dean Chaney stated, I think that you have copies of that.

Carol Stradling stated, we don’t have copies of the survey from Sterrett, we have copies of Milligan’s.

Dean Chaney stated, I just brought this in to show you.

Attorney Altman stated, if you’re showing it then we need a copy.

Dean Chaney stated, you can have it, I have other copies.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record the applicant has given us 5 photos which I will mark as Exhibits #1 through #5 and a survey of Mr. Sterrett showing the proposed property as surveyed and I will mark it as Exhibit #6.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any comments from the Board?

Gary Barbour asked, is there an easement on this alleyway, is that right?

Dean Chaney stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I guess that my concern is by being 3’ from where the property line is, if you have your garage doors shut and you just have to pull in and park there with your vehicle you are going to virtually block the right-of-way.

Dean Chaney stated, the property line is actually these posts here, so we would be 3’ inside of that. Then there is almost 7’ between the posts and the edge of the actual stone of the driveway or the alley. No there won’t be any parking in front of the garage.

Gary Barbour stated, but, once the garage is put up, if the property is sold, that doesn’t mean that the next person is not going to park in the alleyway.

Vice President Saylor asked, but they would be parking in the Town’s alley, is that right?

Dean Chaney stated, the Town of Monon does not take care of that alley, it’s up to the tenants behind it. I talked to the superintendent there for the Town of Monon, he doesn’t have any problems with anything, and if you want anything from the alley we have to do it, to stone it or whatever.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything in the office on this.

Attorney Altman asked, the circled posts there, what are those for, along the back of the alley?

Dean Chaney asked, the wood posts?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Dean Chaney stated, that was an existing privacy fence that we have taken down. The privacy fence has been taken down, I removed it to make room to do the work back there. The privacy fence was right on the property line.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone care to address the variance request? Are there any other concerns from the Board members? If not we will vote.

Attorney Altman stated, Gary, they are not entitled to that alleyway and we’re not allowing that so if they do….

Gary Barbour stated, but, if you only have 3’ of property line and basically if you did park out there, and I know that the intentions are not to park there but, if you’re in a hurry and come swinging in there, park out there, run into the house and if someone needs to get down the alley for something you’re basically parking on the Cities property.

Attorney Altman stated, you bet they are and it’s not permitted.

Gary Barbour stated, exactly, and that’s my concern I guess.

Director Weaver stated, they do have a driveway on the front side of the house that may help with that situation a little bit. If they leave that driveway there maybe they would be more likely to do something like that on the front side than on the backside.

Gary Barbour asked, is the driveway going to stay in the front?

Dean Chaney stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and the garage will be removed?

Dean Chaney stated, the 12’ x 20’ is in the process of being removed now.

Attorney Altman asked, and not replaced?

Dean Chaney stated, not replaced, just the two car garage that we’re proposing. We couldn’t put it in the place of the 12’ x 20’ because of the existing telephone poles from N.I.P.S.CO. and such on that part of the property and it would cause too much of a problem. That’s why we proposed to move it to the other side.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

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 3’ South side setback variance and a 3’ rear setback variance to build a detached garage on Lot 24 on Walnut Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 312 Walnut Street.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in

nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are 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 authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, it is the understanding that the proposed addition that was on the Sterrett survey will not be added right?

Dean Chaney stated, no, that was previous a owner.

Attorney Altman stated, it was previous and you don’t intend to do that and you understand that this variance would make it so that you could not do that.

Dean Chaney stated, right, that was just shown roughly for the alley and driveway.

Attorney Altman stated, for the alley and driveway.

Dean Chaney stated, right.

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

****

#1096 Larry D. & Donna M. Bush; Requesting a 4’ side setback variance and an 11’ front setback variance to build an attached carport and a 6’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #10 in L.D. Wert Subdivision. The property is located in Norway at 392 W. Norway Road.

Larry Bush stated, we just want to place a car, and we have big trees right next to our drive and limbs fall on our vehicles and that’s the main reason we were wanting to do it. They are my neighbors’ trees, they have topped the trees twice, and it would be cheaper if we had a carport.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this in the office.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Ray Butz asked, is it going to have a flat roof?

Larry Bush stated, it’s going to be slanted.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anything else from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, on the survey, there’s a 6’ x 8’ x 12’ here on the side and I don’t see where that…

Larry Bush stated, that’s a deck.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s a deck, okay.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone else that would like to speak? Is there anything else from anyone. If not, the Board will vote please.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

 

1. That the property is 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 2.1114.

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 4’ side setback variance and an 11’ front setback variance to build an attached carport and a 6’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 10 in L.D. Wert Subdivision in Norway, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 392 Norway Road.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are 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 variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1097 R & J Properties, Inc.; Requesting a 105 parking space variance for a retail establishment on 2.31 acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance requires that they have 180 spaces and they are requesting to have 75 spaces. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of North Sixth Street, approximately 1 block from Fisher Street.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Attorney Altman stated, I wondered about this, I didn’t see anyone that I recognized. We will table this until the end of the meeting.

Vice President Saylor stated, for the record variance #1097 will be tabled until the May meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, you might give them to the end of the meeting in case someone decides to show up.

****

#1098 Robert & Colette Criste; Requesting a 7’ front setback variance to build a room addition onto an existing home on lot #95 in Floyd O. Hall Woodlawn Meadow Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1022 Jeffrey Street.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anyone representing this request?

Colette Criste stated, we want to add a 15’ x 26’ room addition on the East side of the house and we want to run it even with the front of the house, the existing house.

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this in the office.

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition would be consistent with your present home?

Colette Criste stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, and tie in with the roofline? Single story?

Colette Criste stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, City water and sewer right?

Colette Criste stated, correct.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any questions from the Board? Does anyone care to address the request? If there is nothing further we will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is 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 7’ front setback variance to build a room addition onto an existing home on Lot Number Ninety-five (95) in Floyd O. Hall Woodlawn Meadow Subdivision in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1022 Jeffrey Avenue.

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 the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

Colette Criste asked, do we need anything special for Bob Braaksma, to give him?

Director Weaver stated, no, if he has any questions of what has passed he will have to just give us a call.

****

#1099 Greg & Jeri Jacobs; Requesting a 15’ front setback variance from Prairie Street and a 20’ front setback variance from 1st Street to build a canopy and an 8’ front setback variance from Prairie Street and a 7’ front setback variance from 1st Street to place a freestanding on-premise sign on Lots #11 & #12 in Block 15in the Original Plat of Brookston. The property is located at 100 S. Prairie Street.

Greg Jacobs stated, what we have here is an existing convenience store known as Family Pantry, Citgo station. It has occupied this corner for about 40 years, up to about 5 years ago it was an Amoco station. Back in 1986 we obtained a variance when we bought the location. The dotted line that shows 4 existing gas pumps that represents the existing canopy that is currently there. The proposed sign, up to about 5 years there was the Amoco ID sign and the price sign occupied this same space that we’re wanting to install a sign. They were not using it so we had taken it down. The reason that we want to put the sign back up at that corner is, you will notice on your survey lots #9 and #10, we’re planning to build a car wash on that property. What this plot plan does not show is the existing Citgo sign which currently is on that location right there where those words are. The reason that we want to put our sign back over here for the convenience store is to allow us to put the sign here for the car wash in lieu of the residential property line over here. The main purpose for reconfiguring the islands…

Attorney Altman stated, what you’re saying is on the survey that you have given us is, the present sign is on lot #10 on the Northwest corner of that right?

Greg Jacobs stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, and that you’re proposing…

Greg Jacobs stated, it would be the Southwest, no you’re right the Northwest corner of lot #10.

Attorney Altman stated, because it’s actually on lot #10.

Greg Jacobs stated, it’s right where the word “concrete” is.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re proposing the same sign will be moved to the spot that you show for the sign which is on the Northwest corner of lot #12.

Greg Jacobs stated, not necessarily the same exact sign, we may go to a different brand but it will meet the 150 square feet.

Attorney Altman asked, same size?

Greg Jacobs stated, what it will do is meet the existing ordinance in terms of the size of it. I can’t say that it will always be the existing sign that is there but it will be re-bran to another type of gasoline. They’re all different in terms of their size but what I am saying is the sign will be similar and it will not exceed the existing ordinance.

The canopy, the reason that we’re asking for the variance is you can see in one corner of the canopy, at the 10’ mark, the reason that we want to reconfigure the pump island is, although difficult for you to see, you can see the 5’ sidewalk on the front, there’s a vague line that shows the extension of the building. What we want to do is put a 5’ glass addition in and we want to remodel the exterior elevation of the building.

Currently the parking, we have about 5 parking spaces heading South on the South property line those existing parking spots are not shown there so what we’re wanting to do is free up some space to provide what would be more preferred parking space for our customers. Also provide an ingress and egress. Well mainly an ingress from this area or the street to get around to what would be the entrance of the car wash to allow us to be self containing within our own property as opposed to using the alley for stack up. It would allow us to go in a clock wise motion and we need to get rid of those parking places in order to do that.

Ray Butz asked, how high is that sign going to be? Are you going to be able to see under it?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, it’s like at least 6….

Ray Butz asked, it’s not going to block a view?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, it’s at least 6’ or 7’.

Gary Barbour asked, it’s going to be pretty similar to what is already existing won’t it?

Greg Jacobs stated, the only thing that we will probably do is, we may take this sign that has the credit card emblems and put a reader board instead of having those.

Patty Bruinsma stated, where was the proposed drive? I’m the property at 112 W. First Street in Brookston, Indiana.

Attorney Altman asked, where is that in relationship to this proposed?

Patty Bruinsma stated, it’s across First Street from this property.

Ray Butz asked, the big brick?

Patty Bruinsma stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, North side of the corner right?

Patty Bruinsma asked, yes, you were proposing a drive through as to where?

Greg Jacobs stated, what I was telling them was that currently the only parking place that we have on the premises is here this way and over here. Although the variance doesn’t have much to do with what we’re planning on, the car wash, they tie together. What I was saying is we’re wanting to put parking in front of the store which is more convenient to our customers. What that does is that allows us to free up this space here to have a lane so our car wash traffic, which the majority of it will enter off of State Road 43 or off of our pump islands, we will be able to come around and this will be the more highly traffic bay right here with the automatic car wash bay.

Patty Bruinsma stated, I deny the fact that you can get a car to come around and do that. I object highly to all of these proposals.

Greg Jacobs stated, one of the things that is an option that we have been looking at this plan, I wanted to make that known, and I will leave this here for an exhibit, Exhibit B. This plan right here is a pretty popular plan if you look at some of the new VP’s in Lafayette. You will see there that the pump islands are parallel to their building as opposed to perpendicular so although the canopy wouldn’t change, it would be conceivable, we might change and just turn the islands 60 to 70 degrees and run parallel with the street. Although that doesn’t provide as easy of ingress and egress from the pumps to the parking spaces it is a possibility. Again it will not change the location of the driveway. This has not been approved by the State and obviously any entrance has to approved by the State Highway. What we do know for a fact is that we have more than enough room and we haven’t completed the engineering. This really didn’t have a lot of basis other than the ingress where the parking is at.

Yes, some traffic can as they do now when we donate the car wash to the cheerleaders, there is an existing single bay, self serve bay here and whenever they have a fund raiser the traffic comes in this direction but there is 12’, even if you allow for some overhang with the roof line, there will be more than enough space. We have already provided a curbing here with the existing building so you can see that there will be at least 10’ more than enough room to drive a tractor trailer through there if you wanted to. The stack up, normally you have your coin acceptor but there is more than enough stack up here or even if someone would come in from this way. What this diagonal line represents is, currently there is a fence here and what this diagonal line represents is taking out this stuff that is behind the building and putting in a nice fence that hides the exterior of the building. This more than enough provides enough stack up room if someone wanted to enter from the alley that can come in here on our property and join in right here and not end up with utilizing the alley for stack up space.

Attorney Altman asked, although your talking about lot #10 and #9, that doesn’t actually have anything to do right now with the request before us right?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, it only explains what the master plan of the project is and why we are wanting to put the sign over there as opposed to where it is. No, we’re not asking for any permission for anything to do with lots #9 and #10.

Attorney Altman asked, and the variance is to move the sign, the canopy, and the parking spaces?

Greg Jacobs stated, to put a sign there we will leave the existing sign poles where they are at, there will be a sign there for the car wash. The reason that we want that is so we don’t…

Attorney Altman asked, that sign and you’re asking for the other sign, that sign will stay or something like it on lot #10 as the present one is. Then you’re also asking for a variance for a proposed sign be on lot #12 as your survey shows and then the canopy change and parking space change also, is that part of your variance?

Greg Jacobs stated, really there isn’t a variance for the parking.

Attorney Altman asked, so it’s canopy and sign?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes. There is one thing that is shown on here that I might add, you will see that there is a relocated pole. The Town has already relocated this power pole here and you can see that I have drawn a concrete island around there and that is extending off of my property line. That was agreed upon with the Town Superintendent. This pole that is right here has been hit numerous times. What we talked about is extending this concrete curb barrier to help keep the traffic away from the new pole that they have since relocated. This would not be done off of my property without their approval which we have already gotten verbal approval to do that, in fact they want us to do that.

Patty Bruinsma stated, what I’m here to state is that his operation is not what he refers to as a neighborhood convenience store but a semi truck stop. I have several pictures here to show you that’s what this is.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re giving us an exhibit with 33 pictures on it that we will keep as an exhibit, Exhibit A.

Patty Bruinsma stated, on his proposal I don’t see any definite lines for sidewalks. If you will look on some of my pictures it will show you this is the sidewalk that goes on Prairie Street or State Road 43 that runs along side of my house. I’m standing on that sidewalk and I’m taking pictures of semis parked on State Road 43 in front of his business. I’m showing right here a pickup that is trying to get up to this intersection and is having to go clear out onto State Road 43 in order to be able to see to get onto State Road 43. There have been numerous accidents at this corner because of the traffic at this, what is referred to as a convenience store, which is a local in city semi truck stop. I can take pictures like this all day long.

I also have a picture here showing when it snows, he not only pays someone to clean off his parking lot but he also has someone clean off the other side of State Road 43 on the other side of my house which is all gravel so that semis may park over there. It says no parking at any time and they park there consistently and constantly. They park in front of my driveway. I have to go into his convenience store and tell people to get out from in front of my driveway so that I can go to work. When I come home I have to drive around the block several times in order to wait for semis to be out from in front of my driveway so that I can get into it.

What I’m proposing is that he shows nothing on there for provisions for sidewalks. Children walk there, walk on this sidewalk everyday to and from school. You can see right there the semis parked. I’m asking that you deny his request for variance.

Greg Jacobs stated, if I may, I won’t dispute the fact that my property has remained unchanged for 14 years and before I bought it. It’s as it was other than I took what was 2 pump islands and the 4 islands that are there now. A few years back we had a situation with, the Town Marshall was ticketing people. Why they are not doing that now I don’t know, not that I could do anything about that situation that you’re referring to. I do dispute that we are a truck stop if we were a truck stop you would see me trying to figure out how I can put diesel islands here. Instead of putting a car wash I would probably put some diesel islands here so I can bring semi’s in and out…

Patty Bruinsma stated, there not stopping for gasoline, they are stopping for food.

Greg Jacobs stated, I’m not encroaching on where a sidewalk would be. At one point the Town did come in and paint some hash marks on existing asphalt to represent a sidewalk and have put up no parking sign and trying to address I’m sure neighbor complaints.

I have never paid anyone to plow anything but my property. I would guess that the State or the Town of Brookston is plowing the area that she is referring to in front of the bank. Yes, the majority of the traffic that stops there walks across the street and is purchasing something from our establishment. We have no signs saying truckers welcome. The situation that she is referring to, we have a site unrelated but similar, we have site on State Road 25 North that semis can pull in and out of fairly easily. We see tractor trailer drivers stopping in the lane of a 50 m.p.h. highway stopping and coming in. We can’t control what these people do on State property and this is where they are stopping. We have never complained to the local police about coming out and taking any of our customers. If they are violating a no parking ordinance then they need to be, we understand that. What she is referring to is not from something that I have done to attract them to our establishment. Unfortunately, they could get into the IGA. Why they don’t I’m not sure because they do serve food and soft drinks and that. Mobile is not very convenient because it’s at the intersection and there is definitely not anywhere to pull off. We’re not a truck stop.

Patty Bruinsma stated, I would like to address that he has asphalt over the sidewalks. He has asphalted over the curbing, making it more convenient for the larger vehicles to pull up to that area.

Greg Jacobs stated, ma’am, since I have been there I have not done any asphalting. The Town has patched some holes on the North side of the property there close to where they took the pole out. Other than putting the concrete in 14 years ago to fill in where we cut out for the piping and the tanks you will see no new asphalt, we have removed nothing. You have to have a State permit to do anything in the State right-of-way you can call Bill Isom, Fowler sub-district. We have done a lot of work in the State right-of-way and I assure you that we have not changed this in 14 years. Even in that point, we didn’t change anything other than what you see with the canopy that we had permission for.

Vice President Saylor stated, if I can bring this back into focus a little bit, what the Board is here to vote on is the placement of the sign and the canopy. If we have evidence to listen to regarding to specifically the placement of the sign and the canopy we will be happy to do that. Would anyone care to address those specific issues?

Patty Bruinsma stated, yes, I don’t think that replacing those pumps the way that he says is going to be of any advantage to the City of Brookston. He has many vehicles that pull in there that have long trailers on them, boats. They are going to all be sticking way out into the sidewalk as they are now. That canopy getting farther and farther and closer and closer to the road, I see no need for him to do that. He does not need that parking in front of that building. He has parking on the side of the building, he has a whole big lot to have parking on. The parking in front of his building is not detrimental to him, it is detrimental to the City of Brookston because we need that sidewalk. We don’t need to have a space for the semis to be able to pull up into that the way that they do.

Vice President Saylor asked, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I’m looking.

Attorney Altman stated, what height is the canopy?

Greg Jacobs stated, 15’ 6”.

Attorney Altman asked, in the air?

Greg Jacobs stated, bottom of the canopy, which is standard.

Attorney Altman asked, is the present one in there the same height?

Greg Jacobs stated, I’m sure within 2” to 3”, canopies vary anywhere from 14.6’ to 16’.

Attorney Altman asked, will it look similar to the present canopy in fascia height.

Greg Jacobs stated, fascia height yes. Lining the same and the sensors the same. To reconfigure, basically to allow parking at the front of the building, unless you have been in the convenience store business you won’t know how valuable those are. Again, it’s a 2 fold, we want to image our store to bring it up into the year 2000, it’s a dated looking store.

We feel that we are a very good neighbor to Brookston. We pay some mighty fine, high taxes and a pretty high utility bill. I’m not sure that there has been to many complaints to the Town Board if it has been such a problem. I would have thought that this issue should have been addressed with the Town Board of Brookston and I’m sure that our town Marshall would address the concerns of safety.

Attorney Altman asked, you’ll go from 4 pumps to 3 pumps?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, which is going to slow some of your traffic down there too.

Greg Jacobs stated, basically the station doesn’t do enough volume to warrant 4 pumps. We can take one out of there now and it wouldn’t effect us. There’s no advantage to what way it’s configured so we know that 3 pumps will allow us to, will pump more than enough volume that that station will ever pump.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that I would also be a little bit concerned at a sign, that proposal that you compared it to in the picture shows the addition of signs in the viewer area.

Greg Jacobs asked, viewer area?

Attorney Altman stated, view area, the bottom end of it.

Greg Jacobs stated, the signs that are there, at least existing signs that are there are 8’ or 7’ off of the ground.

Attorney Altman stated, I know but if you look at this sign it has cigarette…

Carol Stradling stated, a lot of signs, small signs.

Attorney Altman stated, a lot of small signs that would be very much in the viewed area from a traffic point of view. I think that would have to stop.

Greg Jacobs stated, we can’t obviously do anything to obstruct the traffic.

Attorney Altman stated, the view.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, I mean there is an ordinance that specifies that you have to be so high off of the ground. I don’t know what that is but although a tremendous amount of traffic exits off of the South end of this lot now…

Attorney Altman stated, I can appreciate that but we’re doubling that up and that can’t happen.

Greg Jacobs stated, we have no problem, our signs will not violate the Ordinance or the obstruction of traffic. I would love to see a list of the traffic accidents, I can tell you…

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t want more.

Greg Jacobs stated, it’s just not a dangerous, yes, when there are trucks parked up there like that it is dangerous. I assure you that, but we are not doing anything to, I guess you can say that we’re advertising cigarettes and smokes so in a sense we’re trying to draw our customers in but we’re not trying to be a truck stop. We have excellent coverage with our police department so I’m sure that we can improve on that.

Vice President Saylor asked, does the Board have any questions at this time?

Patty Bruinsma stated, I would just like to state the fact that there was an accident there at 1:15 p.m. on Sunday. I was sitting in my front parlor working on my computer and I heard a big bang and I looked out the door and there was an accident right there at that corner. The reason why is because there was a big truck, that wasn’t a regular size truck, not a pickup truck, it was a big pickup truck and it had a trailer on the back of it, it was a commercial semi. It was parked right where I showed you that the other semis, where someone came out and they got clipped. They both pulled over into his parking lot, they exchanged papers with each other. I didn’t go over there but I assume that they exchanged insurance papers, telephone. They did not wait for the police because Brookston does not have someone there on duty at all times and they know that in order to have your accident reported with the police you may wait there for an hour or you may wait there 2 hours. They exchanged papers and they continued on so I know for a fact, I live there, I know that there is an accident there at least once a month. I see them and no they are not all recorded with the police.

Ray Butz asked, why don’t you go to the Town Board meeting and talk to them and have the police…

Patty Bruinsma stated, I have called the police.

Ray Butz stated, and if you have to call every day, call every day.

Patty Bruinsma stated, I have called the police many times, I have called the Monticello Police many times, this is a 10-year situation.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any further comments from anyone?

Carol Stradling asked, do we have to vote on the sign and the canopy together? Can we split that up?

Vice President Saylor stated, that’s the way that it’s presented.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s the way that it’s presented.

Greg Jacobs asked, is there a concern about the sign or the canopy? One of the two?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I don’t see that moving a sign would be that more advantageous to you and it appears to me that moving it closer to that intersection would obstruct traffic view.

Greg Jacobs stated, from that advantageous standpoint what we’re really thinking about more than our standpoint is because it’s added expense for us. It would be cheaper for us to just go ahead and put the new car wash sign down on the South property line and where it abuts a residential neighbor so it really isn’t a significant advantage to us one way or another. Where our Citgo sign goes, we just felt that since there had been an Amoco Id and price sign there before, up until 5 to 6 years ago. We took it down because it wasn’t being used and it was just an eyesore. There had been one there actually, the edge of it was on the property line and it was no closer to the North than what we’re proposing so we’re just really proposing something that had been there since ’59 or ’60 when that location was originally put in.

Again, I will add, a lot of traffic, I would say that a significant amount of our traffic exits to the South and they head out towards that sign and either take a left or a right onto the highway there. So you have an identical situation whether they are exiting my property or sitting at First Street, it would be the same thing in terms of view of traffic.

Carol Stradling asked, when it says 35’ from your property line to the line there that says State Road 43. Is that to the State Road 43 centerline?

Greg Jacobs stated, that’s the centerline.

Ray Butz stated, I don’t’ think that the canopy and the sign has much to do with what those people are complaining about. I think that they are complaining more about the traffic.

Attorney Altman asked, the canopy would be 10’ off of the property line right?

Greg Jacobs stated, right, which it currently is, one corner is.

Attorney Altman asked, and be 5’ off of your property line going to First Street right?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, which it presently, is probably at least 40’ from your property line that way. They are going to be high?

Greg Jacobs stated, the building is about 15’ now so it’s probably 15’ to 18’ to that corner.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any further comments from anyone?

Patty Bruinsma stated, the way that he has the bays angled there is not a convenient way for you to pull your vehicle in there and he has this parking. This is not a well thought out plan, he can not, how can he get to the property here with his vehicle and go this way over to a parking bay over here? This I do not understand.

Greg Jacobs stated, as I said at first, I drew the islands in, we have not identified what the exact configuration of the island should be and it may end up being parallel with the building. What we do know though is we will end up with the correct plan, we are spending a lot of money and we’re definitely not going to do something that is detrimental to the flow of traffic. That’s the exact thing that we are trying to improve.

Vice President Saylor stated, but the Board would be voting to consider the exact placement of this canopy.

Greg Jacobs stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, and 3 islands, 3 pumps.

Greg Jacobs stated, the pumps really have nothing to do with the request. The reason why I illustrated what I did was I didn’t want, because we have been playing with the idea of running the pumps parallel with the building, I didn’t want it to be perceived that was the exact direction that the islands would set. We wanted to let you know that we were considering different configurations basically the center line of the pumps wouldn’t change. It’s just would they go parallel or would they go perpendicular to the building or would they be skewed a little bit as they are now.

Patty Bruinsma stated, I have another question, I’m sorry I don’t really mean to take up all of your time but, if this canopy is being put here in consideration of those pumps then how far are those pumps from the sidewalk?

Greg Jacobs stated, the drawing that you can see is to scale and the car that is shown there is standard and that was done by C & S Engineering. It shows a very accurate placement of where a vehicle might be if he was heading both directions, whether East or West.

Ray Butz asked, this has to be okayed by the State yet doesn’t it? You have never had anything done with it?

Greg Jacobs stated, we have to get a State Fire Marshall’s permit to build a new canopy plus the State Fire Marshal’s permit to reconfigure the pump islands.

Vice President Saylor stated, 22’ is what is requested.

Patty Bruinsma stated, 22’ from the sidewalk.

Vice President Saylor stated, from the edge of his property to the center point of the pumps according to this would be 22’.

Attorney Altman asked, the sign would not be where the sidewalk is right?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, in fact it’s further back. If you get a visual of this sign, this sign is on the property line, on the front property line the existing one so the proposed one is even further back.

Attorney Altman asked, back, you mean further East?

Greg Jacobs stated, further East off of the property line, 3’ I believe that is shown.

Attorney Altman asked, and it will also be back South off of the property line too?

Greg Jacobs stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, so it would not interfere with the sidewalks?

Greg Jacobs stated, no, not at all.

Patty Bruinsma stated, I just have one more thing to say, if you would take these little cars and if you would park those in front of there and you would put cars in these bays and you put a trailer, we are in a rural city we have trucks, we have trailers on the back of trucks, we have boats on the back of cars, these bays do not allow for people to pull up to his pumps and have something on the back of their vehicle and still be able to get around there and have cars parked in front of that building.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other comments?

Charlie Mellon asked, are those pumps in operation now? Gas pumps?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes all of them are.

Attorney Altman stated, the 4 as shown on here are in operation.

Charlie Mellon stated, I didn’t know if they were or not, I was just going to say if they are not there’s going to be more traffic congestion in there after they go. If this is passed tonight does she have another chance to go to the Town Board?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, this is done…

Charlie Mellon stated, this is the first Area Planning permit…

Director Weaver stated, no, this is the only meeting that it goes to.

Charlie Mellon stated, if it was in the City here in Monticello, you have to go to the Council.

Attorney Altman stated, no, not on B.Z.A.

Charlie Mellon stated, on the first regular permit…

Ray Butz stated, that is Area Planning.

Attorney Altman stated, but this isn’t Area Planning. B.Z.A. decides it.

Charlie Mellon asked, it’s the final one?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Charlie Mellon stated, okay, I’m wrong.

Attorney Altman stated, B.Z.A. decides it.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any further comments from anyone? If not would the Board like to vote?

The Board sated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, objector filed Exhibit A, which I marked that and I have indicated the photos on it and she has testified from that.

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 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 15’ front setback variance from Prairie Street and a 20’ front setback variance from 1st Street to build a canopy and an 8’ front setback variance from Prairie Street and a 7’ front setback variance from 1st Street to place a free-standing on-premise sign on Lots Number Eleven (11) and Twelve (12) in Block Fifteen (15) in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 100 S. Prairie Street.

 

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are 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 authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

 

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit before you proceed and the other proof of course.

****

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have any further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals this evening?

Director Weaver stated, I just made copies, we were just named in a lawsuit I just thought that the Board might be interested in knowing what was going on.

Carol Stradling asked, could you summarize what is going on, was there something approved?

Director Weaver stated, there was a variance approved, I believe in 1976 on a subdivision granting a 25’ front setback. Not specifying whether it was from the easement or from the front property line. We issued a building permit for a home to be built and it’s being disputed if that is meeting the required setbacks.

Charlie Mellon stated, I want to ask a question about R & J Properties. They are building out there.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they are building.

Charlie Mellon asked, that’s legal?

Director Weaver stated, they have plenty of room, if they don’t get their parking variance they have plenty of room to meet their parking requirements. Otherwise I would not have issued a permit for them. They have room behind the building to have additional parking.

Charlie Mellon stated, I know, I thought that they had to have a permit to build a foundation, they can build a foundation without it.

Director Weaver stated, they have their building permit.

Charlie Mellon stated, they do but they are erecting out there.

Director Weaver stated, they have their building permit.

Charlie Mellon stated, all of this was just for their parking spaces?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Charlie Mellon stated, you should have drove down there this afternoon, it’s underwater.

Director Weaver stated, they had to have a drainage approval before they could have gotten a building permit.

Charlie Mellon stated, well, it’s underwater and that’s a swamp.

Director Weaver stated, well, they have to address drainage.

Charlie Mellon stated, they sure in won’t be able to raise it up after they have their poles and frame offset. I know that’s not you guys, that’s the Drainage Board.

Vice President Saylor stated, if there is not any other business, the chair will entertain a motion for adjourning.

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Butz, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission