Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, June 15, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Ron & Anita Ledbetter, Shannon & Stephanie Mattix, Ron Coonse, Paul Couts, Darryl Miller, Chris Brennan and Leon Rusinek.

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

No minutes were available to approve.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1108 Ronald L. Coonse; Requesting a 3’ side setback variance to build an addition onto an existing detached garage on lot #10 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 4520 E. Oakcrest Drive.

President Thompson asked, are you Mr. Coonse?

Ronald Coonse stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to present to us tonight sir?

Ronald Coonse stated, I don’t think so.

President Thompson stated, feel free, if there is more in the description than I read that we need to know about feel free to tell us. Something that we have to ask, has there been any response from any of the neighbors?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not heard anything from the adjoiners.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here in favor or opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any questions from the Board?


Attorney Altman asked, the addition is a single story addition continuing on your garage?


Ronald Coonse stated, yes, make it 12’ longer.

Attorney Altman asked, and it will just continue it on?

Ronald Coonse stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, same roof line just make it 12’ longer?

Ronald Coonse stated yes.

Attorney Altman asked, towards your house right?

Ronald Coonse stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it won’t go on the septic or the leach bed or anything like that of your home?

Ronald Coonse stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to make sure that is so.

Ronald Coonse stated, well, I’m supposed to be getting sewer at some time this summer too.

Attorney Altman asked, sometimes are suppose to never happens so we want to make sure that you’re not causing yourself problems by limiting your leach bed and the ability for it to do what it needs to do by building on top of it so that’s why I asked the question.

Ronald Coonse stated, I just bought the place a month and a half ago and from what I was told where the septic tank was at and the previous owner telling me where it is at.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else? We must be ready to vote then?

The Board stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can say is, you can’t build on it. That’s why I asked the questions and I do hope that they put the sewer system in.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site 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 3’ side setback variance to build an addition onto an existing detached garage on Lot #10 in Amos Oakcrest Third Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 4520 E. Oakcrest 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, your variance was allowed, you need to get a building permit before you proceed. I would check on the septic system like I would remind anyone else here, you need to do that.

****

#1109 Leon H. & Gwynn E. Rusinek; Requesting a 7’ South side setback variance to build a roofed porch and a 6’ North side setback variance to replace an existing carport with an attached garage and to bring the existing home on Lot #8 in Sullivans Hillcrest Addition into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located North of Monticello at 2378 N. Sullivan Court.

President Thompson asked, sir, you are?

Leon Rusinek stated his name.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to give to the Board tonight?

Leon Rusinek asked, what does it mean by bring the existing home into compliance? Is it not in compliance now?

Director Weaver stated, it does not meet our current setbacks, so you bring it into compliance.

Leon Rusinek stated, okay, I just want to say that the foundation for the porch, it’s already there, there was a porch there at one time. I just bought it last year and the person tore it down thinking he was going to build another one but he never did. The garage, I’m going to go with the same roof line but higher with trusses because it’s going to be a wider stand. I have some pictures, Exhibit A, if you want to see some pictures of what I’m going to do.

Attorney Altman stated, if you do they stay as part of the evidence.

President Thompson stated, we keep them.

Attorney Altman stated, if you want to show them to the board we would love to have them.

President Thompson stated, if you don’t mind giving them up.

Leon Rusinek stated, that’s fine.

Attorney Altman stated, why don’t you maybe take this out in front here, show the board that so they can see that. Anyone else that is interested please come forward, this isn’t a secret.

Leon Rusinek stated, it’s just a carport, it has an over hang, I’m not going any father this way. I’m going to go higher with the roofline with trusses…

President Thompson asked, higher where?

Leon Rusinek stated, on the house, on half of it. Actually nothing is going to change except I’m going to go back even with this, because this is part of the house connected, just go even with this because the bedrooms are only 7’ x 5’ and I think that one is 8’ x 10’ so this will give me a few more feet for the bedroom.

Attorney Altman asked, will there be more bedrooms?

Leon Rusinek stated, no there is not going to be any living space upstairs because I have to go with the trusses.

Attorney Altman stated, from a septic point of view that is important.

Leon Rusinek stated, it won’t be the septic, I have already checked on that. The only thing that I have to check on is the foundation and see if the carport is already enclosed, ¾ enclosed.

Attorney Altman asked, we have received 6 photos I will mark them 1 through 6. Does the Board or anyone else want to see them?

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

Director Weaver stated, no we have not heard anything on this.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone opposed to the variance this evening? Does the Board have any discussion? I think that we’re ready to vote.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site 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 7’ South side setback variance to build a roofed porch and a 6’ North side setback variance to replace an existing carport with an attached garage and to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on Lot Number Eight (8) in Sullivan’s Hillcrest Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 2378 N. Sullivan Court.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the variance was granted, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Leon Rusinek asked, how long is a variance good for because I was going to do the porch now but the big project I was going to do it within a year and a half.

Attorney Altman stated, probably should start within a year would be my advice.

President Thompson stated, it’s basically good for a year right Director Weaver?

Attorney Altman stated, variance actually has aspects that are actually longer than that but I wouldn’t push it if I were you.

Leon Rusinek asked, could I extend it anyway?

Attorney Altman stated, re-apply.

Leon Rusinek asked, just re-apply for another variance?

Attorney Altman stated, yes. I’m just saying to you, there are people that sometimes find themselves on the eight ball by waiting more than a year to commence.

Leon Rusinek stated, I understand that but I’m moving down here in 2 years and I want to sell the house up North before I do the big project.

Attorney Altman stated, you call that shot okay. You decide whether you are going to do it.

****

#1110 Hermitage Place L.P.; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to modify the amount of parking spaces required for a retail business on 0.750 of an acre. They are required to have 90 parking spaces and they are proposing to have 49 parking spaces. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the Northeast corner of 8th Street and U.S. Highway 24.

President Thompson asked, are you representing the Hermitage Place?

Paul Couts stated, yes, I’m from C & S Engineering, I guess that I would offer just two pieces of information for you. Number one my, client has indicated that the number of parking spaces which is around the 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area which is in your ordinance normally required 1 per 100 is what their business needs so they are not anxious to put in something that is not going to work. Second, I would just offer one thing, in more as a point of information, Tippecanoe County has just gone through their unified zoning ordinance and has changed after about 7 years of hard work and struggling with a lot of different things. Currently Tippecanoe County Ordinance does require the same thing 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area so we would be in line with what the people themselves think would work and also with what the county ordinance in Tippecanoe is right now. So if you have any further questions would be happy to answer them.

Ray Butz asked, is the parking lot going to be black topped?

Paul Couts stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman asked, and it will be as your proposal is here right?

Paul Couts stated, that is correct.

Attorney Altman asked, the parking areas will be lined the way that you have them?

Paul Couts stated, yes that is the current site plan and that is the one that we are using. We have used it for the State highway permit and we’re also using it for the Drainage Board approval. That is the one that we are with right now and it will be the one that they build.

Attorney Altman stated, so the Board and anyone else that is exactly what they are going to build if we approve it.

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

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything on this.

Gary Barbour asked, we are in the process of amending this ordinance?

Director Weaver stated, yes we are.

Gary Barbour asked, can you tell me what the status is on that?

Director Weaver stated, as soon as we get time to get it typed up in the office and presented to the A.P.C., I hope to have that for their next meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, then it’s up to the towns and the cities.

Gary Barbour stated, this is the 3rd different one that we have run through in the last 3 months, is that not correct?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s pretty close to that.

Director Weaver stated, you’re right we have had several.

Gary Barbour stated, but right now it’s because you haven’t had time to do it right?

Director Weaver stated, right, the office has been extremely busy the last couple of months and we have just been working on it little by little but we just don’t have it complete yet.

Carol Stradling asked, can you tell us what is recommended in that, is it 1 to 200?

Director Weaver stated, currently the one part of the county is under a 1 to 300.

Carol Stradling asked, so this would exceed that?

Director Weaver stated, right, right now we’re under two separate ordinances for our parking, part of the county is under 1 parking for every 100 parking and part of the county is under 1 for every 300. I believe that the A.P.C. indicated that they wanted to go with the one that was 1 to 300.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the special exception? Is there any other discussion from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, one thing that I was going to ask Director Weaver, the last 3 that we have granted are similar to this proposal or request right?

Director Weaver 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 as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to modify the amount of parking spaces required for a retail business on that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a nail at the Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter or said Section 32, thence South 88 degrees 31 Minutes 00 seconds West (deed bearing) along U.S. 24 and the quarter section line 659.20 feet; thence North 02 degrees 15 minutes West 30.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning;

Thence South 88 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds West along the north right-of-way line U.S. 24 a distance of 233.38 feet to a survey nail; thence North 02 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 140.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 88 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 233.38 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 02 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East 140.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.750 of an Acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the northeast corner of 8th Street and U.S. Highway 24.

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 the zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that this doesn’t take a building permit right Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, the structure will but they are not to that point I don’t believe.

Attorney Altman stated, as this is a special exception the ordinance is very specific it must be substantially commenced within 1 year or you do need a second special exception.

****

#1111 Shannon Mattix; Requesting a 22’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on 80 acres. The property is located in Liberty Township at 8420 N. 800 E.

President Thompson asked, are you Shannon Mattix.

Shannon Mattix stated, yes.

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

Shannon Mattix stated, no.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no I have not received anything. I think that they are out kind of by themselves on this piece of property.

Shannon Mattix stated, I just like the peace.

Director Weaver stated, I had someone come in the office and ask why they had to have a variance on 80 acres.

Shannon Mattix stated, my point exactly.

Attorney Altman stated, the reason is they are too close to the road out there right?

Director Weaver stated, right.

Shannon Mattix stated, but we have a great view of the landfill though, bald eagles and every thing.

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition to the house would be single story?

Shannon Mattix stated, two story, it’s a single story now and we’re adding another one.

Attorney Altman asked, another story on top?

Shannon Mattix stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, obviously you have enough room to put all of the septic system in there.

Shannon Mattix stated, yes it’s all going to be brand new.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any questions or comments from the Board?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.

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 22’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana containing 80 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 8420 N. 800 E.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1112 Darryl Miller; Requesting a special exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a 1974 Horizon Mobile Home in White County.

President Thompson asked, Darryl do you have anything extra to add to this?

Darryl Miller stated, not really, it’s an immaculate mobile home, I’m sure that you have pictures.

Attorney Altman stated, if we did I didn’t see them in the front of the file, I have the report.

Director Weaver stated, he did take pictures on it didn’t he?

Darryl Miller stated, yes, a bunch of them and the note that was on the envelope when we got it and paid was that he would drop them off at Area Plan tomorrow.

Director Weaver asked, if he did, I’m not aware of them. He did give you a copy of the ballot where he filled it out didn’t he?

Darryl Miller stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, for the people here, in order to put a mobile home in White County that isn’t a new one we require inspections on them and that before they can be sited and occupied. That’s what this Board looks at and that’s what we’re involving ourselves with this particular matter. It doesn’t really matter where it goes in White County and that’s why the President didn’t say whether it was right next door or in Honey Creek or what ever.

President Thompson stated, in Mr. Braaksmas' report I will, must, pick out one sentence, the picture will show what the mobile home looks like.

Darryl Miller stated, he took a lot of them.

President Thompson asked, do we need to read his notes into the record for any reason?

Attorney Altman stated, not for the record.

President Thompson stated, his comment is over all condition the home is excellent. Have you seen his report?

Darryl Miller stated, I did get a copy of that and I looked over it.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not.

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

Gary Barbour stated, the current concerns are if everything that is on here that is against it, has it all been updated?

Darryl Miller stated, we haven’t moved it in until we found out, he said that I should wait until the variance hearing and then we could do it. It will be done and then he has to re-inspect it before, it’s not set or anything we had to move it but it’s not set up or anything so it will be and he will re-inspect it before.

Director Weaver asked, do the smoke detectors work now, I understand that they needed a battery?

Darryl Miller stated, I don’t know if we even…

Director Weaver stated, Patty told me that she thought that all they needed was just a battery.

Darryl Miller stated, I don’t even think that Patty has even been in it.

President Thompson asked, is there anything from the Board members?

Carol Stradling asked, I just think that we should verbalize that the only concerns that are on here were the smoke detectors weren’t operating and the carbon monoxide detector was not in and furnace is not hook up and when it is in he will check that.

Darryl Miller stated, that will all be done.

Ray Butz stated, they have to go through another inspection anyway.

Darryl Miller stated, if the variance passes he said then do your changes and then he will come back out and re-inspect it.

Gary Barbour stated, do you have a copy of this to know everything that he is wanting changed?

Darryl Miller stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1974 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the variance herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, 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 section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, subject to re-inspection and approval of the matters that need to be done as set out on the inspection report, the vote is that the home may be sighted in White County.

****

#1113 David N. Ellis, Owner; Ron Ledbetter, Applicant; Requesting an 8’ front setback variance and a 1’ side setback variance to build a new home on the property and a 3’ side setback variance to build an unroofed deck on the new home on 0.334 of an acre. The property is located in Liberty Township on the North side of C.R. 350 N., just West of Conwell Drive.

President Thompson asked, do you have any information that you would like to present to us Mr. Ledbetter?

Ron Ledbetter stated, yes, I would like to give each of you kind of a site plan, Exhibit A, that’s kind of super imposed.

President Thompson stated, once again we keep them.

Ron Ledbetter stated, I understand, that’s fine.

Attorney Altman stated, received into the evidence a schematic of the proposed home, the lots that are to either side of it with the present improvements on it is that right Mr. Ledbetter?

Ron Ledbetter stated, it will be a new house.

Attorney Altman asked, no I mean on the others.

Ron Ledbetter stated, the others…

Attorney Altman stated, Phyllis and Cliff…

Ron Ledbetter stated, those are just adjacent properties and they are already there that is just showing how they relate to each other especially. We are in the process of buying this lot from the owner David Ellis and the lot is part of a larger parcel that he owns that has another house on it. We are asking for the setback just so that we can put the house in the best situation and orientation so that it doesn’t crowd either neighbor.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received anything on this.

Attorney Altman asked, single story, double story?

Ron Ledbetter stated, two-story house.

Attorney Altman asked, are the others two story on either side of you?

Ron Ledbetter stated, one is a one story to the right, the Ellis house, and the other Cliff house, is a one story with a walk out basement.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any comments from the Board? Is there anything, if nothing we will vote then.

Attorney Altman stated, we will include this as Exhibit A.

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. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.

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 an 8’ front setback variance and a 1’ side setback variance to build a new home on the property and a 3’ side setback variance to build an unroofed deck on the new home on that part of Wayside Lodge, being in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a railroad spike at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 15.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 08 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the north right-of-way line of C.R. 350 N. a distance of 522.46 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning;

Thence North 26 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds West 146.71 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe on the SFLECC line; thence along said line North 64 degrees 42 minutes 53 seconds East 15.08 feet and North 18 degrees 27 minutes 53 seconds East 40.00 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 56 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East 123.14 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 03 degrees 46 minutes 09 degrees East 108.00 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 08 seconds West 71.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.334 of an Acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township on the North side of C.R. 350 N., just West of Conwell 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 findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1114 Phillip A. & Nancy J. Booher; Requesting a 24’ front (water side) setback variance and a 20’ front (fire lane) setback variance and a 6’ South side setback variance to add onto the existing home on lot #44 in Gingrich Addition. The property is located South of Monticello at 6076 Capper Court.

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

Chris Brennan stated, I’m representing Philip and Nancy Booher.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Chris Brennan stated, project builder, theoretically, contingent upon decision made.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Chris Brennan stated, I really don’t, I have a few pictures, Exhibit #1, #2, #3 and #4, but I’m sure that Director Weaver has some that show that it doesn’t really show…

Director Weaver stated, actually Angie went and got pictures while I was stuck in the office but she didn’t make it to this one.

Chris Brennan stated, these aren’t the best but they do show that you can see from the survey that it sets back off a ways.

Attorney Altman stated, we have 4 photographs right Mr. Brennan?

Chris Brennan stated, yes. It doesn’t encroach on either view from the other side.

Attorney Altman asked, the home that is existing is what color on that?

Chris Brennan stated, the existing home is gray, a faded gray.

Attorney Altman stated, I received a phone call at about 4:15 p.m. tonight from Mary Walters. She has property there where it says Walter’s property and descriptions and that sort of thing, ingress and egress, 15’. She raised the issue, and I wish that I had it in time to talk to you Director Weaver about it but, she said that the road through there, by through there I’m talking on the North side of this property she has a deed that says it is 15’ in width not 10’ as shown on Mr. Sterrett’s survey. I said to her I sure would have liked to have known about that in time to talk to Mr. Sterrett and I had no idea that you were involved Mr. Brennan or I would have called you about this and Director Weaver was already gone.

Director Weaver stated, no, I was actually still there.

Attorney Altman stated, I figured that you were gone. I guess I told her to at least come tonight and show us what she was talking about so that we can make some sort of an assessment about what is going on here, where that 5’ is. I don’t know exactly what to say other than I guess, I look at this proposal as a proposal that says they want to be 10’ off of the North boundary as being the variance that might be an issue. Is the Board with me?

The board stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m saying to you is I think that we could proceed this evening based upon, that is if the board decides they want to vote and approve that 10’, that if Mary Walters has a 15’ easement through there and I don’t know if she does or if she doesn’t. I do notice to the right hand side that part of the ingress and egress easement is 15’. I’m just showing you how the survey, I don’t know, it just raises issues and questions. I guess I think that we could if we decided to vote, we could approve the proposed addition based upon them being 10’ off of that North line and if that North line is 2’ further South they still could only be 10’ off other North line. Do you see what I’m trying to suggest to the Board?

Director Weaver stated, that is what the request is for Jerry.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but what I’m trying to say is if that line isn’t where it says that it is then they would have to back up.

Carol Stradling stated, let’s say that the 5’ from her easement is on to this property in question then he would loose 5’ and then not be able to follow through with these plans because if you had it 10’ off of your property line you’re going to be 3’ into the next property.

President Thompson stated, I don’t think so.

Attorney Altman stated, or they could only be 21’ wide.

President Thompson stated, he is only going to give up 2 ½’ if they go right?

Attorney Altman stated, assuming if that’s what that is.

Carol Stradling stated, if they took 5’ off of here and moved it 5’ here.

Attorney Altman stated, to the South.

Carol Stradling stated, to the South.

President Thompson asked, if they take it all off of one side is what you’re saying?

Carol Stradling stated, right, exactly, which would be the most that they could take off, then your plans…

Chris Brennan stated, then I would need to apply for a variance for 5’ off of the line rather than 10’ off of the line.

Jeff Saylor stated, I guess, normally we accept these as is and in the absence of any testimony or proof to the contrary I think that we should vote on exactly what we have in front of us.

Ray Butz stated, what we have here.

President Thompson stated, I do too.

Jeff Saylor stated, if it is a question then…

President Thompson stated, the survey has a seal on it.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t see anyone in the audience to comment about this.

Director Weaver asked, Chris, did Denny stake this at the time that he surveyed it?

Chris Brennan stated, no and the first that I have heard of it was this evening when Jerry mentioned it. I see the 15’ line on the S.F.L.E.C.C. property and just in observation if I could, he came off of markers for the North line on Booher’s property and it would seem to me like the poles that he came off of on the South line they were setback. He had to survey off of those and on the North line those were actually on the line. So it would seem to me that if there were an extra 5’ it would probably be North of the property rather than South of the property.

Director Weaver asked, could the board approve this contingent on them having the surveyor go back out and actually staking the North lot line so that the contractor knows exactly where those lot lines are and can make sure that he stays the 10’ off.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that should be done no matter what.

Director Weaver stated, but it’s not always done.

Gary Barbour asked, it’s not going to be necessarily our issue is it? All that we’re voting on is the 10’ from the line, we don’t really care where the line is.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling asked, is 5’ a problem, 5’ off of the line?

Director Weaver stated, yes, you can’t go 5’ without re-advertising.

Attorney Altman stated, you can’t go closer than what is advertised. I guess I would agree Jeff, I would put the burden on the people that own it and tell Mr. Booher that his survey is wrong and prove that his survey is wrong. I’m just raising the issue that if the other people are right, Ms. Walters is right, then there’s an easement across there.

Gary Barbour stated, this says that it’s platted so if she has a deed…

Director Weaver stated, she said her deed said that.

Attorney Altman stated, she said her deed said 15’.

Gary Barbour stated, so it wouldn’t be an easement, it would be her property.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree and again I don’t know exactly what it is, all I know is what I was told.

Gary Barbour stated, he has two options, he can either table it to the next meeting…

Attorney Altman stated, and get it checked out.

Gary Barbour stated, or he can press it to the 10’ and worst case, come back in and re-advertise for a 5’ if that is the case.

Attorney Altman stated, if that is the case, yes.

President Thompson asked, that is blacktopped across there?

Chris Brennan stated, it’s blacktopped and I assume with the purpose of fire lane for the homes both North and South. It’s really, actually, used by pretty much the property shown because you’re getting into wands on the other places and if there is not a fire they get a little upset about that but usually it’s just pretty much the 3 homes that are shown. Yes, there is an easement, there’s an old fire lane that goes through there.

President Thompson stated, it seems like this would have come up before now though.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that I’m having trouble proceeding, exactly like Jeff is saying and if this other house has, I would sure recommend to your client that they double check that out because obviously they are going to have a mess if this survey…

President Thompson stated, wrong…

Attorney Altman stated, or if that easement deed calls for more than what they show on this.

Chris Brennan stated, I need to check with Denny. I will definitely check that before we start anything but I think that if there is another survey it should be financial responsibility for whoever is arguing against this one.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not arguing that, I just don’t want your people to put it in there.

Chris Brennan stated, I will check with Denny before I do anything else. I don’t want a question mark hanging over a job, I don’t like tearing out my own work.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t want it either.

Jeff Saylor stated, all that we had was a phone call before the meeting, you don’t have anything else to the contrary.

Director Weaver stated, there was nothing, there was no call that came into the office.

Ray Butz stated, should have been here.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any comments from the Board? Are we ready to vote? I think that we are.

Attorney Altman stated, we received for the record 4 photos and I’m marking on them #1 through #4.

President Thompson stated, I guess what I’m saying is surely one of these other properties have changed properties in the last 10 years and it looks like when there were surveys done at that time something like that would have popped up then.

Attorney Altman stated, I was amazed when I got the phone call, when I got it and the fact that I couldn’t even get a copy of the deed and that survey.

Carol Stradling stated, the only time that they would have to question that is when you’re comparing 2 property owners.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing is, I don’t want someone to not be aware that there is an issue here before they put anything in the ground. They are all right here but the only thing is that they would, they have to make sure that they are alright on their septic on the proposed addition in the Health Department.

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. 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 24’ front (water side) setback variance and a 20’ front (fire lane) setback variance and a 6’ South side setback variance to add onto the existing home on Lot Number Forty-four (44) in Gingrich Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana, a Plat of which is recorded at Deed Record 129, Page 512, White County Recorder’s Office.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located south of Monticello at 6076 Capper Court.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1115 Darryl Miller; Requesting an 85’ rear setback variance to place a mobile home on his lot due to the location of the septic system and a hill on 1.000 acres. The property is located in Cass Township on the East side of C.R. 1100 E. and North of C.R. 700 N.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything extra to add tonight Mr. Miller?

Darryl Miller stated, I own all of the surrounding property. It’s just lotted off or measured off. This is out in the middle of the woods so there are no other neighbors around close. The lay of the land, this is about the only level place there is and with the septic and the well if we moved it up on top of the hill we would have to have a front variance, setback variance.

President Thompson asked, I would imagine that it is safe to assume this is the mobile home that we spoke of a couple of variances ago?

Darryl Miller stated, right.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any comments from the Board? I guess that we’re ready to vote.

With no other discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is property zoned A-1, Agricultural.

2. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.

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 an 85’ rear setback variance to place a mobile home on his lot due to the location of the septic system and a hill on that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range 2 West in Cass Township, White County, Indiana described by;

Commencing at a railroad spike at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 21; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the Quarter section line 330.00 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 01 degrees 07 minutes 14 seconds East 252.90 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning;

Thence South 01 degrees 07 minutes 14 seconds East 242.10 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds East 180.00 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe, thence North 01 degrees 07 minutes 14 seconds West 242.10 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West 180.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.000 Acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Cass Township on the East side of C.R. 1100 E. and North of C.R. 700 N.

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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit, and a second inspection.

****

President Thompson asked, any other business Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so.

President Thompson asked, nothing?

Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of.

Attorney Altman stated, I just wanted to make sure that we had it on the record that someone had told me that. I agree with what the Board did on that one period.

Jeff Saylor asked, would she have gotten notice as an adjoining property owner?

Director Weaver stated, her name is on that, so yes she should have that.

Attorney Altman stated, she said that she got notice, I’m sorry I didn’t say that out loud but she said that she got notice.

Director Weaver stated, if she had called prior to and giving us time to, I could have pulled that deed and looked at it.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t have any problem with what we did.

President Thompson stated, I don’t either.

Director Weaver stated, yes, she did get notice.

Gary Barbour stated, they are supposed to make sure that they are 10’ from that.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right and the property line is not like what is on that survey. I wanted it so they couldn’t say that no one told them that.

Ray Butz stated, all that you have is the survey to go by.

Jeff Saylor asked, what happens if the surveyor does something wrong?

Attorney Altman stated, they have errors and omissions and insurance like anyone else does.

Jeff Saylor asked, like if we voted on something based on a survey that proves to be incorrect and if sometime goes ahead and builds a home…

Attorney Altman stated, obviously if we said remove it, because it was wrong they can be sued, the surveyor would be sued because the surveyor was wrong.

President Thompson stated, you know that almost every surveyor stakes there from previous owners and previous surveyors. They don’t pull those, we all have those in our yards and on our properties.

Director Weaver stated, but being able to locate them is another story.

President Thompson stated, true, but when they go to survey them.

Director Weaver stated, they don’t always stake them, no. They don’t always stake the lot unless you ask them to. You have to pay them extra to do that.

President Thompson stated, I do, so I guess I just assumed that everyone did. Is there anything else? If not do I hear a motion to adjourn?

Ray Butz made motion to adjourn.

Jeff Saylor seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission