Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 21, 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 was Attorney Jerry Altman.

Visitors attending were: Kimball Tetzloff, Aaron Malchow, Mr. & Mrs. Reinert Spille, William J. Blankenship, Sharon L. Blankenship, Charles R. Mellon, Doug Barnard, David Rosenbarger, Juanita Perkins, William Perkins, Alice Livesay and Bob Livesay.

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 April 20, 2000 and May 18, 2000 meeting. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1116 Aaron Malchow; Requesting a 50 square feet space variance and a 20’ front setback variance from South Street and a 17 ½’ rear setback variance to build a duplex on lot #30 in Charles A. & Sarah H. Holladay’s 2nd Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 601 East Street. Tabled from August 17, 2000.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone to represent this request?

Aaron Malchow was representing this request.

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

Aaron Malchow stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, we have received a survey dated July 21, 2000 by Mr. Milligan that shows the area in question. It also shows the area immediately East of it and housing it that was a concern from the Board, looking at those surveys. It shows them somewhat different, than what they had before. By looking at a survey that is July 21, 2000 that was received July 25, 2000, the second one that we received is received August 28, 2000 and it does show the next door neighbors lot up much closer to that light pole North of that. Towards South S treet, and I


think that was a concern to the Board of how these two tracks, two different plats hook up together. Do you have a proposed schematic of your duplex that you are going to put in there, or a design, something that we can see?

Aaron Malchow stated, not with me, no.

Attorney Altman stated, I have that, I mean what it’s going to look like when you are done. Would you describe it, is it going to be brick faced?

Aaron Malchow asked, you know the duplexes on Main Street right before St. Mary’s and Main Street? They will be similar to those. There is a gray one and a beige one there with a white fish scale and gable, right in front of the cemetery.

Attorney Altman asked, so that will be what you are proposing to put in there, a duplex like that.

Carol Stradling asked, Jerry, I’m sorry, you said that there was a survey from Sterrett?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, there was a survey from Mr. Sterrett, that we received some time ago by the adjoining neighbor.

Carol Stradling asked, do we have one showing both properties?

Attorney Altman stated, I have this one here, as I have mentioned, that was received on the 8th that shows…

Carol Stradling asked do we have that one?

Attorney Altman stated, it was in the file, I don’t know that you have that. That is different as I was trying to show you, we have Mr. Milligan’s survey and I don’t see it there either but, get the one that I was comparing it to, we had also dated the 21st but, received the 25th. On this one here, this is what I mean, do you see that was level here and this one shows it closer to South Street, is what I’m showing and how these two come together. I looked at it in the file and I presumed that it had been sent to the, Ray has the, at least you have that one, the copy that. I’m talking about a changed survey again, I didn’t know that you had one Carol but, they are both dated the same day but, they were received different days. This is the one that I know we just received and it shows a different positioning of the next door neighbors lot, then what this one shows I think, that we had all been wondering how they fit together. I presume that this is the answer the modified survey that was received August the 28th of this year, showing how they fit together. Anyone interested, come up and look at these, these aren’t secrets, and I just want to tell the Board what I found in the file.

Carol Stradling asked, have you seen these surveys Aaron?

Aaron Malchow stated, I have this one dated July 23rd, let me see if they are the same.

Attorney Altman stated, no, it’s not, I was going to show that to our…

Vice President Saylor stated, Director Weaver has left some notes to what she has done, I was wondering if from here down if it might be read into record, since she isn’t here.

Attorney Altman asked, I will do that but, let me show the applicant the survey that Mr. Milligan, is your surveyor right?

Aaron Malchow stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, he gave us that survey dated, there is the same but, the received date is different and it is a different mesh of your lot and the neighbor to the East lot.

Vice President Saylor stated, this is a statement, information Director Weaver has left for the Board tonight.

Attorney Altman stated, Diann is our Director, has left a packet for the Board and they have looked at them. They include current pictures of the property taken, showing the structure markers, the rough draft of the minutes for July 13th a copy of Carl Robinson’s survey for lot 13, a copy of the original plat of lot 13 in Holiday Addition. It also shows a staff report with a new survey from Mr. Milligan and again, I have noted that showing the received August 28, 2000 and a copy of the recorded utility easement provided to her, by report through N.I.P.S.CO. this morning. She does add, “from the discussion of both surveyors, it is my understanding that the discrepancy on the North side is due to the fact that Holiday Addition has a 60’ road right-of-way, and that Bay Ridge Subdivision has a 50’ road right-of-way”. “Both right of ways line up on the North side and are off set on the South side which accounts for the 10’ difference of the lots”. I think that Mr. Milligan’s survey, that was received the 28th, now shows why that is different and he has amended his survey to show that and I will go ahead. “There has been a question brought up to me about the line up of the lot markers on the East side of the lot, it was through that, these could have possibly been in the wrong location”.

“I met with Doug Roberts and the Monticello Street Department yesterday at that the property”. “After taking these measurements and location the other property stakes, we determined that the lot markers are correct, we then questioned the location of the utility pole, that is shown on lot #30”. “Mr. Rick Forester from N.I.P.S.CO., was kind enough to come in and talk to me about this, this morning”. “He gave me a copy of the recorded easement, that is located on the East 8’ of lot 30, he told me that the pole was on the West edge of this easement and that there was about 4.5’ between the structure marker and the pole”. “He felt that there would be no problem with that, if the structure was a single story and did not have a steep pitch of the roof”. “When I was on the property, I talked to the neighbor South of this lot, he has concerns about how far the structure would be from the South property line”. “I explained that it had to be at least 8’ back from the neighboring lot line to the Southwest structure marker, I measured it to be less than 8 feet”. “I would suggest to him that he double check his measurements”. I believe that last would be referring to you, that the measurements from the lot line to the structure, she is questioning if that is 8’ or not Mr. Malchow.

Aaron Malchow stated, yes, I just roped those in, in fact I mowed grass in since I put those in. The day that I put them in, Director Weaver was out and checked them, the structure will be 8’ from that line. The flags that are there right now, are just kind of roughed in, so you get a visual idea of where it is going to sit.

Charles Mellon asked, from the last meeting, August the 17th, he gave me the word, it seemed like the question was that pole or the marking was over East of the pole. I guess it was suppose to be an alley or whatever the Attorney read a while ago, is that going to move it West of the pole now. Leave that alley wide open for utility trucks and ambulance or anything to get down there?

Attorney Altman stated, according to the survey, nothing is built on that alley except for that pole, is about 4.5’ that Mr. Forester says is the N.I.P.S.CO. pole is in the alley, so that would be there.

Charles Mellon stated, but, the way that he was doing it in the last meeting he was going to put it 4’ East of the pole the building and it should be 4’ West of the pole.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else that you want me to read into the evidence?

Vice President Saylor stated, I don’t think so Jerry

Charles Mellon stated, there are flags down there now, they had them in the alley for a week or two and I think that they are gone. There is a flag West of the pole now and I think that all of the neighbors hope that‘s the edge of the building. I don’t know how long it’s been since he got those built up there on North Main Street but, they look awful close to the road, driveway and everything. I guess that they were approved years back but, to put in another one like that, it would be questionable.

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

William Perkins stated, I own two lots South of this and my question was about the alley way that there was suppose to be. What we were talking about, yesterday I was down there when the lady was down there and Roberts. Lot 28 that’s mine and lot 29, my property, I think that it’s been surveyed twice since I was down there over the years. Where the big N.I.P.S.CO. pole on lot 28, if you go to where he has that, here behind where he wants to build, man they supplied an off set between it. It would zig zag, the alley would, I can’t see how it’s going to line up if they were going to open that or something. Those red flags are way out in that alley, I question where that’s suppose to be set that line.

Carol Stradling asked, the flag marked the East edge of your property Aaron, or did it mark the East edge of your proposed building?

Aaron Malchow stated, there should be a flag for both.

Carol Stradling stated, when I look at the surveys, it appears as though the N.I.P.S.CO. pole, not the one on the North but, the on South it appears as it’s on his property and it appears that the N.I.P.S.CO. pole or the utility pole, it doesn’t look like there is one. Is there one on your property sir, or just South or yours.

William Perkins stated, they was right on the line of my property on lot 28 and I mean there was, when they surveyed my property they would find that that pole is sitting right on the line. These flags and there is a rock there and it sits right behind the rock by that pole. If you go on up from where the building is, North where when they surveyed that, they put that little flag down and mine was coming here. All of a sudden, it would go out like this and there would be an offset in there. The way that I look at it, the way that I have been told, I have lived down there for 50 years or something like that. Where that one pole is over there on the South side of the property, is awful close to that pole, that has the guide wires down to the ground. It’s in-between two of the flags to the center, the end of the alley and then the top of there where they are wanting to build on.

Carol Stradling stated, even a current survey that Mr. Milligan did show, the pole on his property side, not even at the corner of the alley. It’s actually in the lot that’s South of this.

William Perkins stated, I would think that would be right at the edge of the alley. There is suppose to be an alley here and the flag are way out here past this one red flag, the one that is here. If you take this flag from here and come on down here to my end, it would be an offset according to how they have surveyed it on to me. It looks like they have taken up part of the alleyway.

Carol Stradling asked, could you adjust your plans, Aaron?

Aaron Malchow asked, as far as?

Carol Stradling asked, shorter.

Aaron Malchow stated, yes, 40’ in the center is for a two-car garage space and I can change that to a one-car garage, so it would be about 14’ shorter.

Attorney Altman asked, so you’re talking about having a garage in the center and they would be exiting out on to South Street, is that what your plan is?

Aaron Malchow stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s not included in your survey, it doesn’t show anything about ingress and egress and that’s normally something like that, is included on the survey. Does the Board understand what the applicant is telling us and how he is modifying his application? He is reducing the width East, West line by how many feet again Mr. Malchow…

Aaron Malchow stated, it would be 26’.

Attorney Altman asked, so that will be reducing that to where it says 40’ of the 26’, so that’s 14’ off of 118’ is 106’ right?

Aaron Malchow stated, 104’.

Attorney Altman asked, that’s right, 104’, so that will bring it and that will take it away from the alley 14’ more right?

Aaron Malchow stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, do you folks understand what he is saying? Do you see your map, he is taking it so the duplexes will only, it will be instead of 12.5’, it will be 26.6’ from the alley right?

Vice President Saylor stated, if we’re reducing it by 14’, is that 7’ off of each end or are we moving it?

Aaron Malchow stated, I can move it off of the one to get it away from the alley and that’s left.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought that you were saying but, that was a good question. So rather than 20’, 12.5’ from the alley it will be again 26.5’ off of the alley.

Aaron Malchow stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, does everyone understand what that modification is?

William Perkins stated, from the East end will be….

Attorney Altman stated, 26.5’ rather than 12.5’.

Carol Stradling stated, okay. I don’t see the half-foot on the survey.

Attorney Altman stated, mine says 12.5’

Carol Stradling stated I see that but, if you add them up and the total lines of your lot is 162.09’ you’re going to 26.09’ and that’s much less. I don’t know it’s an inch instead of a half of a foot but if you measure Aaron, if you go 26.5’ from the back line it might end up throwing you forward to far.

Aaron Malchow stated, measure off of the West side.

Carol Stradling asked, it would measure off of the West?

Attorney Altman stated, yes that’s a total of 162.5’ and he may not have quite that much width right there. Is that what your saying Carol Stradling?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so that the 32’ again, to set the record straight it’s staying as is, the proposed duplex will be a total width of 104’ and it will, what ever that works out to be about 26’ and some odd feet will be on the East side. Does everyone understand that?

Charlie Mellon asked, how far West of that North pole, is the edge of the building going to be then?

Carol Stradling stated, roughly 36’.

Charlie Mellon stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what it says. Don’t say no that’s what the survey says.

Charlie Mellon stated, that’s funny he was going to build over there 8’, East of that pole to start with, now he’s surely not going that for West of it.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re talking about different poles Charlie. The North pole is the one right up on South Street.

Charlie Mellon stated, that’s right that’s the one that we’re talking about.

Attorney Altman stated, he was never going to be East of that, he would have been on the neighbor’s lot.

Charlie Mellon stated, he has had flags there for two weeks.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the neighbor’s lot.

Charlie Mellon stated he has room on the West side he has 20 or 30’ on the West side

Attorney Altman stated, come look at the survey.

Charlie Mellon stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Charlie Mellon stated, I drive past there two or three times a day, I know what it is. They’re saying that they don’t want another duplex down there, like what they have up there on North Main Street.

Attorney Altman stated, well talk about the duplex then, rather than the number of feet near a telephone pole.

Vice President Saylor asked, does anyone else have anything that they would like to say about this, this evening? Does any of the Board members have any questions? Are we ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, will these be one bedroom?

Aaron Malchow stated, three bedrooms.

Carol Stradling asked, three-bedroom duplex, so three bedrooms on each side?

Aaron Malchow stated, right.

William Perkins stated, I’m still questioning where that alley poles are, put it way out in there on the East end that’s quite an off set to go from one lot to another, it looks like to me, what I know about it.

Carol Stradling asked, these are single story?

Aaron Malchow stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, and you’re getting 3 bedrooms?

Aaron Malchow stated, yes, this building will be bigger than what some of them are. These bedrooms are small bedrooms they are like 10’ x 10’.

Carol Stradling asked, Aaron, when you rent these out and the ones on Main Street, have 3 bedrooms and you rent them out to couples with two kids?

Aaron Malchow stated, not usually, a lot of retired people, professional people, teachers and stuff like that.

Carol Stradling stated, so it isn’t necessarily that they are filling up 3 bedrooms with people

Aaron Malchow stated, no most of the people use the third room as a computer room or an office. One couple that are renting now, are using it for like a TV room, or something. I don’t know how many people are in an apartment too, as far as a landlord, someone can’t bring in more people. However, their situations work out at a later date if they move in as a husband and wife and two kids or something that’s the way that it is in their lease. They don’t come in at a later date and move their grandmother in, so there won’t be a bunch of people interested.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the maximum number of people that will be on each side?

Aaron Malchow stated, say 4 to 5, 2 kids or 3 kids.

Carol Stradling asked, Charlie, do you live in one of those duplexes?

Charlie Mellon stated, no, I live on South Street.

Carol Stradling asked, on South Street?

Charlie Mellon stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, how big are those?

Charlie Mellon stated, they are two bedroom.

Carol Stradling asked, two bedrooms?

Charlie Mellon stated, yes, I can’t tell you the dimensions of them it seems, like over 1,000 square feet with a single garage. The garages are in the middle, this is beside the point I suppose but, Wayne Knight was going to buy that lot when it came up for sale and he told me that he was going to have trouble getting one in there

Carol Stradling asked, one of the ones like you are in?

Charlie Mellon stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but, if you scale something like what your in down it would be comparable?

Charlie Mellon stated, yes but, if he talking 3 bedrooms, it would be long from that. I don’t see anything wrong with it the people down there that want lined up, they don’t want it over in the alley. If he wants to put that big of a one in there, let him go West with it, he has 20’ or 30’ West until he gets to that street on the West side. If he’s going to come out on South Street with those garages, you don’t need any room over there on the West side.

Carol Stradling asked, could he move it to the West and line up? No, because, it’s not advertised.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not advertised that way he could do that but, it would take a different meeting and different notice.

William Perkins asked, when the Director Weaver and Doug was down there, on the East side, on the East end, let me see if I can get this right. The alleyway and then they said something about N.I.P.S.CO. has a 10’ easement down the side of that, down the side of the alley. Where does all of that go, is N.I.P.S.CO. on the East side?

Carol Stradling stated, yes, 8’ is actually what they have East, they have an easement for 8’ although the survey says 10’.

William Perkins stated, I think that they had better be measuring again because, I think that you’re going to be right in the East neighbors yard down through there his property along there. If they say that N.I.P.S.CO. is going to have to have 8’ down through there they are going to be over the property line of the…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s 8’ East of that pole, so that doesn’t effect Aaron.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, it’s the other direction.

Charlie Mellon stated, not if you don’t go East of the pole, it doesn’t effect him.

Carol Stradling stated, he can’t go East of the pole because, he doesn’t own East of the pole.

Charlie Mellon stated, he has to stay West of the pole.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and the alley.

Carol Stradling stated, and the alley.

William Perkins stated, and the alley, if you have that like where that stake is now for where the edge of the alley, then it would take another 15’ plus another 8’ to get a N.I.P.S.CO. right-of-way, his is going to be in the other guy’s property.

Carol Stradling stated, Aaron, wont N.I.P.S.CO.’s easement, is already in the other mans property, it’s 8’ East of that utility pole, it’s East so that 8’ easement does not effect Aaron’s property. What is effecting Aaron’s property is the 18’ of unplatted alley and it is starting at that pole and it goes 15’ West of that pole, then his property line would start then 15’ West of that pole.

William Perkins asked, then sometimes they try to take so many feet off of the other guys property on the East, then to make that easement when his property line is sitting right there?

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that we’re discussing that easement tonight.

Vice President Saylor asked, I think at this time I would like to give everyone one final opportunity to present any arguments. Any discussion before the Board before we vote? Is there anyone that would like to say anything at this time? Are there any final questions or concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, I think that as long as he, do we need to make an amendment or a motion to add that to change his drawing?

Attorney Altman stated, he certainly has, I will just state for the record, the applicant has modified his request. The modification is, it will be single car garage and the dimensions will be maximum of 104’ going East and West and the building will effectively slide 14’ to the West, we reduced in size the 14’ to the West.

Vice President Saylor stated, and maintain the 12’ setback.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, just exactly the way that it’s advertised otherwise but, the 14’ more narrow in width, so that will be approximately 26’ from that East alley that’s right, to choose your change right Mr. Malchow?

Aaron stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be what we’re voting on, would be that modification if we approve it that’s the way, the maximum that he can do.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other concerns from the Board? Are we ready to vote?

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 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 50 square feet space variance and a 20’ front setback variance from South Street and a 17 ½’ rear setback variance to build a duplex on Lot 30 in Charles A. and Sarah H. Holladay’s Second Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, except that part taken for South Street right-of-way.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the Southeast of East Street and South 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 Sections 10.20 and 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, indicating with the modifications, that the variance would be granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#1123 David & Jeanette J. Rosenbarger; Requesting a 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance and a 7’ front setback variance to build a new detached garage to replace the existing detached garage on lot #1 & Block 28 in the Original Plat of Brookston. The property is located at 400 S. Wood Street. Tabled from August 17, 2000.

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

David Rosenbarger was representing this request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything to add at this time?

David Rosenbarger stated, no.

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

Carol Stradling asked, the existing garage will be torn down, the new garage will be roughly twice as big?

David Rosenbarger stated, right and actually, 1’ off of the line right now it is on the line.

Ray Butz stated, he’s in Brookston and those lots are small lots.

David Rosenbarger stated, it’s the same size as the garage directly behind me Mrs. Anderson and it doesn’t show it but, her entrance she comes in the alley and her garage is facing my garage.

Carol Stradling asked, where would your garage door be facing?

David Rosenbarger stated, facing Wood Street, that is the entrance, there’s an existing entrance there now.

Vice President Saylor asked, does anyone else wish to address this variance? Any other questions from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

David Rosenbarger stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, again, you said that you will be coming into your garage off of Wood Street…

David Rosenbarger stated, excuse me, it’s 4th Street, I said Wood but it’s 4th Street.

Attorney Altman asked, you will be coming in off of 4th Street in the area of where you presently come in?

David Rosenbarger stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s some 25’ from the sidewalk on your lot.

David Rosenbarger stated, right.

Vice President Saylor stated, Director Weaver has indicated that their office had not had any calls or concerns on this request. If there is nothing else, would the Board like to vote?

The Board stated, let's vote.

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 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance and a 7’ front setback variance to build a new detached garage to replace the existing detached garage on Lot Number One (1) in Block Number Twenty-Eight (28) in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located at 400 S. Wood Street in Brookston.

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 authorize 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.

****

#1132 Spille’s Package Liquors, Inc., Owner; Doug Barnard, Applicant; Requesting a parking space variance and a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a liquor store in a B-2 zoning and to allow it to be 217’ away from a school on lot #2 in Mitchell Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of Sixth Street, just north of Fisher Street. Tabled from August 24, 2000.

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

Reinert Spille was representing this request.

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

Reinert Spille stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, this matter was before us, the last time it was discovered subsequently at the time that they re-advertised and get in at that meeting, that they needed to also request the special exception as they are slightly to close not to a school building. The school property was the reason that it was table and that’s the reason that it is before us again, this evening having been re-advertised.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this request? Are there any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, is that 217’, is that from the property line or is that from the building?

Reinert Spille stated, property line.

Carol Stradling asked, the building is even further.

Reinert Spille stated, the building is a quarter of a mile down the road.

Doug Barnard stated, Mr. Spille is building this, I believe, 60’ off of his property line.

Attorney Altman stated, it has to go from property line.

Vice President Saylor stated, I have a note that Director Weaver has left me on this variance request. She states “this was re-advertised and new letters mailed to the adjoining property owners, I have not had any calls or concerns with this request”. Is there anything else from anyone?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a parking space variance and a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a liquor store in a B-2 zoning and to allow it to be 217’ away from a school on Lot #2 in Mitchell Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located on the East side of Sixth Street, just North of Fisher Street.

7. That the variances 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 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit, maybe you have a building permit I’m not sure whether you have that already but if you haven’t’ you need a building permit. The other thing that I would caution you, as with special exceptions they are good for 1 year and if you have not begun before that they expire.

****

#1137 William J. Blankenship; Requesting a 15’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch and a 2’ north side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot #14 in Hall’s Woodlawn Park Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 943 Lee Avenue.

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

William Blankenship was representing this request.

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

William Blankenship stated, no, I don’t.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone present that would like to address the request? Concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, in relationship to the other houses on the block, is yours pretty much in line with them at this point?

William Blankenship stated, it’s back just a little bit.

Carol Stradling asked, back a little bit.

William Blankenship stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor stated, I will read what Director Weaver has written here it says, “I have not had any calls or concerns with this request.” “This appears that this addition would be closer to the road than any of the other homes beside it”.

Carol Stradling asked, the addition would be the house itself, it looks like it sits back a little farther.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s back, eyeballing it, on the survey.

Carol Stradling asked, are there any other covered porches on the front?

William Blankenship stated, yes, there are.

Carol Stradling asked, there are?

William Blankenship asked, on the street?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

William Blankenship stated, yes, there are 3 on the other side 4 on the other side.

Carol Stradling asked, yours will be similar in size, larger or smaller?

William Blankenship stated, mine is going to be exactly like the one at 934.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other questions?

Attorney Altman asked, it will tie in, single story will tie into the roof of your present structure right?

William Blankenship stated, that’s correct.

Vice President Saylor asked, is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor stated, we shall vote.

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 15’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch and a 2’ north side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 14 in Hall’s Woodlawn Park Subdivision in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 943 Lee Avenue.

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.

William Blankenship asked, Director Weaver told us to bring this variance sign back in and she’s not here, is she?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right you can leave it here if you wish to do so, that’s all that I can tell you.

William Blankenship asked, what about our deposit.

Attorney Altman stated, you will have to see her in the morning about that. It’s whatever you wish to do, sorry she handles that.

****

#1138 James R. Elliott; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance from Ireland Street and a 2’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home and an attached garage and a 20’ front setback variance from Third Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot #19 and #20 in the Industrial Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 529 Ireland Street.

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

James Elliott was representing this request.

Vice President Saylor asked, does anyone have any question about this request?

Carol Stradling asked, so you are going to take down the existing garage and then double your housing space and add a larger garage? Will this be 2 story?

James Elliott stated, it’s a story and a half now.

Carol Stradling asked, so will the addition be a story and a half or two story?

James Elliott stated, it would be two stories.

Carol Stradling asked, so you are going to add on to the current house? Are you going to add up?

James Elliott stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, what will be left of the current house?

James Elliott stated, the original floor plan.

An audience member stated, basically, the bedrooms upstairs, it’s going to be the roof is going to be raised it will just be taller.

Carol Stradling stated, we had a couple come in and they wanted to add on. The next thing that you know, the whole house is gone and they are building something new. I didn’t know if you were planning something like that that’s why I asked.

An audience member stated, no.

James Elliott stated, it was her grandfather’s house, we’re just planning on adding out.

Attorney Altman asked, I presume that’s a proposed pool in the back.

An audience member stated, it’s an above ground pool that is already there.

Attorney Altman asked, is it fenced?

An audience member stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor stated, I will read Director Weaver’s notes on this variance request. She states, “I have not had any calls or concerns with this request.” “The house to the East of this property is down a couple of lots to the East”. Is there anyone else that would like to address the variance request? Is there anything from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, when she says the house that’s East to you, that is down a couple of lots, you have two lots?

An audience member stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, it appears as though there are two lots between you and the next house that’s also on two lots.

An audience member stated, that’s owned by N.I.P.S.CO, the two lots in-between.

Carol Stradling asked, has there ever been a structure on there?

James Elliott stated, that’s where the high-tension power wires are.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other concerns from the Board? Then we will vote.

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 20’ front setback variance from Ireland Street and a 2’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home and an attached garage and a 20’ front setback variance from Third Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lots 19 and 20 in Industrial Addition in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 529 Ireland 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 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. I would recommend that you have a surveyor check where you are going to put that building, close enough that you don’t want have to tear it down like we’re tearing one down right now. I would sure have that checked first. Make sure when you put it up, you put it up right.

****

#1139 Alice Livesay; Requesting a 9’ front setback variance from Reed Street and a 9’ front setback variance from Market Street and a 6’ rear setback variance to replace an existing fence on Lots #17 and #19 in Linville’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 521 N. Market Street.

Vice President Saylor asked, Mrs. Livesay.

Alice Livesay stated, we’re just replacing the old wooden fence with white vinyl fencing in the front and a 4’ chain link in the back with a 6’ vinyl fence.

Carol Stradling stated, the map shows Brook Street.

Alice Livesay stated, Brook is on the other side of Market, one side of Market Street on the West side is Brook Street on the East side is Reed Street.

Vice President Saylor stated, for the Board, I will read the notes that Director Weaver has on this variance request. She states, “I have had some calls concerning this request they think that there will be a privacy fence on this corner”. “My understanding is on the corner will be a vinyl 2’ or 3’ rail fence”. “There will be a privacy fence located on the back and the South side of the property”. “You may want to confirm this information with the owner”.

Alice Livesay stated, the front corner fencing is going to be a white picket fence and it’s only going to be 36” tall.

Attorney Altman asked, you’re talking about the vinyl?

Alice Livesay stated, yes, what is there now is a wooden split rail fence, we are going to replace that….

Attorney Altman stated, you have pictures of that?

Alice Livesay stated, right, we are going to replace with a white picket vinyl fence, then in the back will be a 6’ privacy fence.

Vice President Saylor asked, rather than the chain link?

Alice Livesay stated, instead of the chain link, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, how tall are you proposing the fence in the front, the vinyl picket fence?

Alice Livesay stated, it’s 36” tall, it’s the same height as the fence that is there now.

Attorney Altman asked, how much obstruction of traffic will this be?

Alice Livesay stated, none other than what is there already, there is no obstruction when you come to that corner you can see.

Attorney Altman asked, so your picket fence will not obstruct any more than the present wooden fence would be?

Alice Livesay stated, than the present fence, right.

Attorney Altman asked, then the back the vinyl chain link fence will be 6’ tall…

Alice Livesay stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, and it won’t obstruct…

Alice stated, it’s going to be on the South side.

An audience member stated, it will basically divide the two properties, it won’t be around the entire back yard, it will just be between the two properties.

Attorney Altman asked, between lot 21 and 19?

Alice Livesay stated, yes, we’re not replacing any of the back fence.

Attorney Altman asked, along the alley?

Alice Livesay stated, right, we’re not replacing any of that.

Attorney Altman asked, or along Reed Street?

Alice Livesay stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, you’re just doing between 21 and 19 in the back?

Alice Livesay stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, again, the vinyl would be no more vision obstruction than the present one.

Alice Livesay stated, right, well it will obstruct the neighbor’s view of our back yard but, that’s it. It won’t obstruct any of the alley traffic or the Reed Street traffic.

Attorney Altman stated, understand, obviously, between you and lot #21 in the back that will cut off vision.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there questions or concerns from the Board? Is there anything else to add?

The Board stated, no.

Vice President Saylor stated, if there is nothing else we will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 9’ front setback variance from Reed Street and a 9’ front setback variance from Market Street and a 6’ rear setback variance to replace an existing fence on Lot 17 and 19 in Linville’s Addition to the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 521 N. Market 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 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.

****

Vice President Saylor asked, is there any other business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals tonight.

Attorney Altman stated, one thing that I would just report very briefly is, the guy with 22’ when it was suppose to be 15’ is suppose to call me Monday with his proposal about getting it down. So I just want to let the Board know yes, we are getting response and I’m hoping to report next meeting that it will be down or coming down.

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Ray Butz seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,


Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission