Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 19, 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, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: David Livesay, Rebecca Livesay, Hubert H. Hyten, Edward W. Heath, Doug Haygood, Fred & Shirley Boessel, Bruce & Pam Hiner, Phil & Teresa Cox, Nancy Downey, Perry Godlove, Charlene Woodhouse, Charles R. Mellon, Steve Godlove, Denny Coffin, Amanda Bowman, Steve Krager and Jose A. Flores.

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

President Thompson stated, in our packets, in our mailing, we were sent a copy of the minutes of the joint meeting of the Area Plan and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Director Weaver stated, they don’t need approval.

President Thompson stated, I didn’t know if we needed any discussion or not.

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, what are the Boards wishes? Not necessarily approval but, are there any points of interest there that you care to discuss? Nothing, okay, no vote at this time.


Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#1140 Jose Asctudillo Flores; Requesting a 25’ front setback variance to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on part of lot #11 in Shady Haven Subdivision. The property is located in Monon Township at 3187 E. Boller Court.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone representing this request this evening?

Jose Flores was representing this request.

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

Jose Flores stated, no, all that I have to do is cut the garage.

Director Weaver stated, let me explain to the Board what has happened here. Mr. Flores was issued a building permit in 1999 and on the drawing that was submitted to us at that time it did not show the road to the East of his property therefore, we were unaware of this road. It was later brought to my attention that he was actually encroaching on the road right-of-way and as the survey shows the dotted line is where the garage is existing at this time. We have met with Mr. Flores, Attorney Altman and I have, he is willing to take one bay off of the East side and he is wanting to relocate it to the West side of the existing two bays. This will only leave him sitting 7’ off of that road right-of-way. Mr. Flores’ neighbor is here tonight, if you have any other questions, hopefully I can answer them.

President Thompson asked, other than the people present, did we receive anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, we haven’t.

Ed Heath stated, I’m the one that owns the rest of the lot, I’m the one that brought it to Director Weaver’s attention that the garage was in the road. I have no problem with the setback, I talked to Don and he was suppose to send out a letter. The only thing that I’m wanting because, we do have a problem we have had it 2 years prior to the garage. One situation was, there is a portable building and we had to have it, to get it addressed and properly taken care of, we even had to get the county Sheriff involved in that. What I’m wanting is, a fence down the right-of-way along side of the right-of-way so that road way is kept open. Other than that, I don’t have a problem with it. I just want the roadway kept open and even with the garage there now, there is boats and stuff parked beyond that, even in the road. That’s the reason that I want the fence, other than that, I don’t have a problem with what is happening.

Director Weaver stated, I apologize, we did receive a letter from Don Blair that you had attached with your pictures that you were given.

President Thompson stated, just to answer, Mr. Heath concerning the privacy fence, we really can’t enforce that right?

Director Weaver stated, we issued permits for them, we do not allow them that close to a roadway.

President Thompson stated, you can ask that but, that’s not part of our jurisdiction to get him to put up a privacy fence. Do you see what I’m saying?

Ed Heath stated, right, but now, if I go up to Director Weaver tomorrow and apply for it, could I be turned down? That’s what I want to make sure, that I can do that. That’s my goal to accomplish, if I could.

President Thompson asked, but, you want to apply for a fence on his property?

Ed Heath stated, I want it right off of the road, so that the road is keep open.

Director Weaver stated, we will not issue a permit for a privacy fence to go right on the roadway. A chain link fence which is less…

Ed Heath stated, it doesn’t have to be a privacy fence.

Director Weaver stated, a fence that is less than 50 percent solid, can go as close as 10’ to a road right-of-way. Otherwise they would have to have a variance for the fence as well. We will allow some kind of picket fence, split rail or a chain link. Anything, that is less than 50 percent solid, can go as close as 10’ to the road right-of-way.

Ed Heath asked, so I could put a fence there?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Ed Heath stated, that’s all that I wanted.

President Thompson stated, but I just want you to understand that we issue the permits but yet we can’t play both sides of it. I understand what you would like to see.

Charlie Mellon asked, is that a county maintained roadway?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, it’s an unimproved road.

Charlie Mellon asked, it’s on his property?

Attorney Altman stated, no, quite frankly, it is a very ambiguous situation. I believe that the evidence is that it was dedicated in an abstract, in a deed. Also, it had been used by Mr. Heath and the prior owners of that, for a road. I think that the people that own Mr. Flores’ lot had used that road on occasion, somewhat, as a road. I think that it’s a pretty solidly established a road there but, it is unimproved and it goes all of the way to the end of this lot #11 that is shown on the survey. For the Board and anyone else that is interested in it, it goes all of the way so it would be something that anyone could use going back as far as lot #11 does.

Charlie Mellon stated, I just thought that if it was a county maintained road, the fence would have to be back farther because, it would have more of a right-of-way.

President Thompson stated, it’s just grass.

Charlie Mellon stated, well, we had a grass one here in town too.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing would be that the fence couldn’t keep Mr. Flores from using the road. He has a right to use the road too, just like anyone else would have a right to use it. As far as parking on it, it’s like anyone else, no, you can’t park on a road. You can’t have a boat on a road, just to be fairly plain and talk about it a little bit.

Carol Stradling asked, are you planning on using this roadway in a different way than you have?

Ed Heath stated, the roadway, right now, the rest of the lot by the house is not developed it will be developed.

Carol Stradling asked, that is your interest here in the roadway tonight?

Ed Heath stated, right plus, I also use it, or have used it and the prior owners of the farm used it in accessing the field. There is a field on the other side accessing it to moving crops in and out.

President Thompson asked, who maintains that right now?

Ed Heath asked, that road, right now?

President Thompson asked, as far as mowing it, so on and so forth.

Ed Heath stated, right now it hasn’t been.

Carol Stradling stated, there’s grass…

Ed Heath stated, that’s true.

Carol Stradling stated, feet tall.

Attorney Altman stated, he does have a fence across the roadway, Mr. Heath does have a fence across the roadway.

Carol Stradling asked, across the roadway or along the roadway?

Attorney Altman stated, across the roadway, to the North.

Ed Heath stated, right to the North, where the lots have not been developed all of the way back.

Attorney Altman stated, its back there behind those weeds. The left-hand side picture on the display, that is part of our packets.

Ed Heath stated, the reason for that is, in the past when Robert Ellis lived there, he ran livestock out of there, that’s the reason for that.

Nancy Downey stated, I’m the Monon Township Trustee and I’m familiar with that corner. I have lived down the road from that corner for 11 years. Before Jose came in, I could understand why he did not know that there was a proposed road there, that was all junk and heavy woods you could not get back through there. There was an old truck junk truck loaded with trash when he purchased that. The real estate told him that he owned from the fence, down to a pipe. He had no survey, so he did not do this just because, he didn’t want to obey the law. He is the one that cleaned that up when he moved in there and had his home brought in but before that, he has done wonders to that corner believe me.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to speak for or against the variance this evening?

Joe Lambel stated, I live on Boller Court, I’m a fan of Mr. Flores, he has come in there, he has worked for 2 solid years building a nice residence. If he was granted a building permit, logic only follows that, correct governmental body blessed it, they approved it and he followed their instructions now we’re asking him to back up. I question the fairness.

Director Weaver stated, the reason that we are backing up is because, the information that was provided to us at that time, was incorrect.

Joe Lambel asked, accepted, now the question is, who is going to pay for the reconstruction? Certainly, he shouldn’t have to.

Director Weaver stated, when they are issued a building permit they sign an affidavit stating that the information that they provide to us is true and correct and it was not.

Joe Lambel asked, really?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it’s at the bottom of every application.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that the only way around that is we would have to research every single property that comes in and I don’t think that there is time enough to do that.

Joe Lambel stated, I know, that is asking an awful lot from you but this is a man that came to all of us in good faith as a community. He said this is what I would like to do, may I and we said yes, pretty tuff on him, pretty unfair.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Flores, how would you cut your garage? You can’t just cut it and move it over, it’s a brick front.

Jose Flores stated, it will be very difficult, what I’m going to do. I’ll make it two cars, it’s a 3-car garage but I’m making 2 cars. I’m going to have one and put it on the other side.

Nancy Downey stated, that’s just a brick face too.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Is there any discussion among the Board? Is the Board ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

 

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

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

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

 

6. That the request is for a 25’ front setback variance to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on the South 120 feet of Lot 11 in Shady Haven Subdivision as shown in the Recorder’s Office in White County, Indiana, Plat Record No. 1, page 37, subject to a 20 feet wide road on the South side thereof as platted and laid out in Rest View Boller’s Lake Addition as shown in the Recorder’s Office of White County, Indiana, Plat Book 1, Page 41.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 3187 E. Boller Court.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.

 

Attorney Altman stated, 4 votes is enough to approve the variance, you need to get your building permit corrected and proceed.

****

#1141 Jonathon & Amanda Bowman; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on lot #17 & the North ½ of lot #16 in the North Addition. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 510 N. Main Street.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to represent this request?

Amanda Bowman was representing the request.

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

Amanda Bowman stated, no, I don’t. We just wanted to bring our garage up to meet the house.

Denny Coffin stated, I’m Amanda’s father and next door neighbor. The other half of lot #16, I just want to let you know that there are no problems there. We had this approved two years ago when they built the house but, they just didn’t have enough money to finish the garage. So I guess that we’re back to finish the garage if we can.

President Thompson stated, I think that I remember that.

Denny Coffin stated, yes, you guys approved it a couple of years ago, thank you.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, anyone here for or against the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, the picture that I see has, you don’t have a garage there now, correct?

Amanda Bowman stated, no, we were approved for it when we built our house but, we just didn’t have enough money to build it at the time.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought that maybe I was looking at the garage that was already there but, that side of the house is not the garage that’s just windows.

Amanda Bowman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, the reason that they are coming back is because, they are enlarging what they had originally requested.

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 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 12’ front setback variance to build an attached garage onto the existing home on Lot Number Seventeen (17) and the North half of Lot Number Sixteen (16) in North Addition to the Town of Reynolds, Indiana,

ALSO: 30’ x 90’ of vacated Harrison Street adjoining said lots.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 510 N. Main Street.

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 your building permit and you also understand that you can’t sell off any of your property there, not that you intend to but, this means that no one can it’s tied together with the variance, okay?

Amanda Bowman stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I know that you don’t intend to but I like to put that in the record.

****


#1142 Hubert H. & Nancy K. Hyten; Requesting a 6’ West side setback variance and a 21’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot #18 & #34 in Kozy Kove Addition & part of a vacated roadway. The property is located in Monon Township at 3123 E. Kozy Kove Drive.

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

Hubert Hyten was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Hubert Hyten stated, I have nothing additional.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, I would just like to give a little history on this situation to the Board. Number one, he has vacated the roadway that shows on the survey, he has gone through a vacation and the paperwork is in our file where he has had that road vacated. Number two, what has happened here, his contractor came into the office and got his building permit, two of them actually, one I believe for a change of roof line and one for a partial basement under an existing home, correct?

Hubert Hyten stated, that’s right.

Director Weaver stated, well, we have a new home sitting on the property so it was not permitted correctly. I do not believe that it was Mr. Hyten’s fault that it was not permitted correctly because, both times his contractor came in and got the permits for him. Mr. Hyten is now trying to get things corrected and is going through the correct procedure to get things remedied.

Attorney Altman stated, the permits don’t jive with the…

Director Weaver stated, the actual construction.

President Thompson asked, who is the contractor?

Hubert Hyten stated, William Krintz started construction on this in February of 1999 and got the two permits at that time, I was living in Indianapolis, Greenwood and construction continued for a period of time. He started another home, I actually gave him the finished plans, and the architect plans in, I think, that it was March of 1999. I’m not trying to blame Mr. Krintz, I should have followed up and made sure that the final plans were on file. What has happened is, my wife had inherited this home and we decided to build on it. We basically tore the old one down and used that foundation to start the home. As time progressed and he continued with the house, I got to the point in May of 2000 that I applied for after the need of some more funds, applied for a loan. A loan was approved, the house appraised out, that phase that was done and completed at that time. However, the appraiser noted in the file that the building permits were incorrect and quite frankly, I didn’t know that. So immediately, I went to talk to Director Weaver and we started the process of getting this in compliance. During this process there was, you have to get a staked survey, so I got a staked survey at that time. I was ready to apply for the variance of course but, at that time it was discovered that the home, back in 1953 was originally built on this roadway. So since we had the total access to it and it doesn’t effect anyone else, our attorney got the road vacated and now I can apply for a variance. I assure you that it wasn’t done initially, I’m not blaming Mr. Krintz, and it’s my responsibility to make sure that the permits were in order and I didn’t do that. My home is now, just about completed and that’s where we are. I would be glad to answer any other questions if you have them.

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

Director Weaver stated, the only thing that I have had is, I have had the S.L.F.E.C.C. contact us regarding this request and they have no problem with what he is prosing to do, I should say, has done on the property.

President Thompson asked, he really has one other person, the property there next to him because, you own the other property around it, don’t you?

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, the 6’ request there, in fact, I also own that property there too.

Carol Stradling asked, lot #17 says, Heilbronner.

Hubert Hyten stated, Heilbronner that’s right.

Carol Stradling asked, is that connected to lot #16? Who owns lot #16?

Hubert Hyten stated, Heilbronner.

Carol Stradling asked, so basically, that vacated roadway there in “No man’s land” and lot #17 is just allowing that to be one parcel essentially?

Hubert Hyten stated, I back up to “No man’s land”, my back lot #18 backs up to his, side by side, lot #17. There was already a vacated roadway separating lot #17 and that is what is noted on the survey as “No man’s land”. So it was never platted and it’s just a clip is basically, is what it is.

President Thompson asked, so we have no response either way from Heilbronner, yes or no?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, if he would want to build on lot #17, he could right?

Hubert Hyten stated, definitely, my house actually sits on lot #34. The only thing on lot #18, which backs up to his #17, is a garage, which is an existing structure.

Carol Stradling asked, for him to have access to lot #17, he would get that off of Stahl Road. He wouldn’t need…

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, there is a fence between lot #17 and #18 now that runs all of the way back to “No man’s land”. He has a separate entrance, he does not entrance off of Kozy Kove Drive he’s off of Stahl Road and I’m the last residence on Kozy Kove Drive. I put in my own driveway so that has not been a problem.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here for or against the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

Jeff Saylor stated, I have a concern that the contractor didn’t catch this at the time that the building permit was applied for.

President Thompson stated, yes, me too.

Hubert Hyten asked, I’m sorry, what was the question?

Jeff Saylor stated, I said that I was a little concerned that the contractor did not catch these irregularities at the time that the building permit was applied for. Is this a professional contractor or an individual?

Hubert Hyten stated, I don’t know what licensing that he has other than he has built houses for 30 years and does a fine job.

Jeff Saylor stated, apparently, it isn’t on his building permits.

Hubert Hyten stated, you have to ask Director Weaver if there has been any other problems in regards to his homes. I know what has happened, he went off on this other job and started another home because, it normally takes 2 years to build, and he just didn’t complete the process. I have to tell you, I have to accept responsibility because, I’m the homeowner and I obviously didn’t, well…

President Thompson stated, that’s true, you do but still….

Hubert Hyten stated, I have talked to him about it, it certainly wasn’t intentional on his part.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not aware of any other problems with his projects that he has had in the county, this is also something that a building inspector that we are getting…

Hubert Hyten stated, I came to that meeting.

Director Weaver stated, a building inspector would help with this situation, they would have caught this much sooner.

Hubert Hyten stated, I could tell you that my personal opinion is, you need a building inspector.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Hyten attended our building inspector meeting.

President Thompson asked, again, we’re not here to necessarily hang someone but it was never discussed between you and your contractor that there was a chance that this was a roadway?

Hubert Hyten stated, he didn’t know anything about the roadway.

President Thompson asked, couldn’t eye ball anything, I’m not a carpenter, there wasn’t…

Hubert Hyten stated, actually, the current residence is built right over the other. We went up and out towards the lake in the opposite direction, so I made a judgement that that was legal to start. What has happened, I don’t want to run your meeting in here forever but, I also looked at it in a favor vote, so I like to make sure that you have all of the information. That area was platted in 1933 and those homes were built at various times. When they got up to the point when they built on that property it was discovered basically, that was a cliff over there so they just turned the road and the documentation was never brought up to speck. People built prior to my father-in-law that bought that house in 1953, built the existing home, the way that it was and it was in violation then. I certainly don’t want this to go on forever because, my children will probably have this someday and they don’t need this problem.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with Mr. Hyten having been out to the property there was not evidence of a road being there.

Attorney Altman stated, the survey certainly shows that the gravel area does exactly what the applicant has indicated. Without the survey, you wouldn’t know that the road goes, where it went and where it is now vacated. So the record is pretty clear, that they weren’t going to look at it and see the situation as is shows on the survey, as it was platted.

Carol Stradling asked, I don’t find as much fault with the contractor building on the roadway, as per say, that he was going to raise the roof and did. Is there anything left from the original home?

Hubert Hyten stated, no, fireplace and that general area where we tried to preserve that.

Carol Stradling asked, but, no walls?

Hubert Hyten stated, partially the ends.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that they really need to get in and put a building permit in place that says what they did. Now that should be a condition of this variance.

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Hyten, we have already discussed that with him, he is aware that he will have to get a corrected building permit.

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, I understand that.

Director Weaver stated, we have discussed that and he’s aware of that. He has gone through and got the approval through the Sewer Board to hook into the sewer system. He has gone through the DNR. He has done all of the necessary paperwork, as if we were doing a brand new building permit.

President Thompson stated, just a comment, I have a hard time again, I’m not a contractor, I have a hard time thinking I can break ground and not have a survey of the property that I’m dealing with, I just can not understand that. You’re going to get tired of me using this as a reference, I farm, I just don’t pull in anywhere and start farming, you know where your boundaries are, don’t you?

Hubert Hyten stated, once again, I don’t know exactly, totally what you’re getting at, if you come out and look at that property.

President Thompson stated, let me say that we run into this a lot. Were not just poking at you, we do run into this a lot and it gets old for me, it gets old, I don’t know if the Board thinks so.

Hubert Hyten asked, how do you correct it?

Attorney Altman stated, get a survey with each building on it honestly, that’s the only way.

Hubert Hyten stated, I broke whatever rules that there were but, I assure you that it was unintentional but, if you want these things to roll off properly you are going to have to have better control than you have today. People go out there and I’m new in the area and I like the area but, people build without permits, I can give you 5 or 6 right now.

President Thompson stated, I’m sure.

Hubert Hyten stated, I’m trying to correct the situation and make it right. I apologize for the inconvenience that it has caused everyone.

President Thompson stated, I appreciate that, some don’t show up.

Jeff Saylor stated, I make a motion that we table this request this evening and request at the next months meeting, we have the contractor present to answer questions, as to why the building permit was applied for but, not followed.

Hubert Hyten stated, I disagree with that but, I’m here at the mercy of the zoning, he is not going to be able to add anything other than the fact that the house is built. Are you going to have me tear down the house?

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s not my concern sir, the fact is we had a contractor come in for a building permit and not apparently with all of the information that he needed and that he was….

Hubert Hyten stated, he didn’t have the architect plans…

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s his business and that should have been information that he had at his disposal. I want to hear from him why that wasn’t the case and that’s my motion at the moment.

President Thompson stated, we have a motion to the Board, do I hear a second to the motion?

Gary Barbour stated, I’m going to second it, I agree with him, I think that we need a response.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded to table this until the November….

Carol Stradling stated, if Mr. Krintz doesn’t show up then, how long essentially, this property is done?

Hubert Hyten stated, essentially, the property is done and I can’t get a loan because, it’s not in compliance. If I look at, the applying for the vacated road, where as it is in the best interest of the citizens in Monon Township, White County Indiana to vacate a platted public road that is not necessary for the growth of any city or town etcetera. What is passing this going to hurt the citizen of White County and Monon Township? If you have a problem with the contractor, this is going to be approved eventually, I don’t think that anyone is going to tear my home down. Now, if you have a problem with the contractor, maybe he should contact you but, I would like to have an answer on this tonight.

Jeff Saylor stated, I have a motion on the floor and it has been seconded, it’s waiting for a vote, sir.

Carol Stradling asked, is there any way that we can deal with Mr. Krintz and take care of this tonight?

Director Weaver asked, that’s what my question was going to be. Is the concern with the building itself, or is the concern with the contractor? Is it something that we would comfortable voting on and then possibly dealing with the contractor as a separate issue?

President Thompson asked, what kind of hardship does this put you under? We’re delaying you 30 days, obviously.

Hubert Hyten stated, I’m paying a lot of interest, trying to consolidate my indebtedness to get a refinance and mortgage. It’s costing me a lot of money, 500 dollars to vacate the road, if there is an alternative to this, I don’t understand what delaying, if you want to deny the variance that’s fine, I’m just going to hire an attorney. That’s not a threat, I’m just saying that we can deal with Mr. Krintz in another matter, rather than turning down my variance.

President Thompson stated, I don’t think that it is as much of turning down your variance, I guess that I’m speaking for Jeff. It’s not so much of turning it down as we’re delaying it, would like to have some additional information from him.

Hubert Hyten asked, what is it going to change?

President Thompson stated, probably little, other than you’re not here every month maybe you’re the fall guy but, we deal with this too much. Contractors just continue on and then the homeowner pays the price and they get off unscabbed. So back to, Jeff what are your thoughts on just going ahead and voting on it but, still granting your request of still having him come next month? I don’t know.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t have a problem with the building, I don’t have a problem with this gentleman, I have a problem with the contractor. How do we deal with that? The only way that we have dealt with it in the past is to table it and request, that the contractor show up at the next meeting and that’s the only tool at our disposal, that I’m aware of, is a fine against the contractor. If there is something else that we can work out, I’m open to it.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re obviously, asking the contractor to come in to explain the situation. Obviously, his explanation might change the information or at least modify some of the information that you have heard this evening. I don’t know what the contractor is going to say, the application, what he was told when he was told and that sort of thing. That’s what you really want to know, I don’t know if that would change the physical building where the building is or that sort of thing. I could see very easily that we could approve the variance as requested and ask both of them to show up next meeting to explain the circumstance, so that we can see what the situation is and get down to the situation.

Jeff Saylor asked, what happens, if the contractor doesn’t come to the meeting?

Ray Butz stated, that’s what I want to know.

Jeff Saylor asked, do we have the authority to impose a fine?

Attorney Altman stated, you would have to file a request of violation and that can either be done before it goes to one of the Courts of General Jurisdiction. Do that by complaint in which, it’s always been handled here before B.Z.A. In other words, if you’re going to have him come in on a violation to answer to a violation, he needs to be noticed up. He needs to be told, not just requested to come in but, to be told that there is a hearing, a petition against him and as such that he is to, whether he should or should not be fined.

President Thompson stated, your contractor, is he a White County resident?

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, could I ask a question?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Hubert Hyten stated, I don’t know the guidelines for what a contractor is responsibility is, his responsibility for a fine, which I know it appears to me that I’m responsible if there is a fine tell me what it is and I will pay it. I don’t understand what can be really gained other than the next time, then you file for a building permit, Mr. Contractor makes sure that the information is proper. In this case, I think that he left this job and did another job and obviously, didn’t fill out the final plans for the home, which I gave him in March. I still see that as my responsibility if there is a fine involved.

President Thompson stated, that’s fine if you do but, I think that I and Jeff and maybe others on the Board find to join you…

Carol Stradling stated, what I’m seeing is that he agreed to file the paperwork for you. Like I said earlier and I know that this sounds funny but, I’m not as concerned about that roadway since I understand that you had an existing foundation there, you had an existing home. I can see where you could be mislead on that one, I don’t know if I can speak for the rest of the Board on that but, his building permit was to raise the roof?

Director Weaver stated, change the pitch.

Carol Stradling asked, change the pitch on the roof?

Hubert Hyten stated, that was to get the project started, until you get the final plan.

Carol Stradling stated, then he never, it appears from what I understand, he did a little more than just change the pitch on the roof. At that point, once he understood what he was doing and he knew what paperwork he had filled out, I believe that it was his responsibility to inform the Area Plan Office of the changes you informed him of the changes that you wished for him to build.

Hubert Hyten stated, I gave him an architect’s plan, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, if he agreed to submit the permits, then he took on responsibility in my opinion of what you have said.

Hubert Hyten asked, when did the 6’ or 8’ setback play into effect? I owned all of those lots, could he has read into the fact that I own the lot next door, which is, was moved up here and starting living in while the construction was going on.

Carol Stradling stated, I could be wrong Director Weaver but, if you change the pitch on the roof then you’re not building a house closer to or farther from a property line. When you removed those walls they are no longer grandfathered in, when you remove those walls and change that structure…

Hubert Hyten stated, all of the walls were not removed, I can show you if you want to see the old one.

Carol Stradling stated, but, according to what he submitted all that he was going to do is change the pitch of the roof, not move any of the walls.

Hubert Hyten stated, but, I think that I needed it on my total plans, he knew that it was going to increase the size of the home, he had to.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s why he should probably be here to answer what his responsibility was then but, from what we’re hearing from you…

Hubert Hyten stated, but, all that this is going to accomplish though is paying more interest and we’re going to come again and take up a lot of peoples time. If you want to reprimand him, I suggest that you do it in a different form.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that is what we’re also discussing here.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, can you take a vote on this and have it contingent that the contractor attend the next meeting?

Jeff Saylor stated, we have a motion on the floor that has been seconded and we need to move on that first.

President Thompson asked, do you want to stay with the motion, do you want to alter the motion, or do you want to vote on the motion? Before we do it Jeff, I want to run it by you. I’m not trying to sway your decision, I want to run it by you. Gary, you seconded it, you have a voice in this as well.

Gary Barbour stated, I guess that I’m pretty flexible here, I would like to see the building go on but, the other side of that, I want to see that contractor in here. This goes on and on and we have other contractors, we continually let people slide, it’s going to continue. I don’t care if we have a building inspector, he’s not going to catch everything, we have to start calling people on the carpet, that’s what our job is.

Hubert Hyten stated, I see your point of view and based on my short experience, I have never built a house before but, I attended the request for a building inspector meeting and a couple of other meetings. Definitely, need some changes, my only question, and the end result as far as the variance part of being approved or not. I’m not questioning the fact that there needs to be further conversation with Mr. Krintz and myself. I don’t have a problem with that what so ever, I can’t speak for him. I think that I know him well enough to know that, it slipped through the cracks, well I can’t speak for him, I can only speak for myself.

Jeff Saylor stated, if we assign a fine to the contractor tonight and make that contingent upon the approval of the variance.

President Thompson asked, with him attending next meeting and answering for type thing, is that what you’re saying? Again, I’m not trying to alter your motion.

Ray Butz asked, what kind of fine are we going to put on him, if we go that route?

Jeff Saylor stated, we could set that, at the next meeting.

Hubert Hyten asked, what if Mr. Krintz doesn’t come to the meeting, I have no control over that, where does that leave me?

Ray Butz stated, that’s what I was wondering.

Attorney Altman stated, again to re-answer your question, this is a matter of jeopardy. In other words, whether you get this answer or that answer, whether you impose a fine or don’t impose a fine, it’s a matter with another person meaning Mr. Krintz. It would have to be a complaint, would have to be drawn up, it would have to be prepared signed and served on him. He would have to be given notice of the meeting so that he could come to answer. It couldn’t be, it should be something more formal, so that he knows what the problem is.

Ray Butz asked, release the police department?

Attorney Altman stated, you could in this matter, yes sir, he can be subpoenaed.

Ray Butz asked, why couldn’t we, okay, this and subpoena him, bring him in and fine him.

Jeff Saylor asked, can you subpoena someone to come in after the fact?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s pretty well concluded then, with the vote of approval.

Carol Stradling stated, repeat that, please, Jerry.

Attorney Altman stated, the matter before us is only approval of a variance and once you act on that, this matter is concluded subject to right of appeal.

President Thompson stated, but, we have approved others with conditions and this is no different.

Attorney Altman stated, if you make it a condition then it’s not approved until it’s done, until the condition is done.

President Thompson stated, we have approved variances with conditions as long as they were met. All that we’re asking is him to appear at the next meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, and I agree. Then the variance wouldn’t be done until it happens at the next meeting. I hear what you’re saying but, the variance in those other variances we’ve done conditionally, they aren’t a done solid deal until our conditions are met, that’s all that I mean.

Director Weaver asked, so are you saying that they would make this conditional that Mr. Krintz be at the next meeting? That is still not going to gain Mr. Hyten anything to get his property financed.

Attorney Altman stated, right, that’s what I’m trying to say he still has to meet that condition before the variance would be….

Jeff Saylor asked, may I impose a fine on Mr. Krintz this evening and make an appeal to that conditional, on his coming to the next meeting?

Attorney Altman stated, you could do that, I’m not sure that it’s quite the right, complete, correct procedure but, you surely can…

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m just asking.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you can do that.

Jeff Saylor stated, then that would let this gentleman off of the hook…

Carol Stradling asked, I would like to have one thing clarified before that. Is the problem with the variance tonight or is the problem with the submitted building permit?

President Thompson stated, building permit.

Attorney Altman stated, its really a little bit of both, you have a building there that is built and doesn’t conform, you have building permits that aren’t correct.

Hubert Hyten stated, I’m attempting to correct that.

Attorney Altman stated, he’s attempting to correct that, I guess if you impose something on Mr. Krintz tonight, he has not received notice of anything and constitutionally would be allowed to come and be noticed and respond before a jeopardy is imposed.

President Thompson stated, I think that’s what is partially, what is implied, it’s more less to get his attention to reinforce the fact.

Attorney Altman stated, I hear you I’m just not, I don’t think that your procedure, doesn’t quite meet muster, traditional muster that’s all.

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t have any wish to detour this gentleman from his plans and I think therefore, I will withdraw my motion and proceed.

President Thompson asked, again you’re catching all of it this evening, so he gets his variance…

Attorney Altman stated, he gets a vote on his variance….

President Thompson stated, right and the carpenter drives on down the road and we gain nothing.

Hubert Hyten stated, I didn’t hear you say nothing.

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s exactly what we said.

Hubert Hyten stated, now, since we have taken all of this time, do you have a problem with the way that his….

President Thompson stated, yes.

Hubert Hyten stated, okay, this house is built, he didn’t go by the rules or I didn’t go by the rules and I’ve tried to do everything to make up for that. Now the fact is, in the long run I venture to say that this variance is going to be approved. It’s costing me quite a bit of money but, I still think that you don’t have to drop it. You know what has happened with Mr. Krintz, maybe he has done it before or maybe he will do it again, I don’t know, I don’t think so.

President Thompson stated, you said yourself that, he has built many homes.

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, I’m not here to condemn him.

President Thompson stated, I know it and we’re not necessarily but, you don’t know how many times that we deal with this. Not with Mr. Krintz but, similar situations over the years.

Hubert Hyten asked, but, can’t you deal with the fact by giving him a reprimand or a fine or whatever you might do? What does that have to do with approving this variance? I just don’t understand.

President Thompson stated, I know what you’re getting at and it really doesn’t, but…

Attorney Altman stated, he withdrew his motion, the variance is before us now, he withdrew his motion.

President Thompson stated, but, I can’t believe that a person that is in that line of business could not pick up on this.

Carol Stradling stated, perhaps we can move forward, the motion has been removed. We can vote on the variance, we can hear the other testimony and perhaps the Board can discuss the separate issue with the contractor. Can we do a separate, do some kind of penalties separate from a variance Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, if a correct petition is drawn up, the person gets notice of the alleged violation and responds, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, even if we pass this variance, we can still do that?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but, it would take separate action and the violation would have to be filed and notice given. If someone had a right, they could come and appeal.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to tell the Board one thing, you have another similar situation yet on tonight’s agenda. I’m aware of two other, same situations, coming to you in the near future.

President Thompson asked, do you understand where we’re coming from? There’s no end to it. We have taken plenty of time, we have a lot of other business yet this evening. Is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, before we vote, I would want the record to show that lot #34, vacated, part of Kozy Kove Drive, between lot #34 and lot #18 would all be essentially locked together forever, so long as this use would be there if it is approved.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

 

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

6. That the request is for a 6’ West side setback variance and a 21’ front setback variance on Lots Number eighteen (18) and thirty-four (34) in Kozy Kove Addition, A subdivision of Pt. of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 31, Township 28 N, Range 3 West, of the Second Principle Meridian as shown by the recorded Plat of said Subdivision on file in the office of the Recorders of White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 3123 E. Kozy Kove Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorized the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the finding of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, at the very least, a building permit must be brought into compliance for this building condition.

Hubert Hyten stated, I apologize for the inconvenience that this has caused and we’ll get the proper papers done.

****

#1143 Bruce & Pamela Hiner; Requesting an 18’ front setback variance from Second Street to build an addition onto an existing detached garage and to build an unroofed deck between the garage and home on lot #103 & part of lot #102 in the Original Plat of Chalmers. The property is located at 108 E. Chestnut Street.

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

Bruce Hiner was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Bruce Hiner stated, just that I need a little bit more room for personal storage and a few things to get better organized and this would be a better way, a cheaper way than trying to build a new garage or a barn or something. This would be enough for me.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, not that I’m aware of. What is going on here is, they did have a variance to put the garage in initially the size 24’ x 24’. He came back to us wanting to extend the garage, not towards the roadway but, back towards the adjacent property owner. From talking to Attorney Altman, anytime that they stand a structure that they have had a variance for, they need to come back and request a second variance to enlarge that structure so, that is why he is coming back to you.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Any discussion from the Board? Nothing? Does the Board wish to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, for the record, lot #103 and part of lot #102 are joined together and is used that way.

Bruce Hiner stated, right.

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 an 18’ front setback variance from Second Street to build an addition onto an existing detached garage and to build an unroofed deck between the garage and home on Lot number 103 in the Original Plat to the Town of Chalmers, Indiana, in the County of White and Thirty (30) feet off of the entire East side of lot number 102 in the Original Plat to the Town of Chalmers, Indiana in the County of White.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Chalmers at 108 E. Chestnut Street.

 

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.

****

#1144 Richard W. & Colleen A. Spivey; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #22 in Hinterland Trails Subdivision #1. The property is located North of Monticello at 1171 N. Diamond Point Court.

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

Steve Krager stated, I have requested that the Spivey’s file for this variance. We are purchasing the house, we purchased the property and we’re moving in tomorrow as a matter of fact. We just wanted it brought up today so we are in compliance. We may have a front porch that we have to do repair on I want to make sure that everything is in compliance so there is no problems.

President Thompson asked, what do you know about this Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, we have not had any response on this. There has been a variance requested for this subdivision altering the setbacks for the subdivision. I believe that it’s a 100’ front setback and a 100’ rear setback is what they are required to have so here again, we have a home that was built outside of the setback lines.

Steven Krager stated, over 20 years ago.

Director Weaver stated, right, not recently.

Carol Stradling asked, so what is the change Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, they are required to have a 100’ front setback, a 50’ rear setback and it’s 12.5’ on each side.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s the variance that the subdivision was granted?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, the survey says a front setback of 32’.

Director Weaver stated, correct, and that is incorrect, that is your standard R-2 setbacks.

Carol Stradling asked, did the subdivision request a more…

Director Weaver stated, at the time that the subdivision was granted, our setbacks requirements for an R-2 zoning was 50’ front, 100’ rear so they reversed it is basically, what they did. This is down, I don’t know if this had any bearing in it or not but this is in an area where there is flood area, which is not on this property but is across from the property. So I don’t know if that is a bearing on why they flip-flopped those setbacks or not. It could be possibly the lay of the land too because, it is kind of hilly down there.

Steve Krager stated, right, it’s tapered quite a bit.

Director Weaver stated, right, so that may have been part of it also.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to speak for or against the variance this evening?

Carol Stradling asked, you mentioned a front porch.

Steve Krager stated, some of the bricks are breaking away. When I talked to Area Plan, they told me that if I wanted to change that or fix that, I would have to have a building permit. So I told Spivey’s that in order for me to get a building permit in the future, I wanted the property brought into compliance. So I could have an opportunity to do that if so desired. I have no plans to do anything at this time.

Carol Stradling asked, you’re not changing that front porch?

Steve Krager stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, you’re just repairing your bricks.

Steve Krager stated, repair, some of the brick has broken away from the post.

Director Weaver stated, that’s all that this request would allow you to do is put back what is existing.

Steve Krager stated, that’s the other thing, the insurance company informed me and I think that the Area Plan informed me that if this house was destroyed by fire, or storm I could not rebuild it because, it’s not in compliance. So to give my insurance company ease, I want to make sure that understand that I’m bringing it into compliance.

Jeff Saylor asked, are the applicants not here?

Steve Krager stated, they have moved.

Jeff Saylor asked, can we vote on this if the applicant is not here?

Gilda Hickman stated, I was listing the house, I came here for the Spivey’s. I’m with Vogel real estate. Basically, they are trying to correct a problem that happened 20 years ago and the Spivey’s did not build the house, it changed hands several times. It’s just that when it sold to our office, it came to our attention and we thought that it really needed to be corrected at this point instead of letting it go on from one owner to the next.

Director Weaver stated, Colleen Spivey did sign the application, if that makes any difference to you, they are aware of what is going on.

 

Jeff Saylor stated, if the applicant isn’t here, it’s tabled to the following meeting and that is my question, can we vote on this tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we can.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any other questions?

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 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 12’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Number Twenty-two (22) in Hinterland trails Subdivision 1, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located north of Monticello at 1171 N. Diamond Point Court.

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

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

****

#1145 Phillip J. & Teresa M. Cox; Requesting a 3’ side setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance to raise and rebuild the home on the existing foundation on lot #17 in Maple Bend Subdivision. The property is located in Liberty Township at 7078 Maple Bend Court.

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

Phil Cox was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information?

Phil Cox stated, no, just that we want to raise the house to get it up, out of the flood, so that this won’t happen again. The house has flooded, I guess back in 1990 or 1991 and boards are rotting and everything. We just want to raise it 2 bricks to get it up out of the flood, not to change at all just raise it and go from there, change the pitch of the roof also. I just want to make sure that I’m doing everything right.

Attorney Altman asked, will it still be single story?

Phil Cox stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, essentially like your present, only 2 bricks higher and the pitch will be a higher pitch right?

Phil Cox stated, right, you have a 5/12 pitch, I guess is the normal pitch of the house.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re just trying to make sure that we understand your application.

Carol Stradling asked, when you say raise the house, you mean “raise it up” not “raze” it…

Attorney Altman stated, as in tear it down.

Carol Stradling stated, tear it down.

Phil Cox stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, he understands Carol, that he can not do that, he has gone through the DNR for approval to do this project and they will not allow him to do that.

Carol Stradling asked, so he is moving that up?

Phil Cox asked, this might sound stupid but, what happens, this side is in such bad shape when it got wet back in 1991, what happens if one of these walls fall over or all four of them would fall over?

Ray Butz stated, you’re in big trouble.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, what you are doing is asking to reconstruct it higher, the same thing higher. Since it would then be in compliance, you would be allowed to repair it even if that repair would have to be pretty extensive there because, you’re getting approval to do this there.

President Thompson stated, he can replace the existing walls, he just can’t go any wider or longer. If the wall needs replaced you basically, can do it.

Director Weaver stated, in his situation he can not do that, the DNR will not allow it. They will allow him to make repairs but, he can not rebuild which, we discussed that. They will not let him completely tear this structure down and rebuild it, they will not allow that to happen but, he can repair.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I meant, repair extensively.

Director Weaver stated, he can repair but, he can not rebuild. If he does that, he is going to be in more trouble than just us.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s because, of the elevation here, verses the water.

Phil Cox stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s a risk that you’re taking, whether your two brick is high enough.

Phil Cox stated, 2 blocks.

Attorney Altman stated, 2 blocks, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 3’ side setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance to raise and rebuild the home on the existing foundation on Lot Numbered Seventeen (17) in Maple Bend Subdivision, Liberty Township, White County, State of Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 7078 Maple Bend 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 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I suggest that you get a building permit to show the compliance of this modification and the raising of the improvement, before you proceed.

****

#1146 Fred Boessel; Requesting a 15’ front setback variance off of Monon Road, a 5’ front setback variance off of Bedford Bay Court and a 6’ front setback variance off of the water to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance and to allow them to continue with an existing campground on Lot #1 in Boessel Subdivision (proposed). The property is located in Monon Township at 6464 N. Bedford Bay Court.

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

Fred Boessel stated, on the flood setback, it’s my fault because, I took a measurement back from where I consider the start on the surveyors corner, that would be the Northeast corner and I measured from that. I should have measured from the right-of-way, as they say and I didn’t. The front variance is a 6’ setback now, we had the land before but, up until the last 10 years or so we haven’t had the current coming through there but, we had a lot of crud coming through there. So it took a good chunk of our land with it so, that’s what shows up here, a 5’ variance off of Bedford Bay Court. That is the road on the East side of our property and we donated the property to the road, we thought that it would be nice to have the road in there and that was it. Now, at that time, they had to put riff raff in there because, of the cemetery because, it was caving. I asked at that time, they were going to put a little short concrete wall up there and I figured it was easily 40’ from there but, as that stuff settles we have a little less all of the time so that’s the problem right there.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not had any response, I did give the Board a survey tonight of this property. Mr. Boessel also brought in the map of the property showing where he has campers and such on the property Attorney Altman had requested that we have something like that.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, one thing that I want to show the Board, the site improved survey and setback, we have with the application shows the flood area and it’s different. I believe that it is more correct from looking at the subdivision and I think that the surveyor just followed the wrong elevation. It shows on this subdivision that this flood area is 952, not 954 and that makes a whale of a difference, on look at this subdivision. So that shows about ½ of that lot in the flood area and the actual that is on the Subdivision Ordinance is much less intrusive than to Mr. Boessel’s area that he is applying for. I think that improves his situation quite a bit. The other thing would be, and I’m sure that the site improvement survey should be just shown as amended that one area is not part of the flood area because, I was told in the Subdivision Ordinance. The other thing is, I think that he is just showing to the Board the extent of his use and that’s what this exhibit that shows 1 through 10 areas…

Fred Boessel stated, camper trailers.

Attorney Altman asked, where he has campers on his lot that’s the extent of his request, of approval of that campground area. Is that right Mr. Boessel, this is just showing the extent of your use and what you’re asking to be approved?

Fred Boessel stated, yes, because, we had 20 campers before and now we’re down to 10, selling off of the other lots there.

Attorney Altman stated, just trying to make sure. The other free areas are in fact dwellings and what is this area right here, Mr. Boessel, that is not identified.

Director Weaver stated, storage buildings.

Attorney Altman stated, you have two dwellings and what is that?

Fred Boessel stated, this is a shop.

Attorney Altman stated, again, for the record, the ones that are West, most are dwellings the other one is a shop.

Fred Boessel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, used for his business there again, trying to get this corrected.

President Thompson asked, is there discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, the only thing that I see on the survey that I question is, not on this one that we received 10-19-00 it has setback lines.

Attorney Altman stated, those are taken off.

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman requested that those be removed.

Attorney Altman stated, because, you can’t have two building areas on one lot, that’s why we took those off. His setbacks, really he is done building on this ground, this is it without another variance. He can’t expand but, he doesn’t intend to, just want to approve what he has there right now. We’re trying to get approved what is requested, that’s all that I’m trying to do and make sure that the record is clear for our Board members.

President Thompson asked, if there is no other discussion is the Board ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, with the consent of the Board and the applicant, it is my understanding by the vote that I will announce on the variance that it is 5 votes in favor is it correct that the record show that the vote on the variance be considered. A vote on the special exception that the record is here together and the vote would be affirmative on the special exception also as presented as requested by the applicant. All of those in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

Attorney Altman stated, all opposed the same sign.

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 will be a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance and is located within the proposed Boessel Subdivision.

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 off of Monon Road, a 5’ front setback variance off of Bedford Bay Court and a 6’ front setback variance off of the water to bring the existing home into compliance Lot 1 in Boessel Subdivision (proposed) in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 6464 N. Bedford Bay 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 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the general rule that we have 5 votes cast in approving the special exception so we can proceed.

****

#1147 Douglas G. & Gabrielle G. Haygood; Requesting a 9’ front setback variance from Mesa Drive to build a room addition on the existing home on Lot 7 in Western Heights Subdivision. The property is located West of Monticello on the Northwest corner of Mesa Drive and Plateau Trail.

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

Doug Haygood was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Doug Haygood stated, it’s right there in writing.

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

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

Attorney Altman asked, would it be the same roof pitch, same single story?

Doug Haygood stated, yes, everything is still the same. I’m going to try to match it up with the existing house. I don’t want it to look like an add on.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I just want to make sure.

Doug Haygood stated, our contractor has a layout of what we’re doing.

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 Mesa Drive to build a room addition on the existing home on Lot Numbered Seven (7) in Western Heights Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located west of Monticello at 568 S. Mesa 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, you need to get your building permit before you proceed.

****

#1148 Perry & Steve Godlove; Requesting a 13’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing business building on 1.50 acres. The property is located West of Monticello at 933 Hanawalt Road.

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

Steve Godlove stated, this is Perry Godlove. The addition proposed is a much needed reception area and office space and show room area. I have one more document, Exhibit A, that Director Weaver didn’t get, it pertains more to the building permit but, we did get it faxed from the Department of Health re-certified reuse of our current septic system without any update.

Attorney Altman asked, could we have a copy of that for the record?

Steve Godlove stated, certainly.

Attorney Altman stated, we will copy that and give you back the original. I have presented as a document from the Indiana State Department of Health dated October 16, 2000 addressed to Perry Godlove, Godlove Enterprises Inc. The document was read into the record.

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

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

President Thompson asked, anyone here for or against the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, same size, it wouldn’t be 2 story or anything like that?

Steve Godlove stated, actually, the roofline of this addition would be lower than the existing roofline.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot 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 a 13’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing business building commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 625.0 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 187.50 feet; thence South 02 degrees 05 minutes West 348.60 feet; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes West 187.50 feet; thence North 02 degrees 05 minutes East 348.60 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.50 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located west of Monticello at 933 Hanawalt Road.

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.

****

#1149 David D. & Rebbecca A. Livesay; Requesting a 19’ front setback variance from Turpie Street and a 4’ front setback variance from Third Street to build a detached garage on part of lot #63 & #64 in Citizens Addition. The property is located in the Town of Monticello on the Southeast corner of Turpie Street and Third Street.

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

David Livesay was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

David Livesay stated, it’s all right there.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything in the office on this. This was previously owned by N.I.P.S.CO. There is a large tower back behind this location it’s only going to be a garage it’s not going to be a home or anything.

President Thompson asked, have we had any correspondence?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here for or against the variance this evening? Are there any concerns from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, single story right?

David Livesay stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

 

2. That the lot 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 a 19’ front setback variance from Turpie Street and a 4’ front setback variance from Third Street to build a detached garage on part of that part of Lots 63 and 64 in Citizens Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana, described by;

Beginning at an iron pipe set at the Northwest Corner of Said lot 64;

Thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 55 seconds East along the North Line of Lots 64 and 63, a distance of 75.00 feet to an iron pipe set;

Thence South along the West line of the Nor. Ind. Public Service Co. property as described in Deed Record 123, Page 320, White County Recorder’s Office, a distance of 49.05 feet to an iron pipe set;

Thence South 46 degrees 00 minutes 22 seconds West along the Northwesterly Line of Said Nor. Ind. Public Service Co. property, a distance of 104.24 feet to an iron pipe set;

Thence North along the West Line of Lot 64, a distance of 122.35 feet to the Point of Beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the Southeast corner of Turpie Street and Third Street.

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.

****

#1150 Charlene Woodhouse; Requesting a 23.5’ front setback variance from Logan Street to build a room addition, a 3’ front setback variance from Logan Street to move an existing shed and a 24’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #6 in the Original Plat of Burnettsville. The property is located at 328 S. Logan Street.

Charlene Woodhouse asked, how long do I have to complete this? How long is this variance for?

President Thompson stated, 1 year.

Attorney Altman stated, a variance is not really restricted, a special exception is.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought that she had to complete the project.

Director Weaver stated, once she has a building permit issued.

Attorney Altman stated, the building permit.

Charlene Woodhouse stated, I’m doing it as I have money available and I may not have enough to completely complete it.

President Thompson asked, so what you’re saying is, it’s open ended for her?

Attorney Altman stated, the variance is, the building permit isn’t.

Director Weaver stated, a building permit once it’s issued, you have 6 months to get the project started and 1 year to complete it.

Charlene Woodhouse stated, okay, another thing, since we are going to put a room on and extend our room, we will need a roof over it and we’ll have to tie it in so it won’t look like a motel. If you want to see the house plans or something I have them.

President Thompson stated, I don’t know that we need to see it but, does the Board wish to have a look at it?

Jeff Saylor asked, that back part of that house that has not been sided yet, is that going to come off or are you going to add on to that?

Charlene Woodhouse stated, the kitchen there that has not been sided will be torn off and there will be a new kitchen. It will go clear back and there will be a bedroom on the back, I’m tired of taking a bath in the kitchen. So, I’m going to make the small bedroom into a bathroom and then make the second bedroom behind the kitchen and then it will all be sided like that.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything?

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not.

President Thompson asked, anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Is there any discussion from the Board?

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

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

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 23.5’ front setback variance from Logan Street to build a room addition, a 3’ front setback variance from Logan Street to move an existing shed and a 24’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 6 in Block G in the Original Plat of the Town of Sharon (now Burnettsville) White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Town of Burnettsville at 328 South Logan 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

Charlene Woodhouse asked, do I need a roof change too, since it is going to be extended out?

Attorney Altman stated, that goes with your request. You have asked for a room addition obviously, it have to have a roof on it. Some people just need the roof and don’t have to add building on and that’s why they have to get one for the roof.

****

President Thompson asked, earlier on Hyten’s variance, do we want to discuss the Krintz contractor situation a little more or do we want to lay that to rest.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that he needs to come in.

Attorney Altman stated, what I would recommend there is, we hear from the record the fact that indicated by the homeowner and just prepare a statement by homeowner. Then give Mr. Krintz and the homeowner notice to come before us, on an apparent violation to answer as to that violation.

Carol Stradling asked, could you take care of that Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly would, working with of course, the minutes. I usually work with whoever types up the minutes so that we get the facts out as testified by the applicant. Then you notice someone up there is an apparent violation and I think that I would quite frankly, put them both to the test as he said that he is liable and I would also put him down a violator. Otherwise you’re not going to get him in here without it’s going to be he said, she said, so I think that that both need to be put to the test here.

Carol Stradling asked, do we need to put that in a form of a motion?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I think that Director Weaver wants to know what the pleasure of the Board is I think that you heard it and we will get it ready.

President Thompson asked, is that the Board’s wishes, call in the two parties, Krintz and Hyten?

Jeff Saylor stated, the bottom line, a professional needs to be responsible for their paperwork.

President Thompson stated, all that I can say is, we have had that, I’m aware of we have not had a problem with Krintz but, yet that doesn’t matter.

Gary Barbour stated, it’s gone on long enough now, we really need to start calling them on the carpet because, if we don’t it’s going to continue and it’s going to get worse. We’re seeing more and more of it all of the time.

Carol Stradling asked, can we also at some point and time we’re going to have to decide, if we decide to fine him, what would be an appropriate fine?

President Thompson stated, the downside to the fines is the contractor passes it on to the homeowners.

Carol Stradling stated, but, he’s about done, I don’t think that he is going to pass this one on. Was it you and I Gary that talked to Director Weaver about a dollar for every…

Director Weaver stated, a dollar per square foot.

Carol Stradling stated, dollar per square foot.

Director Weaver stated, that way if you have a 100’ deck, it’s going to be a 100 dollar fine.

President Thompson stated, that’s a good rule of thumb.

Carol Stradling asked, when we establish a fine, do we have any precedence that we have to follow?

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that yes, we have and the way that I would tell you there is you look at the severity of the harm. Whose harm, someone mislead someone defrauded sometimes that is the situation. Sometimes you have someone that really was very innocent about it, they’re before us, and they plead that innocence unlike this circumstance where he is accepting the blame.

Jeff Saylor stated, he went out of his way to accept the blame.

President Thompson stated, he did but, we wants the work done.

Attorney Altman stated, it looks at the harm, if you poke someone in the nose and it doesn’t cause any harm, the judge looks at that. If you poke someone in the nose and they have to go through a 10,000-dollar operation, the judge looks at that, just to tell you how it works in the other courts you just look at the severity of the situation.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that anyone has been harmed here except that…

Director Weaver stated, Mr. Hyten has been harmed.

Attorney Altman stated, the community has in the extent that other people think that they can get by with doing this.

Jeff Saylor stated, that could have easily been Charlene Woodhouse, sitting in that chair and not being able to pay a fine or not knowing what happened and not knowing, it easily could have been.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I mean by, you look at the parties and their relative positions ones a professional.

Jeff Saylor stated, bring this guy in and say who dropped the ball on this thing and if it ends up that the homeowner pays the fine then I’m fine with that.

President Thompson asked, I agree. Do we need a show of hands?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you have the nod, everyone nodded.

Gary Barbour stated, 60’ x 120’ was the ground floor.

Director Weaver stated, I think that there is also a basement or a partial basement

Attorney Altman stated, Director Weaver would you have them run the tape on this as soon as possible, this part of it so I can get that ready. Usually, on this sort of complaint we like to have at least, generally it requires 20 days notice.

Director Weaver stated, you want the whole variance or just the business part that we have discussed.

Attorney Altman stated, no, this man, his variance…

Director Weaver stated, his variance.

Attorney Altman stated, his variance part please.

Director Weaver stated, I will have her work on it tomorrow.

Attorney Altman stated, if you could please, I understand that you’re busy.

Director Weaver stated, we have pretty much turned it over to where that’s pretty much all that she has time for. We’re trying to get it to where we can keep up a little better and we have one person now in particular who is doing minutes.

President Thompson asked, is that it Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Ray Butz seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,


Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission