Get Adobe Flash player

 

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday December 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Linda Wenrick, Terry Saunders, Julie Mullins, Don Rice, Elaine Rice, Greg Vogel, James Gill, Dick & Linda Smith, Hubert H. Hyten, Charles R. Mellon, Jim & Louise Wildrick, Lori Foster, Pat Newbold, Mary Walker, Earl Hornback, Gary Quasebarth, Ann Kirsch, Marilyn & Ryan Crawford, Perdue Powlen, Kevin W. Diener, Brad Gutwein, Sandra Dusey and Keith W. Long

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

President Thompson stated, first of all, let me say thanks to those that were on schedule for a week ago, thank you for adjusting your schedule for coming tonight. I think that we can all remember it was a pretty ornery night and I don’t think that anyone was wanting to get out so therefore we have a full agenda tonight, so we have a lot of business.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

President Thompson stated, one more thing, before we start, the minutes that you have in front of you, I believe that we will pass on these this evening and we will address these in January’s meeting. Right now, it looks like it might be a fairly light meeting.


Carol Stradling stated, it goes back to July on the minutes. I move that we address the minutes from July through November at the next meeting.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved, do I hear a second?

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded all in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed the same. Motion carried.

****


#1153 James A. & Dorothy Wildrick; Requesting a 24’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on .32 of an acre. The property is located in Union Township at 3982 E. Lake Road 26 W. Tabled from November 16, 2000.

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

Jim Wildrick was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information that you want to present to the Board?

Jim Wildrick stated, yes, I have additional sketch, I thought might clear up, there were some questions…

Attorney Altman stated, we received into evidence, what looks like 4 copies, of the area by Mr. Wildrick and I will mark them, Exhibit A.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to point out to the Board too that you do have pictures in your packet, I did go out to the property. There are new stakes in this picture that may help you with your decision on this.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Any comments from the Board? Any concerns? We didn’t have anything last meeting, did we?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe, there isn’t anything in the file.

Attorney Altman stated, no, there were no letters, that sort of thing but, a lot of discussion, concern about how close this was and traffic and that sort of thing but no, no particular letters.

Carol Stradling asked, on your diagram that we have, the stop sign is that the edge, the corners of the property line?

James Wildrick stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so, this is the location?

James Wildrick stated, no, that is the actual property stake, the stop sign, I think it’s closer to somewhere back here. It was arbitrary put there by the, it’s on this property line here.

Carol Stradling asked, the mailboxes would be where?

James Wildrick stated, right on the property line. If you note, I did revise the variance request 4’.

Director Weaver stated, no, we need to let them be aware of that.

James Wildrick stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I’m leaving that up you, to let them know that you had decided to do so. What he wants to do, I believe, if my notes are right, you’re going to make it a 20’ x 30’?

James Wildrick stated, yes, I’m reducing the building, proposal by 2’ and also moving 2’ farther back, so it’s an additional 4’, so it would be a 20’ variance instead of a 24’.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, the doors for this building would be on the West Shafer Drive?

James Wildrick stated, facing West Shafer that’s correct.

Carol Stradling stated, so that conceivably, when you leave the property someone else could purchase it and use that garage as their primary garage and be pulling in and out of that on a routine basis? I understand that you’re just parking antique cars there.

James Wildrick stated, yes, it’s just storage for me, conceivably, yes. It’s more than clearance for an automobile now, the additional 4’.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions?

Carol Stradling asked, so your new proposal would have the garage going into the hillside so you will be removing some of that slope?

James Wildrick stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? If not is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, how high is your garage going to be?

James Wildrick stated, I plan on standard 8’ walls with a flat roof.

Carol Stradling asked, flat roof?

James Wildrick stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, how high is the stop sign?

Director Weaver stated, 5’ or 10’ high.

Attorney Altman stated, the stop sign would be probably, to the top, probably 6’. I think that is a pretty standard height of a stop sign, I’m just trying to think of the county ones, I think that is about right to the top of the sign is about 6’. I suppose occasionally it might be 6 ½ ’ or 7’, and that looks like what that might be from here.

Carol Stradling asked, are there any regulations of how close you can build to a road right-of-way?

Director Weaver stated, just our setbacks.

Attorney Altman stated, just the setbacks.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions? Is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, we shall vote.

The Board finds the following:

1. That objectors were not present at the meeting

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

3. That the request is for a 20’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on a tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Six (6), Township Twenty Seven (27) North Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is South 00 degrees 32 minutes West 636.5 Feet, South 72 degrees and 6 minutes East 868.6 feet and South 64 degrees 57 minutes East 256.1 feet from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 6 and running thence South 2 degrees and 53 minutes West 90.4 feet; thence North 65 degrees and 30 minutes East 12.1 feet; thence South 78 degrees East 150 feet; thence North 14 degrees and 9 minutes East 80 feet; thence North 78 degrees 58 minutes West 115.2 feet; thence North 78 degrees and 25 minutes West 61.8 feet to the point of beginning, containing .32 of an acre, more or less.

Also, an easement for the right of ingress and egress over a strip of land 20 feet in width and being 10 feet of even width on either side of the following described centerline:

Beginning at a point which is South 00 degrees 32 minutes West 636.5 feet, South 72 degrees and 6 minutes East 868.6 feet and South three degrees and 11 minutes East 86.7 feet from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the above said section 6 and running thence South 87 degrees and 1 minute East 226.1 feet; thence South 80 degrees and 50 minutes East 59.1 feet; thence South 76 degrees and 58 minutes East 120.2 feet and there terminates at the existing county road.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 3982 E. Lake Road 26 W.

4. (1) The variance request (is) (is not) a variance from a use district or classifications under are plan law. Vote: 0 is, 4 is not.

5. (2) The granting of this variance (will) (will not) be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Vote: 2 will 2 will not.

6. (3) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request (will) (will not) be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Vote 0 will, 4 will not.

7. (4) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance is being applied to a situation that (is) (is not) common to other properties in the same zoning district. Vote: 0 is 4 is not,

8. (5) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance (will) (will not) result in unusual and unnecessary hardship. Vote: 3 will, 1 will not.

9. (6a) This situation (is) (is not) such that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that does not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning district. Vote: 0 will, 4 will not.

10. (6b) this situation (is) (is not) such that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. Vote: 0 will, 4 will not.

11. (6c) This situation (is) (is not) such that the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will materially impair the purposes of the ordinance of the public interest. Vote: 0 will, 4 will not.

12. (6d) This situation (is) (is not) such that the Board specifically fins the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is of so typical or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation, under an amendment of the ordinance, for such conditions or situations. Vote: 0 will, 4 will not.

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 1 for and 3 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, we have received into the evidence of the meeting an amendment by the applicant modifying the proposed garage from 22’ to 20’ it has been moved backward 4’ I believe it is in addition so to modify the variance. The variance is denied.

****

#1157 Richard E. & Linda R. Smith; Requesting a 22’ front setback from Wood Street to build an addition onto the existing detached garage and a 22’ front setback from Wood Street and a 2’ front setback from 11th Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #18 in the Town and Country Subdivision. The property is located at 309 E. 11th Street.

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

Richard Smith was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Richard Smith stated, no, other than I want you to understand that it’s an existing building that is there. I don’t know when this was put into effect, the variance that effects my property, when it was put into effect is it prior to being built would that be an assumption?

Carol Stradling asked, the setbacks?

Richard Smith asked, yes, the setbacks, is that something recent? In the last 10 years?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, probably in the last 10 years.

Richard Smith stated, I have 2 permits while I have lived there to add on in a straight line where I’m proposing to add on once more. So I want everyone to know that it is already there for all practical purposes, I’m just adding 16’ on to what is there and then trying to come in compliance to what has been bestowed upon the property after the fact I guess.

Attorney Altman asked, what you’re saying is you already have a garage there but, your proposed addition is not already there.

Richard Smith stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, so you have not violated the ordinance.

Richard Smith stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, I just want to make sure that, I understood what you were saying but, I’m not sure that you said that.

Richard Smith stated, what I’m trying to say is, I’m just extending what is already there and what is there is wrong, so I guess that we have to correct it from the get go.

Attorney Altman asked, but, you received a building permit for the present 26’ x 24’ garage when you built it…

Richard Smith stated, 20’ x 20’, addition to the house.

Attorney Altman stated, and when that was done, it was in compliance with the ordinance.

Richard Smith stated, it was.

President Thompson asked, you said approximately 10 years ago.

Carol Stradling stated, or more.

Attorney Altman stated, certainly our ordinance has been amended since then.

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

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

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

Carol Stradling stated, I have a concern that in the description we have, it says to build an addition on to an existing detached garage at a 22’ front setback from Wood Street and a 2’ front setback from Eleventh Street. When I look at the survey there is a platted survey, and he is within that from Eleventh Street. So, it indicates that he meets 32’, it shows that he only has 30’, which I can see where he would need the 2’, but there is a platted setback line on the survey.

Director Weaver stated, the reason that platted, and there is another variance that is the same way, the reason that 25’ setback is not acknowledged is because this subdivision was developed prior to Area Plan. Those setbacks were never in compliance with the Area Plan setbacks.

Carol Stradling stated, okay. So he does need the 2’?

Director Weaver stated, yes, he does.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Nothing? Is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-1, One 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 22’ front setback from Wood Street to build an addition onto the existing detached garage and a 22’ front setback from Wood Street and a 2’ front setback from 11th Street to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot Numbered Eighteen (18) in Town and Country Subdivision to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 309 E. 11th 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.

****

#1158 Randall F. & Marilyn A. Crawford; Requesting a 28’ front setback variance to build a pole barn on 1.86 & 8.9 Acres. The property is located in Liberty Township at 10373 N. 800 E.

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

Marilyn Crawford was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any other information to present to the Board?

Marilyn Crawford stated, no.

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

President Thompson asked, nothing?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? If not, open to the Board.

Carol Stradling stated, seeing this makes a lot more sense than what I was looking at when we…

Attorney Altman stated, I made that suggestion that we get a full vicinity sketch, it makes it a lot clearer, issue all of the way around as to what they are requesting.

Gary Barbour asked, what is around it, on the other side of the property line? Is it houses, wooded area or is it just farm ground?

Marilyn Crawford stated, it’s farm…

Gary Barbour asked, farm ground?

Marilyn Crawford stated, farm and wooded.

Attorney Altman asked, it’s near a cemetery, right?

Marilyn Crawford stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns?

Charlie Mellon asked, how far East of State Road 39 is that?

Marilyn Crawford stated, it’s right on the river.

Charlie Mellon stated, it’s clear over there then.

Marilyn Crawford stated, right.

President Thompson stated, it adjoins the river.

Carol Stradling asked, on this second survey that we have with our packets, it says December, October 5, 2000, I don’t know if he needs to correct that or what.

President Thompson asked, do you know what the deal is with that?

Director Weaver asked, is there another date down at the bottom?

Carol Stradling stated, no, we received a December plan.

Director Weaver stated, yes, I believe that he made that for our benefit because, of Attorney Altman’s request. I don’t know where the October…

Carol Stradling stated, that was the date on the earlier one that we had. It doesn’t change what I see.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that the date has nothing to do with it, it’s the survey I presume that it is one of the scriveners errors that sneaks in on things and yet, I don’t think that it changes the location of the property or the…

Carol Stradling stated, we put that we received it 12-20-00.

Attorney Altman asked, does this survey accurately show the property and the proposed addition to the property?

Marilyn Crawford stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, this is exactly what you intend to build in that area?

Marilyn Crawford stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that there is any significance.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? 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 A-1, Agricultural.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 28’ front setback variance to build a pole barn on That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the above said Section 1; thence North 645.6 feet; thence North 88 degrees 27 minutes East 720.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 26 degrees 11 minutes East 426.15 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes East 28.5 feet; thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes West 252.86 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes East 435.49 feet to the West right-of-way line of a 40 foot road as dedicated in the Old Pioneer’s Ford Subdivision; thence along right-of-way line South 55 degrees 26 minutes West 498.6 feet, South 33 degrees 26 minutes West 312.6 fee, South 19 degrees 48 minutes West 127.5 feet and South 88 degrees 27 minutes West 38.36 feet to the point of beginning.

The above parcel of land contains 1.86 Acres, more or less.

ALSO: Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township Twenty eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is North Six Hundred and Five and Six Tenths (605.6) feet along the centerline of a County Road from the Southwest Corner of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section One (1) and running thence North Eighty Eight Degrees and Twenty Seven Minutes East, Seven Hundred and Forty Three and Eight Tenths (743.8) Feet; thence South Nineteen Degrees and Fourth Eight Minutes West One Hundred and Thirty seven and Three Tenths (137.3) Feet; thence South Eleven Degrees and Fourteen Minutes West Five Hundred and Eleven and Fourteen Minutes West Five Hundred and Eleven and Four Tenths (511.4) Feet; thence North Eighty Nine Degrees and Twenty Six Minutes East One Hundred and Seventy and One Tenth (170.1) Feet to the Tippecanoe River; thence in a Northeasterly direction along the waters edge with the meanderings of said River approximately One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety (1590) Feet; thence South Eight Nine Degrees and Thirty Minutes West One Hundred and Fifty Two and Nine Tenths (152.9) Feet; thence South Fifty Five Degrees and Twenty Six Minutes West Four Hundred and Ninety Eight and Six Tenths (498.6) Feet; thence South Thirty Three Degrees and Twenty Six Minutes West Three Hundred and Twelve and Six Tenths (312.6) Feet; thence South Nineteen Degrees and Forty Eight Minutes West One Hundred and Twenty Seven and Five Tenths (127.5) Feet; thence South Eight Degrees and Twenty Seven Minutes West Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight and Three Tenths (758.3) Feet; thence South Forty (40) Feet to the place of beginning, containing Eight and Nine Tenths (8.9) Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 10373 N. 800 E.

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

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

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

****

#1159 Earl & June Hornback; Requesting a 20’ East side setback variance to build a roofed deck and bring the house into compliance and a 44’ South side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #1 in Spring Valley Subdivision. The property is located East of Monticello at 5924 E. U.S. Highway 24.

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

Earl Hornback was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to the description?

Earl Hornback asked, I wouldn’t think so, do you have the survey that Jim Milligan made?

President Thompson stated, yes, we have a drawing here.

Earl Hornback stated, the reason that house is sitting there, where it was built, I wasn’t aware at the time that little box Jim drew in there had anything to do with it so, I plead insanity there. The well, the existing well, I wanted the well 30’ from the basement and then put it in there, well it is up there by the basement and it left plenty of room from the septic system from the North. If there is any other questions, I will try to answer them.

President Thompson asked, has there been any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not received any response. I did, with the packet that I gave you tonight, there is a copy of the subdivision plat and the drawing from that plat, I thought that might be helpful to you to understand what his original setbacks were on this lot.

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

Attorney Altman asked, so he is actually further off of the highway to eliminate any traffic problem and really not particularly close to his road going into the subdivision?

Director Weaver stated, right and as of right now, I don’t think that there are homes back there, there is only access to 4 lots at this time.

Attorney Altman stated, 4 other lots.

Director Weaver stated, so it’s not a major roadway anyway.

Carol Stradling asked, but, the corner of his garage is 31’ off of from Spring Valley Court?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Earl Hornback stated, some of the other lots have a 20’ setback from the side, do you have a plat of that here?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we do sir.

Earl Hornback stated, I wasn’t aware that had an effect on it really, I thought that they could all be 20’, I wasn’t aware that was boxed.

Carol Stradling stated, except that, you have U.S. 24 on one side so that is not a side and yes Spring Valley Court, so that side is not a side and then you have the roadway back to the other lots, so that is not a side either. So the side so the 20’ that you are referring to doesn’t apply to either side of your house because, of the roadways.

Attorney Altman stated, two and half-front yards.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns? Are we ready to vote? We shall 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 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 20’ East side setback variance to build a roofed deck and bring the house into compliance and a 44’ South side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 1 in Spring Valley Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Monticello at 5924 E. U.S. Highway 24.

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 probably need to check and get your building permit in compliance with this variance. So, I would check with the department, I would just recommend that you do that, you may need a building permit to get you into compliance.

****

#1160 Julie Mullins; Requesting a special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to have a public dog kennel on 6.73 Acres. The White County Zoning Ordinance allows for a dog kennel to go in an A-1 zoning with an approved special exception variance. The property is located in West Point Township at 4882 W. 100 S.

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

Julie Mullins was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to that description? Is there any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, we did have one gentlemen call with inquiries to the office. I do not believe that he is here this evening and we have not received anything in writing.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Does the Board have any questions?

Carol Stradling asked, how many kennels do you plan on having?

Julie Mullins stated, 20.

Carol Stradling asked, dogs and cats or just dogs?

Julie Mullins stated, just dogs.

Carol Stradling asked, inside runs or outside runs?

Julie Mullins stated, inside and outside, they will be indoor/outdoor runs.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, the closest house to the East of you I see, I guess, the G.I.S. map the house that is to West of you just off of 500 West, to the East of you do you know where that is?

Director Weaver stated, Carol, it’s over ½ of a mile.

Carol Stradling stated, ½ mile.

Director Weaver stated, this is out in my neighborhood, the closest house is to the West.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s all that I needed to know.

Attorney Altman asked, this is all agricultural ground right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and it’s all being used as agricultural.

Director Weaver stated, she has a game preserve to the West of her and a field between her and the closest home and all around to the South, North and East is all open farm ground.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions? Are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot 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 special exception variance as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to have a public dog kennel on Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 2, Township 26 North, Range 5 West in West Point Township, White County, Indiana; thence East along the section line 622.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 48 minutes East 554.00 feet thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes West 292.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes East 162.00 feet; thence West 348.78 feet to the section line; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes East 392.24 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.73 Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in West Point Township at 4882 W. 100 S.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 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, I would caution you that you have a year to begin, if you do not, the special exception expires. So it would probably be a very good idea obviously, get your building permit and then get it inspected to certify that your exception has been implemented so that you don’t have any problems with that year deadline.

****

#1161 Linda Wenrick; Requesting an 8’ front setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home on lot #105 in the North Addition. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 511 N. Boone Street.

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

Linda Wenrick was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to the description?

Linda Wenrick stated, no.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything. I would like to add one thing, I believe that it is the lot to the North of you. Is that the one that the new sectional home is on? We have granted a variance recently to the lot North of this property.

Attorney Altman asked, is that reflected in the sketch here, the 11’, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, it was for a front setback, yes, I’m sure that it is.

Attorney Altman asked, so, it would be similar to the exception that was allowed for the lot that is North of it?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, would you mind repeating that.

Director Weaver stated, the lot to the North has a new sectional home that also required a variance that we have approved, I would say within the last year.

Carol Stradling asked, it is 11’ from the property line?

Director Weaver stated, yes, the variance was for a front, from the property line.

Carol Stradling asked, so, the 11’ that we see on the survey is correct?

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Are there any other concerns from the Board? If there is nothing are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, is this on city water and city sewage and it’s a little bit wider?

Linda Wenrick stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, there wouldn’t be any traffic problems created by this in any way?

Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of, it’s a dead end street also.

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 8’ front setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home on Lot 105 in North Addition to the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 511 N. Boone 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1162 Kevin W. & Joni L. Diener; Requesting a 5’ front setback variance to build a new home on lot #14 in Countrybrook Subdivision #2. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of South Countrybrook Drive.

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

Greg Vogel stated, I’m representing Kevin Diener. This is a home that they would like to go on and like Director Weaver said earlier, with one of the other variances, this subdivision was originally laid out with 25’ front setback and since they changed to 32’ we need a 5’ variance.

Perdue Powlen stated, speak up, we can’t hear you.

Greg Vogel stated, I said, this subdivision was laid out with a 25’ front yard setback, which most of them in the subdivision are and since they changed it to 32’, we need a 5’ front yard variance to get the house into compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, they changed it, the Subdivision Ordinance was changed.

Greg Vogel stated, right but, originally, how they laid it out was 25’ front yard.

Attorney Altman stated, so now since the modification of the ordinance, they need a setback variance but, what they are proposing to put in here actually conforms to the private restrictions.

Greg Vogel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, as shown on the plat.

Director Weaver stated, we have received a letter from the property owner across the street from this property, I have also given you a copy of the plat of this subdivision.

President Thompson asked, do you want to read that out loud?

Director Weaver stated, I can. The letter is dated December 24, 2000, Exhibit A, from Harry Voorhis. The letter was read out loud to the Board and the audience members.

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

Gary Quasebarth stated, yes, I’m on lot #16 just to the South of the property. I feel the same way, it going to be a two-story home is going to devalue our property. I’m concerned about the 8’ from the property line that is adjoining mine. Is that in accordance with the…

Director Weaver stated, yes, it is.

Attorney Altman stated, the variance is to the street, is what they are talking about, the 8’ complies. It is the closest to the street that the variance is requested for.

Perdue Powlen stated, his house will be sitting right on top of his, that 8’ means nothing when you have the height of a house considered.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can tell you is, it isn’t a variance.

Greg Vogel stated, this is a one-story ranch home and that’s very compatible with all of the other houses out there in that subdivision.

Carol Stradling asked, have you seen the plans for this?

Gary Quasebarth stated, no, I haven’t.

Attorney Altman asked, this isn’t a two story?

Perdue Powlen stated, we have it where it’s located, I think that what they are trying to do is save those 3 trees. In order to do that, if they build this where they plan to build it, they just blocked his house completely he can’t see anything to the North.

Carol Stradling asked, how close is your house to the property line Mr. Quasebarth?

Gary Quasebarth stated, I have never measured it but, it looks to be 8’ and 10’ from the property line.

Perdue Powlen stated, you don’t have any property on the North side of your house.

Carol Stradling asked, so, roughly 8’?

Gary Quasebarth stated, I would say 8’, yes.

Perdue Powlen stated, no more than that.

President Thompson asked, sir, did you understand, he is speaking of a single story home, you made reference to a two-story.

Perdue Powlen stated, that is going to be an awful small home.

President Thompson stated, as long as you understand.

Gary Quasebarth stated, I just figured, it doesn’t say but, to look at it you would think that it would be a two story by the dimensions of it.

Perdue Powlen stated, when they tore that house down, it was less than 100,000 dollars.

Greg Vogel asked, you think that this is going to be less than 100,000 dollars too?

Perdue Powlen stated, they pulled a trailer in there…

Greg Vogel stated, then you should come up and take a look at the plans because, it has the brick on it, there is no way that it is going to be less than 100,000 dollars.

Perdue Powlen stated, I can read plans, just like I can read music.

Elaine Rice asked, my husband Don Rice, we have 2 lots in Countrybrook. I don’t know the gentlemen that they are building beside, our concern is when we added up the square footage of this home, not counting the garage is only 1,200 square feet which is a lot smaller than anything else in Countrybrook. Also, if they get the variance in Countrybrook we don’t park on the street, everyone parks in their driveway. There is not going to be very much of a driveway for people to park in, that side of the street has been known to have drainage problems from the natural flow of the fields. There are people on that side of the street who have actually dug drainage tiles in their garage and they told me that water runs through their homes so that is in the natural flow of that water so a one story house. I have been here 23 years, I know Howdy Britton, he sold that lot because, that is the weirdest shaped lot. He probably thought that he would never sell the thing and the reason that they are pushing it on this gentleman is because, there is no other place to go.

President Thompson stated, let me interrupt. I missed something at the start of your presentation. What lot are you ma’am?

Perdue Powlen stated, the last one on the South side.

Don Rice stated, lot #27 and lot #29.

Elaine Rice stated, we have 2 on the way out on the South side.

President Thompson asked, you’re over here?

Elaine Rice stated, yes, and the only concern of mine is the homeowners value that property value of putting in a smaller home…

President Thompson stated, I understand, I just lost out where you were in relationship to this lot #14.

Elaine Rice stated, that’s where I’m at, this lot is in the middle, it’s a horseshoe, its in the middle I’m on the way out. If it was me that they were building up against, I would be upset, I know that they are in compliance with how far you are from eave to eave and all of that but, it just seems that you are devaluing the peoples homes that it’s around.

Greg Vogel stated, I would like to address two things. First of all, I know that there has been a water problem out there but, as you will note on this plan the ravine is going down this corner of this lot and we’re not planning on disturbing that drainage ravine at all. Secondly, there are many homes out in that subdivision that are 1,300 and 1,500 square feet and if you’re telling me that 100 square feet less house is going to make that much of a difference, I don’t buy it.

Attorney Altman asked, are you speaking as a realtor?

Greg Vogel stated, we’ve sold many houses out there Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, just for the record. I know.

Gary Quasebarth stated, they sold me mine just 2 years ago.

Greg Vogel stated, he had the option to buy the lot with it which, he did not and that’s okay but, that house that we’re putting on it is in compliance other than the front yard setbacks and it would have been in there subject to the zoning change.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the Board this evening?

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Powlen you indicated that you live on lot #12?

Perdue Powlen stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, can you tell me where your property, where you house sits in relationship to your property line?

Perdue Powlen stated, there is a gully, I call it a gully, it’s not very deep but, it takes the water off of the street to the creek. There is a gully between our house and this lot it adjoins, their lot, this proposed lot adjoins ours.

Carol Stradling asked, and your house, how much of a setback do you have on the adjoining property line?

Perdue Powlen stated, at least 30’.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s marked on the staff report, I think that’s your lot right?

Perdue Powlen stated, yes, that’s mine.

Attorney Altman asked, is that approximately where your house is located on your lot?

Perdue Powlen stated, that’s real close.

Attorney Altman stated, that would also be where your house is roughly located on your lot.

Perdue Powlen stated, this variance thing, they are going to have put that half way between the street and where his is.

Greg Vogel stated, everything is okay except the front yard setback on there. The minimum square footage of the subdivision is 1,000 square feet originally by the garage.

Carol Stradling asked, what is the square footage of this house?

Greg Vogel stated, this is 1,200.

Attorney Altman asked, a picture of the proposal is submitted into the evidence, Exhibit B, a picture of the schematic showing the proposed size print and the improvement of the home. How many pages on that?

Greg Vogel stated, 4.

Attorney Altman stated, consisting of 4 pages.

Elaine Rice asked, why is it that the variance couldn’t be to move it back into that back part that’s…

Attorney Altman stated, I presume because, of the drainage problem that someone has complained about.

Elaine Rice stated, that’s right.

Director Weaver stated, plus, they have setbacks that they have to meet as well.

Elaine Rice stated, that was my question.

Attorney Altman stated, that would be closer to Mr. Powlen and he would be complaining more about it.

Perdue Powlen stated, there’s not drainage a problem on that lot, it goes down hill.

Gary Quasebarth stated, he’s not worried about that, he’s worried about it being closer to my property. He doesn’t care if it goes back on him.

Perdue Powlen stated, he’s going to get blocked completely.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Quasebarth, what is the distance of the front of your dwelling from the street right-of-way how far are you set back?

Gary Quasebarth stated, I don’t know, Mr. Altman brought that drawing back and he had it pretty well drawn out. It must be 32’.

Carol Stradling stated, the original for that subdivision is 25’.

Perdue Powlen stated, the way that they have the stakes laid out, if they build according to the stakes it will block him completely.

Carol Stradling asked, block him from…

Perdue Powlen stated, seeing anything to the North, I mean they will come around by this new house, oh there is a house there, we’re quite happy with what we have. If they put this thing sticking out like what they want to it will be much further towards the street than any house down there.

Carol Stradling stated, it probably wouldn’t be closer to the street, if he filed a 25’ setback, which was for the subdivision. Everyone else is probably 2’ closer to the road than what this house is requesting.

Greg Vogel stated, all of the other houses are the 25’ and this is going to be 32’, so that’s going to be back about 7’ farther than the rest of them.

Carol Stradling stated, actually, what it shows here that you want to be setback 27’ which would be the 25’ plus…

Attorney Altman stated, 2’.

Greg Vogel stated, so we’re actually 2’ farther than what he is now.

Carol Stradling stated, so they are actually going to be set back 2’ farther from the roadway than every other house on in the subdivision.

Attorney Altman stated, all that I can tell you is they have to build it according to their survey. They have to be back 27’ from the property line, not the road, but the property line.

Perdue Powlen asked, how far back are they from the road? That’s our point.

President Thompson asked, does he have a copy of that?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know, I would suggest that it be 25’ plus another 10’, 36’ or 37’.

Carol Stradling stated, according to this, it looks like 50’ from the centerline of the road.

Attorney Altman stated, they have to do by this.

Carol Stradling stated, this gentlemen just indicated that the stakes that are out there…

Keith Long stated, are 5’ off set stakes…

Perdue Powlen stated, 10’, they told me their 1’ away from going 10’ outside of the…

Keith Long stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess that all that I can tell you is, it’s by the survey that we have here. They have to build and conform to that and it shows that it is about 52’ off of the road right-of-way, centerline, off of the property line it’s 27’, it has to be wherever those stakes are out there. It doesn’t matter, they have to be that far off of the property line and if anyone else built at 25’ they will be 2’ further back.

Perdue Powlen asked, could I make a suggestion?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Perdue Powlen stated, appoint a committee to investigate this. We live down there and we see those stakes.

President Thompson stated, in the year 2001 we are to get a building inspector, and we’ll send him right out.

Director Weaver stated, there are stakes in this picture.

Attorney Altman stated, stakes don’t necessarily…

President Thompson asked, sir, what is your relationship….

Keith Long stated, I represent the building company that is looking to build the home.

Perdue Powlen asked, you aren’t going to bring them in on wheels are you?

Keith Long stated, no sir, we will build it on site.

Attorney Altman asked, stick built?

Keith Long stated, stick built.

Greg Vogel stated, 1 story, ranch.

Attorney Altman stated, on site, will be built in accordance with the specifications that they put in here.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?

Carol Stradling stated, those stakes do look like they are just a few feet off of the road. Have you seen these pictures?

Keith Long stated, I will be honest, I have not seen those stakes but again, if they are 5’ or 10’ off set stakes…

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at these stakes here, or is that going to be the driveway?

There was discussion among the Board and the audience.

Carol Stradling asked, is there any way that you can tell from that picture where the stakes are at for the home?

President Thompson stated, there again, that doesn’t matter, this right here…

Attorney Altman stated, they have to do by this.

President Thompson stated, we’re voting on this right here.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, we’re voting on the variance application survey that was prepared by R.W. Gross and Associates, job number 00-104-B-PDP.

President Thompson asked, sir, do you know when this was put together? There is no date on it.

Greg Vogel stated, it’s been 2 months ago since we first started.

Keith Long stated, it’s been within the last 30 or 40 days.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If there is nothing else are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ front setback variance to build a new home on Lot 14 in Countrybrook Subdivision #2, City of Monticello, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello on the East side of South Countrybrook Drive.

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

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

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

 

****

#1163 White County Catholic Men’s Association; Requesting a 6’ front setback variance to place a statue on lots #46 & #47 in Walker, Jenner and Reynolds Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 122 N. Illinois Street.

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

Jim Gill was representing this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add to that description?

Jim Gill stated, in that immediate area the landscaping will be improved, maintained, and there will probably be a light, add a light to that also.

Director Weaver stated, I would just like to explain to the Board, when they came to us asking us about our regulations on a statue. The most comparable thing that we can relate to is a sign so we have followed the sign regulations to regulate this statue. That is what this is based on.

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

Carol Stradling asked, that building is the Knights of Columbus?

Jim Gill stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s off of the sidewalk right?

Jim Gill stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, in the parking area?

Jim Gill stated, yes, there is a triangle there where the parking is.

President Thompson asked, roughly how tall are you speaking?

Jim Gill stated, I think that it’s probably 3 ½’.

Carol Stradling asked, what kind of statue is going to be Jim?

Jim Gill stated, it will be brick and iron. We had it at the other location, we just had it re-done.

President Thompson asked, are there any other comments or concerns? Are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 6’ front setback variance to place a statue on Lots 46 & 47 in Walker, Jenner and Reynolds Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 122 N. Illinois 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#1164 Ann M. Kirsch; Requesting a 19’ front setback, an 8’ South side setback and a 6’ North side setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home on lot #3 in Block 2 in James C. Moore’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 105 Moore Street.

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

Ann Kirsch stated, you probably have the plot on Mr. Sherick, the house is actually only 44’ x 26’.8”, instead of what he wrote down here is 46’ x 28’.

Attorney Altman asked, so it’s 44’ rather than 46’?

Ann Kirsch stated, yes, and 26’8” instead of 28’.

President Thompson stated, smaller both ways.

Attorney Altman stated, smaller both ways. So you will go back more and the difference will be divided evenly.

Ann Kirsch stated, yes, it would be like a 2’ either way.

Attorney Altman asked, and you’ll go just a little bit deeper into the lot so you won’t have to go so close to Moore Street.

Ann Kirsch stated, yes. Also, back in October I presented a grievance in front of the Board about the trailer that actually sits on the back of my property, that Mr. Halsema owns.

Director Weaver stated, I have discussed this with Attorney Altman…

Ann Kirsch stated, I thought that I would at least mention it right now.

Director Weaver stated, she has a mobile home that does not belong to her but is encroaching on her property.

Attorney Altman asked, how long has it been there?

Ann Kirsch stated, probably 7 to 8 years.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest that you hire your own private attorney and send a letter to him to cease encroaching, you don’t want to wait more than 10 years, that’s the cut off. I guess what I’m saying is this probably is a private matter but it may be something that may be a violation of the ordinance. I really tell you that I think that I would do my own heavy lifting here if I were you and put him on notice that he is violating your property line.

Ann Kirsch asked, so you can’t help me on that.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not saying that, I’m saying that I would get a lawyer to send a letter out and we will go ahead too, Director Weaver has talked to me about it. I think that it’s something that is important enough from your point of view that I would do some of this myself.

Ann Kirsch stated, exactly, I’m with you.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything from anyone?

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

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

Carol Stradling asked, is there a reason that you didn’t choose a house that was switched the other direction?

Ann Kirsch stated, the one that was most affordable for me and has the front setting, I can put it in the other way if all else fails to see as far as the front of it. There are no windows there or nothing on Fourth Street. In actuality from the center of that asphalt it’s just a one little block street and from the center of that asphalt the house, the front of the house would measure about 35’ from the center of the asphalt to the frontage there.

President Thompson asked, are there any other concerns or comments? 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 19’ front setback, an 8’ South side setback and a 6’ North side setback variance to replace the existing mobile home with a new home on Lot Number Three (3) in Block Number Two (2) in James C. Moore’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 105 Moore 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, the applicant on her own motion has verified her variance request. A variance request will allow for the side setbacks to be reduced 2’ on each side because, her home will be 44’ rather than 46’. She is also moving the home back off of Moore Street property line couldn’t have because, she is modifying her request and her home will be 26’ 5” rather than the proposed 28’. Is that correct?

Ann Kirsch stated, yes.

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

 

****

#1165 Hubert H. & Nancy K. Hyten; Requesting a 7’ height variance to build an addition and change the height of the existing detached garage on lots #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 the request.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to add to the description?

Hubert Hyten stated, no.

President Thompson asked, have we received anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this. Mr. Hyten came in and got a building permit to do an addition to his existing garage. At the time, we let him know that the maximum height of the roof on the garage was 15’. He has now come back and let us know that he would like to go higher than that and filed the variance. I just wanted to let you know that he has received a permit to do the additions already and the pictures that I have provided are from a previous variance. I thought it might be a little more helpful.

Hubert Hyten stated, this time I tried to get the variance before we built on the property.

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

Attorney Altman asked, what is the reason for the height?

Hubert Hyten stated, storage, we’re adding basically, we just use the garage now it’s very small for storage. We have two vehicles, a section for where the riding lawnmower will be and up above it will used for storage because, it’s a very small lot and I have some woodworking equipment that I want to put up there and that’s the reason. The outside is going to have some windows and it’s going to be an attractive looking building I think.

Attorney Altman asked, no living area?

Hubert Hyten stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, no bathroom or anything like that?

Director Weaver asked, are you going with a pitch similar to what is on your house?

Hubert Hyten stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so the existing garage will come down?

Hubert Hyten stated, no, the existing garage is 18’ x 22’ and to get the space that we need and allow for the storage, what we have done is come out on the driveway 6’. Then on the lakefront, the North side we have added 12’ to 24’ section so it wouldn’t disturb the view of the house that we just built. We put the 12’ x 12’ section there so it doesn’t take away from the looks of the home and then the additional height request is, I told the builder what I wanted to do put a workshop up there. If you only have a 15’ roof you’re not going to be able to accommodate that.

Carol Stradling asked, what part of the existing garage is going to stay?

Hubert Hyten stated, all of it, well, we’re going to take the roof off and then just expand.

Carol Stradling asked, if you expand on two sides are those walls going to stay there?

Hubert Hyten asked, what walls?

Attorney Altman stated, the North wall and the West wall.

Carol Stradling stated, the North wall and the West wall.

Hubert Hyten stated, the construction will be as follows, the 12’ x 12’, then the 12’ x 24’ will be constructed and then come across. Where the existing garage is, we’re just going to take that roof off and the 6’ section that you see there will be expanded out so that wall comes out and there will be a door there and it’s all tied together, it won’t be a patched together. We’re just taking the roof off of the existing facility so that you can go up to the loft part.

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that but, you’re also adding on to two different sides so either you’re going to leave those 2 walls there or you’re going to remove them in which case, you’re only going to have 2 walls left of the existing garage correct?

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, if I understand you correctly because, see where the numbers 24 are, that’s where the garage door is today.

Carol Stradling stated, the 24 that I see, there is two 24’s. You’re going to have to strike this wall and you’re going to have to strike that wall to have it tied together.

Hubert Hyten stated, right.

Carol Stradling stated, so the only thing that is going to be left is this wall and this wall?

Hubert Hyten stated, right, well, there’s going to be 12’ doors instead of the 16 for 2 if you look at the road…

Carol Stradling asked, the doors will stay where they are?

Hubert Hyten stated, the doors aren’t there today, the doors on the front part, the door today is right here, this is the back of the garage and this is Stahl Road. The existing door today is around in front.

Carol Stradling asked, here?

Hubert Hyten stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, so the drive goes around this way?

Hubert Hyten stated, yes, here’s the driveway, the drive goes this way, you would pull in right here now so what we’re doing is we’re coming out here and there will be a garage door here, one here and one here and a small garage door here for the lawnmower.

President Thompson asked, are there any other questions from the Board? Is the Board ready to vote?

Gary Barbour stated, I guess that I’m kind of with Carol, I’m not really following this. Is this really considered a remodeling or is it almost considered a new garage because, he’s going to be removing 2 existing walls.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that if we look at what the variance is requesting a 7’ height variance so that you want to go up how high?

Hubert Hyten stated, let me start again. First of all I went in to get a building permit and then in that you will see that the original permit, there was a space for a loft. When talking to the builder to be able to have a workshop up there you would have to have the door higher. I don’t know what it is classified it but, that’s just what I’m trying to do.

Carol Stradling asked, so the 7’ height variance, you want to go, you want it to be 22’ high?

Hubert Hyten stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, so essentially what is it, an existing garage or a new structure, he would need…

Gary Barbour stated, I guess that I would like to see clarification on all of that, so we don’t go through with you what we did with the rest of the property, with your builder and everything, we want to make sure…

Hubert Hyten stated, that’s why I didn’t let him build it higher than the building permit that I got.

Director Weaver stated, normally when someone comes in and is adding footage to an existing building, we treat it as an addition to an existing building. Even if they are going to tear out those interior walls at that time we don’t go that in-depth with a permit issued as an addition. With the new building inspector that may change but, right now that’s how that has been done.

Hubert Hyten stated, I will try to answer any questions that you may have but, I’m not sure what your concerns are.

Gary Barbour stated, I think that I got all of my questions answered.

Attorney Altman asked, does he need a variance for space, other than the height variance?

Director Weaver stated, no, he is meeting setback requirements.

Attorney Altman stated, so we can proceed based upon his request.

Carol Stradling asked, if we are to look at this as a new structure instead of an addition, does he meet the side?

Director Weaver stated, I looks like it, yes, he meets his setback requirements.

Carol Stradling asked, and the front would be 30’ and he’s only 24’ back.

Director Weaver stated, but, he is on the water, that is not considered a front yard.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s a rear, so he is fine.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling stated, so no matter how you look at it, if it’s an addition on an existing garage or a new structure if you get you’re 7’ height variance you then meet your building plans.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? If not are we ready to vote on this?

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 7’ height variance to build an addition and change the height of the existing detached garage on Lot #18 and #34 in Kozy Kove Addition and part of a vacated roadway, Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

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

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of 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 to do what you requested.

****

#1166 Gutwein Historic Real Estate LLC; Requesting a special exception variance to be able to put 2 apartments in the upstairs of an existing retail building and to modify the parking requirement for the apartments on lot #29 on Arch Street and lot #30 on Market Street in the Original Plat of Monon. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 312 & 314 N. Market Street.

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

Brad Gutwein was representing the request.

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

Brad Gutwein stated, I was asked to bring a set of plans, I don’t know if you need them or not.

President Thompson stated, let’s see how it goes here, we may have enough information in front of us.

Attorney Altman asked, the second floor plans, would that be the same essentially as the first floor plans?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes, they are almost identical, space wise.

Attorney Altman asked, so there are two floors and the space wise and the units above are the same as the units below?

Brad Gutwein stated, they would be very close.

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

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

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

Terry Saunders asked, could I have clarification as to the retail business involved?

Brad Gutwein stated, the business is Monon Liquor and they have been there, I don’t know how long Reinert Spille has been there, it was there when I bought the building, it was an existing tent.

Terry Saunders asked, and you’re proposal is to put the apartments above the liquor store and then put the parking area essentially a block away from where the apartments are?

Brad Gutwein stated, no, right across the alley.

Terry Saunders asked, right across the alley from the apartments?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Terry Saunders asked, on Arch Street?

Brad Gutwein stated, Arch Street is the next street West of Market.

Terry Saunders stated, I know where Arch Street, I live right there behind what use to the be the hardware store there.

President Thompson asked, ma’am, what relationship are you to this property?

Terry Saunders stated, I live within that area, my home sits at 111 West Fourth Street, which is right behind the hardware store there in Monon the property involved is the liquor store on Market Street.

President Thompson asked, so do you adjoin?

Brad Gutwein stated, she lives on our block.

Terry Saunders stated, I live on that block. That is going to be effected by the traffic, its going to go down the alley to that parking accessibility.

President Thompson asked, so does your property adjoin this property?

Terry Saunders stated, no sir.

President Thompson asked, but, it’s on the same block is what you’re telling us.

Terry Saunders stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, are you on the North end of that block where you’re facing the road that is on the North side of that block?

Terry Saunders stated, my home faces Fourth Street.

There was discussion among the Board members and the audience members.

Attorney Altman asked, where is Fourth Street in relation to your area?

Brad Gutwein stated, Fourth Street runs….

Terry Saunders stated, it’s North of there.

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Terry Saunders stated, the apartments are going to be in the liquor store there on the corner, well a few feet off of the corner where the stop and go light is…

Brad Gutwein stated, no, the liquor store.

Terry Saunders stated, the liquor store.

Brad Gutwein stated, right next to the dealership.

Terry Saunders stated, the dealership.

Brad Gutwein stated, it’s across the street from the auto parts store.

Charlie Mellon stated, it’s away from you.

Terry Saunders stated, you want to put the parking right there behind, right next to that?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Terry Saunders stated, I’m North of that.

Brad Gutwein stated, the existing building is in the middle of block, she is all of the way in the block.

President Thompson asked, Jerry, what would she be, would she be 21 or 23?

Attorney Altman stated, I was looking at this survey from Mr. Milligan.

Terry Saunders stated, sir, this is where my property line is.

President Thompson stated, I know that it is.

Terry Saunders stated, that’s the legal description of the lot that I have. My property sits right there on that alley.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, she is 4 lots North of this.

Terry Saunders stated, that’s correct.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else?

Terry Saunders stated, my opposition besides that fact that there are 5 lots that face that alley and the traffic flow is apartments. I have enough trouble maintaining property value for a home in the business district as it is, without having to deal with more apartments being built over businesses within that area. They have already done that on the corner, that was done by Bill Bulington several years back and the variance was not exempted for him, he had to have on premise parking for his apartments. The variance is there for a reason and I don’t think that it’s necessary to continue to put apartment buildings within downtown Monon. That’s my concern and it’s also for the concern, we have older ladies that live within those areas there that use that alley as a walkway to get through downtown Monon to the Post Office or what ever. If you start moving traffic through there you’re going to have some problems, that’s my concern.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the Board this evening?

Lori Foster stated, I live with Pat Newbold and we are on the North side of the lot, on lot #29 on Arch Street.

Attorney Altman asked, what lot are you?

Brad Gutwein stated, we’re directly South of Lot #29, I own two lots South of lot #29.

President Thompson asked, you are lot #31 and #33 then?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, let me read these letter since they seem to be the first thing. The first letter from Newbold Family, Exhibit A, was read into the record. The second letter from Dorothy Rardon and Geneviene Ziesiniss for Pose Mary & Fred Geyer, Exhibit B, was read into the record.

Mary Walker stated, my son lives right there next to that. I did not pay attention to this before and I’m a little bit confused as to where it says common description and the address makes it sound like all of this is on Market rather than being back to back, side to side on the front of this. So that confused me a little. In looking at this diagram, I see that the lot #29 says that it’s a 60’ lot, I beg to differ.

An audience member stated, I own a small bit of lot #29…

Mary Walker asked, it’s not a 60’ lot, so are they going to park those cars on my lot because I have a 60’ lot and he has a large lot which was part of the Gutwein lot so there is only 45’.

President Thompson asked, what number of lot would you be speaking of? Probably lot #27, does that sound right?

An audience member stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, it’s odds on that side there, so we can probably assume that you’re probably 27.

Carol Stradling asked, to address your first question about the common description, I believe that one building that is on market street there are two businesses on the first floor so one is 312 and one 314 but, that could be two separate, is that correct?

An audience member stated, yes, there is two doorways there.

Carol Stradling asked, is that correct Brad?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, so that is one building on Market Street, those addresses do not refer to lot #29 and lot #30, those two addresses were for that one building.

Mary Walker stated, I just wanted to make sure that we were talking on the same property.

Terry Saunders stated, we object too because of the fact of how they are going to park. The bedroom, again, of this mobile home is right there. As people come back and forth, I’m sure that there is going to be noise at different times, it’s already because, of being close to Market Street. Also, there will be a lot of traffic walking through and two years ago they tried to rezone this to business so that they can park cars from the car lot. Now, there has been cars and vehicles, there is a big mobile home there, motor home that is parked there. A lot of concern of everyone’s is, is this going to then somewhere subliminally become a parking lot for the cars from the parking lot? I’m very concerned, I did not notice this with Christmas holiday, that was just given to me, that this is the same as a 60’ lot, where is this property. If this was actually surveyed, how did they survey this so incorrectly because, Gutwein is a small lot and this was all brought up 2 years ago.

An audience member stated, I did not see this survey, when I went to get the building permit. Director Weaver told me I needed a survey so I got on the phone called Milligan and said please do one and forward to me and send it forward so I did not realize that Gutwein had a 60’ lot. Originally, it was a lot and at one point and time before I owned the lot some of it…

Brad Gutwein stated, I owned about 18’ and when Hornback owned it I sold him I think 11’ or 12’ back under the assumption that he was going to redo that house and then everything fell apart and they tore down the house and nothing ever got built back.

An audience member stated, my only concern about this is it’s great that you’re redoing the apartment and all of that but around on the front of this it says that it’s required to have 2 on premise parking spaces. Now, directly back behind this building there is room for parking spaces that are already now a car lot, correct?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes.

An audience member asked, why can’t you put them there instead of over in our residential area.

Brad Gutwein stated, I would be willing to do that, that’s fine.

An audience member stated, that’s my only concern.

Brad Gutwein stated, we had to do this, we had to get the variance just because it says that I have to get one and so I had to plot out 4 parking spaces.

An audience member stated, I do commend you for putting money back into Monon, I do thank you for that because, it’s going down hill quickly and the way that the trailer business is it’s going faster.

Mary Walker stated, in the way that the variance is, in other words asking permission to put the apartments in…

Brad Gutwein stated, in order to get apartments you have to show parking.

Mary Walker stated, right but, if they don’t pay the apartments, it’s also a pain to parking, it’s in the same sense.

Attorney Altman stated, but, he can move within, he couldn’t expand. In other words, he couldn’t put it on a lot next to it if it’s mentioned in the proposal and he brings it from lot #29 to his lot #30 back to lot #30, that would be coming inward and he can do that without re-advertising.

Mary Walker stated, that would be fine as long as it’s not going next to ours and also the fact of not knowing what size that lot is.

An audience member stated, the lot is still 60’ but, it is owned by more than one person.

Brad Gutwein stated, they still stay lot #29, it’s just I own the Southern 8th of a foot of whatever you want to call it of lot #29.

President Thompson asked, why wouldn’t that show up here? We have what you have and it shows a true 60’ lot why wouldn’t it be designated on here that he actually owns part of that?

Mary Walker stated, but two years ago when they tore down that home and were going to rebuild it was stated it showed it that it was and this does not.

Terry Saunders stated, the platted area, they don’t show my half of the lot that I own and they don’t show a little portion of where the incinerator sat for years.

Attorney Altman stated, if he’s moving it all on lot #30 then #29 is irrelevant.

Charlie Mellon stated, it doesn’t sound to me like he is going to have a parking problem if he has that original 4 vehicles in the alley there, plus he has the whole used car lot on the South side of the building. They could leave room there and as far as apartments being built in Monon there is some built in the last year across, above the tavern on the other side of the street.

Brad Gutwein stated, I have no problem with…

Charlie Mellon stated, there is part of the family of Gutwein’s living in Monon yet.

President Thompson asked, Mr. Gutwein, would you like to amend this?

Brad Gutwein stated, yes, if that will work putting 4 spaces on lot #30, that’s fine.

President Thompson stated, I think that it seems to be agreeable to everyone here and we can sure close this up tonight and not drag it into another meeting if you would like to do it that way.

Director Weaver stated, there could not be parking on this lot for the business or the apartments on lot #29, I just wanted that clarified.

An audience member stated, he has been under construction over there. He has been spraying acid on the paint and stuff on the building which, I see no problem with him moving those vehicles over there on that lot while he is doing construction. Paint jobs are expensive, cars are expensive. If he has to get it away from his construction to make his cars safe, he can park them over there, that is no big deal but, I don’t want anything permanent saying this is how it’s going to be.

Director Weaver stated, I’m just trying to clarify that for your benefit and for mine as well because, I know that we have had problems…

An audience member stated, I have no problem while he is under construction to move anything over there that he needs to be moved.

President Thompson asked, is the Board ready to vote on this? I think that we are.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a special exception variance to be able to put 2 apartments in the upstairs of an existing retail building and to modify the parking requirement for the apartments on Lot 29 on Arch Street and lot 30 on Market Street in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 312 & 314 N. Market 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 10.20 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, it has been amended such that all of the parking, 4 parking spaces will be on the lot #30, and none on lot #29, other than that we then voted on that as amended. You need to do that within a year or it’s gone. You need a building permit to proceed.

****

Director Weaver stated, I have a letter here that I would like to read to the Board, we originally had two tower requests on our agenda. Crown Castle asked if I would read this to the Board because, they want the Board to understand why they didn’t use these requests. The letter from David Gilman from Crown Castle was read into the record. They want you to realize that they are trying to serve a good purpose with further research and decided that this was not in anyone’s best interest.

Carol Stradling stated, they came to that conclusion because, somewhere along the line you said that we would need to have them show that they could not co-locate when they researched it and decided that they could.

Gary Barbour asked, is it that they need a different place or they couldn’t come to terms with the other locations?

President Thompson stated, they came to terms, I talked Mr. Gilman, he called me the day of the meeting last week and he said Jerry, we’re canceling those. He said, I’m not sure that we’re going to get people that will want to use those because they are too close to other towers.

Director Weaver stated, they were extremely close.

Carol Stradling asked, Attorney Altman, where are we on Mr. Hyten and Mr. Krintz.

Attorney Altman stated, that will probably be on the next meeting when you approve minutes.

Director Weaver asked, why do the minutes have to be approved prior them coming to the meeting?

Attorney Altman stated, they would just have to be noticed up.

Carol Stradling asked, so do we need to approve those minutes to have them here?

Attorney Altman stated, I just need to get the property noticed of the alleged violation.

Carol Stradling stated, I would have liked to have had that resolved before we approved this one.

Director Weaver stated, we would also have reorganization at the meeting in January.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Are we ready to adjourn?

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretary


Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission