Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, May 24, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Ron Pollock, Carol Stradling and Jerry Thompson. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Art & Roberta Wernli, William A. Inman, Theodore F. Altman, Joe & Judy Walters, Terry L, Smith, Robert W. Hickman, Todd Downs, Brian Furrer and Phil Vogel.

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

President Thompson stated, we have minutes from the April 19th meeting and we have minutes of the April 25th meeting. What is the Board’s wishes?

Ron Pollock stated, I make a motion that we accept the minutes that were received.

Carol Stradling stated, I have not had a chance to read them, we got both of these last week didn’t we?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, did we approve the March minutes?

Director Weaver stated, no, March minutes still need to be approved, and you have already gone over those for us.

Carol Stradling stated, I have not read these this week.

President Thompson stated, in lieu to the fact that we are short a couple of members this evening there has been a motion to approve them as read, and no second. I appreciate the fact that you have not had a chance to look them over and I haven’t probably as thorough as I should so, let's review these on the June what?

Director Weaver stated, the June 21st….

President Thompson stated, we will look these over on the June 21st meeting.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.


President Thompson asked, are there any questions?

Terry Smith asked, if you should go forward and the request should not be approved can you re-apply immediately or must you wait a year? My understanding was that you could re-apply immediately but, I don’t know that for sure.

President Thompson stated, I think that you can.

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

Attorney Altman asked, I think so. I think that its A.P.C. that has 6 months isn’t Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? We shall begin.

****

#2002 Theodore Altman; Requesting an 18’ rear setback and a 2’ South side setback variance to place a new mobile home on the South ½ of lot #5 in Block 5 in the Original Plat of Burnettsville. The property is located at 210 S. West Street.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing Mr. Altman?

Theodore Altman was present to represent this request.

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

Theodore Altman stated, everything is on the map, nothing has been changed since then.

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

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

Carol Stradling asked, the existing mobile home will be removed?

Theodore Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and you will put a brand new on there?

Theodore Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and it will be set back farther than the current one?

Theodore Altman stated, right, this current one is only about 5’ from the back.

President Thompson asked, you said no response from anyone?

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

President Thompson asked, is anyone here opposed of the variance or to speak in favor, either way? If there is nothing then, do you care to vote on this?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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


6. That the request is for a 18’ rear setback and a 2’ South side setback variance to place a new mobile home on the South half of Lot 5 in Block 5 in the Original Plat of Sharon, Now Burnettsville, White County, Indiana and a parcel 26.00 feet by 66.00 feet lying immediately South of Lot 5, being a vacated part of Third Street.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Burnettsville at 210 S. West 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

President Thompson stated, go to Director Weaver’s office and she will get you fixed up.

****

#2003 Joe Ray & Judy Walters; Requesting a 62’ rear setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on 2.128 Acres. The property is located in Princeton Township at 2449 N. 900 W.

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

Joe and Judy Walters was present to represent this request.

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

Judy Walters stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing?

Ron Pollock asked, I’m wondering with 2 point, almost one eighth of an acre, you’re adding on to that building right?

Joe Walters stated, our house.

Ron Pollock stated, oh, your house, okay.

Joe Walters stated, we want to add on a 3-car garage and it will be 36’ away from Wolcott’s property. The Town of Wolcott owns the ground.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything in the office on this, they are required on the rear to have 100’ setback on agricultural ground.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening to or speak in favor of? Are there any concerns or questions from the Board? Nothing, do you care 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 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 62’ rear setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Basis of Bearings: Indiana State Plane Coordinate System, West Zone.

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of Said Section 18; Thence North 00 degrees 59 Minutes 12 Seconds West along the Section Line and the centerline of County Road 900 West, a distance of 2032.49 feet to the Point of Beginning;

Thence North 00 Degrees 59 Minutes 12 Seconds West along the Section Line and the centerline of County Road 900 West, a distance of 431.38 feet; Thence North 89 Degrees 00 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 215.60 feet; Thence South 88 Degrees 18 Minutes 26 Seconds West, along an existing fence and possession line, a distance of 215.62 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 2.128 Acres.

Also, a perpetual easement for ingress and egress over the following-described land of Grantor:

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of Said Section 18; Thence North 00 Degrees 59 Minutes 12 Seconds West along the Section Line and the centerline of County Road 900 West, a distance of 2463.87 feet to the Point of Beginning;

Thence North 00 Degrees 59 Minutes 12 Seconds West along the Section line and centerline of County Road 900 West, a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence North 89 degrees 00 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 215.60 feet; Thence South 00 Degrees 59 Minutes 12 Seconds East, a distance of 25.00; Thence South 89 Degrees 00 Minutes 48 Seconds West, a distance of 215.60 feet, to the Point of Beginning, said easement being a 25 foot wide strip running East and West along and adjacent to the entire North boundary line of the above described parcel of real estate, said easement containing .124 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Princeton Township at 2449 N. 900 W.

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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, we have one ballot that Ron Pollock had marked wrong, it didn’t change his vote but, it would have invalidated the vote. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.

****

#2004 Brian & Lorene Furrer; Requesting a special exception to allow a composting area on 22.026 Acres. The property is located on the Southeast corner of C.R. 100 N. and C.R. 100 W.

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

Terry Smith stated, yes, I’m here on behalf of Brian Furrer, Lorene Furrer and Lyle Bowlen. Brian and Lyle are both here also. Briefly, Brian has a farm just North of Reynolds, not even a mile West of Reynolds. He has about 22 acres that he is currently composting on he would like to get bigger and Lyle is in that business. They have come up with a plan where they can compost materials and turn them into landscaping products. I think that most of you probably use those wood chips and I don’t know how they do it, the peat and moss and the mulch. It has been rezoned I-2 which is necessary, I believe that was done last week. The Commissioners approved it there was an agreement entered into by the landowners restricting the use to composting following all State Federal and local rules. We’re simply here tonight because one, the zoning Ordinance requires that we get a special exception within the I-2 for the use of this property as a composing facility. They will be packaging the material on site. They will have to fabricate bags or buy bags and they will probably build a structure to hold the bagging part of it. So, if there are any questions that I can’t answer, they can.

Attorney Altman asked, do you remember last week when we had a special exception before us the law essentially says that if there special exception fits within, if our ordinance says that their exception fits within our ordinance we shall give them the special exception. I have reviewed the ordinance with the new zoning I-2, it indicates that there is a special exception allowed for a waste disposal area, I think that I’m using the right words….

An audience member stated, composting.

Attorney Altman stated, and composting, let me give you the definition that is in our ordinance. It shows that the waste disposal management systems are set out in our ordinance and very specifically allowed in our ordinance. The use that they have put down on their letter, that they have submitted to us, it’s one page, headed White County Area Plan Commission, I think that all of you have a copy of that. It sets out that, that is what they are doing and again, I would give you the same advice that I would last week. If they, if you find that they have a waste disposal operation and composting that you can see on page 23 comes within that on “c” composting and they just define it as a controlled decay of organic material producing nutrient or rich mulch. Mr. Smith had indicated here and that’s what they are going to do. Variances have discretion, special exceptions, the word shall, is in there the statutes have read that and dictated that. So, first you have to find out yes, the zoning is right and it is for this, that their use is right and it is contained quite frankly specifically defined in the ordinance under the special exception then we really don’t have a lot of discretion as to whether we do or don’t vote yes to this.

President Thompson stated, we have a note here from the Area Plan. Do you want to enter that?

Attorney Altman stated, I sure do, I will read that it’s from Dr. Charles R. Anderson. The letter was read into the record.

Director Weaver stated, I have given the Board members also copies of the written commitment that was approved by the County Commissioners with his rezoning.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here that cares to address either for or against the request? Are there any questions from the Board members.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you intend to fence it anyway, I’m sure.

Terry Smith asked, my guess is that they will. Are you fencing?

Brian Furrer stated, if that’s a request, I don’t think that is an unreasonable one as long as we fence along the side of the…

Attorney Altman stated, oh yes, along the side, now we’re not talking, we’re just talking about the perimeter type thing to keep animals and that sort of thing out.

Terry Smith stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, and you probably want 2-legged animals out anyway. You have to comply with State and Federal rules and regulations.

Terry Smith stated, yes, actually, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management will basically set the rules for the facility in operation.

President Thompson asked, what are you talking as far as the number of employees to make this go?

Brian Furrer stated, initially it will probably take somewhere between 3 and 5 employees and when you look at it a couple years down the road somewhere between 8 and 11 and that’s just on site employees that doesn’t include other involvement from trucking companies.

Carol Stradling asked, typically with a special exception when they leave the property the exception goes with them. In other words it reverts, it’s no longer valid. Is that true in this case and then it’s been rezoned to I-2 which is not something that we determine or get involved in but, if they were to leave that property then it could be whatever an I-2 facilities…

Attorney Altman stated, no, I don’t think…

Terry Smith stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, they would be, this use as an I-2 can only be set out in that commitment.

Terry Smith stated, Carol, the way that I would understand it, the I-2 zoning it has been rezoned with the restrictions, if they haven’t been recorded, will be record. Those restrictions follow the ground so for instance, if general motors wanted to come in and set up a car plant there because, it's I-2, you can’t do that without getting rid of those restrictions and probably getting another special exception so they follow the property.

Attorney Altman stated, that was my understanding also.

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

The Board stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, let's 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 to allow a composting area on that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 4 West in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 28; thence South 88 degrees 27 minutes 39 seconds East along CR 100 N and the section line 600.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 25 seconds East 1600.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 27 minutes 39 seconds West 600.00 feet to the section line; thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 25 seconds West along CR 100 W 1600.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 22.026 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located on the southeast corner of C.R. 100 N. and C.R. 100 W.

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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would add that with a special exception you must being substantially complete your special exception within 1 year or it is gone so you should do that. Must substantially commence, we like it to be done.

****

#2005 Todd A. Downs; Requesting a 31’ front setback and a 6’ rear setback variance to put a privacy fence in the front yard on part of lot #24 in the West Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 402 W. Marion Street.

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

Todd Downs was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional?

Todd Downs stated, I’m getting ready to put a hot tub out there and I don’t want to have little kids wonder in there and open it and jump in or anyone vandalize it. I’m going to do about 5,000 dollars worth of landscaping and I don’t want anyone to mess with the landscaping so I would just rather have it all enclosed.

Ron Pollock asked, are you fencing in the whole yard?

Todd Downs stated, no, I will be fencing in the West side of the yard, it’s going to but up to the edge, of the West side. It’s going to go about 6’ back from the back of the house and then it’s going to go about 13’ over and wrap up to the back door where I can walk out through the garage and just walk into the fenced in part of the yard.

Attorney Altman asked, what type of fence?

Todd Downs stated, it would be a 6’ high wood privacy fence.

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

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed or in favor of this variance this evening?

Director Weaver stated, I just want to point out to the Board that this is on corner of an alley and a street where he is wanting to go.

Carol Stradling stated, and people probably drive in that alley because, there are garages back there right?

Todd Downs stated, yes, once in a great while but, it’s going to be a couple of feet off of the edge of the alley, it should be enough room. I’m not putting it right on the edge because, I want to make sure that there is enough room for 2 cars to get though so no one hits my fence. So, we have it set back from the edge of the alley.

Carol Stradling asked, but, still 1’ off of your property line, is that correct?

Todd Downs stated, I believe so.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what it shows on the survey.

Todd Downs stated, if that is a problem I will bring it in another foot, which is no big deal.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have anything else?

Carol Stradling asked, you say that you could pull it in a little bit?

Todd Downs stated, yes, that’s no problem, if you want me to set it back another foot away from the alley.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m think that would allow a little bit more visibility for traffic for entering Marion Street from the alley.

Todd Downs stated, okay, I will still have plenty of yard space.

Attorney Altman asked, off of the alley or off of Marion Street?

Todd Downs stated, off of the alley is what she is talking about.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m thinking off of the alley.

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

Todd Downs stated, that’s fine.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Attorney Altman stated, the applicant’s request has been modified at the request of the Board and it would be now 2’ off of alley, is that right Director Weaver? Am I reading that right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, rather than one foot.

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 31’ front setback and a 6’ rear setback variance to put a privacy fence in the front yard fifty feet off the South side of Lot 24 in the West Addition, in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 402 W. Marion 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed sir, obviously, modified by the inset of 2’ rather than 1’ from the alley.

****

#2006 Robert Hickman; Requesting a 12’ front setback variance to build a storage shed in the front yard on 1.5 Acres. The property is located in Union Township at 5951 E. 200 N.

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

Robert Hickman was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything other than what I described?

Robert Hickman stated, this storage shed is to replace an existing storage shed that has been in that location for 10 years. When I drug it out of the way and then started to make a building permit then I found that the original shed had already been only 20’ off of the roadway. I have about an acre, approximately 1.8 acres of land but, the reason that I need the setback is because, and most of my property is hillside. This is really the only building site that I have available on the lot so, I’m asking that I be allowed to put up a 16’ x 20’ storage shed with a mansard roof and have it 20’ off of the roadway rather than 32’. The reason for the variance is because, if I get further back then it’s going to become a major job to take out part of the hillside and then try to construct it basically in the ground.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this in the office but, I do agree with him that the only other flat area on his property is his front yard, there is not much of a choice on this.

Attorney Altman asked, that close to the property line, it doesn’t restrict anyone’s view or vision from driving?

Director Weaver stated, no more than what is there now. No because, there is a row of bushes right long the roadway now so, it’s back far enough that it’s not going to bother anything.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening, or to speak in favor?

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that if the variance is granted since you have two tracts of ground that they will be together forever so long as you use them that way. You said that you have 1.8 hundredths of an acre, you have two tracts actually and those could arguably be divided. Doing it this way they are together forever so long as you use it this way.

Robert Hickman stated, they are not going to be divided anyway.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand that but, I wanted to hear it on the record.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have anything 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 12’ front setback variance to build a storage shed in the front yard on a tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, containing 1.5 Acres, more or less.

ALSO: The following described tract of land being out of Tract A in Norway Heights Addition located in Union Township, White County, Indiana, containing .3 of an Acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the in Union Township at

5951 E. 200 N.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

#2007 Arthur F. Jr. & Roberta A. Wernli; Requesting a 2’ North side setback and a 24’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on lot #42 in Apple Knob Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 6606 N. Apple Knob Drive.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing this variance?

Roberta Wernli was present to represent this request.

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

Roberta Wernli stated, I think that it’s pretty self-explanatory, we would like to add 12’ to an existing building.

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

President Thompson asked, is anyone here opposed to the variance or in favor of?

Ron Pollock asked, you’re just adding 12’ to the existing house?

Roberta Wernli stated, right.

President Thompson asked, and you said that you received nothing?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions?

Attorney Altman asked, the existing building, single story? You addition will be single story?

Roberta Wernli stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, roofline conform with the present roofline?

Roberta Wernli stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, the other thing is, when will you be on the sewer that is circulating?

Arthur Wernli stated, it is there right now, we just have to hook it up.

Roberta Wernli stated, we have been keeping an eye on that so that it would not interfere.

Attorney Altman stated, it will also be so that there are no sewage problems with this particular addition.

Arthur Wernli stated, the septic tank was pumped out today and they are going to hook up the sewer within a couple of days.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? We shall vote.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, we would require that you hook on and you’re saying that you are hooking on. We just require that you do that with a lot like this we like to avoid….

Arthur Wernli stated, the grinder pump is already there, it’s ready to be plugged in.

Ron Pollock asked, they have the grinders in already?

Arthur Wernli stated, yes, all of the way down there.

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 2’ North side setback and a 24’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on Lot Number Forty-Two (42) in the Apple Knob Addition, Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 6606 N. Apple Knob 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 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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the variance is granted obviously, with the requirement that you hook on to the, well you have already hooked on but, you keep hooked on the sewer system.

****

#2008 Vogel Real Estate Company, Inc.; Requesting an 8’ front setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance (North side) to build an addition onto the existing building on lot #1, #2 and part of lot #3 in Lake Drive Subdivision, Block 2. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1001 N. Main Street.

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

Phil Vogel stated, what we’re trying to do, why I applied for a front setback, if you notice that is on the side street on Lake Street or Center Street…

Attorney Altman stated, Center Street.

Phil Vogel stated, maybe it’s Center Street and because, it faces along a corner lot we have to have, that’s classified as a front also. So, that’s why that is a front setback and then on the back if you will see we only want to do 7 ½ feet because, there is a 8’ utility and a 10’ easement on the property next door. So we can’t go any further than that and what we’re trying to do is change some office space around and add on 3 offices that are on the back of the building.

President Thompson asked, have we received any mail on this?

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

President Thompson asked, is anyone here opposed or in favor of the variance?

Carol Stradling stated, it’s going to be a small office.

Phil Vogel stated, it’s really going to be roughly 8’ x 10’, we’re going to change the conference room around.

Ron Pollock asked, does that put it right on the property line then?

Phil Vogel stated, no it doesn’t put it on the property, either way it would be 10’, at least 10’ from the back property line, what I call the back, are we calling that a side Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, the East is the back.

Phil Vogel stated, that would be 10’ from the East end of the property and then it comes in, without looking at the survey I can’t tell you exactly…

Ron Pollock asked, is that considered, is that considered the front?

Phil Vogel stated, the front is on Center Street. We are on Main, plus Center.

Attorney Altman stated, they own the easement area so, they are actually 10’ off of the property line but, they are right on the adjoining easement. They are as close to the easement as they can Ron but, they are still 10’ off of the property line.

President Thompson asked, single story?

Phil Vogel stated, yes.

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

Director Weaver asked, are you going to loose a parking place because of this?

Phil Vogel stated, actually we won’t loose because, when I’m coming out, I think that we’re coming out 6’ at the end of it, 7 ½ feet to the East and 6’ to the South is that right?

Director Weaver stated, 6’, actually 5 ½ feet.

Phil Vogel stated, we have enough room in there that we really don’t loose the parking spot.

Director Weaver stated, that’s what I thought.

Attorney Altman stated, it will just a little shorter than the others.

Phil Vogel stated, we won’t be able to park the moving van and stuff.

President Thompson stated, if there is nothing else is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property currently zoned B-2, General Business.

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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 8’ front setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance (North side) to build an addition onto the existing building on Lot 1, 2 and Part in Lake Drive Subdivision, Block 2, City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at

1001 N. Main Street.

Lots No. 1, 2 and the South 14.00 feet (measured along the East Right-of-way of Main Street) of Lot No 3, Block 2, Lake Drive Subdivision, as recorded in Deed Record 118, Page 462, White County Recorder’s Office, subject to a 10.00 Feet off the entire East side of Lot 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3 the 10.00 Easement being measured at right angle to the East Lot Lines, also subject to a right of ingress and egress across the parking lots as from time to time may exist on the West side of Lots 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3.

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 3 affirmative and 0 negative.

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

****

An audience member asked, did the Denton, Stiltz variance go through on the last one?

Director Weaver stated, yes with some fines being imposed.

President Thompson asked, to the homeowner and to the contractor. We fined the homeowner what 150 dollars?

Director Weaver stated, 100 dollars.

President Thompson stated, the fellow that installed the foundation 250 dollars and Patriot….

Director Weaver stated, Patriot Homes….

President Thompson asked, 250 dollars. Are you near there?

The audience member stated, my dad lives right beside that. I just couldn’t figure out how the order of that was done because, I know that you have to get your variance and all of the other paperwork done before you get your building permit and the house just appeared. I just didn’t understand how that happened, they should have had their variance a head of time.

President Thompson stated, you should have been here last week.

Director Weaver stated, we spent an hour and a half on that one alone, last week.

President Thompson stated, seriously, the first two variances a week ago tonight, what was it 9:30 or 9:45….

Director Weaver stated, two and a half-hours for those two.

****

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, is there any other business?

Director Weaver stated, yes, this past winter we had imposed a fine on Mr. Hubert Hyten, we have sent a statement out to him that the fine has not yet been paid so, I wanted the Board’s opinion of what our next step is.

President Thompson asked, how long ago did you send the letter out?

Director Weaver stated, it’s been over a month ago.

Carol Stradling asked, when did we originally decide that?

Director Weaver stated, February I think, I don’t have those minutes with me.

President Thompson asked, when you sent it out did it state 30 days or something?

Director Weaver stated, it stated that it was due upon receipt. Now, his contractor was sent a letter at the same time and fine has been paid. He came in immediately and paid that but, Mr. Hyten has not.

Carol Stradling asked, I vote that we charge him extra for every day that he is, you gave him a deadline right?

Director Weaver stated, it stated that it was due immediately.

President Thompson stated, go ahead.

Director Weaver asked, send out a certified letter and give him 5 days to get it paid and if they are after that so much after that?

Carol Stradling stated, say a dollar a day. We didn’t charge him much to begin with, that was a whole big mess and he has taken more of our time…

President Thompson stated, but, if he ignores this, then what are we going to do?

Carol Stradling asked, is that legal to charge him more for delinquency Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, I would proceed with the basis of yes.

Carol Stradling stated, then it’s legal?

Attorney Altman stated, I would proceed with that basis yes and I would think that you would really not particularly want to do it for less than about 30 dollars a day.

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, and if you don’t get it within that time I think that I would instruct my lawyer to be in small claims court collecting this fine.

President Thompson stated, let's give him…

Carol Stradling stated, we were very generous with that man.

President Thompson stated, you bet, give him another 30 days and at that time….

Carol Stradling asked, how about 5 days.

President Thompson asked, 5 days, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I know that he has had a least 2 months, I know.

Ron Pollock asked, who is this now?

Attorney Altman stated, the one that had Mr. Krintz do the building and then wanted his variance and then we noticed him up for a violation and we imposed a violation for both the contractor and him and he hasn’t paid his…

Ron Pollock asked, Krintz is the one that didn’t pay?

Attorney Altman stated, no, he has paid.

Director Weaver stated, Krintz has paid.

Ron Pollock asked, oh, so it’s the homeowner then?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, the owner twice, has built outside of the limitations before requesting a variance.

Director Weaver asked, 30 dollars a day thereafter?

President Thompson stated, yes, up to, we need to put a cap on that.

Carol Stradling asked, so I moved that, do we need a second?

President Thompson asked, do we want to put a cap on that? Where do we end that at? Do you know what I’m saying?

Director Weaver asked, how long do we allow that to go on?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s up to you.

Ron Pollock asked, you’re saying 30 dollars a day.

President Thompson asked, up to a month?

Ron Pollock asked, up to a month?

President Thompson stated, I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out.

Ron Pollock stated, if she is going to send him a registered letter that he has to respond in 5 days right?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, certified.

Ron Pollock stated, I will second your motion.

President Thompson asked, let’s get that, do you want to read that motion back to us?

Carol Stradling stated, I would like to include in that letter that we were very cooperative with him and we would expect the same in return.

President Thompson stated, that’s fair.

Carol Stradling stated, in all reality he could have had it torn down. He is the one that built on the roadway, there was a vacated roadway.

Ron Pollock stated, I missed the first, I wasn’t here the first meeting but, I was here the second meeting, I got bits and pieces of it.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s one of those stories that went on and on.

Attorney Altman stated, quite frankly, at the end of 5 days I intend to file in court so that we can keep maybe 30 days on this, the fine that we’re imposing.

President Thompson asked, would you care to read that motion back?

Director Weaver stated, I have that we send out a certified letter stating that the amount is due within 5 days of receipt, thereafter an addition 30 dollars a day up to 30 days and then we will fine in small claims court.

Carol Stradling asked, what is the limit for small claims Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, 2 to 3 thousand so we start out at 300 and we have 30 times 30 is another 900 so, we would be fine.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved, we have a second, all in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

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

Director Weaver stated, next, Jose Flores, the garage, the 3 car garage that we required him to move the East bay, has come into my office today and informed me that he does have this done. I made an appointment to meet him out at the property next Wednesday to look at the situation and take pictures of it for him.

Attorney Altman stated, we had heard that he moved out and wasn’t doing anything and that sort of thing so I sent a letter, Director Weaver told me, I sent a letter, apparently scratched motivation.

Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman, can you highlight us on Terry Babka?

Attorney Altman stated, he is measuring it and he’s calling me. I’m not very happy with that but, maybe sometime next week you and I go out there with a tape measure and we will do our own measuring.

Director Weaver stated, you’re not going to measure it, it’s too tall.

Attorney Altman stated, you would be surprised what I can measure.

Director Weaver stated, I have gone out there, I have tried already.

Carol Stradling asked, is he the one that needed to lower the roof?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, he didn’t come in for a variance then.

Attorney Altman stated, also, have received notice that we will have an appeal probably next week from last week.

Carol Stradling asked, which….

Attorney Altman stated, which doesn’t surprise me.

Carol Stradling asked, which one?

Attorney Altman stated, CDC.

Carol Stradling asked, do they appeal that with us?

Attorney Altman stated, no, they go to circuit court. The problem is that we don’t have the minutes done. We wouldn’t have them done now anyway but, that’s their problem, not ours.

Director Weaver stated, I had a question, the other night in our meeting and I think that Carol did too maybe, with the apartments and the special exception. I would like to discuss that a little bit. Do you agree that we need to discuss that?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not sure we are all here but, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I’m questioning if I’m doing, allowing something to be done wrong or incorrectly by allowing them to file a special exception to put apartments in a business zoning.

Attorney Altman stated, I think from a legal point of view that it is really close to, not appropriate. I don’t mean if they want to make a special exception application Director Weaver, you have to take it and put it in but, I think that we really don’t, we may in fact not have the authority to grant a special exception there.

Carol Stradling asked, even though there are residences across the street? That’s at a point that there are residences here and residences there.

Attorney Altman stated, but, it’s zoned differently.

Carol Stradling asked, what about those ones in Monon that we…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s zoned differently. I’m not so sure that either one was appropriate. I think that we probably handled one and maybe that something that we should back off on.

Director Weaver stated, I can see where in some situation we would want it to be allowable. Is it maybe something that we need to change our Ordinance? If we change the Ordinance to allow a special exception to do so then wouldn’t we then be…

Carol Stradling stated, we’re going to have a lot of historic buildings in Monon and White County that they have upstairs that they can do nothing with.

Director Weaver asked, right and that’s why I thought that maybe in a B-1 zoning, maybe we want to make it so that they can request a special exception?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s certainly…

Director Weaver stated, I wouldn’t in a B-2 because, that’s general business.

Attorney Altman asked, that was zoned B-2 wasn’t it or was it B-1?

Director Weaver stated, I know that one of those was a B-2.

Carol Stradling stated, the first one that we did was above the tavern.

Ron Pollock stated, the other one was the house where he added, took the garage and made it into a dwelling.

Carol Stradling stated, no, I’m thinking of Gutwein’s.

Director Weaver stated, it was a business building across the street from the tavern.

Attorney Altman stated, probably, I believe that we’re stretching the ordinance quite a bit as I say with special exceptions. You have to find it in the Ordinance and if it is, then you prove it. Like tonight with Mr. Furrer’s request, it was in the Ordinance, it specifically said under an I-2 and a waste facility is allowed there. Then if that’s what they have, you have to prove it with a special exception, you have to do the same thing here, you have to find it.

Carol Stradling asked, then why do they need to come to us, if we have to approve it…

Attorney Altman stated, you have to make that determination, the Board has got to make those determinations. In other words, you have to find out what it is zoned and then you make the determination that yes, they are doing that and they make the record that they are and once you do that then you approve it. That isn’t automatic because, some people come in and say that I’m doing this and in fact you decide that no you’re really not doing that, you doing something totally different.

Director Weaver stated, that’s all that I have.

Attorney Altman stated, so you understand that it’s not automatic.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not sure that I understand it completely, Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, maybe we can discuss it next week or next month.

****

Ron Pollock made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission