Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 27, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Jay Welches, Vye Harrison, Terry Cafin, Jeff Walker, Mona Bartlett, Ryan Harrison and J.R. Ewing.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Saylor and roll call was taken.

Carol Stradling made a motion to table the minutes of the August 23, 2001 meeting until the next meeting.

David Scott seconded the motion.

Vice President Saylor stated, the motion has been moved and seconded, all in favor.

The Board stated, I.

Vice President Saylor stated, all opposed, motion carried.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2052 H. Richard & Bonita R. Landis; Requesting a 32’ front setback variance to build a pool house on lot #20 & #29 in Sixbey Subdivision. The property is located in Union Township at 2798 N. Sullivan Court.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone present to represent that request?

Jay Welches stated, I’m representing Mr. Landis. First of all, I would like to apologize for taking up your time tonight on a clerical error from our last meeting, we got a variance from you a month ago for a 12’ x 14’ pool house and someone had transposed it, it should have been 12’ x 24’. So, we called Director Weaver and asked her how to correct it. She said that we need to go through the process again and part of the packet that we gave Director Weaver we contacted all of the neighbors, showed them the drawings, showed all that we had done wrong and asked them


if they had any objections. I have a copy of it with me, in case you don’t but it’s all of the property owners, adjoining the property signed it that they have reviewed the drawings and had no problems or complaints with it. What we were going to do and it was our error when the person drew it up that they put down 12’ x 14’ instead of 12’ x 24’ so we’re here to ask for a variance for 12’ x 24’. Attorney Altman, do you need a copy of…

Attorney Altman stated, we certainly would accept it yes, sir.

Jay Welches stated, all that I have is the original.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, if you want to get a copy from Director Weaver, we will be glad to give you that…

Jay Welches stated, Director Weaver has a copy of it…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t see that in the file, may have but it isn’t in the file. We keep it, you have been here before with these matters, you know that we keep it.

Jay Welches stated, that’s all right, you keep it and I will get a copy from you guys later.

Carol Stradling asked, so Galen Logan would be adjoining which way?

Jay Welches stated, this is where we’re wanting to build, Mr. Logan lives right here…

Carol Stradling asked, modular home?

Jay Welches stated, yes, right across the street.

Carol Stradling asked, and Holmes…

Jay Welches stated, Paul Suhr lives right here on the other side of the pool here and Mr. Brown lives…

Attorney Altman stated, directions, directions…

Jay Welches stated, excuse me, Mr. Logan lives due North of the pool house, Mr. Suhr lives West, dew West across the street and Mr. Brown lives dew South…

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

Jay Welches stated, if you want to tear that page out Attorney Altman, I will take the rest.

Attorney Altman stated, we will accept the document as applicants exhibit A.

Jay Welches stated, it’s in the same location as the past variance, the only thing is, it will be 12’ longer, 12’ longer than it was. It was 12’ x 14’ now, excuse me, 10’ longer, it will be 12’ x 24’. It will be sitting in this area, coming towards you, from here it will be going that way.

Attorney Altman asked, so there is actually nothing constructed at this time?

Jay Welches stated, no, the mistake was found when we began to lay plumbing and electric lines and things weren’t measuring out. Mr. Anderson, the building inspector helped and at that point everyone realized that there was an error on the blueprints and everything was stopped and we haven’t built anything, we haven’t poured any concrete for the footers or anything, we just stopped until we could come back up here.

Attorney Altman asked, so there is no need for a fine or a violation?

Jay Welches stated, I should hope not.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I’m just making the record.

Jay Welches stated, the only thing that we did is, we laid plumbing lines in, electrical lines underground and we peeled sod. At that point, it was brought to everyone’s attention so, we stopped, we called Director Weaver that day and everything was stopped until we could come back up here.

Attorney Altman stated, we like to hear that nothing is built.

Jay Welches stated, no sir, nothing is built.

Vice President Saylor asked, is there anyone else present that would like to address this variance? Are there concerns or questions from the Board?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Jay Welches stated, yes, single story, not livable, there will be no heat in it, strictly will have a restroom, a counter area, changing room that type of thing, refrigerator…

Attorney Altman asked, just like you started the last time?

Jay Welches stated, yes, pool house, just strictly for use in the summertime, it will be closed down in the winter.

Carol Stradling asked, the survey shows a privacy fence?

Jay Welches stated, yes, that was on a variance when the pool was built.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s not here now?

Jay Welches stated, no, it’s still there, it was taken down from here to here to start to do the construction but, the fence will be joined back up to the building just like it was. We did take the fence down to start work.

Vice President Saylor asked, is the Board ready to vote? All right, then we will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 32’ front setback variance to build a pool house on Lot Number Nineteen (19) in Sixbey Subdivision, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

Also, Lot Number Twenty (20) in Sixbey Subdivision, Union Township, White County, Indiana, Except Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 21 in said Subdivision; thence East 225.84 feet; thence South 40.00 feet; thence West 226.21 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes East 40.00 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located North of Monticello at 2498 N. Sullivan Court.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit to be consistent with your new plans.

Jay Welches stated, thank you.

****

#2053 Mona Bartlett; Requesting a 31’ front setback variance to put a roof over an existing deck and to bring the home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in Monon Township at 4678 W. State Road 16.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have someone here?

Mona Bartlett was present to represent this request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything that you might want to add at this time ma’am?

Mona Bartlett stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, if I read the survey correctly, the front edge of the deck is 89’ off of the centerline of State Road 16? Is that what that means?

Mona Bartlett stated, I think so.

Carol Stradling asked, how far back does the house sit?

Mona Bartlett stated, this is the measurements that they gave me. It sits on a great big hill and the sides are okay because, there is a lot of, there’s 9 acres there so there is quite a bit of room it’s just off of the road.

Carol Stradling stated, right, and that’s what we’re dealing with, I’m just trying to get a…

Attorney Altman stated, on the survey, doing the math, the actual house is 8’ plus the 49’ so that would be 57’ off of the right-of-way line. Actually, State Road 16’s surface probably is, maybe 12’ on each side. So that you would add maybe, 77’ to that would give you the distance away from probably the roadway. So, 77’ and I’m guessing but, I’m sure that road isn’t more than 12’ wide on one side so I’m trying to…

Carol Stradling stated, so if you subtract 12’ from 89’…

Attorney Altman stated, it would give you 77’…

Carol Stradling stated, 77’, so that house the frontage, the deck is probably 77’ off of the edge of the road.

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be more like 124’, 134’, yes, I see what you mean and the frontage of the deck would be 77’, yes.

Mona Bartlett stated, that sounds about right.

Attorney Altman stated, and looking at the pictures it looks like it’s probably about right.

Carol Stradling stated, I just seen the 89’ and the 49’…

Attorney Altman stated, but, from the right-of-way it would be quite a bit…

Vice President Saylor stated, 49’.

Attorney Altman asked, yes, and that’s what the variance is for, right Director Weaver?

Carol Stradling asked, had there been a deck there before then?

Mona Bartlett stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, is that a brand new deck?

Mona Bartlett stated, it was put in last fall.

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what they got a permit to put in…

Mona Bartlett stated, yes, and then the guy quit on me.

Vice President Saylor stated, the distance from the front property line is 60’ right, and this one is only 49’.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, which is the reason for the request?

Director Weaver stated, right.

Carol Stradling asked, so the deck went in actually a year ago?

Mona Bartlett stated, yes, last fall.

Carol Stradling asked, did it replace a porch or anything?

Mona Bartlett stated, it had just a little tiny roof over the door so that you wouldn’t get wet walking in the door, there wasn’t even any stairs there. It was just an old rickety thing I think that had been there 100 years. That will really improve the appearance of the house by doing it. The posts go from here down, it has a stone and the deck was around the other side of the house, there is a beautiful view over that hill.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any other concerns from the Board? Questions?

Carol Stradling asked, how will this one come before us for a variance if the deck was put in last fall?

Director Weaver stated, if you look down in your analysis there was a building permit issued on May the 23rd for an unroofed deck and she had renovated the house and now wanting to put a roof over the deck.

Attorney Altman asked, so the setback is due if you roof it?

Director Weaver stated, yes, and I believe that the Building Inspector had been out there.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to address this variance? If we don’t have any further concerns from the Board, would you like to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, I have a couple of questions.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman asked, the roof would be at single story level?

Mona Bartlett stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, will it be similar, what will the roof be…

Mona Bartlett stated, the same shingles that is on the roof and the roof has just been re-roofed…

Attorney Altman stated, good…

Mona Bartlett stated, so that’s all new too, it’s going to match.

Attorney Altman asked, the other thing is, you’re asking that the existing home be made in compliance but, the existing home is 100 years old, right?

Mona Bartlett stated, possibly.

Attorney Altman stated, or it’s certainly before 1972…

Mona Bartlett stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so it was a grandfathered, looking at the pictures, its comparably and older home.

Mona Bartlett stated, yes it is.

Attorney Altman asked, no one built it recently in violation of the Zoning Ordinances?

Mona Bartlett stated, no, it’s been there a long time.

Attorney Altman stated, a long time so that’s different than maybe someone built it and ignored the Zoning Ordinance.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s why I questioned the deck.

Attorney Altman stated, the deck is another thing but, they are also asking the home get in compliance and it wasn’t a violation when the home was built I’m sure, they didn’t think about zoning back when that home was built. That’s all that I have.

Vice President Saylor asked, any other concerns or questions? Then we will 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 31’ front setback variance to put a roof over an existing deck and to bring the home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 28 North, Range 5 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, by:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the above said Section 23 which is the point of beginning, thence East along the Section line 770 feet; thence South 00 degrees 45 minutes West 510 feet; thence West 771 feet to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the above said Section 23; thence North 00 degrees 52 minutes East along said line 510 feet to the point of beginning, containing 9.02 Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 4678 W. State Road 16.

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 to comply, okay.

Mona Bartlett stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2054 Terry L. & Wilma L. Cafin; Requesting a 19’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance and to build a room addition and a 6’ rear setback and a 6’ side setback to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lots #43 & #45 in Lyman’s Addition. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 506 Linville Street.

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

Terry Cafin was present to represent this request.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything else to add to what I have read so far?

Terry Cafin stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, as far as I’m aware, we have not had any calls on this request.

Carol Stradling asked, your property is on, 2 lots?

Terry Cafin stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and you have two garages?

Terry Cafin stated, yes, I have a lot of junk.

Carol Stradling asked, the one that is back on the alley, do you know when it was built?

Terry Cafin stated, on the, yes, on the sheet the property record…

Director Weaver stated, property record card, and I don’t have that with me…

Terry Cafin stated, like the 1900’s…

Director Weaver stated, I think that it was years ago…

Carol Stradling asked, and the one in the other lot, that’s a newer one?

Terry Cafin stated, yes, that was built in 1997.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that you can tell from the pictures, you probably can from the survey but that one, the newer one, is attached by a roof to the house.

Wilma Cafin stated, but it’s open.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Terry Cafin stated, yes.

Vice President Saylor stated, breezeway.

Attorney Altman asked, so it’s a newer garage, a 1997 garage that needs the variance?

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s the older garage…

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, it’s the detached garage at the back of the property.

Terry Cafin stated, they told me that if it got blown away that I would not be able to build it back.

Attorney Altman asked, okay, and the room addition, how does that need a variance?

Terry Cafin stated, it sets too close to the road, to the offset on the road.

Director Weaver stated, it’s not going any closer than the current home but the current home is not meeting the setback requirements either.

Attorney Altman asked, current home is how old? Do you remember?

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t.

Terry Cafin stated, 1950.

Attorney Altman stated, I was going to say it certainly looks like it’s not a pre 1972 home.

Terry Cafin stated, no…

Attorney Altman stated, that would have been built in violation of the Ordinance is why I’m hitting on that date. I don’t have any other questions.

Vice President Saylor asked, do we have anything from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, you’re just going to even out that one side?

Terry Cafin stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, do like the notch on the other one?

Terry Cafin stated, that may be a few years down the road, my wife only let's me play so many times a year.

Attorney Altman asked, you’re aware that if you do this, and you’re granted the variance, that lots #45 and #43 are joined together so long as you use it and is consistent with this variance? In other words you can’t sell either one of them off.

Terry Cafin stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s a requirement…

Terry Cafin stated, my two car garage sits on one of them…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand that but, I have seen people try to sell lots that are more tied up than you do and we want you to know that you can’t sell them, either one, they are together, married together.

Terry Cafin stated, I understand.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else like to speak either for or against? Are there any other concerns Attorney Altman, Board? Okay, then the Board will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 19’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance and to build a room addition and a 6’ rear setback and a 6’ side setback to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lots 43 and 45 in Lyman’s Addition to the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 506 Linville 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.

Terry Cafin stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2055 Jeffrey Walker; Requesting a 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ separation setback from an unroofed deck to bring the existing storage shed into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #11 in Fair-View Addition. The property is located in Liberty Township at 4391 E. Penrod Drive.

Vice President Saylor asked, and you are?

Jeff Walker stated, Jeff Walker.

Vice President Saylor asked, do you have anything else?

Jeff Walker stated, I guess that the only thing that I would add on this, the reason that the shed was placed where it was, we didn’t realize that there was a setback. Towards the lake, about 15’, it drops off to a hill, which it doesn’t show. Then towards the front of the house, on Penrod the septic takes up about ¾ of that front yard and then we drive, park on the other side that’s the reason for the location of the shed.

Vice President Saylor stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to read my analysis to the Board, after Mr. Walker applied for a permit for an unroofed deck and a shed he found out that it would need a variance to locate the shed where he wanted it. He then proceeded to build then without a permit, the shed is not meeting the side setback requirement of 6’ to the foundation or the required 6’ separation from the deck. The deck is meeting all of the required setbacks.

Jeff Walker stated, we did not realize that the shed, the shed was built before we found out about the setback, we didn’t know that we didn’t, we didn’t have the shed built knowing that the shed needed to be setback.

Attorney Altman asked, why not a permit?

Jeff Walker stated, it’s temporary, we didn’t know that you needed one for a shed, it’s not permanent sitting on, we didn’t realize that you had to have one for a shed until the inspector came out and told us. We didn’t realize that you had to have a permit for a shed.

Carol Stradling asked, you came in originally to apply for a permit for?

Jeff Walker stated, the deck.

Carol Stradling stated, the deck.

Jeff Walker stated, we already had the shed built.

Carol Stradling asked, and when you applied for the permit…

Vice President Saylor asked, the deck is in compliance…

Carol Stradling stated, the deck…

Jeff Walker stated, the inspector came out and told us that we had to have a permit for the shed that was already there, that it was too close to the property lines that the shed was already built and that’s when we came in applied for a variance.

David Scott asked, the neighbor to the left, does he have any problems with that?

Jeff Walker stated, no, not that I’m aware of.

Director Weaver stated, we have not heard anything from any of the neighbors, no.

Carol Stradling asked, so did you have a permit to build your deck?

Jeff Walker stated, we did not have a permit to build the deck, until he came out we didn’t realize, we built the deck and didn’t know that we had to have a permit. He came out, looked at it, we got the permit, and at the same time he told us that we needed a permit for the shed, or didn’t need a permit but that it was too close to the property lines.

Carol Stradling asked, so why did he come out if you didn’t apply for a building permit.

Jeff Walker stated, you would have to ask him, I don’t know.

Director Weaver stated, he was in the area.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so the shed was there and he was building his deck…

Jeff Walker stated, the deck was already built.

Carol Stradling stated, the deck was already built and the shed was already there.

Jeff Walker stated, that’s correct.

Carol Stradling asked, and then…

Director Weaver stated, that’s the time than Mr. Anderson went out there.

Carol Stradling asked, then you came in to apply for the permit?

Jeff Walker stated, he told us that we needed to have a permit for the deck, we went and got the permit for the deck and at the same time he said we were too close to the property line on the shed.

Director Weaver asked, have you received a permit for the deck?

Jeff Walker stated, we paid for it, you would have to ask my wife, we came into the office and she took care of getting a permit for the deck.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know about that, I don’t know if we have issued a permit for the deck.

Jeff Walker stated, I’m pretty sure that we have a permit for the deck because she handled it all at the same time, in fact, I know that we paid for it.

Vice President Saylor asked, a permit, I’m presuming if it’s after the fact would not be issued until it came before the Board right?

Director Weaver stated, the deck is meeting all of the requirements though, it’s the shed that is not.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s the shed that he would need a permit for after…

Director Weaver stated, he is saying that we issued a permit for the deck.

Attorney Altman stated, and he’s saying that he’s got the permit for the deck.

Vice President Saylor stated, maybe just a point of order, if a project is already built and they came in after the fact for a permit, does that not come before this Board?

Director Weaver stated, no, not if it’s in compliance, we will go ahead and issue a permit for it that is getting ready to change though with the new building inspector as of the first of the year.

Attorney Altman asked, who built your deck?

Jeff Walker stated, my brother-in-law and myself.

Attorney Altman asked, who is that?

Jeff Walker stated, Kenny Wartsbarker.

Attorney Altman asked, what does he do for a living?

Jeff Walker stated, works at SIA.

Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, where does that shed have to be placed to bring them into compliance?

Director Weaver stated, it has to be at least 30’ back off of the waters edge easement, it has to be at least 6’ from the property line and at least 6’ from any other structures.

Carol Stradling asked, so that would put it…

Attorney Altman stated, he has about 1’ on both sides and maybe back further.

Jeff Walker stated, the only reason that we didn’t put it in the front is because the septic is currently in the front.

Attorney Altman asked, this will directly be on the new sewage system right, the whole area?

Jeff Walker stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, which is not even started in this area yet, this is on the East side of the lake.

Attorney Altman stated, but it will be…

Director Weaver stated, it will be eventually but that is not in the future.

Attorney Altman stated, not tomorrow morning or next week, whatever it may be.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, it may be next year probably.

Director Weaver stated, I just want to make it clear that it’s not on the West side where they have already put sewers in.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else like to speak? Are there any concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, Director Weaver, what you have here is not exactly what he has stated.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Vice President Saylor stated, meaning?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that he dealt with Cindy and I do not have a copy of her notes with me.

Jeff Walker stated, I didn’t hear exactly, what did you say had transpired that the shed was built after we found about it.

Director Weaver stated, that you had come in and inquired about getting a permit prior to building…

Jeff Walker stated, no, everything was done prior to the inspector coming out, that’s how we found out that the shed needed to have a variance to begin with otherwise, we would not have known.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that I’m just wondering how Mr. Anderson, he just doesn’t show up in people’s back yards.

Jeff Walker stated, I can’t answer that, we just got a letter from him, he must have been in the area unless someone called him, I don’t know. I don’t know how he ended up coming by.

Director Weaver stated, there are other violations that are existing from this year in this area so I don’t know if he was there in the area because of those or I don’t know if it was turned into him, I can’t tell you that.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess what I’m looking at is, was it an oversight, or what was it in direct violation?

Director Weaver stated, let me see if I can find documentation on this.

Attorney Altman stated, sounds like a good idea if you have it.

Jeff Walker stated, we wouldn’t have put the shed there, if we would have known.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Jeff Walker asked, the shed is really the only thing in question here?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, the shed is the only thing that is in question.

Carol Stradling stated, the shed is in question for the variance but whether or not there is a violation in building without a permit.

David Scott stated, well he just asked, and at this point as long he came in and got a permit even though it was after the fact…

Attorney Altman stated, it still could be a violation, it would still be a violation, building without a permit.

Carol Stradling stated, and even if we don’t want to look at the deck, which is what Jeff was talking about with them the shed would still, possibly.

Gary Barbour asked, what is it that you do?

Jeff Walker asked, what do I do?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Jeff Walker stated, I live in Lafayette and I own Lafayette Transmission.

David Scott stated, he asked if he built the deck and he didn’t have the permit and he came in and can meet the setbacks and he got a permit and the permit was issued, I don’t think that would no longer be an issue…

Attorney Altman stated, it could be, you could still consider that a violation. In other words, just coming into compliance doesn’t necessarily get rid of the violation that was there. That doesn’t mean that you have to treat it as a violation or either one of them as a violation and impose a fine or anything like that but what I’m saying is you have to look at the evidence and decide what the facts are.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess the question in my mind is…

Vice President Saylor stated, the order…

Carol Stradling asked, did he come in, ask for a permit and then realized that there was going to be some problems and go ahead without it. Just kind of what it says here or did he build it before he realized that he needed a permit and is trying to make it right this time.

Jeff Walker stated, and she will have that documented.

Attorney Altman stated, as I understand yes, she is going to try to find the notes. If we’re pursing this table this until we get the evidence…

Vice President Saylor stated, I think that everyone needs to focus on the fact that we’re only dealing with the shed, there is nothing in here about the deck, the deck is a done deal.

Carol Stradling stated, the variance is for the shed.

Vice President Saylor stated, the variance is for the shed.

Attorney Altman stated, the variance is for just the shed, you’re right.

Vice President Saylor stated, but, the building permit has already been issued for the deck, okay, that is a done deal okay, we’re just dealing with this shed.

Attorney Altman stated, as far as a variance, you’re right exactly.

Carol Stradling stated, and a violation also?

Attorney Altman stated, a violation is where you fine them, violations are where you fine them.

David Scott asked, you’re saying that if he…

Vice President Saylor stated, as I understand Director Weaver, the deck was built without a building permit. However, it was in compliance with the necessary setbacks so a building permit was issued after the fact, what we’re dealing with here is the shed that is setting to close to the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, but you can also be dealing with a violation, building without a permit on the deck and building the shed.

Carol Stradling stated, what was written here on this paper would indicate that he came in to check things out and was told why you need to get a variance and then he went out and did it anyway and that’s not what he is telling us.

Vice President Saylor stated, that’s why Director Weaver is looking up the paperwork in the office.

Carol Stradling stated, right and that’s, if it is as he tells us and it was just an oversight in my mind that would be one thing. He was told that he needed to get a variance and then went and built it anyway, do you see what I’m saying Jeff?

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

David Scott stated, I think that he said when he came in to get the permit he was issued a permit.

Director Weaver stated, okay, we did receive a complaint on this on July the 11th, a neighbor called, and reported that he was building a deck.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s why Mr. Anderson went out.

Director Weaver stated, evidentially so, yes.

David Scott asked, the complaint had nothing to do with where the shed sits though…

Director Weaver stated, not that it was where it was located, what I have is they were building a deck the full width of the house and about 10’ out, also building a shed. On July the 24th, Mr. Anderson mailed a letter out giving him 10 days to contact the office. On July the 27th, Jill Walker came into the office for a building permit after Dave went to the property and sent out a letter. On her sketch I asked how far she was from the property line she said that she was 2’ from the shed to the property line, 2’ from the shed to the deck and 25’ from the water and 10’ off of the other side of the property line. I briefly talked to her when I was in here and told her that she would either have to move the shed to meet the setbacks, take the shed off of the property or file a variance. I told her to go home measure and make sure how far she was off of the property lines and how far she is from the deck with her shed. She called me back she said that she was less than 2’ from the shed to the property line, 25 ½” from the shed to the deck, 46’ to the water and 18’ from the other side property line. I again told her what her options were, she was asking about a variance, I told her what the procedure was and that we would have to have the survey in our office by August the 30th to get on the agenda for September the 20th. She would need a check for 75 dollars and a check for 40 dollars or cash on each. The 40 dollars would be refunded if she brought the sign back within 7 days after the meeting. I told her that we would need her property owners and she could get those here at the Court House. So, the main things that she needed to bring in, was the original survey showing the shed, the deck and the money for the filing fee and the sign deposit. She said that she would get back in touch with us to let us know if she was going to file a variance or if she was going to move the shed so that it could meet setbacks. Those minutes were taken by Cindy, so I was incorrect, he did not come in and apply prior to Mr. Anderson being out there.

David Scott stated, after he was out there.

Director Weaver stated, after he was out there and sent his letter is when he came in to apply for their permit and found out that they needed a permit.

David Scott asked, did they get a permit?

Director Weaver stated, I did not check that, I don’t believe so.

David Scott asked, are they already done with the deck and the shed when they came in then, the first time?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so, I do not have pictures here, there may be some on the computer though, I will print that.

Attorney Altman stated, the issue that we were discussing is whether he proceeded to build without a permit and it’s clear from the testimony that we received that he did not proceed to build after, he built but he didn’t…

David Scott stated, didn’t know that he needed a permit.

Attorney Altman stated, well, he didn’t get a permit and that sort of thing. It’s not like he contacted, then went ahead and did it, you know, you can still judge and figure out that it’s not like he found out and did it anyway, that isn’t the situation here and I think that’s what Carol was concerned about.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and that apparently isn’t the situation and it’s consistent with what Mr. Walker has just testified, knowing that, do we want to proceed now or do we want to wait on Director Weaver.

Vice President Saylor stated, I think that we will wait on Director Weaver.

Attorney Altman stated, Director Weaver is going to check about a permit, whether it’s been issued, is that right?

Vice President Saylor stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, could you consider it anywhere else to place the shed?

Jeff Walker stated, actually, we spent quite a bit of time on it and we couldn’t, on the North side is where we park. It’s really the only place that we have to park and on the front ¾ is fenced off for the septic. If the septic had been changed over, we would certainly put it in the front and in the front, we put it where we did so that we wouldn’t block either side views of the lake in the back. Given the size of the lot we wouldn’t have met the setback really anywhere, it would put it right in the middle of the front yard and that’s exactly where the septic system is.

Carol Stradling asked, have you talked to the neighbors to the West of you?

Jeff Walker stated, according to them they have no issues, I’m not sure who complained originally but, we are very close to the ones on both sides and neither one has expressed any concerns about it at all.

Director Weaver stated, the deck was done, there were pictures on the computer from when Mr. Anderson went out to the property and the deck was complete at that time and there has not been a permit issued for that deck.

David Scott asked, no one has complained about where the shed sits?

Director Weaver stated, no and that was not part of the complaint evidentially originally.

Carol Stradling stated, that answers my questions.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone else care to speak regarding this variance request? As Director Weaver has stated, there has not been a building permit issued for the deck and that is not specifically addressed here. Does that need to be made part of this?

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly think that they need to have full compliance yes, that we would require that they get a building permit for anything there.

Director Weaver stated, let me clarify, he probably has not gotten the permit for the deck due to the fact that the variance was holding up to get one permit for the whole project. I would assume, I mean that would, he could have received a permit already for the deck but…

Jeff Walker stated, I don’t think that we have received it, it think that we paid whatever we needed to pay to get a permit or something…

Director Weaver stated, no, you wouldn’t have paid for a permit unless you got a permit.

Jeff Walker stated, maybe that’s what they told us…

Director Weaver stated, you probably paid for the variance…

Jeff Walker stated, I’m not sure, I know that she went to find out about a permit.

Vice President Saylor asked, can you offer some direction here, do we need to include that or just…

Director Weaver stated, the deck is in compliance, the only thing that has a problem on the deck is the fact that there has not been a permit issued as of yet. If the variance goes through and we issue a permit for the shed, we can do both at the same time and get them both taken care of, does that answer, does that give you what you want to know?

Vice President Saylor stated, okay, but, we won’t be issuing a building permit for the shed and as much as it’s…

Director Weaver stated, if it is not granted, if it is granted, if the variance is granted we still have to issue a permit for the shed yes.

Vice President Saylor asked, are there any concerns from the Board? At this time we will vote.

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 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ separation setback from an unroofed deck to bring the existing storage shed into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 11 in Fair-View Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Liberty Township at 4391 E. Penrod 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit for that and for the other too.

****

#2056 Violet Harrison; Requesting a 30’ front setback to build a roofed deck and a 24’ front setback to build an attached garage and a 2’ rear setback to build an attached garage and a 14’ rear setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #24 in the Original Plat of Norway. The property is located in Norway at 157 W. Norway Road.

Ryan Harrison stated, nothing further to add. I can only answer some questions if you have any.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this, again, I will read to the Board my analysis on the staff report. She wants to build a roofed deck and an attached garage onto the existing home, the required front setback is 32’ and the required rear setback is 30’ she is also asking to bring the existing home into compliance.

Attorney Altman asked, nothing new has been built?

Ryan Harrison stated, no, only applied for the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, very good, we like to hear that.

Ryan Harrison stated, the, I don’t know if your pictures show, the deck that we want to build will be on a concrete slab that already exists in front of the house, same size as the slab.

Director Weaver stated, I did get pictures.

Ryan Harrison stated, I had brought some pictures in too, I didn’t know if you had those.

Director Weaver stated, these are mine.

Ryan Harrison stated, but, there is a concrete slab that wraps around the house and the deck would be on the slab.

Attorney Altman asked, single story deck?

Ryan Harrison stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, not roofed?

Ryan Harrison stated, yes roofed…

Director Weaver stated, it’s roofed.

Vice President Saylor stated, roofed deck.

Ryan Harrison stated, the roof would be shingles to match the house.

Attorney Altman asked, the garage the same way? Single story?

Ryan Harrison stated, no, there would be a room upstairs, storage room. We talked to Cindy when we did this and I can’t remember the height. We’re not sure if we want to do a second story, we think that we do she said that I can ask for it and if we decide that we don’t want it we don’t have to build a second story.

Director Weaver stated, an attached garage can be as tall as the home can be which is 30’.

Attorney Altman asked, so that wouldn’t need a variance?

Director Weaver stated, no it would not.

David Scott asked, this concrete slab is 2’ off of the road right-of-way and not the road, is that right?

Ryan Harrison stated, it is 2’ from the front property line. The road shows what 33’, it’s not actually 33’ or 66’ rather. We actually, the property line from the actual pavement is probably 12’ or more but, that much space has been reserved from the road.

Carol Stradling asked, there is a barn, you’re on a corner lot?

Ryan Harrison stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, there is a barn on Rolling Hills Road…

Ryan Harrison stated, we had built the barn maybe 5 years ago, when we built the fence, the fence is on the rear and along Rolling Hills and we got a permit at that time for both projects.

Vice President Saylor asked, does anyone else have any questions or concerns?

Violet Harrison stated, I’m his mom, the deck is to be built and even with the front door, the front door is like…

Ryan Harrison stated, there is a foot and a half step to go from the front door down to the concrete, it’s just to make a level entryway.

Vice President Saylor stated, anything else from the Board? At this time we will vote please.

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 30’ front setback to build a roofed deck and a 24’ front setback to build an attached garage and a 2’ rear setback to build an attached garage and a 14’ rear setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 24 in the Original Plat of the Town of Norway, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Norway at 157 W. Norway Road.

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 building permits before you proceed.

Ryan Harrison stated, thank you.

****

#2057 Eric H. & Cheryl K. Tauer; Requesting a 5’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage and a 6’ North side setback to bring the existing detached garage into compliance and a 7’ South side setback variance and a 6’ North side setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located North of Monticello at 2868 N. Baers Court.

J.R. Ewing stated, I’m the contractor on the job for Mr. & Mrs. Tauer and I’m just here to answer any questions that you may have. We had applied for a permit for the house and we’re presently remodeling the house but, in order to do the garage we needed a variance and that’s why we’re here tonight.

Director Weaver stated, we have not had any complaints on this. Again, I will read my analysis, they are wanting to build an addition onto the existing detached garage that is not meeting the required setbacks the setbacks for a detached garage on the sides are 6’ to the foundation and to the rear is 6’ to the foundation. They are also renovating the house and are asking to bring it into compliance the required setbacks for it on the sides are an 8’ minimum with an 18’ total between the two sides.

Carol Stradling asked, that’s an odd shaped lot isn’t it?

J.R. Ewing stated, yes it is.

Carol Stradling asked, is it well and septic?

J.R. Ewing stated, yes it is, the well sits in front of the house between the garage and the house and the septic is in the rear. The house just updating, we have pretty much taken and gutted it and we have put new electrical HVAC and plumbing and we have just passed our roughing inspections, frame roughing inspections and now we’re dry walling.

Director Weaver stated, he did get all of his permits for the home before he started the foundation.

Attorney Altman stated, when we have had things like this, this close before we have required firewalls and I just…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s not close to any other structures…

Director Weaver stated, it’s not close to any other structures Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated now, the neighbor decides to build and…

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think that he could build there…

Director Weaver stated, the neighbor to the South has already received a variance previously…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m just telling you, that they can build there, I have seen it. When you say that they can’t, don’t. Ten years from now they may.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s a pretty drastic slope down to the water isn’t it?

David Scott stated, real drastic, is the South neighbor Jay?

J.R. Ewing stated, yes, and if a firewall would be needed there and I assume that when you’re talking about firewall you would be referring to 5/8” drywall…

Attorney Altman stated, yes…

J.R. Ewing stated, inside the garage that would be fine if that’s what you want.

Attorney Altman stated, just to protect you and them…

J.R. Ewing stated, I understand, that’s fine, we don’t have any problem with that.

Attorney Altman stated, I just, you say that they can’t build there and I have seen them in the 20 years or the 30 years I have been an attorney for the Board I have seen them build there.

Carol Stradling asked, are you talking about being out of the house or the garage?

J.R. Ewing stated, the house, that’s a little bit late now, now that we have already dry walled the house so I mean I can put it in the garage.

Vice President Saylor stated, I think that we’re talking about the firewall in the garage at this point.

J.R. Ewing stated, the firewall in the garage then protect us from the house. Although, it is detached the 5/8’s would give us the fire rating even if it was attached, for the present building codes and Mr. Anderson could confirm that for us but, I believe that 5/8’s would bring us…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I think so, I think that as the applicant has agreed that this matter is before us specifying that the garage have a firewall built in as construction assuming that it is voted in and the variance is granted, right?

J.R. Ewing stated, yes, that’s fine, I’m sure that will be fine with Mr. & Mrs. Tauer.

Vice President Saylor asked, would anyone in the audience like to address the request? Any concerns from the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, the garage would be the same in essence as the existing garage just wider, same height, single story and that sort of thing?

J.R. Ewing stated, yes, mean height of that thing would be probably 10 ½ feet. We won’t be getting anywhere near the height of the home.

Vice President Saylor asked, if there are no other concerns, would you like to vote? We’re voting.

Attorney Altman stated, the only other thing that I would say on the record, even though this is an existing home it clearly was not built since 1972 so it is not a violation of the Ordinance.

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 5’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing detached garage and a 6’ North side setback to bring the existing detached garage into compliance and a 7’ South side setback variance and a 6’ North side setback to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on the center lot of Laflin’s Subdivision of Lot 7 in Baer’s Third Addition and Lot 13 in Baer’s Second Addition to Glenwood Farm in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 2868 N. Baers Court.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed and subject to the firewall.

J.R. Ewing stated, yes.

****

Vice President Saylor asked, is there any business to come before the Board this evening?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I would mention is we talked last week about the brief and all and today the Judge had granted CDC two weeks extension to file a brief so it will be a little longer, just to bring you up to date.

****

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Stradling, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission