Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ 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: Charles R. Mellon, James Paschen, Marilyn Paschen, Loretta Loy, Norm Williams, Ed Lytle, Romona Rice, Jim Davidson, Daniel Wisner, Carrie Wisner, Matthew Harding and Andrew Jordan.

The meeting was called to order by Vice President Carol Stradling and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the February 21, 2002 meetings contingent on grammatical changes. Motion was seconded by David Scott and carried unanimously.

Jeff Saylor made a motion to table the reading of the March 21, 2002 minutes until the following meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2076 Brian Furrer; Requesting a Special Exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to place a communications tower on 10.00 Acres. The property is located in Honey Creek Township on the West side of U.S. Highway 421, approximately ¼ of a mile South of C.R. 100 N. Tabled from February 21, 2002 and March 21, 2002.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone there representing that request?

Attorney Altman stated, as a consequence of that, there are 3 strikes, this matter is dismissed.

Vice President Stradling stated, when a special exception or variance has been tabled 3 times because of various reasons, it is removed. What is the appropriate term Attorney Altman…so we won’t be


voting on this matter and it is dismissed.

Attorney Altman stated, you must have someone here to represent yourself, that’s our rules.

****

#2088 James E. Paschen; Requesting 28’ front (Co. Rd.) setback variance, 30’ front (St. Rd.) setback variance and 50’ and 80’ rear setback variances as shown on the plat for the proposed Coyote Run Estates Subdivision on 24.569 Acres. The property is located in Union Township on the Northwest corner of State Road 39 and Woodhaven Court. This variance was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 21, 2002 with a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative. There were adjoining property owners that were not notified so this is coming back to the Board.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone representing this request?

Jim Paschen was present to represent this request.

Vice President Stradling asked, would you care to make any additional statements?

Jim Paschen stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, Jim, this is essentially the same request that you had…

Jim Paschen stated, same request, only they didn’t, they didn’t notify 2 people I guess.

Attorney Altman stated, this is just given proper notice.

Jim Paschen stated, sent the letters back to two people.

Attorney Altman stated, so it would be fair if we incorporated all of the record of the this matter that was in last months meeting when we voted on it, just the easiest way to get all of the record and all of the testimony in.

Jim Paschen stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, for the record the applicant has agreed to the incorporation of all of the evidence and record that was received by this Board at the last months meeting when this was before us also.

Jim Paschen stated, I talked to a couple of the people that didn’t get notified, I guess and they came in and talked to Director Weaver, I don’t know whether they signed a letter or anything.

Director Weaver stated, I have not heard any more from them, no. I would just like to let the Board know also that we did re-advertise this, we notified all adjoining property owner a second time and we had Mr. Paschen post a sign again on the property.

Vice President Stradling asked, do we have any additional statements from visitors, guests in the audience pertaining to this variance? With no additional information, are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling stated, then we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is property zoned A-1, Agricultural.

2. That the lot is in the proposed Coyote Run Estates Subdivision.

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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 28’ front (Co. Rd.) setback variance, 30’ front (St. Rd.) setback variance and 50’ and 80’ rear setback variances as shown on the plat for the proposed Coyote Run Estates Subdivision being a part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the southeastern corner of the said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89° 18’14” West along the southern line of the said Northwest Quarter for 1,103.16 feet to the southeastern corner of a 1.50 acre tract conveyed to Richard and Phyllis Johns as recorded in Deed Record 01-12-007079 in the Office of the Recorder for White County, Indiana; thence North 0°57’44” East along the eastern line of said 1.50 acre tract for 326.70 feet to the northern line of said 1.50 acre tract for 200.00 feet to the northwestern corner of said 1.50 acre tract, said point being on the western line of the said East Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 0°57’44” East along the western line of the said East Half of the Northwest Quarter for 547.46 feet; thence South 89°04’28” East for 1.302.60 feet to the eastern line of the said Northwest Quarter; thence South 0°55’32” West along the eastern line of the said Northwest Quarter and the approximate centerline of State Road 39 for 869.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 24.569 acres, more or less.

Lots #1 through #19 in the Proposed Coyote Run Estates Subdivision.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township on the Northwest corner of State Road 39 and Woodhaven 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, again, as the last one was it will be contingent upon the Drainage Board approval of this matter and the subdivision approval that we had required the last time has been obtained already so that’s no long on this matter at all.

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s not, the drainage has not been approved.

Attorney Altman stated, I say that the drainage has not but, the subdivision has been.

Director Weaver stated, primary has, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, subject to that, there are 4 votes cast, 4 votes indicate that this variance is granted.

****

#2092 Canterbury House Apartments - Monticello, LP; Requesting an 11’ East side setback variance to bring the existing apartment building into compliance with the platted setbacks on Lot 11 in Westside Commercial Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1101 Foxwood Court.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing that request?

Norm Williams stated, Project Manager for Herman and Associates and Canterbury House Apartments. I brought a couple of prints, no one knows exactly what took place, it was certainly not intentional for information we was given by Paul Couts who is, was Jordan’s friend. Our setbacks were shown 6’ setback in a place where we went from the old survey shows a 30’ setback so, I have an encroachment of, this is the our survey that shows the encroachment…

David Scott asked, where exactly is that encroachment?

Norm Williams stated, it’s right here and this property is a piece of property owned by the City of Monticello that I have establish for a lift station that’s then got built on the other side of the railroad. So actually, there is a force main that comes but, here the engineering prints that we built the project by so it’s a 6’ setback.

Jeff Saylor stated, it looks like they are 19’ from the….

Attorney Altman asked, the matter that you’re presenting is for the Board, right?

Norm Williams stated, right and Director Weaver, they did mail you an actual stamp of these, these are not stamped.

Director Weaver stated, of the revised one for the variance, yes they did.

Norm Williams stated, right, this is not stamped, I know this one is not, I think that they have made Director Weaver’s stamped.

Director Weaver stated, there is a stamped and signed copy in the file of…

Norm Williams stated, showing the encroachment.

Director Weaver stated, showing the encroachment, yes. There is not one in the file showing the 6’…

Norm Williams stated, I thought that we found the ones that we filed for the permit.

Director Weaver stated, but, those have to stay in the permit file.

Norm Williams stated, oh, well, I have one here that you can have.

Attorney Altman stated, so we’re receiving Exhibit A and B in applicant Exhibits A & B as evidence in this matter.

David Scott asked, this empty lot over there, you say there…

Norm Williams stated, that belongs to the City…

David Scott stated, belongs to the city…

Norm Williams stated, yes, it’s not a very big area there but, it’s an area that, the way that I understand it from the city, it was going to be a lift station at one time.

Vice President Stradling asked, are you encroaching on the city property?

Norm Williams stated, no just the setback line, setback line was suppose to be 30’ and we’re…

Vice President Stradling stated, when I heard the encroachment I…

Norm Williams stated, well, I guess just to sit across the setback line…

Attorney Altman stated, okay, on this one….

Jeff Saylor asked, on this one, that’s a 30’ setback?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

There was discussion among the Board members.

Attorney Altman stated, the guideline is the setback and that’s where the building is and that’s where the building, that changed the setback line.

Norm Williams stated, we certainly didn’t intend to do it.

Vice President Stradling asked, do we have any information from the City?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Stradling stated, of Monticello.

Director Weaver stated, no, we did notify them of the hearing tonight but I’m not aware of any response.

Attorney Altman stated, the date on the two surveys, one is by Paul Coats I think it is 6-14-2000, excuse me I didn’t, now that’s the one that shows that it’s 6’ building setback line. That shows the proposed building on there, the survey is and I’m tying to say by Herman and Associates is February 1, 2002, that shows the actual setback lines in there and the encroachment. As the applicant’s representative has called it, probably very accurately, it’s an encroachment on the setback lines.

Jeff Saylor asked, could you explain to me, here they have this building 6’ and this building is 30’, why?

Director Weaver stated, that’s the way that they laid the setbacks out.

Jeff Saylor asked,….6’ over here also?

Director Weaver stated, from the plans that he worked from, yes. The plans that he worked from, that’s what it said.

Jeff Saylor asked, so, why is one 30’ and one 6’?

Director Weaver stated, it was laid out with the subdivision plat at, 30’ when they laid the lot out.

Jeff Saylor asked, which came first, the 6’ setback…

Director Weaver stated, the 30’, the 30’ was platted at the time that the subdivision was platted.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

Vice President Stradling asked, and then the engineer designed the building and laid it out the blueprints?

Norm Williams stated, well, information furnished him, by the engineer that laid the subdivision out which was Paul Couts. I was not able to trace the documentation down but the engineer that laid it out for us, was furnished to them. I tried and it probably could be done but who knows how long it might take.

Vice President Stradling asked, and how did this other survey, who was this other survey generated?

Norm Williams stated, we, even though it has been built a while we have to for our lending institutions do what is called an Alta Survey which is a precise survey that shows everything, where everything was at, for the lending institution. So when they went out to do that with what was platted with the plot plat they found that and what it amounts to right now we have a tie up on our lending because…

Attorney Altman stated, because of the encroachment…

Norma Williams stated, we can’t really have a clear title…

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver, tell us about the building permit application. What did it, what was it requesting? What were the setbacks given to the applicants on the building permit?

Director Weaver stated, the application shows that the side setback was 20’ and a sum of 50’.

Attorney Altman stated, so the application for a building permit showed the correct setbacks on it?

Director Weaver stated, yes it did.

Attorney Altman asked, not the one that they now built by so, there is a violation of the building permit, or encroachment at least is the use of word?

Director Weaver stated, and the plan that was submitted that was in the file shows that it’s really unclear. I guess when you look at this, it shows that there was a 20’ utility drainage easement on that side and it shows the building right up next to it. So I don’t know, we thought, I’m assuming they thought that was the 20’ side and did not catch the fact that it was the 30’ side.

Attorney Altman asked, but, anyway the request was for the correct setback?

Director Weaver stated, yes, the application was filled out properly.

Vice President Stradling asked, and all along here it’s indicated the 30’.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling stated, just didn’t catch it there.

Attorney Altman asked, does this allow you to put in another bedroom there in that apartment?

Norm Williams stated, we took that off of that apartment, it would take about every living room or bedroom, you know, just the way that the apartment is laid out…

Attorney Altman asked, so it allowed you to have a bedroom and a living room in there?

Norm Williams stated, it really to have an apartment because, they are all laid out the same I guess. When they’re laid out you walk in the living room and then you go on back and the bathroom and then the bedroom. So actually, you know legally I suppose, it was an engineering mistake but, to go through legal matter because we had it built by certified engineers.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that if the error had been caught prior to construction that they could have shifted the building and met the setbacks.

Norm Williams stated, right.

Vice President Stradling stated, they have plenty of room on the other side.

Director Weaver stated, right, that’s right, they do so, it’s not a matter that they couldn’t fit the building in there.

Attorney Altman asked, guess the question that I have is, why?

Director Weaver stated, why, I don’t know if anyone is going to be able to answer that.

Norm Williams stated, to answer that question, we have been asking the same question, I don’t know the why, that’s why we pay engineers. I mean from our standpoint it was not…

Attorney Altman stated, the Board is in the business of potentially determining whether s it’s a violation and assessing fines and whether they approve a variance as well as so that’s why my questions more than anything.

Vice President Stradling asked, are there any other comments, any other questions or comments from the Board? There’s nothing, no letters from the City or, there’s not many neighbors out there.

Director Weaver stated, no, I did have a phone call from Mr. Jordan who was the original owner of the property when it was subdivided. He was just inquiring about the request and I did not receive anything in writing from him and no specific concerns, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, what are the Board’s wishes.

David Scott stated, I’m ready to vote.

Jeff Saylor stated, the setback, the two buildings that back up to the railroad track if we look at the ends of those buildings, the setbacks are 6’ and I almost can understand that they would assume that it’s 6’ from the end of the building that is in question.

Vice President Stradling asked, Dave, anything?

David Scott stated, no, I think, it just looks like it was just an error, an oversight and like Director Weaver made a good point I mean it’s not like they were trying to a add room or something. All that they would have to do is shift the building, there is room on the other end to accommodate the size of building that was there and as far as assessing a, who would you assess it to? I mean if there were a couple of engineers, if you assessed a fine, where would you assess a fine at, that’s my opinion. I wouldn’t vote for a fine in this instance, that’s just my opinion.

Jeff Saylor asked, I think that this was brought to the attention of the office by the applicant, correct?

Director Weaver stated, yes it was, Mr. Williams brought it.

Jeff Saylor stated, and I think in difference to that I would not be in favor or imposing any fine.

Vice President Stradling asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, I agree.

Vice President Stradling asked, 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-3, Multi-Family Residential.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 11’ East side setback variance to bring the existing apartment building into compliance with the platted setbacks on a part of the real estate conveyed to David N. Jordan, Robert J. Mursener and Lloyd C. Duncan, as recorded in Deed Record 98-11-6545 in the Office of the Recorder for White County, Indiana, being part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Northwestern corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the said Section 28; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds East along the Northern line of the said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 1605.60 feet; thence North 00 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds East for 40.00 feet to the Northern right-of-way line of Fisher Street and the Southwestern corner of the said Barrett real estate; thence North 24 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West along the western line of said Barrett real estate for 633.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 24 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West along the said Western live for 790.38 feet to the Northwester corner of the said Barrett real estate; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 52 seconds East along the northern line of the said Barrett real estate for 193.68 feet to the Northwestern corner of a 0.263 acre tract conveyed to the city of Monticello as recorded in Deed Record 1981, Pages 662-667 in the Office of the Recorder White County, Indiana; thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 22 seconds East along the western line of the said 0.263 acre tract for 175.60 feet to the southwestern corner thereof; thence North 51 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds East along the southern live of said 0.263 acre tract for 80.00 feet to the western right-of-way line of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad; thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 22 seconds East along the said railroad right-of-way for 480.18 feet; thence South 51 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West 141.93 feet; thence Southwesterly along a non-tangent curve to the left, said curve being concave southeasterly, and being subtended by a long chord bearing South 40 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds West for 145.30 feet, and having a radius of 80.00 feet, for an arc length of 182.20 feet; thence South 65 degrees 36 minutes 18 seconds West non-tangent to the preceding curve, for 150.08 feet to the Point of

Beginning, containing 5.125 acres, more or less.

The above described real estate is to be Lot 11 in Westside Commercial Subdivision, with the curve in the above description being the right-of-way of Foxwood Court.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 1101 Foxwood Court, Monticello, Indiana.

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 your building permit in line with your variance. Please apply for one.

Norm Williams asked, Director Weaver, you mean that I come in and apply for…

Director Weaver stated, we will have to amend the building permit so just come in…

Norm Williams asked, just come in and see you?

Director Weaver stated, come in and see me.

Norm Williams stated, thank the Board very much.

****

#2093 Edward E. Lytle; Requesting a 4’ South side setback variance and a 10.5’ front setback variance to build an addition onto an attached garage and bring the existing house into compliance on Lot #16, part of Lot #17 and part of Lot #15 in Lake Manor Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 605 Twin Lakes Avenue.

Vice President Stradling asked, do we have anyone here representing that request?

Ed Lytle was present to represent this request.

Vice President Stradling asked, do you have anything to add, to present to us tonight?

Ed Lytle stated no.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments for or against in the audience?

Attorney Altman asked, Ed, your proposed addition tell us about that, what it will be.

Ed Lytle stated, well, in actuality Attorney Altman, what we’re going to do is put another garage on, I have a one car now and we’re going to put another one car on. We’re going to be moving 16’ approximately, to the South.

Attorney Altman asked, will you convert you present garage into living space then?

Ed Lytle stated, we’re going to move the living room wall 4’, that’s why we have to go 16’, a 24’ x 20’ garage when we’re done. The living room wall also does get moved in this.

Attorney Altman asked, so it will be some living space, but, you’re on city water and sewer so that really isn’t a health issue at all. There is no visibility or traffic area on that side being just no traffic on that side so, it won’t effect anything right Ed?

Ed Lytle stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing is, is you are on parts of 3 lots, you understand that with a variance granted and I think that it’s pretty obvious with a variance granted part of 4 lots I’m sorry. This will unite them forever that you can’t sell anything off so long as you use the home as proposed variance. You understand that right?

Ed Lytle asked, can I sell part of the lot to the South or to the north?

Attorney Altman stated, no, none, you couldn’t sell any of…

Ed Lytle asked, I couldn’t sell let's say 5’ off of the North lot?

Attorney Altman stated, no, because you’re variance is effectively married to the real estate that you have right now. If you do that, you would have to get a new variance to allow you to do that.

Ed Lytle asked, with a variance I could sell 3 or 4 feet off of the North…

Attorney Altman stated, it would be a new one, yes, if you wish to do that at some…

Ed Lytle asked, it is possible?

Attorney Altman stated, it is possible but, it has to, it takes a variance.

Ed Lytle stated, I see.

Vice President Stradling asked, Mr. Lytle, the survey that we have in front of us shows a 20’ setback line. My understanding is that we have a 32’ front setback requirement is the 20’ from the originally platted?

Director Weaver stated, I believe so , this is an old subdivision.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay. So, really the setback line that you have on your survey at 20’ should read 32’?

Ed Lytle asked, I don’t know, that’s the way the house, you’re talking toward the sidewalk, is that what she’s saying?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Ed Lytle stated, that house was constructed back in the 60’s…

Vice President Stradling asked, with a 20’ setback?

Ed Lytle stated, yes, I assume that’s what it is, I think that’s correct.

Attorney Altman asked, all the present improvements on your lot date back to 19, before 1960 or earlier right?

Ed Lytle stated, in that area, yes, Attorney Altman.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you. So this would be effectively grandfathered and you’re just bringing it into compliance.

Director Weaver stated, we’re just trying to bring it into compliance…

Attorney Altman stated, as well as he wants a proposed addition but, he needs a variance for it.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Vice President Stradling asked, I just want to clarify, the survey is dated March 12, 2002 with a 20’ setback but, that is not current as of March 12, 2002, it would have been current as originally platted…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure it’s originally platted…

Vice President Stradling asked, so, it’s not current as of March the 12th?

Attorney Altman stated, right, exactly, I’m sure that’s probably private restrictions in the subdivision but, are not, I have seen several of these abstracts but, I can’t tell you for sure.

Director Weaver stated, and the pictures show, I think that his home is in line with the other homes around it, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, the other thing is the proposed addition will meet the roof lines of your present home right?

Ed Lytle stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, it will be single story and look the same…

Ed Lytle stated, same roofline.

Attorney Altman stated, same roofline, thank you…

Ed Lytle stated, just going South.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other comments?

David Scott asked, have you heard pro or con from the people that live on lot 17?

Director Weaver stated, I have not heard anything from them.

Vice President Stradling asked, does the Board wish to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s a yes.

Vice President Stradling stated, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

2. That the lot 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 4’ South side setback variance and a 10.5’ front setback variance to build an addition onto an attached garage and bring the existing house into compliance on Lot 16, 9.2 feet off the North end of Lot 17 and 44 feet off the South end of Lot 15 all in Lake Manor Addition to the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 605 Twin Lakes Avenue, Monticello, Indiana.

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, your variance is accordingly granted, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Ed Lytle asked, do I do that in the Area Plan Office?

Attorney Altman stated, you bet.

Director Weaver stated, yes, you do. Actually, I believe that we already have your application so I think you just need to come in and pick that up.

****

#2094 Garry Joe & Romona Christine Rice; Requesting a 1’ side setback variance and a 23’ rear setback variance to rebuild a room on the home and a 30’ front setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance on Lot #1 in Citizen’s Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 702 Dewey Street.

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

Jim Davidson stated, I’m going to do the work.

Vice President Stradling asked, do you care to come to the microphone and state your name please.

Romona Rice stated, Romona Rice.

Vice President Stradling asked, and you are owner of the home?

Romona Rice stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anything that you would like to add?

Romona Rice stated, just that it is been built like that, ever since we have moved there in 1972.

Vice President Stradling asked, it says that you are rebuilding a room on the home?

Romona Rice stated, a tree fell on it in October.

Attorney Altman asked, so, it’s going to be the same home, it’s just repair…

Romona Rice stated, just repairing it yes, and Mr. Davidson is doing the work.

Jim Davidson stated, same footprint, a tree hit the South of the addition and drove the whole, all of the rafters back and I’m going to tear off the South addition to build it and we found out that the South addition is already to the lot lines. So it’s going to be the exact same footprint that we have right now. We’re just going to change the roofline, the roofline is, we’re going to put two gables instead of, a bunch of additions put on there. With the South addition right now, has just a flat roof and I’m going to put a gable on it but, the footprint is going to stay the same.

Attorney Altman asked, but, it doesn’t encroach? This shows it encroaching.

Vice President Stradling stated, that shows it but, the survey, these pictures that we have don’t always line up.

Director Weaver stated, no, they don’t.

Vice President Stradling asked, but, the survey, you have 2’…

Attorney Altman stated, on that side, very good.

Jim Davidson stated, there is 2’ on the East side and 7’ on the South side.

Vice President Stradling asked, and that’s 2’ away from the right-of-way on Dewey Street, you’re not 2’ from the edge of the road.

Jim Davidson stated, right, no, that’s what she was saying there is actually about another 15’ before you hit the road, there is a road to the East.

Director Weaver stated, actually in your pictures, there was a vehicle parked there so that does show how much room there is in front of the home.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the audience either for or against? Any letters on file?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, any questions from the Board? Comments? Do we wish to vote? 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 1’ side setback variance and a 23’ rear setback variance to rebuild a room on the home and a 30’ front setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance on Lot 1 in Citizen’s Addition in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 702 Dewey Street, Monticello, Indiana.

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 that does this before you proceed.

Romona Rice stated, thank you.

****

#2095 James B. & Mary K. Davidson; Requesting a height variance for a detached garage that is 25’ tall to the peak on part of Lot #87 and part of Lot 79 in White Point Hinshaw Addition. The property is located in Union Township at 4875 E. 225 N.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone representing, Mr. Davidson, and would you care to…

Jim Davidson stated, Jim Davidson.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to explain something to the Board. If you look at the analysis on your staff report, Mr. Milligan did the survey. On the survey he does state that the height is 25’ to the peak. The Ordinance states that the maximum height requirement for a gabled roof which is the kind of roof this is, 15’ to the mean level of the underside of the rafters between the eaves and the bridge. I wanted to clarify that because, we have had some confusion of this maximum height so, I wanted to clarify that before we went any further. I sat down with our building inspector and he’s calculated the height to the mean level on this specific garage because, he was out there is 19’.

Attorney Altman stated, so, it can actually be taller folks than the 15’, it’s the mean height which really means if you go from the ground level up to the rafters. Where the rafters start in and that’s the first total then you take the distance from the bottom of the rafter to the top of the rafter and divide that by 2 and that second factor is what you put in there. That’s how they got the 19’, which is the amount, it exceed the ordinance by 4’ just to be plain.

Jim Davidson stated, my big thing was when I went in to get the permit, they were asking me about the height and I asked them the total height and I said well, it’s going to be, see it’s 26’ deep with a 12/12 pitch. My house is 12/12 so, I want the garage to be a 12/12 pitch so a 26’ width gave me 13’ from the top plate to the top of the ridge right there. I had 13’ from the top of the plate to the top of the ridge to match my house and my house is a 12/12 pitch. I want, I built this, I want the fascia to match the house fascia that’s why I built it that way, that’s why I have 13’ in my mind.

Vice President Stradling asked, is that what the building permit shows Director Weaver? Is that in the file?

Director Weaver stated, the building permit shows that the maximum building height is 15’.

Vice President Stradling asked, but, it doesn’t mention a 12/12 pitch or the dimensions of the building?

Director Weaver stated, no, it does give us the dimensions of the building yes but, it is not mentioned the pitch of the roof.

Vice President Stradling asked, so the building permit does not mention the pitch of the off and we have the dimensions of the building and it states that there is a maximum height of 15?

Director Weaver stated, yes, that is right on the application the 15’.

Vice President Stradling asked, any letters?

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything. We had no complaints on this, even, it was something that I went by and saw it and brought it to the building inspector’s attention.

Vice President Stradling asked, did it look out of place? You could just tell that it was just too high?

Director Weaver stated, I could tell that it was too high or suspected that it was too high, yes. It does not look out of place due to the fact that like Mr. Davidson said, it is built to look like his home.

Jeff Saylor asked, where there any sketches or plans submitted?

Director Weaver stated, no, there is a site plan in here but, that is all. It does not give us any details on the building.

Jeff Saylor asked, okay, nothing was submitted to the office that would indicate that?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, Mr. Davidson, you are a builder by trade?

Jim Davidson stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, what is the second story of the garage going to be used for?

Jim Davidson stated, it’s just attic space, storage, the reason that those dormers are on there is there because I want it to match my house and that’s why the dormers are on there. The whole object was so, I just want to when you’re done the fascia all lines up as one, I want a nice look. I wanted to keep the pitch the same and keep the fascia the same, that’s why the walls are higher because of the fascia, the fascia line because my house has a basement but, the basement is 3’ up off of the ground level too. I mean the first floor is 3’ above the ground level, so I want to maintain the fascia height.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the Board?

Gary Barbour asked, is there any running water to the garage?

Jim Davidson stated, no and there is no apartment or anything up there, the inspector already checked for that.

Director Weaver stated, I will confirm that yes, the building inspector did go in the building.

Attorney Altman stated, we are in court right now requesting the court to remove a garage that has similar height to this and we requested a variance and it was denied by this Board just remark on that just of the fact.

Jim Davidson asked, when did this deny, is their existing structure the same height by it?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s some, it’s different but it is, had an existing home and they built a garage that had the 15’ on it just like this permit does and they built and I think that they are 16’.9” is the mean dimensions on it so, it’s not 2 and a third foot shorter than this particular garage.

Vice President Stradling asked, there were other circumstances involved on that home…

Attorney Altman stated, we just had complaints is all…

Director Weaver stated, well, I believe too on that permit, when that was issued for the maximum height we didn’t know that. That wasn’t to the peak also, that it was specifically noted that it was to the peak and I also believe that it was indicated that there was no living space for it and…

Jeff Saylor stated, that is correct.

Director Weaver stated, and I think it was, he admitted that he eventually put living space in there. I don’t know if that had a bearing or not.

Vice President Stradling stated, there was a lot of other…

Attorney Altman stated, there were complainers….

Vice President Stradling stated, circumstance involved in that one.

Director Weaver stated, and it did not match the roofline of the home.

David Scott asked, when someone comes in for a permit, is it, is that one of the questions that is asked is the height of this thing or something?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David asked, and I don’t now, was that asked in this case, what the….

Jim Davidson stated, excuse me, when it was brought up, I was asked how high it was going to be and I said I was not sure from the top of the plate to the ridge is going to be 13’ because of the 12/12 pitch. I was not sure until I shot the fascia. When I started building it, didn’t know how high to make the until I shot the thing and they were talking about the formula and all of those sort of things too. I did make a comment that it was going to be 13’ from the top of the plate to the top of the ridge because of the 12/12 pitch on top of the wall.

Director Weaver stated, the sheet that was filled out at the time that Mr. Davidson came in it’s a fill in the blank form. It has height and all that is filled in is 14’ so I don’t know, it is not noted if that was to the bottom of the rafters to the peak to the…

David Scott stated, so some of it the error is in the language.

Director Weaver stated, probably some of it.

Vice President Stradling stated, so our options here, I know that we want to be consistent and I do recall there were a lot of other circumstances related to the one in question and if recall with that one there were statements made that they would do things a certain way and it was not followed. It’s just questionable to what they said was going to be, their conflicting statements as to how that would be finished out. What does the Board wish to do here?

Gary Barbour stated, I was thinking that there was a lot more to it also like there wasn’t very much yard at all, was that true or am I thinking of a different one.

Attorney Altman stated, there wasn’t very much yard but, it wasn’t that, that was a request.

Gary Barbour stated, …to the house before they built the garage and there was very questionable things even with the house I was thinking.

Director Weaver stated, there was also a fence violation.

Vice President Stradling asked, a series of building projects that went on there that was out of compliance and it was a series. A pattern of noncompliance that we don’t have, that I’m not seeing here.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Jeff Saylor stated, I can see someone coming up to apply for a permit and say I want to do something and I’m going to make it match my house and that doesn’t exactly have a place in the form for that to fit well so I can see maybe…

Attorney Altman stated, my purpose isn’t to stimulate anything against this application, it’s just to make the record. So we’re showing that there is a significant difference, that’s exactly what I’m hearing, and that’s what we need to do. Otherwise, someone could say well, we just let one go and we didn’t do one and why are we forced to remove the garage when we have this one here different and I hear difference and so you need of define this as facts and proceed with your vote.

Jeff Saylor stated, in this particular case, if the garage were 6’ taller than the house then I would probably feel different about this particular situation. It very obviously was done to match the existing architecture of the home and I would imagine based on what you have said that, that was mentioned at the time that the he applied for the permit.

Director Weaver stated, something else that might be a consideration, this garage meets the setback requirements of a home so if he wanted to put living space up there, he does have the option of attaching it to the existing home. It does meet the setbacks for a home the one that we have the lawsuit on does not, does not meet the setback requirements for a home so that might have some bearing on this too.

Gary Barbour asked, what keeps him from being able to put an apartment in it later?

Jim Davidson stated, that could be written if you want to write it or whatever….

Director Weaver stated, in actuality you should get a permit prior to doing something like that, it doesn’t mean that it can be done but, proper procedure would require a building permit to convert that into living space.

Vice President Stradling asked, if I recall though, the one with the lawsuit, not much room for sewer, well and septic space is limited and it doesn’t appear that you have that situation Mr. Davidson.

Attorney Altman stated, very good, I think that we can proceed.

Vice President Stradling asked, are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-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 height variance for a detached garage that is 25’ tall to the peak on 102.44 Feet of Even Width off the Entire East Side of Lot 87 and 25.00 feet of Even Width off the Entire West Side of Lot 79 in White Point Hinshaw Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana, more fully described by:

Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Lot 87 in White Point Hinshaw Addition; Thence West along the South Line of Lot 87, a distance of 102.44 feet;

Thence North along the East Line of the Blackburn Property, as described in Deed Record 1985, Page 468, White County Recorder’s Office, a distance of 225.00 feet;

Thence East along the North Line of Lot 87, a distance of 102.44 feet to the Northeast Corner thereof;

Thence South along the East Line of said Lot 87, a distance of 75.00 feet;

Thence East along the North Line of Lot 79, a distance of 25.00 Feet;

Thence South along the Centerline of Lot 79, a distance of 150.00 feet;

Thence West along the South Line of said Lot 79, a distance of 25.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 4875 E. 225 N., Monticello, Indiana.

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 & 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 amend your building permit before you proceed.

Gary Barbour stated, and by the way it really does look nice.

Jim Davidson stated, thank you. In fact some of the neighbors told me that and the ones that got the letter said do you want me to come to court and say it looked nice but, that’s why I did it that way.

****

#2096 Daniel A. & Carrie J. Wisner; Requesting a 27’ rear setback variance to build an addition onto the existing house on .735 of an acre. The property is located in Liberty Township at 9836 N. Rock Ridge Road.

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

Daniel Wisner was present to represent his request.

Vice President Stradling asked, would you care to add anything to your request?

Director Weaver stated, I have something that I would like to tell the Board. We did have an adjoining neighbor come in and he talked with one of the girls in the office. He stated that he really didn’t have a problem with the request but, what he did want to point out to us was that the survey that we had sent to them did not show an access easement on their property. Therefore we did contact the surveyor, he did give us a revised survey, which I have given to you tonight with your pictures, and it does show the access easement. So that survey has been revised because of, the neighbor coming in and bringing that to our attention. I would also like to kind of explain the pictures that I have given to you because, I don’t know that they show real good, this piece of property. This piece of property has, it is on a corner, they have a portion of the property that is up much higher than the other part of the property, the home is actually down on the bottom side of the hill from the main road. You can’t even see the home and I have tried to show that in my pictures but, I wasn’t sure that I got that point across. So I wanted to point that out to the Board that the home is actually the bottom of the hill the swimming pool and the side as you can see in the pictures are at the top of the hill.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the audience?

Matthew Harding stated, I’m Mr. Wisner’s neighbor I’m just the house North of the river. I was just concerned as to what the reason for a variance was and just what they are doing. I got a letter in the mail addressed to Matt Harding, I don’t know that I know anyone well enough to be called Matt but,…

Attorney Altman asked, would your home be the home on this survey?

Carrie Wisner stated, no, next to that home.

Attorney Altman asked, would this be your home?

Matthew Harding stated, I’m to the North here.

Attorney Altman asked, that is to the North so, you are over here?

Matthew Harding stated, yes, I am just right next this house here…

Attorney Altman stated, let's turn around and show the Board so that you can identify where your home is on this.

Matthew Harding stated, my home is here, this road, this easement here…

Attorney Altman stated, serves your…

Matthew Harding stated, serves my home.

Attorney Altman asked, and this home too?

Matthew Harding stated, no, just my home, and this easement then comes across the front of their property over here to their home.

Attorney Altman asked, okay, so you are just a little bit East of the house that is North on the survey right?

Carrie Harding stated, yes.

Matthew Harding stated, yes, I would be adjacent to this house indicated on this survey just to the North.

Attorney Altman stated, you can understand what their proposal.

Matthew Harding stated, no, I don’t, that’s why I’m here, just…

Attorney Altman asked, maybe you might let him tell you what he’s going to do then. Do you want to proceed and tell us what you’re going to do?

Daniel Wisner stated, I’m requesting a variance for the rear of my house, I believe that it’s 8’ and the ordinance is 32’ and what I’m doing is putting an addition on to the rear of my home and to the hillside which would be South of my home.

Vice President Stradling asked, and the reason that you need that variance is because the, it would be the West edge of your home, your existing home is currently that close to your property line so you’re lining that addition up with the existing West side of your home.

Daniel Wisner stated, that is correct.

Director Weaver stated, I would just like to make a little bit of a clarification, his home as you can see on your survey is 3’ from the property line currently and the required setback is 30’, the rear setback is 30’.

Vice President Stradling asked, are there adjoining properties to the West?

Daniel Wisner stated, yes, there is.

Vice President Stradling asked, and are there homes or structures on that property to the West?

Daniel Wisner stated, yes, it’s roughly 400’ there is a home from my existing property and that is just a rough estimate, it’s pretty ways…

Carrie Wisner stated, and that home is up on top of the hill where ours is down at the bottom.

Daniel Wisner stated, right.

Carrie Wisner stated, the one to the West of us sits up on the upper level part of the property, of his property.

Vice President Stradling asked, it appears as though there might be a vacant lot in-between you and that house?

Daniel Wisner stated, yes, that is correct. Actually, there might be two vacant lots, I think that there is a 3 lot plot that my neighbor has and he has 2 vacant lots between us and then you have his lot. That’s why I said roughly it’s around 300’ to 400’ from my structure to my neighbors structure which she is on top of the hill and we’re on the bottom and there is a woods between our houses.

Vice President Stradling asked, my point in asking that is just to if he would choose to build on that lot…

Daniel Wisner stated, okay, I also have…

Vice President Stradling asked, that there would be room for him to build without, I mean he could also be 3’ away from your house if…

Daniel Wisner stated, okay, I understand that but, there is also an easement for my septic on that West side.

Vice President Stradling asked, on the vacant lot?

Daniel Wisner stated, yes, that’s right. It runs 15’ to the West and 64’ North and South because my leach field is up on top of the hill which White County Health Department came out and just verified that prior to the permit.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other questions from the Board? Audience? Are you satisfied with your questions Mr. Harding?

Matthew Harding stated, I was just trying to clarify as to what was being done and why he needed an easement on the existing property and other than that my only concern would be you know if there is any additional traffic, we have all had trouble with the traffic.

Daniel Wisner stated, well, it’s still going to remain a single dwelling home, there’s not going to be any apartment or multi-family housing at all, what so ever, so there would not be any more additional traffic.

Matthew Harding asked, what about the height? You said something about putting a 2 story in?

Daniel Wisner stated, there is a 1 ½ story there now so, the addition that we’re requesting for a variance for is 1 story.

Vice President Stradling asked, so it will be lower than your existing?

Daniel Wisner stated, I believe so.

Matthew Harding stated, I thought that you said it was a one story, I’m sorry you’ve got me confused, you said something about…

Daniel Wisner stated, it’s a 1 ½ story dorm as you can see…

Carrie Wisner stated, barn shaped…

Daniel Wisner stated, gable type roof and we’re going to change the roofline to meet the new, existing so, it’s going to be more of walls which I have the permit for that, the two story, the permit that I’m looking for to grant is the variance for the…

Carrie Wisner stated, new constructions going in…

Daniel Wisner stated, rear part…

Carrie Wisner stated, into the hill, not literally going into the hill but, towards the back part of the property.

Daniel Wisner stated, South of the house.

Vice President Stradling asked, and it will be 2 story?

Daniel Wisner stated, 1 story.

Director Weaver stated, the structure that he has now is a 1-½ story. He has received a permit because of it not improving the home more 50% he has received a permit to convert that into a full second story to he’s going to raise the walls and change that to a second story.

Daniel Wisner stated, that’s correct.

Director Weaver stated, the new addition is going to be the single story.

Daniel Wisner stated, that’s correct.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments? Do you care to vote?

Matthew Harding asked, why is he getting the variance now?

Vice President Stradling stated, because his existing home is too close to his property line and it was okay at the time that the home was built since that time we have had changes in the zoning laws and he is making changes to that property. So he needs to get a variance that the addition that he has will not be any closer to the property line than the existing home….

Director Weaver stated, right.

Vice President Stradling stated, but, we’re trying to get that into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance that is currently in place.

Matthew Harding stated, I see.

Vice President Stradling stated, and the existing Ordinance says that he needs to be 30’ from that property line and his house is currently 3’ at the front. At the closest point he is 3’ so he needs a 27’ setback variance to make up the difference between the 3 and the 30’. Does the Board care to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling stated, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 27’ rear setback variance to build an addition onto the existing house on that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the above said Section 12 marked with an iron rod; thence North 02 degrees 00 minutes West along the section line 1334.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 77 degrees 00 minutes East 340.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe and the point of beginning:

Thence North 02 degrees 23 minutes East 190.00 feet; thence North 6 degrees 12 minutes West 20.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 87 degrees 35 minutes 24 seconds East 112.37 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence South 21 degrees 06 minutes East 199.00 feet to a railroad spike in the center of a public road; thence along said centerline South 77 degrees 19 minutes West 185.00 feet; thence North 37 degrees 47 minutes West 15.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.735 of an acre.

The above described real estate having access over and being subject to a 20 foot easement having the following described centerline; Beginning at the Southeast corner of the above described tract; thence North 21 degrees 06 minutes West 199.00 feet.

Also, being subject to an easement for ingress and egress described by;

Commencing at the Northwest corner of the above described tract; thence North 87 degrees 35 minutes 24 seconds East 33 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 35 minutes 24 seconds East 15.00 feet; thence South 84 degrees 25 minutes 49 seconds East 68.24 feet; thence South 21 degrees 06 minutes East 20.00 feet; thence North 84 degrees 23 minutes 41 seconds West 74.71 feet; thence North 42 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds West 23.43 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 9836 N. Rock Ridge Road, Monticello, Indiana.

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 that brings everything into compliance before you proceed at all.

Daniel Wisner stated, thank you.

****

#2097 Andrew Jordan; Requesting a 4’ side setback variance to build a new home where the existing home is located and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing deck into compliance on Lot #2 in Forest Hill Addition. The property is located in Liberty Township at 6019 E. Liberty Drive.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing that request?

Andrew Jordan was present to represent his request.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to clear something up just a little bit on this request, it says where the existing home is, I was quite shocked when I went out there, I did not realize that the home was destroyed. There has been a fire in it, there actually is no home there at this time.

Attorney Altman asked, a whole house to be removed, it is removed?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, there is a, lot #1 there is dashed lines that there is a deck that it appears to encroach on your property by 1 ½’, I’m not sure exactly, is that there?

Andrew Jordan stated, the deck is there but, it looks like it comes right down the lot line in front of the deck. There is a little cement curb in-between the lots and it runs right along his deck and my deck picks up right past it. Right down to the seawalls and that’s where our seawalls split. It looks like it’s right on the line but, that says it comes over into my yard a foot or so.

Attorney Altman asked, do you understand what your surveyor says that their deck, it’s your deck right?

Andrew Jordan stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, it encroaches on you.

Andrew Jordan stated, it says that it does but, it’s really doesn’t seem like it does, it’s not in my way so I have no problem with it.

Attorney Altman asked, so it’s not your deck?

Andrew Jordan stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s theirs…

Andrew Jordan stated, it’s the neighbors deck.

Attorney Altman asked, okay, I just want, and that’s there right now?

Andrew Jordan stated, right, that’s still there.

Attorney Altman asked, and your deck, what I’m not sure then is the dashed lines that show the existing deck do they then go back to the 4’ the line that is all of the way and then dashed to 4’ to the home to be removed? Is that where your existing deck is?

Andrew Jordan stated, yes, no, my deck, the first set of lines is his deck and at the end of his deck is where my railing for my deck starts. There is a stairway that comes down to the deck because the back part of the house was a cinder block basement to where it was open it had a walkout door onto the deck.

Attorney Altman asked, so your deck stops at it?

Andrew Jordan stated, yes, my deck stops and then there is a stairway coming up and at the top of the stairs is pretty much where his deck starts because his is up on the main…

Attorney Altman stated, your surveyor doesn’t have that very plain and that’s why, I’m just trying to figure out what you’re asking, what’s there so we know how much you are asking to be made into compliance.

Andrew Jordan stated, yes, I just need a 4’ setback just to put it back where it was, I just want to replace what I had.

Director Weaver stated, to help the Board members with this, if you look at your pictures, the picture on the bottom right is the neighbors deck….

Andrew Jordan stated, you know, I have some pictures in the truck that might show a little bit better, it was before it burnt down, if that will help.

Attorney Altman stated, we’re ready to proceed.

Director Weaver stated, the picture at the bottom left I am actually standing on the neighbors deck there to get that picture, that was the only way that I could get that picture…

Andrew Jordan stated, yes, here’s the neighbors deck…

Director Weaver stated, I’m on the neighbor’s deck taking the picture.

Attorney Altman asked, I’m trying to figure out, we can hardly see his…

There was discussion among the Board members and the applicant.

Attorney Altman asked, so this line here…

Director Weaver stated, that’s the neighbors…

Andrew Jordan stated, right, it comes down the corner and this is my railing coming down and around.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, so the closest however, he is to his property line and it looks like he is probably the ½’ but, the neighbor is or on the line as he says when he eyeballs.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the audience? Does the Board have any further questions or comments?

Jeff Saylor asked, Director Weaver, is the new going in on the same foundation?

Director Weaver stated, are you going to use the same foundation?

Andrew Jordan stated, no, it’s not suitable, I had Dave Anderson out there today, I met him out there at 3:00 and he looked it over…

Jeff Saylor asked, it’s not going to be any larger than the old one?

Andrew Jordan stated, no. it’s going to be the same thing, I’m going to put the same thing right there.

Attorney Altman stated, same footprint.

Andrew Jordan stated, same footprint.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Andrew Jordan stated, no, it was a 2 story, it was a cape cod with dormers on each side. Well it had 2 bedrooms, one was open like a loft it didn’t have a closet, it was considered a bedroom. The two bedrooms, on the appraisal I got because there was no closets and the one wall was open looking downstairs.

Attorney Altman asked, is the sewage system there?

Andrew Jordan stated, yes, I have the septic to the…

Attorney Altman asked, no I mean the sewage system.

Andrew Jordan stated, no not yet.

Director Weaver stated, not at this time.

Attorney Altman asked, when will it be there?

Andrew Jordan stated, he was talking about another 2 to 3 years, there’s in Monticello and they are going to Idaville next and then coming up by us.

Attorney Altman stated, you know that the Health Department says that they can’t guarantee that the property can be sold, not meeting the state codes.

Andrew Jordan stated, I don’t plan on selling it. I just want to rebuild what I had. Dan came out there few weeks back and looked at the septic, I had the receipt from when it was put in and we walked down the stairs and…

Attorney Altman stated, we can’t guarantee it either.

Andrew Jordan stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, an approval doesn’t make it comply with those requirements, I t would comply with our Ordinance and all that doesn’t mean that it complies with the standards that the Health Department is trying to warn you about.

Andrew Jordan asked, so it would just be what if I went to sell it I would have to have it inspected maybe re-do it so something?

Attorney Altman stated, maybe have to wait for that 2 years until the septic system, sewage system comes in.

Someone in the room stated, just to sell.

Andrew Jordan stated, oh, to sell, I’m not, I’m planning on keeping it, I’m not worried about that.

Attorney Altman stated, I would at least request this variance that he hook up to the septic system when it comes in, I don’t think that he has any choice.

Andrew Jordan stated, he was saying that I didn't have a choice, that I had to.

Vice President Stradling asked, anything else? Do you care to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned 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 4’ side setback variance to build a new home where the existing home is located and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing deck into compliance on Lot 2 in Forest Hill Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located South of Buffalo at 6019 E. Liberty 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 before you proceed, you will need to get a building permit for the rest of it too, including the house.

Andrew Jordan asked, get a building permit for the rest of it, what do you mean?

Director Weaver stated, he hasn’t gotten a permit yet for any of it.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, then get the whole project on a building permit.

Andrew Jordan stated, thank you.

****

#2098 Christine C. Koontz; Requesting a 1 ½’ North side setback variance for a new unroofed deck and a 5 ½’ South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance on .25 of an acre. The property is located in Monon Township at 5121 N. West Shafer Drive.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone here tonight representing?

Jim Davidson stated, me again. I’m Jim Davidson representing Christine Koontz property. This is an unusual situation, we see on the drawing the proposed deck, right now there is cement slab coming out 12’ and what is happening is this is on the upper level, I don’t know if they have pictures of the lake side or not…

Director Weaver stated, no I don’t.

Jim Davidson stated, what is happening is this deck is falling into the water so what we have to do is we have bust up the concrete and put a wooden deck on there. In other words, this comes out 12’ then it goes down more steps and comes out another 4’ of the 4’ ribbon on the water and what we have to do is bust all of the concrete out and put this deck on feet because there is nothing, when the guy built this whole thing he put tires and filled them full of rock and what is happening is the whole things is kind off, the whole side wall, the whole side is caving in, and the slab I would say I didn’t realize that this drawing shows the cement actually crosses the boundary line here, what is on there right now is about 12’, the whole front is all concrete and this whole thing is falling in the water, it’s listing into the water right now. So all I’m, what I’m doing is, I contacted the Lake Shafer to ask if I could put the concrete into the lake. We’re busting up, in other words we’re going to have, Luse is going to put a seawall there and we’re going to bust the concrete up and dump it behind the seawall. Then they recommended that they come and make sure, they were concerned that the property line. The lake is going to be right here by the house. He said that a lot of time, the house through the years, the actual property line is the house and we were going to, he was concerned that we were going to build a deck on the Lake Shafer property and I had to, then when I did this we found out that we had to get a variance because of that so that’s what all of those drawings mean.

Attorney Altman asked, when was the house built?

Jim Davidson stated, 1940..

Attorney Altman stated, it looks pretty new.

Jim Davidson stated, well, it’s not, in other words the side with the deck, in other words the South side was the original cottage and I think that he purchased that in 1940 or 1950 and then he built the North side probably in 1960 or 1970. Then he passed away and th4e daughter took the property over and she called me about this, the cracks in the concrete last summer and I went out in the spring and they are now about 3” wide away from the house, this whole thing is falling down.

Attorney Altman asked, Director Weaver from what you can determine, this was built before the Ordinance?

Director Weaver stated, to be best of my knowledge. Have you submitted information for a building permit on this project yet.

Director Weaver stated, okay, the reason I ask that is if he had, we would have the property record card, which would give us an age.

Jim Davidson stated, it was a case where step one was the Lake Shafer thing and then all of a sudden we went backwards. I learned from the other two so compared to the previous couple before we got the building permit so I got the surveyor and all of that stuff and that’s how we came to this.

Attorney Altman asked, is this on the sewage system?

Jim Davidson stated, yes, she is already hooked up. In other words, all that we are doing is basically we’re busting up existing concrete that’s listened into the water and putting a deck out in plac4 of the concrete and the deck is going to come out 6’ and the concrete now comes out about 12’.

Attorney Altman asked, so you’ll be back…

Jim Davidson stated, yes, this drawing here shows our proposed deck will be 6’ out so as far as actually structure, we’re going to be 6’ out from the existing house, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, anything from the neighbors?

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

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the audience? Any questions from the Board? Do we wish to 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 1 ½’ North side setback variance for a new unroofed deck and a 5 ½’ South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance on a tract of land located in the West fraction of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty-Two (32), Township Twenty-Eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is East One Hundred Thirty-Seven and One Tenth (137.1) Feet, North Three degrees and Eight minutes East Two Hundred Sixty and Five Tenths (260.5) Feet and North Zero degrees and Eighteen minutes West Three Hundred Thirty and Five Tenths (330.5) Feet from the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the above said Section Thirty-Two (32) and running thence North Zero degrees and Eighteen minutes West Sixty-Nine and Five Tenths (69.5) Feet; thence North Eighty-Eight degrees and Fifty-Nine minutes East One Hundred Fifty-Six and Two Tenths (156.2) Feet; thence South Twenty-One degrees East Fifty-Eight and Four Tenths (58.4) Feet; thence South Seventy-Nine degrees and Nine minutes West Ninety-Two (92) Feet; thence South Eighty-Nine degrees and Forty-Two minutes West Eighty-Six and Four Tenths (86.4) Feet to the point of beginning, containing Twenty-Five Hundreths (.25) of an acre, more or less.

Also, an Easement for the right of ingress and egress over the following described tract:

Beginning at a point which is East One Hundred Thirty-Seven and One Tenth (137.1) Feet; North Three degrees and Eight Minutes East Two Hundred Sixty and Five Tenths (260.5) Feet, and North Zero degrees and Eighteen minutes West One Hundred Ninety-Three and Two Tenths (193.2) Feet from the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the above Section Thirty-Two (32) and running thence North Zero degrees and Eighteen minutes West Twenty (20) Feet; thence North Eighty-Eight degrees and Forty-Eight minutes East One Hundred Seven degrees and Two minutes West One Hundred Sixteen and Nine Tenths (116.9) Feet, thence North Seventy-Nine degrees and Nine minutes East Twenty (20) Feet, thence South Seven degrees and Two minutes East One Hundred Forty and Four Tenths (140.4) Feet, thence South Eighty-Eight degrees and Forty-Eight minutes West One Hundred Twenty-Two and Six Tenths (112.6) Feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located North of Monticello at 5121 N. West Shafer 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 before you proceed.

Jim Davidson stated, I sure will, thank you.

****

#2099 John L. & Loretta E. Loy; Requesting a 3’ side setback variance to build an addition onto and change the roof line of the existing detached garage on Lot #11 in Kean’s Bay North Addition. The property is located in Liberty Township at 5004 E. Bay Front Court.

Vice President Stradling asked, and you must be Loretta Loy?

Loretta Loy stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anything that you care to add or describe the project to us? Apparently you have a garage and a house in there separate and you want to add on to the garage?

Loretta Loy stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, but, you’re not connecting the garage to the house?

Loretta Loy stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, the addition is actually going to be closer in on the lot line than what they have their currently does not meet our current setbacks. It does from the roadside but, it does not from the side property line, we require 6’.

Vice President Stradling asked, so the addition is not requiring the variance, it’s what is existing there already that was grandfathered prior to our Ordinance?

Director Weaver stated, right and when they do this addition they are also going to change the roofline over the whole structure to make it look appropriate. They are going to be improving the existing structure more than 50 percent so that’s the reason for coming through, that would break the grandfather clause, having to bring it into compliance.

Vice President Stradling asked, any comments from the audience? Questions from the Board? What kind of roofline will you be putting on the garage? I see like a barn…

Loretta Loy stated, it’s not going to be like a barn, it’s going to be angled.

Vice President Stradling asked, and she needs to meet the height requirements.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, and you’re aware of the height requirements?

Loretta Loy stated, I just heard about it, I think that this meets it doesn’t it?

Attorney Altman stated, you know that it has to, that’s all that we can say.

Vice President Stradling asked, do you understand what those are?

Loretta Loy stated, not really.

Vice President Stradling stated, it’s 15’ at, Director Weaver, you did this very well…

Director Weaver stated, let me find it again.

Vice President Stradling asked, will you have any living space in this garage?

Loretta Loy stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, it states that the maximum height requirement for a gabled roof is 15’ to the mean level of the underside of the rafters between the eaves and the bridge. They have a local contractor that is going to be doing this, I assume that Mr. Criswell is still going to do this for you?

Loretta Loy stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, okay, I think we could probably explain it to him and I think that he would know exactly what we are needing.

Vice President Stradling asked, no further questions? Does the Board wish to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

With no furthers discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 3’ side setback variance to build an addition onto and change the roof line of the existing detached garage on Lot 11 in Kean’s Bay North Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: Property is located North of Monticello at 5004 E. Bay Front 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 before you proceed.

Loretta Loy stated, thank you.

****

Vice President Stradling asked, is there any other business that needs to come before the Board this evening?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I would like the Board to know that at the last meeting we had, the Board granted a variance and did not assess a fine to Bob Christiansen with the stipulation that he come in and visit with me in the office so I could explain our building regulations to him. He did do that. He came in on March the 25th, he sat and talked with me and I explained about our regulations and then I took him over to our building inspector, Dave Anderson and let him spend some time with Mr. Anderson as well.

Attorney Altman stated, we got another one educated tonight, I don’t think that they will want to come back if they don’t have it right and that’s how you, one at a time.

David Scott asked, on the height variance, when they come in to get a permit, is there something in the procedure that would bring their attention to the height thing? I mean, is this something that is being overlooked or is this something that you ask them each time? Is it on…

Director Weaver stated, we do ask them each time.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s on the, every one that I have seen that has been where they have gone a head and done it wrong, they have had, they being our department has had the permit properly noted and there and it is as big as anything else on the permit that this is what it is.

David Scott stated, I’m not trying to place blame…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but, I’m saying is it isn’t as easy as what you might think but, for someone that is at all experienced in building it is not really rocket science either.

Director Weaver stated, I think that our Ordinance is very complicated on the height of a building. I know Tippecanoe County, I have looked at this and theirs is imply to the peak. Their maximum height is to the peak, which is how we at one time were enforcing ours.

Jeff Saylor stated, I makes a lot more sense to say.

Attorney Altman stated, it does…

Director Weaver stated, it simplifies things.

Attorney Altman stated, ours all that it says is you start here, you measure the box, the rectangle how high it is, is one of the pluses and then you start at the rafter and measure. There you already have that because that’s that plus, you go to the top and you divide that in half and you total that half with this number.

David Scott stated, that is kind of complicated.

Director Weaver stated, it is complicated just like you could tell when I was trying, reading that a while ago, Mrs. Loy did not understand, that’s why I said we can explain to her contractor…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, that’s what I’m saying is these people should be…

Vice President Stradling stated, what that does though, when you have a wider building you can build a taller roof.

Attorney Altman stated, what’s the difference, the bottom of the roof to the top of the roof plus what ever height…

Director Weaver stated, of your walls…

Attorney Altman stated, of your walls.

Vice President Stradling asked, so why don’t we just say the peak?

David Scott stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree with you, it didn’t that’s all that I can say.

Director Weaver stated, ideally, that’s something that would be a good change.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be a good change.

Director Weaver stated, your average person does not understand our Ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, it would be a good change, all I’m saying though is, a contractor or anyone that builds should understand.

Director Weaver stated, should understand.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I mean, I know that she didn’t and that’s okay, no I would rather that she did but, it’s these people and I’m not picking on him but, he didn’t get it right.

Jeff Saylor stated, I think that it would be crystal clear if it just said…

Director Weaver stated, to the peak.

Jeff Saylor stated, that your garage can’t be over 20’ tall and if it is, you need a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree.

Director Weaver stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, this is an excellent one of those on our list to change.

Vice President Stradling asked, so how do we…

Director Weaver stated, I can work on an amendment, actually I have been wanting to get that done so I will try to do that.

David Scott asked, if someone wants to build wider, I guess that it doesn’t matter, if you just have the height you would have to be…

Jeff Saylor stated, you would have to get a variance.

David Scott stated, it would just be simpler if we went to the peak.

Vice President Stradling asked, like is said, the only reason that I can think of for having to do two calculations…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that there is other than that’s the way that it did. What was the results of the Department of Natural Resources hearing that you talked about last hearing with that one violations that you are pursuing?

Director Weaver stated, they are also pursuing that violation.

Attorney Altman stated, good.

Director Weaver stated, and they have had a hearing on it. I did not attend…

Attorney Altman stated, no, I just wondered what happened.

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any correspondence from them to know exactly what happened at the meeting.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anything else?

Jeff Saylor asked, is there a judge in the hearing yet for…

Director Weaver asked, Indiana Beach?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I had a panel today that we’re going to strike on it.

Director Weaver stated, we did have one?

Jeff Saylor stated, I read the letter..

Attorney Altman asked, you saw his order didn’t you?

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, totally amazing that happened because you know we had the hearing, they tried to put evidence on and they didn’t have evidence to change it. So we’ll panel just got it today and we’re going to strike and I don’t know where we’re going to go.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you get to cross one out and they get to cross one out and the one left over…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, they do first and then I do, one left takes it unless they don’t take it like the very first time. Although, I would say with these they would probably be alright but, we’ll see. The other thing is we have the hearing coming up in May in Judge Mrzlack’s Court on the garage that we’re removing or requesting removal and I bring that up not because I don’t want him to squirm although, I sure didn’t think that it hurt he understood that removal was an option here for messing up and everyone in here because we had a lot of apparent violations that several of them just went away with the evidence I wasn’t sure if the staff report, where we had more violations but, by you talking about the differences and all and making the record about that then I can go to court and say judge now they may not know about this evenings meeting but, you’re attorney feels like he can go to the meeting and know that you guys compared apples and oranges and it came up with a different answer for different circumstances and that makes me feel good and you can proceed and we don’t have to set over here and say I hope that they don’t ask us the wrong question or the right question, we know that you did the right thing by looking at these and pointing out the differences and they’re valid differences and that’s why I bring it up as much as anything.

Vice President Stradling stated, well, it’s always good to point that out because sometimes it looked different it didn’t look as apparently wrong as some of the other things that we have seen but, not saying that though doesn’t do the record any good I guess.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, not saying that doesn’t do the record any good and saying it makes all of the difference folks, that’s determination, that’s findings of fact and I know that’s a bug a boo for a lot of people what in the heck is the court is talking about when they use those words but, findings of fact is nothing more than I found that I’m sitting in a chair.

Vice President Stradling stated, we looked for answers and we found them.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you looked for answers and you found them and you found them because of these facts that you said on the record. We’re done.

Vice President Stradling asked, anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I have something that I would like to ask, special exceptions, special exception as required in the Ordinance for a specific use, we require a survey if on a survey it is shown the improvements that will be made to the property, what grounds to we have to, if it was not mentioned in the meeting do we have the right to hold them to that survey as to what they are doing to that property?

Attorney Altman stated, that survey controls almost as much as the special exception. Now if the survey is wrong, that is different but, no the survey…

Director Weaver stated, what they are wanting to do is not change it, it’s just the location of where they are going to do it on the property.

Attorney Altman stated, they should get it amended.

Director Weaver asked, by coming back through the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, you have to get it amended.

Vice President Stradling asked, can they get it amended if it is not changing it, if they are moving further away from the property line or doing something like that so, we have already granted it this close if they are moving…

Director Weaver stated, and that’s exactly what they are doing, they proposed this on one end of the property and they are moving it more to the other end of the property.

Attorney Altman stated, I would tell you that the way the banks are anymore with these surveys that the special exception they might get by with it with the bank and they might go ahead and do it but, I would say that the proven practice is if you miss that much money, you should come in and get it amended.

Vice President Stradling asked, can we approve that the office amend that or do we have to make them come through the full process?

Attorney Altman stated, full process.

Director Weaver asked, filing fee, advertising?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I’m sorry but, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, would that not be if the Board has voted on it one way and that’s the way that it needs to be done and if they want to do something different then it’s a whole other ball game?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that’s why I’m asking, I just wanted a clarification.

Attorney Altman stated, I think so, I think we have had to go that way as little as I like to do that when you’re doing that but, with a variance if you minimize that, that’s different but, a special exception, you’re pretty well locked into that, what was there.

Jeff Saylor asked, is the special, when we grant a special exception though is that granted to the whole property?


Vice President Stradling asked, or to the owner?


Attorney Altman stated, to the proposal of the survey.


Jeff Saylor stated, the whole property.


Attorney Altman stated, as presented, in other words if they wanted to add another member to the change the number of people in CDC’s they need to have that amended and approved. I think that’s the best practice.

Jeff Saylor asked, here’s another question not to run this thing out but, we have had variance that have had to operating a business out of a residential area or something like that and if we approve a special exception if someone wanted a photography studio in their house and if they moved that from their house to their garage, do they have to come in then and have that redone? That would be the same thing.

Attorney Altman stated, I think so.

Gary Barbour asked, if they didn’t specify what room of the house that it was going to be in or anything…

Attorney Altman stated, if they didn’t specify then that’s different…

Jeff Saylor asked, fi they just say that it’s going to be in their home but, they move it out of their home into the garage…

Attorney Altman stated, no I think that’s right if they just said it’s in the home…

Jeff Saylor asked, or when we grant a special exception is it granted to that owner and that piece of property?

Attorney Altman stated, I think it’s to the proposal as presented.

Gary Barbour stated, so depending if they say that it’s going to go in this corner here, that’s what the special exception is for.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, and if they are moving it from that corner to the center then depending on what the proposal was…

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it depends on the proposal and the record that was made.

Vice President Stradling stated, but, it’s kind of like speeding, isn’t it?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can say is, it’s kind of like that may be and some situations but, that doesn’t justify when you go fast and not caught.

Jeff Saylor asked, did you get an answer to your question?

Director Weaver stated, yes but, the next thing that I’m going to come back and say can you show me that in writing, I need it in writing.

Attorney Altman stated, I will give it to you in writing.

Director Weaver stated, I’ll need it, that’s all that I have.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anything else? Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission