Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, May 16th, 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, Jerry Thompson and Jeff Saylor. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Ben & Martha Stefaniak, Joseph Bumbleburg, Constance Bumbleburg, Jeff Hendress, Deanna Hendress, Carey Jordan, Emerson & Barbara Enyart, Brad Erwood (for Pauline Schiavona), Charles R. Mellon, Chuck & Eileen Wiltfong, Dan & Joan Sheets, Kent A. Pollack, Patty Pollack, Jay & Shonia Hart, John James, Rosie Gunther, Bruce Gunther, Mike Kyburz, Kenneth Kyburz, Martin Garcia, Chad Sellmer, Terry Babka, Kerry Mueller, Holly Mueller, Courtney Kendall, Rich Kendall and Randy Williams.

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

Attorney Altman informed the audience of the procedures of the meeting.

Brad Erwood asked, actually, I’m representing my grandmother that couldn’t be here today due to poor health. I don’t have anything signed from her, would I want to, if I’m opposed to something, would I want to table that issue or will I speak on her behalf?

Attorney Altman stated, you can do what ever you deem you want to do. I can’t advise you, you have to make your own decision on that.

Brad Erwood stated, I see.

President Thompson stated, let's wait until we address that particular variance if that’s fine with you, we will kind of see how it is.

Brad Erwood stated, fair enough.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

David Scott made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the March 21, 2002 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously.

Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the April 18, 2002 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously.


****

#2100 John A. James; Requesting a 4’ rear setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing detached garage into compliance on Lot 71, Part Lot 77, Part Lot 72 & Part of Platted Unimproved Road. The property is located near Lowes Bridge at 4451 E. Amos Drive.

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

John James was present to representing this request.

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

John James stated, no, I don’t.

President Thompson asked, do you have that file?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I do.

President Thompson asked, is there any correspondence?

Attorney Altman stated, let me review it, I don’t think so.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything for the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, no, I don’t, there’s nothing in the file.

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to speak, opposed to the variance or for?

Emerson Enyart stated, neither one, I have a property adjoining….

President Thompson asked, excuse me, could we have your name?

Emerson Enyart announced his name.

President Thompson asked, could you come to the microphone please? Thank you and go ahead.

Emerson Enyart stated, we have lot 36, 37, and 38. If this variance is going to land lock any property on it, they should be advised that wouldn’t be able to be changed, that would be land locked forever. So, I’m not opposed to it myself but if this is going to land lock someone I think that it should be view very carefully if we make a decision on it.

Attorney Altman asked, you lot is what sir?

Emerson Enyart stated, 36, 37, and 38.

Attorney Altman asked, have you seen the survey?

Emerson Enyart stated, well I don’t have, I don’t know what it would be physically but, I have this but, I don’t know how much of a…

Attorney Altman asked, that is what you’re aware of the vacation of the street?

Emerson Enyart stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and…

Emerson Enyart asked, Mr. James stopped out of, where is Mr. James?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s right there.

Emerson Enyart stated, you stopped out at the end of lot 36.

John James stated, whatever it says on the survey there.

Emerson Enyart asked, yes, before the variance was stopped at lot 36, wasn’t it?

John James stated, it looks that way from this but, this isn’t current Attorney Altman has it…

Emerson Enyart asked, if I understand this right, this is the, this was left open here from here but, there was going to be enough room, Mr. James there was going to be enough room there for people to go through?

Attorney Altman asked, John?

John James asked, I’m sorry?

Attorney Altman stated, question here from…

Emerson Enyart asked, is there still going to be enough room for someone to go….

John James stated, yes, remember you mentioned about you wanted to be able to pull your boat back there…

Emerson Enyart asked, I mean for the other property owners, is that going to land lock them forever?

John James stated, no.

Emerson Enyart asked, how much room will that be between the, what you’re asking for and…

John James stated, I would say 12’ approximately.

Emerson Enyart asked, they would have 12’? They are not going to be, that’s enough room for a vehicle to go through?

John James stated, I think so.

Emerson Enyart stated, like I said this isn’t going to effect me but, I’m talking down the road 30, 40 or 50 years, if these people are going to be landlocked forever. I think that he should review it and know where they are.

Carol Stradling asked, do they have access to the homes from West Shafer Drive?

John James stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they do.

Carol Stradling asked, and that is currently their access to their home?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

John James stated, exactly.

Carol Stradling asked, so the unimproved road so the roadway, half of it roughly was unimproved and a portion of it, is already vacated?

Director Weaver stated, already vacated.

John James stated, already vacated, we would like a variance for the garage.

Carol Stradling asked, right but, it indicates here that he has vacated part of the platted roadway but, the part that you haven’t yet vacated there are no plans to vacate?

John James stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, and that is the access that you were referring to.

John James stated, right.

Emerson Enyart stated, it’s not going to affect me. I’m looking at down the road, I have had these lots for 40 years and in another 40 years the ground will still be there if these people are going to be landlocked.

Carol Stradling stated, it shouldn’t be and there’s, there’s access back to the vacated portion. They also have access to their homes from West Shafer Drive and also Amos Drive for the other side so…

Emerson Enyart stated, correct but, there is going to be a minimum…

Carol Stradling stated, it wouldn’t be a public roadway it would just be an access.

Emerson Enyart stated, no, it would just be an access for these people if a fire truck or an ambulance or something like that needed to get through and they couldn’t get through from the main road, this is an access for them. If there’s enough room there for them, like I said, I’m not concerned for myself but I think that it’s only fair for these people down the road to know where they are going to be.

President Thompson stated, I think that we understand your position.

Emerson Enyart stated, so, if Mr. James says that there is enough room there for emergency vehicles or something like that, like I said, I’m not objecting myself I’m just looking a few years down the road I would be looking out for you as well as someone else.

John James stated, I understand.

President Thompson asked, any one else care to speak for or against the variance this evening? Any questions or concerns from the Board? None, Carol, Dave?

Attorney Altman asked, single story garage?

John James asked, I’m sorry what?

Attorney Altman asked, single story garage?

John James stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anything else from the Board? If not is the Board ready to vote? Then 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’ rear setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing detached garage into compliance on that part of a platted unimproved road in Amos Oak Crest Third Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 71 in said Addition; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 27 seconds East along the North line of said Lot 71 a distance of 83.00 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence North 00 degrees 05 minutes 33 seconds East 14.50 feet; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 27 seconds East 59.94 feet; thence South 25 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds East 16.13 feet to the North line of lot 72 in said Addition; thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes 27 seconds West 67.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.021 of an Acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 4451 E. Amos 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 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit, that shows this in compliance.

John James stated, thank you.

****

#2101 Bruce J. & Rosie E. Gunther; Requesting a 30’ front setback variance from 3rd Street, a 19’ front setback variance from Ireland Street, a 6’ East side setback variance, and a 16’ rear setback variance to bring the home into compliance so they can rebuild after a fire on 32’ x 100’. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 530 Ireland Street.

President Thompson asked, before we get started here what is the 32’ x 100’?

Director Weaver stated, that is the dimensions of their lot.

President Thompson asked, I thought so. Is there anyone here representing this variance?

Bruce Gunther stated, I’m the one going after a variance to get a permit to start building.

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

Bruce Gunther stated, no, I don’t.

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

Director Weaver stated, I have nothing to add. They did go through a rezoning, the property was not properly zoned either so they have gone though a rezoning to bring that into compliance.

President Thompson asked, any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, I have not had any response form anyone, no.

Attorney Altman asked, the building back, on the footprint, where the old one was, is that where…

Director Weaver stated, I have not yet seen plans as to what they are doing, I cannot answer that.

Greg Viney stated, I’m the one that is helping Bruce. We’re going to put it right back on the existing foundation because, the existing foundation itself wasn’t damaged and most of the house was just more of a smoke and heat damage more than anything except for the front 8’ of it.

Carol Stradling asked, so the reason that this home was there, it needed to be rezoning, and it needed these variances is because it was grandfathered in? That home was built before all of this took place?

Bruce Gunther stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and now you have lost the home to fire and you want to replace that?

Bruce Gunther stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to speak either in favor or against the variance this evening? Attorney Altman, do you have anything? Board comments, or question? Nothing? 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 30’ front setback variance from 3rd Street, a 19’ front setback variance from Ireland Street, a 6’ East side setback variance, and a 16’ rear setback variance to bring the home into compliance so they can rebuild after a fire on a tract of land out of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West, described as follows:

Beginning at a point 50 feet North and 32 feet East of the Northwest corner of Lot Number Twenty (20) in the Industrial Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, Indiana; Thence North One Hundred (100) feet; thence West Thirty-two (32) feet; thence South One Hundred (100) feet; thence East Thirty-two (32) feet to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 530 Ireland Street.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, based upon representation that this is replacement of the existing or old grandfathered home, the variance request was granted. You need to get a building permit first please.

****

President Thompson stated, Director Weaver go ahead, you have something. We kind of got the cart before the horse here.

Director Weaver stated, well, I wasn’t in here when we first started the meeting, before we go any farther I would like to introduce to the Board our new secretary in the office, her name is Molly Sage and I would like to welcome her to the office.

President Thompson stated, okay.

****

#2102 Danny & Joan Sheets; Requesting a 5 ½’ North side setback variance to build an addition and a 21’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 13 in First Addition. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 305 N. Burke Street.

President Thompson stated, so you must be…

Danny Sheets stated, I’m he…

President Thompson asked, you’re he, do you have anything to add to that tonight sir?

Danny Sheets stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, how old is the existing home?

Danny Sheets stated, well, close to 100 probably….

Attorney Altman asked, probably before zoning right?

Danny Sheets stated, oh yes.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought from looking at the photo but I just wanted it on the record.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything?

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

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

Carol Stradling asked, you are just building a little small addition?

Danny Sheets stated, yes, ma’am.

Carol Stradling asked, 9’ by what about 4’5”?

Danny Sheets stated, about 6’, where the garage came out to, it’s right even with the garage.

Carol Stradling asked, and will that be part of the garage then or part of the house?

Danny Sheets stated, part of the house.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Danny Sheets stated, I’m going to have house stuff in it so it will be like a little office.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I, it just seemed kind of small and I wondered.

Danny Sheets stated, it’s just going to be like a little…

Joan Sheets stated, it’s just like and outlet off of the kitchen to hold a computer and things like that, an office.

Attorney Altman asked, is that Mrs. Sheets talking?

Joan Sheets stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anyone else? Board anyone? Nothing? Is the Board ready to vote, we’ll vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5 ½’ North side setback variance to build an addition and a 21’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 13 in First Addition to the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott, at 305 N. Burke Street.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed and being that close to the neighbor, they will probably require a firewall when you build it okay. Talk to the building inspector.

Danny Sheets stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2103 Jeffrey L. & Deanna D. Hendress; Requesting a 15’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on .085 of an acre. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott on the West side of Davis Street, between Fox Street and North Street.

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

Jeffrey Hendress was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, and do you have anything else that you would like to present to us sir?

Jeffrey Hendress stated, no, I don’t, sir.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything from any of the neighbors.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Jeffrey Hendress stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and no living space in there, just you’re…

Jeffrey Hendress stated, storage.

Attorney Altman stated, storage, okay.

President Thompson asked, anyone else care to speak either for or against the variance?

Carol Stradling asked, is your home lot 8?

Jeffrey Hendress stated, our home is lot 7 but we own lot 8 also, which is right behind our home and then this lot.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, I think that they are showing lot 8 being North and then 7 in-between…

Jeffrey Hendress stated, okay, I have the wrong end, okay the home is on the corner I must have the wrong thing, we own both of those lots to the North.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, and this building will be a garage or just a storage building?

Jeffery Hendress stated, garage and storage we’re going to add a couple of garage doors.

Carol Stradling stated, that will be a large garage.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else from anyone?

Carol Stradling asked, do you have a design plan for it yet?

Jeffrey Hendress stated, not yet, we haven’t gone that far, we just got the dimensions but, no, I would assume that you will need the outline plan.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Jeffrey Hendress stated, there will be a couple of storage bays there for cars. We have a couple of collector cars, we keep them in the one end there, and then the other end will have lawnmowers and things like that.

Carol Stradling stated, I was just wondering. There’s a lot of vacant lots it seems in the area and a lot of space but, there is also some residences also and I didn’t know if your garage or storage building would be tying into the older homes or if it would like a pole building.

Jeffrey Hendress stated, it’s not going to be a pole there is going to be a concrete foundation with studs.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so it will be built…

Jeffrey Hendress stated, not a stick, it’s a stick built, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else? If not are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site 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 15’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in the Town of Wolcott, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at a ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) at the Southeast corner of Lot 7 in Sheets Addition No. 2 to the Town of Wolcott; thence South 00 degrees 22 minutes West along the West line of Davis Street 70.00 feet to an I.P. found; thence West 52.97 feet to an I.P. found; thence North 70.00 feet to an I.P. found; thence East 53.42 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.085 of an acre more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Wolcott on the West side of Davis Street, between Fox Street and North Street.

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

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

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

Jeffery Hendress stated, thank you.

****

#2104 Kent & Polly Pollack and Ron Pollock; Requesting a 15’ rear setback variance to place a manufactured home on Lot 2 in Albertson 3rd Addition. The property is located North of Monticello of 5355 Blue Bell Park Road.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Kent Pollack stated, Kent Pollack.

President Thompson asked, you are Kent Pollack, okay thank you. Okay, we have blue prints here. Do you have anything that you care to present to the Board this evening?

Kent Pollack stated, no, that’s pretty much it.

President Thompson stated, okay. Director Weaver, do you have anything for the Board?

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

President Thompson asked, do you want to make any comments on this?

Director Weaver stated, there was a variance granted at one time on this property and my understanding is they never did put the structure that they had requested at that time on the property. This structure is longer than that other structure was and that it why they are coming back to you for another variance.

President Thompson asked, anyone else care to address this variance this evening either for or against? Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, you understand that if this variance is granted, the other one would be voided?

Kent Pollack stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, the old one.

Kent Pollack stated, the other variance also has two other sides that have to stay intact.

Director Weaver stated, what he’s stating is that the previous variance allowed for the 6’ side and a 19’ front and he needs that portion of that variance to stay valid.

Kent Pollack stated, right.

Attorney Altman asked, he needs that side and…

Director Weaver stated, and the front.

Attorney Altman asked, and the front, okay, and he’s changing the variance on the rear then?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, obviously, it was advertised that way, it was advertised that way.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, that would be all right.

Kent Pollack stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, if it is approved.

President Thompson asked, are there any questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, is the mobile home that we are looking at, is that it or is that the cottage that is…

Director Weaver stated, it’s the proposed home.

Carol Stradling asked, so it’s already in place?

Kent Pollack stated, the original variance was for that mobile and a garage, we never built the garage so, that mobile comes out and it’s going to go to the landfill. Then new manufactured home on a permanent foundation will go in place of that. That is an older mobile home that we want to get rid of.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, so all that you want to do is take out that mobile home and put in a manufactured home?

Kent Pollack stated, correct but the manufactured home will be longer so we need this variance to make it fit.

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re not going any closer to the property lines on the side or the road just close to the water?

Kent Pollack stated no, the rear setback is the road, and the water is the front. That is staying intact and the side will stay intact. The other side we’re okay with.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so the only part of the other variance that you didn’t act on was to build the garage?

Kent Pollack stated, correct.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else? Gary, Dave? Nothing?

Attorney Altman asked, is this on the sewer system Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, no, not at this time?

Attorney Altman asked, will it be?

Director Weaver stated, on down the line, I don’t know.

Attorney Altman asked, is it in the plans?

Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of.

Attorney Altman stated, you know that your sewer system has to be approved by the Health Department.

Kent Pollack stated, that has been.

Attorney Altman asked, has been already, water and all?

Kent Pollack stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, you have a storage shed on the roadside, will that be removed or is that…

Kent Pollack stated, yes, it’s in the way.

Carol Stradling asked, that where the…

Kent Pollack stated, that’s where the garage was to be, we never built it and we put a storage shed there in place.

Carol Stradling asked, and the new home will be sitting on at least part of that shed won’t it?

Kent Pollack stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, so they will both go?

Kent Pollack stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, Board, anything else? Are we ready to vote? Sorry Jeff, are you thinking, all right?

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 15’ rear setback variance to place a manufactured home on Lot #2 in Albertson 3rd Addition of Blue Bell Park in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5355 Blue Bell Park Road.

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

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

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

****

#2105 Buchler Contracting Inc., Owner & Raymond J. Buchler, Applicant; Requesting a 3’ North side setback variance, a 5’ South side setback variance to build a new home and a 2’ North side setback variance to build a new detached garage on Lot 19 in Stahl’s Subdivision. The property is North of Monticello located at 5919 N. Stahl Road.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Ray Buchler stated, Ray Buchler.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything that you care to present to us tonight?

Ray Buchler stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything that needs to be mentioned?

Director Weaver stated, we did have a neighbor call that had some questions, no indication, just wanting some information, other than that I have nothing.

An audience member stated, we’re the neighbors.

Director Weaver stated, you’re the neighbor that called, okay.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing being with a 5’ side, since probably that is close and close to the home which is 2’ that will have to be fire proof the wall, for your protection honestly. The other side should be done and I’m not sure what the building inspector will do on that.

Ray Buchler stated, I’m thinking about brick anyway so…

Attorney Altman stated, that would be fire proof, assuming that this is approved.

Director Weaver stated, I did give the Board members a copy of the new survey that we just received a couple of days ago, I also gave the neighbor a copy of that. I did want to mention on that survey, these dimensions that are shown on here does not include the overhang’s, we have discussed that with Mr. Buchler and it was a 1’ over hang….

Ray Buchler stated, 1’ overhang, a standard.

Director Weaver stated, so we need to keep that in mind when we’re looking at this request.

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this for or against?

Eileen Wiltfong asked, I don’t know that it has anything to do with it but, they have us as being 2’ from the line and were are not squared. Our house there is more in the back than there is in the front. So if the front is 2’ the back is more than 2’ and as I said, I don’t know if that has anything to do with him going so far from his property line but, its showing that our house is square to the line and I don’t believe that it is.

President Thompson asked, are you aware of what she’s, did you go out and look at that?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I think that you can tell that in the pictures, the houses don’t run parallel as they exist now, I can’t tell you exactly where the property line is but, it does appear that it is angled.

Attorney Altman asked, so this structure here will be removed?

Director Weaver asked, that is my understanding, is that correct?

Ray Buchler stated, correct.

Attorney Altman asked, and a new one put in?

Ray Buchler stated more square to the lot line which will pull it a little bit away in the front and away from Chuck and Eileen’s house.

President Thompson asked, could what she’s saying, is that, I appreciate her adding, that’s not a concern so much is it, or am I missing something?

Director Weaver stated, well, what she’s indicating is that I believe that this part of the survey but the house actually angles.

President Thompson asked, but, the 2’ is probably the nearest….

Director Weaver asked, that is the nearest point, is that correct?

Eileen Wiltfong stated, that is the nearest point but, what I’m tying to say is it won’t be 2’ in the back it will be more than 2’.

Attorney Altman asked, your house is to the North of the proposed?

Eileen Wiltfong stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anyone else for or against? Carol, do you have anything?

Carol Stradling asked, there is a house there now and that house will be removed?

Ray Buchler stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, and will it have the same, will the new one have the same footprint? No…

Ray Buchler stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, it will be completely different, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, how many bedrooms, home?

Ray Buchler stated, 4 bedroom.

Attorney Altman asked, obviously, on the sewer system?

Ray Buchler stated, yes, it’s already on and it works fine.

David Scott asked, the new house, will it be bigger, longer, or will it block any view or anything?

Ray Buchler stated, no that’s why when Jim drew it first, he had it forward, I moved it back so that it wouldn’t block the view, that’s why you got a copy of that, I wanted to be even with Eileen’s house.

President Thompson asked, anyone else? Board?

Attorney Altman asked, the existing garage is torn down, with the new garage?

Ray Buchler stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I thought.

President Thompson stated, if there is nothing else, are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned 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’ North side setback variance, a 5’ South side setback

variance to build a new home and a 2’ North side setback variance to build a new detached garage on Lot 19 in Stahl’s Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5919 N. Stahl Road.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get building permits for the proposed garage and the house and quite frankly as a side, I want to complement you on coming in ahead of time. We have had a rash of people from our local area and contractors too, that come in after the fact and I appreciate you coming in ahead of.

Ray Buchler stated, I’m trying.

Attorney Altman stated, it seems elementary but we appreciate that very much.

Ray Buchler stated, my pleasure.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

****

#2106 Terry Babka; Requesting a 4’ East side setback variance, a 3’ Rear (South) setback variance and a 23’ Front (North) setback variance to build a room addition to attach the existing house and the existing detached garage and to bring it into compliance on Lot 71 in Gingrich Addition. Also, a 3’ Front setback variance to build an Unroofed Deck on the home. The property is located in South of Monticello at 5819 E. Sheridan Road.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this request?

Terry Babka asked, can I move this down in the order, my attorney is suppose to be here. He’s not here yet.

President Thompson asked, we can do that can’t we?

Attorney Altman stated, no problem. I assumed since Joe was here…

Joe Bumbleburg stated, Mr. Williams will be doing it and he will be here shortly.

President Thompson stated, okay, we will delay that one, not table it but, delay it until later.

****

#2107 Kenneth E. Kyburz; Requesting a 32’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch on the front of the home and a 4’ North side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on .80 of an acre. The property is located in Idaville at 208 S. West Street.

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

Mike Kyburz was present to represent this request.

President Thompson asked, and your relationship to Kenneth Kyburz?

Mike Kyburz stated, he’s my father and this is him.

President Thompson asked, just so we understand who everyone is here. Do you have anything to add to the description to that?

Mike Kyburz stated, no sir.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I do. When Mr. Kyburz came into the office to apply for his variance we realized that he was encroaching on the county road right-of-way. I then recommended him to go through the County Commissioners and get an agreement with them to encroach on the county right-of-way. You did receive one in your packet that we mailed to you. You are receiving a new one tonight with your pictures. There, Attorney Altman looked at this and it was a little unclear as to what was going on. It made it sound like they were approving what was existing but, was not allowing anything new so he had him go back to the Commissioners and this new agreement does note that it is for the proposed porch.

Attorney Altman stated, and the existing porch, and it just allowed it to be there and the other didn’t have for proposed and that’s the difference.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Does anyone else care to address this either for or against? No one? Questions or concerns from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, the last page is signed by the White County Board of Commissioner’s excuse my ignorance but, is Kenneth Kyburz a County Commissioner?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, because, it has the title of the White County Board of Commissioners and it has John C. Heimlich and Ronald A Schmierer and O.D. Bud Fergerson. His name was immediately following and I didn’t want to assume that he was a County Commissioner.

Attorney Altman stated, no, I just think that it shows that he is a party to the agreement and he is the applicant or the person requesting the owner of the lot and someone didn’t quite separate, double space on that.

Carol Stradling stated, that’s what I thought but I didn’t want to assume.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Nothing at all, I guess that we’re ready to vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 32’ front setback variance to build a roofed porch on the front of the home and a 4’ North side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Beginning 100 feet West of the West line of State Street, in the Town of Hannah (or Idaville) and 50 feet South of the center of the P.C.C. & St. L. Railroad tracks, thence West along the South line of said Railroad right-of-way 481 feet; thence South 107 feet; thence East 64 feet; thence North 2 feet, thence East 394 feet; thence South 59 feet; thence East 120 feet; thence North 91 feet; thence West 100 feet; thence North to place of beginning, being out of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 2 West.

ALSO, the following described tract, to wit: Beginning on the West side of State Street in the Town of Hannah (or Idaville) 90 feet South of the center of the P.C.C. & St. L Railroad Right-of-Way, thence West 100 feet on a line with said right-of-way, thence South 50 feet, thence East 100 feet to the West line of said State Street, thence North 50 feet to the place of beginning, being out of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 2 West, and containing in both of said described tracts 1.95 acres, more or less.

EXCEPT: the following described piece or parcel of land: Beginning 100 feet West of the West line of State Street in the Town of Hannah (or Idaville) and 50 feet South of the center of the P.C.C. & St. L Railroad tracks, thence West along the South line of said railroad right-of-way 481 feet, thence South 107 feet, thence East 64 feet, thence North 2 feet, thence East 404 feet; thence North 82 feet, more or less, to a point 40 feet South of the P.C.C. & St. L Railroad right-of-way, thence East 10 feet; thence North 40 feet to the place of beginning. Being out of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 2 West.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Idaville at 208 S. West Street.

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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit consistent with this.

****

#2108 Bronislaw L. & Martha B. Stefaniak; Requesting a 3’ Front (Main Street) Setback Variance and a 2’ Side Setback Variance to build a home on Lot 2 in Stefaniak Subdivision. The property is located in the City of Monticello on the Northwest corner of St. Mary’s Avenue and N. Main Street.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance tonight?

Ben Stefaniak stated, to clarify things now and I will give you each a copy so that you can understand, I didn’t the other night but, I did today. There was some questions brought up, the reason that we had to go, I got a 28’ x 50’ house and so we need 3’ more. I didn’t understand that the overhang is part of what has to go under the proposed sidelines so anyway, there is an easement for the store through the alley and then goes across my property and I have an easement going though there. There is another thing that says that there is no sidewalk in front of this house well there is a sidewalk in front of the duplex and this will be extended all of the way to Main Street. Any questions on that? It’s going to be our, next page it will be a Lexington Home it’s made by Heckaman Homes it’s not a manufactured home, it’s not made by a trailer outfit this is made by a regular, it has a 5/12 pitch. It is made by a modular homebuilder, it’s built exactly like a home only it’s built in the confines of a building. It has Crestline windows, Merrillat cabinets I think a cherry trim on it, and it’s a nice looking home. I put some 2’ x 4’s up there to depict the corners of the house of course that includes the overhang and there is one from the front of the house where it would be next to the duplex. It shows ample room there and this is the way that it would look on the other side, this is the way it would look South. There is the adjoining building across the street, which I think that it is a 3 apartment duplex, this is the view to the North, and hopefully we would not hurt that little tree there that was planted many years ago. I keep hearing that the duplex across the street is a sore spot to everyone, well I didn’t, I could have bought that lot, and I couldn’t figure out how anyone could put on two duplexes on it. How that happened I don’t know but I know that it’s not a good situation. I think that this situation will be an attribute to the City, it will probably bring in about 1,000 dollars more for the taxes to the City, which I’m sure that they could use. Someone can live in that home that will be leased and they will be able to go to Arni’s and Dollar General and go downtown. Are there any questions?

David Scott asked, you’ve proposed an easement to go across the other property for the sewers?

Ben Stefaniak stated, yes.

David Scott asked, is it a permanent easement?

Ben Stefaniak stated, permanent easement.

David Scott asked, how wide is that?

Ben Stefaniak stated, I think 10’ somewhere in there.

David Scott asked, I guess my question is…

Ben Stefaniak stated, I could go from the front either way to the other.

David Scott asked, what about the water services?

Ben Stefaniak stated, they come off of Main Street.

David Scott asked, okay, will there be an easement for this guy in the back to because his water line, how does his water line get to his property?

Ben Stefaniak stated, I don’t know.

David Scott stated, I know….

Ben Stefaniak stated, I own this property too, I own both properties. If it needs an easement or whatever….

David Scott asked, does this have to go before the Monticello City Board?

Director Weaver stated, no, a variance that’s it.

David Scott stated, I know that Jay’s concerns is the other night but, I ran into the same situation with if this persons water line comes across this guys property, he will need an easement…

Ben Stefaniak stated, right of way, yes, that’s no…

David Scott stated, even though you own them both now his concern was just like if the property gets sold to different people down the road…

Ben Stefaniak stated, well, at first he said that they couldn’t be sold that it had to both be sold the same person but, this is not true it can be sold…

David Scott stated, I don’t know about that but…

Ben Stefaniak stated, well, that’s what he stated…

David Scott stated, yes, if it can be sold to different people it’s going to be, they will have easements for both….

Ben Stefaniak stated, easements or reroute it or whatever, it was an easement, it shouldn’t be any big problem.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver do you have anything or Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, this matter was before the Area Plan Commission on a subdivision of lot 2, lot 1, and lot 2. At that subdivision hearing the Board, Area Plan voted 7 to 1 denying the subdivision for the reasons, several reasons of which Mr. Stefaniak is trying to remedy by these additions that he has put on what I call exhibit A that he has passed out this evening. For the record that shows an easement for sewer to alley and it shows that it is on part of lot 8. The proposed sidewalk and I agree quite frankly with Mr. Stefaniak, he’s attempting to meet the, as Dave said some of the concerns that were raised at that Area Plan meeting. At this time with the vote in the Area Plan Commission there is no lot 1 or lot 2 there is just the larger tract of ground. That needs to be, that would have to happen and I don’t know where we got one before the other or one after other. The only thing that I can tell you is the subdivision vote is negative on this and there were several concerns and Mr. Stefaniak is trying to remedy them right now with this. I don’t, with the City Council and with the Area Plan Commission, they would very much like to have these easements located specifically on the tracts before they would in fact vote or what to approve it. I would recommend that we do the same thing as a body here. I know that there were also concerns about sidewalks along North Main Street and I’m sure Mr. Stefaniak has no trouble about remedying that either but, that isn’t on here. So that, I think that he’s going the right way to do the right thing. Although, there was real concern about density, real concern on the Area Plan about density. Again, you’re right Mr. Stefaniak they were talking about the tract across the way but, they were also focusing on this tract too as being I think that….

Ben Stefaniak stated, I think I should have put up the 2’ x 4’s to where the home would be situation on the lot. To me I’m an ex-engineer, this doesn’t seem to be, I don’t know if you people have looked at posts on the corners where the house would be but it doesn’t seem to me that it would detrimental.

Gary Barbour asked, is the new house going to have a garage or anything?

Ben Stefaniak stated, no, there is not enough room for a garage.

Gary Barbour asked, so it’s just going to be street parking?

Ben Stefaniak stated, it’s 28’ x 50’, yes, there’s parking right here, they park for these duplexes right here and this would be the same, this sidewalk would just carry on from where the duplexes are here all of the way down to Main Street, they have a sidewalk all of the way. There is a sidewalk in front of the duplexes.

Carol Stradling asked, and this is a 3-bedroom home?

Ben Stefaniak stated, yes, 3 bedroom, 2 bath, I should have brought the plan, it is a beautiful home.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s here.

Ben Stefaniak stated, cathedral ceilings.

Attorney Altman stated, the other thing the lot #8 there was a concern about it having, one time and I’m not sure exactly a variance that required this part of lot, be used as parking. Mr. Stefaniak is talking about eliminating this variance that was granted and I really believe that these things all need to be put in black and white and go on the proposed plan whet it’s a subdivision or just a sketch before the Board before we vote.

President Thompson asked, does the Board follow what Attorney Altman is saying? I tend to agree too, additional information, the specifics need to be put on paper here. Does anyone else see it that way?

Ben Stefaniak asked, well what else, I don’t understand what else has to be put on…

Attorney Altman stated, first would be the exact dimensions of the easement and for the sewer and water that you are talking about. The exact dimensions of the sidewalk, I should say, and the other things that were addressed by the Area Plan Commission. They need to be incorporated a little bit more so that we have a unified proposal in plan and hopefully eliminating what I perceived as their concerns about the increased density in this area. I think that you are trying to meet that and don’t get me wrong Mr. Stefaniak but I think that since they are not going to meet for a month….

Ben Stefaniak stated, well, I have the house already, I’m loosing 5,000 dollars so, I think that, I’m just going to forget the whole thing. I’m not going to sit and battle everyone I, rezoned from business to residential so I could do this, everyone was complaining, like if I made a business over there would be so many cars going out there that you couldn’t get into the street. So I’m rezoning it from business to residential and now I’m trying to put something through there and it’s a battle all of the way so I think that I will just forget it. I’m going to loose 5,000 dollars on the deal but no…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m proposing that you just put the continued the good work that you have done in securing a proper subdivision and a proper variance, that’s all that I’m proposing and requesting. I believe that both bodies would like for that to happen and I think that in the end it would work best for everyone. Because of the vote Monday evening, we’re not at liberty, if we granted this variance it would have to be subject to and contingent upon the subdivision being approved next month. If it was presented next month so it’s not like I’m trying to take extra time. I’m just trying to do it and do it right one Mr. Stefaniak but, if you want to withdraw your request you can I just want to do it and do it correctly that’s all.

Ben Stefaniak asked, I have to make more plans and bring them up at the next meeting or what?

Attorney Altman stated, at the very least get the things on there that both bodies have requested about locating the easement and that sort of thing so that we know really where it is. You would have to do it anyway because, to dedicate it, it’s a subdivision of a tract of ground that is being dedicated to this subdivision area so it would have to be located anyway. So what I’m just saying is let's do it and do it correctly.

Ben Stefaniak asked, I can do that by tomorrow is that fine?

Attorney Altman stated, we would hear it next meting and that would be….

Director Weaver stated, the cut off for the next meeting is tomorrow, that’s what he’s referring to.

David Scott asked, can we vote on this with something that says that he has to have these two easements recorded and this proposed sidewalk and is here anything else we can vote on with those contingencies?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s loosy goosy…

President Thompson asked, wouldn’t it be better off to just table it until next month or should we re-advertise?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that he has to re-advertise I think that all that he has to do is locate this properly and get the subdivision approved by the Area Plan Commission and then come to us of the with a proposal that has these specifically on there. Located just like he has to for the Subdivision Control Ordinance, that’s all that I’m saying and…

President Thompson asked, Jeff, not to cut you off Attorney Altman Jeff, you have something to say?

Jeff Saylor stated, no I was just thinking.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s about all that I have to say, just you generally have to have them located. You have to have those located for a subdivision and they have to be located specifically and designated on this and since we want to look at the same thing I just suggest that we have that and that we do that.

Carol Stradling stated, if they need to be located, I don’t know how the Subdivision Ordinance is located if the sewer and the water and the sidewalks need to be located for that subdivision to be approved and then that will be done according to their regulations at that time?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but obviously as always the regulations allow for leeway and you know as long as you meet the standard. People do it with a little more or a little less always and in a subdivision sometimes the standards are a one acre lot, put in a larger lot to make it nicer and better. The easement here is, can’t spout you exactly what the minimum requirements are and I suppose but, I don’t I also don’t know exactly what Mr. Stefaniak wants to do and we can’t name his poisons so to speak. He doesn’t have an approved subdivision and that’s what we’re coming upon and requirement for this variance.

Gary Barbour stated, yes but, he really didn’t get his subdivision the other day either because…..

Attorney Altman stated, no, he didn’t.

Gary Barbour stated, but, the reason that he didn’t though is because, he didn’t have…

Attorney Altman stated, these things…

Gary Barbour stated, and of these variances here I guess what I’m saying here and I guess what I hear him mention is right. What exactly do you want met, to have so that he can do it, so when he gets his house he can place it. I guess what I’m hearing here is new. We need to tell him what he needs to do and that would be to put the easements on, put the…

Ben Stefaniak stated, the length of the sidewalk, where it’s located…

Gary Barbour stated, the sidewalk where it’s located….

Ben Stefaniak stated, easement for what I guess or whatever….

Gary Barbour stated, right.

Ben Stefaniak stated, I will just have to go down to the survey and tell him to put it on paper…

Gary Barbour stated, right, just like what you’re going to have to do for an original or your primary on the subdivision, put all of that ton there and then run it right through again.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, I agree.

Gary Barbour stated, I guess if I were doing it, I would table it until the next meeting to make sure that you have all of that for the next meeting but go through everything.

Ben Stefaniak stated, I have been eating on this thing for about 2 years, after a while, meetings get kind of old.

President Thompson stated, well, it’s your call, Mr. Stefaniak.

Ben Stefaniak stated, well that’s what I’m going to do.

President Thompson stated, if you choose to table it until next month.

Ben Stefaniak stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

****

#2109 Jay & Shonia Hart; Requesting a 32’ front setback variance to place a privacy fence on Lot 15 in Hallsdale 2nd Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 1865 Labrador Road.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Jay Hart stated, I’m Jay Hart and I have nothing else to add.

President Thompson asked, simple enough. Director Weaver do you have anything that needs to be mentioned?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have nothing.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, you?

Director Weaver stated, the road that they are going towards I believe that there is only a couple of apartment buildings that use that road, is that correct, that’s what it looked like when I get down there.

Jay Hart stated, do you have pictures of the apartments?

Director Weaver stated, well not real good.

Jay Hart stated, well, then is what we see and the road dead ends.

President Thompson asked, did you get any response from anyone?

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

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything while the pictures are being passed around?

Attorney Altman stated, no I don’t.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance either for or against? I guess I shouldn’t automatically assume that they are opposed.

Attorney Altman stated, so we have exhibit A, wait for the record Mr. Stefaniak’s photos are marked Exhibit B, 1 though 4.

President Thompson asked, okay if there is nothing else, any discussion, Carol? Nothing, are we ready to vote?

Director Weaver stated, I will mention and I did put on the staff report if you will notice that they do have a utility easement that goes across back of the yard. It is an active utility easement the pole is in their yard, we discussed that, and they are more than glad to put a gate there so the access to the easement will still be open.

President Thompson stated, all right, any other discussion? Ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, I’m sorry one more question. Will the chain link fence stay or, is the chain link fence coming down?

Jay Hart stated, it will come down.

Carol Stradling stated, okay and it will all be privacy fence.

Shonia Hart stated, no just the one side. Just…

Attorney Altman asked, the North side?

Jay Hart stated, North side.

Attorney Altman asked, the rest of the chain link fence will stay up?

Jay Hart stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Jeff, Dave, okay, we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 32’ front setback variance to place a privacy fence on Lot 15 in Hallsdale Second Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Union Township at 1865 Labrador Road.

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

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

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

Jay Hart stated, thank you.

****

#2106 Terry Babka; Requesting a 4’ East side setback variance, a 3’ Rear (South) setback variance and a 23’ Front (North) setback variance to build a room addition to attach the existing house and the existing detached garage and to bring it into compliance on Lot 71 in Gingrich Addition. Also, a 3’ Front setback variance to build an Unroofed Deck on the home. The property is located in South of Monticello at 5819 E. Sheridan Road.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Randy Williams stated, good evening and thank you for going out of order. I had a baby sitter that was running late tonight so I couldn’t get out of the house in time and I didn’t think that you would want my 3 year old with us here. We thought that this was the best way and I talked to Attorney Altman before hand I know that in regard to this. Mr. Babka has been before this Board on a previous occasion regarding this garage. I’m sure that Attorney Altman has talked, I shouldn’t say that I’m sure but, Attorney Altman very well may have talked to you a little bit about this. There is a notation in fact on the application for a variance and the very last sentence talks about this property having a pending lawsuit. We have taken care of I guess Attorney Altman, the majority of that in terms of the acknowledgement of the height of the garage exceeds the height, which is allowed under your ordinance. That’s been an acknowledgement of that and Attorney Altman and I have been working on how to dispose of the remanding portion of that in terms of a penalty and all.

What are here tonight for, is not it’s about the garage we’re not talking about the height but, what we’re trying to do is bring that garage into compliance by adding an addition between the existing house and the garage. I believe that you all have a drawing there and just to take you through that a little bit and take you through each of the variances, which are being requested. First of all with regard to the East setback, again he is requesting a 4’ East side setback and as you can see from the drawing that is the same distances, which the existing house is from the East lot line that same 4’. So he’s not doing anything, he’s not requesting any more than that is already there so he’s just trying to keep a straight line there.

The next variance we’re talking about is the rear setback and that would be for the garage. Now it’s my understanding that through your ordinance the garage, take the height part away from it but, the garage is placed as a separate building right now, is okay in terms of the setback. However, once it were to be attached to the house and it’s a single building then the setback changes and that is why he would need the variance for the setback. I spoke with Terry and it’s my understanding that if you go out along the road, there where his garage is located, in terms of the road way, in terms of Sheridan Road, he’s not any closer than, there are other garages which are closer to the street than his is right now. So in terms of the setback but, for the height he wouldn’t get the setback variance the location is fine but, once it’s connected then he needs the variance on the setback. With regard to the front we have a house that’s been there and I guess the term that we use is grandfathered in so, it’s there similarly as I looked at the first 3 petitions that you had tonight 3 of the, 2 of them were to bring either a house or a building in compliance with the zoning ordinance. It would maintain that same location the house would maintain that same location and therefore it would be in compliance and we would not need to use that term that grandfathered term. The front setback variance that is a 3’ variance and again in looking at the pictures that you have in front of you the drawing you see the old deck, which is to be removed. The old deck actually exceeds, it goes further into and actually crosses according to this site improvement survey by Mr. Milligan, crosses that line the proposal will bring it back from that line. Therefore we have that 3’ that the request for that 3’ setback. Now I wasn’t here when the folks were talking the first couple of variances, the first couple request in terms of the bringing it into compliance. One of the concerns for anyone that goes out and if your looking for, first if your looking to sell your property and you’re going to have a title search. Someone is going to look and is going to see that this house is not, does not meet the current Zoning Ordinance and that could be problems in terms of a sell. It can also present a problem if you’re going out for some kind of financing that is something else that a bank or mortgage company is going to pick up on. You would expect anyway if they pick up on that, that it doesn’t meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. If as I think the one variance here tonight talked about if there was a fire and if it’s not in compliance then you have to come back in and request that variance to have it built in the same location. What we’re doing here with this application is taking that step before the unthinkable was to occur. We have, I think Attorney Altman has in front of him the drawings of the proposed I’m not sure if you have all had the opportunity to view those or not…

Director Weaver stated, no they have not.

Randy Williams stated, okay, do you have another set that I can share with some of you up here just to show you the proposal? I think one of the more telling if I hold it up is the first drawing, it shows the location of the garage. This is looking North with the garage directly in front of you but, the garage is lower than the house and it shows the location of that so we’re not having, yes…

Carol Stradling asked, the current home or the proposed addition?

Randy Williams stated, that’s the one…

Terry Babka stated, the front is the garage the rear portion is the enclosed addition.

Carol Stradling asked, so the proposed addition will be the same as the current home or higher?

Terry Babka stated, higher.

Carol Stradling asked, and higher than the garage?

Randy Williams stated, within the ordinance. If you want to take a closer look at that I can pass that around, I just want to kind of go through the other drawings for you as well. The second is we’re looking at the West side of the property again showing the garage to the rear and the house with the addition to the front. Looking from the East side we’re dealing with the same, again the garage to the rear and the home, the addition to the front. From the lake looking at the front of the home as Terry, we’re talking with an uncovered deck we’re talking this part over and this part right here, is that correct, okay that would be this part right over in here. I don’t know if you want to look at, these are the floor plans the first floor, floor plan and this proposed the garage and the second floor plan.

President Thompson asked, would you mind backing up there, read there, I thought that the portion that was going to tie the two buildings together…

Randy Williams asked, from the East side or the West side?

President Thompson stated, either or it doesn’t matter…

Randy Williams stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, I thought it was going to be higher than the or the original, am I missing something, that shows that it ties into the same roofline?

Terry Babka stated, the portion on the….

Randy Williams stated, why don’t you come up here Terry just to show them.

President Thompson stated, that’s the, is that the complete home…

Terry Babka stated, this is the garage here, this is the addition in here, and this is the home over here now, which will get raised up….

President Thompson asked, that’s all tied, alright…

Terry Babka stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but, the current home is not that tall?

Terry Babka stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, the current home is one story.

Randy Williams stated, right.

President Thompson stated, that’s where I was…

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re going to double the height on the current location and then add…

Terry Babka stated, what I was trying to do was, I was trying to have it look like this so that it wouldn’t look out of proportion. If I had brought the house down then this would be above the house but, the pitch on this roof is a 10/12 and it’s, as you know higher.

Randy Williams stated, and bringing it into compliance with the roof height that was one of the intent, part of the intent of this is that by connection it and making it a single building and the height the roof on the garage meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

President Thompson asked, Carol do you have any questions or the Board do you have any questions?

Director Weaver stated, we did receive a call from the neighbor Pauline Schiavona I believe is how the last name is pronounced. She did state that her grandson would be here at the meeting for her. She pointed out to one of the girls in the office that her property, which is to the East of this property has a granted variance on it for an addition. I believe we made copies of her staff report from her variance and I gave them to you with you pictures this evening.

President Thompson asked, okay, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, no, that’s all.

President Thompson asked, do you care to comment on that?

Brad Erwood stated, I would.

President Thompson asked, your name please.

Brad Erwood stated, my name is Brad Erwood, representing my grandmother, Pauline Schiavona and basically she is opposition to this due to the size of it and how close it is to her property.

Attorney Altman asked, for the record, is she lot #70?

Brad Erwood stated, she is lot #70, she is to the East. A couple of things have happened that I need to verify, on the one, for the record, the garage I believe was done without a permit.

Director Weaver stated, no, it was built with a permit it just exceeded the height.

Brad Erwood stated, okay, that’s all that I wanted to say.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they did have a permit.

Brad Erwood asked, the fence, was that done with a permit as well?

Director Weaver stated, the fence went up prior to a permit but he did receive a permit on it.

Brad Erwood stated, the proposed new addition now I believe that her variance states that she can be 8’ from the property line to the West. So, the new proposed building will be 4’ from the fence and probably 30’ high I believe, something in that nature. Well she is opposed to it and that’s what I’m here for.

President Thompson asked, what is the height?

Randy Williams stated, 30’ which he could build the house, where it currently existed at 30’ height I believe he is…

Director Weaver stated, 30’ is maximum.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else?

Carol Stradling asked, I don’t know if you can clarify this but, I’m looking at the site improvement survey for your grandmother’s property. What we approved, was she had a, her dwelling was 20’ x 28’, we approved an 8’ addition and that left it 11’ from the property line.

Brad Erwood stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, when I look at the survey for Babka’s property, there is only 17’ from her home to the property line which, if you do an 8’ addition that only leaves 9’ between your grandmothers proposed addition and the Babka property. So I’m not sure which survey is right but, there seems to be a discrepancy of at least 2’ somewhere and it’s not 2’ more, it’s 2’ to put the houses closer together or whichever. That kind of concerns me, how I don’t know if Milligan was out there and measured from the fence to the house…

Terry Babka stated, no, he pulled from about 5 lots down from the, there is a concrete permit thing and he pulled the property line from that and came down through. He verified that there is another one farther down on the West side of me and he pulled back this way when he, with the original survey.

Carol Stradling stated, he has done both of these. His name is on both of these, both surveys for…

(The tape was changed)

Attorney Altman asked, okay, back on the record now. I have one question, did your grandmother build the addition?

Brad Erwood stated, no, sir.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, that may explain what you’re looking at here, got the variance but, she didn’t build the addition so that’s, there’s a difference in footing….

Director Weaver stated, there is still a discrepancy…

Attorney Altman stated, there is a difference in footing yet but, that makes it so that it’s maybe closer than it might imagine if she had built 9’ on there.

Carol Stradling stated, well what the one survey is saying is that even with or without the addition, the one survey that we are looking at for the back of her property has 17’ from the property line to the existing home and her survey as it was done in 1992 showed 19’ from the property line…

Attorney Altman stated, clearly 2’…

Carol Stradling stated, from the existing home and whether there is an addition there or not, there’s…

Joe Bumbleburg stated, well, this building part isn’t there, she never bothered…

Attorney Altman stated, that is Joe Bumbleburg for the record.

Carol Stradling stated, but, there would still be 19’ and this still shows 17’, 11 and 8 is 19…

Joe Bumbleburg stated, yes, that’s when I was in school correct but, since her building was not built, she didn’t exercise the right under the variance granted…

Carol Stradling stated, correct…

Joe Bumbleburg stated, and that presumably was in 1992 life of that variance is terminated because of none user anyway.

Director Weaver stated, no…

Attorney Altman stated, no…

Director Weaver stated, a setback variance does not work that way…

Attorney Altman stated, it does not expire by our ordinance.

Brad Erwood stated, I would like to add one thing to this the gable on this the house pitch is to the East and to the West which means that there will be overhang eaves as well. The eave, the length of the eaves hang over is that concerned part of the setback? Does that make sense?

Director Weaver stated, the setback is suppose to be from the eave yes…

Brad Erwood asked, from the eave not the building line?

Director Weaver stated, no, not from the foundation.

Brad Erwood stated, the gables are going East and West and the direction of the building going North itself this way the eaves would overhang further onto the…

Attorney Altman stated, no, just the opposite, it’s to the eave.

Brad Erwood stated, oh, I see so this isn’t, this shows to the eave not the footprint of the house.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Randy Williams stated, which is where the existing…

Brad Erwood stated, on physical inspection out there earlier today it would look, it would appear to me that the building and the fence line were about 3’. So is this house going to be torn down? If this is the case is this house going to be torn down and the footprint moved to the West? Does that make sense? If in fact the building line and the fence are 3’ apart that means that the eaves will extend over if you are carrying the same footprint.

President Thompson asked, do you care to respond?

Terry Babka stated, the building is staying where it’s, at. I’m trying, there is another survey that was done earlier that shows the fence, and this one doesn’t show it. No, the fence is off of my property line by a couple of feet.

David Scott stated, according to the survey the building is 4’ off of the property line, according to the survey.

Terry Babka stated, well, this one shows…

Randy Williams stated, the fence, and the fence is not on the property, the fence is on the house side of the property line actually you can probably, I don’t know if you have that attached….

David Scott stated, I don’t have one with me.

Terry Babka stated, that’s the one, that’s the survey done when I filed for the variance for the garage.

Attorney Altman asked, can I mark that?

Randy Williams stated, sure.

A Board member asked a question that was unable to be deciphered.

Director Weaver stated, of the property line.

Randy Williams stated, of the property line.

Director Weaver stated, that survey is not from that variance.

Randy Williams stated, it’s dated July 21, 2000.

Director Weaver stated, the one that is on their staff report did not show the fence…

Carol Stradling stated, it doesn’t have, fence.

Randy Williams stated, this is also the same date that Mr. Milligan, I see that, you can mark this and you can have this one that shows the fence is inside of the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that this is actually your first exhibit.

Randy Williams stated, it is attached.

Director Weaver stated, I’m wondering if maybe we had a second survey with that hearing.

Randy Williams stated, that could be.

Director Weaver stated, that is possible.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address this variance? Jeff, Dave, questions, or comments?

There was discussion among the Board members.

President Thompson asked, Carol, Gary, do you anything to ask?

Carol Stradling asked, one of the other issues I think we have tried to address in the last variance was, where your well and septic are.

Terry Babka stated, well the grinder pump is installed right next to where that 75 says on the short survey on the West side of the property.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Terry Babka stated, that’s right about where the grinder pump is, the well is going to be where the 12’ is at the front of the, towards the front of the garage.

Director Weaver stated, Carol, this property is getting ready to be hooked up to sewers.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Randy Williams stated, he does own lot #72 also.

Attorney Altman asked, and that’s part of this…

Randy Williams stated, right and I understand, just to show…

Attorney Altman asked, part of this proposal?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, so they are married together.

Randy Williams stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, Dave, Jeff?

Carol Stradling asked, is this asking, is this the response to the pending lawsuit?

Attorney Altman stated, it certainly is from their point of view.

Randy Williams stated, Attorney Altman and I talked about this back earlier, I think it was after the first of the year that this would be more, that this is part, whatever, of course we would hope that he would get the variance. The variances as requested that does nothing, does not effect what happens from the Court in terms of a penalty. It was probably 2 years ago when I was up here in a similar situation with up in Monon, my client had some problems with the front it was, Jerry was it the porch I think I think wasn’t it…

President Thompson stated, yes.

Randy Williams stated, yes, and we went through the same procedure and there was still a penalty to be assessed through the Court, which is unrelated to the variance.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing is we, since it’s on the record here and it’s been part of this, to recite Mr. Williams and I have reached an agreement, a settlement of the other proposal. I think that I can recite it and they would agree that they would violate the Ordinance by the garage being too high and this is the proposed settlement that they fine a penalty order that would be entered by the Judge of the Superior Court in White County. I think that’s, a hearing date to be set in the future, I think that recites our stipulation.

Randy Williams stated, I think that’s fair, I think that’s a fair understanding.

Attorney Altman stated, and I think also that the Board knows that while there is another matter and that’s, another variance and that was responded to by court proceedings. I don’t think that, that has much of anything to do with this tonight as to whether you do or don’t grant this variance. These kind of stand on their own but, there’re so much together that we kind of talk about it, I think that the only thing that you can do tonight is look at these proposals and they must stand on their own. That’s about all that I can say.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else tonight? Board?

Carol Stradling stated, the pitch on the roof is going to change, you have it running North and South now and when you do this proposed so that this face that this gentlemen’s grandmother sees is a gable…

Terry Babka stated, no, it’s the same, it follows the same all of the way down.

Carol Stradling stated, on the new one it will but on the current one…

Terry Babka stated, oh, on the other one….

Carol Stradling stated, they are looking at a single story gable end and what they are going to have just a few feet away from them now is going to be a two story with the length of the roof is what they are going to be seeing.

Terry Babka stated, they will see the building right now that single home has a 10/12 pitch roof on it as well so it’s a high pitched roof.

Carol Stradling asked, is that what you’re going to put on the whole thing then?

Terry Babka stated, the top level will be a little bit less in order to follow the Ordinance.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess where I’m having a problem now is, if I were living in that home, I would see this wall of home and garage to the entire length of my property, not just a section here and a section here. I would then be seeing this entire length of two-story home, just adjacent, just a few feet away from my home. I understand what you’re doing to bring it, to bring the garage into compliance. I understand that your home is currently that close to the property line but you would be tripling the size of your home, essentially, if you’re putting on another story and then another addition being two stories.

Terry Babka stated, yes, I was right, I could leave the portion of the house as a single story and just attach the garage, but it won’t look very appealing.

Carol Stradling stated, but I guess I see you doing all of this so that you can keep the garage at a height that was in question to begin with.

Terry Babka stated, yes, there is an awful lot of work and money tied up in that garage and I worked long hard hours putting it up I hate to have it just….

Carol Stradling stated, I understand that but, there is probably a lot of time and money involved in this ownership of the property next to you and that I would imagine would be continuing. I’m sympathetic to your position with the money that you have invested but I also need to be sympathetic to the neighbors that are going to be living to this.

Terry Babka stated, well if they didn’t take care of the house next door there wouldn’t be much of a home quite frankly.

An audience member had said something unable to be translated.

Attorney Altman stated, you are going to have to say it out loud and on the record.

Randy Williams stated, I don’t know what was argued what was discussed two years ago the variance on the height of the garage and you really can’t go back to that time…

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that we are trying to at all.

Randy Williams stated, well, but, I guess, well we don’t have to go back there. I’m not suggesting the variance for the roof and that the garage was as it was that was proven. There may not be a situation of the house, and the addition would be different in height. He’s trying to bring this into compliance, the house has been there, it’s grandfathered in under the ordinance, and he is just making an improvement as the front setback with regard to the deck. I understand the situation with the neighbor and I’m not saying that isn’t a problem I also see that I don’t know there are also a couple of other, two buildings back there and original indication I guess that…

Attorney Altman stated, tell us about the guttering and the where the run off water and how it’s going to be handled the house and the garage please.

Terry Babka stated, there is a quarter inch underground tile for the gutters and there will be gutters to the ravine side of the lot #72.

Attorney Altman asked, so gutters and downspouts into the tile out to the ravine and to the lake?

Terry Babka stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, Gary do you have anything? Dave?

Rich Kendall stated, I would like to state something, my name is…

President Thompson stated, just a second, Dave, do you have anything?

Dave Scott stated, no.

President Thompson stated, okay, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor stated, nothing.

President Thompson stated, okay, go ahead.

Rich Kendall stated, my name is Rich Kendall, I live about 3 doors to the East from where Terry’s property is. I just want to kind of address Carol’s concern. My home is also on a 50’ wide lot, it is also 2 story. We live in a very affluent neighborhood, well we would like to make it affluent neighborhood. There are people on either side of me that are probably someday going to want to develop their property. I realize that part of living on the lake with a 50’ wide lot, with people that want to build nice homes, we’re going to end up living on top of each other. I understand that which, I would hope that everyone else that buys a 50’ wide lot or that has one that wants to develop it would understand. Sure I would love to live on a lake with no one around me but that is not going to happen in this community. So, I understand that there is people that are concerned but, that is part of living in a neighborhood that is going to be that condensed, if you want to make the homes suitable for what we would consider a more affluent neighborhood.

President Thompson asked, yes?

Brad Erwood stated, and I understand that too, I’m a contractor myself in California visiting my grandmother who is in poor health right now but, she does in fact get a nice breeze that goes through the two buildings right now, that will not be there. I understand the value of housing and square footage and the setbacks but this, if it is in fact 4’ from the property line to extend, maybe it should follow the garage contour verses the house contour to stay that 8’ back instead of following something that has already had a problem. The garage is, the house is you’re saying build it larger to remedy so it looks better but, the fact that the garage wasn’t built correctly in the first place, that’s all that I have to say.

President Thompson asked, was there someone else over here? Well, I guess that I thought that your plans showed, okay, it doesn’t by the end view it doesn’t but, that front view I didn’t realize that myself. Anyone else? Jeff do you have a comment?

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t President Thompson.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion before we vote.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question.

President Thompson stated, yes, Director Weaver, go ahead.

Director Weaver asked, Terry, when I look at these pictures that I took of the property it looks like there is a tree that is actually on the neighbors property but, overlaps right there beside the house, is that tree going to be in the way of your second story?

Terry Babka asked, the one on the West side?

Director Weaver stated, yes, or towards the lakeside at least, I really can’t tell in this picture.

Terry Babka stated, that tree is actually on my property…

Director Weaver asked, it is on your property?

Terry Babka stated, and if it’s in the way of course we will trim up some branches, matter of fact, I know that there are some branches that need to come down anyway because they are not in good shape.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else have any comments before we vote? Carol, do you?

Carol Stradling stated, I appreciate what you are doing and it does look very nice I like the look of it but, I’m just not sure I would like the look of it if I was living next door just a few feet away, what is that about 11’?

Randy Williams stated, 21’.

Carol Stradling stated, 21’.

Holly Mueller stated, I was going to say something, I’m sorry, the house next door…

President Thompson stated, your name please.

Holly Mueller stated, I’m sorry, Holly Mueller.

President Thompson asked, and you’re?

Holly Mueller asked, I live about 4 or 5 houses down on the other side. The house next door is like a 700 square foot home that is used. How often does she come up? Very seldom. Where this is going to be the gentlemen’s house for the rest of his life. Like they said they were improving the property what is to say that someday they are not going to tear down that little shack and want to build something bigger of their own. Are you going to want people like us saying sorry you can’t do that?

Brad Erwood stated, well, there was a variance that says that we can build 8’ to the property not 4’ and not continue something that is 4’ with eaves that hang over. I have to look in the future, that may be my property and it may be someone else’s anyway my grandmother’s concern about it and I’m representing her I would, I it were mine, I would be here just as well.

Attorney Altman stated, the eaves don’t hang over.

President Thompson stated, that includes the eaves.

Attorney Altman stated, that includes the eaves.

Brad Erwood stated, if in fact the fence line and the building line…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, I understand what you’re talking about on the survey but I’m telling you the eaves don’t hang over the setbacks go to the eave and the footprint of the house is inside of that okay. So I don’t know where that line is and looking at these two surveys I could get really confused. All that I’m telling you is where that is he’s got to be 4’ off of that with his eaves okay.

Brad Erwood stated, so he is going to have to move the building to the West.

Attorney Altman stated, the eaves can’t, you know, none of the building can be closer than 4’ and that is the eaves. It’s usually the closest part of the building that’s all that I’m trying to say to you.

Brad Erwood stated, I understand and this doesn’t accurately depict what it is.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know what the, the survey, I’m not sure about that. It’s obviously I presume, it shows it to the eaves.

Terry Babka stated, how would you know where the correct property line is if you’re looking at the fence the fence is a foot or two on this side of my property, if your looking at the fence, you’re not looking at the property line.

Brad Erwood asked, so you’re going to move your fence?

Terry Babka stated, no.

Brad Erwood stated, I guess, well, I guess you don’t have to, that is a correct statement on your part, I understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, all that I’m trying to say is they can’t build closer than 4’ and that is usually where the eaves start and that’s a limiting spot, that’s all that I’m just trying to be plain here.

Brad Erwood stated, for the record, I would assume that the fence was on the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, it doesn’t appear that it is.

Terry Babka stated, it’s not.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, if there is no other comments, conversation, we’ll vote. We shall 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 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’ East side setback variance, a 3’ Rear (South) setback variance and a 23’ Front (North) setback variance to build a room addition to attach the existing house and the existing detached garage and to bring it into compliance on Lot 71 in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5819 E. Sheridan Road.

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

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 2 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, accordingly the variance is granted, you need to get your building permits before you proceed.

Randy Williams stated, thank you.

Terry Babka stated, thank you.

****

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, we have a lawsuit coming up later this month with an individual that built in a flood way, came in for a building permit, got a permit for a change of roofline and proceeded to build a new home. We have a lawsuit pending with them it has also gone though the DNR, and to the best of my knowledge they have not requested an injunction against these people. My attorney which is not Attorney Altman in this one, it is Dow Dellinger has asked me to get an idea from my Boards what kind of action we want out of this hearing, are we asking for an injunction so how long are we giving them. Attorney Altman, explain what an injunction is.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s an order to do something or not do something or require something be done, in other words, if something is too close something is built improperly without permits or what have you, you get your permit or you remove your property.

Director Weaver stated, what he is asking is what kind of time frame that we want to get these people to do whatever we request of them, 30 days or 60 days and what exactly what it is that we are looking for out of this. Originally the people had a mobile home, they came in and requested a change of roofline over the mobile home. As I said they proceeded to change the roofline but once they changed the roofline they removed the mobile home and enclosed underneath where the mobile home and have a very beautiful home now, in a floodway on the Tippecanoe River.

Attorney Altman stated, it may be underwater pretty quick.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I was up there the other day it’s not too far now, not too far from it.

David Scott asked, when these people come in to get a permit, what are they in trouble for again?

Director Weaver stated, they got a permit to change the roofline.

David Scott stated, to change the roofline and….

Director Weaver stated, built a new home

David Scott asked, they didn’t get the permit to build a new home, they just…

Director Weaver stated, no because they could not, because they were in a floodway. The DNR will not grant, not that I’m ever aware of would not grant and approval for it to be built in a floodway.

David Scott stated, for their own good.

Director Weaver stated, for their own good, exactly. This isn’t something that I need an answer on tonight but, if you would give it some thought…

David Scott asked, but, you’re wanting to know what we think, should we assess for fine?

Director Weaver stated, no, what we’re wanting is a time frame to come into compliance or to remove the home.

Jeff Saylor asked, come into compliance is like tear it down right?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, unless they can get a letter from the DNR.

Jeff Saylor stated, probably legitimately is going to be either tear it down or pay a fine.

Director Weaver stated, probably.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

David Scott asked, if the DNR gives them permission…

Director Weaver stated, the DNR has filed a lawsuit against them as well. They have already had their hearing with the DNR, I have not heard of the response of that. Our trial is 2 weeks from today so, if you will give it some thought and get back with me and give me your thoughts I would appreciate it. I don’t think that I have anything else.

Jeff Saylor asked, in regard to the use of the ballot, I was on the last case one of the descending votes and at the bottom of the ballot it says, if you check any asterisk you automatically denied the request. So I only answered one question, I left the balance of the ballot empty. Okay, I know that, I remember reading in one of the last lawsuits that several of my reasoning’s for voting a certain way were challenged because I had marked everything okay on the ballot except for one where I denied it. So in this case I only checked one and I want to know if that is appropriate?

Attorney Altman stated, it is appropriate.

Jeff Saylor asked, so it’s all right to leave everything else blank if you’re going to, and just pick that one?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

David Scott asked, that’s the way that you’re supposed to do that?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s appropriate and obviously, some things you think is okay and that’s permitted. They just use anything that they can on you Jeff, and in those matters they are just trying anything that they can but, that is appropriate to mark the ballot that way.

Jeff Saylor asked, well, it makes it a lot easier if you’re going to answer something, you have a pretty good idea where to go with it on the ballot so I just ignore everything else and go straight to the one?

Attorney Altman stated, yes and the more in fractal that you are the better that you are. You know that or you’re yes too, most of the time when they vote yes they are relying on, in essence of the record, in the findings of fact.

Carol Stradling stated, but even a no has to rely on the record.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, you can’t just say no and not have anything on the record.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling asked, Attorney Altman, can I look at my ballot, the bottom granted or denied on that last one. That’s like one of those feelings that….

Attorney Altman stated, you marked denied.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

David Scott stated, on the first one where the fellow had the garage, John James, was that garage there I should have asked at the time but the garage was already existing, right?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, the garage is existing, yes.

David Scott asked, did he not get a permit to do that?

Director Weaver stated, his contract purchaser built the garage without a permit.

David Scott asked, pardon me?

Director Weaver stated, the contract purchaser built the garage without the permit, he then got the property back, the contract, they reneged on their contract.

David Scott stated, okay, afterwards I thought, well why didn’t we question him why he built the garage.

Attorney Altman stated, probably should of but it was set out in the record that, that was so.

Director Weaver stated, he is wanting to resell the property, that’s why he is trying to get it into compliance.

David Scott stated, I don’t have any problems with what he is doing I just, we always ask why the built without a permit….

Director Weaver stated, right, I did quiz him.

David Scott asked, the other question that I have is, was it appropriate for me to bring up conversation about the other meeting in this meeting?

Attorney Altman stated, sure it is you bet it is.

Jeff Saylor stated, that helps a lot some times.

Gary Barbour stated, that’s part of what is nice about being on both Boards.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s clearly part of it and that’s facts, you bet and you can’t vote honestly if you don’t have the record, if you don’t have it tied down. You heard Jay and the others talk about how that was part, that lot North is part of another variance. Now he may pull out completely but he hasn’t done so yet. I think that it’s 10’, you have to know that it’s 10’, it’s got to be located 10’, you have seen them, you know that.

David Scott stated, and we always record our easements because they say if the property changes hands it won’t go on to the next owner if it’s not recorded.

Attorney Altman stated, you bet.

David Scott stated, so it’s something that really needs to be a legal document and we have ran into this several times in our town where we have 2 houses on two lots that are cut in half. No way to get, I mean in the old days they usually put the sewer across someone else’s yard and the property. So we end up getting in the middle of it and we take them out on city easement to if it is possible to remedy the problem but, this is a way to head it off before it gets to be a problem. I don’t have a problem with a fellow putting the house on there but…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that the two members of the Area Plan indicated that the city is very concerned about this density out there that he is proposing. Just very concerned about that being out there in Main Street, like they are proposing and voted down 7 to 1.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Anyone?

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission