Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.


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

Visitors attending were: Albert Majdanowski, Joann Majdanowski, Chas. R. Mellon, Linda Melton, Leo Glotbach, Ron Kyburz, Erick VanMeter, Don & Jill Uselton, Deb Bruce (Herald Journal), Marvin E. Johns Jr., Ron Byrd, Jean Hall, Ken Uselton, Thomas Hall, Amanda Walts, Ed Betz, Lyn Betz, Michele Goebel, Carole L. Sheehy, Earl & Pat Raver and David & Sarah Bonham.

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

Vice President Stradling stated, I’m not normally in this position but in the absence of our President Jerry Thompson, that puts me here.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

Jeff Saylor made a motion to amend the minutes as stated and approve the minutes of the May 16, 2002 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously.

****

#2132 Linda Melton & Barbra Miller; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance from Walnut Street, a 12’ front setback variance from 4th Street and a 5’ rear setback variance to place a 1983 Mobile Home on part of Lot #15 and part of Lot #17 in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 401 Walnut Street. Tabled from the August 15, 2002 meeting.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone here representing Linda Melton and Barbra Miller tonight?

Linda Melton stated, I am Linda Melton.

Vice President Stradling asked, we tabled it for further information and it appeared as though…

Director Weaver stated, you did receive further information but, they have also changed their


request. They have moved the mobile home to where it will sit further from the side property line and closer to Fourth Street than what was originally proposed.

Attorney Altman asked, obviously we also received several letter and let me call attention to the record, a letter from David Hornback Jr. dated August 27, 2002. This letter was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members. On the 27th we received from the Town of Monon, this letter was read out loud to the Board members and the audience members. Then received on the 28th received another letter from the Town of Monon, this letter was also read out loud to the Board and the audience members. Is there anything else that should be read into the record?

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t believe so.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, thank you and again, this was re-advertised for some changes in the setbacks as obvious from the survey from Mr. Milligan before us.

Vice President Stradling asked, does anyone else have anything that they wish to add either for or against this variance?

Ron Kyburz stated, I’m the one that owns the property…

Vice President Stradling asked, your name sir?

Ron Kyburz stated, Ron Kyburz, on the two sides and the current sewer line does go through my property and I stated that I had intended to discontinue it because, the previous structure had been removed. There is nothing there at this time and he had sold the property to a new owner and she kind of got caught in a bad situation because, she was kind of unaware of the circumstances there. My understanding but, I have also spoken with our attorney and he told me that I do have that right unless there is a recorded easement or something in writing, is like giving someone permission to hunt or somewhere on your property. It doesn’t mean that they can do it forever, that’s all that he told me. So that’s all that I can say but, that’s not the real issue, the real issue is a mobile home going back in a residential area and I don’t want it and quite frankly. I can’t find anyone in the neighborhood except one according to what you told me that doesn’t care. Everyone else that I spoke to homeowners that live on Fourth Street or Walnut Street is opposed to it and I have their signature on a paper if you care to see it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s up to you.

Ron Kyburz stated, because I went from door to door.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s up to you.

Vice President Stradling asked, if you would like to give it, sure, if you would like to give it to us then that becomes part of the record. Thank you. Do you have anything else Mr. Kyburz?

Ron Kyburz stated, that’s about it.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay.

Linda Melton stated, Carol, I was under the understanding that all of the property owners were already notified. I have talked to 3 of them and they didn’t have a problem with them. One of them being Gary Luse, the second one being Michele Robinson, and the third one being Dave Hornback Jr., the fourth one is Mr. Kyburz and he is the only one that’s had a problem.

Ron Kyburz stated, excuse me, I talked to residents that live on those two, on Fourth Street or Walnut Street. I did not talk to landlords with rental property, I talked to the residents that live on those two streets, I did not talk to Garrett because she had previously told me that he didn’t care and you will see by the signatures.

Vice President Stradling asked, did you want to add something to that?

Linda Melton stated, yes, ma’am, I thought when I applied for the variance I only had to notify the surrounding property owners, I didn’t realize that I had to notify everyone in all of the blocks.

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t have to.

Vice President Stradling stated, you don’t have to.

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t have to.

Linda Melton stated, that’s what I’m saying, that’s what the Board would notify is the surrounding property owners not…

Vice President Stradling stated, correct.

Linda Melton stated, not everyone in the whole four blocks in every direction.

Vice President Stradling asked, and they were notified Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, and have we had anything from those neighbors?

Director Weaver stated, the only neighbor that I’m aware of having contacted us is Mr. Kyburz.

Vice President Stradling asked, Board, do you have anything?

David Scott asked, yes, I have a personal involvement with what is going on here with my position with the utilities and everything, and I told both of them that I was going to not vote on this issue. After talking it over with our legal council here, he said as long as I don’t have a finical interest that it’s okay if I vote and we’re short handed tonight.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you will be voting?

David Scott stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, yes?

Linda Melton stated, Carol, from the last meeting Mr. Kyburz was really concerned about how close it set to his property line, which was 8’ off of the property line. We went and moved it over another additional 4’ on the East side, on the North side we went another 13’ off of his property line to accommodate him.

Vice President Stradling stated, yes, you did.

Linda Melton stated, I have went and asked some other property owners in town if they would be willing to sell some of their property and he’s referred me to these people and so far I have had no luck in finding another piece of property. I have already bought this property with the intentions of sitting a trailer on there and we’re at this table now.

Ron Kyburz stated, after the last meeting, I did talk with her and made her aware that I didn’t, I wasn’t going to leave things as they were. I didn’t want the trailer there and like I said now, I have gotten some feedback from some of the other neighbors around there locally. I thought well I want to talk to them and see what their feelings are because obviously, it effects other people on the same street besides the guy right next door and quite frankly on two sides I own the property. So that leaves who else is right next beside the street and across the street is a substation and you know but, I talked to the residents within that block on Fourth Street and Walnut Street. If you check the names and the addresses of the people I didn’t have to talk nothing, I just mentioned a trailer and they are dead set against it.

Vice President Stradling stated, although we take into consideration what the wishes of the community are, if a trailer is allowable in that location legally we can not deny it just because the neighbors don’t wish to have it there.

Ron Kyburz stated, I understand.

Vice President Stradling if it is allowable otherwise.

Ron Kyburz stated, I understand but, we also have a situation there that we have two lots with 3 different, could be dwellings of some sort on and none of them is big enough to have a house on and like I said, my lot next to here probably minus 1’ form the house what happens, you know if someone chooses to put up a fence that cuts the access off to my house.

Vice President Stradling stated, that’s not….

Ron Kyburz stated, and I realize that’s not their problem.

Vice President Stradling stated, that’s not the issue tonight though…

Attorney Altman stated, that doesn’t have a thing to do with, your property….

Ron Kyburz stated, I’m explaining my view…

Attorney Altman stated, your property is wrong.

Ron Kyburz asked, you’re right, it is all 3 of them there are and somehow do we try to correct some of it or do we keep it going forever or what do they do with some of this stuff in other towns?

Attorney Altman stated, they have people come before us and asked for a variance….

Jeff Saylor stated, at this time, I would like to call for the question.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, Board are you ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you have a motion to question, it’s time 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 10’ front setback variance from Walnut Street, a 12’ front setback variance from 4th Street and a 5’ rear setback variance to place a 1983 Mobile Home beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot Number Seventeen (17) on Walnut Street in the Original Plat of the Town of New Bradford, now Monon, White County, Indiana; running thence East Forty-eight (48) feet; thence North Sixty (60) feet; thence West Forty-eight (48) feet to the West side of said lot; thence South Sixty (60) feet to the place of beginning.

Also, beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot Number Fifteen (15) on Walnut Street in the Original Plat of the Town of New Bradford, now Monon, White County, Indiana, and running thence East Forty-eight (48) feet; thence North Fifty-one (51) feet; thence West Forty-eight (48) feet to the West line of said lot; thence South Fifty-one (51) feet to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 401 Walnut Street.


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


The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 1 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, the 3 have it, the variance is granted, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.

Linda Melton stated, thank you very much.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re welcome, thank you.

****

#2135 Albert M. & Joann F. Majdanowski; Requesting a 7’ South side setback variance and a 10’ North side setback variance to attach the existing Detached Garage and Carport to the home and bring them into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot #15 in Stahl Subdivision. The property is located in Monon Township at 5943 N. Stahl Road. Tabled from the August 15th meeting.

Vice President Stradling asked, the Majdanowski’s are here, okay. Is there anything that you care to add?

Albert Majdanowski stated, just that we took care of the problems I had on the one side around the utility pole but also, Attorney Altman said to get permission from REMC because I built around it. They came out and removed the pole for it and I had a 9” encroachment on my neighbor’s property, which was clipped off. I took care of that and then I asked for a variance change because attached garage has different rules, that’s why I asked for a variance change, I have an attached garage now because of the side…

Director Weaver stated, when we…

Albert Majdanowski stated, separation, excuse me…

Director Weaver stated, when we tabled this last month, we did ask for a letter from REMC and a letter from the Building Inspector. He did change his request to after talking to the Building Inspector, he changed it to ask to attach the garage therefore, we had to re-advertise this and the request is different than it was previously. He has also had the pole, the pole has been removed and the roofline has been changed. I did go out yesterday, I took pictures of it and you do have copies of those pictures. Mr. Milligan has also provided us with a new survey of the property. I did send to the Board a copy of an old survey that we had in the file that I had referred to in last months meeting, I thought that might be helpful to the Board to see that survey so, I did send you a copy of that survey as well.

Attorney Altman asked, so we got rid of the encroachment and got rid of the problem with the NIPSCO easement and by attaching it, it changed it to completely different requirements, is that right?

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman asked, and I was trying to think what else we discussed, I think that’s in essence it and we have the garage already there, is it already attached Director Weaver?

Director Weaver asked, no it is not attached but, it is complete from best that I can tell, you have now completed it?

Albert Majdanowski stated, yes ma’am.

Director Weaver stated, the siding is all on and everything is complete.

Jeff Saylor asked, am I correct that the initial building permit was issued for a changing the roofline on the garage?

Director Weaver stated, that is right, there was no carport….

Jeff Saylor stated, so what we have here is….

Director Weaver stated, he has added…

Jeff Saylor stated, basically a flagrant violation…

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Jeff Saylor stated, he is currently on neighbors rights…

Director Weaver stated, yes, added the carport and added onto the garage both. The addition to the garage is what caused the encroachment, that’s what the survey, the old survey is showing you.

Vice President Stradling asked, so the original garage was 24’ x 20’ and he wanted to do a change in roofline and the garage then became 37’ x 29’?

Director Weaver stated, that includes the carport.

Vice President Stradling stated, including the carport.

Attorney Altman stated, which is not permitted.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, neither was the addition.

Vice President Stradling asked, this connection to attach the garage to the house if it’s, does that meet the building standards since it’s just a very narrow strip to make it an attached garage is there a…

Director Weaver stated, I spoke with the Building Inspector this morning because I thought that we were still getting a letter from him. My understanding from the Building Inspector, that he was to see some plans as to how his was going to be attached and I don’t believe that he ever did see those plans so, I cannot answer that question.

Attorney Altman asked, so the Building Inspector’s letter we don’t have…

Director Weaver stated, no, we do not…

Attorney Altman stated, because he doesn’t have a plan.

Albert Majdanowski stated, originally I thought that Mr. Anderson, excuse me for interrupting, Majdanowski, I talked to Mr. Anderson, I asked him exactly what he wanted and I showed him a print the one day that come down to change my variance for the garage. He said that would be okay and I have it here but, you didn’t want it at the time and I couldn’t get a permit until I came back for the variance.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Albert Majdanowski stated, I look to the Board for help because I have a few mistakes on it obviously and I just ain’t, I guess that I could act dumb on this thing but, I thought that I was doing the right thing but obviously, I didn’t. So I violated some of the rules so, I’m trying to get it into compliance with this thing now. When you start building construction, you would say well I’ll add this on or add this on and you have to get permits for it. Originally I asked a year and a half ago, when I came down here, if it’s a big deal for a carport and they told me no, okay, and then I went down, I had some of it built already and didn’t draw the permit at that time. Mr. Anderson told me to get a permit so, I drew up a quick plan on the roofline and I didn’t know that I needed one for the carport and that’s how I got, it’s a garage from hell, it started out bad and it hasn’t ended yet. So I even asked the priest to bless that garage, I mean if I tell you everything that has happened it will take me an hour and a half when they moved the pole, they broke the gas line, I mean that’s just little things that went on but anyways, I asked Mr. Anderson the picture that I have I drew up the picture and I showed it, I have extra copies here if you want to see them, what I had to attach the garage, it’s in compliance with an attached garage, I will submit them if you want them.

Director Weaver asked, sir, are you in the contractor business?

Albert Majdanowski stated, no ma’am.

Director Weaver asked, have you built for a contractor in the past?

Albert Majdanowski stated, no, I just work with Mr. Keesling one season.

Director Weaver asked, Mr. Keesling is a contractor?

Albert Majdanowski stated, yes, he is.

Director Weaver stated, in talking with the Building Inspector, my understanding was when he first met with Mr. Majdanowski he informed him at that time that he would have to have a variance to build this carport and told him not to start it without a variance.

Albert Majdanowski stated, no, he didn’t.

Director Weaver stated, I’m just stating what I have been told.

Albert Majdanowski stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I’m just stating what I have been told, that’s not for me to decide what is right and what is wrong.

David Scott asked, we’re really looking at two issues here, variance and the violation. Is that fair?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman stated, or removal, variance or removal, I guess and the violation, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, does anyone have anything else to add for or against this? You had something else?

Albert Majdanowski stated, this is an attachment…

Vice President Stradling asked, is this, is this your plan then?

Albert Majdanowski stated, that’s right.

Attorney Altman asked, that’s what you submitted to Mr. Anderson?

Albert Majdanowski stated, no, I let him look at it and he said that would be okay, the attached, the word attachment is a strong word is what he told me and he said that it has to be an affirmative attachment.

Vice President Stradling asked, so this will be attached at the roof only?

Albert Majdanowski asked, to the garage or to the house?

Vice President Stradling asked, from the roof of the garage to the roof of the house?

Albert Majdanowski stated, yes, ma’am.

Vice President Stradling asked, does the Board have anything else to add, any other questions?

David Scott asked, our inspector hasn’t seen this attachment.

Director Weaver stated, that’s what he told me this morning now, I don’t know if he’s forgotten that he saw it or I can’t tell you that, I spoke with him this morning regarding this.

Vice President Stradling asked, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor stated, to me the basic problem is that when someone gets a building permit and they choose to build outside of the parameters with that permit and what they do, causes them to need a variance if they have infringed on their neighbors rights because, they are now doing something on their own that their neighbor hasn’t asked to do. I think that when someone chooses to do this, that there should either be fine or the property should come down we don’t have a mechanism for fining at this point.

Attorney Altman stated, we actually do.

Albert Majdanowski stated, Mr. Saylor….

Attorney Altman stated, 300 dollars a day, 300 dollars a day is what the, and each day is a violation.

Albert Majdanowski stated, Mr. Saylor…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that he still has the floor.

Albert Majdanowski stated, I asked my neighbors….

Attorney Altman stated, he still has the floor sir…

Albert Majdanowski stated, I’m sorry sir…

Jeff Saylor stated, what your problem is sir, it’s not whether what your neighbor thinks it’s 10 years from now when neither of you live there okay, the Board or who ever is sitting here still has to answer for this and the decisions that were made whenever and that’s the problem that I have okay. I don’t agree with what happened here and that’s my own opinion.

Attorney Altman asked, do you have a proposal, a motion?

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m going to propose a fine of 500 dollars.

Attorney Altman asked, is there a second.

Gary Barbour stated, I’ll second it.

Vice President Stradling stated, there’s a motion and a second…

Jeff Saylor stated…issued and paid before the building permit is issued.

Vice President Stradling asked, do we wish to vote on the motion? There has been a motion and a second.

Attorney Altman stated, call for a ballot.

Vice President Stradling okay…

Jeff Saylor stated, we have a motion and a second.

Vice President Stradling asked, we have a motion and a second, all in favor?

The Board stated, I.

Vice President Stradling asked, all opposed?

Attorney Altman stated, for the record, 4 positive votes that a fine of 500 dollars is imposed, fine must be paid before the building permit is obtained from this matter if it is allowed, if a variance is allowed even but the fine will stand anyway.

Vice President Stradling asked, the next issue is the variance any more discussion on that?

Director Weaver stated, I would like to add that the Building Inspector stated that the separation between these two garages do not meet state fire code. There will have to be firewalls installed in both garages if this is allowed and those will have to be done at Mr. Majdanowski’s expense.

Attorney Altman asked, do you understand that Mr. Majdanowski?

Albert Majdanowski stated, no sir, I don’t, I don’t, she said both garages, I don’t understand.

Director Weaver stated, your garage and the neighbors’ garage.

Attorney Altman stated, and the neighbors’ garage.

Director Weaver stated, this is the way that Mr. Anderson explained it to me this morning that in order to leave these structures as they are there has to be a firewall installed within both garages and it has to be done at your expense.

Albert Majdanowski asked, I have no problem with my garage because I told him that I was going to go 5/8’s ½” in each wall, how many walls do I have to do on the neighbors garage?

Director Weaver stated, that’s something that you will have to take up with Mr. Anderson.

Albert Majdanowski asked, is there any appeal to this?

Attorney Altman stated, sure is, Circuit Court, anytime you want to go, Circuit Court…

Albert Majdanowski stated, no, I was just wondering…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, certainly is, Circuit Court, yes sir.

Albert Majdanowski stated, like I said, it hasn’t ended yet so obviously it still hasn’t.

David Scott asked, what are all of the problems with what he wants to do here now? The firewall needs to be in…

Attorney Altman stated, variance.

David Scott stated, setback variance.

Director Weaver stated, setback variance

Attorney Altman stated, both sides.

David Scott asked, on both sides?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling stated, they are requesting a 7’ South side setback variance and a 10’ North side setback variance to attach the existing detached garage and carport to the home and to bring them into compliance with the White county Zoning Ordinance.

Attorney Altman stated, so those are the two things that need to be made.

Director Weaver stated, normally, on the sides they would be required to have an 8’ minimum with a total of 18’ between the two sides, he has a total of 1’.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that it’s 1.2’.

Vice President Stradling asked, are there any more questions or comments from the Board?

David Scott stated, the problem is between him and his neighbor and not between him and his own property here also, that is okay…

Director Weaver stated, that is his house.

David Scott stated, that is his house.

Director Weaver stated, that is his house that you are looking at right there, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, did the Building Inspector say anything about firewalls between the house and the garage or does that, a moot point because it’s now attached because of the roof-to-roof attachment?

Director Weaver stated, right.

David Scott stated, we would probably need some kind of a commitment then.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, approval of this variance would basically set a precedence for the neighborhood. Would we be able to approve a variance if the neighbors on either side request the same?

Attorney Altman stated, basically, yes.

Jeff Saylor asked, so they could build right up to regardless of fire concerns, right up to the eaves of this house?

Attorney Altman stated, very close, yes, yes, that’s right.

Vice President Stradling asked, if we were to grant them a variance and if we were to grant this variance tonight?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, is what you’re saying…

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s basically going to set a precedence for this neighborhood if this is approved.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, yes, likes requiring generally like answers, that’s procedural due process or sub standing due process. I think that you’re ready for a vote.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other questions or do you wish to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that they are voting.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That objectors were present at the meeting

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

3. That the request is for a 7’ South side setback variance and a 10’ North side setback variance to attach the existing Detached Garage and Carport to the home and bring them into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 15 in Stahl Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 5943 N. Stahl Road.

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

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

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

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

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

9. (6a) This situation (is) (is not) such that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that does not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning district. Vote: 1 will, 3 will not.

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

11. (6c) This situation (is) (is not) such that the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will materially impair the purposes of the ordinance of the public interest. Vote: 2 will, 2 will not.

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

The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 0 for and 4 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.

Attorney Altman stated, 4 votes cast, 4 votes indicate that the variance is hereby denied, you need to start to remove the violation and pay the fine.

****

#2138 Carole L. Sheehy; Requesting a 31’ front setback variance off of First Street, a 13’ front setback variance off of Jefferson Street and a 2’ rear setback off of the alley to have a privacy fence on Lot #1 in Young’s Subdivision of Block 1 in J.C. Reynolds Third Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 329 W. Jefferson Street.

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

Carole Sheehy stated, I’m Carole Sheehy.

Vice President Stradling asked, do you have anything to add to this request?

Carole Sheehy stated, no, just that I had a chain link fence and I for the protection of the children because they walk to and from school, I have a rottweiler. The rottweiler is getting old, I put a privacy fence up so she can’t jump the fence, I had no clue taking down the fence putting up a fence was a problem so, I’m sorry.

Director Weaver stated, Mrs. Sheehy had provided us an old survey that showed that the old fence was there, I did make a copy of that and sent it to the Board so that they could see that. She did also receive signatures from some of her neighbors and I did send that to the Board as well. We have not received any complaints on this.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there anyone else with anything to add either for or against this variance? Board, do you have any questions?

Gary Barbour asked, who put the fence in?

Carole Sheehy stated, I did, I just had a handy man come in, take down the chain link and actually the chain link was on the outside because of the big poles were cemented in so they had their pole come like 6” to 8” inside so it’s actually closer to the house than it was the chain link.

Gary Barbour asked, so is your handy man a contractor?

Carole Sheehy stated, I didn’t know that I had to have anything like that. I was just taking down the fence and putting up the other one, I kind of was trying to do it before school started last year it’s been up for almost a year before it was brought to my attention that I was in violation. I had no idea because, I had a fence and I was just replacing it.

Vice President Stradling asked, when these pictures were taken, was the fence open, okay that’s the open side where the boat is stored.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Vice President Stradling asked, but the fence itself is securely closed?

Carole Sheehy stated, yes, the fence has 3 gates on it, they all have latches, there is a lattice where the carport, boat port whatever it is, there is, that 30 dollar lattice that’s not the wood line, whatever that plastic lattice is I don’t know. They thought that it would only be safe and the vinyl that lattice there but yes, it is all enclosed and it is all securely put up.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there any visibility problem at that corner?

Director Weaver stated, when I was there, there was a car pull out of the alley and they didn’t seem to have any problem, not that I could tell at least. Like I said, I have not had any complaints on this from neighbors.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other questions? Does the Board wish to vote?

The Board stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, Mrs. Sheehy, who was the handy man?

Carole Sheehy stated, his name was Danny Wilner, my significant other that has been living with me for several years and a guy named Dan Harmon out of Logansport that use to work with him.

Attorney Altman asked, first name?

Carole Sheehy stated, Danny Wilner, he resides at the house with me and then a person that worked with him, they worked at Indiana Van Lines, his name is Dan Harmon out of Logansport.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest that rather than the Board, doing at this time, rather than imposing a fine for the violation, that both of these individuals come to the Area Plan Office and get brought up to speed on requirements of building and that sort of thing. If they do that, we wouldn’t need to go ahead and later on file a violation for a fine or something like that so if they both do that, I think that will resolve this, given the fact that they were just replacing one with the other.

Carole Sheehy stated, well, Danny has been in the office with me with Director Weaver but, I don’t know if you want him to…

Attorney Altman stated, I surely do.

Carole Sheehy stated, come back in and know something else.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that he should really, that would be very helpful.

Carole Sheehy asked, and also Director Weaver had asked me to bring in, I wanted to put a little gable over one of my doors, I didn’t know how to explain it, but this is it.

Attorney Altman asked, you mean a fence?

Carole Sheehy stated, no, over my door, it’s just a little.

Attorney Altman stated, you had better check with her then and…

Carole Sheehy stated, I did put that on my note for future.

Director Weaver stated, I know that we had it there at one time.

Vice President Stradling asked, are we voting on that tonight?

Carole Sheehy stated, well, she said to do everything at once if I wanted it, it’s just a little gable, and it’s not….

Director Weaver stated, the final survey that we got didn’t show it.

Carole Sheehy stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I know at one time it did but…

Carole Sheehy stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, but, the final one we got did not.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 31’ front setback variance off of First Street, a 13’ front setback variance off of Jefferson Street and a 2’ rear setback off of the alley to have a privacy fence on Lot 1 in Young’s Subdivision of Block 1 in J.C. Reynolds Third Addition in Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 329 W. Jefferson 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 4affirmative and 0negative.


Attorney Altman stated, and the violation, we will take care of the other way so, you need to get…


Carole Sheehy asked, can I have both, can they come in at alternating times or do they have to be together.


Attorney Altman stated, whenever they wish to do so in the next month.


Director Weaver stated, you do need to get your permit for the fence.


Attorney Altman stated, yes, get your building permit.


Director Weaver stated, you still need to get a permit for this.


Carole Sheehy stated, that was my next question because, I knew that I had 3 steps to this, so I bring back the thing that I have had since July in my front yard and what do I do now?


Attorney Altman stated, get a building permit from Director Weaver.


Carole Sheehy stated, okay, thank you.


Attorney Altman stated, thank you.


****

#2139 Kenneth D. & Lewana J. Uselton; Requesting a Special Exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to have a dog kennel on 1.001 Acres. The property is located East of Brookston at 9229 S. 225 E.

Vice President Stradling asked, the Uselton’s are here representing this request?

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes.

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

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes, I’ve had dogs up there since we moved in it’s been over a year and I got my permit for my kennel and I think that is the main problem that’s going on right now is when I went to get this permit for the kennel the word kennel is not representative of what I want to do. I have German Shepherds and I just want to raise, I have a male and a female that I ordered from Germany and I have a female that I bought here in the states. I compete in Schutzhund on which is competition that was developed over in Germany for these dogs and that’s what I want to do but, I’m wanting to come in compliance with the regulations as far as the number of dogs that I can have. I’m not wanting to board any dogs there, I’m not wanting to bring the other dogs in there other than my own personal animals. I believe that is the biggest problem and I know there were some problems some of the neighbors didn’t like it they brought it on themselves to determine what I was wanting to do and in my opinion ignorance is really…

Vice President Stradling stated, lets be careful…

Attorney Altman asked, so what you want to do is have how many dogs on there?

Kenneth Uselton stated, no more than 6.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, with possibly…

Kenneth Uselton stated, I’m not building anything.

Attorney Altman asked, I understand but they, 6 and probably some litters right?

Kenneth Uselton stated, well, I might have litters but the Ordinance doesn’t….

Attorney Altman asked, adults…

Kenneth Uselton stated, anything over 4 months….

Attorney Altman stated, adults would be…

Kenneth Uselton stated, correct…

Attorney Altman asked, total of 6?

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, okay and nothing boarded, nothing of anyone else’s?

Kenneth Uselton stated, absolutely not.

Attorney Altman asked, okay and that is a modification of your request and special exception right?

Kenneth Uselton stated, no…

Director Weaver stated, no it is not a modification that is what was requested for a private dog kennel for approximately 6 dogs.

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and that’s all that you want?

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes sir absolutely and I have some pictures of some of my kennels in the back, or where my dogs are…

Attorney Altman stated, I understand.

Kenneth Uselton asked, would you like to see those?

Attorney Altman stated, I understand there might be a modification and I wanted it on the record.

Attorney Altman stated, I know that, here are some pictures taken from the front.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you’ve had, you have dogs there currently?

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes ma’am, I do.

Vice President Stradling asked, how will this change what you’re currently doing?

Kenneth Uselton stated, it really doesn’t, all, it allows me to have my female, well my 2 females my male and my wife will have 2 dogs in the house and that’s the only change, my wife will be able to have the 2 dogs in the house.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you currently have 3 dogs?

Kenneth Uselton stated, no, I actually have, I have 2 that is for sale, 3, I have 5 dogs right now and once I had dogs, I found out about this. I have not had any complaints from any of my neighbors until I put the sign in my yard and the misunderstanding about what I was wanting to do is what has brought all of this around now.

Vice President Stradling asked, alright, is there anyone else with any other comments about this variance?

Thomas Hall stated, I live across the road and…

Attorney Altman asked, your name sir?

Thomas Hall stated, Thomas Hall.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you Thomas.

Thomas Hall stated, I don’t have any problems with what Kenny is doing but, I do understand that once he is issued a kennel license or whatever that it can be transferred to another owner. Say he sells his house or something in the future…

Vice President Stradling asked, not with a special exception, does a special travel with the property or does it travel with the owner?

Attorney Altman stated, it would travel with the property…

Director Weaver stated, unless you….

Attorney Altman stated, but, it would be limited by the number that he is talking about.

Thomas Hall stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, unless the Board says otherwise.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, unless the Board says otherwise but, his request is for the limited private, to be private the numbers could be 6 and I think that’s it.

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes sir, that’s it.

Thomas Hall stated, okay and that’s, it can’t go any further than that then?

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right without a change of the special exception and he would have to come before the Board.

Thomas Hall asked, my whole concern was if say 20 years from now or 10 years he decides to sell the property and someone else moves in can they get 100 dogs?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Thomas Hall stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, not without a…

Thomas Hall asked, starting all over?

Attorney Altman stated, starting all over again.

Thomas Hall stated, okay.

Vice President Stradling asked, Jeff…

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you have another hand.

Vice President Stradling stated, I’m sorry.

Ron Byrd asked, yes, Ron Byrd another neighbor and just so everyone knows, we’re not here to cause a war in the neighborhood, we just want information. It was stated to my wife that these dogs were trained as attack animals and that’s what, now Don, don’t get upset because that is what my wife was told.

Jean Hall asked, excuse me, I’m the neighbor, and I’ve, they do have the order jackets, the dogs attack their arms that’s, when do you call it an attack dog?

Attorney Altman asked, and your name ma’am?

Jean Hall stated, oh, my name is Jean Hall.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Jean Hall stated, that scares me, I have a granddaughter because no kennel is fool proof, and you know one day someone might get a call, you get scared, you forget the latch and the dog gets out. That is a concern of mine and especially with everyone on our road that have kids.

Vice President Stradling asked, would you care to address that concern?

Kenneth Uselton stated, yes, Schutzhund is developed I have some papers here, yes, the dogs do bite work but, the dogs are trained. The sleeve is like a reward, it is a test of their temperament. Dogs that are aggressive are not dogs that can do Schutzhund because, that is one thing that is not allowed in the sport is any dog that is aggressive towards a person. I could take any person in here and bring them out there to my place and anybody is welcome to and this is what I tried to explain to Mr. Byrd but, he wouldn’t return my calls, wouldn’t talk to me or nothing and they can come out there and I could put the sleeve on them and give the dog a bite and give them the sleeve and then the dog carries the sleeve around because that’s, that’s their trophy is the sleeve. When they drop that sleeve a man can walk right back up to my dogs without one bit of problem because it is not, it’s not the person it’s the sleeve that they are playing with and it is a game. I know that people that don’t, that don’t have any knowledge of it, they don’t understand it but, if you went a saw it or whatever you would.

Ron Byrd stated, a dog bite is not a game, if you have seen any child…

Kenneth Uselton stated, excuse me…

Vice President Stradling stated, hold on.

Attorney Altman stated, number one is what the dogs are there for is not part of this request it is the numbers and that’s private. That’s all that I understand that this request is for and we don’t supervise what people do or don’t do in training their dogs and that is not part of this request.

Kenneth Uselton stated, just for the record, these are not attack dogs, they are not guard dogs, this is a sport, just for the record.

Attorney Altman stated, but it’s irrelevant.

Kenneth Uselton stated, okay, all right.

Ron Byrd asked, may I ask a question, who does, you said that you don’t regulate, who does regulate?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know that anyone does.

Ron Byrd stated, and that is another concern of ours, as neighbors.

Attorney Altman stated, I suppose that you might go to the Sheriffs Department.

Ron Byrd stated, and we were told to go and ask the Animal Control Officer and we talked to the Animal Control Officer and the Animal Control Officer says nothing can be done until someone is injured and once again…

Attorney Altman stated, again, I don’t like that but I understand that.

Ron Byrd stated, and I want to reiterate a couple of other things that was brought up a couple of concerns, first of all is safety. There are 17 school age kids and younger within 1 mile, there is an elementary school within 3 miles, a little over 500 kids there. The Town of Brookston with over 1,700 people and I understand that it is a sport, I also understand that animals that are trained to do something don’t always do what their trainer tells them to do.

Vice President Stradling stated, sir, at the back.

Kenneth Uselton stated, dad just…

Don Uselton stated, I own the property on two sides of him. I have 4 grandsons, they get out there and play with those dogs all of the time. If the concern is safety, Ron has kids and I certainly understand where he is coming from but, if the concern is safety the all of the loose dogs one of which is yours, I treated for fleas 3 times and took back to you…

Ron Byrd stated, and you can shoot it anytime…

Don Uselton stated, I would never shoot anyone’s dogs or yours Tom, you know, I called you and Jean…

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay lets stick to the facts.

Don Uselton stated, okay but anyway, the loose dogs should be taken care of.

Vice President Stradling asked, are we ready to vote? Are there any questions from the Board?

Jeff Saylor asked, in terms of safety isn’t that with, addressed in the concern…

Attorney Altman stated, it is, it is addressed in the concerns.

Kenneth Uselton asked, could I show you what I have my dogs in right now? Would you like to see the pictures, would it make any difference?

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think that it matters.

Kenneth Uselton stated, well, my dogs are…

Ron Byrd stated, I only have one other question if I might.

Vice President Stradling asked, is it something new?

Ron Byrd asked, yes, the only question is if he’s not going to do anything different, why did there need to be a variance?

Attorney Altman stated, numbers, he wants to be over 4. Four there is no regulation on it.

Jean Hall stated, he has been over 4 for a while.

Kenneth Uselton stated, well, that’s why I’m trying to come in now….

Jean Hall stated, well I didn’t know either…

Kenneth Uselton stated, right, exactly….

Jean Hall stated, that’s fine…

Kenneth Uselton stated, that’s why I’m trying to take care of this.

Vice President Stradling asked, alright, are there any questions from the Board? Jeff, is your question answered?

Jeff Saylor asked, when it comes to issuing a special exception, that means that we are going to allow a use on a property that is not normally permitted under the normal, existing Ordinances and…

Attorney Altman stated, actually a special exception is if the use is permitted in another words, if this, if it is a use that is a special exception we have no discretion but to grant it.

Ron Byrd asked, will you say that again?

Attorney Altman stated, if the use is a special exception and the use is the use that is described in the Ordinance, we approve it, there is no discretion, a variance you have the discretion of granting it or not and that is the difference between a special exception if the Ordinance says that a kennel of this size is allowed as a special exception and that’s what he’s doing and you decide that’s what he’s doing you have no discretion but to grant it. That’s all that it is to it.

Jeff Saylor stated, the original question is answered correctly, any degree in flexibility that’s how we answer that question.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, that’s right, you have a degree of flexibility, you certainly have to decide that but, if you decide that it is a special exception that is allowed, you do.

Jean Hall stated, I have a question, when it comes to our real estate, I talked to realtors, two of them and they can’t say anything by law they are not allowed to appraise the property. They did say that it will decrease the value of my property. I thought that if I loose my job or if we loose our job and we have to sale then it decreases the value of our property because there is a kennel across from us.

Kenneth Uselton asked, do you have anything in writing that states that?

Jean Hall stated, I can’t…

Vice President Stradling stated, I don’t…

Jean Hall stated, I can’t, I have to get it reappraised…

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, Board are we ready?

Jeff Saylor stated, I think that we are ready.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay, we will vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a Special Exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to have a dog kennel on that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 4 West in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at a Survey nail set at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the fractional section line 165.00 feet to a Survey nail set; thence North 86 degrees 59 minutes 42 seconds East 264.50 feet to a capped ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 165.00 feet to an I.P. set on the fractional section line; thence South 86 degrees 59 minutes 42 seconds West 264.50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.001 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Brookston at 9229 S. 225 E.

7. That the special exception 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 special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said special exception under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.


The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 1 negative.

Attorney Altman stated, the 3 votes grants the special exception, I think that you probably need to get a building permit to come into compliance.


Kenneth Uselton stated, I already have a permit for what I have in place.


Attorney Altman stated, you had better make sure that it’s correct.


Kenneth Uselton stated, absolutely, it is.


Attorney Altman stated, make sure that it is correct.


Kenneth Uselton stated, yes sir.


Attorney Altman stated, thank you.


Kenneth Uselton stated, thank you.


****

#2140 Michele J. Goebel; Requesting an 8’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on part of Lot 16 in Richey Park Subdivision. The property is located South of Monticello at 5889 Richey Lane.

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

Michele Goebel stated, I’m Michele Goebel.

Vice President Stradling asked, and do you have any thing that you care to add?

Michele Goebel stated, well, I visited, I talked with our neighbors to the side that is the closest one that really effects where we’re getting the closes to them, Mrs. Labaugh and they came out to this place and we had string where the proposed building and they said that they thought that it was fine and they were happy for us. Her house is, their porch is up to our line but, it is way down at the bottom of the lot and…. and I talked to the other neighbors straight across and they also didn’t have any problems but, I was able to and also the ones that attends the… I have their names in here, Debbie and Daniel Cetera they are at the very end and they also gave us their blessing.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to make sure that the Board noticed on the this survey our setback requirements go to the eave of the building and this survey as you see noted at the bottom, the distances in the drawing that is shown are to the foundation not to the overhang but we have, the request itself is proper. So it would, to the property line the overhang will go to the property line.

Michael Goebel stated, may I say something, when I talked to the builder, he said that they can go with an 18” overhang and it does get a little bit, back, that one, the bottom he wants is where it’s the closest.

Attorney Altman asked, how do you propose to handle the water runoff on the roof?

Michele Goebel stated, well, the eaves would go and it would be this way, the roofline and there would be gutters all along the side.

Attorney Altman asked, where would the water go?

Michele Goebel stated, well actually, I haven’t had a drawing on that.

Attorney Altman stated, so that you’re, the roofline would be going East and West.

Michele Goebel stated, yes, if they have special requirements for the drainage, I’m sure that we would do that.

Vice President Stradling asked, these homes aren’t close enough to each other that they would need a firewall separation or anything like that?

Director Weaver stated, it doesn’t appear to be, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other comments or questions?

Erin McCart asked, my wife and I are the property owners to the North of the lot, I don’t believe that we have a problem, I just have a couple of questions. We’re planning a construction project in the future, would this in anyway granting this variance have any implication of our plans at all? Would there be precedence set in terms of similar variance would be granted for our property as well?

Vice President Stradling asked, so you would want to build your eaves to the property line, is that what your asking possibly?

Erin McCart stated, surely ask.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, is there a building on that side at this time?

Erin McCart stated, yes ma’am.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, so you’re looking at expanding that?

Eric McCard stated, we’re looking at building a new home.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you would take down the building that is there?

Erin McCart stated, perhaps.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay, it probably would set a precedence for what you want to do.

Erin McCart asked, then first question as far as it having any, this particular variance being granted would or would not have any, if I had any construction plans on our property to the North, their plans are obviously to the South side so it’s not right next to our, I’m just purely wanting to find out for the future for our plans personally what impact this would or would not have on our plans as far as further development of our property.

Director Weaver stated, that’s hard to say.

Vice President Stradling stated, without seeing your plans, it’s really hard to answer directly but, there is an issue in what we vote on or an item and it indicates that strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance as being applied to a situation that is or is not common to other properties in the same zoning district and so…

Erin McCart asked, so there is suppose to be an 8’ setback from the property line?

Director Weaver stated, right.

Erin McCart asked, and you want to sit right up against the property line?

Michele Goebel stated, 2’.

Erin McCart stated, 2’.

Vice President Stradling stated, well the…

Attorney Altman stated, the roofline would be right up.

Michele Goeble stated, that’s true, we’re asking to the line.

Erin McCart stated, and currently I have no problem with that, I’m just wanting to, in terms of precedence.

Vice President Stradling asked, what would it take for you to shorten your project some and give a little more room to the property line? Is there a reason that you extended it that much?

Michele Goebel stated, well, we would like to, it to be a permanent home and we would like to move where we are now and we’re trying to make it the best size that we can. The problem with getting a stairway in there because the existing house, the basement wall…there, we didn’t move that wall so we need that left in there to get a stairway and still have a little living room.

Jeff Saylor stated, you understand that it would be perfectly allowable for your next door neighbor at some point to build within 2’ of the property line and therefore, and just be 4’ away from your home, they could do that, if we choose to approve this for you. That means that you accept the fact that they can be this close to you.

Vice President Stradling asked, essentially they are, it’s just not side by side, it’s down the lot line a little bit. Any other questions? Does the Board wish to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Michele Goebel stated, yes but, it will have a top, like a loft.

Attorney Altman asked, so it will be 2 stories?

Michele Goebel stated, no…

Attorney Altman stated, two floors…

Michele Goebel stated, we want a loft in the back half.

Attorney Altman asked, so the roofline won’t be consistent with your present improvement on the home, it won’t be the same?

Michele Goebel stated, it will stay in line…

Attorney Altman asked, but, it will be higher right?

Michele Goebel stated, oh yes.

Attorney Altman asked, much higher, another floor higher.

Michele Goebel stated, in the middle.

Attorney Altman asked, and you will be on the sewage system?

Michele Goebel stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, are you on it now?

Michele Goebel stated, not yet, it’s all in place to be hooked up. We paid our money and everything.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

With on 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 8’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on 75.00 feet off the entire North side of Lot 16 in Richey Park Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5889 Richey Lane.


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


The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 1 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, granted, 3 votes prevail, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.


Michele Goebel stated, thank you very much.


****

#2141 David & Sarah Bonham; Requesting a Special Exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1976 mobile home to be relocated within White County.

Vice President Stradling asked, do we have anyone here representing that request? Yes sir, is there anything else that you care to add?

David Bonham stated, we’ve done everything required by the county and the Fire Chief did inspect the home and said that it was in an above average condition for a ’76 so there is nothing else to add.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you have seen his report?

David Bonham stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, does anyone else have anything that they wish to add?

Director Weaver stated, I did send a copy of the inspection to the Board and I did send a couple of the pictures, copies of a couple of the pictures to the Board also, there are several other pictures in the file.

David Scott asked, this picture before us, this is the trailer and they are going to move it somewhere else?

Director Weaver stated, that is the trailer that, Mr. Braaksma took those pictures and I just copied them for the Board. My understanding is the trailer has already been moved just this week is what I understand.

Vice President Stradling asked, you are already moved the trailer?

David Bonham stated, yes, it’s been moved but, not been set up on it’s current lot we were told that we received the permit to move it but, could not hook up to utilities and make it livable until the Board makes a decision…

Director Weaver stated, we have not issued a permit. The permit that he is referring to comes through the Treasurer’s Office.

Vice President Stradling stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, we have not issued any permits on this.

David Scott asked, and is this going to another mobile home park?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t…

David Bonham stated, it’s going to a private lot that we bought.

Sarah Bonham stated, there are mobile homes are it, that’s, what’s in there, a bunch of older mobile homes…

David Bonham stated, Lake Breeze…

Sarah Bonham stated, Lake Breeze…

David Bonham stated, ’74….

Sarah Bonham stated, and there are some even older than that that are out there.

Vice President Stradling asked, were you aware of Mr. Braaksma’s comment about ground fault interrupt outlets required in the kitchen?

Sarah Bonham stated, we did…

David Bonham stated, right, I have already replaced those.

Sarah Bonham stated, he said that he will do another inspection after we get the trailer moved and at that time he will make sure that we have those installed and he did make a couple of other recommendations that we went ahead and taken care of that wasn’t hazard or whatever. He just wanted to check and then he will check all of the gas and everything to make sure that it’s hooked up properly when we get to the permits and the gas hooked up.

Director Weaver stated, actually the way that this is set up now with the new Building Inspector, Mr. Braaksma does not have to come back out and do that inspection, the County Building Inspector will do that inspection, that is part of your building permit fee is for him to come out and do the inspection.

Vice President Stradling asked, any other comments, any questions from the Board? Are we ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1976 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, and the Board additionally finds that the above said special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed and get that re-inspected.

David Bonham stated, thank you.

Sarah Bonham stated, thank you very much.

****

#2142 Marvin E. (Shorty) Johns Jr.; Requesting a Special Exception as per Section 12.00, Article 12.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1979 mobile home to be relocated within White County.

Vice President Stradling asked, is there, are you are?

Marvin Johns stated, Marvin Johns.

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

Marvin Johns stated, I did hire a reputable, what I feel is a reputable inspector agency inspection service and I believe, that you have a copy of that. I will say that in that he took several pictures and with all of those pictures he’s got that the mobile home is in above average condition there are a few things that need to be taken care of which I am willing to take care of. Director Weaver explained to me that I would not be issued a building permit until those things were taken care of and Dave Anderson inspected it to make sure that those things were taken care of so other than that, that’s it.

Vice President Stradling asked, and just for the record, one of those things would be the wiring at the main box and the circuit breakers I’m looking at page 7 of 13, outlets not GFCI protected in kitchen, bath exterior…

Marvin Johns stated, that’s right, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, and then the in particular the defective smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detector. Anything else pertaining to this special exception?

David Scott asked, these things have to be done before he is issued a permit or just someone to check it to make sure that it’s done?

Director Weaver stated, it can be done in conjunction with his permit if the Board is okay with that, the Building Inspector, I think could do this inspection.

Marvin Johns stated, the trailer if it is sitting in Monon now and it has sat there from what I understand from the time that it was bought maybe it was set on this lot in Monon so I believe that is part of the reason that it’s in good condition other than the hot water heater and the GFI’s I believe everything else is okay.

Vice President Stradling asked, any questions or comments from the Board? Do we wish to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the report from the inspection was provided and covers all required areas, see file for exhibit.

2. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

3. That proper notice was given by newspaper advertisement.

4. That the request is for a special exception to allow a 1979 Mobile Home to be brought into White County as required by Section 12.00 of the White County Zoning Ordinance.

5. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is 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 improvement, and the Board additionally finds that the above said special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said section of zoning ordinance.

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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit and final inspection.

Marvin Johns stated, thank you.

Director Weaver stated, you do need to have that permit prior to moving that home so before you move it to the…

Marvin Johns asked, okay, how is that going to work Director Weaver, there is no power, gas or anything at the site now, can I move it to my lot and do the repairs and then get the permit?

Director Weaver stated, you can’t move it without the permit so, and I think that the Board is agreeable to allow you to do the repairs once a permit has been issued.

Marvin Johns asked, okay, do I have to have like in this, in this inspection there was no gas, so he couldn’t inspect that. What I’m wondering is if I’m going to have to have it inspected twice then, once before I move it and once afterwards.

Director Weaver stated, no, not necessarily you can make the repairs after it’s been moved.

Marvin Johns asked, what do I have to do before I’m issued a permit then?

Director Weaver stated, get your septic permit and then get your building permit and then move it and then get repairs…

Marvin Johns asked, so I can make repairs?

Director Weaver stated, and then you can have it inspected….

Marvin Johns stated, after I move it…

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Marvin Johns asked, okay, I won’t set it up until it’s repaired but, I can move it?

Director Weaver stated, right, once you have that permit.

Marvin Johns stated, the septic permit.

Director Weaver stated, and the building permit.

Vice President Stradling asked, now that transportation permit…

Director Weaver stated, that comes from the Treasurer’s Office basically all that is, is tax clearance states that the taxes have been paid on it before they can move it and I believe that they have to have that in their possession at the time that they are on the road.

Vice President Stradling stated, alright.

****

#2143 William S. & Jane A. Locke; Requesting a 30’ Front Setback Variance to repair and enlarge a enclosed sun porch and also a 3’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot #5 in Amos Oak Crest Lodge Addition #2. The property is located South of Lowes Bridge at 5561 N. West Shafer Drive.

Vice President Stradling asked, and you are the Lockes?

Marvin Johns stated, I’m representing them as their builder.

Vice President Stradling stated, okay.

Marvin Johns stated, I believe that I have done all of the necessary work except the D.N.R., I was not aware until this morning that I was going to have to get permission from the D.N.R. to get this permit. I have worked on that today I met with Jim Milligan twice, him and his staff twice to see whether or not this is in a flood plain. He indicates it is so, I’m in the process of getting permission from the D.N.R. now. We’ve got permission from S.F.L.E.C.C., I’ve in back of the S.F.L.E.C.C. permission paper there is a place for the neighbors to sign, the neighbors on both sides have signed, Locke’s actually signed because, they own two pieces or property, they own one to the North the place that we’re adding onto and Steve Stearns owns the place to the South.

Director Weaver asked, can you clear something up for me?

Marvin Johns stated, I’ll try.

Director Weaver asked, Ulm is that who occupies this property?

Marvin Johns stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, alright.

Marvin Johns stated, and she indicated at first that they were buying the place on contract but, I don’t believe that is the case, I believe maybe they are just renting.

Director Weaver stated, okay, because the letter that we have from S.F.L.E.C.C. has the name of Ulm so, I wanted that clarified how we have the two names, why we have the two names.

Marvin Johns stated, they are, Ulm’s are the ones that approached me to do the room addition, Locke’s are the once that are actually paying for the job…

Director Weaver stated, right.

Marvin Johns stated, so I assume that Locke’s own it.

Director Weaver stated, and Locke’s did file the actual request, they did come in and sign the application so, we have dealt with the owner on this but, I was a little confused why we had two names.

Vice President Stradling asked, on the pictures that we’re looking at, it appears that there is a dock with a swing on it?

Marvin Johns stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, that’s not the area referred to as the deck on here is there, on this survey?

Marvin Johns stated, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, it looks like a 10’ x 18’ deck so the 10’ x 18 deck…

Marvin Johns stated, the 10’ x 18’ deck is actually, it’s a screened in….

Vice President Stradling asked, second….

Marvin Johns stated, story porch, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, and that’s what you want to add on?

Marvin Johns stated, yes, what they want to do is actually move that, the structure underneath is very decayed really I guess that could be repaired but, it’s going to take over 50 percent of the old material off. Dave indicated that we had to have a building permit in order to do that so they have decided that if we have to obtain a building permit they want to make it bigger and enclose it with windows.

Vice President Stradling asked, but what you’re asking, you’re asking for a 3’ side setback variance I understand that but 30’ front setback variance.

Marvin Johns stated, I don’t understand what that 30’, where that comes from.

Vice President Stradling stated, the front comes off of Lake Shafer but….

Marvin Johns stated, I think that was suppose to be 3’.

Director Weaver stated, the 30’ is what we require for a front setback which is from the water’s side so what this is doing is allowing you to go to the property line, we can’t allow you to go any further than that because that is not our jurisdiction, that is where S.F.L.E.C.C. comes in.

Marvin Johns stated, actually the place is over the property line now…

Vice President Stradling stated, yes.

Marvin Johns stated, it’s over the property line 14’ now, that’s why I was sent to S.F.L.E.C.C. to get permission from them to make the structure bigger. It has to have something done with it because under the use allotted now, it’s not going to, it’s just not going to last much longer, it’s going to have to be removed or replaced.

Vice President Stradling asked, so you’re not finishing the lower portion?

Marvin Johns stated, no.

Vice President Stradling asked, that will be left open?

Marvin Johns stated, that will be left open, basically what we are doing is building back removing that construction and building back 4’ wider to bring it out but the house is actually 24’ wide, I don’t have a copy of that, the surveyor’s sheet I think it’s 4’ and we want to make it 4’ wider on both sides and 3’ towards the water. The house is 24’ wide I believe and the present structure is 18’ so we’re….

David Scott stated, 26’…

Marvin Johns stated, okay 26’…

Director Weaver stated, yes, that looks like it should be 26’ also.

Marvin Johns stated, actually the house is 24’ wide.

Attorney Altman asked, so the 26’ is there…

Director Weaver stated, is there…

Marvin Johns stated, the 26’ is there.

David Scott asked, the permit for the flood plane or whatever…

Director Weaver stated, we won’t issue a building permit until he has something from the D.N.R.

David Scott asked, so that won’t effect that home there now.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Vice President Stradling asked, do you understand the restrictions that the S.F.L.E.C.C. is placing on this addition or it may have storm windows but, no permanent sources of heat or air conditioning.

Marvin Johns stated, yes.

Vice President Stradling asked, and you also understand that we can only give you permission to build to your property line if we approve this variance tonight, it says nothing to what will be happening on the S.F.L.E.C.C. property, we can’t give you permission to build on someone else’s property, it appears that they have granted that however.

Marvin Johns stated, okay.

Vice President Stradling asked, any questions or comments? Board, are you 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 30’ Front Setback Variance to repair and enlarge a enclosed sun porch and also a 3’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot Number Five (5) in Amos Oak Crest Lodge Addition No. Two (2) in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

Also commencing at a point Nine Hundred Eight two (982) feet and eight (8) inches East and North Sixty (60) Degrees East Three Hundred Fifty (350) feet of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section Thirty-two (32), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West, thence South thirty-four (34) Degrees East One Hundred (100) feet. This point of beginning being the Northwest corner of Land to be conveyed; and being a small triangular tract out of Tract E. Thence South Thirty-four (34) degrees East One Hundred Twenty (120) feet; thence North Sixty-nine (69) Degrees East Six (6) Feet; thence in a general northwesterly direction to the point of beginning. Being out of the Northwest Quarter of Section Thirty-two (32), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge at 5561 N. West Shafer Drive.


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


The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, subject to getting approval from the D.N.R.


Director Weaver stated, Attorney Altman, that should be 2143.


Attorney Altman stated, 3, yes I’m sorry. You need to get a building permit and the D.N.R.’s approval first okay.


Marvin Johns stated, okay, thank you.


****


#2144 North White Building Trades; Requesting a 7’ Front Setback Variance to build a new home on Lot #6 & N ½ Lot #5 in Mabel G. Horton Subdivision Pt V. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 510 N. Greenwood Street.

Vice President Stradling asked, anyone here representing that request this evening? And you are?

Leo Glotzbach stated, Leo Glotzbach.

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

Leo Blotzbach stated, I don’t know what you had in your file is the only thing, I guess I would like to make the Board aware, we have built the 3 houses adjacent to this, I don’t know if you have any information in there or not and the bottom foot on that is the way that the other 3 are lined up which do meet the zoning setbacks, but that is the 3 previous houses that we built adjacent to this lot that we are now building on.

Attorney Altman stated, survey shows that they are not out that far really so they don’t, so this doesn’t meet the setbacks, this has the houses the house on each side and it shows it back further than this house.

Leo Glotzbach stated, well, these 3 here are on the 32’ line from the property line they are 46’ front, the street and yes this one that we are now in the process of building is basically going to be the garage that protrudes out the 7’.

Attorney Altman stated, have to do, to be a violation?

Director Weaver stated, this is something that they caught and brought to my attention, I was unaware of it and I got a phone call stating that they had ran into a problem and they were going to apply for a variance.

Leo Glotzbach stated, the basic reason if I might say, the lot adjacent to the one that we are building on we do not own, there is a double wide there and we picked the plans for this particular home which the idea and the thought that this garage protruding out this home is going to have a small porch on it this would block this double wide from the view and that was the thought behind picking the plans, little did we realize at that time that we got the plans and was ready to start it, it wasn’t possible to line up the houses and also the garage and all and meet the variance both from the front and the back, that was a problem.

David Scott asked, and they were all within their time restraints because the class is building these, they…

Leo Glotzbach stated, yes, we have students from 3 schools, 3 or 4 and school is ready to start so with that we went, we had a problem.

Director Weaver asked, do you lie out your houses on your lots yourselves or do you have a surveyor do that?

Leo Glotzbach stated, the Building Trades Instructor basically.

Director Weaver stated, the reason that I’m brining this up is since this variance was filed, I now have another variance filed in the office for next month and it is also a home that the building trades built and it is not meeting setbacks either and I’m concerned, that’s why I’m brining that up, I’m concerned.

David Scott asked, our, Monon Building Trades?

Director Weaver stated, yes, it’s been, I believe in the 80’s when it was built, or ’92 maybe, it’s been several years, it’s not one that they recently built but it was built out of the setbacks as well and I’m concerned about how you are laying out your…

Leo Glotzbach asked, was that the duplex by chance?

Director Weaver stated, no, single family home and I can not tell you exactly what corner that is on, it’s over on the West side of town, it’s on a corner.

Leo Glotzbach asked, well if, the history at one point and time, we built I think it was 17 houses straight, continuous numbers and dollars within the school. The superintendent indicated to us that it was going to be impossible to have these classes so we quit for 4 years and then of course of since about 4 to 6 years ago we got back into building and back then, I guess I wasn’t on the board, I’m not aware of back then. It would have been a different instructor, was the zoning in effect at that time?

Director Weaver stated, yes, yes.

Leo Glotzbach stated, I don’t know back then…

Attorney Altman stated, we’re beyond 30 years right now.

Leo Glotzbach stated, well, I can’t address or speak to that I wasn’t even aware of it, I might know the home if we had the address but…

Attorney Altman stated, it looks like someone should be a little more detail conscious on this, it’s pretty easy to…

Vice President Stradling asked, how did that come about, how did you become aware that you are building too far forward?

Leo Glotbach asked, on this one?

Vice President Stradling stated, yes.

Leo Glotbach stated, well, as far as the Board members we wasn’t until the classes were ready to trade companies and start laying it out in rough form and that’s when we got together and was informed.

Vice President Stradling asked, when it was in rough form?

Leo Glotzbach stated, well, before any footing was started it guess…

Vice President Stradling asked, and so you continued even after that? I guess what I’m saying is that if you realized it when the footing was being laid, why did you proceed to build it the way that it is now when you could have moved it back 7’?

Leo Glotzbach stated, I don’t have my figures in front of…

David Scott stated, ….neighborhood if they would have moved it back was the way that they designed it so the garage sticks out to hide the double wide and the modular.

Leo Glotzbach stated, I don’t have this in front of me at the moment, but were we not going to be in violation on the variance….

Vice President Stradling stated, no.

Leo Glotzbach stated, I don’t know without the sketch here…

Attorney Altman stated, the survey doesn’t indicate, the survey has you, plenty of room in the back, maybe 30’ in the back.

Vice President Stradling stated, well, if you start at 120’ you have 25’, 25’ and 48’ should leave you about 47’ so if you backed it up 7’ you still would have 40’ to the rear.

Leo Glotzbach stated, like I said, I wasn’t sure what the situation was other than attempt to line up best that we could with the 3 others that we previously built and keep them as uniformed as possible and that’s when we became aware that we couldn’t meet all of the lines and requirements.

Vice President Stradling stated, but, the double wide is built to the line.

Leo Glotzbach stated, yes, as is our other 3…

Vice President Stradling stated, well, they are set back from the line, they are set back from the line so if you would put the garage even with the doublewide you would have been within the setbacks and still had that not in your view. The front corner, the other front corner the 32’ and would have been setback from the line of the others….

Leo Glotzbach stated, that would have been way back from the others, that was part of the thought.

Vice President Stradling stated, well, it would have been 7’ back but, now you have it 7’ in front of the other one.

Leo Glotzbach asked, well, I think it’s a little more, the house property you mean?

Vice President Stradling stated, correct.

Leo Glotzbach stated, your, if you want to be educated I guess, not a guess an educated answer, I don’t know if it was prepared correctly, quite frankly.

Vice President Stradling stated, I guess what bothers me is that you know it’s a building trade so you’re teaching children, high school kids how to build and yet when the footers laid, and it’s laid out you realize that it’s not meeting the setback and you continue to build out of compliance and then come and ask for forgiveness from the Board instead of stopping at that time and moving it back or making an adjustment there. We see before this Board too many times where builders go ahead and build out of compliance and then they come before the Board and it’s really hard when it’s contractors and it’s also really hard when you’re dealing with an educator who is trying to teach these kids the right way to do things.

Leo Glotzbach stated, well, the only thing that’s kind of a thought, like I said this surface, the 1st or 2nd day of school and at that point and time we’ve got 24 students representing 3 schools…

Vice President Stradling stated, so you have just taught 24 students representing 3 schools that if you’re under the wire, if you have pressure go ahead and do it wrong, don’t make the correction, go ahead and do it the way that you want to do and then go before the Board and ask for a variance.

David Scott stated, not necessarily…

Leo Glotzbach stated, well….

David Scott stated, they did go to Director Weaver and get a variance at the time that they wanted to do that.

Director Weaver stated, they immediately filed the variance….

David Scott stated, and against time restraints, I mean they can’t have 24 kids standing there waiting for a month for this Board to meet.

Vice President Stradling stated, then we’re telling contractors that they need to wait that they need to go through the proper procedures but, if we’re teaching kids how to do it we need to go ahead and do it the most, the way that we want to do it.

Leo Glotzbach stated, no, I don’t really think the students as far as indicating to them the thought that we can do, I don’t think that is really, because all of these decisions or whatever was between the instructor before the students holiday, I can’t say, I don’t know….

Vice President Stradling stated, but by example this is what they know to do, I’m sorry.

Jeff Saylor stated, I was just going to mention that earlier this evening, I made a motion to fine a gentlemen 500 dollars for building outside of the parameters of the building permit and to the extent that it required a variance request. Now what he did is really no different than what has been done here now that requires us to treat everyone the same or treat them differently. I would like to cut the school corporation a break obviously but, essentially it’s asking the Board to do two different things tonight for exactly the same offense, as I see it.

David Scott stated, there is a little difference though, you’ve got kids standing there and they’ve got 9 months to build a house and they have to stand for 30 days while you’re waiting…

Jeff Saylor stated, that’s not fair…

Vice President Stradling stated, a contractor has the same restrictions.

David Scott asked, how much do you want to fine them?

Jeff Saylor stated, no, I’m not…

David Scott asked, how much do you want to fine them?

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m not saying that we need to fine, you tell me why this is different.

David Scott stated, it’s different because they are under a time restraints, they can’t hold school a month after school is out and have these kids come in and build, I mean they have 9 months to build.

Jeff Saylor stated, so in other words, no matter what the kids do it’s going to be okay and I’ve got to fine someone else, a private citizen for doing something…

Vice President Stradling stated, the other option is Dave, that they could have built it back further within the setbacks that is still an option that was an option then….

Jeff Saylor stated, I want everyone to understand, I do not want to fine the School Corporation, that is not my mission here right now but, I made a motion of fining someone else 500 dollars for the same thing tonight…

David Scott stated, that’s a little different…

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, you tell me why it’s different and you explain to the judge in court why that’s going to be different okay.

David Scott stated, he did not get a permit, he broke every rule in the book…

Jeff Saylor stated, he did get a permit.

David Scott asked, he did?

Jeff Saylor stated, he just didn’t…

Director Weaver stated, he didn’t have a permit for all of what he did.

Jeff Saylor stated, he had a building permit he just….

Director Weaver stated, for part of the project…

Jeff Saylor stated, elaborated on it….

Director Weaver stated, right, for part of the project. The school did have a permit for what they are building, not in the location they are building it but for what they are building.

Vice President Stradling asked, sir, you had your hand up.

An audience member stated, this building trades seems to have an ongoing building project each year, there is no reason why they can’t get a building permit July or August so when the kids come in the fall they have their building permit and they start building and all this is behind them. That’s what I find wrong with it.

Director Weaver stated, I feel like maybe they need to have a surveyor stake their house in the future, so they do have it properly located on the lot.

Leo Glotzbach stated, we can, you know the point of it is, our Board is 5 or 6 members we basically second sometimes on the materials and style of home a lot of this, he is not on our Board. He is here, employed by North White School Corporation and we’re a separate identity. None of our Board has taken the policy of we have an axe over this gentlemen as far as he and his students and management as well because he is…employer. We’re concerned with if it can be solved and it’s built right these things yes but these ….go nuts over them.

Gary Barbour asked, so who made the final decision to go ahead and just build?

Leo Glotzbach stated, I don’t know, Dave, we consulted Dave on this, I don’t know how that ended up or where we, I know that we talked to Dave on it and…

Gary Barbour stated, I would rather make all of…the Board and everyone that is where, I guess my feelings on it is. I understand where Dave is coming from, I understand where you are coming from and I’m kind of on the same as Jeff Saylor, that we’re not telling our students here anything different than what we allow contractors to come in here everyday my feelings are rather seeing a fine go towards the school, I guess I would be willing some of us do, write up a letter and give each of those students stating what was done wrong, what they should not do and proper specks that you go through to resolve this before you even get into having to have a variance or special exception. That way they are learning the right way, they are learning that you have to go in and have it according to the setbacks and I would like to make that as a motion.

Jeff Saylor stated, I second.

Vice President Stradling asked, motion has been made and second. Do you care to vote? Let me clarify, so in lieu of a fine a letter would be drafted explaining how the process that they went through was not the correct process…

Gary Barbour stated, right.

Vice President Stradling stated, when you’re building the home…

Gary Barbour stated, and show them the proper steps…

Vice President Stradling stated, and show them the proper steps that could have, should have been taken.

Leo Glotzbach asked, this is for each one of students within the class?

Vice President Stradling stated, each one of the students within the class.

Director Weaver stated, I feel like a copy should come to the office as well.

Gary Barbour stated, I agree.

Vice President Stradling asked, are there any further discussions?

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t know, I heard tonight that the Board doesn’t treat everyone equal okay, and this is a classic case of not treating everyone equal. I agree with the steps taken, I just don’t think that this Board can ever treat everyone exactly equal. I’m grateful to be on the Board but, contempt to comprises like this and grateful to the people that can think of them. That’s all that I have to say.

Leo Glotzbach stated, well, that’s a very heavy consideration that has been given, the fact that we’ve got, I think that it’s 24 students in the schools and you go through your costing and your school what their assigned and all of this and that and the chaos of the B.P., sending someone back to school and saying that we’re not going to work all afternoon….

Vice President Stradling stated, I would like to see that addressed before the school year starts because I don’t want this to come before the Board again, what I hear Jeff saying is that we should fine, if we’re going to fine and we have come up to the compromise and next year if this comes before the Board and says well we had these kids ready to go and we did it this way then we have done a wrong thing here.

David Scott stated, I hear your complaint but, I also…

Vice President Stradling stated, I fully understand what happens when the school year starts but, I also fully understand that building this house did not come up August the 16th.

Leo Glotzbach stated, true.

Vice President Stradling stated, it came up awhile before that and I would like to see the school take the steps to make sure that it’s within compliance just as we require other contractors, other builders other homeowners to be within compliance, everyone has their own restraints and constraints and their own time frame and their own money problems and everyone else has a reason for making things happen the way that they happen but, we need to find a way to work with that.

David Scott stated, I would go for that but, my only comment was, I can go back through the minutes just since I have been here which is a short time and I will guarantee you that everything that happens in this meeting isn’t etched in stone, there is a lot of flexibility and there is a lot of, I mean if everything was etched in stone we don’t need to be here…

Vice President Stradling stated, we don’t need to be here…

Attorney Altman stated, and that’s why we have to compromise.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, so we have a motion, we have a second, no further discussion? Shall we vote? All in favor of accepting a letter in lieu of a fine in this situation say aye.

The Board stated, aye.

Vice President Stradling asked, any opposed, okay, motion carries. So, any further discussion on the variance? Are we ready to vote on that?

Leo Glotzbach asked, if I might, all…out than this…

Attorney Altman stated, if you have any questions give a call to me, get a hold of me Leo, I will be more than glad to look at it.

Leo Glotzbach stated, okay.

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 7’ Front Setback Variance to build a new home on Lot 6 and the North Half (1/2) of Lot 5 in Mabel G. Horton Subdivision Part V, Town of Monon, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 510 N. Greenwood Street.

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


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


Attorney Altman stated, subject to the prior adopted motion, you are to get a building permit consistent with this variance.


Leo Glotzbach asked, now what’s that?


Attorney Altman stated, you will need to get your building permit consistent with this variance.


Director Weaver stated, we will have to amend your permit to reflect the variance.


****

Vice President Stradling asked, any other issues before the Board?

Jeff Saylor stated, I would like to inform the Board of my intention to issue a motion, or make a motion at the next regular meeting and it has to do with exactly with some of the things that happened this evening. Currently, if someone builds outside of the parameters of their building permit and it does not encroach on the setback requirements of their lot or area that if they build outside of their building permit that is a finable offense of the Building Inspector or the Area Plan Office, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, if they build without a permit…

Jeff Saylor stated, I mean if they have a building permit but they build something just larger or different from what they say that they are building…

Director Weaver stated, if it does not require a variance, it would be handled straight through the inspector.

Jeff Saylor asked, it would be through what?

Director Weaver stated, it would be through the inspector…

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, if it is something that has to come for a variance…

Jeff Saylor asked, which has come after the meeting…in your office is not issuing fines at this point.

Director Weaver stated, at this time, he is not.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, that is something that he has indicated that he would like to do in the future.

Jeff Saylor asked, so if someone gets a building permit and does something larger or something different, as long as it doesn’t involved this Board, there are no fines that are being levied at all?

Director Weaver stated, not at this time.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, when someone gets a building permit like the gentlemen that built the, expanded garage tonight and does something that encroaches on neighbors property rights, okay, that falls under the control of the Board of Zoning Appeals. My intention at the next meeting is to make a motion which will make, if you have a building permit you built outside of the perimeters to the point that it requires a variance to make what you have built fit within your setbacks then you receive an automatic 500 dollar fine, period. I mean there is no voting on that by the Board, the fine is just automatic at the time that you come in and apply for your variance. Now, when that comes up to the Board we would have the option of adjusting the fine either lower or we can cancel it or can leave it the same or we can make it larger but, the fact is the fine is already in place. It’s not something that we vote on. It’s just there and that fine was incurred when they choose, or chose to build outside of the perimeters of their building permit. It would take a little bit of the pressure off individual Board members of having to come up with an amount or look at someone out here and say you’re going to pay this or whatever. If the people requesting the building permit were made aware of that with a handout at the time…

Gary Barbour stated, just make it part of the permit.

Jeff Saylor stated, yes. Now my question, I guess and I wanted to give everyone like 30 days to think about this, I would like you to let me know if that is something that the Board can legally do.

Attorney Altman stated, let me do some thinking but I think that you’re right, I think that you can, I think you can…

Jeff Saylor stated, when someone comes in to get a building permit right now, they are not getting fined if they do anything different but, at least if what they do encroaches on their neighbors, this Board is going to fine them 500 dollars, boom, right out of the bat. If it’s something, like for instance, like what happened this evening with the school, great, isn’t it nice that we can come to alternate means but, if it’s someone that, I mean we can’t, we can’t treat everyone the same.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that you’re right, everyone should be thinking about that, I think it’s not a bad standard operating procedure from the get go.

David Scott stated, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, with contractors but, I like it with people that do their own work it’s you know for a living and I guarantee you right now, I don’t know what all of the rules are. I try and go by the rules but I don’t look at the rules everyday so I may step out of bounds and not even know it.

Vice President Stradling stated, but if it’s stated at the bottom of the permit application that you have told us what you’re going to do, now if you change that and it doesn’t fall within this box, you’re going to have to pay 500 dollars.

Jeff Saylor stated, I think that the goal here is not to fine….

Attorney Altman stated, nobody….

Jeff Saylor stated, the goal here is not to have people do this stuff…

Vice President Stradling stated, to say that we’re serious about it, if this isn’t what you’re going to do then let us know before you do it.

Jeff Saylor stated, anyway…

Attorney Altman stated, it sounds like a good idea.

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m just informing the Board of, an intent, to make a motion so everyone can think about it and everyone knows where to find me okay, if you want to talk about it.

Vice President Stradling asked, anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I just want to mention that we have some Board members that are going to be up for re-appointment at the end of the year, first of the year, I just want to let those Board members be aware of that. Dave Scott your position, term is up at the end of the year. Carol Stradling, yours expires the first Monday of 2003, Jerry Thompson also expires first Monday of 2003. If you are not interested in being re-appointed or are interested, just let me know, we will be sending letters out to the group that has appointed you to those positions. A lot of times they will come to me and ask me, does this person want re-appointed and so, it would be helpful if you would let me know. That’s all that I have.

Vice President Stradling asked, okay, motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission