Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Richard & Dolores Widlowski, Earl & Patsy J. Raver, David & Linda Kilmer, Larrry Hartzler, Tony Batta, Chas Mellon, Kent Benningion, Kelly Benningion, Doug Keesling, Troy Jones and Edward Royalty.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the June 20, 2002 meeting contingent with corrections being done. Motion was seconded by Jeff Saylor and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2145 Earl W. & Patsy J. Raver; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance (Shields Avenue) and a 6’ front setback variance (Dorothy Street) to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot #11 in Block D in Thomas Park Addition. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 519 Dorothy Street.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this request this evening?

Earl Raver stated, I am Earl Raver.

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

Earl Raver stated, not at this time, no.

President Thompson stated, okay, have you had any response from anyone Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, no, we have not.

President Thompson asked, okay, all right, Attorney Altman do you have anything before I open it up?


Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does the Board members have any questions for Mr. Raver? Carol, go ahead.

Carol Stradling asked, in our packet, we have an application for variance…

Director Weaver stated, yes…

Carol Stradling asked, for a proposed 4-unit apartment at that location?

Director Weaver state, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, that was never built?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, so it went from that and that was never built and then North White Building Trades built the home there?

Earl Raver stated, yes, they did.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, it appears in the, did this come form the GIS, is that the picture that we’re looking at?

Director Weaver stated, yes, which doesn’t always hold true so…

Carol Stradling asked, it appears that the homes are in line on Dorothy Street and Shields Avenue but your home is not any further towards the road than any of the other homes, is that true?

Earl Raver stated, that I’m not, sure of, no.

Carol Stradling asked, okay, if you looked down the line at your house, does yours stick out further?

Director Weaver stated, I tried to show that in my pictures that he is in line with the other homes around him.

Attorney Altman stated, it looks pretty close when you look in the photos.

Earl Raver stated, Shields Street doesn’t lie perfectly straight, it angles just a little bit and they set the house probably square with Dorothy Street.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, anyone else? Anyone here opposed to the variance this evening or care to address for it, either way?

Carol Stradling stated, I know that Mr. Raver was here at last months meeting and we do have a letter that North White Building Trades sent to their students. So that issue is addressed I just wanted to let you know how that came out.

Earl Raver asked, if I may ask a question?

President Thompson stated, you may.

Earl Raver stated, of the attorney?

Attorney Altman asked, yes?

Earl Raver asked, how long is this variance good for?

Attorney Altman stated, variance would be good for the entire time that you use the property in this way. In other words, if you change the use of your home in some way you would modify the use and therefore it would need another variance.

Earl Raver asked, I guess I’m asking to find out a variance…

Attorney Altman stated, it continues as long as the use is the same.

Earl Raver stated, okay, then my question would be, do I have a case to go before the North White School Board and ask for reimbursement for my expenses for this variance?

Attorney Altman stated, probably not because you’re proposing a new addition on that and that if there were other no other reason that might be but with the proposed addition on there you need the variance so it would eliminate that.

Earl Raver asked, I set here last week and North White School Corporation asked for a variance of 7’ because their property was too close to the street and now I’m the very same situation and that’s my question see, if they had gone and secured a variance at the time that they built then I would not have to have one, is that correct?

Attorney Altman stated, you would for your proposed addition because that would be expanding the use.

Earl Raver asked, but I would still be within the parameter of the variance wouldn’t I?

Attorney Altman stated, no, no, the variance is only for the effectively the footprint of your home and your proposed addition. They got a variance for the existing home. You were adding to it you would need a variance, another variance.

Earl Raver asked, is a variance for 30’ from your property to your property line? Is that what the variance is for?

Attorney Altman stated, it’s part of the variance yes, it’s part of the variance yes.

Earl Raver asked, then if I didn’t exceed that 30’….

Attorney Altman stated, no, that is your variance.

Carol Stradling stated, the part that you’re building on…

Earl Raver stated, yes…

Carol Stradling stated, unless you built that back behind the front of your, Shields Street property you would have to come before this Board for that.

Earl Raver asked, I noticed the, when he surveyed it, it was 13’ from the house to the property line and the proposed is 12’ to the property line, had I been back 13’ I would be okay?

Carol Stradling stated, no….

Attorney Altman stated, no, because you’re adding on.

Carol Stradling stated, when the home was built, you’re saying, your question was that North White should pay for your variance.

Earl Raver stated, right.

Carol Stradling stated, I think what Mr. Altman was saying is, that even if they had come before the Board and gotten a variance for that home in 1978, 1979, you would still be here on your proposal because, your addition is being built within the setbacks or you would need a variance for your addition because it’s not far enough back from the road. Even if it were in line with the current location of the home as it is, when you add on you are changing your property outline and that addition would be…

Attorney Altman stated, require a variance…

Carol Stradling stated, would require it.

Earl Raver stated, I guess I’m thinking that a variance is going to move the property line…

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, no, it does not move the property line, it just allows you to build on a different location.

Earl Raver stated, well, I guess that I’m thinking that…

Carol Stradling stated, it doesn’t expand the box around your property.

Earl Raver stated, no but in essence it does give you that…

Carol Stradling stated, only for what is approved for that specific variance and you’re expanding that.

Earl Raver asked, is my property line expansion from Shields, is it clear along there or just where that corner is?

Carol Stradling stated, if you were to add on, if we were to grant this tonight, your addition and you were to add on more to go closer to the alley, you would have to come back again.

Attorney Altman stated, you are limited by your proposed addition and the proposed home, or the present home, so you would have to be here anyway.

Earl Raver asked, are there any written guidelines for building permits that you can look at and read and say what tells you what you need a building permit for and so forth?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Earl Raver asked, are they available to the public?

President Thompson stated, you bet.

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, you can purchase a copy of the ordinance through our office.

Attorney Altman stated, as well as, they have an application and brochures on that, that you can get, yes.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? If not, is the Board ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential.

2. That the lot 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 20’ front setback variance (Shields Avenue) and a 6’ front setback variance (Dorothy Street) to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 11 in Block D in Thomas Park Addition to Monon, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 519 Dorothy Street.


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


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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit sir before you proceed. Thank you very much.

Earl Raver asked, do we get that…

Attorney Altman stated, Area Plan Department.

****

#2146 David W. & Linda L. Kilmer; Requesting a 20’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home on 80.00 acres. The property is located East of Monticello at 9225 E. Timmons Road.

President Thompson asked, Kilmer?

David Kilmer stated, David Kilmer.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else to present to us?

David Kilmer stated, I don’t have anything else other than what’s been presented.

President Thompson asked, okay, that’s fine. Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received any calls on this.

David Kilmer stated, I talked to the neighbor Don Farnsworth and he didn’t have any problems with it.

President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition would continued the lot, roofline and the similar substance and that sort of thing as the present home?

David Kilmer stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against? No correspondence of any kind?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, any comments, oh, I’m sorry.

Director Weaver stated, no, I just wanted to point out that when the home was first put in, it was put in 1996 and it wasn’t meeting setbacks then and what they have done is they have gone in line with that home.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, this was found by our Building Inspector.

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

Carol Stradling asked, do you know how they came, the drawing says that they were suppose to be 60’ do you know how they…

David Kilmer stated, as near as I can tell we’ve put the house in the initially in 1996 assuming, I assumed that everything was done the way that the drawing was and you know, where the property line is, there was some questions about where the property line is. To me, in the country, the property line is to the middle of the road, to me as a farmer I guess that’s what I, just assumed and we are 60’ from the middle of the road. It’s my understanding which, I have learned since that it’s a right-of-way and the right-of-way is apparently, is not even the edge of the road, it’s further back from the edge of the road for some reason there.

Attorney Altman stated, invariably it is.

David Kilmer stated, okay, so that’s where the 60’ comes in.

Carol Stradling asked, so the 60’ is from the edge of the road and then there is a road right-of-way…

David Kilmer stated, it’s actually off of the road, well no, 60’ is from the middle of the road yes…

Carol Stradling stated, okay…

David Kilmer stated, that’s where, from the middle of the road…

Carol Stradling asked, and the road is a 40’ right-of-way.

David Kilmer stated, the mistake was made when the house was put on initially.

Carol Stradling asked, the reason…

David Kilmer stated, I was going with some drawings that we had from the house initially and submitted with that without actually checking the measurements and that’s when the Building Inspector come out there we had a permit and everything else.

President Thompson asked, how many times do we run into this when the problem happened years back and it’s resurfacing, more often than not. Is there anything else?

Director Weaver asked, is the room addition done?

David Kilmer stated, no.

Director Weaver asked, they are not occupying it?

David Kilmer stated, no, he has not dry walled he stopped on the ductwork.

Attorney Altman stated, you know, you should have had a building permit…

David Kilmer stated, I do…

Director Weaver stated, he does have a building permit.

Attorney Altman stated, I see.

David Kilmer stated, I was issued that in June.

Director Weaver stated, the building permit was issued based on his drawing showing that it was 60’ back.

President Thompson asked, Gary, Carol, anything else? If there is no other discussion are we ready to vote?

The Board stated, yes, I think that we are.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a Requesting a 20’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home on The South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 27 North, Range 2 West Lincoln Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Monticello at 9225 E. Timmons Road.

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


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


President Thompson asked, yes Dave?


David Kilmer asked, do I, do I need to do anything else since we’ve got the permit and everything?


Director Weaver stated, you need to come in and we need to amend the building permit.


David Kilmer stated, okay, thank you.


President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.


****

#2147 Richard R. Sr. & Dolores D. Widlowski; Requesting a 10’ front setback variance to build a 42” vinyl fence to the water line on Lots #19 & #20 in Sullivans Hillcrest Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 2288 N. Sullivan Court.

President Thompson asked, and you are?

Richard Widlowski stated, Richard Widlowski.

President Thompson stated, okay thank you and what do you have for us tonight.

Richard Widlowski stated, I don’t have anything.

President Thompson asked, okay, back to the Board.

Director Weaver stated, we have received a call on this just a neighbor inquiring what was being done and I don’t believe that they had any problem with his request.

Richard Widlowski stated, I spoke to the neighbors, they didn’t have any problem.

Director Weaver stated, I think that they were just inquiring.

President Thompson asked, okay, anything else?

Director Weaver stated, no.


President Thompson asked, Attorney Altman, do you have any questions before I open this up?

Attorney Altman stated, no, not really.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against this variance? To the Board, comments, concerns questions? Jeff, Dave?

David Scott asked, a fence can be right on the property line?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, on the side property lines, only on the side property lines.

David Scott stated, on the side property lines.


President Thompson asked, Gary, and Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I think that we’re okay.


Attorney Altman stated, the only thing that I can say is, is if your lot line is the first line here on the drawing, we can’t actually authorize that you build on SFLECC’s property line and the fence line appears to go beyond that so that you would have to get consent from them to do that.


Richard Widlowski stated, I already have that…

Director Weaver stated, he has received that, there is a copy in the file.

Attorney Altman stated, I covered it up, okay.

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

The Board stated, sure.

President Thompson stated, I’m sorry Carol.

Carol Stradling asked, this 4’ that’s okay because there’s enough on the other side.

Director Weaver stated, we didn’t do anything with the house, we didn’t request anything for the house.


Carol Stradling asked, so they are not changing the house?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and that’s fine because that’s a grand fathered line here but if they change the house…

Director Weaver stated, I did not research the house, I can’t tell you if it’s grand fathered or not but yes, if they do any changes…

Richard Widlowski stated, it was that way when we bought it.


Carol Stradling stated, okay, you understand that if you do any changes to the home you would have to come back for another variance on that?

Richard Widlowski stated, that’s understood.

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 10’ front setback variance to build a 42” vinyl fence to the water line on Lots 19 and 20 in Sullivans Hillcrest Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 2288 N. Sullivan Court.

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


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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit.

Richard Widlowski stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

Jeff Saylor stated, thank you.

****

#2148 Troy E. & Sheryl A. Jones; Requesting a 5’ side setback variance to build an addition onto a detached garage on 0.666 & 0.131 of an acre. The property is located North of Monticello at 9334 N. 650 E.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Jones’?

Director Weaver stated, I would just like to make one little correction to that, it’s North of Buffalo, it’s a long ways North of Monticello.

President Thompson stated, okay, we can do that, the property is located North of Buffalo at 9334 N. 650 E.


Troy Jones stated, I’m Troy Jones.

President Thompson asked, okay, what do you have for us tonight? Anything?

Troy Jones stated, nothing else.

President Thompson asked, okay, Director Weaver?

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

President Thompson asked, okay, Gary, do you have any questions? Anyone here opposed? Care to speak either for or against?

President Thompson stated, yes?

Edward Royalty stated, I’m Troy’s neighbor to the South and I do not have any objection to what he’s doing.

President Thompson asked, could I have your name please?

Edward Royalty stated, Edward Royalty.

President Thompson asked, okay, and you are to the South?

Edward Royalty stated, I’m the first house South.

President Thompson stated, okay appreciate that. I see your name on the plat. Is there anyone else? To the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, he answered my question.

President Thompson asked, Gary anything?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Dave and Jeff?

Dave Scott stated, no.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything else?

Attorney Altman asked, proposed addition will be similar in dimension and size as the existing two car garage, height wise and roof wise…

Troy Jones stated, they will be taller.

Attorney Altman asked, how much taller?

Troy Jones stated, approximately 4’ to 5’, tall enough that I can get about an 11’ camper in it.

Director Weaver stated, just so that you are aware, we do have a maximum height of 15’ to the mean level on an accessory building, just so that you are aware of that.

Troy Jones stated, okay.

David Scott asked, is that the new Ordinance that you’re talking about or as far as the height?

Director Weaver stated, that is the way that it is currently, is to the mean level.

David Scott asked, to the mean level, does that mean to the peak or does that mean to the, I don’t know the definition of it.

Director Weaver stated, mean level is in-between the peak and the bottom of the rafters.

David Scott stated, halfway between the peak and the bottom of the rafters, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, before you put your roof on, you might want to bring your measurements in and talk it over with the Building Inspector to make sure that it’s alright because if you put in too high, there’s a possibility that you will have to lower it.

Troy Jones stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, rather than to do it wrong and then have to redo it, it would be best to bring your measurements in and have them checked.

Director Weaver stated, when you come in to apply for your permit, I don’t know if you already have…

Troy Jones stated, no I haven’t…

Director Weaver stated, we need to know your wall height and we will need to know the pitch of the roof and then we can calculate the mean level from there.

Troy Jones stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

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

The Board stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned 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 a 5’ side setback variance to build an addition onto a detached garage on PARCEL 1

That part of the East Half of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, being a part of the land as described by Deed Record Book 198, Page 189, White County Recorder’s Office, more fully described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the East Half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 10; thence South along the Quarter Section Line and the Centerline of County Road 650 East, a distance of 815.36 feet to the Point of Beginning;

Thence South along the Quarter Section Line and Centerline of County Road 650 East, a distance of 116.00 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes West, a distance of 250.00 feet; thence North, a distance of 116.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes East, a distance of 250.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.666 acres.

PARCEL 2

That part of the East Half of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 28 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the East Half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 10; thence South along the Quarter Section Line and the Centerline of County Road 650 East, a distance of 800.36 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South along the Quarter Section Line and the Centerline of County Road 650 East a distance of 15.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes West along the North line of the Jones Property as described in Deed Record 1987, Page 1473, a distance of 250.00 feet to the Northwest Corner thereof; thence South along the West line of said Jones Property a distance of 116.00 feet to the Southwest Corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes West a distance of 15.00 feet; thence North a distance of 131.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes East, a distance of 265.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.131 acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Buffalo at 9334 N. 650 E.


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


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


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


Troy Jones stated, thank you very much.


President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.


****

#2149 Larry D. & Norine E. Hartzler; Requesting a 43’ front setback variance to build a new home on 3.00 acres. The property is located Southeast of Brookston at 11411 S. 100 E.

President Thompson asked, and your name is?

Larry Hartzler stated, Larry Hartzler.

President Thompson asked, what do you have Larry, do you have anything?

Larry Hartzler stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing more, okay. Director Weaver, do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything from the neighbors. They have already received their building permit once they got that permit and went out on side they realized that they could not meet their setback so they have not done any work and they immediately came in and filed the variance.

President Thompson asked, no response you said from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no.

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

Attorney Altman stated, no, I have nothing on this one.

President Thompson asked, anyone here opposed or in favor of? To the Board, Carol, Gary do you have any questions on this?

Carol Stradling asked, is this in a subdivision?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, no, okay.

President Thompson asked, Dave, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor stated, no.

President Thompson asked, nothing…

Carol Stradling stated, it just looked like to me with the gravel and circular area there…

Director Weaver stated, it’s 3, 3-acre tracts.

Carol Stradling asked, I’m sorry?

Director Weaver stated, it’s 3, 3-acre tracts.

President Thompson stated, it’s big lots up there.

Carol Stradling asked, that’s kind of why it follows the A-1?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

David Scott stated, yes, the 43’ is off of the cul-de-sac.

Larry Hartzler stated, correct.

David Scott stated, back to it and then he only needs 68’ off of the back.

Director Weaver stated, no, his rear is 100’ and the sides 15’ and then he has two fronts, he has a front from the county road and a front from the cul-de-sac.

David Scott stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Is the Board ready to vote?

The Board stated, sure.

Attorney Altman stated, very nice survey…

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, very informative.

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 43’ front setback variance to build a new home on A part of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 25 North, Range 4 West, Prairie Township, White County, Indiana, being depicted as tract 3 on a survey by Vester & Associates, Job No 96104A, being more completely described as follows to wit:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26-25-4, said point being marked by a railroad spike; thence along the West line of said Section, South 01º01’39” East a distance of 659.43 feet to a railroad spike, said spike being the point of beginning of the herein described tract; thence North 88º58’17” East a distance of 24.00 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right (said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a chord length of 188.31 feet, and a chord bearing of South 62º47’30” East) an arc distance of 196.07 feet; thence South 34º42’26” East a distance of 10.00 feet; thence South 34º53’56” East a distance of 440.42 feet to a ¾” rebar with an aluminum cap stamped “Vester & Assoc.”; thence South 89º07’27” West a distance of 441.91 feet to a railroad spike on the West line of said Section; thence along the West line of said Section, North 01º01’39” West a distance of 461.92 feet to a railroad spike at the point of beginning, containing 3.0000 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Southeast of Brookston at 11411 S. 100 E.

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


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

Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit amended to conform to this.

Larry Hartzler stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

Tony Mannis asked, can I ask a question?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Tony Mannis stated, I’m going to be the builder.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Tony Mannis asked, if I get out there on that lot and I see that I can move that house back 5’ which it would be 22’ off of the front instead of 17’, am I allowed to do that or does it have to stay up to the cul-de-sac?

Attorney Altman stated, you can go back, as long as going back does not create a variance in the rear.

Tony Mantis stated, no, there’s 400’ or 500’ back there…

Attorney Altman stated, well, in other words if you’re going to go the long way back…

Tony Mannis stated, I just want to shift it back what I call the back off of the cul-de-sac just to give him that much more room, I don’t like it that close.

Attorney Altman asked, the back would actually be to the South, is what you’re saying?

Tony Mannis stated, correct.

Attorney Altman stated, and you’re quite right, you probably do have, I’m trying to look at this so that I can get a dimension quickly but, you probably do have 200’ at least to play with that way, yes, so you can do that no trouble at all.

Tony Mannis stated, the property drops off, there is a ridge that drops and I’m trying not to go out over that ridge and if I can gain a couple feet of getting him off of the road, I would like to do that.

Attorney Altman sated, that’s no problem doing that.

Tony Mannis stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s getting closer that you can’t do.

Tony Mannis stated, oh, yes, I understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you for the inquiry.

****

#2150 Lana Mullen; Requesting a 5’ South side setback variance and a 4’ North side setback variance to build a new home on Lot #9 in Friendly Shores Addition No 1 Revised. The property is located in Monon Township at 5391 N. Stahl Road.


President Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Mullen’s?

Director Weaver stated, that request has been tabled.

Doug Keesling stated, that’s been tabled for tonight.

President Thompson asked, oh, it has?

Director Weaver stated, I’m sorry, my agenda showed that, yours didn’t.

President Thompson asked, and you are by the way?

Doug Keesling stated, I’m Doug Keesling the builder.

President Thompson stated, okay, just so that we know where we are so that will be tabled until the November…

Director Weaver stated, 21st.

President Thompson stated, 21st, all right, we will move on.

****

#2151 Tom Gillam; Requesting a 2’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home. The existing detached garage will be removed. The property is located on Lot #44 in Stahl Subdivision No.2 in Monon Township at 5671 N. Stahl Road.

Doug Keesling stated, I’m Doug Keesling the contractor representing Tom.

President Thompson stated, okay, aright, I assumed so but we need it on the record, thank you. Do you have anything to…

Doug Keesling stated, no, I’m sure everything is in order there. There is one clarification that may or may not be in your notes, on the roadside of this proposed addition there is a 8’ x 12’ structure that will eventually connect a garage. The existing garage is to be torn down so if there is any discrepancies or problems with the neighbor that currently goes with our construction will be elevated when we destroy the garage, he will be back to apply for a variance of course when he decides on the dimension of the new garage to be connected to that to the rear.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything on that?

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

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against? Attorney Altman, do you have anything?

Attorney Altman asked, so we have the existing home and what’s on the survey is an addition and there is a garage and what is called well, now the garage will not be, what is called a garage is that what will be torn down?

Doug Keesling stated yes.

Attorney Altman stated, and something changed?

Doug Keesling stated, well, the garage will eventually be attached to the house, when the homeowner decides the final measurements.

Attorney Altman asked, but that garage will not be removed as part of his matter?

Doug Keesling stated, well not, we’re actually going to use the garage as storage because and part of the construction will be removing the existing roof from the house in order to tie the addition in with the rest of the house, it’s been added on in different times and the roof is rather disjoined so we’re going to strip everything down, the ceiling joist and install trusses all of the way across through the new addition so what we’re going to do is use the old garage as storage until construction is completed on the house.


Attorney Altman asked, but that garage isn’t part of this matter to be removed, that’s something that…

Doug Keesling stated, exactly…

Attorney Altman stated, someone else’s business…

Doug Keesling stated, yes, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, will the roof run the same direction or will you be changing…

Doug Keesling stated, actually it will be the same direction, it will just that it will be evened out. Can I show you on this, this doesn’t show, well this roof direction will be changed, it will…

Carol Stradling asked, that’s what I thought so the gable will end up like that?

Doug Keesling stated, yes, exactly.

Attorney Altman asked, so it will still be single story?

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, structure…

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, and single story addition?

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion? Questions or comments?

Attorney Altman asked, this is on the sewer system now?

Doug Keesling stated, absolutely.

Attorney Altman stated, like that on the record.

President Thompson asked, anything else? Is the Board 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 2’ South side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home. The existing detached garage will be removed. The property is located Lot 44 in Stahl Subdivision No. 2 in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5671 N. Stahl Road.


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


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


Attorney Altman stated, you need to get your building permit.


****

President Thompson asked, okay, we have other business here, Jeff you have something.

Jeff Saylor stated, yes, okay, I intend to put this in the form of a motion in just a moment. What I wanted to do is put a policy in place that would maybe discourage people who gets building permits, from getting their permit and then choosing to build outside of what they have told Area Plan that they are going to do. When we deal with these people it’s usually after the fact where the Building Inspector or Director Weaver has gone out, they have seen that the construction is maybe much larger than what was ever intended by the building permit and the Building Inspector if there are on Zoning Ordinances that are being violated has the right to fine at the moment, that is not being done. The Board of Zoning Appeals also has the right to fine if someone builds outside of the Zoning Ordinances and so rather than waiting for an offender to come before the Board to get a variance request and then deciding whether we want to fine this person or not I’m intending that the Board put in place, a policy that there is an automatic fine that takes place and then it would be up to the Board if they even wish to discuss it to either increase it, decrease it or just make it go away.

President Thompson stated, you made a comment to me earlier Jeff…

Jeff Saylor stated, yes…

President Thompson asked, you want everyone to kind of think this over or do you want this addressed?

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m going to make a, to be real honest, in just a moment I’m going to readdress as in a form of a motion. My own thoughts as a Board member, it would be better if we could table it then, to give everybody a chance to just think about it, it would give Attorney Altman a chance to see if it’s worded properly and then it would be on the agenda for a vote at our November meeting.

President Thompson asked, does anyone have a problem with that?

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

President Thompson stated, go ahead.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, at this time I would like to make a motion that the White County Board of Zoning Appeals put into effect the following policy regarding building permit violations and I will read from the document. If upon inspection it is found that work has been done outside of the parameters of a building permit to the extent that the project will require a variance to remain in place, the White County Board of Zoning Appeals will issue an automatic 500-dollar fine. The holder of the permit will receive written notice of the fine and be given 60 days for payment. If payment is not received within terms a late fee of 50 dollars per month will be added to the fine. This fine will remain in place whether the permit holder removes the work done in violation of the Zoning Ordinance or chooses to file a variance request. If the permit holder wishes to contest the fine they must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals within the 60-day period. The Board of Zoning Appeals reserves the right to increase, decrease or remove a fine depending on evidence presented.

President Thompson stated, okay so…


Carol Stradling stated, the only comment, as I read it at this time Jeff was, that we need to say 60 days for payment from which date, the date that they receive it, the day it’s written, the date of violation…

Jeff Saylor stated, it would be in the letter and I presume that it would be 60 days from the date the letter is issued.

David Scott asked, the Building Inspector is, are we doing something here that he should be doing or what?

Director Weaver stated, no not really because this is because they are going to be encroaching on their setbacks. He can fine for building above and beyond a permit or without a permit, I think what Jeff’s intentions are here, is to fine if they are encroaching on setbacks without going through the variance procedure first.

David Scott asked, are we in discussion now or…

Jeff Saylor stated, yes, the motion is on the floor.

David Scott stated, well, my personal opinion I have a maybe for contractors this, I can go along with this for people doing their own work, they work on their homes or do projects, they don’t do this professionally and they’re apt to make mistakes. I’m just not in favor of automatically fines, and if we’re going to fine, if I’m going to, if I see fit to fine someone that comes in here he at least should be entitled where it came from and how much I think that it’s worth. To automatically fine someone I mean, I’m just not in favor of nonprofessional people being fined automatically for mistakes that they have made.

Gary Barbour stated, I can understand where Jeff is coming from because the fact that you are giving someone a building permit when they come in here, if they have a copy of this, they are seeing that there are some teeth in what the Ordinances are because what people do and I mean anything, we have seen private individuals come in here that weren’t contractors that work time and again do the same thing over and over. If they have a copy of this, they are seeing that there is some bite to it, if they go outside of what the Ordinances say on their own and then getting caught and say oh, I didn’t realize it, if they are handed this piece of paper with their permit, if that is on their permit, then they can’t back away from it.


David Scott stated, I think that they understand though, that there is a possibility that they can be fined when they come in for a permit if they wok outside of that permit.

Gary Barbour stated, because of the violations that have occurred, since I have been on the Board of Zoning Appeals, that’s what’s transpired for this to come about because, there has been continued violations.

David Scott stated, I would just like to give people the benefit of the doubt, now the second time someone come in with, I have no problem with fining them for this as far as, now professional people that’s a whole different thing, that’s just my opinion.

Gary Barbour stated, now at the bottom here it says that we can increase, decrease or remove the fine. At least you’re calling them on the carpet, if you bring them in here and they think well, it’s not just a smack on the wrist, you know 25-dollar fine and walk away from it.

President Thompson stated, I would wager to say the years that I have been on the Board Dave, we have probably had more problems with contractors than we have had the barn yard carpenters so to speak.

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, right?

Attorney Altman stated, there has been a lot of contractors been…

President Thompson asked, and a lot of years we had no inspector and we didn’t have anything like this in place, they have free reign once they walk out the door, don’t they?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, they do, well, I think in the matter there was intended, I think this gives us opportunity to look it over, think it over and give us a month to do that.

Carol Stradling asked, so we have a motion…

Jeff Saylor stated, it just needs to be tabled.

Carol Stradling asked, we have discussion, what do we need to do next, second or table it?

Attorney Altman stated, second should be in line, yes.

President Thompson asked, should we second it or just move to table it?

Attorney Altman stated, I think that we need to…

President Thompson stated, if we second it, we will need to…

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you can table it.

Director Weaver asked, but, can you amend it, can you change it?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, even though it’s been seconded?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but, we can also table it until next meeting right?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, so we will second it but, we won’t call for a vote.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s’ right, table it.

Carol Stradling stated, I would like to table this until the next meeting so we can further evaluate the legalities and the practical application of this and maybe take some time to look at a few particular properties in question and see who that might apply Dave, so, you know we’re not, we’re not hurting people but we’re trying to control the process. I sympathize with what you’re saying but, I also think that we need to put something in place and give us some time to consider that.

Jeff Saylor asked, if I can make one more comment…

President Thompson asked, can I step in just a moment?

Jeff Saylor stated, sure.

President Thompson asked, were you seconding the motion as well?

Carol Stradling stated, I think, I moved to table it.

President Thompson stated, we need a second.

Carol Stradling asked, we need a second before we move to table?

Attorney Altman stated, sure.

Jeff Saylor stated, we need to second and vote on the tabling.

President Thompson stated, okay, so we have no second.

David Scott stated, I will second the motion that we table it.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you, now back to you Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, I think I said what I wanted to say.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Jeff Saylor stated, just in the course of the last year, we have had individuals that have come before the Board that have gotten building permits to do certain things and had you know, expanded on them you know, I will remind the Board of the gentlemen that built the deck from exactly one property line to the other and without a variance. You know, that puts the Board in the position of do we have him take that out or do we set a precedence for every other property in the neighborhood by approving it. I just don’t think that it’s fair that these people that do these things, should be allowed to, how do I say this nicely, I think there needs to be something in place up front where they know they are going to get fined if they do something wrong okay and that’s, there are just too many situations coming before the Board. It seems to me that people are taking advantage of this space between them and their neighbors and that was the whole jest of my thinking on this.

Carol Stradling stated, and I think that it’s hard to be the one that, you have to take it out once it’s already there it’s hard to be in a position where I would have to say, you have to take it out but hopefully this will…

Jeff Saylor stated, you know as a Board we have to remember that maybe the current neighbors are happy with this project, 5 years, that could be a different story and whatever we do, is always going to be there.

Attorney Altman stated, having been the Attorney since 1972 for both Boards, we have only removed 2 structures in White County.

President Thompson stated, but several…

Attorney Altman stated, several we have stopped, we’ve stopped but that’s just how hard it is Carol.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s very hard but, if they know right up front…

Jeff Saylor stated, if they get a copy of that…


Carol Stradling stated, that they are, it’s easier for them if you don’t have a fine and we’re hesitant to have them tear it out, it’s easy to say, what’s the expression, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission or beg forgiveness and ask permission. So that puts the homeowner out of that position or out of, that takes us out of that position where we have to, they at least know that they have a cost involved.

President Thompson asked, you’re from Tippecanoe County aren’t you?

Tony Batta stated, yes, sir.

President Thompson asked, what do you run into I’m always curious what the surrounding counties do, and you have listened to what we’re talking about here.

Tony Batta stated, I have not gotten into that, when I do a project I usually go to the Building Inspectors Office and say here, this is what I’m going to do and I do this and they will say yes or no, or they will say you have to do this. I never go over the bounds and I like his comment, well, the deal with the homeowners doing whatever they want to and again, if you fining contractors you’re after them, yet you let the homeowner go out and do whatever he wants to and then come in and say oh, I can’t do that, well, if the homeowners find this out they will just go ahead and do it because, they are not going to beat you down to where you have a contractor they are going to get on him. Well why do you get on the contractor and let the homeowners do what they want to do and I understand mistakes because, I made a mistake on this one. On mine here, I should have found out some more before I went and got the permit.

Attorney Altman stated, but you didn’t build.

President Thompson stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, people building.

Tony Batta stated, and I see that.


David Scott stated, and I wasn’t saying let the homeowner off of the hook there’s, because he’s still going to have to come in here and there’s, someone says that there is going to be a 500 dollar fine there is going to be a 500 dollar fine, I wasn’t trying to say that the homeowner was off of the hook all together, that’s not what I intended to say.

Carol Stradling stated, but what this does Dave, is that gives the burden of proof back to the homeowner. If they have a reason why they built it outside of what they told us they were going to do then they can present that and we can decrease or remove that fine but they still have, they have to prove and give us justification of why they built it differently than what they told us they were going to build it.

President Thompson stated, we have been there enough times where we gave into the so called first time offender haven’t we, far to many times really, we bend and we got hurt.

Jeff Saylor stated, it gets more difficult to explain why someone is fined and someone else isn’t.

President Thompson stated, yes. Any other discussion? Director Weaver?

Director Weaver asked, I just have a question on this fine, are we going to fine just the homeowner or are we going to, in some situations, can we fine both the homeowner and the contactor?

Attorney Altman stated, well, you would have to change it…

Director Weaver stated, because there are some situations where I feel both, would need to be fined.


Attorney Altman stated, well, that certainly can be. See the whole premise behind this really is just, it’s just a rule that goes by if that is based upon the general Ordinance that says that any violation of a permit or a variance or a setback of the Ordinance is up to a 300 dollar a day fine for these violations and this is just a rule of this Board that if we see you it’s 500 dollars. It actually could be, as you’re saying increase or decrease, Carol, 300 dollars a day could be or no fine per day. So it can go up or down but what I’m saying is this isn’t actually creating the mechanism that is it, it creates a fine, this just makes it a rule of this body if we see you and you did this it’s 500 dollars, we’re making that determination but, the Ordinance says that it could actually be up to 300 dollars a day.

Director Weaver asked, and it could be on both the homeowners and the contractor?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and that remains in place?

Attorney Altman stated, that remains in place, this is just, I think that it’s more of s stop sign…

Carol Stradling stated, it’s a no matter what…

Attorney Altman stated, stop sign that hey, and it’s also something handed to them when they come in for their permit so that it’s one more chance to say don’t do it is what I really see the good of this.

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that we’re ready to adjourn.

President Thompson asked, anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I have some business.

President Thompson stated, okay, go ahead.

Director Weaver stated, you did get a copy of the letter of North White Building Trades, was everyone pleased with that?

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I did want to…

Carol Stradling stated, one comment on that Director Weaver, it says that the setbacks etcetera, require that the home must be no closer to the front property line than 32’. That’s not what it always is.

Director Weaver stated, no, it’s not.

Carol Stradling asked, are they aware of that? That’s fine for this particular property…

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that they are because, they have only dealt with residential properties, so…

Carol Stradling stated, when they come in again, I don’t think that point needs to be raised now with them in this letter but, when they come in again, those setbacks can be different.

Director Weaver stated, yes they can.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, the privacy fence that went up last month that we discussed, the Board had requested that the person that erected that fence again and I did have Danny Wilner come in, he came in on September 20th. That was with regarding the Sheehy request. Mr. Majdanowski was fined and ordered to remove the addition on his garage. He has paid his fine and I have checked on his property and he is in the process of removing the carport and the addition that he built on the garage.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I think that’s all.

Attorney Altman stated, the special exception and variance for Indiana Beach that we granted some time ago is now set for hearing in front of Judge Smith who is second Judge, Judge Smith from Carroll County and I think that’s going to be the 30th or the 31st of January. That’s how things go, just to bring you up to date on that.

David Scott stated, I would just like to formally apologize to the Board for loosing my temper last meeting. It was kind of uncalled for and I apologize. My appointment is coming up in January and I will continue to serve if you want or if you want to find someone else, that’s, you can do whatever you like, we’ll part friendly either way.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re doing a good job.

President Thompson stated, yes, you are.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re doing a good job.

President Thompson stated, you do your job the best that you know how and…

Attorney Altman stated, because, you’re thinking.

President Thompson stated, you bet because you put it all into it.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s good.

President Thompson stated, things happen.

Carol Stradling stated, I heard an expression the last couple of weeks, I think it goes something like when you have two people that always think alike one of them is unnecessary.

Director Weaver stated, Jerry Thompson, Carol Stradling, you both are up for re-appointment also, just seeing if you want to continue that.

President Thompson asked, if there is nothing else, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission