Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, November 21, 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: Doug & Sonia Schwartz, Philip A. Mahalic, Jeff Donovan, Steve Proutsos, S. Steven Proutsos, Charles R. Mellon, Mike Cosgray, Bill Koch, Charles Ryan, Doug Keesling, Shirley K. Keesling, Lana Harper, Pat Harper, Roger Lowry, Dave Anderson and Kevin Wayaz.


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 July 18, 2002 meeting contingent upon corrections. Motion was seconded by Jeff Saylor and carried unanimously.

President Anderson asked, the August 15th meeting.

Carol Stradling stated, I didn’t get through all of those, there is a lot of reading there.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest that you table on that.

Jeff Saylor stated, I will move that we table the meeting of the August, reading of the August minutes until the following meeting.

President Thompson asked, until the December…

Director Weaver stated, the December 3rd meeting.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded to table the August minutes. Speaking of that, you said December the 3rd. We’re having a second meeting?

Director Weaver stated, yes.


President Thompson asked, and that will be?

Director Weaver stated, a Tuesday evening.

President Thompson asked, that’s the 3rd though, when’s our second meeting, the regular 3rd Thursday?

Director Weaver stated, the 3rd is your second meeting for this month, it’s a carry over from this month.

President Thompson asked, but we will still have 2 in December?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, and I do have your packets ready for that meeting.

President Thompson asked, all in favor signify by saying I, all opposed the same, motion carried.

Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

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

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Doug Keesling stated, my name is Doug Keesling, I’m the general contractor.

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

Doug Keesling stated, other than what you have before you, essentially the house will be the footprint of the new home will be in exactly the same parameters of the old home in regards to the lakefront left and right sides. The rear of course will be added on to towards the road, we will build more towards the road but in terms of setbacks, the side setbacks they will remain the same.

President Thompson asked, have you had any response from anyone on this?

Director Weaver stated, we have had a neighbor contact us and we have forwarded to you copies of a letter that we have received on this.

Carol Stradling asked, is it two of the same Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes, this was tabled from last month, we had received one letter last month, then we did not get that because of it being tabled, and we received this letter.

Attorney Altman stated, and for the record, these have been disturbed to the Board and everyone has a copy of it, both letters.

President Thompson asked, both letters?

Attorney Altman stated, there was one today and one, October the 11th is the first letter and November 13th is the second letter, that’s what I mean by both letters.

President Thompson asked, do you care to read them out loud?

Attorney Altman stated, I will omit all of the formal parts. Both letters were read out loud to the Board members and the audience members.

President Thompson asked, sir, you are.

Steven Proutsos stated, my name is Steven Proutsos the son of, my father is also Steven Proutsos. I’m his attorney, I’m here on behalf of what my father, my mother and my brother who are the owners of record of that property and just for clarification purposes. The reason for the two letter is the first letter was written for the first proposal variance hearing that was scheduled, that was tabled and a subsequent proposed survey drafted and submitted and that’s what the second letter was also submitted based on revised proposed survey for them. If I may, I think as neighbors we have known each other for a very long time so this is not meant to any form of criticism of our neighbors. It’s merely and opportunity for my father, mother and brother to voice their opinion as to why they think that the variance setback as stated in the existing Ordinance should be adhered to. As I review the proposed survey plan, one of the things that I, as I heard the proposed statement that the proposed building had the same setbacks on the sides as the existing building. I just want to clarify that as far as I can see on the North side of the building there is an open air carport which, at this present time is diagramed in this survey that open aired carport would be eliminated to allow a full structure enclosed building. Whatever decision that this Board reaches today, my parents and my brother are just thankful to voice their opinions and whatever happens, happens. If there are any questions that I can answer from the Board, I would be more than happy to but whatever decision that they might come down, my family will agree with it and not go any further with respect to this Board. Are there any questions?

Attorney Altman asked, you’ve seen the pictures of the…

Steve Proutsos stated, I haven’t seen the photographs.

Attorney Altman asked, would you like to look at those. Do they essentially, accurately show the location of your parent’s property and the property in question sir?

Steve Proutsos stated, yes and from the photographs as you can see the Northern part of the existing building is a open aired carport.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s sort of a gray property with shingles, blue and red shutters, I should say.

Steve Proutsos stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much.

President Thompson asked, are there any questions for this gentleman. Carol do you have anything for him? Dave, Jeff, Gary.

Steve Proutsos stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you. Yes?

Doug Keesling stated, this is Doug Keesling again, I would like to address these issues spoken of. First of all, the concern about the drainage as with all new construction, we will of course provide for adequate drainage for any runoff and by means of buried tile pitched toward the lake. So there would be no, as a matter of fact, it would be less because as it stands now there is none. In addressing the amount of air space between the two structures, as I have been given to understand the law it’s the roof that extends over the entire structures, is in deed the house. Therefore, the carport is since the and I have been in the attic and it’s a complete and extended attic it is you know we’re not trying to you serve the law or coloring shades of gray here it is in deed the setbacks for the existing property. I also would like to submit 4 photographs to the Board, these are labeled A, B, C and D….

President Thompson stated, there is no polite way, other than we keep…

Doug Keesling stated, absolutely…

President Thompson stated, we don’t give them back.

Doug Keesling stated, that’s fine, no problem.

President Thompson stated, as long as you have copies.

Doug Keesling stated, that’s no problem, these are, there should be enough, one for each of you. These are properties located along Stahl and I’ll tell you what, give me this one, this is the one that they are review right now. These are properties located along Stahl Road where the air space between the houses are equal or less than what we are trying, hopefully will do. On the back are the two corresponding addresses between the structures and the measurement noted is the airspace between the structures. I might note that photograph D is located just two doors down from Steve’s house and the airspace between the houses are, 1’ less than what we’re proposing to do. While I’m also submitting photographs, I would also like to…

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not done…

Doug Keesling stated, oh, I’m sorry.

Attorney Altman asked, Mr. Keesling would you be so kind as to be specific as to what A, B and C are one by one.

Doug Keesling stated, okay, in photograph A, this is between 5929 Stahl Road and 5919 Stahl Road and this is the…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I mean, where is it.

Doug Keesling stated, yes, all of these addresses are on Stahl Road. Photograph A and the house the measurement between the two houses is 5’, B, I don’t happen to have, B is 3309 Stahl Road and 3313 Stahl Road and there is an 8’ air space between those two houses which, is exactly what we would propose to do. Photograph C is 3305, 3309, another 8’ and D is just two doors North of Steve’s and there is a 7’ setback or airspace between the two houses so the precedence is clearly been set. I’m sorry Steve, did you…?

Steve Proutsos stated, I don’t want to interrupt.

Doug Keesling stated, no.

Steve Proutsos stated, one of the things that I would like to point out to this Board, I believe within the last 2 years there was a similar variance request by our neighbor directly to the North which would be 2 houses over, to request a similar setback variance for any constructed building. This Board denied it the variance for the same basic reasons that were given here today. I don’t know if the Board is aware of it.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the name?

Steve Proutsos stated, what is the last name, I forgot…

An audience member stated, Kunstek.

Steve Proutsos stated, Kunstek, Tom Kunstek, I believe that building was constructed less than 2 years ago in which the…in fact went before the Board and requested a similar setback and for whatever reasons the Board at that time denied that particular variance. One of the things, as we all know as neighbors we try to be fair to both sides and at that time the same objections were made with respect to that neighbors application. It’s not that’s the main reason why we are here today to make similar objections, just if you’re going to be fair with one neighbor, you have to be fair with the other and like I said whatever the Board’s decision is, we will live with it. We just want the Board to know that a similar objection was made based on similar arguments and to be fair with one neighbor similar, we have to be fair with the other neighbor.

Doug Keesling stated, I would like to address the next issue that Steve brought up and that is the restriction of the view of the lake. I would like to submit to you photographs labeled E on the back and this is a side, a photograph taken from the side from Lana’s house more towards Steve’s house and it shows clearly that Steve’s house extends forward quite a bit. Is this a dry mark board over here? I want to explain to you for the reason for this, I’m giving you the next two photographs…

Attorney Altman stated, the problem with doing that is we can’t put that as part of the evidence.

Doug Keesling stated, all right.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s the only problem.

Doug Keesling stated, well, this is just to merely to clarify where I was standing when the photographs were taken for your understanding.

Carol Stradling stated, actually, we can probably see it on the survey.

Doug Keesling stated, okay, then what you see here which is the next photograph that I’m giving you, photograph I, there is a light marker on the ground which would denote how much obstruction there would actually be. This was taken from the farthermost inside corner of Steve’s window on the side of house so that if you were on the inside of the house looking out the window at the very back of the house, this is the obstruction that would be incurred. It’s not a solid obstruction by the way it’s merely a post.

Carol Stradling asked, screened in porch?

Doug Keesling stated, yes, exactly.

Steve Proutsos asked, can I respond to that?

President Thompson stated, yes. Go ahead.

Steve Proutsos stated, the view that the gentleman is referring to is actually the view from the living room area from my fathers home. There’s actually 3 other rooms that are directly behind that living room, each of them having windows so, to more less say that by view this particular photograph, it appears that the living room window would be unobstructed. You still have to consider two things, the 3 additional rooms that are immediately behind the living room that certainly would be obstructed. The fact that the open-air carport would be removed and a building would be constructed, a solid building all of the way back to the rear of the home, of my parent’s home. The reason that the open-air argument was presented was two fold, when you build a building almost 5’ closer, you have a lot of things that are taken away. Not only the open-air view the builder in fact addressed the issue of the drainage they are only going to be able to utilize 2’ or 3’ of natural land. Now, to construct that drainage system where as that 8’ so whatever runoff, it’s still not only going to be able to drain off into 2’ or 3’ of land. It will be the view from the bedroom with this new constructed building and I don’t know for certain but I believe that the new building is going to be constructed, will be higher than the old one. So you’re not only going to be going closer with a structure you’re going to go up higher in the airspace and that in itself by coming 5’ closer is going to obstruct the view from those other bedrooms.

Doug Keesling stated, I would like to address the issue of the open carport, the rear thank you, the rear of the carport does in deed have a wall and a storage unit there now. So anything that we would do would not impede in any way shape or form the view of the lake. What we all live on the lake for which is, that cherry view of the lake and this structure would certainly impede Steve’s view of the lake due to the fact that the lakeside of the carport is a solid wall. That is, was an interracial part of this carport and in regards to his comments on the drainage, all of the house will have gutter systems and gutters will lead to down spouts which will lead to underground tiles which will lead to the lake. So any, there will be latterly be less if there is indeed any problem now there will be less problem then.

President Thompson stated, what about, he did mention height, you had mentioned that earlier.

Doug Keesling stated, right, it’s the ceilings are standard 8’ ceilings, the pitch on the roof is a 14/12 pitch and there are dormers so yes, the house itself will be taller of course I mean we plan on utilizing space in the attic for 2 bedrooms.

Attorney Altman asked, single story?

Doug Keesling stated, yes, exactly.

Attorney Altman asked, but, using the loft…

Doug Keesling stated, using, utilizing the loft is better…

Attorney Altman asked, the roof will essentially be, facing towards the creek and then the road, is that the way it Is or is it the other way?

Doug Keesling stated, the ridge runs parallel with the shore’s edge and then there are 3 dormers towards the lake and one dormer towards the road.

Attorney Altman asked, in the proposed addition?

Doug Keesling stated, exactly.

Steve Proutsos asked, can I ask a question?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Steve Proutsos asked, can we have an answer in respect to the reasoning behind constructing the building more from North to South instead of from the lake to the road utilizing more of the rear portion of the lot. I think that was address in the letter, I think that would have been more reasonable way to construct the building with the same amount of square footage where as that home is going from North to the South. Requesting this variance it’s not as if this property doesn’t have sufficient rear portions I believe it’s approximately 278’ deep and now that there isn’t any more need for well and septic with the new sewers…

Attorney Altman stated, they have a well.

Steve Proutsos stated, I understand that but, if you look at the design, they are constructing a proposed garage. So they must be accommodating some variance from the, well I would respectfully submit that by going more towards the street, the same amount of square footage could be built without this sort of a variance. There was no garage where the proposed garage is going to be now. So they are going towards the street with the existing, the new proposed structure and maybe I’m, maybe it was address it may be a well issue that I’m not aware of so maybe that question can be answered by the builder.

Doug Keesling stated, I’m sorry, is there a question on the floor?

President Thompson asked, I think that there is a question you want the well issue addressed as well?

Steve Proutsos stated, if there is a well issue in respect as to why they didn’t build more towards the road.

Doug Keesling stated, the architectural plan, with any plan with a house on the lake is optimum view of the lake and without infringing on the rights, of the use of others. Of course and that was one of the reasons that this plan was chosen. We certainly are utilizing depth, there is a 32’ car garage, 2 car garage built behind the house and then a separate detached garage which I believe is noted as a separate variance on that and in regards to the well it’s a non issue.

President Thompson asked, back on the height, how much addition height would you guess over the current roof, how much?

Doug Keesling stated, I’m guessing on a 14/12 pitch about 217, about 17’ above the ceiling of the first floor I believe would probably be, that’s just rough math on the width of the house.

President Thompson asked, you’re at a 10’ plus increase over what you have?

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, are we getting into a different issue there?

Attorney Altman stated, no, it’s just fact.

President Thompson stated, well, yes but…

Doug Keesling stated, it’s certainly not any taller than several of the other houses out along that road.

Attorney Altman asked, this is served by the existing…

Doug Keesling stated, oh, absolutely.

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Keesling, when you originally spoke, did you say that the setbacks on the side of the house would remain the same as what they are now? The survey that we’re looking at has, I’m guess maybe going out 3’ closer to your neighbor. If this dotted line is the existing and this is proposed, then you are going closer to…

Doug Keesling stated, that denotes the overhang of the house, this is taken into account.

Carol Stradling stated, according to the survey, it says existing improvements are in the dotted line, the proposed improvements are in the solid line and this says including overhangs.

Doug Keesling stated, well, it wasn’t my intentions and I don’t know why it was drawn that way. It was never our intention to go any further including the overhangs from the existing carport.

Attorney Altman stated, so that backed it up 3’ roughly.

Carol Stradling asked, so how far are you planning, or how close to the property line are you planning on building?

Doug Keesling stated, no closer to the existing roof is now.

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t actually have, we have that located, we just don’t have that distance, the survey doesn’t say that.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I was confused when you initially spoke. It appeared that you were going to leave the exterior wall, was going to be in the same location but according to the survey, that’s not what is indicated.

Doug Keesling stated, this solid line should be in line with the doted line, that is the fault of the survey.

Carol Stradling asked, so when the house is complete, will there be 3’ between the home and the property line or will there be more than 3’ between the house and the property line?

Doug Keesling stated, whatever exists now and I’m not sure what that is. Steve do you have any idea, oh, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, so the house that is there currently will be torn, will be removed?

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, and you’re trying to build on that footprint?

Doug Keesling stated, exactly, width wise.

Carol Stradling asked, so if that wall is not there for the carport, is there any reason that you can’t back it up some away from this gentlemen’s home because the plans for the home calls for a certain size.

Doug Keesling stated, well they do, they do call for a certain size, I mean it’s, the idea was to set the new home in exactly width as the old home regardless of what the survey says. My apologizes, on behalf of Mr. Milligan but that, it was never our intention to extend the width of the house at all.

Carol Stradling asked, what will happen if you go to place that and the old home is gone and for some reason, someone has got some dimensions here…

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, I assume Mr. Milligan measured what was there and took the measurements of the new home and put it on top of each other and found that there was at least some difference. You know if you get that home in there and it is in fact larger than what was there.

Doug Keesling stated, it would not be.

Carol Stradling stated, it would not be.

Doug Keesling stated, it can not be on my reputation, it could not be, I would hate to have to, at my expense, tear a house down and move a wall so many feet due to negligence.

President Thompson stated, according to this, what we’re looking at you’re going to pick up another 3’.

Carol Stradling stated, another 3’…

President Thompson stated, it looks like they are splitting the difference on this drawing so roughly 6’, right?

Attorney Altman stated, I would say that you are about right. Carol, to get, cut to the chase, can we just have the applicant amend that they will have the surveyor locate that line…

Doug Keesling stated, for future reference absolutely…

Attorney Altman stated, for future reference.

Carol Stradling stated, I would suggest that you do it before you set the house.

Attorney Altman asked, and they do so with our Directors presence?

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, so that the very least…

Doug Keesling stated, sure.

Attorney Altman stated, whether we approve it or not we at least want to get down so that we know what we’re talking about just what you want.

Doug Keesling stated, that’s perfectly understandable and perfectly acceptable.

Attorney Altman asked, so meet with, do you understand what we’re saying?

Steve Proutsos stated, yes, I understand.

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I’m not saying that changes what you believe and all but I just want everyone to understand what we’re doing. It would be located and I quite frankly come off of your house as a heck of a good solid structure to believe to measure from and a farm boy myself, that’s where I would do it and wouldn’t hire and engineer to do it. Probably better get a surveyor in there and have them located it for this matter.

Carol Stradling stated, for the purpose of the variance though, if the variance is granted 3’ off of the property line is alright or should it be back even further than that if the home is located 6’ from the property line. Do you see what I’m getting at? If we sit here and approve the variance and he only needs to be 3’ off of the line according to the variance but the current home is 6’ off of the line…

Jeff Saylor stated, we could approve it with the stipulation that it maintains…

Doug Keesling stated, exactly…

Jeff Saylor stated, the same building line as the existing house.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson stated, well, he’s testified that it will not exceed that.

Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest that you do that, the matter as I hear it has been stipulated and amended to be the request would be no closer than the roof line of the existing carport as the width is on that side.

Doug Keesling stated, exactly.

Attorney Altman stated, and that, that be properly located by your surveyor.

President Thompson stated, okay, last chance.

Steve Proutsos asked, are we all working off of the revised the one that was submitted 10-29-02? There were actually 2 proposed plans, I just want to make sure that we are all working off of the second. The first survey that was submitted is different with respect that the front portion of the proposed building a quarter of front portion was some what eliminated I don’t know if you can look at the first survey that was submitted versus the second survey.

Director Weaver stated, the one that you are referring to…

Steve Proutsos stated, the second survey has been submitted with the elimination of part of the front portion of the first submitted survey building. I don’t know if each of the Board members have the first proposed…

Director Weaver stated, I believe that he is referring to the survey that has the received date of 10-29-02 and that is what is on the staff report.

Steve Proutsos stated, the one that was received on 10-29, that was the revised building proposal…

Director Weaver stated, that is the copy they…

Steve Proutsos stated, the first building proposal which the Board maybe, I don’t know if they are looking at the other one…

Director Weaver stated, that’s the one.

President Thompson stated, mine is 10-29.

Steve Proutsos stated, okay because there was some adjustments made eliminating some of the building on the second one.

Attorney Altman stated, and in addition to that for the record, some of the building would also be eliminated and they redo that extends further towards your house, your dads house than the present roofline of the present home.

Steve Proutsos stated, I would ask, the suggestion that this Board is making that they would not go further than the building lot line of the carport that exists but, they also comply with the revision that they made to the front, North…

Attorney Altman stated, clearly this is their request, modified.

Steve Proutsos stated, thank you.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that’s the addressed issued of the home. The proposed garage…

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, that is close to the road…

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, there’s not a garage there currently?

Doug Keesling stated, well, there is…

Carol Stradling asked, there is a footer there…

Doug Keesling stated, the footers were poured, due to the ambiguity of exactly were the property line was at the time and the naïves of backhoe operator, the footer was poured in the wrong location. I met with Dave Anderson, I called him, we met out there, and it was decided that we could do one of two things. We could either pour more concrete over to accommodate the setbacks or we could, since we had already a variance on the table for this month we could include that as well and leave the existing footer where it was. All work was of course stopped when the discrepancy was found out.

Carol Stradling asked, is the owner of Lot 8 here?

Doug Keesling stated, Art Hickson, no, he’s not here tonight. I just finished a garage for him and talked with him the day before yesterday, he didn’t have any problems with it.

Attorney Altman asked, there is a building permit for that proposed garage?

Director Weaver stated, there has been a building permit issued for the proposed garage, it was issued meeting the setbacks.

Attorney Altman stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, does anyone else care to address the variance this evening? Back to the Board, are there any other questions?

Jeff Saylor stated, I don’t think so.

President Thompson asked, if there is no other discussion, are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, for the record how many footers…

Carol Stradling stated, he’s 9’ between the two homes right, there would be at least 9’ if not more.

Attorney Altman stated, there is 8’ on their side, then there’s 3’, at least 3’.

President Thompson stated, there should be 14’ possibly.

Steve Proutsos stated, I believe its 8’.

Director Weaver stated, yes, it shows 8’ on your survey.

Doug Keesling stated, yes I believe that it is.

Steve Proutsos stated, I believe that they are referring to 8’ from our building to…

Carol Stradling stated, from building to building.

Director Weaver stated, there is going to be at least 8’ between building to building.

Doug Keesling stated, yes.

Steve Proutsos stated, it’s not 8’ from our property line to our building, between the carport and the building.

President Thompson stated, okay, thank you.

Attorney Altman asked, do we have a G photo?

Doug Keesling stated, I don’t know that one is submitted.

Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t get it, if we did.

Doug Keesling stated, no you didn’t Attorney Altman, sorry.

Attorney Altman stated, so A, B, C, D, E and F.

Doug Keesling stated, I omitted…

Attorney Altman stated, that’s all right, I just wanted to make sure for the record, thank you.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ South side setback variance and a 4’ North side setback variance to build a new home. Also, a 5’ side setback variance to build a detached garage on Lot 9 in Friendly Shores Addition No. 1 Revised in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5391 N. Stahl Road.


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


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


Attorney Altman stated, for the record the applicant is requesting the matter, variance and we’re coming off of the survey that is dated and received 10-29-2002. That request has been further modified variance inwardly by a stipulation that the proposed site variance if granted would be no further toward lot #10 than the present width of the present house to that side this is the roofline and based on that the variance is granted as amended. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.


****

#2152 Douglas B. & Sonia K. Schwartz; Requesting a 16’ rear setback variance to bring an existing screened porch into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on .15 of an acre. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 509 Tyler Lane.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing the Schwartz’s? You are?

Doug Schwartz stated, Doug and this is my wife Sonia.

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

Doug Schwartz stated, no, you have all of the facts.

President Thompson asked, okay, sounds good. Director Weaver, do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we have not had any contact regarding this request, I do want to point out that this porch has already been built without a permit, they are requesting this after the fact.

Attorney Altman asked, building permit obtained?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, it’s after the fact.

Doug Schwartz stated, after the fact.

President Thompson asked, who built the porch.

Doug Schwartz stated, Sunset Builders, it was the contractor.

President Thompson asked, from?

Director Weaver stated, he’s from Lafayette.

Doug Schwartz stated, I think that he’s from Lafayette. He’s building on a home right down just down the street from us.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the name of the person?

Doug Schwartz stated, Jim Koches.

Attorney Altman asked, C…

Doug Schwartz stated, Coat…

Sonia Schwartz stated, no, it’s K…

Doug Schwartz stated, Ko…

Sonia Schwartz stated, Koches.

Attorney Altman asked, the address?

Sonia Schwartz asked, of Sunset Builders?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Sonia Schwartz stated, I don’t have that.

Doug Schwartz stated, he lives on 900 West in Tippecanoe County.

President Thompson asked, was a permit ever discussed with you, between you and the contractor?

Doug Schwartz stated, no.

Sonia Schwartz stated, but we had a porch there, we tore it off and screened in so we didn’t realize that we needed a building permit to do it.

Doug Schwartz stated, we probably should have.

Attorney Altman stated, there’s no question about that.

President Thompson stated, yes, we deal with all types. Sometimes the contractor tells the homeowner that he will obtain the permits, sometimes.

Doug Schwartz stated, no we never discussed it.

Attorney Altman asked, I see the home is for sale, does that mean that you bought it?

Doug Schwartz stated, no actually we put new carpet down and another opportunity arose and we purchased another cottage on the lake and subsequently put that one on the market for sale and then that’s when we found out that we needed a permit and the setback variance.

Director Weaver asked, how long has this been done, when was it built?

Sonia Schwartz stated, in the 1950’s…

Doug Schwartz stated, no the porch…

Sonia Schwartz stated, oh, I’m sorry.

Doug Schwartz stated, umm…

Sonia Schwartz stated, it finished up the end of July I think.

Director Weaver asked, this year?

Sonia Schwartz stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, there was a porch there?

Doug Schwartz stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, was it a screened in porch?

Doug Schwartz stated, no it was just a slab with a…

Sonia Schwartz stated, just a cement slab with a…

Doug Schwartz stated, stated, corrugated…

Sonia Schwartz stated, yes, with a corrugated roof.

Doug Schwartz stated, glass roof like…

Sonia Schwartz stated, it has holes in it so, we just decided to fix it.

Director Weaver asked, you left the slab there correct?

Sonia Schwartz stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, just built over the top of the slab?

Sonia Schwartz stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, have you done any building projects in Lafayette prior to this?

Doug Schwartz stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, did you obtain a building permit for those not in White County?

Doug Schwartz stated, yes, it was a home…

Sonia Schwartz stated, a new home.

Doug Schwartz stated, that’s, I’ve never done remodel or in fact we built a store here in White County and got permits.

President Thompson stated, I’m sorry Jeff, you said something, and I interrupted you.

Jeff Saylor asked, …already in place is that right?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.

Doug Schwartz stated, I’m going to be, you know the other porch was I think it come out 5’ and we added 3’ more onto it to make it the 8’ that it is now. We did an add on to the front of the porch and otherwise, I think that it would have probably been, if we would have just screened in the initial part, no wall behind it.

President Thompson asked, do you have any…

Director Weaver stated, your survey indicated that there is a wall there.

Doug Schwartz stated, that tells you how much I know about measurements.

President Thompson asked, is there any response from anyone on this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this either for or against, this variance? Back to the Board, how do we want to handle this?

Attorney Altman stated, I sure would like to see that contractor in to answer questions about obtaining building permits.

President Thompson asked, he built near you or currently is?

Doug Schwartz stated, currently is.

President Thompson stated, okay, now.

Attorney Altman asked, I hope he has a building permit for that.

Doug Schwartz stated, yes, he does.

Sonia Schwartz stated, it’s a brand new home so he’s not doing, it’s not the same kind of thing that he’s doing.

Attorney Altman asked, the home is not sold, just trying to get it into compliance?

Doug Schwartz stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, I suggest that you table it, bring the contractor in and get an answer as to why a building permit wasn’t obtained. We have a matter before us this evening that would assess a 500-dollar fine in matters like this.

Doug Schwartz stated, I was aware of that it was brought up by, I think Director Weaver told me that was probably going to be assessed Attorney Altman. I have to take full responsibility for that because, I hired him to do it and ultimately it falls back on me to obtain the permit so, not that I’m defending Jim or taking away, it’s my responsibility to take care of it.

President Thompson asked, what are the Board’s wishes here? Carol? Dave?

Dave Scott stated, I have an opinion that the thing shouldn’t go unpunished because we do, it’s my opinion only that probably 500 dollars is excessive in this particular situation because of the, they were replacing something that was existing basically.

Doug Schwartz stated, I should have known better. This is the guy that is a fault right here, I just hired the guy to do it.

Dave Scott stated, I really think that there should be some fine assessed but I think that 500 dollars is excessive in this situation. I don’t know how the Board feels.

Gary Barbour stated, well, I don’t think that you’re going to find a Board member that’s going to disagree with you. Ultimately, you are responsible however, if the contractor is coming into White County, he’s doing construction, he is also responsible to secure his permit and that is one of the issues that we run into as a Board.

Attorney Altman stated, we are trying to stop it.

Jeff Saylor stated, unfortunately, the building permit is in the name of the homeowner.

David Scott asked, yes, can you access any of the fines of the builder?

President Thompson stated, you bet, you can split it, you can give it all to the builder or all to the property owner, down the middle.

David Scott stated, I think…

President Thompson stated, I’m with Gary I mean, you’re being too harsh on yourself. I think there is blame on both sides of the field here.

Dave Scott asked, I guess I make a motion that we fine the owner and the builder 100 dollars a piece. Is that enough or is that not enough?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m not going to say whether its not enough, I’m wondering if I were a business man and you were assessing a fine and say okay, I will pay the 100 dollars or you can pay the 100 dollars and it’s a done deal. Is there any way that we can request Sunset Builders to show up or contact the office so that can be clarified? The fine is one thing and I don’t know maybe they have, I don’t know that we have to postpone this and have him show up at the next meeting but, I think that he should be in some kind of contact with the office.

Doug Schwartz stated, I could probably contact him since he’s working up there and have him come in and meet with Director Weaver tomorrow or Dave or whoever and get it resolved so it’s resolved and put behind us all.

Dave Scott stated, yes, I think that’s the minimum that he should be required to come in and see Director Weaver.

Gary Barbour asked, can we assess a fine vote on it and make it all contingent upon contacting him.

Jeff Saylor stated, the White County Board of Zoning Appeals has a paper trail to the homeowner, we have a legitimate of course to follow in assessing a fine, and there is absolutely no paper trail to the contractor. I don’t think that we can legitimately fine the contractor. I think that person that we are able to fine is the name on the building permit. Now whatever we do…

Attorney Altman stated, you should give him notice, you’re exactly right, that’s what I was saying…

Jeff Saylor stated, well, no matter what we do, if we assess a fine to this gentlemen, whatever recourse that he wants to take as a contract is his business you know that’s his paper trail that’s not ours.

Director Weaver stated, what we’re trying to stress to these contractors is don’t go on a property and start building unless you know there is a permit issued.

President Thompson stated, there wasn’t any discussion pertaining to on this, a reputable contractor would ask…

Jeff Saylor stated, the contractor didn’t come in and get the permit, which in some cases they do.

President Thompson stated, right but he’s testifying that there wasn’t even any discussion.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay, well, at this particular point and time we have no documentation in front of us as to who actually built this, we have their testimony but we don’t have any paper trail to follow. I guess I’m just going after the hard facts here and believe me I have been in small claims court enough to know that you have to have your ducks in a row.

Attorney Altman stated, certainly can table this if you wish, certainly can notice the contractor next month and have the contractor in or you can…

President Thompson asked, do you request he pay in person Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, to the office.

Attorney Altman stated, if he does come.

Carol Stradling stated, if he’s a contractor and he’s building in White County, maybe he doesn’t know where the Area Plan Office is. Maybe a visit to the office would inform him where that is and he can clarify with Director Weaver when he does need to get building permits, I guess I shouldn’t say it that way.

Attorney Altman stated, there are ways that you can, give him notice next month and bring him in…propose that and get the contractor in next month.

President Thompson asked, you mean as far as appear?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, and that’s if you want to do that or…

President Thompson stated, I think going to the office is sufficient myself.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m just saying that you can.

President Thompson stated, yes, I understand.

Director Weaver stated, …contractor…

President Thompson asked pretty much, wait?

Director Weaver stated, I think that we need to…contractor.

Attorney Altman stated, certainly a way to learn a lesson.

Director Weaver stated, this Board is….

Gary Barbour asked, do we still have a motion on the Board?

Attorney Altman stated, we have a fine of 100 dollars to the contractor and 100 dollars to the owner.

President Thompson asked, or modify.

Dave Scott stated, maybe I want to table this until the next meeting and invite the contractor to show if he comes and at that point and time address the fine issue and the setback issue.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

Carol Stradling stated, so the motion is to table this until the next meeting?

Dave Scott stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, December 3rd…

Director Weaver stated, no…

Doug Schwartz stated, question, what happens if we get an offer on the property between now and then.

Attorney Altman stated, you have to wait until you get approval.

Doug Schwartz asked, what meeting is this going to be brought back up?

Attorney Altman stated, the 19th…

President Thompson stated, 19th of December.

Attorney Altman stated, December, have your contractor here.

Carol Stradling stated, so there is a motion and a second, is there a vote?

President Thompson stated, there is a motion and a second to table variance #2152 until the December 19th meeting with the request of presence of contractor. All in favor signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson asked, all opposed the same, motion carried. Now, he will get a mailing from you right?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, will they get another mailing?

Director Weaver stated, we don’t notify them no.

Sonia Schwartz asked, do we need to put our sign back in the yard?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Sonia Schwartz asked, do you want to change the date on it?

Director Weaver asked, yes, it probably isn’t possible to pick it up tomorrow is it?

Sonia Schwartz stated, I can come back tomorrow.

Director Weaver stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, what is the address where he’s working at?

Sonia Schwartz stated, it’s down on Ohio Street.

Attorney Altman asked, will you call and give that to Director Weaver please.

Sonia Schwartz stated, yes, I will call you in the morning with it.

****

#2153 Roger Lowry D/B/A Lowry Bros.; Requesting a 25’ front setback variance (Second Street), 25’ front setback variance (Washington Street), .50’ front setback variance (Third Street) to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance. Also, a 60 space parking space variance to bring the parking into compliance on Part Lot #1 & Part Lot #2 in O.P. Block 8. The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 201 S. Washington Street.

President Thompson asked, Mr. Lowry, do you have anything to present to the Board tonight?

Roger Lowry stated, it’s pretty cut and dry.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, obviously for the record, we have permission for this matter to encroach on Town property as part of the record, as approval by the Town to build on their property by the Town Board. They have no objection, I’m just going down the letters that we received from the Town Board regarding to the business as proposed.

Director Weaver stated, that’s the Park Board…

Attorney Altman stated, maybe that is, yes Park Board.

Director Weaver stated, Park Board, which is an adjoiner.

Carol Stradling asked, the park is across the street?

Roger Lowry stated, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, I guess everything is across the street isn’t it?

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address either for or against the variance, if not to the Board, discussion questions?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything on this, I just want to point out to the Board that they use the parking area for Solly’s parking lot. Solly’s mainly uses it at nighttime and Lowry’s business uses it during the day.

President Thompson asked, okay, any discussion from anyone? Carol anything?

Carol Stradling asked, no, I just you understand that you are encroaching on the railroad, is it the road right-of-way or the railroad right-of-way?

Director Weaver stated, road right-of-way.

Carol Stradling stated, we can not address…

Attorney Altman stated, we can only understand that the Town has allowed them to do that.

Roger Lowry asked, yes, but you’re talking about the road right-of-way on the street of the Town or the road right-of-way on the State Highway?

Dave Scott stated, on Washington Street.

Roger Lowry stated, well, that’s why we brought the letter from the Town Board.

Jeff Saylor stated, the Board can only approve up to your property line…

Roger Lowry stated, right.

Jeff Saylor stated, and beyond that is between you and…

Roger Lowery stated, yes and that’s why we had to get that letter form the Town. I was told to get that to you guys so you can see that.

President Thompson asked, good idea. Dave, Gary anything? Ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, the improvement will be located the same size and house merchandise?

Roger Lowery stated, it will be the same height, it’s going to be 64’ longer adding on our building 60’ wide.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.


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 25’ front setback variance (Second Street), 25’ front setback variance (Washington Street), .50’ front setback variance (Third Street) to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance. Also, a 60 space parking space variance to bring the parking into compliance on That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 27 North, Range 4 West in the Town of Reynolds, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a railroad spike at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 33; thence South 00 degrees 23 minutes 02 seconds East (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along the section line 857.35 feet to the North line of Third Street; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds West along said line 398.26 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe set a point 30.00 feet perpendicular to the centerline of the main track and the point of beginning;

Thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds West 88.29 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe set on the East line of Washington Street; thence North 00 degrees 31 minutes 27 seconds West along said line 240.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe set on the South line of U.S. #24 or Second Street; thence North 89 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds East along said line 82.80 feet to a ½ iron pipe set a point 30.00 feet perpendicular to the centerline of the main Track, thence South 01 degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds East parallel to the main track 240.02 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.471 of an Acre.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Reynolds at 201 S. Washington Street.

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


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


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


Roger Lowry stated, thank you very much.


President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.

****

#2154 Michael D. & Deborah K. Cosgray; Requesting a special exception to have a commercial greenhouse and nursery business on 1.171 acres. The property is located in Cass Township at 12740 E. 600 N.

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

Mike Cosgray stated, Mike Cosgray.

President Thompson asked, you are Mike Cosgray?

Mike Cosgray stated, yes sir.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional to present tonight?

Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this, our schedule of uses requires a commercial greenhouse to go through a B-2 zoning with a special exception or rezone to industrial. He has gone through the rezoning process and it was approved for a B-2 zoning.

President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address either for or against?

Carol Stradling asked, do you plan on having this green house open for retail or wholesale?

Mike Cosgray stated, retail 5 months out of the year, only during the summer months.

Carol Stradling asked, any particular items you plan on?

Mike Cosgray stated, mostly plants, shrubs and small trees.

President Thompson asked, Board? If that’s it we shall vote.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business.


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 to have a commercial greenhouse and nursery business on That part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 2 West in Cass Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 21 seconds West along CR600N and the section line 171.32 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds East 375.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 12 seconds West 136.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 375.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 12 seconds East 136.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.171 Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Idaville at 12740 E. 600 N.


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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you build anything out there.


Mike Cosgray stated, okay, thank you.


Attorney Altman stated, thank you.


President Thompson stated, you bet.


****

#2155 Deardorff Enterprises Inc., Owner; Twin Lakes Cinema, Charles Ryan, Applicant; Requesting a 238’ separation variance from an off-premise sign to the North and a 37’ separation variance from an off-premise sign to the South on 1.079 acres. The property is located just North of Monticello at 1699 N. West Shafer Drive.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Charles Ryan stated, Charles Ryan.

President Thompson asked, okay, do you have anything that you would like to add?

Charles Ryan stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received any calls on this, this is also an after the fact. The one thing that we were not able to determine, I researched my records to see if I could find building permits for any of these existing signs and I was not able to do that. The problem that we have there, I have no way of finding out when these signs were put through the Assessor’s Office because, the information that they have on them are confidential. I do not have access to that so the only resource that I have is the building permits.

Attorney Altman asked, they were up there and then Mr. Ryan put this sign up?

Director Weaver stated, yes, he came and originally applied for a freestanding sign, did not come back for a permit and I believe he could not meet the setback requirements the separation requirements and then proceeded to place this sign on the side of the building.

President Thompson asked, discussion, questions? So we are dealing with one or more signs.

Attorney Altman stated, just actually, one.

Director Weaver stated, one sign that he has put up but the separation from 2 signs, one to the North and one to the South.

President Thompson asked, anyone have anything? Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, I’m a little torn here. It doesn’t feel right that he was denied one way and then went another way but on the same token if we don’t have permits for the other two signs.

Director Weaver stated, they could possibly be grandfathered. I have no way of determining that if they are grandfathered or illegal.

Charles Ryan stated, I believe the business in question on the other side, signs weren’t in existence until after the grandfathered date.

Director Weaver asked, the sign to the North, is that the one that you’re referring to?

Charles Ryan stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, because the sign to the South looks fairly old.

Dave Scott asked, I don’t understand, are these signs on the end of the building? They are not free standing signs?

Director Weaver stated, no, the cinema sign is not, it’s actually, on the building.

President Thompson asked, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor asked, a sign on the building, is that different from a freestanding sign?

Director Weaver stated, when it’s off premise.

Jeff Saylor asked, by off premise you mean?

Director Weaver stated, it’s not advertising a business located on the same location.

Jeff Saylor stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, if it was advertising the sign on the premise, they would need a building permit but they wouldn’t need a variance.

Jeff Saylor asked, is that how the Ordinance reads?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, if it’s advertising a business that is not on the premises there is a separation distance between other signs that are off premise sings and that’s what the variance is.

President Thompson asked, Gary, Dave?

Dave Scott asked, he came in to get a permit and it was denied.

Director Weaver stated, he came in to get a permit for a free standing.

Dave Scott stated, for free standing…

Charles Ryan stated, it was not denied, I just didn’t follow through.

Dave Scott asked, didn’t follow through and then you went and put the sign on the building?

Charles Ryan stated, yes.

Dave Scott asked, and that requires a permit for an off…

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, because of the location, it requires a variance, actually two variances.

Dave Scott stated, well, I don’t think that those other signs make any difference, they are not, that’s not what is on the table, we can’t change what has been done in the past all that we can do is act on what is happening now.

Charles Ryan stated, I might add something, I believe that the rules on this states that the setback has to be from legal signs, by legal meaning that the other signs had building permits and…

Director Weaver stated, or grandfathered…

Charles Ryan stated, or grandfathered that these businesses were in existence since the grandfather, so in my opinion they should not be considered as legal signs.

President Thompson asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, but you were aware that you needed a building permit before the sign went up?

Charles Ryan stated, no. My original intention was to put up a freestanding sign, which I assumed needed, a building permit. Then when I seen the regulations I thought that well, this does not comply so instead of making it free standing, I’ll just attach it to the building. The office of the Area Plan has never been able to provide me with any stipulations that the sign attached to the building is not one that takes up any new real-estate, has no foundation, has no new posts set in real-estate should require a building permit.

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it does.

Director Weaver stated, it is still an off premise sign.

Attorney Altman stated, it does, it requires…

Charles Ryan stated, well just saying that it does, doesn’t show where it is written that, that is stipulated…

Attorney Altman stated, it’s an improvement and it’s required a building permit.

Charles Ryan stated, I was asking for things in the…

Attorney Altman stated, you asked me and I said that it did need it.

Charles Ryan stated, well, I was to get called but, I never did.

Attorney Altman stated, you did.

Charles Ryan stated, well, Attorney Altman said that he thought it did but nothing was submitted to me in any print with any regulations or stipulations that a sign attached to a building is something that requires a building permit. When I pursed asking for those regulations, I was told that I could buy a copy of the book for 150 dollars.

Attorney Altman asked, 150 dollars?

Director Weaver stated, 50 dollars.

Charles Ryan stated, well, maybe it was 50 dollars but regardless of the amount for information, it should be a matter of public record.

President Thompson asked, Jeff? Dave? Gary and Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, at what point did you get permission to put the sign on the building?

Charles Ryan asked, you mean from the owner of the building?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Charles Ryan stated, 30 days prior to doing it.

Carol Stradling asked, but what we have in writing actually is not dated, the note from Hammel and Bennett, did you have that written permission prior to building it or does that?

Charles Ryan stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, so you had that 30 days prior to…

Charles Ryan stated, 30 days or more.

Jeff Saylor asked, if there was a contractor involved, would this be the same situation that the contract building without a building permit and if so do we need to table this and invite the contractor in?

Director Weaver stated, the contractor in this situation only makes the signs, he doesn’t post the signs, I have talked with him.

Jeff Saylor asked, so the sign wasn’t installed by the…

Director Weaver asked, evidentially, did you install the signs?

Charles Ryan stated, I didn’t install it myself, I assisted.

Director Weaver asked, but you contractor Ed Ward, did not install the sign?

Charles Ryan stated, no, he did not.

Director Weaver stated, that was my understanding.

Dave Scott stated, I don’t like the fact that he put the sign up without a permit and I also don’t like the fact that he had trouble getting information from the Area Plan Office.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe that was from the office. I don’t know that we did not produce that information. I don’t know that we were asked for that information.

President Thompson asked, sir, did you visit the office?

Charles Ryan stated, yes, I did.

Director Weaver stated, yes, he did.

Dave Scott asked, who wouldn’t give you the information?

Charles Ryan stated, I was asking for where it stipulated that. First, I was given a page out of the book that indicated what a sign, the definition of a sign was. I said this doesn’t, isn’t what I’m asking for so then I was given another copy of an additional page which indicated the definition for an off premise sign. Neither one of these pages indicated that a sign attached to a building required a building permit. I could tell at the time that I was an annoyance to the office worker, with whom I was dealing with. When I asked for, is there anything else that you can show me, that’s when I was told that I would have to buy a copy of the book. So I left the office still with no information that indicates a regulation that a sign attached or painted on the side of a building should require a building permit. When I asked further, I was told that they would check it out and call me, not wanting to be a further annoyance, I just dropped it and let it come to this.

President Thompson asked, do we have anything documented that pertains to this type of situation?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t find old permits for signs that were placed on sides of buildings no.

President Thompson asked, but old permits of where are guidelines, do we have any? Where does that fall under? I guess what I’m saying is if the can’t produce anything for him…

Dave Scott asked, is the Ordinance gray or does it actually…

Director Weaver stated, right here it says a sign is a name identification, description, display or illustration which is affixed to or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or a piece of land and which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, or organization or business. That is a definition of a sign. It goes on and says a sign shall not include the display of official court or public office, flag, emblem or insignia of a political unit or school…

The Tape was changed.

Carol Stradling stated, you would assume that it would need a permit but I can also, do you have any take on this?

President Thompson stated, for some reason that was not produced to that job.

Charles Ryan stated, that was produced.

Director Weaver stated, I was going to say, I think he did receive a copy of this.

Charles Ryan stated, I was in the real-estate business for 20 years and to my way of thinking, it should be something that is taking up your real estate. When I saw that, I didn’t think that I was going to be able to get a permit for the sign because of the setbacks, that’s when I thought that I won’t take up any more real-estate, I’ll just attach it to the building. Now, if a building permit is required, then that’s why I’m here, I will get a building permit. I still had nothing to prove to me, well my question was why does a, to the office was why does a sign attached to a building require a building permit, the response was, it just does. I said if I was to paint the name of my business on that building would that require a building permit and they said yes, it would, and I said well why would that be, well, it just does is the response.

President Thompson asked, but did you get a copy of what she just read out loud?

Charles Ryan stated, yes, I did.

President Thompson asked, and that wasn’t clear enough for you?

Charles Ryan stated, that just indicates, that’s just a sign, what a sign is. I know what a sign is, that doesn’t indicate that a sign attached to a building, needs a building permit, attached to or painted on.

Carol Stradling stated, I would move that we table this and see if we can’t spend a little more time and…

President Thompson asked, second to that motion?

Gary Barbour asked, alright, if we’re going to table it, how are we going to do it in the mean time, how are we going to research this more?

Carol Stradling asked, if we’re talking about 3 signs, did you contact the Church, Director Weaver?

Director Weaver asked, did I contact the church?

Carol Stradling asked, the church sign, apparently, the church sign…

Director Weaver stated, the church sign is not an issue because, that is an on premise sign.

Carol Stradling asked, so Dekker’s billboard and what is the grandfathered date?

Director Weaver stated, well it would be 1972 but, at the time that sign went up it may have been a different sign. You change the facing without a permit.

Carol Stradling asked, have you talked to Dekker’s?

Director Weaver stated, no, I have not.

Charles Ryan asked, can I interrupt, I’m not arguing whether I need a building permit or not. You’re saying one is required, that’s why I’m here. If we can avoid tabling it and get a variance granted and I will pay for the building permit then that’s okay, I don’t want to take up anymore of your time or anyone else’s time because it needs to be taken up.

President Thompson stated, but we need to prove…

Gary Barbour stated, yes, it goes deeper than that because, according to the Ordinance here it says the distance between lawfully erected off premise signs structures. We need to determine whether the signs that are out there are actually legal, that’s one and two there is also an opportunity here, well I shouldn’t say opportunity but there is a possibility that there is going to be a fine levied. Two the sign may still have to come down. So, there is more issues here than just a permit.

President Thompson stated, we need a little more clear definition of the situation.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that Mr. Ryan has presented a little more than what it looks like on face in the packet explains some things.

President Thompson stated, we have a motion to table.

Dave Scott asked, who is going to do the research? Director Weaver, does she do the research on it and I guess I will second that until we get some more facts.

Director Weaver stated, our attorney has also indicated to me that he can subpoena the records from the Assessor’s Office to see if we can get more information, so if the Board wishes, we can have him do that.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded that we table this, also, and I’m assuming that you’re going back to the 19th meeting again, okay. Moved and seconded, all signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson asked, all opposed, motion carried.

****

#2156 William & Lois Koch; Requesting a 31’ front setback variance, a 6’ North side setback variance, and a 19’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage, an addition, and add a second story onto the existing home and to bring the existing home into compliance. Also, a 1’ rear setback variance to bring the existing unroofed concrete patio into compliance on Part Lot #8 & Lot #14 in Grosvenor Camp. The property is located North of Lowe’s Bridge at 6919 N. Skaggs Court.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information?

William Koch stated, no.

President Thompson asked, and you are Bill?

Bill Koch stated, I am Bill.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, do you have anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, we have had some concerns voiced from the neighbor and also I was questioned about the sign and the location of the sign, it was hidden behind some trash barrels and I was questioned.

President Thompson asked, do you care to address that sir?

Bill Koch stated, the sign was in the area of where the garage was going to go. I don’t know when whoever has made concern of this happen to come on trash day when I bring my trash out I don’t know but, like I say, that sign was posted like that.

President Thompson stated, we have photos here so we did see that it was looked like garbage day possibly. There are sometimes that the kids don’t want to bring the garage cans to the house.

President Thompson asked, so that was it?

Director Weaver stated, well, they had concerns with the request as well.

President Thompson sated, oh they did, alright but is…

Director Weaver stated, I thought that he was going to come in, I don’t know that he’s here.

Bill Koch stated, if it concerns the gentlemen that was here earlier today, what he was concerned of, that I was running a business out of the home. I assured him that I was not, he seemed to be pleased with that answer from me, and I have known the gentlemen for years.

President Thompson asked, does anyone here care to address either for or against this variance? If not to the Board, questions or concerns?

Carol Stradling asked, so you’re not on public service, public sewers?

Bill Koch stated, I am not on public sewers, they are talking about the next few years, sewers coming down into the area.

Carol Stradling asked, where is your leach field?

Bill Koch stated, my leach field at this point is unknown. Unfortunately, when the home was built no one knew the gentlemen that built it which happened to be Harlen Skaggs, never had a copy or record of any leach field or where the septic tank is. As a matter of fact, I had to locate the septic tank.

Carol Stradling asked, so you have located the septic tank?

Bill Koch stated, the septic tank is located, correct.

Carol Stradling asked, can you give me an idea where it might be?

Bill Koch stated, the septic tank is on the East side of the house, in front of the existing shed right now which, is going to get removed.

Director Weaver asked, you realize that you will have to have septic approval in order to get your building permit?

Bill Koch stated, yes, I do.

There was discussion among the Board.

Carol Stradling stated, you’re covering up an awful lot of ground.

Director Weaver stated, this is going to be second story, they are going to add a second story to this as well.

President Thompson asked, complete second story?

Bill Koch stated, complete second story correct. Just so that the Board knows, this is also an area which is located with summer homes so in location, people aren’t going to be around there all of the time.

Attorney Altman stated, but they do that and then they become permanent homes around there.

Bill Koch stated, well I can’t deny that, unfortunately, I’m still on a septic system I’m just hoping that sewers come faster than they said.

Dave Scott asked, is that projected to happen in this area?

Bill Koch stated, when I was talking to a gentlemen, Bud Allen which, was on the Board at one time…

Charles Mellon stated, he’s still on.

Bill Koch asked, is he still on, saying that the sewers will be coming around in the next two years, that’s all that he can give me is a round about answer when they will be coming into the area.

Attorney Altman asked, have you talked to the Health Department about this?

Bill Koch stated, I have not had a chance yet to talk to the Health Department, no.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that we should get their approval for this before we consider this.

Dave Scott stated, the way of a leach system in there.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t see how they can get anything.

President Thompson asked, if we can…

Jeff Saylor stated, we can approve the variance…

President Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you can do that.

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m not sure, I mean we’re just part of the process for setbacks but the drainage and the sewer has all got to come into play for a building permit, excuse me, I mean the sewers.

Director Weaver stated, the septic will have to be…

President Thompson stated, approved.

There was discussion among the Board.

Dave Scott asked, did you say that you will require septic approval or something before you issue a permit?

Director Weaver stated, do require.

Bill Koch stated, I’m understanding that the Health Department has to give me septic approval on the area before a building so if it is passed everything will be shown as to the Building Department of Area Planning of the approval or disapproval.

Carol Stradling asked, if the septic is the issue and he has to address that when one way or another, we can be first or they can be first and then it would have to go through.

Bill Koch stated, if it helps out any, the only area that I am going to cover, new property or new real-estate as you would say would be on the North side of the building of where the well is at this time. So, I’m sure that anyone in their right mind wouldn’t of put a leach field next to the well, anything else really and really going on existing concrete but I’m sorry there was like 18’ x 12’ that is also new frontage on the South side of the building.

Attorney Altman stated, you can do whatever you want but I would sure like to see an approval before I.

President Thompson asked, Jeff?

Jeff Saylor asked, has anyone commented on this one way or another neighbors?

Director Weaver stated, just the gentlemen that we had in our office.

Carol Stradling asked, is there anyway that all that you’re adding on up top that the garage could be underneath part of the second story?

Bill Koch stated, the garage would be under part of the second story.

Carol Stradling asked, without extending it out and building a second story above that, you’re almost duplicating, not duplicating you’re almost doubling he square footage of one story let along doubling that.

There was discussion among the Board.

President Thompson stated, that’s the way that the condition would be put on yes.

Carol Stradling stated, the variance is a setback variance within a year…

Director Weaver stated, no, special exception is within a year a setback variance is not.

Carol Stradling asked, don’t they have to start building within a year after the variance.

Attorney Altman stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s there forever.

Director Weaver stated, that’s right.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, a setback variance is different than a special exception. They don’t have to start this within a year, once it’s granted, it granted.

Attorney Altman stated, as long as the put in the same thing as they asked for, it’s approved.

Carol Stradling stated, I thought that they had to…

Attorney Altman stated, only a special exception.

President Thompson asked, you’re going to say that if they approve it and the Health Department, say they say no he can still, this paperwork is good until the septic system comes in down the road?

Director Weaver stated, I just issued a permit for a variance that was granted in 1997.

Jeff Saylor stated, it was my understanding that when you got the building permit you only got a year on it.

Director Weaver stated, a building permit now is good for 2 years start within 6 months and complete within 2 years but they don’t have to come in and get the permit right away.

Dave Scott stated, but if they put the sewer down, there is no way…

Jeff Saylor stated, well, it’s still a point all that we are considering is the setbacks for this proposed building project.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Jeff Saylor stated, and if we approve it and the Health Department declines the sewer it’s a dead issue at least our part is still approved but he can’t get a building permit.

Director Weaver stated, not until the sewers come through.

Jeff Saylor stated, not until the Heath Department approves it okay and once that’s done but it’s still our choice if we approve the setbacks which is what we are here for tonight.

Director Weaver stated, you need to clarify that it is based on septic approval and not sewers going in. You understand what I’m saying, I want you to understand, you’re saying based upon septic approval but if he can’t get septic approval his variance will still be granted unless you stipulate otherwise.

Carol Stradling stated, but if sewers take care of it...

Dave Scott stated, but if the sewer comes down the road and he can hook onto it then…

Director Weaver stated, and if that’s the way that you feel, that’s fine, I just wanted you to understand…

Jeff Saylor asked, …is correct so that’s fine, it’s a dead issue here, it’s approved, and he can do this later after the sewers.

There was discussion among the Board.

President Thompson stated, give it a spin here Jeff.

Jeff Saylor stated, I would like to make a motion that if the Board voted to approve the variance request that it is contingent upon approval by the Health Department for sewage.

President Thompson asked, is that too general, does it need to be more specific?

Jeff Saylor stated, contingent upon the Health Department issuing a sewage permit.

President Thompson stated, that sounds good.

Carol Stradling stated, I’ll second that.

President Thompson stated, okay, it’s been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson asked, all opposed the same, motion carried. Is there any other discussion? Did you hear the motion sir?

Bill Koch stated, I missed part of it if you would repeat it please.

President Thompson stated, you kind of got half way there.

Director Weaver stated, the request is going to be contingent that if the Board votes to approve the variance that it is contingent upon the Health Department issuing a sewage permit. If they do not issue a sewage permit then you can not, the variance is null and void.

Bill Koch stated, that’s fine.

President Thompson asked, now, does he understand the timetable as well?

Director Weaver asked, the timetable on?

President Thompson stated, as far as this permit or this variance for the setback, for 1 year.

Director Weaver stated, there is no timetable on it.

Bill Koch stated, I come to the understanding that the variance is good as long as the building is standing.

Director Weaver stated, as long as they get Health Department approval.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Bill Koch stated, no go ahead, I was just going to mention that I thought that the variance was good while the building was standing. If you approve that variance it’s good until you knock down the building or whatever.

Director Weaver stated, right but what they are telling you here is if you can’t get a septic approval then the variance is no longer void.

Bill Koch stated, that’s fine.

Director Weaver stated, sewers won’t allow you, a sewer, sewage approval through the Sewer Board is not going to allow you to build this. You will have to come back to this Board first.

Bill Koch stated, I understand, if I’m denied for the septic, the Health Department, after the sewers come in I would have to come and reapply.

Director Weaver stated, correct.

Bill Koch stated, correct, okay.

Dave Scott asked, he would just have to deal with the Health Department then?

Jeff Saylor stated, yes.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 31’ front setback variance, a 6’ North side setback variance, and a 19’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage, an addition, and add a second story onto the existing home and to bring the existing home into compliance. Also, a 1’ rear setback variance to bring the existing unroofed concrete patio into compliance on Tract I:

That part of Lot 8 in Grosvenor Camp in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the above said Lot 8; thence North 14 degrees 00 minutes West 15.06 feet; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes East 48.12 feet; thence South 13 degrees 04 minutes East 15.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 Minutes West 47.87 feet to the point of beginning.

Tract II:

Lot number Fourteen (14) in Skaggs Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowes Bridge at 6919 N. Skaggs Court.


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


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


Attorney Altman stated, this matter is conditioned on the if the variance is granted that the applicant receive a sewage, septic permit, as set out in the record. Subject to that, the variance is granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.


Bill Koch stated, thank you.


President Thompson stated, thank you.


****

#2157 Philip A. Mahalic & Janice M. Murray; Requesting a 24’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the home and to bring the existing home into compliance, and a 3’ side setback variance to bring the unroofed deck into compliance on Part Lot #53 in Lakeshore Village Subdivision. The property is located Northeast of Lowe’s Bridge at 6188 N. Lake Road 65 E.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing, yes?

Philip Mahalic stated, yes sir, I’m Philip Mahalic.

President Thompson asked, and do you have any additional information for us.

Philip Mahalic stated, yes sir, if in way of explanation, I should say a few words.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Philip Mahalic stated, I’m the one responsible for making a mess out of this and I have done a pretty good job of, it started out with my dad he’s 85 and he’s dying of cancer and got the idea to put this extension on the house. He’s too old that he couldn’t handle it so I took it over. I talked to Brian who did the cement work and then I talked to Jeff who did the carpentry work and then I talked to Mr. Murray here in town that was going to do the heating and the air conditioning. I talked to, I forget the name of the landscaper here in town, it starts with an S…

President Thompson stated, go ahead.

Philip Mahalic stated, anyway I talked to him, he was going to do the landscaping and when they needed materials, I called the building supply place and ordered them and without realizing it I had become my own contractor. Everyone assumed and I know what you can say about assume that someone else got the building permit, nobody did. I take full responsibility I know that I should have gotten it.

Attorney Altman asked, previously the property received a variance?

Philip Mahalic stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman asked, and did you do that?

Philip Mahalic stated, I had a contractor for that sir and he did get a building permit for it.

Attorney Altman stated, I know that he got a building permit.

President Thompson asked, any…

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

President Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I do have some concerns, when this was discovered that this construction was going on they were told to stop work. They were told that they could put the sheeting and the tarpaper on the roof to protect the beams. When I went out and got pictures this week I did notice when I was there, not only did they put the sheeting and the tarpaper on but, they have put in all of the windows, all the doors and also studded up the interior walls.

Attorney Altman asked, this was under a stop work order?

Director Weaver stated, there was no stop work order posted.

Philip Mahalic stated, I beg your pardon but, we were told that we could enclose it but, not to put any shingles or siding on it. We enclosed it for two reasons, one was so that we could litigate any damage and the other was to protect any children from playing in it in the neighborhood to secure it. This happened 6 or 7 weeks ago and to leave it open all for that time would, it just would have been any hazard to any children in the neighborhood. The windows have already been ordered and were there the construction people put them up with just a few nails, they are just barely held in place but, they are in place enough to keep any kids out but the work was basically stopped except for the enclosing. There is no shingles, no siding we talked to Dave and Dave said, how far can we go and he said, no siding, no shingles he said the tar paper to keep it from leaking would be okay and just get it enclosed. There was certainly no intent to go any farther except to alleviate any damages and lower liability for children in the neighborhood.

President Thompson stated, okay, but once again, all of your contact has been with this gentleman.

Philip Mahalic stated, well, when I came in to ask for the variance I talked to Director Weaver and the first time that I met Dave was after everything was enclosed. He was standing inside of my empty room measuring and I poked my head in the door and I said yes, may I help you. He told me, who he was and what he was doing, that was the first time that I came in contact with him.

Director Weaver stated, he had dealt with Cindy originally on this and I know that Dave had spoke with the contractor at the very beginning of all of this, is that correct, Dave?

Dave Anderson asked, yes, I had spoke with Jeff via telephone, when I went out there and I don’t have the pictures with me but, I took pictures of this, Director Weaver do you have those pictures?

Director Weaver stated, yes, I do.

Dave Anderson stated, it will show the, the building at that current time and I had made a contact with Jeff and he returned my call. I explained to him that and also with the builder that I was concerned about the beams were not, I was not necessarily wanting to ruin the product, he’s got some nice wood beams in there…

Philip Mahalic stated, they came all wrapped up in plastic when we delivered…

Dave Anderson asked, but I assumed that you wanted them all, you thought that the inspections were going to continue. So they were exposed so, I told him just get it protected under weather but when I was there, there were no windows, I can’t remember, the pictures should show it, are there windows there?

Director Weaver stated, they had them…

Attorney Altman stated, there are no windows in it…

Director Weaver stated, no windows, no sheeting…

Dave Anderson stated, I think that I left a card the very first day on that entry door or doorway, door opening on the stud just asking where’s the permit, I see a lot of structures, I don’t remember any door being there.

Jeff Donovan stated, there was none.

President Thompson asked, sir, you are the contractor?

Jeff Donovan stated, I am, I was hired by Phil just to frame it, that’s the only problem, what they are saying is the gospel the only problem is he left a card on the permit at lunch time, where’s the permit. Phil was given Mass or whatever we were hired to frame it, we continued to frame it at that point right there, I talked to Dave the next morning and he said come down a get the permit. I told Phil you can no, you can’t do it and I said well I will stop by here and see what they want, I have no idea what they are going to want from you but we will see what we can do. We filled out the paperwork the girl in the office did she said you can come by noon tomorrow at noon pick it up. We went back there and continued to work he is correct and then when they said phittt to Phil that you can’t go any further, he asked Dave if he can dry it in. He said yes but, the time and gap between those pictures and when they were told Phil, he wasn’t going to get a permit was 2 days. So yes, a lot more stuff got done just by the card saying where’s the permit, we have idea who pulled the permit because I didn’t do the estimation. I didn’t do the foundation, I didn’t, none of it, we continued to go because I didn’t get to talk to Phil yet to know where the permit was.

Director Weaver asked, can you state your name sir?

Jeff Donovan stated, my name is Jeff Donovan.

Director Weaver asked, Donovan?

Jeff Donovan stated, yes, I signed in over here.

Attorney Altman asked, you’re Jeff’s Building and Remodeling…

Jeff Donovan stated, that’s me sir…

Attorney Altman asked, in DeMotte?

Jeff Donovan stated, yes sir.

Attorney Altman stated, okay thank you. Spell you last name.

Jeff Donovan stated, Donovan.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you.

Dave Scott asked, do they make you post permits in DeMotte?

Jeff Donovan stated, yes they, in the front window of any building.

President Thompson stated, well, I think it’s simple, what does the Board say, discussion, thoughts?

Gary Barbour stated, well, they got a lot of work done in 2 days.

Attorney Altman stated, we have received into the record two photos that were taken by Mr. Anderson on the 26th of September, 2002 showing the condition when he made contact with the applicant.

President Thompson asked, what do you think Carol? It’s been a long night.

Carol Stradling stated, it’s been a long night. Well, I think that we have already established a prescience in fines. Some for the homeowners, some for the contractor you’re a paid professional and you’re use to seeing a building permit and there isn’t one, that I think questions need to be raised…

Jeff Donovan stated, like I was telling him, they post them in front of the building that you can see by, it’s pictures that we drive on the side. With me being in business, I’m also use to seeing a red tag on a house if something is wrong, not a business card. So therefore, I would have stopped if I would have, I had no idea I’m just there to frame it, if I had seen a red tag on that thing I would have stopped right that second. Dave just left me card, I called him right back because I had no idea what was going on. I was a sub or employee for labor from Phil, I had no idea who, I’m use to pulling permits but I’m also use to having my own excavators and he had all of that stuff done before I got there. No foundation, I had no idea about any of this. I come in to frame it, we framed it in 2 days and my inspection is due after the framing which, I’m not to that point yet. At this point, if Dave wouldn’t have stopped by and I would have called, we would have known right then because I told Phil to call the inspector for a framing inspection. So it would have been like what you are talking about or he might have called. Phil was oblivious to the fact of what was going on but there was another person involved that Phil didn’t mention, is one of his partner or whatever, Ken this guy, that’s who put this whole thing together, Phil was kind of stuck…

Philip Mahalic stated, …met with these guys…

Jeff Donovan stated, yes, Ken called the, for it and Phil is sitting there holding the back and Ken was the guy who knew the legalities he knew everything. He is the one that hired everyone individually and he dropped it in Phil’s lap and took off and not on purpose he moved and now Phil is sitting there and all of the rest of us, this is the guy that…

Philip Mahalic stated, I paid them each individually…

Jeff Donovan stated, yes, he did some work…

Philip Mahalic stated, I did I messed up.

Kevin Wiggs stated, just misled.

President Thompson asked, beg your pardon?

Kevin Wiggs stated, he was just misled, I think. This gentlemen, I’m pretty sure knew what he was doing. I asked him do you have all of the paperwork and everything for this and he said yes, I do. He said I have places out there marked so that you don’t dig any lines, this, that or anything else so, I just assumed that the gentlemen knew what he was doing.

Director Weaver asked, and your name sir?

Kevin Wiggs stated, Kevin Wiggs.

Attorney Altman asked, yes, Carol, I think we’ve heard evidence and it’s time to make a decision about the proposals, I think that’s where we are. What is your proposal?

Carol Stradling asked, what is our, you do one Attorney Altman or Gary.

Gary Barbour stated, I think that once we fine 400 dollars to the owner of the property and contractor can split it out as they see, fine.

Dave Scott stated, I’ll second that.

President Thompson asked, do we have a second to that motion?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, it’s already been said.

President Thompson stated, oh, I’m sorry. It’s been moved…

Attorney Altman stated, and seconded…

President Thompson stated, and seconded to fine all parties involved, is that kind of how you want to say it Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, 400 dollars, all signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, all opposed, I, motion carried.

Director Weaver asked, I want to clarify that, that is a sum of 400 dollars…

President Thompson stated, yes, not per party.

Director Weaver stated, just wanted to clarify that.

Philip Mahalic stated, I appreciate you guys working with me, thank you.

President Thompson stated, it looks like it’s going to be very nice.

Carol Stradling asked, are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, yes, are we ready to vote? No more discussion?

Philip Mahalic asked, I suppose that I need a building permit?

Carol Stradling stated, I guess that you do.

Gary Barbour stated, I also suggest that you also tell the Building Inspector thank you because he didn’t have to let you cover that up.

Philip Mahalic stated, that was very nice of him.

With no further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 24’ front setback variance to build an addition onto the home and to bring the existing home into compliance, and a 3’ side setback variance to bring the unroofed deck into compliance on Lot 53 in Lake Shore Village in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northeast of Lowe’s Bridge at 6188 N. Lake Road 65 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 a building permit and pay the fine first.


Philip Mahalic stated, yes sir, I’m going to frame it.


Carol Stradling stated, at the window.


Philip Mahalic stated, you got it, thank you very much.


President Thompson stated, we appreciate your honesty.


Attorney Altman stated, you need building permits.


Jeff Donovan stated, thank you very much.


President Thompson stated, you’re welcome.


****

Attorney Altman stated, we have a variance request here, Carol you’re ballot here, I’m doing this on the record, we do not have that marked.

President Thompson asked, do you want to address this next issue or Attorney Altman?

Attorney Altman stated, just to Carol.

Director Weaver stated, I kind of missed out on that too…

President Thompson stated, I thought that you wanted to discuss…

Director Weaver stated, the ballot…

President Thompson stated, I’m sorry, I thought that you wanted to discuss it in front of the Board.

Attorney Altman stated, I did.

Director Weaver stated, there was just an area on the ballot that was not filled in and it had to be filled in.

President Thompson stated, okay, sorry.

Director Weaver stated, we do need, we do have a motion on the table, tabled form last month regarding the fines, we do need to do something with that.

Attorney Altman stated, and that is just motion just the rules of operation on fines and this is a copy. From a legal point of view what this appears to do, I think, is an excellent thing. I think that it will speed things a long that they will automatically…done then the Board can in fact if the see fit bring it back down actually they can raise it too. Then they know that is so and it’s done and I think that it will be a good move.

President Thompson stated, okay, go ahead Jeff.

Jeff Saylor stated, the intention of this is not to levee fines against…the intention of this was to, as it was put by Attorney Altman at the last meeting, was to when they are given a copy of this at the time that they get their building permit is to call attention to the fact that when you get a building permit, you need to do what you say that you are going to do and not something different. Tonight was a really good example one case after another of people that do that.

Director Weaver stated, the next meeting is going to be the same.

Jeff Saylor stated, the intent of this is not to really fine people as much as it is to put something in front of them at the time that they get their building permit. That makes them question you know whether they knew all of the facts or whether they need to set down and talk and discuss it.

President Thompson stated, well said.

Attorney Altman stated, any other discussion, we have a motion and we need a second.

President Thompson asked, okay, motion on the floor, second to the motion?

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

President Thompson stated, been moved and seconded, all signify by saying I.

The Board stated, I.

President Thompson stated, opposed the same, motion carried.

Attorney Altman stated, I think that it’s an excellent move all of the way around. I think that it will, like you said Jeff, I really think that it will make them think. You were right the first time now continuant, on reporting to the Board, Mr. Babka’s attorney called late in the morning in the office. He said this is the guy that the garage was too high and then finally goes, basically bailed out by the sewer system and approved. We have approved everything except for the fine and you requested that we select a 2,238 dollar fine an the attorney called me tonight and said that he would offer 2,000 dollar fine, a little less, I told him that…and I didn’t know if…

Jeff Saylor stated…settle for 3…

Director Weaver stated, I think that you’re right.

Attorney Altman stated, the alternative is Judge Mrzlack would accept the fine in other words, it’s bickered one side this one side that and now you know and it amounts to that if we don’t have an agreement then the Judge sets the fine. So it’s up to you guys, I’m just reporting you tell me whether you accept this or you want to go to the Judge and have a hearing let him decide, either way it doesn’t really matter to me, you know that.

Carol Stradling asked, so is he saying that he won’t pay the 2,238?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s offering to pay the 2…

Carol Stradling asked, he would only pay the 2,000?

Attorney Altman stated, he’s offering to pay the 2,000.

President Thompson stated, that’s right.

Gary Barbour stated, it’s been a game all along for them and I guess my opinion is that no…

Carol Stradling asked, so if we say no, he can still…

President Thompson stated, we didn’t put it or best offer…

Gary Barbour stated, right, here it is, this is what it is.

Attorney Altman stated, okay that suits me, you had the say I’m just reporting to you guys, there is no recommendation involved in this.

Jeff Saylor stated, do I understand, I don’t think that we should settle on this.

Attorney Altman stated, all right.

President Thompson stated, we’re not here to bargain.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m done, is there anything else Director Weaver?

Gary Barbour stated, it’s been a game all along for them and it’s not for us, it’s business.

President Thompson stated, that’s right.

Director Weaver asked, is there anything else Jeff?

President Thompson asked, anyone, there’s a lot of grinning here, there must be more than we know about. Jeff want’s to be President is that…

Jeff Saylor stated, I submitted my resignation from the Board effective the end of December. I did that last month.

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t want to tell the Board, I was giving Jeff the opportunity.

Jeff Saylor stated, I have 2 more fun filled meetings would be nice. So anyway, it’s been a long run.

Attorney Altman stated, but we need you to continue.

Director Weaver stated, see, I wasn’t the only one that thought that way. I have notified the County Commissioners of his resignation.

Jeff Saylor stated, I can tell you in years that I have been on the Board, I think the present group of people have done the best job that any group that has been since. Everyone brings their own little special thing to this and it all seems to mesh and that’s the hardest part to say goodbye to.

President Thompson stated, well, you have been fun, pleasure and the whole thing wrapped into one, your always give a very solid view on things.

Gary Barbour stated, I agree.

President Thompson stated, hard to replace you.

Attorney Altman stated, I second that.

Jeff Saylor stated, thank you.

Dave Scott stated, boy, some of these meetings are tough.

Attorney Altman stated, you’re right.

Director Weaver stated, I think that it’s getting tougher too.

President Thompson stated, yes.

Dave Scott stated, you try to be fair to everyone.

Director Weaver stated, talking about tough, make sure you look at these packets, we have something in there that you have never ever dealt with before we have a variance for flood elevation. I have given you a copy of the flood Ordinance for you to read. I have highlighted the area where it addresses the variance, I have given you their letter from the D.N.R. I have given you the elevation certificate, if there is anything else that you need don’t hesitate to let me know. I’ve tried to provide everything that I can to you.

Attorney Altman asked, is this, the same one that they didn’t go through the D.N.R.?

Director Weaver stated, no, this is a different one, same area, different one. This one is not Phil.

President Thompson asked, can we adjourn.

****

President Thompson made motion to adjourn.

Dave Scott seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission