Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, December 3, 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: Roger L. Wilson, Philla C. Samson, Kevin & Lori Shomaker, Linda Snyder, Verda Barnaby & Kent Receiver, Nancy Downey, Kathleen & Richard Carr, Jay Clawson, Doug Barnard, Roger A. Wiese, Chris R. Wiese, Roger Mitchell, Jim Annis, Tim Nolan, and Dave Anderson.

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 August 15, 2002 meeting with amended corrections. Motion was seconded by Jeff Saylor and carried unanimously.

President Thompson stated, in front of you, you would see we have the September and the October Meeting. I’m assuming you probably have not had time to look them over, but, if you have speak out. Do you care to address those or hold off until the next December meeting?

Carol Stradling stated, I move we hold off until the next December meeting.

Attorney Altman stated, I second that.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded, all in favor signify by saying “aye”. All opposed the same, motion carried. We will address the September and October meetings at the next meeting that will be December 19th.

President Thompson stated, as you can see the meeting tonight is being tape recorded the main reason just what we have been trying to handle so far, the minutes. The ladies in the office they prepare them after tonight meeting at a later date. We ask that anyone that addresses the Board tonight please give your name this helps them tremendously in preparing the minutes afterwards. Again everyone here tonight will be given the opportunity to speak for or against any said variance we address tonight, and also those of you that have a request for a variance have a few options available to you as well as a little swearing in type ceremony we have before we begin the meeting. I will call upon our Attorney Altman to address that.



Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.


****

#2158 Kevin L. & Lenora R. Shomaker; Requesting a 28’ front (Chestnut Street) setback variance and a 32’ front (22nd Street) setback variance to build an addition and to bring the home into compliance on Lot #722 in W.W. Raub’s Second Addition. The property is located in the Town of Chalmers at 215 W. Chestnut Street.

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

Kevin Shomaker stated, we are.

President Thompson stated, I know you Kevin, but, for the recorder your name please.

Kevin Shomaker stated, Kevin L. Shomaker and Lenora Shomaker.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information you would like to present

other than what’s been presented?

Kevin Shomaker stated, not that I know of, I think you’ve got everything I’m aware of anyway.

President Thompson stated, okay, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we have not had any response from any adjoining neighbors. We did

receive a consent to encroach signed by the town to give them consent for this garage to continue

to be located where it is presently at.

President Thompson stated, do we need that.

Attorney Altman stated, no we don’t, and we just incorporate it as a part of the evidence of the

report. It’s totally appropriate and a very nicely prepared consent.

President Thompson stated, Doug your part of this in a sense of the Town of Chalmers. Do you

have anymore you want to add to this or not its up to you?

Doug Barnard stated, no, the Board gave their okay along with the consent. That’s the way it is

with what their adding does nothing to further interfere. It’s no problem.

President Thompson stated, okay

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who oppose this right? Any fan mail of any kind?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, the proposed addition will it be similar to the house and garage and

heights and size, single story and is it, says your adding on to the garage will it be living area?

Kevin Shomaker stated, actually when we are done the garage will be incorporated in to the

house.

Attorney Altman asked, so it will be more garages?

Kevin Shomaker stated, there would be an attached garage when we are done.

Attorney Altman asked, obviously, the house and garage are properly on there with our present

Ordinance? They where both built, one was built in 1928 it says and when was the garage built?

Kevin Shomaker stated, early 1940’s.

Attorney Altman asked, so they are way ahead of they’re grandfathered and we need to establish

because we have adopted an Ordinance that would require a $500 fine for things built that are

not proper? That’s why I’m asking the questions. I was pretty sure they were both older than our Ordinance.

Kevin Shomaker stated, oh yes.

President Thompson asked, are there any concerns from the Board? Carol.

Carol Stradling asked, the variance that we are approving is actually for stuff that is already

built along time ago not anything to do with any new construction?

Director Weaver stated, the reason they are going thru with this request, what is there is

consider grandfathered anytime they improve that more than 50%, they have to bring it into

compliance before they can do that. That is the purpose of the variance tonight.

President Thompson asked, are there anymore questions, or concerns, Gary? If not are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, one question, this is obviously on city water and sewer?

Without 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 28’ front (Chestnut Street) setback variance and a 32’ front (22nd Street) setback variance to build an addition and to bring the home into compliance on Lot 722 in W.W. Raub’s Second Addition to the Town of Chalmers, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Chalmers at 215 W. Chestnut 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.


Kevin Shomaker stated, Thank you very much.


****

#2159 Johnnie K. Queen & Linda S. Snyder; Requesting a 9’ front setback variance, a 4’ South side setback variance, a 5’ North side setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot #10 in Lake Manor Addition. The property is located in the City of Monticello at 519 Twin Lakes Avenue.

President Thompson asked, is anyone here representing this?

Linda Snyder stated, yes, Linda Snyder.

President Thompson asked, you are Linda Snyder?

Linda Snyder, stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional?

Linda Snyder stated, no, nothing.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the adjoining neighbors on

this. They did have an existing carport in this location and they want to enclose it.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to, yes?

Jay Clawson asked, could I look at that?

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else here who cares to address the variance either for

or against? Give Jay a chance to look that over. Again, Diann there was no response from any

of the adjoining owners?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Attorney Altman asked, the home was build in 1956?

Linda Snyder stated, I believe so. We’ve lived there for 4 years.

Attorney Altman asked, the area you are enclosing was it built in 1956 too?

Linda Snyder stated, no, it was built on later and they have records in the Area Plan.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann do you know when that was? I’m looking at the file here and didn’t see that.

Director Weaver stated, I have something in the file.

President Thompson asked, do you have a concern Jay?

Jay Clawson stated, mostly a couple of people in the neighborhood were wondering if you’re asking for front setbacks. Are you adding on to the garage?

Linda Snyder stated, No.

Jay Clawson asked, are you adding to the front at all?

Linda Snyder stated, just a bay window.

Jay Clawson asked, that’s the only addition to the front? Some of the concerns were if she was

going to add a garage or something to the front, if the cars would be parked in the front they

would be blocking the site. Other than that, that was the biggest concern. Closer to the street.

Linda Snyder stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, this subdivision was laid out before Area Plan and I believe it was laid

out with a 25’ setback for the homes.

Jay Clawson stated, that was the only question I had. Thank you.

President Thompson asked, anyone else?

Carol Stradling asked, so this is not going to be a garage?

Linda Snyder stated, living area.

Carol Stradling stated, living area, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I do have a copy of a permit here that was issued March 17, 1976 to reconstruct a carport roof.

Attorney Altman asked, now they are enclosing that port and wanting to get a variance to approve all of that? Carport was there at that time when and they just got?

President Thompson asked, anyone else on the Board have a comment or questions? Are we ready to vote?

Without 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 9’ front setback variance, a 4’ South side setback variance, a 5’ North side setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot 10 in Lake Manor Addition to Monticello, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 519 Twin Lakes Avenue.

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.

Linda Snyder stated, thank you.

President Thompson stated, thank you.

****

#2160 R & J Properties, Owner; Doug Barnard Construction, Applicant; Requesting a 56 parking space variance to build an addition onto the existing building and have the parking be in compliance with the Ordinance on Lots 4 & 5, in Mitchell Addition, also .254 of an acre. The property is located in the City of Monticello, East of Sixth Street on Fisher Street.


President Thompson asked, anyone here?


Roger Mitchell stated, as the owner and Doug Barnard as the applicant.


President Thompson asked, do you fellows have anything more you would like to present?


Doug Barnard stated, the biggest thing would be, were adding roughly 25 spots to what’s there

now. We’re putting on a 6800 sq. ft addition only 2000 of that is currently rented and we are

adding 25 spots immediately and then we have asking to go from there with more parking spaced

required to be used by the tenants.


Attorney Altman stated, just for the record, we are getting one of our maps out so we can look at the request and the survey of this map.


Director Weaver stated, we have not received anything on this. I do want to clarify that we did

go ahead and issue a building permit for this structure to go ahead and start construction, with the

contingency that if the variance request was not granted that they would meet this parking

requirement, the standard requirement.


Doug Barnard stated, current Ordinance I believe calls for 1 per 100, if I’m correct, there so

when you take lots 4 and 5 in the parcel described there that includes everything, the license

branch, credit union, and the staffing place in one building in addition to everything in the

building just East of there with the 16,000 sq. ft of building. There we need 160 parking spaces to meet the Ordinance.


Attorney Altman asked, and you’re proposing?


Doug Barnard stated, 104 parking spaces.


Attorney Altman stated, 104.


Carol Stradling asked, that’s with all of the buildings currently there?


Attorney Altman stated, the license branch would be right, you’re looking North.


President Thompson stated, okay.


There was some discussion among the Board Members


President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this? Either for or against.


Jay Clawson stated, I represent the City of Monticello. I’m on the city council. We were

informed of this variance, it was not brought up when they asked for approval for the building

permit. We thought at that time everything was going to be built. There wasn’t any variance

declared that they needed for parking. We thought everything at the time, everything was going

to be at the Area Plan at the time that approval for this. We just found out yesterday what

they were asking for a 56 space variance which we find almost what is required for that addition

that is on for that building, and I just wanted to see and the city. We voted last night to send a

letter, I thought George was going to send it to you expressing our concerns from the city.


Director Weaver stated, I did not receive a letter.


Jay Clawson stated, well … we voted to send the letter to tell you that we were concerned about

this, but right now I have not had time to decipher all of what he is planning on doing here.

When you see 56 spaces as a variance we feel that is a big variance. I mean if he was varying 5 or 10 spaces that wouldn’t be any alarm any reason for concern. We just thought we should check it out. At least come to the meeting.


Doug Barnard stated, and my come back to that is to some extent it would be at the current

Ordinance at 1 per 100 we would need 160 spots. The county says 1 per 300 and the City says 1

per 100. We are actually asking for less than 1 for 200. So we’re well above what the County

would require, not quite within what the city would require. It’s a matter of respective in a lot of

regards there. We are adding spots to the ones there. The ultimate goal from what I know, Mr.

Mitchell and Mr. McCoskey who own R & J properties is good traffic flow. I mean you need to

keep your tenants happy or the whole thing is a problem.


President Thompson stated, yes. Anyone here, yes Jay.


Jay Clawson stated, I see on the back of this one proposal that he is leaving space available for

possible employee parking at a later time if they find that it is too congested. That this would not

be allowed to be built on if he specify it could become some parking at a later time.

Is there any way we can do that?


Attorney Altman asked, what if we make the approval and then view upon that we reserve for say 2 years?


Jay Clawson stated, in 10 years he could have different tenants.


Attorney Altman stated, no, I said 2 years and to see whether that is and if they don’t have trouble and they can come back in and approve it.


Jay Clawson stated, no, I don’t know.


Attorney Altman stated, then they might, and then they can release ground if they wish to do so. Would that be a compromise or….


Jay Clawson, stated, I’d like to see it somehow be kept that if he is going to keep it, asking for that much of a variance, just to keep the area behind the building available. I don’t know if you guys are willing to do that. I don’t know if you’ve got any other….


Doug Barnard stated, I can tell you now that this was not on the architect’s plans with the State.


Roger Mitchell stated, I am the owner. We don’t have any plans to do anything, but put parking

on the north side of the building. It’s just that we have not put the parking lot in yet. We have no plans to put another building on the north side of the existing new addition plus what is in existence, so I always plan to have an employee parking lot back there, which will relieve what is out front because all of the access doors will be on the North side for the employees go and come. We just haven’t built that North side of the parking lot yet because we are pretty much under construction out there. But, we will and if you want to put that in there as a contingency or however, you want to say it. We have absolutely no problems with that. We don’t foresee ever building anything that is attached to their existing building as it is right now. There will always be employee parking on the North side of the Quality Copy, Nail Fiesta building. That’s the way it is and the way it will be in the future.


Carol Stradling asked, Jay are you looking at something different than what we are looking at because there’s nothing on our paper work that indicates employee parking?


Jay Clawson stated, Mr. Barnard can we put this into record. This is something he gave me just

as I came in here. I saw him in the parking lot. This is what they are planning, he has existing

spaces here and then he shows changing a little bit of flow and used parking spaces here and then

back behind here he had this dotted line for future expansion. That’s why I would like to see that

which would be back here parcel shown on other lot that belongs to Mr. Mitchell.


President Thompson asked, Jay how much different is that than what we have here?


Jay Clawson stated, this is just a computer print out not an actual survey, but its something Doug probably did on his CAD.


There was some discussion among the Board.


Jay Clawson stated, for the record it would be back behind the building.


Attorney Altman asked, so North of the property in question? How much ground is that?


Roger Mitchell stated, 50’


Attorney Altman stated, 50’, so it’s a 50’ foot strip on the North…..


Doug Barnard stated, 50’ within the building line. The building itself is 64 and 58, 124’ long, so we have 124’ x 50’ that is basically set-aside for employee parking.


Attorney Altman stated, okay.


Carol Stradling asked, but that property really isn’t apart of this parcel? It’s a different piece of property.


Roger Mitchell stated, correct.


Attorney Altman asked, would that be a problem to burden that though with this?


Carol Stradling asked, but do you own both pieces?


Roger Mitchell stated, yes, we own everything North of there quite a way.


There was some discussion among the Board.


President Thompson asked, Doug could you come up here a second please? Maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t understand this yet.


President Thompson asked, pencil in here roughly what they are talking about?


Doug Barnard stated, Bassett’s sits right over here and what we are looking at is straight back here. We’ve got a road that comes through here. We are going to put in employee parking all along here, so the employees now have access to the doors behind the building.


President Thompson stated, okay, but, it’s a different property even though you own them.


Doug Barnard stated, yes.


Roger Mitchell stated, it’s a different lot.


President Thompson stated, okay.


Doug Barnard stated, the reason all of this is coming into play is because all of these are combined into one lot because at one point we had to cross lines with parking before.


Attorney Altman stated, okay, again for the record you are talking about a strip that is 50’ x 124’, I believe.


Doug Barnard stated, yes.


Attorney Altman stated, that is contingent to the property and starts with the East boundary line and going Northwest 124’.


Doug Barnard stated, yes.


Attorney Altman stated, okay and you are just going to burden that with a reserve for employee parking if this variance is granted.


Doug Barnard stated, if that is what you need, sure.


Attorney Altman stated, okay.


Carol Stradling stated, I think in the past when we had a shortage of parking on one property and

another property owner or the owner of another lot indicating that they would make

parking available, we had to have a letter stating that or a legal document that went along with that. I wouldn’t think it would be tough to do that for yourself since you are the adjoining

properties, just so that there is a record in place that that area is set aside for parking if necessary.


Attorney Altman stated, yes, no problem but we just have to make a commitment so it’s notarized and recorded.


Carol Stradling stated, okay.


Attorney Altman stated, that would be very simple to do, it’s a bit like a deed on form it just reserves it for employee parking. No problem with doing that is there?


Roger Mitchell stated, we were going to go ahead and do it anyway. We’ve already got the grade and the utilities positioned for a parking lot back there, it just has not been built yet.


Attorney Altman stated, all right why don’t we proceed upon doing that? You get in touch with me tomorrow would you and we can prepare that? What I will need is the legal description for the property.


President Thompson stated, that’s was what I was going to ask. Every project prior to this they

have required a survey and a plat. I realize it’s just employee parking, but is the Board

willing to accept this that’s been offered as evidence verses a hand sketch. I mean I’m not trying

to hold up progress here, I’m just trying to remember how we have done things in the past to be

fair with everybody.


Carol Stradling stated, I was just thinking about the situation in Monon where we had

apartments over a tavern, I think. They did not have enough parking for those apartments, so

they made an agreement with Newbolds to use their lot and there was a legal document that was

created to state that.


Attorney Altman stated, that was a lease and gratuity.


Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know if that was a legal description with the parking area. I don’t recall.


Director Weaver stated, I’m thinking there was.


Attorney Altman stated, yes there was.


Carol Stradling stated, okay.


Attorney Altman stated, the Board’s pleasure, but, quite frankly I can get it with a description with the whole track, I can draw a legal description that would isolate it pretty well.


Director Weaver asked, Roger is there a reason why you couldn’t just add that 50’ to this legal description to this property and have it joined to the property so its all one property?


Roger Mitchell stated, it already is. All you’re talking about is a lot line that is already in the

property. What I would propose is that I just have Jim Milligan sit down and do a good job of

describing the area that we are talking about. He can very quickly sit down and legally describe

this parcel of ground, but, we have already planned for and committed to a parking lot and make

that a part of this process.


Director Weaver stated, and just attached it just like we did the .254.


Roger Mitchell stated, quite honestly that’s what we are going to do. There is no question about

it. We can have Mr. Milligan show it as a distinct piece of property turned into a parking lot. I

would think that would do the job because it has always been my intentions with the access

doors on the North end of the building to have employee parking back there. We just haven’t

built it yet because of the weather and lateness of the season. I will build it I promise you that.


Director Weaver stated, I think that would be the simplest solution for him just to add this property to this property. That way it’s always there and connected.


Jay Clawson stated, in looking at what he has proposed is parking and what is actually on this

plot map he’s adding 17 or 19 spaces then, 7 spaces in front here. In there it shows

he’s also eliminating 6 on the East end of the existing building which is the License Branch and

eliminating some spaces coming off of Fisher which is the East end of the other kinds misleading

on this map that your getting a lot more spaces adding which he is keeping it status quo just

moving his traffic flow around.


Doug Barnard stated, we are going from 82 to 104 spaces without adding anything back here. We are going from 82 to 104.


Jay Clawson stated, okay the graphic, the little thing you showed that this here was when you pulled in you have a little bump out here.


Doug Barnard stated, you can’t have a driveway coming in there.


Jay Clawson stated, I understand that.


Roger Mitchell stated, the point is the lot is already there if you want to drive by it tomorrow and


it does come all of the way out at an even line with the existing parking lot with the license branch.


Everything that is out in front of that nail’s building that grass no longer exists. It’s all parking lot.


Director Weaver stated, they have pictures that show that.


Roger Mitchell stated, I apologize that it’s really not being shown on that drawing, but that is the


Reality, the gravel is already down and the lot is already established. We won’t be able to asphalt


until next Spring because of the weather, but it will become a parking lot all the way out just like


the License Branch is currently. It is a lot of parking space in that area.


Dave Scott asked, Jay did you say there is something that they had to bring in front of your city Board?


Jay Clawson stated, to do their building they came in front. They bring the plans to okay.


Dave Scott asked, I don’t know what kind of time restraints we are under or anything, would you like us to table, so your Board could have a chance to look at this?


Jay Clawson asked, you have another meeting this month, right? That’s the 19th right.


Carol Stradling stated, the 19th.


Director Weaver stated, the 19th.


Jay Clawson stated, our next meeting would be.


Roger Mitchell stated, we are too late to be on that agenda correct.


Director Weaver stated, yes that agenda is full. We could, but it is a full agenda.


Jay Clawson stated, I really don’t see how Mr. Barnard and Mr. Mitchell are going to get a whole lot more. If you could show and if you would send this to George to let him look at it. With the additional parking in the back for employees that they are planning on doing, I think that would be sufficient parking spaces. They are trying their hardest to comply and by looking at it, their whole property is just about filled with buildings and parking the way it is. I was just very concerned when I saw the big variance and that’s all. We just wanted to make sure we got a chance to see what is going on, so I can go back and tell the people on the council what it looks like. If he goes all the way across like he has, he’s got it bumped out all the way to Fisher St. and it is parking there and has parking in the back for employees. I think that should be sufficient for what they need in that building.


Director Weaver asked, Jay do you want a copy of what they had given to you tonight, I can go down to the office and make you a copy of that if you would like?


Doug Barnard stated, I have another one right here.


Jay Clawson stated, oh he already has one I can have.


Attorney Altman stated, we have marked that exhibit A and exhibit B. So I understand that the request is modified by adding this 124’ x 50’ employee parking area and the applicant at their expense will have Mr. Milligan survey that and show it on the site plan, and that will be limited to an employee parking lot.


President Thompson asked, so do we necessarily have an official amendment to this kind of thing?


Attorney Altman stated, yes, you should actually, but the applicant has amended his own request.


President Thompson asked, true, is that sufficient?


Attorney Altman stated, yes it’s sufficient.


Carol Stradling asked, do we need to say its limited to employee parking? I use that term limited to employee parking anybody can park there.


Gary Barnard stated, yes, anyone can drive around back and walk around front. You can not stop them.


Attorney Altman stated, okay two part. I agree.


President Thompson asked, any other discussion? If not we are ready to vote.


Dave Scott asked, do we have to put this exception on this part or will you take care of that?


Attorney Altman stated, we would take care of that because the applicant has changed his request.


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 proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 56 parking space variance to build an addition onto the existing building and have the parking be in compliance with the Ordinance on Lots 4 and 5 in Mitchell Addition in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

Also, that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana described by:

Beginning at a capped w/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) found at the Southeast corner of Lot 5 in Mitchell Addition; thence North 00 Degrees 05 Minutes 41 Seconds West 221.41 feet to an I.P. found at the Northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence South 88 Degrees 05 Minutes 41 Seconds East 50.07 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 05 Minutes 41 Seconds East 220.15 feet to an I.P. found; thence North 89 degrees 32 Minutes 22 Seconds West along the North line of Fisher Street 50.04 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.254 of an acre more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello, East of Sixth Street on Fisher Street.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said 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 or bring the one you have in before you proceed.


Roger Mitchell stated, thank you.


President Thompson stated, your welcome.


****

#2161 Larry W. & Peggy J. Annis; Requesting a 7’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance on Lot 15, 16, 17 & 18 in Turpie Addition. The property is located in the Town of Monon at 901 N. Market Street.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the, yes and you are?

Jim Annis, stated, I am Jim Annis.

President Thompson asked, and your relationship to this is?

Jim Annis stated, their son.

President Thompson stated, oh great. Do you have anything you would like to add to the description?

Jim Annis stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything from any of the neighbors on this. I do want to point out that this is a violation. This structure has been built without a building permit and is not meeting the setback requirements.

President Thompson asked, about when was this built? When was this addition built on?

Jim Annis stated, I’m not exactly sure when exactly it was started. Most of the problems have come about. We started, a gentleman from American Store Fixtures out of Kleez, Ohio was the general over the construction. His name is Mike Rowe, he was unable to attend tonight. He did tell me that any questions that I was not able to answer, that he would have his cell phone and you guys could call him and ask him anything that he could help out. I’ll just give you a run down of basically what has transpired because I pretty much let him handle most of this stuff.

President Thompson stated, let's back up just a quick second.

Jim Annis stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, 6 months old, more or less?

Jim Annis, stated, yes, I would say probably, yes 6 months.

President Thompson stated, go ahead.

Jim Annis stated, basically, when he started the project he submitted drawings to the State Plan review. He received approval and sent me a copy of that, I kept that on premises. He called White County for some information on prints and doing inspections. He said he was informed that he needed to fill out an application and submit drawings with the applications. However, at that time he discovered that the City of Monon did not have a contract with White County for the inspections. It was prior to them voting as a Town Board to use Dave Anderson as the building inspector. He always dealt with building inspectors and he thought that was kind of odd. Anyway Monon did not have that and so since Monon did not have a contract with the county that there wouldn’t be any inspections made during the process. He says, unfortunately, that was erroneously interpreted to mean that he did not need to have a permit from the county. He misinterpreted what was told to him that he did not need a permit because Monon didn’t deal with the county as far as inspections went. He commenced with the work, the concrete contractor called. When he came in, called over here for a slab and footer inspection and again was informed that there would be no inspections for the above stated reasons.

It wasn’t until after the Monon Town Board voted to use Mr. Anderson as the building inspector, he stopped and talked to me. He said have Mike give me a call as soon as you possibly can. I did so, Mike talked with Mr. Anderson and he said that although, there would be no inspections made that they needed to review all of the drawings to make sure that all of the setbacks were such.

He came over and filed an application, got with Mr. Milligan to survey the land, and I think you have a copy of that and develop site plans and submitted them and so. He kind of got caught in the short hairs because of Monon not using a building inspector. He’s used to dealing with things on State level and stuff like that. I showed that to Dave and he stated that was not good enough and I said okay fine. Let me go make sure, let me get his phone number, once that transpired he got things up to snuff.

President Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, okay, on July 16th Dave Anderson mailed a letter to Annis Food Liner stating that he had contacted them several times about getting a building permit and that no one had taken care of it and it appeared that there was a variance needed on the property. That was dated July 16th by Dave Anderson. On August 5th there was an application for a building permit submitted to the office. On October 15th the Area Plan mailed a letter to Larry & Peggy Annis stating that they were in on August 5th to apply for a building permit and at that time they were told that they could not meet the front setback and that they would need to file a variance. We gave them until October 29th to go on to the November 21st meeting or we were going to take matters further. Because we were not getting any cooperation, because they were not coming in and getting things taken care of.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone else who cares to address this variance?

Dave Scott asked, you sent those letter July 15th?

Director Weaver stated, Dave Anderson did.

Dave Scott stated, Dave Anderson did and when did they come in and apply for the permit.

Director Weaver stated, August 5th.

President Thompson asked, you broke ground in May, this starting point still got me? May, June because 6 months ago is first of July roughly.

Jim Annis stated, it’s probably more April, May. I don’t know exactly. I don’t have the exact date.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Carol Stradling asked, when did the variance come in?

Attorney Altman stated, 28th of October.

Carol Stradling stated, and they were given, in the last correspondence they were given until October 29th and they came in on the 28th. Who was the completed by?

President Thompson asked, who did your work?

Jim Annis stated, the work was completed by Mike Rowe.

Carol Stradling stated, no, who completed the application.

President Thompson stated, oh I’m sorry I misunderstood.

Attorney Altman stated, Mike Rowe.

Jim Annis stated, yes, that’s the gentleman who is the vice-president of the company and handles all of that stuff.

Attorney Altman asked, that’s not the contractor that’s the company? That’s Annis company.

Jim Annis stated, no that’s American Store Fixtures. That’s the company who we hired to do the work.

Carol Stradling asked, but the letter was addressed to Annis’s?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, but instead of the Annis’s addressing the letter you passed it off to Mike Rowe?

Jim Annis stated, that’s because that is what I hired him for.

Jim Annis stated, I’m not familiar with all of the building ins and outs and all of those things having to be done and I told him this is your baby. You have to take care of all of the permits and all of that stuff. I asked him when he started all of that, do you have and he gave me that thing from the state and I was very comfortable with that. I wasn’t aware that I had to have all of the other. I figured anything at the State level would be adequate, but obviously that was wrong.

Dave Scott asked, was that in your contract that he was to take care of all of that? You have all of that in writing?

Jim Annis stated, that’s the way, yea.

President Thompson asked, but the project is all completed? The way it is?

Jim Annis stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, it’s done – okay? I think we can speed this up very quickly. What are the Board’s wishes? We have a full docket for December 19th.

Gary Barbour stated, I would like to see a contractor. If it was the contractor’s responsibility to have the permit, I would like to see him. That’s the way we have been handling pretty much in the past. That’s the only way you’re going to get it to stop, contractors from just coming in and ramroding getting the job done and moving on without taking care of business up front.

Roger Wilson stated, you have had a lot of that lately.

Gary Barbour stated, right and that’s what needs to stop because that makes our jobs even harder to try to make sure that everything is being covered and everybody is being policed for it. If we going to hold a standard we need to hold the standard.

Roger Wilson stated, yes because now in our case I feel that if you’re going to do something do it right but we’re getting delayed because we’re trying to do it right. People around us are building and getting the building permit, don’t call for inspections and finish it.

President Thompson stated, you got it.

Attorney Altman asked, your name sir?

Roger Wilson stated, Roger Wilson.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you Roger.

President Thompson asked, what are you thinking Jeff?

Jeff Saylor states, I’m going to go back to the last meeting and the motion that was passed. It’s the person’s name that’s on the building permit that is held responsible. Okay that’s the paper trail and you know this was passed after the fact here.

Attorney Altman stated, the penalty provision that is based on was before the fact.

Jeff Saylor stated, I realize that. I’m just saying we don’t have a paper trail to the contractor in most cases. The only paper trail we have is the name on the building permit and the individuals who hire businesses that come to the county and apply for a building permit and sign their name are the ones ultimately responsible for what happens, not the people they hire. That’s also their responsibility. I’m hoping that Ordinance address that as you very well stated in advance when people get their building permits.

Carol Stradling stated, that would not have helped here.

Jeff Saylor stated, it doesn’t help here, you know when you hire somebody you think is going to do a good job okay.

Carol Stradling asked, and the letters that where mailed out were mailed to Annis, correct? Since we did not know who the contractor was, so the correspondence, there a letter mailed July 16, a letter mailed, several attempts to contact. I guess you know if you are paying someone to do something and you’re getting phone calls from the officials saying is this taken care of.

Jim Annis stated, those were passed on to him immediately and I told him as soon as the first correspondence came in from Dave. When I talked to him that day and then the letters came in. You know I kept calling, you know the guy I had a lot of trouble with him because he was in Ohio, that he was subcontracting out with guys. I was the one who was almost the ring leader for the whole thing, and I was just glad to get done with it. You know, I know Mike didn’t do a very good job of getting back with people here like he should have. I know he and Dave did not cross paths very many times and I don’t know why. I know we gave Mike the sense of urgency, told him he needed to do something about this because that is what I hired him to do.

President Thompson asked, what is the Board’s wishes? We can only do so much here.

Jim Annis stated, I got this letter here that he faxed to me today basically has what I told you earlier. If you guys would like a copy of it you’re more than welcome to have it.

President Thompson stated, I don’t think we need it, do we. You have explained it well

What is the Board’s wish. Once again how many times have we run into this? I understand what you’re saying Jeff. You are the right. They are the ones whose name is on there.

Jeff Saylor stated, I’m just thinking you know after the Board adopted the motion that the way it’s going to be.

Attorney Altman stated, $500 fine.

Jeff Saylor stated, well this happened.

Attorney Altman asked, are we going to treat it differently? I’m just trying to move things along.

Director Weaver stated, probably all of them you have tonight.

A variance doesn’t happen over night because you have the survey to get.

President Thompson stated, the one thing we didn’t do on this is. We didn’t date this thing, other than we have as what we entered it.

Director Weaver stated, yes we have the minutes.

President Thompson stated, but only for our own personal use.

Director Weaver stated, I could put a date on it and get you a new copy.

President Thompson stated, Carol, Dave, Gary, not to rush, but let's move on.

Carol Stradling stated, alright I think accentually we address I know it wasn’t in place, but we had established $500 as a starting place last month. Even though this doesn’t exactly fall in the same category, I think we should start at $500. We also mailed out 2 letters indicating for them to contact the office, in which they did not plus phone calls, so I think $500 would be a place to start.

Dave Scott stated, well they were sent a letter on the 15th and on the 5th the responded that’s 2 weeks. That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.

Director Weaver stated, July 15, they responded on August 5, but we went from August 5 to October with nothing.

Attorney Altman stated, make a proposal.

Carol Stradling stated, I move that we impose a fine of $700, $500 base and $100 for each month after the letter.

Dave Scott stated, just let me, for what ever it is worth. Of course I live in that community over there, I’ll just tell you that the Annis family are law abiding citizens. I think they have made a mistake here and I think there probably any of us here who hasn’t made a mistake along the way. I could sit here all night and tell you what they’ve done for the community over the years. I’m going to be hard pressed to; you folks have to do what you have to do. I’m just telling you how it is living with them. So you can take that for what ever it’s worth.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m not going to disagree with you. I’ve know Mr. Annis for a lot of years also, and I agree with what you are saying. However, he has paperwork that says the contractor ultimately is responsible and that would be his next recourse with the fine. That’s my opinion.

I’m going to second the motion.

President Thompson stated, I’d just add that if the people here think this is harsh you have that right. If you only knew how many times we have dealt with this just in the year 2002. Right Board? (All members stated yes.) Just in 2002, just how many situations we had dealt with this. We don’t enjoy fining people, it’s hard, that’s why it will bother us after the meeting is over tonight, but we can not stop it. Contractors do what ever, and they ignore this and we are tired of it. We have a motion and a second.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m not sure we have a second on the motion.

President Thompson stated, I thought Gary did.

Carol Stradling stated, Gary Barbour did.

President Thompson stated, a $500 fine, plus $100 for each month which entails 2 additional months. Is that right Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

President Thompson stated for a total of $700. Moved and seconded all in favor say aye, all opposed same.

Carol, Gary, Jeff, and President Thompson voted for and Dave Scott voted against. Motion carried.

Carol Stradling asked, as we vote on the variance did you realize, is that an easement next to you that the cooler and freezer are attached too, but are not on your property?

Jim Annis stated, they are attached to the property. I mean they are attached to the building. All of that is attached to the building. They have been for there 40 years. The freezers and coolers.

Carol Stradling asked, it’s next to the railroad property? Okay.

Jim Annis stated, yes its been there for 40 to 45 years. I think.

President Thompson stated, sir if you only knew how many contractors have made that very same statement that was made to you.

Roger Wilson stated, now Jeff Saylor was saying you have an Ordinance or you came up with an Ordinance from my understanding that whoever’s name is on the building permit is the responsible party.

President Thompson stated, yes, you could read it right here tonight if you wish.

Roger Wilson stated, thank you.

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 7’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the existing building into compliance on Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 in Turpie’s Addition to the Town of Monon, together with the applicable ½ of any adjoining vacated right-of-way.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 901 N. Market Street.

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

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

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

***

#2162 Kathleen Carr; Requesting an 8’ South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to enclose an existing concrete slab and a wood deck and to build a second story addition on Lot #56 in Parse’s Lodge 2nd Addition. The property is located North of Monticello at 5191 N. Crabapple Loop.

President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this, yes?

Kathleen Carr stated, I’m Kathleen Carr. The second story is kind of future it is down the road about 6 or 7 months. The deck and porch is what we are here for now.

President Thompson stated, okay Diann.

Director Weaver stated, the neighbor’s Realtor brought this to our attention. They called in to see if there had been a building permit issued. They have already started on this structure and the neighbor had concerns about it.

President Thompson asked, who was your contractor on this?

Kathleen Carr stated, Tim Nolan.

President Thompson asked, Sir when did you break ground on this project?

Tim Nolan stated, October.

President Thompson stated, October. Jerry anything on this?

Attorney Altman stated, other than the obvious.

Attorney Altman stated, couple of things. There is an overhang that encroaches on private property; it’s shown on the survey.

President Thompson asked, anyone here who cares to address this either for or against? Yes sir your name is?

Kent Receiver, I’m Verna and Brent Barnaby’s grandson. The neighbor who is trying to sell the residence next door now.

President Thompson asked, So you are lot #55 or #57?

Kent Receiver stated, I believe lot 55.

President Thompson stated, Okay.

Kent Receiver stated, the deck that this structure is being built on now the property has changed hands. I believe the people who are there now have owned it 2 or 3 years and the previous owners were there for 3 years. Prior to that there was someone there who was there 25 years. My grandmother and grandfather have owned the place since ‘71 and they built this deck the second after the people been there the longest sold the people who had been there prior to them built the deck on there. They did not have a building permit as well then and she tried to get that stopped back then. She doesn’t want to make any waves with any of her neighbors. She did address it and nothing was ever brought up on that. Then the property has sold again, now someone else buys it, and now they are building on top of the deck. Which further more comes out on the property itself. I’m sure you have photographs as well, but we have a couple of photographs if you would like to see them. I think you can see the property line itself on the photograph by the pipe sticking out of the ground. I don’t know if you guys would like to look at these.

Attorney Altman asked, have you seen the survey?

Kent Receiver stated, no I haven’t.

President Thompson stated, you take a look at this and we would be glad to look at the pictures but we will keep the pictures. Not to be rude, but that’s just the way we operate.

Kent Receiver stated, okay.

Attorney Altman stated, let me mark the photos objectors A, B, C, D and F.

President Thompson stated, okay he mentioned a pipe. Is this the pipe he is speaking of right here? Sir will you come up here a second. Please

President Thompson asked, you made reference to a pipe or something is this it?

Kent Receiver, stated that’s right correct. Its 6-ft from off the birdhouse to the property line is that the one you’re looking at.

Attorney Altman stated, 6 feet yes.

Kent Receiver stated, and that’s coming off of their house foundation that’s what you’re saying.

Attorney Altman stated, that’s what the surveyor is says.

Kent Receiver stated, we have had that landing down here that shows it’s barely over the property line. That’s been there for 30 some years as well. That is something that’s now been brought about. It’s barely encroaching. I didn’t know if that would come up or not. I just wanted to let you know that’s been there for sometime and never was a problem. There never has been any problems down there until recently and not its become an even more problem because we are trying to sell because they got older in age and my grandfather is not doing so well. Which takes a little bit less desirable now because it takes away from the water front view?

You are not able to see from the dining room now.

President Thompson stated, to the contractor again. What was your name again?

Tim Nolan stated, Tim Nolan.

President Thompson asked, are you from White County?

Tim Nolan stated, no.

President Thompson stated, no, you are from.

Tim Nolan stated, Illinois.

President Thompson asked, are you familiar with building permits in your state?

Tim Nolan stated, yes I am.

President Thompson asked, who was to obtain the permit on this situation?

Tim Nolan stated, I was just doing a relative a favor. Just build a screen porch for them on an existing deck. I didn’t think it would be such a big hassle.

Carol Stradling asked, a screened in porch?

Tim Nolan stated, Yes.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess this is not what I’m seeing. I’m not seeing screens.

Tim Nolan states, I don’t know what you have there, but

President Thompson stated, you can come up.

Tim Nolan stated, Oh yes there is all windows underneath all of this here. I covered it up from the rain and there is no roof on it.

Attorney Altman stated, the very first thing, they can not encroach. We can’t, allow it. We’re not allowed to allow that, so that would be the very first thing that has to go back to the very least to the property line.

Tim Nolan stated, I guess I found all of that out after all of this happened.

Attorney Altman stated, this doesn’t have anything to do with this matter before us. It just can’t be.

Carol Stradling asked, did the deck ever have a permit Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I believe we looked, but we did not find one.

Kathleen Carr stated, we did not find one.

President Thompson stated, but you did not build the deck is what you are saying.

Kathleen Carr stated, no.

Several people spoke at once.

Kathleen Carr stated, I understand that the people here they said it was an illegal deck that it’s right on their property line. That is should have been 4ft back and then when you add a room that is another 4ft back that’s why the variance came into play. Which is totally nothing I thought this would be. Yes we are in violation of not having a building permit I thought that was my only issue here. You know I had no idea that all the problems.

Carol Stradling asked, did you know where your property line was?

Kathleen Carr stated, yes I had the survey and I knew that it was right on the property line.

Carol Stradling stated, that your roof was hanging over.

Kathleen Carr stated, well we’re idiots it’s a 2 feet over hang.

Carol Stradling asked, and you knew that when you?

Tim Nolan stated, no actually …..

President Thompson asked, well what is the Board wishes on this?

Carol Stradling stated, well if we don’t grant the variance then they have to take it back to the legal allowance.

Attorney Altman stated, and remove all of what they have added at the very least and quite frankly remove it all because none of it is permitted. The whole deck and everything from what I’m seeing just backing it up Carol all of it needs to be removed.

Carol Stradling stated, I know usually we impose a fine and then we vote, but

Tim Nolan stated, excuse me. I could back this up to your code without taking it out.

Attorney Altman stated, we are talking about the whole thing.

Carol Stradling asked, how far is the corner of the house there from the property line?

Attorney Altman stated, it says 6 ft.

Carol Stradling stated, 6 feet at the front corner, but there is a little bit more at the back. I guess what I’m looking at and when I look at the pictures and I look towards the lake from this gentleman’s home what you’ve built has now obstructed his view of the lake as well as the overhang that is encroaching on his property. So I guess, my preference would be to see that addition even with the edge of the house and.

Kathleen Carr asked, even with the edge of my home?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Tim Nolan stated, when I went back and measured it I could cut 8 ft off of the deck and that’s about, it should work.

Carol Stradling asked, that would bring it back to the, I guess the South edge of the house? So that would be a continuation of that.

Tim Nolan stated, yes and the existing deck would be 4ft from the line.

Kathleen Carr stated, I don’t know why I should be penalized for cutting off the deck that was already on the home.

Attorney Altman stated, it wasn’t permitted.

Kathleen Carr stated, pardon me.

Attorney Altman stated, it wasn’t appropriately there.

Several are talking at once

Kathleen Carr asked, why wasn’t this brought up at my closing? I was totally unaware of this. I mean whom can I point a finger at and say hey.

Attorney Altman stated, the people you bought it off of.

Kathleen Carr stated, I bought a home with an illegal deck. Can I go to Vogel, who.

Board members stated, people you bought it off of, real estate co.

Verna Barnaby stated, I would like to say something.

President Thompson asked, name please?

Verna Barnaby stated, I’m Verna Barnaby. I went to the realtor and I told him about it that it was illegal, so it is their fault.

Kathleen Carr stated, so it was the realtor.

Kent Receiver stated, she is saying the realtor was aware.

Kathleen Carr asked, was that Vogel or Stefaniak because Vogel was the listing agent but Stefaniak was the…..

Verna Barnaby stated, she went to Vogel.

Attorney Altman asked, Carol do you have a proposal?

Carol Stradling stated, if you would agree to take that back then I would not impose the fine, if they are willing to correct what they have done and make it right.

President Thompson stated, they’re suffering enough your point.

Carol Stradling stated, then I guess there really is no reason for the variance other then to bring the home into compliance.

Jeff Saylor stated, you have a room built without a building permit and built on to someone else’s property.

Director Weaver stated, plus I believe this deck is new too.

Tim Nolan stated, that’s correct.

Director Weaver asked the deck that is over the cement slab, is that new also?

Tim Nolan stated, that is on the other side of the house there.

Director Weaver stated, right is that deck new.

Kathleen Carr stated, no everything there.

Director Weaver stated, your survey only shows cement concrete slab there.

Kathleen Carr asked, where?

Director Weaver stated, on the North side. I have a picture that shows a deck there and a concrete slab underneath it.

Kathleen Carr stated, yes we built it.

Director Weaver stated, the deck is new.

Kathleen Carr stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that is what I was asking.

Tim Nolan stated, that is in the line of the house.

Carol Stradling asked, when we have imposed the fine in the past, not sure if we have asked them to remove the structure?

Attorney Altman stated, sure have.

Director Weaver stated, you just have recently.

Attorney Altman stated, we have also done the other way too, so don’t get me wrong I just saying we have got both ways. But they do have a deck on both sides and room addition on one side.

Carol Stradling asked, this stuff we are looking at is new construction?

Tim Nolan stated, the bottom photo and to the existing deck.

Attorney Altman stated, and not permitted.

President Thompson stated, Jeff take a stand on this.

Jeff Saylor stated, I would like to make a motion that we impose what would be the standard $500 fine for the building out of the parameters of the well there wasn’t a building permit issued, but building out of variance in this case. The property is to be removed subject to a plans submitted in the January Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. If there is no plans submitted the property would be removed back to the standard setbacks.

President Thompson asked, do we have second to motion?

Gary Barbour stated, second that motion.

President Thompson asked, all of those in favor say aye all of those opposed?


****

#2163 Robert M. & Lora M. Wilson; Requesting a 1.6’ elevation variance to build a detached garage on Lot 90 in Maple Bend Subdivision #3. The property is located Northeast of Buffalo at 7060 E. Red Maple Court.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to represent this?

Roger Wilson stated, yes Roger Wilson.

President Thompson asked, you are Roger Wilson?

Roger Wilson stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, what is your relationship to this?

Roger Wilson stated, I’m the son.

President Thompson stated, you are the son of Robert and Lora Wilson, okay would you like to add anything to this.

Roger Wilson stated, this has been a new lesson and I know Diann learned it and I know Dave has learned it, but to find out that we could get a variance I spent 6 hours to Indianapolis to Anita Nance. She is the one who let us know that if we want to build a garage where it is we have to apply for a variance. So that is why we are back in front of you again.

Roger Wilson stated, the main issue on the floor the variance was okay my parents are 71 years old and to raise that garage floor up another foot in and half higher than what it is. You my as well consider them building up a wheel chair ramp and during the winter they could just sit on their butt and slide down to the end of the driveway. Well I said you know that there is a pole barn down the canal from us and we find out that it is only 2 inches higher than ours and they went for the building permit, but did not go through with the inspections.

With us we are just stirring up a lot of trouble in the neighborhood. The main reason is they’re 71 years old and they have had a garage for all of their lives its hard on them in the winter.

President Thompson stated, sir you had your hand up too.

Phillip Samson stated, I’m Phillip Samson. I am the adjacent property owner.

President Thompson asked, which side?

Phillip Samson stated, North.

President Thompson asked, are you 91 or 88? Do you have the mobile home?

Phillip Samson stated, yes. The property out there is pretty level to raise that garage up would cause more water problems than. My understanding here is the county Ordinance on it. A height variance. If there is I don’t know about it. DNR recommends a set height out there for the flood zone where the garage is located it is not in the flood zone it’s on a flood ridge but not in the zone. The DNR recommends that height but not required. So I’m not sure if a variance is even needed. As he stated his parents are elderly. Its their retirement home and to add an incline to the garage. I don’t even know if you could drive a car up that high unless you went all the way back to the street. His parents have done nothing but enhance the whole property since they moved in there. I strongly recommend that the variance be granted to them and they have definitely improved the property value in the additional. They don’t have one of the best homes, they have the best looking home.

President Thompson stated, Diann you want to correct, he was questioning the range that we will leave lay.

Director Weaver asked, he was questioning the variance?

Attorney Altman stated, he was questioning weather he needed the variance.

Phillip Samson stated, county Ordinance, I’m not sure about.

President Thompson asked, I thought you might be able to explain that to him a little bit better?

Roger Wilson stated, may I say something else. The map is showing from the DNR okay seriously the garage would not be. The garage would be out of the fringe area. The lady from the DNR said just to be on the safe side and having to deal with the planing commission you had to deal with the State and go with certain regulations is what she was explaining to me. She says you have to be careful on what you do to stay up with the State regulations. She said to be on the safe side apply for a variance which with the DNR that is all you have to do. Its up to the planning Board to okay it. That was her exact words to me on the phone were. The DNR would approve it just along, as you people knew about it.

Carol Stradling stated, according to what we have there is a statement under regulatory assessment and it’s from the DNR. It says proposed projects in the flood fringe do not require approval from the department of DNR, but they are recommending that flood protection grade be 2 feet above base flood elevations, so the recommendation in flood plain area to me would be 661.4. That’s were we are going to the variance from. You are not far from, you maybe on the fringe but to my determination you are not that far from the flood way.

Roger Wilson stated, I talked to Diann, I talked to Dave and they said that you have never had to deal with a height variance.

Director Weaver stated, the elevation.

Roger Wilson stated, the lady from the DNR said that it is up to the Board here. She said if the Board approves it, then it is fine. She said to be on the safe side which we have been going by the book all the way through. We are trying to do everything right, which I said we have talked to you about it, we’ve talked to Dave about it. There are like 4 homes or buildings around us that has been illegal and like I said I mentioned that blue pole barn which they got the building permit, but they never got the inspections and Dave said. I guess the surveyor took the shot off the floor and his floor is only 2 inches higher than what we are at and he is only 150 yards down the street from us.

Dave Scott stated, I was just wondering if we approve this and he has flood damage in some point and time, does this make us liable than in any way.

Attorney Altman stated, sure can. I don’t honestly think so. I will tell you what in this day when they are nailing people and inity and all that sort of thing.

Board is talking.

Roger Wilson stated, I don’t know. Do you have any pictures of our place?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Dave Anderson asked, do you guys have copy of White County Ordinance for flood areas?

Board Members stated, yes.

Dave Anderson stated, Section 10 of variance. There are several buildings adjacent to him sublevel and that is one of the things the DNR and Nance ask me to come to this variance on behalf of DNR now I’m the building inspector, but I’m also standing in for the DNR. They don’t necessary want variances handed out. Come in to sign your name and you get one either they meet some of the criteria that’s fine. I’m trying to look at a couple of things. The surrounding houses that are in the same situations but the homes already exist and are built. I believe the Northeast his property between the proposed garage and the property line its elevated like this is a pretty steep slope and we are recommending no more than a 3 to1slope. I know we had measured it. It’s pretty steep. It seems that is was twice the amount for a wheelchair ramps. A wheel chairs ramp has a slope of inch to a foot. It seems that this was 2 inches per foot for the slope to the garage to meet this elevation that the DNR wants them to achieve. I would prefer a protection of the zoned building. I would like to see the matter put in the variance or not. Before you grant the variance or not if you I would like to see a good portion of this up out of the water or even close being out of the water maybe torn down maybe later a block or 2. I don’t want the county to liable for damages if you grant this variance either.

Jeff Saylor stated, this is going to set a precedent of what we do down the road from here.

Roger Wilson stated, I understand that.

Dave Anderson stated, I think it is practical to leave this Board fairly close to where we got it. I’d like to see it raised a little bit, but the block is above it. I would just like to see you get it out of the area, but I don’t want you to have to incur flood damages on an action that was created here.

That’s not necessary right either. So do yourself a favor. ………I want to ask is this feasible for you to do?

Roger Wilson asked, So in another words bring about 2 rows block on top of the concrete?

Dave Anderson stated, you could use some shorter lumber to achieve the height that you want. You can use 2, 4 or 6 or whatever you want to maintain the 8 feet ceiling. You will have to cut those down because you will bring them up with blocks.

Roger Wilson stated, okay let me get this right. If I bring up 2 rows of blocks up on top of the concrete that would satisfy you.

Dave Anderson stated, I think a lot more of it. I wish you could raise the floor

………… I like things high and dry. I really press that through out the county. Get it up in a good watershed I don’t remember off the top of my head what you have. I don’t

Phillip Samson stated, this even sticks to this Ordinance within the first 10 feet of the building that you have sufficient level slope. Do you have pictures of the garage?

Attorney Altman asked, so if you raise it ¾ of a foot?

Roger Wilson stated if you figure it and I go leave the garage floor where it at. I put 2 rows of blocks, that’s going to give me 16”.

Dave Scott asked, how far does that put you above flood level?

Roger Wilson stated, that’s going to put it close.

Board is discussing this. They say it will put it at 18” by the DNR.

Dave Anderson stated, 2 or 3 inches down from it yet.

Dave Scott stated, you’re going to have some wicking yet probably. The water coming in, you probably do want to be up half a foot.

Dave Anderson stated, ????? Tell you what why don’t you bring your floor up so you can have two more courses of block and the top of your block will be at least flood elevation. Okay

Carol Stradling stated, if he uses the block he is going to be above face flood elevation.

Dave Anderson stated, I want his to achieve this floor height and building height if he can.

Carol Stradling stated, flood protection grade is what we are striving for and that’s what we are giving the variance of 1.6 feet and flood protection grade is 2 feet above base flood elevation. So he is already 4 inches above base flood elevations, but they want flood protection grade to be higher than that. I know the terminology is around there.

Dave Anderson stated, is 2 feet above. I understand what we are still trying to achieve is from where he would like to be to achieve this 2 feet above he still needs 1.6 feet. I’m trying to get him so he doesn’t have to raise his floor and have quit a ramp going up to it.

Roger Wilson stated, so in another words you’re saying how much to you want me to add on top on the forms where it is right now.

Dave Anderson stated, whatever it takes get there.

Roger Wilson stated , I’ve got 16 inches in block.

Dave Anderson stated go from the 2 feet above flood elevations to base flood elevations go from there and go back the other way where there is 2 feet of block. I don’t know what 6/10. Can anyone tell me what 6/10 of a foot is?

President Thompson stated, a little over 7 inches.

Dave Anderson stated, so you are 19 ¼ inches away from where you need to be with the top of the block okay. So bring the floor up ¾ inches. Then add 2 feet to the block.

Dave Anderson stated, I think the DNR would be satisfied with that and I would be and gives them a chance to get the slope away from the building on the outside and put a driveway in so he doesn’t have. Is that reasonable to you?

Roger Wilson stated, yes I guess it’s going to have to be.

Phillip Samson asked, he talking about a cement pad and water? I could see this if it was a wood floor?

Attorney Altman stated, yes, but it’s the wood walls.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here against this any other discussions, if not ready to vote? Dave do you want to second with conditions?

Dave Scott stated, I second with conditions.

Roger Wilson asked, I have one question? We were issued a blue building permit is that just to get things started.

Director Weaver stated, I’m not sure what he is asking

Phillip Samson asked, what is to prevent Mr. Wilson from building the garage? When you’re getting the variance.

Roger Wilson stated, that’s your permit.

Director Weaver stated, but there were conditions with that permit.

Roger Wilson asked, let me ask you this before you issue one of these? Should you make sure that those conditions on the height are met before you issue one of these because that could be the main mistake why a lot a people are going over your heads and doing stuff illegally.

????????? do you have the rest?

Director Weaver stated, I have the rest of the file here.

Roger Wilson stated, I figure if I’m issued a permit. I’m okay to go ahead and do.

Gary Barbour stated you are okay to build within the parameters of the Ordinances.

Roger Wilson stated, but I see, I’m sorry but that wasn’t.

Gary Barbour stated, well if you are outside the Ordinances you are going to have to take it out.

Roger Wilson stated, it wasn’t stated exactly what we had to do when we were issued this.

Until he came out and we had the forms set. That’s what I’m getting at because that could be part of the problem when issue a permit you should tell them now okay you got to do this, this, and this before you even do anything.

Jeff Saylor asked, excuse me Mr. Wilson whose initials LW?

Roger Wilson stated, that is my mother’s.

Dave Anderson stated, LW initialed conditions. The conditions were read to everyone. She has initialed that so somebody had either read this or someone read this to her. This is contingent with the conditions as follows, so it was explained.

Roger Wilson stated, I’m not going to argue with you.

Director Weaver stated, this is apart of Dave coming out and doing the inspections.

Dave Anderson stated, and I explained that when I was out there the other day, that she had signed this saying this.

Roger Wilson stated, I’m just saying this. My mother did not understand that you had to have a surveyor out there until he came out. What I’m saying to help out the situation in later situations I think they should make sure they sit down and explain everything that. Hey well if you are in this area you make sure you get a surveyor you and to do this and that.

I think it needs to be stressed very plainly.

No further discussion and the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for an 8’ South side setback variance and a 5’ North side setback variance to enclose an existing concrete slab and a wood deck and to build a second story addition on Lot 90 in Maple Bend Subdivision #3 in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northeast of Buffalo at 7060 E. Red Maple Court.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10of 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, as set forth by Mr. Anderson. You need to get your building permit to be consistent with that. Take it back in and get it marked so that it is correct okay.

Roger Wilson stated, okay what do you mean get it marked correct because from this situations.

Attorney Altman stated, it was modified.

Roger Wilson stated, since we got the variance it needs modify.

Attorney Altman stated, right.


****

#2164 Wiese Farms, Inc.; Owner, Christopher R. & Kimberly K. Wiese; Applicant; Requesting a special exception to bring the existing trucking company into compliance on 1.831 acres. The property is located Southwest of Reynolds at 2230 W. 100 S.

President Thompson asked, either one of you?

Chris Wiese stated, I’m Chris Wiese and I’m here to represent that.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to add to this description Chris?

Chris Wiese stated, basically what I want to do here is bring in have an office that is rented trailer. That I’m going to use as an office for the trucking co and also will be used for farm equipment also. I guess after talking to Diann, we needed a variance because this trailer is rented and not owned. Did I understand that right?

Director Weaver stated, no, you needed to have the variance because the trucking is not in compliance with the Ordinance.

Chris Wiese stated, okay.

President Thompson asked, any thing else?

Director Weaver stated, I have not received anything. They did go through the rezoning process for the trucking business and I do want to note that the trailer is already there.

Chris Wiese stated, I needed someplace to park it.

Director Weaver asked, have you received your state permit?

Chris Wiese stated, no we have not.

Director Weaver stated, because they required to have State Permit.

Chris Wiese stated, I talked to Dave that one time after I got the survey from Mr. Milligan

And we sent that in.

Director Weaver stated, they are required to have a state permit when its for a business use and you are going to have to relocate that because it have to be 6 feet from that other building.

Chris Wiese stated, yes, I think it’s 10 feet from the side.

Director Weaver stated, the one to the East of it.

Chris Wiese stated, probably about 9 feet.

Director Weaver stated, it looked pretty close that is why I was questioning it.

Carol Stradling asked, is the trailer on the survey now that we are looking at now?

Attorney Altman stated, no it’s not.

Carol Stradling asked, so it is going to sit like right where it says shed. It’s going to set here?

President Thompson stated, its setting right in between the two. They are currently looking at a survey.

Carol Stradling asked, what kind of trucking company is this?

Chris Wiese stated, general delivery we haul everything ????

Carol Stradling asked, so it’s okay to bring the trucks out there?

Director Weaver stated, I tried to contact the highway department and discuss this with Steve Brook to make sure that there are no problems there. I have not had any luck contacting him. I’m not aware of any problems. I have not had any complaints about the roads.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sure the frost law would apply to those roads.

Chris Wiese stated, what Steve does every year, which he does with several trucking in the county. Is when that time usually 2 or 3 week period in the spring. We don’t bring loaded trucks home. Trailers stay in town. Last 2 years they have it posted. So it hasn’t been an issued the last 2 years. The years before that we went to the elevators or somewhere in town.

Carol Stradling asked, how many power units are you talking about?

Chris Wiese stated, 7 units.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to address this either for or against?

Carol Stradling asked, have you been operating this truck business for awhile, yes?

Chris Wiese, stated, yes several years now.

Carol Stradling asked, where did you operate it previously?

Chris Wiese stated, I lived in town before I moved out there.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President Thompson stated, he parked the trucks at the farm, so he did operate out of town.

Chris Wiese stated, I have operated this business for several years and has gradually grown until I had to come in and talk to Diann about put an office down. I had run an office out of my home.

President Thompson stated, Chris no one brought anything to us, this is just conversation.

You mentioned a rented trailer or looking for a more permanent structure in the future.

Chris Wiese stated, yes sometime in the future. I needed to get it out of the house for now. I just wanted to do something short term. I do have plans in the next 2 or 3 years.

President Thompson asked, will you rezone or has the whole barnyard been rezoned?

Chris Wiese stated, according to this survey here where that white block shed is there are 2 driveways there. One driveway goes to the East which is to the house and we included the West driveway into the rezoning which included the barn yard so the trucks could come in that way.

President Thompson asked, any other discussion? I go by the lot a lot. Any other discussions, if not are we ready to vote?

No further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

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 special exception to bring the existing trucking company into compliance on 1.831 acres. The property is located Southwest of Reynolds at 2230 W. 100 S. That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 26 North, Range 4 West in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 6; thence South 88 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West along CR100 S and the section line 1301.35 feet to the point of beginning;

Thence South 02 degrees 33 minutes 07 seconds East 290.09 feet; thence South 88 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West 280.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West 290.00 feet to the section line; thence North 88 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds East 270.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.831 Acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Southwest of Reynolds at 2230 W. 100 S.

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, must commence within one year or it is loss. For the record this is property situation where as law a lot of small business start out they do that on a small bases and they got big enough so that it really was required to some within the requirements of the subdivision and the special acceptation of our Ordinance. If much time had lapsed beyond what Mr. Wiese did there might have been a violation. Given how things work and my familiarity of this area. I don’t believe this is a question here at all and just come to a point that it is big enough it’s a trucking concern rather that just a guy running it trucking co.

****

President Thompson stated, okay we have other business to address here. You mentioned to me Babcox.

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not that, it is. What is it the guy on the violation. I contacted a lawyer I just have not heard back from him yet about it. He offered the $2000. So I have not got any word. I just wanted to keep everyone informed. That’s it

Director Weaver stated this is Nancy Downey, the Monon trustee.

Attorney Altman stated, and she is here inspecting us.

Director Weaver , did you have anything you wanted to discuss with the Board, Nancy?

Nancy Downey stated, no I know you felt bad about having to fine Jim. I figured that was going to happen anyway, but Jim’s contractor will be paying Jim’s $700.

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission