Get Adobe Flash player



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

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

Visitors attending were: Armand & Phyllis Coppe, Doug Schwartz, Sonia Schwartz, Randy and Lisa Zarse, Herman Gouwens, Charles Mellon, Steve Vanderipe, Jim Koches, Dan Washington, Troy & Noreen Holmes, David Shepler, Charles Ryan, Don Scharer, James Scharer, Phil Vogel, Greg Jacobs, Glenn Hegewald.

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

President Thompson stated, first of all we are have a full five-member Board. Carol Stradling that makes up the other Board member position and she is not here. She is due to appear at any time. We normally have an attorney here to represent the Board, Jerry Altman. Many of you may know Jerry. Jerry has had for a lack of a professional term, he has had a double whammy this week. Jerry has lost his father and his mother-in-law on the same day. I think it is only proper that we have Jerry and his wife in our prayers, as we go into this Christmas season. Also, that is not on our agenda tonight, I probably would wait until the end of the meeting, but we do have a full agenda and I’m afraid there might not be anybody left when we get to this point. We have a five-member Board and a certain body of government in the county appoints everyone here. Tonight we have a member here who this is his last meeting, who is an outstanding member. He was appointed in January 1992 and he has chosen to step down. He has served 10 years of service to White County and I wanted as many people here to know this because White County residents don’t truly realize what good people we have on these Boards. We all know that some of these Boards you don’t make friends, but it is a job. Jeff has added a lot to this Board and to this county. There has been a plaque prepared for him. It says, in recognition to your dedication, wisdom, your excellence service to the Board of Zoning Appeals for White County. We say thank you very much. Ten years is a long time, we were appointed about the same time and we have seen this thing go from roughly 2 or 3 variances a month to maximum of 10 to 12. That is how much White County has changed over the years.

President Thompson stated, prior to tonight the Board has been sent copies of the minutes of the September and the October meetings, and do we care to address the September meeting as far as additions or corrections.



Carol Stradling stated, There is just one item that I noticed that might change the meaning a little. It is on page 42 and I will read that and see which way you think it should go. Glotzbach stated the basic reason if I might say, the lots adjacent to the one we are building on we do not own. There is a double wide there and we picked the plans for this particular home which the idea and the thought for this garage protruding out this home is going to have a small porch on it. I think what I would like to say is this garage protruding out of this home is going to have a small porch on this would block the double wide from view. I just seem to remember they were trying to block the view and that’s not really anywhere else in that statement.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? Any other discussion if not we will accept the September meetings as corrected. All in favor say I all of those oppose same September is approved. Let's move on to October’s meeting. Anything with the October minutes. If not, motion to approve the October minutes. Is there a second, Jeff Saylor seconded the motion. All in favor say I all opposed it. October minutes approved.

Carol Stradling made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the November 21, 2002 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Director Weaver swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#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. Tabled from the November 21, 2002 meeting.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Schwartz?

Doug Schwartz stated, yes I’m Doug and she is Sonia.

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

Doug Schwartz stated, no.

Sonia Schwartz stated, no, but we brought our builder with us.

President Thompson stated, excuse me.

Doug Schwartz stated, Jimmy.

Jim Koches stated, I was subpoenaed. I suppose you can say I was told to come here tonight.

President Thompson stated, would you give your name officially.

Jim Koches stated, Jim Koches.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no. I was just going to mention that one of the reasons this was tabled was to ask the builder if he knew present procedures.

President Thompson stated, and you have nothing to discuss with the Board this evening.

Jim Koches stated, no, not really.

President Thompson asked, is there any concern with the Board? Anyone like to ask anything?

Carol Stradling stated, I think one of the concerns we had last time was the lack of a building permit and who was responsible in getting the building permit.

Jim Koches stated, I’ll speak up. We talked about the project back in December and year ago. Come May 1st or when ever I did it. I can’t remember the exact date when I started on it. I called Doug and said are we ready to go and we went up and did it. I just assumed he had got the building permit. Obviously we did not get the permit.

Carol Stradling asked, you are a builder?

Jim Koches stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, typically were do you build in West Lafayette address. Do you post a building permit when you have one?

Jim Koches stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, but you did not see one posted.

Jim Koches stated, no.

Doug Schwartz stated, as I said it is my fault. I did not do it and I know I was wrong and there are no if ands or buts about it. I was wrong.

Jim Koches stated, I am building one right now, right down the road and the building permit is posted on the house.

Carol Stradling stated, and that is what you normally do.

Jim Koches stated, the homeowner normally takes care of it.

Dave Scott stated, it is right that it is the homeowner’s responsibility for getting the building permit. Just for future reference just to help out the homeowners make sure they got the permit before the work starts.

Jim Koches stated, trust me I don’t want to go through this again.

President Thompson stated, and we don’t like to go through this.

Carol Stradling asked, could you give the dimensions of the porch? Is it 12 feet x 16feet.

Jim Koches stated, I believe so.

Doug Schwartz stated, it is not very big. You can’t get very much on .15 acre.

Carol Stradling asked, and that was the footprint of the deck before you put the screen porch on it?

Jim Koches stated, the screen in porch was extended a little. The concrete pad and the roof over it was a little smaller than that.

Dave Scott asked, so basically is screened in a porch to an existing?

Jim Koches stated, it had a cement slab with an awning basically over it and I put a wood deck over it and continued the roof line out from the existing house, so we could screen it in. It had the wrought iron fence post and we took all of that out.

President Thompson asked, what is the Boards thoughts and how do we want to approach this?

Carol Stradling stated, at the last meeting we were considering fining both and is that still a question.

Dave Scott stated, I think like Jeff had stated a couple of times the fine just about has to go to the homeowner and property owner. He would have to deal with the contractor. This would be my opinion.

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s the person’s name on the building permit that is responsible and however, they work it out beyond that, is their concern.

Doug Schwartz stated, I take full responsibility. It was my responsibility to get a permit and I didn’t do it.

President Thompson asked, so how do we want to handle this?

Gary Barbour stated, I think the most sense is we put a $500 fine on the property owners. As far as the builder again it is the property owner’s responsibility. I motion we charge them $500 fine

President Thompson asked, is there a second to this motion?

Carol Stradling stated, I second it.

President Thompson stated, a second to the motion fines the property owner $500.

Without further discussion the Board voted on the $500 fine. The $500 fine was passed based on 4 affirmative and 1 negative.

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 16’ rear setback variance to bring an existing screened porch into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on .15 of an acre. A tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 34, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is 1256 feet East and North 40º 30’ East 619 feet and South 87º East 155.6 feet and North 04º East 189.2 feet from the Southwest corner of the above said Section 34 and running thence North 84º 26’ West 9.9 feet; thence North 04º East 63.5 feet; thence South 75º 30’ East 130.4 feet; thence South 28º 04’ West 47 feet; thence North 84º 26’ West 99.4 feet to the point of beginning, containing .15 of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 509 Tyler Lane.

7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 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.

Director Weaver stated, you do need to get your building permit.

****

#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. Tabled from the November 21, 2002 meeting.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Deardorff variance?

Chuck Ryan stated, Chuck Ryan, Twin Lakes Cinema.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything additional other than what you have given us? Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we did research the existing signs. We called Decker’s. Melanie called Decker’s and spoke to Pat Decker. She was informed that the Decker sign went up about a year ago and she told Melanie, who is a secretary in the office to call her husband who is Don Rollheiser to find out when the sign went up. She did speak to Mr. Rollheiser and he told her that the sign went up 18 – 20 years ago and that the Rollheiser sign went up the same time. If you notice in the pictures, I did go out and get new pictures there are actually 2 signs back to back on the property, which is North of the property we are dealing with. Then also send because of conflicting information there we did send a letter out to the property owner Calvin Cox. He did call us back and he told us that the Decker sign had gone in around 1982 and that the Rollheiser sign went in after that. Per our conversation it wasn’t clear if he was aware that the Rollheriser sign was there also. He didn’t fully acknowledge that it was there or not. We did not find any building permits for his sign, either one of them. Therefore we did send a violation letter out to Mr. Rollheiser telling him that he is in violation of the ordinance and that he does need to get property permits for this sign. The signs to the South, I have 2 pictures of that. I do believe that all of these signs are old and I was not able to determine whose exactly property they were located on to be able to contact the owner to confirm that or not. As it appears in the pictures they are older signs.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address these variances either for or against? Any concerns from the Board?

Dave Scott asked, is there a difference between the regulation of a free standing sign over one hanging on the side of a building?

Director Weaver stated, no, if its an off premises sign its all regulated the same. An off premise sign is different from an on premise sign. It doesn’t matter if it is free standing or on a building.

Dave Scott asked, the sign in question is for Twin Lakes Cinema?

Carol Stradling stated, so we know the one is in violation and the other one has been there for quit a while. I think that was the issue for looking at voting on a separation variance from the sign that may or may not have been legal.

Jeff Saylor stated, the issue at hand is whether this sign is legal because of its proximity to another sign which may or may not be illegal also.

Director Weaver stated, correct, but it was put up without a permit as well. They still do even though the signs to the North in question still need a separation variance from those.

Dave Scott stated, you said there is a difference for on premise and off premise.

Director Weaver stated, they have different regulations.

Dave Scott asked, this is on his building right?

Director Weaver stated, no that is not his building. That is not an on premise sign because that is not were the business is located.

Dave Scott stated, oh I see. It’s not his property.

President Thompson asked, Gary any questions?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Thompson asked, so how do we address this?

Gary Barbour stated, this is a tough one. The one signs we don’t know for sure that they are legal or not. Regardless he still put the sign up without a permit, without the proper variance there.

President Thompson asked, I believe this is a first?

Carol Stradling asked, Mr. Ryan was it your intent to subvert the Ordinance? I understand you went in to apply for a building permit and were told that you couldn’t meet the minimum separation requirements. I can see it would feel like.

Chuck Ryan stated, my original intent was to put a freestanding sign at that location. I assumed a building permit would be necessary for a free standing sign because you are taking up new real estate. You are driving post in the ground or you’re making some kind of foundation that alters the real estate. When I saw the regulation that I had to be within so many feet of an existing signs then I decided that I would put the sign on the building itself. In my way of thinking the sign attached to or painted on an existing building should not require a building permit. Basically because you are not taking up any new real estate. So therefore I just assumed there would be no building permit needed. I still feel that way. This matter was tabled because no one in the office or at last months meeting could find anything or show me anything or yourselves anything that specified a sign attached to a building requires a building permit.

Carol Stradling stated, I think it was table so we could get the history on those others signs.

Chuck Ryan stated, there were 2 reasons. To get the history on the signs and to determine for sure if a building permit would be required for a sign attached or painted on an existing structure.

Carol Stradling stated, so I guess my question was it was not your intent to subvert the Ordinance, but that you felt that it wasn’t apart of the Ordinance.

Chuck Ryan stated, yes.

Dave Scott stated, does it require a permit to paint a sign on the side of a building.

Director Weaver stated, well I will read you a definition of a sign. A sign defined in our Ordinance is a name, identification, description, display or illustration which is affixed to, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or piece of land which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization, or business. Then it goes on to say a sign shall not include - a. the display of official court or public office notices; b. the flag, emblem or insignia of a nation, political unit, school, or religious group; nor c. one located completely within an enclosed building, except signs located behind window areas intended to be viewed from outside the building.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything else to say?

Director Weaver stated, no not at this time.

President Thompson asked, Carol, Gary, Dave and Jeff any more questions?

Jeff Saylor asked, it specifically says a sign affixed to a building in the Ordinance? Is that correct?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Chuck Ryan stated, I believe what Diann just read was the definition of a sign. I pretty much agree that is what a sign is, but that does not provided anything that says this is a sign and this sign has to have a building permit. This is what we were tabling this for was to research that.

Director Weaver stated, I apologize. I did not research this any more than that.

President Thompson stated, I’m not sure I did either.

Dave Scott asked, was there any opposition to this sign being there from anybody outside of this?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Thompson asked, how do we want to address this?

Carol Stradling asked, is there a place in the ordinance where it says what a building permit is needed for?

Director Weaver stated, yes there is and I’m looking for it, but I’m not finding it.

President Thompson asked, Dave or Jeff to have anything to add to this?

Jeff Saylor stated, the only thing I would like to add to this is that Monticello continues to grow and develop and signs and the placement of signs will be a probably a bigger concern to the Board then it has been in the past. I just want to set a precedent here that may effect future decisions by the Board.

President Thompson asked, Dave any comments?

Carol Stradling stated, just maybe a statement that I understand where Mr. Ryan is coming from. I understand where Diann is coming from and I see the confusion.

President Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion or information? Is the Board ready to vote on the matter?

Carol Stradling stated, I’m ready to vote. We have outlined it. The signs that close are illegal.

President Thompson asked, Gary, Dave, and Jeff any other questions, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, I would like to read this to you before you vote. The reading of the structure and I don’t know if this has a baring. My recollection of the ordinance in here and I’m not finding it. It states any structure requires a building permit, and a definition of a structure is a structure needs a combination of material to form construction that is safe and stable includes among other things platforms, radio towers, shed, storage bins, fences and display signs.

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following

1. That the property is properly 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 238’ separation variance from an off-premise sign to the North and a 37’ separation variance from an off-premise sign to the South.

A part of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, described more fully as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the southwest quarter of said Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West; thence North along the centerline of West Shafer Drive and the West boundary of said section 21, for a distance of 1792.79 feet to the point of beginning; thence North along said section line and centerline of West Shafer Drive a distance of 200.00 feet; thence East a distance of 235.00 feet; thence South a distance of 200.00 feet; thence West a distance of 235.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said tract containing 1.079 acres.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located just North of Monticello at 1699 N. West Shafer Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 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.

Director Weaver stated, you do need to get a building permit


****

#2165 Armand L. & Phyllis A. Coppe; Requesting a 28’ rear (water side) setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Part of Lot 3 in Freeman View Subdivision 1. The property is located South of Monticello at 5171 S. Stone Drive.

President Thompson asked, sir you are?

Armand Coppe stated, Armand Coppe.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to present to the Board other than what has been presented?

Armand Coppe stated, when we put the home up for sale I became aware that it was not up to compliance with the zoning requirements, so I wanted to bring it into compliance and to satisfy a condition put on by the buyer for the sale. It was a continuance he put on. I was unaware that the home was not in compliance. It was not my intent to circumvent it. I was just unaware of it.

President Thompson stated, okay, we appreciate that. Diann do you have anything on this?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything from anyone. I would like to let the Board know that in doing research on this property that I did find an old building permit. I’m not sure this is not signed, but it appears to be a survey of the property showing that it is meeting the setback requirements. So I do not know who did this survey, but it does not coincide with the survey that you have in front of you tonight.

Armand Coppe stated, that is the same survey I had in my files. I never paid that much attention to it. It was in compliance. It wasn’t until much later that I found out that the survey is incorrect and that it was not in compliance.

Phil Vogel stated, I’m Phil Vogel, and I represent Armand and Phyllis and I think he is telling you the same thing that I would tell you. He started and got the building permit as you can see by the survey it was actually set up to be done that way and be in compliance. They lived in the Chicago area at time and got the building permit and the survey and the builder is the one who made the mistake several years ago, and didn’t build it the way it was suppose to be. As I take a look at the survey I think everybody has come a lot more aware in the last 2 or 3 years that it was the same builder I think was doing his house he did take anything on building trades. When it use to call for a 35’ setback they would measure from the road, and not the lot line. If you look when you think about how far he is back from the water, he probably thought that the lot line was down by the water front and not on top of the hill. That varies around the lake. Sometimes the lot line can be by the water and sometimes it can be clear up on top of the hill. I think just taking a guess at it that the builder assumed the lot line was down by the water and he is more than 35’ back and went from there. He really didn’t locate all of the stakes like he should have before he started building. We actually kind of questioned it at the start. We made anybody who looked at it aware that there is a possible encroachment in regards to setbacks and so really what we are trying to do is bring it in to compliance or get a variance so we are in compliance with the Area Plan.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address this either for or against? Are there any comments from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, is this encroaching on the SFLECC? We don’t need a letter from them that they were notified and have we heard anything from them?

Director Weaver stated, I believe that we did send them a letter and a gentlemen was in my office on another matter and mentioned this to me and stated that they did not have a problem with this. We always notify when we have a variance going towards the water.

President Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? Gary, Dave, Jeff Saylor.

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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’ rear (water side) setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance on Lot Number Three (3) in Freeman View, being a Subdivision of part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the West half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 26 North, Range 3 West, in Union Township, White County, Indiana, according to the Plat recorded December 28, 1971 at Plat Book 2, page 24 of the White County, Indiana Recorder’s records.

Except, a part of Lot No. 3, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot No. 2 (Southeast corner of Lot No. 3); thence North 29 Degrees 03 Minutes 06 Seconds East a distance of 166.96 feet; Thence South 71 Degrees 19 Minutes East along the Northern Indiana Public Service Company’s Property Line a distance of 7.72 feet; Thence South 31 Degrees, 38 Minutes West a distance of 168.52 feet along the original lot division line common to Lot No. 3 and Lot No. 2 in said Freeman View Subdivision as recorded in Record Book 2, page 24, White County Recorder’s Office, to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5171 S. Stone Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 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.


Armand Coppe stated, thank you.

****

#2166 Randy L. & Lisa D. Zarse; Requesting a 25’ rear setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing garage to the home and add a second story to the garage on 3.788 acres. The property is located Northwest of Chalmers at 880 W. 350 S.

President Thompson stated, go ahead

Randy Zarse stated, I’m Randy Zarse.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything extra, Randy?

Randy Zarse stated, no I don’t.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, I do not have anything on this. I do want to point out to the Board that they did come in and request to go ahead and put an unroofed patio in. We did issue a permit for that it does meet the setbacks for that. If this variance is granted tonight they are going to use that unroofed patio as their foundation.

President Thompson asked, when all said and done Randy everything will be tied together?

Randy Zarse stated, yes

President Thompson stated, that is what I thought.

Director Weaver asked, with the second story being over the garage?

Randy Zarse stated, yes. The patio will become the breezeway to attach the house to the garage.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here to oppose this variance? Are there any concerns from the Board? Carol, Gary, Dave, and Jeff.

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 25’ rear setback variance to build an addition to attach the existing garage to the home and add a second story to the garage on that part of the West Half (W ½) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section Sixteen (16), Township 26 North, Range 4 West, Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana, that is described and bounded by commencing at the Northeast Corner of said West Half (W ½) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section Sixteen (16); thence South 89 Degrees 49 Minutes 40 Seconds West along the Quarter Section Line a distance of 533.20 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South 00 Degrees 44 Minutes 08 Seconds East, a distance of 261.13 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 35 Minutes 47 Seconds West, a distance of 282.34 feet; thence North 83 Degrees 29 Minutes 09 Seconds West, a distance of 123.40 feet; thence North 71 Degrees 09 Minutes 14 Seconds West, a distance of 88.04 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 52 Minutes 40 Seconds West, a distance of 196.24 feet; thence North 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 22 Seconds East, a distance of 215.05 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 49 Minutes 40 Seconds East, along said Quarter Section line, a distance of 680.95 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 3.788 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located Northwest of Chalmers at 880 W. 350 S.

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 1010of 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.

Director Weaver stated, you do need to get your building permit.

****

#2167 Herman & Margot J. Gouwens; Requesting a 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance to build a detached garage on Lot 12 & 10’ off N/S Lot 11 in Edgewater Addition to Camp Reuben. The property is located in North of Monticello at 4756 Reuben Court.

President Thompson asked, sir you are?

Herman Gouwens stated, Herman Gouwens.

President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information sir?

Herman Gouwens stated, not at this time.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, we did receive a letter this morning. The Board does have a copy of this. It is from an adjacent property owner.

President Thompson stated, we do have a letter to the Area Plan Commission for lot #12. It says to Whom it may concern: I had planned to attend the meeting regarding the above mentioned case, but do to the hospitalization of a family member I am unable to do so. I do not oppose the variance, but have 2 concerns regarding the project. 1. Displacement of water runs off from the roof of garage or back of land. 2. The drawing shows garage one foot from the property line. Is this from the foundation or the eave? If the foundation is only 1’ from the line, then the eave would be on our property at 4701 N. Reuben. Thank you for taking this into consideration and please accept my apologies for having to address their concerns in a letter instead of in person.

Best regards, James W Wilson, 301 N Redland Lane, Muncie, IN. Is this an adjourning property owner sir?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, to which side of you?

Herman Gouwens stated, that is to the South of me.

President Thompson asked, could you answer the question that he is asking in the letter?

Director Weaver stated, the question he is asking about if the 1’ is from the eave or foundation our setback Requirements State it is from the eave. So the 1’ would have to be from the eve

Herman Gouwens stated, I could do that. As far as the run off goes, I can put gutters on the garage. I talked to him on the phone about a week ago and I told him the same thing.

President Thompson stated, I did not mention the date, so this is December 18. I did not mention that. Is there anyone else here care to address this variance. Any comments from the Board.

Director Weaver asked, this is a dead end road correct?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes.

Director Weaver asked, were you aware that you could possibly vacate that road?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes, I’m going to do that next month if I can. I already talked to a lawyer. I need a place to turn around back there, so I can turn a car around. It is only 35’ I believe across there.

Carol Stradling asked, is there a reason why you don’t set your garage back off of the road a little bit more?

Herman Gouwens stated, it is at the top of the hill and it has to be close to the road there.

Dave Scott asked, what about moving off of his property line? Is that because the way the land tapers? I mean you are just 1’ off of his property line. You can’t go to the North.

Herman Gouwens stated, I could, but the property is only 50’ wide there. I have to go down to the house with my golf cart.

Carol Stradling stated, we are looking at some pictures and there is a blue shed. Is that yours?

Herman Goumens stated, yes that is a temporary building for the golf cart. If I had the garage up I would have it in the garage.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, but that is not on your survey, but it is on your property.

Herman Gouwens stated, yes

Carol Stradling stated, if and when the garage goes up that shed would come down.

Herman Gouwens stated, yes

President Thompson asked, are there anymore questions?

Carol Stradling stated, we might be talking about 2 separate things. There is a blue box with some corrugated metal on it that is where you have your golf carts. There is a blue prefab shed with a oil tank on the side. Is that yours also.

Herman Gouwens stated, yes. That is an 8 x 12 shed for the lawn mower and tools.

Carol Stradling asked, would that one is going also? It’s not on your survey, so I would assume you are not going to keep it.

Herman Gouwens stated, it’s been there, I have had it for 3 years now.

Director Weaver stated, I did not realize it was not on the survey, or I would have had it corrected. I was just out to the property this week.

Jeff Saylor stated, if it is just setting on the ground does it have to be on the survey.

Director Weaver stated, you still have to have a permit. I mean we still regulate where they are located.

Jeff Saylor stated, I know that if it is not on the survey. It’s not actually a foundation and just setting in the yard.

Carol Stradling asked, so your intent is to keep that?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes, it’s been since I have been there. I didn’t know it wasn’t supposed to be there.

President Thompson stated, I don’t believe it’s a fact that it’s not supposed to be there. It’s just not on the plat. It’s not on what your surveyor has presented to us. Do you have the surveyor’s sketch?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes

President Thompson asked, how do we care to address this?

Dave Scott asked, how do we handle the neighbors concern of run off? I don’t have a problem with the variance just as long as we are not creating a problem for the neighbor.

Jeff Saylor stated, the issue of the storage shed seems more like an issue with the surveyor than the applicant to me. I don’t particularly have a problem with it on this variance request.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to mention to the Board I didn’t talk to the building inspector about this. I do believe this is a situation where he will probably be required to put in fire walls. I’m not sure, it’s a possibility.

Carol Stradling asked, because of the proximity too…

Director Weaver stated, to the shed.

Jeff Saylor asked, is that covered at the time a building permit would be issued?

Director Weaver stated, yes it can be. That is something I can check with the building inspector on.

Dave Scott stated, how do we make sure that he gutters this water off on the right directions.

President Thompson stated, we could pass this with a condition that he installs gutters. We can do that if you would like.

Dave Scott asked, could the building inspector take care of that?

Director Weaver stated, I can confirm that with the building inspector and it will be something that will be required. We can put it in as a condition.

Gary Barbour asked, how …..

Director Weaver stated, at one time we did have one like this.

Gary Barbour stated, I mean they’re both right there together.

Herman Gouwens stated, on the property line there is a row of trees there.

President Thompson stated, you would be willing to put gutters on the building.

Herman Gouwens stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, are you changing the elevation with back fill or are you going to have to level it out?

Herman Gouwens stated, I have to fill in the one side.

Carol Stradling asked, which is the neighbor’s side that is in question?

Dave Scott asked, but it won’t change the run off of the water over on to your neighbor?

Herman Gouwens stated, no.

President Thompson asked, how do we want to handle this? Do we want conditions or more than one condition with this?

Carol Stradling stated, the gutter is one thing and the back fill is another if it is not put in correctly then it could come off the road and go on to the neighbor. We can’t address that until it’s done. If you agree to if that occurs to do the proper drainage to satisfy your neighbor.

Dave Scott stated, before we have a condition here he has to have gutters. That doesn’t necessary mean a year from now that they will be maintained or anything.

Jeff Saylor stated, I think the only thing we can do is make the variance contingent on the fact that any water run from the construction of the garage is not channeled onto the neighbor and to the adjacent property and at such time when that occurs then the variance is void.

President Thompson asked, does everyone agree?

Carol Stradling motioned it.

Jeff Saylor seconds it.

The Board voted on the condition 5 affirmative and 0 negative.

Director Weaver stated, this variance would be conditioned that the water run off be directed to the owners property and if this is not done the variance will then be void.

President Thompson asked, do you understand this sir?

Herman Gouwens stated, yes sir.

Without further discussion the Board voted on the variance.

The Board finds the following:

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

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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ side setback variance and a 5’ rear setback variance to build a detached garage on Lot 12 and 10 feet off the North side of Lot 11 in Edgewater Addition to Camp Reuben in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 4756 Reuben 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.

****

#2168 Don & Pennelope Scharer; Requesting a 14’ rear setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the back of the home and to screen an existing patio on Lot #19 in Gingrich Addition. The property is located South of Monticello at 5906 E. Taylor Trail.

President Thompson asked, sir you are?

Don Scharer stated, I’m Don Scharer.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything you would like to the description?

Don Scharer stated, no I don’t. It is a dead end variance on the front and I think in time we could demolish that.

President Thompson asked, Diann did you get any responses from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no, I did not.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who oppose or care to address the variance either for or against?

President Thompson asked, any discuss from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, who owns the property on lot 18?

Don Scharer stated, we do.

Carol Stradling asked, was that always brick?

Don Scharer stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, you just did the brick?

Don Scharer, yes it was a summer cottage when we bought it.

Carol Stradling stated, it looked new. When I read it was built in 1959.

President Thompson asked, are there any other comments?

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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 14’ rear setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the back of the home and to screen an existing patio on Lot Numbered Nineteen (19) and Lot Numbered Nineteen A (19A) in the Gingrich Addition located in Township 26 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5906 E. Taylor Trail.

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 1010 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.


Director Weaver stated, you do need to get your building permit.


Don Scharer stated, thank you.


****

#2169 Clarence G. & Elaine F. Holmes: Owner, Troy Holmes: Applicant; Requesting a 2’ front (Lake Road 28 W) setback variance and a 10’ front (West Shafer Drive) setback variance to build an attached garage and a roofed porch onto the existing home on 2.42 & .004 Acres. The property is located North of Monticello at 4114 N. West Shafer Drive.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing the Holmes?

Troy Holmes stated, Troy Holmes.

President Thompson asked, you are Troy Holmes?

Troy Holmes stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, sir is there anything you would like to add to this?

Troy Holmes stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything on this?

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here speaking either for or against this variance this evening? Are there any questions from the Board?

Carol Stradling stated, its 22’ from the property line. How wide is the right of way for West Shafer dr.

President Thompson stated, I’m sorry Carol could you say that again.

Carol Stradling stated, the right of way for West Shafer Dr. In some of these pictures it makes it look a lot closer than it is.

President Thompson stated, repeat your question again.

Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m wondering how wide the right of way of West Shafer Dr is. Is it just 2 lanes?

Troy Holmes stated, the driveway must be at least 15’ because I measured from the house. The front of the house is 30’ from the right of way and is 45’ from the edge of the road. So I’m thinking the right of way is from the edge or the center.

Carol Stradling stated, the right of way is the amount of property owned by the roadway. So it’s the pavement and anything that extends on either side. On a state highway you are going to have a whole bunch on either side.

Troy Holmes stated, the 22’ that is showing on the survey is from right of way. I believe the right of way is like 15’ farther than the 22’. It’s a lot more like you said than what it looks.

Carol Stradling stated, so you are saying your house to the edge of the road is probably close to 45’.

Troy Holmes stated, yes, from what I can remember.

Carol Stradling stated, it does not look like that from these pictures.

Director Weaver stated, it’s up a hill too. I have an old survey there was another variance granted on this property, I have the old survey, and it doesn’t tell what the right of way is on that survey either.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Carol Stradling stated, no I just wanted to verify that distance.

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 2’ front (Lake Road 28 W) setback variance and a 10’ front (West Shafer Drive) setback variance to build an attached garage and a roofed porch onto the existing home on Tract 1

A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section Six (6), Township Twenty Seven (27) North, Range Three West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is South 0º and 32 minutes West 636.5 feet and South 89 Degrees 57 Minutes East 807.4 feet from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section Six (6) and running thence South 89 Degrees 57 Minutes East 487.3 feet; thence South 4 Degrees 25 Minutes West 141.8 feet to the Northern Indiana Public Service Company line; thence along said line South 69 Degrees 46 Minutes West 80 feet; North 86 Degrees 7 Minutes West 100 feet and South 19 Degrees 3 Minutes East 68.6 feet; thence South 8 Degrees and 10 Minutes West 31.3 feet; thence North 86 Degrees 50 Minutes West 67 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 41 Minutes West 127.2 feet; thence South 83 Degrees 30 Minutes West 108.1 feet; thence North 3 Degrees 52 Minutes West 267 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.42 acres more or less.


Tract 2

A tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows: Beginning at a point which is South Zero Degrees and Thirty Two Minutes West (S 0º 32’ W) Six Hundred Thirty Six and Five Tenths (636.5) feet; South Eighty Nine Degrees and Fifty Seven Minutes East (S 89º 57’ E) One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four and Seven Tenths (1344.7) feet and South One Degree and Eighteen Minutes West (S 1º 18’ W) One Hundred Nine and Four Tenths (109.4) feet from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) and running thence South One Degree and Eighteen Minutes West (S 1º 18’ W) Ten (10) feet; thence South Ninety Degrees East (S 90º E) Fifteen (15) feet; thence North Twenty Degrees and Fifty Eight Minutes East (N 20º 58’ E) Ten and Seven Tenths (10.7) feet; thence North Ninety Degrees West (N 90º W) Eighteen and Six Tenths (18.6) feet to the point of beginning, containing .004 acre more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 4114 N. West Shafer Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 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.

Director Weaver stated, you still need to get your building permit.

****

#2170 Gutwein Properties LLC; Requesting a 47’ front (County Road 100 S.) setback variance to put up a 6’ chain link fence and a 4’ separation variance for the grain bins on 11.39 and 5.509 acres. The property is located South of Monticello at 10 E. 100 S.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here representing?

Glen Hegewald stated, Glen Hegewald.

President Thompson stated, excuse me.

Glen Hegewald stated, Glen Hegewald.

President Thompson stated, yes and you are.

Glen Hegewald stated, a representative of the company.

President Thompson asked, but in what position?

Glen Hegewald stated, engineering manager.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else you would like to present to us at this time?

Glen Hegewald stated, no.

President Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, no I don’t have anything to add.

President Thompson stated, this is basically a property menace. Right, am I reading that right? Is there anyone here to opposes it or in favor of the variance?

Charles Mellon stated, that is in Reynolds, South of Reynolds.

President Thompson stated, it is we need to change that. You are right. You mentioned that earlier, but I might add to the record that the property is located South of Reynolds at 10 E 100 S.

Director Weaver stated, just to let the Board know everything else is correct.

President Thompson asked, is there any discussion from the Board?

Carol Stradling asked, have you looked at the survey? There is 3 lines running parallel. One would be the property line and then it says purposed fence line, which is a dash and an X. Then closer to the building is another dash with a dot. What is that dash with a dot.

Glen Hegewald stated, the original application Diann might have to help me on this was for a 47’ front setback variance which is represented by the surveyor where is says proposed fence line. The other one was shown farther back, but it is the one in the front that we are applying for.

Carol Stradling asked, so you are not putting up 2 fences?

Glen Hegewald stated, no ma’am.

Carol Stradling asked, and there is not a fence there now?

Glen Hegewald stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, but you want the one that is closer to?

Glen Hegewald stated, the one that is shown on the application.

Director Weaver asked, are you going to have gates on the drive?

Glen Hegewald stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, is it going to go all around the property?

Glen Hegewald stated, no ma’am just the front.

Carol Stradling asked, it is chain link so people will see through it?

Glen Hegewald stated, yes.

President Thompson asked, are there any other discussions or comments?

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, General 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 47’ front (County Road 100 S.) setback variance to put up a 6’ chain link fence and a 4’ separation variance for the grain bins on Tract 1:

A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 26 North, Range 4 West, in Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at an iron stake at the Northeast corner of the above said Section 4 and running thence North 89 Degrees 15 Minutes West along the Section Line 454.7 feet to an iron stake on the East right-of-way line of the Monon Railroad; thence South 1 Degree 7 Minutes East along said line 1122.7 feet to an iron stake; thence South 90 Degrees East 431.95 feet to an iron stake on the East line of the above said Section 4; thence North 0 Degrees 3 Minutes East along said line 1116.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 11.39 acres, more or less.


Tract 2:

A tract of land in the North half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 26 North, Range 4 West, Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana and being part of the lands as described in Deed Record Book 194 Page 157, White County Recorder’s Office, more fully described by:

Beginning at a Stone located at the Northwest corner of the North half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 3; thence North 88 Degrees 23 Minutes 37 Seconds East along the Section Line and the Centerline of Shields Road a distance of 300.00 feet; thence South 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 43 Seconds East a distance of 800.00 feet; thence South 88 Degrees 23 Minutes 37 Seconds West a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 00 Degrees 38 Minutes 43 Seconds West along the Section line a distance of 800.00 feet to the point of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Reynolds at 10 E. 100 S.

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 1010 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.


Director Weaver stated, you need to get your permit.

****

#2171 Greg & Jerrielyn Jacobs; Requesting a 22’ front setback variance to build a boat house on 1.108 Acres. The property is located South of Chalmers Road and East of Oakdale Road. The access for this property is off of County Road 775 North in Carroll County on Upper Hambridge Drive.

President Thompson asked, you’re Greg Jacobs?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes I’m Greg Jacobs.

President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add?

Greg Jacobs stated, no only that there are 2 shown there, but we are 99% sure we are going to go with the optional one. The one that is attached to the house.

President Thompson stated, say that again now option 1 you say.

Greg Jacobs stated, we have one to the South that is separated from the house and should be labeled as optional. We weren’t sure at the time when we put together which way we were going to go. We still are not 100%, but we are not going to be putting in 2 boathouses. You see the one that is extended out from the house if we do the optional one that will just be a screened in porch. It’s right back at the setback line.

President Thompson asked, anything Diann?

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

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to address the variance?

President Thompson asked, any questions from the Board?

Dave Scott asked, is the variance effected by which boat house he goes with?

Director Weaver stated, no the request is the same regardless of which one he goes with. I don’t know if it is necessary that we condition it say which boathouse.

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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 22’ front setback variance to build a boat house on part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 26 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:


Commencing at a monument at the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; thence North 88º15’00” (assumed bearing) along the section line for 1,209.30 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 1º45’00” West for 25.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 50.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve 62.84 feet through central angel of 72º00’35”; thence North 42º46’49” East for 232.09 feet to the SFLECC line; thence along said line South 74º43’42” East for 110.00 feet; thence South 4º53’42” East for 165.81 feet; thence South 33º05’42” East for 47.12 feet to the section line; thence South 88º15’00” West for 267.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.108 acres, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Chalmers Road and East of Oakdale Road. The access for this property is off of County Road 775 North in Carroll County on Upper Hambridge Drive.

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 1010of 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.

Director Weaver stated, you still need to get your permit.

****

#2172 David M. & Kathleen S. Shepler; Requesting a 30’ front setback variance and a 7’ side setback variance to remove the existing decks and replace them with new decks and a screened porch on Lot #6 in Amos Oak Crest 5th Addition. The property is located just South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4352 E. Oakcrest Drive.

President Thompson asked, you are?

David Shepler stated, I’m David Shepler.

President Thompson stated, you are David Shepler and do you have anything sir that you would like to include.

David Shepler stated, you guys are on a roll. I hope it keeps going.

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

Director Weaver stated, no, he does have a letter from the SFLECC, so he has been in touch with them.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here who cares to speak either for or against? Are there any concerns from the Board?

Jeff Saylor stated, it is nice to have this in front of us before it is built instead of after it is built.

President Thompson stated, yes well said.

Without further discussion the Board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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

6. That the request is for a 30’ front setback variance and a 7’ side setback variance to remove the existing decks and replace them with new decks and a screened porch on Lot 6 in Amos Oakcrest Fifth Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located just South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4352 E. Oakcrest Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 1010 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.

Director Weaver stated, you do need to get your building permit.

David Shepler asked, how late are you open tomorrow and what will the cost of the permit be?

****

#1 Toledo, Peoria, and Western Railway Corp., Right Angle Media, Inc., and Hawkins Outdoor Advertising, LLC; Appealing the decisions of the White County Area Plan Commission and Common Council of the City of Monticello, Indiana in refusing to issue and/or denying their application dated 8/23/02 for the issuance of an improvement location permit and certificate of occupancy and require the White County Area Plan Commission to issue the applicable improvement location permit and certificate of occupancy to the appellants.

President Thompson asked, do I need to read this since there is no one here for this?

Director Weaver stated, no. The only thing we need to do we have a requested continuance on this due to the fact that we do not have an attorney here tonight. The only thing needs to be done with this is Jerry needs to sign the approval.

President Thompson asked, do you feel we need to read this into the record?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, he read the above #1.

Director Weaver stated, again we do have a motion of continuance.

President Thompson asked, should we table this?

Director Weaver stated, this is what this is doing. This is continuing this until our January meeting.

Charles Mellon asked, Jerry have you guys done anything with that when it was brought up first in this office? It went to the city council I happen to be at that meeting and the city council they were awful rude to that guy as far as I’m concerned. Loy just said right away we have an ordinance against that and that is it and it will not be voted on. Are you talking about 2 members of the city council?

President Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I believe no one is present tonight because of the continuance.

Carol Stradling asked, I do have a question, and Charlie you might know, was that Ordinance passed on 1st reading or were they able to do 3 readings?

Charles Mellon stated, I think that was brought up to the city council more than once. They didn’t even act on it. Those guys were there I’m sure, twice. I don’t know why there were there if it hadn’t passed this office.

Director Weaver stated, it didn’t have to come to this Board. Standard procedure for a sign is to go through the City Council for approval first so it did not require a variance.

Charles Mellon stated, oh. They were real short with those guys that night. He got right up and stomped out.

Carol Stradling stated, they passed an ordinance about the signs.

Charles Mellon stated, yes they have a city ordinance.

Carol Stradling asked, was it standing before these folks applied?

Charles Mellon stated, no I think so. They just didn’t make an ordinance. It was already in effect.

Carol Stradling stated, what we are looking at indicated that there. Monticello created that ordinance October 2, they adopted the ordinance this year.

Charles Mellon stated, well that could have been.

Carol Stradling asked, what meeting where you at Charlie?

Charles Mellon stated, I think that meeting. There was one of those meetings it says in August. I think there was another one after that ordinance was adopted.

Charles Mellon stated, about 2 months ago you had a fine $200 for the builder and $200 for the property owner, and then tonight you set a precedent of $500 for the property owners. Now what is the difference and another thing I thought that $500 for a little stiff for a screened in porch. It wasn’t a house like the other guys was, but a little screen in porch to my notion is a little stiff. I agree with Saylor’s proposal that he but in and I think that all the guys fines should be the same and alike. Now if you are going to start going $500 that is well and good for just a property owner, but here 2 months ago you fine one $200 property and $200 for the builder.

Director Weaver stated, that was probably prior to our motion that was adopted.

President Thompson stated, 9 times out of 10 Charlie this is intended to go to the contractor. We can not direct it directly to the contractor, like we discussed.

Charles Mellon stated, well that is just opposite of what you did tonight. You directed it to the owners.

President Thompson stated, because the owner is the applicant, see you don’t have the contractor applying for it.

Charles Mellon stated, Diann might be right, it might have been before you changed it.

President Thompson stated, you are here, you know how many violations there are.

Charles Mellon stated, oh, I know that. You guys are out in the country and I could report a lot more.

President Thompson stated, I’m sure you can.

Dave Scott stated, I disagree with the idea that we charge everybody $500 because just like you said a minute ago there are big differences in screened in porch and a house. I have been thinking about this a lot and I would like to see other than us have to set here struggle with whether issue a fine or not. Any violation that comes across the Board maybe deserves some kind of a fine. Probably since last meeting we ding Dave Annis $700, well 3 or 4 issues later there is a fellow who pulls a mobile home on his property and is running his business out of it, and everything else and he gets nothing. Both of them are violations, one guy gets a death penalty and the other guy walks. Now I would have like to have said something, but I didn’t think the violation the farmer had was worthy of a $500 either. I would have thought a smaller fine would have been more appropriate. I didn’t know that fella, but I knew he was in violation, so and he knew he was in violation. He knew he put the trailer in there.

Director Weaver stated, the trailer is still there to this day.

Dave Scott stated, at the time he needs to be fined because he operating without a permit. $500 to me was a lot of money. Most of these people are just out there trying to improve their property.

President Thompson stated, that is true, but don’t you think we should put it up there to get their attention. There isn’t anybody here who enjoys that.

Dave Scott stated, I know that. The Annis thing, it took 15 minutes before Carol finally said we have got to fine this situation. Well we are setting up here struggling nobody wants to say it. If you come in here and its deemed. If Diann says there is a violation here on our sheet here some sort of fine should be given.

Jeff Saylor asked, isn’t that in place now? $500 automatic fine.

Dave Scott stated, then we didn’t apply it. Like tonight there was a violation, maybe a minor one but a violation.

Charles Mellon stated, is it the 1’ from the property line?

Director Weaver stated, the guy with the sign. I think what Dave is getting at and I kind of agree. I think maybe if the Board isn’t going to impose that $500 fine you need to make a point in this situation which is not to impose the $500, so it doesn’t appear that the Board is ignoring their own motion.

Jeff Saylor stated, I think most of the motions that are here tonight are those are building permits that were acquired before the Ordinance was voted on at the last meeting. In subsequent meetings the building permits had been acquired and hopefully the will receive their notice of the fine.

Dave Scott stated, if my neighbors over here and I know him and he is a good friend of mine and he is in direct violation. It’s tough for me to set up here, be the spokes person, and say $500 fine for him. Now if we come in here and it’s on this paper that there is a fine.

Board is having a discussion.

Jeff Saylor states, at the tail end of the ordinance it says the Board retains the rights to either increase or decrease or eliminates, I’m not sure of the exactly wording of the fine.

However, I’m not sure in this particular case there was not an automatic fine in place. I’m not sure when that building permit was issued.

Carol Stradling stated, they didn’t have a building permit issued. That was the whole thing. They have a contractor who knows that a building permit should be issued and he built it and didn’t see one there. The homeowners saying that it’s my fault, I should have gotten one. Yes somebody should have gotten it, but this guy is out there making money building.

Dave Scott asked, how do you fine him?

Carol Stradling stated, well you can’t.

Director Weaver asked, why can’t you, we have done it? We have fined contractors before.

Dave Scott asked, I guess how do you collect it?

Carol Stradling stated, but maybe we shouldn’t have.

President Thompson stated, per Jeff it won’t go to the contractor.

Jeff Saylor stated, I still maintain that if you want to make something stick it’s got to be with the name on the building permit. That is the only thing with a paper trail. After that it’s between the name on the building permit and contractor that did the work. It’s between those parties.

Dave Scott stated, I guess what I would like to see I guess my original statement was instead of us hem hawing around here. It’s not what are we going to do, the question ought to be how much is the fine going to be, if they are in direct violation. It’s tough for us to set up here.

Carol Stradling stated, it makes you feel that I’m after you.

Gary Barbour stated, and every situation is different, they’re all not clear-cut, and dried. I understand what Charlie is saying about a screen porch and a home. The same time it is a violation.

Dave Scott stated, everybody has his or her story. Violation is a violation.

Gary Barbour stated, and every individual case is going to be different.

Jeff Saylor stated, the fine is $500 and it is already in place by the time the meeting starts.

Dave Scott stated, and I do not like that. You know if you get a traffic ticket in our town. You come in and pay your ticket. If you are 0 to 5 over it cost you $80, if your 10 to 20 over its spelled out. When you come and pay your ticket, according to how fast you were going that is how much you pay.

Jeff Saylor stated, then at that point if you don’t like it is when you need to speak up at the meeting. Say $500 is too much I think it should be $100.

Dave Scott stated, see the problem now is we have a person make a motion to fine a certain amount of money. Maybe there should be a discussion period or something. The other part of this is everybody needs to be on the same page.

Director Weaver asked, what if Gary or myself brought it up after it’s read and at that point say this is subject to our $500 fine?

Board is discussing this.

Dave Scott stated, it’s a violation and then we can discuss it from there, whether he has been in violation for 3 months maybe it needs to be more like the fellow here tonight maybe it should be less.

Gary Barbour stated, even if somebody makes it’s a motion. That does necessarily mean that’s it. Before someone seconds it, you don’t have to vote on it. If I say $500 and you say no I think we ought to discuss it. I don’t take that personal, I mean this is business.

Carol Stradling stated, you just have to start somewhere.

Gary Barbour stated, if you think it should be $100 or $200, I don’t have a problem with that.

Dave Scott stated, I just think it would be easier for someone when they read the variance to say what the fine is going to be, or like Diann said this requires a $500 fine and then we can work from there. Then I don’t have to set up here and say that is a violation I think that is worth $500. This guy is looking down my throat.

Charles Mellon asked, you’re saying it’s the Director who should put that out? Then you guys should vote on it.

Dave Scott stated, I don’t think it should be a question if there is a fine or not. It should be.

President Thompson stated, then we could address it accordingly.

Jeff Saylor stated, the hardest part of this whole thing over this last year has been. When you know there is a fine to address and you’re looking up and down the table and what should it be and who is going to make the motion. I think hopefully right now its been taken out of that and its already automatic and then it just let's the Board decide whether they want to leave it there or whether they want to change it.

Director Weaver stated, I did just have a thought. Jerry Altman did it one time suggest that we consider changing the way we do our agenda also to where we have the request separate from the violations. Would that be helpful?

Carol Stradling stated, I think we’ve gotten that down, now that we know that they are 2 separate things.

Director Weaver stated, he thought they should be broken down on the agenda.

Jeff Saylor stated, if the building permit holder is notified of the fine. That document can be attached to the paperwork that comes with it, so you know there is a fine in place with it.

Dave Scott stated, I think what he said would have some merit because we would address the fine and the violation.

Carol Stradling asked, so Gary are you saying do all of the violations first?

Gary Barbour stated, yes.

Everyone is talking at once.

Gary Barbour stated, do them separate then you can vote on them once the violation has been discussed.

Carol Stradling stated, I think sometimes what you hear pertaining to the violation has to do with the variance.

Charles Mellon stated, most of the violations are on the permits. Sounds like right here you have more discussion coming up on a violation. Maybe that will help things out.

Jeff Saylor stated, as someone comes up on the agenda then you first address their violation if there is one, and then you go right into their variance and then you move on to the next case.

Dave Scott stated, address them separately. Did any of you folks didn’t think that the Wiese were out of compliance or had a violation last week.

Director Weaver stated, I did. Its been sitting there since July and it is still setting there.

Dave Scott stated, and they are using it.

Director Weaver stated, yes they are using it, and it was there before they came in and applied for the permit.

Dave Scott stated, if the guy pulled it in, but it was sitting on blocks and has skirting and they’re using it.

Gary Barbour asked, weren’t they told after they got the variance that they had to come in and get a building permit?

Director Weaver stated, they haven’t yet. They have to have a State permit first. We tried to look on the website for the state today to see if they have even submitted. We were not able to find anything, not meaning no they haven’t submitted, but we were not able to find anything one way or the other. I don’t know if they even submitted to the state as of yet. They can not get our permit without the State permit and I can’t say they have even applied.

Dave Scott stated, see if I knew the guy sitting out here in the audience, and I got fined $500 for doing something and then 2 things later this guy walks. I would be upset.

Carol Stradling asked, why didn’t you say thing?

Dave Scott stated, because I didn’t think the infraction was bad enough to warrant a $500 fine.

Carol Stradling stated, so you didn’t want to reduce it. You didn’t feel that you could reduce it.

Dave Scott stated, I don’t want to fine anybody, but on the other side of that. That is the only way Diann can get her job done.

President Thompson asked, Diann you travel the road and you need to keep us informed?

Director Weaver stated, I travel the road and they were in there tonight on my way here. The lights were all on in the trailer.

Carol Stradling stated, if they are still there next month, and we haven’t heard anything from them, then we need to remember that and we need to consider fining them. We didn’t fine them at the time they said they would take care of it and they have not. They are now definitely out of compliance as to what we agreed to.

Dave Scott stated, I would just like to make a point that we treat everyone the same, and treat everybody fairly. A violation is a violation, one might be worth $10.00 and the next worth $1000.

Charles Mellon stated, what is Wiese’s biggest problem. He is running a business down there now. He has a dispatcher and he doesn’t have a permit for anything.

Director Weaver stated, no not for his work trailer.

Director Weaver stated, I have a question about still with this motion on how I someone who is wanting to appeal the fine that was imposed on them. They have already come to the Board and they are coming back in January. Can they just appeal it at that time?

Carol Stradling asked, is that the one from Chicago?

Jeff Saylor stated, I think in the ordinance it was, they have 60 days to appear before the Board, so they would come back and present their case to the Board with the fine still being in place. It would just be up to the Board. Their next choice would be to sue. Like they would challenge a decision made by the Board.

Carol Stradling asked, do you keep track of whom we fine?

Dave Scott stated, the other thing about having separated the fines from. It’s not personal that way. They are not mad at Gary for saying it deserves $500. It is the system they should be mad at. The way it is now when you recommend a $500 fine that guy doesn’t like me.

President Thompson stated, they look at the person that is nearest to their part of the county.

Dave Scott stated, and if it comes from up here that there is a violation and we are going to address it. We are just putting a price tag on it. That way someone down here doesn’t have to say that is a fine and we are going to have to fine you.

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s an ordinance.

Dave Scott stated, it’s the system that is what happens when you break the law you go through the system.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver stated, yes one more thing. Signs. I need you guys to give some thought, I’ll give you a month to think about it, and we will bring it back up next month. We have too separate situations that we need to address and I need direction on how to address these. 1. We have a building that has had lettering put on it to make the side of the building an off premise sign. We need to decide how we are going to handle that. Are we going to consider that a sign or are we going to make meet the same as an off premise sign. 2. We have another situation where it was an on premise sign and it has not been structurally altered at all has been repainted and is now an off premise sign. I need direction from this Board on how to address these.

President Thompson stated, by next month.

Director Weaver stated, if we could, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, on next month’s agenda?

Director Weaver stated, no, this is just something I need directions from the Board on how the Board wants me to handle these situations. There has not been any permits issued for either one of these, and I know one is probably not meeting the separation requirements.

Carol Stradling asked, these letters on the building are they painted on or?

Director Weaver stated, no they are actual letters attached to the building.

Dave Scott asked, how do they handle this at other places? Do you have any ideas?

Director Weaver stated, I have no idea at all.

Dave Scott asked, can you maybe call Lafayette or Jasper county or another county to see or get ideas on this?

Director Weaver stated, I can. We are going to have to go within our ordinance too. Our ordinance is different.

Carol Stradling asked, the one that is an on premise signs that became off premises? Is it entirely off premise or is there just a little blurb there.

Director Weaver stated, off entirely. I don’t believe there is a business there anymore. It was a resort.

President Thompson asked, is there anything else? It’s that time of year again, January. Need to start campaigning. To the office while we are on the record thanks to the ladies in the office. All of the ladies in the office.

President Thompson stated, Jeff again thank you. A thanks is not enough.

Jeff Saylor stated, it’s been a pleasure working with each and every one of you,

President Thompson stated, I know it has been fun for me because I’ve always known there has been a good mind and a good imput down here at the end of the table.

Jeff Saylor stated, I appreciate that. Each one of us has brought our own unique perspective to this Board and each one being a little different then the one next to them, it has all meshed well and its worked well. It has been a pleasure for me. Thank you.

Director Weaver stated, Jerry Altman wanted me to apologize on his behalf for not being here. He would really like for you to stop by his office sometime.

****

Jeff Saylor made motion to adjourn.

Carol Stradling seconded the motion.


The meeting adjourned.


Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission