Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Visitors attending were: Steve Pacey, Barbara Cree, Ward Cree, Rick Read, Debbie Read, Claude Fowler, Patty Fowler, Henry DeParis, Matthew Land, Dave Anderson, Gary Harrison, Leonila Harrison, and Paul Spass.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2357 Stephen R. & Brenda J. Pacey; The property is located on Lots 48 and 49 in Gingrich Addition, South of Monticello at 5295 S. Gingrich Court.


Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 1.9’ elevation variance to build a new home on the property.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is anybody here representing this request?

Stephen Pacey stated, I’m Stephen Pacey.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything that you would like to add?

Stephen Pacey stated, yes, I have some exhibits that I would like to submit. I should have made extra copies.

Attorney Altman stated, okay for the record we have received a survey requested by Stephen Pacey dated January 30, 2003. It is a survey by James Milligan and it is marked Exhibit 1.

Stephen Pacey stated, Mr. Altman I intend to identify them one by one as I go on, if you want to identify them that is fine too.


Attorney Altman stated, I think I will just get them all. The next one is a photograph Exhibit 2, another photograph of petitioner Exhibit 3. We have petitioner’s exhibit 4, which is another site improvement survey for setback request. There is a letter I think we have this in the file from the Department of Natural Resources dated March 3, 2004, no the request was received then. The letter is dated April 7, 2004 signed by Andrea S. Gromuaex that is exhibit 5. That is part of that exhibit would be showing the National Flood Insurance, panel number 508 and a list. Then we have photographs exhibit 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 with a platted it appears, or a partial platted Gingrich Subdivision which is 13 continued on to 14. These are being accepted into evidence.

Stephen Pacey stated, madam chair person I hope that my remarks do not go too long. It is my understanding after talking to Mr. Anderson that this not the garden-variety request and there maybe some implications for precedent depending on what action you take on that. If I go to long let me know and if there are any questions please interrupt me.

I was reminded again when Mr. Altman made the comment about a quasi-judicial body, as a quasi body it is your job to determine facts and apply the law. In this case that the flood hazard ordinance. Anytime that you engage in that process it is always nice to do the right thing. I hope to persuade you the right thing is to grant this variance and you can do that consistently with your duty to determine the facts and apply the ordinance. Exhibit 1 is the initial survey that we got from Mr. Milligan and 3 things that I want to call your attention to on that survey. 1. The elevation of Lake Freeman, which he indicates, is 613’ I think that is reasonable to assume from what we know the rest of Lake Freeman is also approximately 613’. The house or the stakes that he put in the yard, which is about 10’ inside the property line, the top of that stake is 615.7’. The other thing I want to call your attention to the East of our lots is the frontage, which now belongs to the Shafer/Freeman Lakes or SFLECC formally belonging to NIPSCO. You might note that area is larger than our lots. That is consistent with the frontage going North from our lots. Exhibit 2 is a picture that my son and I took of that stake in the yard. The top of the stake is approximately 7 ½” from the ground which would indicate if you do the math that they yard is about 615’ in elevation. Exhibit 3 is another photograph I took and my 12-year-old would appreciate if you don’t publish this photo beyond this meeting. He is standing next to the survey stake. You can see if fairly clear on the original photo. It is not so easy on the other photo. If you are lining up the shaded area on the left hand portion of the picture and lining the site forward to the black object on the neighbors patio, which is a cover on their grill. That is the approximate front line of our lots. You can see from looking at that, that the area of the front part of the lot as well as the other lots is approximately 615’ elevation. In the background of that photo you can see some houses, which are farther on to the North, which is the area commonly known as the point in lower Gingrich addition. In discussing this with Ms. Weaver and Mr. Anderson who is here. I don’t think I’m misrepresenting when they agreed just by looking at it. You can tell that the level of the land as well as the location of the lots and houses north from our property is well under flood protection grade which is 619.1 and most of it is most likely 617.1 which is the flood protection grade. That is the one determined by the DNR. Exhibit 4 is a more recent survey, which indicates the location of the proposed improvements. You will note that most of the proposal improvements lie on the portion of the lot, which is below the flood plan of 617’. It is in the neighborhood of 615’. The 5th document that you already have in the file because they sent you one, is the DNR determination of the flood plain. I understand that you can’t argue with the Federal Emergency Management authority known as FEMA or the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

The reason why I requested this was, I told Ms. Weaver when I filled out the application, is it didn’t take much at looking at the shaded area of the map which you have in your records and which the DNR sent to me and to you to show that this is in the flood plain. The reason I requested it was because I have a copy of the former owner of lot 50 just to the North who has a determination that they are not in the flood plain. I was not surprised when it came back and said it was in a flood plain nor was I surprised when I called the contact person and asked how do you determine this? I was told well look at page 2, which is the shaded gray map and we determined that you are in the flood plain. If you look carefully the shaded gray area you will find that portions of the road that goes up out of lower Gingrich addition which are well over 630’ in elevation is not in the flood plain. That is neither hear or there. The point I want to make to you is and you might find this kind of unusual. The flood plain is really irrelevant as far as this ordinance applies to Lake Shafer and to Lake Freeman. It is very useful tool if you are talking about other areas in the flood area. It is basically irrelevant related to Lake Shafer and Lake Freeman. You don’t need to rely on antidotal memory of people like my uncle or other senior citizens that have been around since the beginning of the lakes and tell you that the lake level has never been at 619’ or 617’ or 615’. The way it you determine that it really isn’t relevant is to go to the NIPSCO web site and NIPSCO web sites tells you that the normal pool of Lake Freeman is 612.6’ which is consistent with what Mr. Milligan says. The NIPSCO web sites also tells you that they maintain the lake level plus or minus 6tenths of a foot. So NIPSCO management of the level of Lake Freeman doesn’t very often exceed 613.25’. The reason why that is the case is because NIPSCO tells you that these are not flood-controlled dams. That is not the purpose for which they were constructed. These are what are known as run of the river dams. It is water in and water out. If you go by a boat just down above Oakdale or Norway Dams and notice that the gate is less than a foot above the water level, that is because when the lake rises they raise the gate up a level. NIPSCO web sites tells you that the average water flow through the Oakdale dam is 1713 cubic feet per second that is the average water flow. Their web site tells you that the maximum estimated historical volume of water going through that dame was in June in 1958, I presume after a big rain. When 20,500 cubic feet per second went through the dam. The web sites tells you that the level of the dam is 623.1 exactly 4’ higher than your flood protection grade. I have no idea how that 619’ was arrived at. NIPSCO also computes not the flood plain, they do what is called an extreme flood event. The extreme flood event is the level of water coming into the lake that they can not discharge through the dam. The maximum amount that they say they can discharge through the dam is 50,000 cubic feet per second. Almost 2 ½ times what their highest recorded rate. At 50,000 feet per cubic second the water level would raise and go over the 623’. What NIPSCO doesn’t tell you is what I presumed they also computed and not willing to admit that if you got a dam which is designed for run of the river and not flood control. If the level of the lake goes up 4, 5, or 6’ feet the dam is going to give in well before the water goes over the dam. I say that not because I want you to argue with FEMA or DNR, I say it because the flood plain the 617 figure the 619 figures does not really relevant to the level of Lake Freeman. To get a variance under your flood hazard ordinance you have to comply with Section 10. Section 10A tells you that there are 3 criteria’s that have to be meet. Good and sufficient cause, exceptional hardship caused by strict application of the ordinance, and granting the variance will not increase flood heights or threaten public safety or cause additional public expense, nuisances, etcetera. Discussing this with Mr. Anderson I think we are in agreement that this proposed variance is not going to increase flood heights or cause danger to public safety, etcetera. I think category 3 is satisfied. I want to come back in a minute to good and sufficient cause. The other portion of Section 10, which must be complied with, is Section 10B. There are 6 criteria’s there. B1 says that you can’t have a variance for residential use in a flood way and subject to 7A or 7B. Discussing with Mr. Anderson I think we are in agreement that 7A and 7B does not apply. 7A applies to the flood way not flood plain and 7B says accumulative effect of the development can not increase the regulatory flood elevation of more than 1 tenth foot. I don’t think there is any danger that this project is going to increase that. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of 10B are not really applicable because they apply to floodway and to someplace that is on a historic register. Paragraph 5 and 6 of 10B are conditions that you set on a variance. The operative portion of the ordinance is 10b 3. which says that you can grant a variance or exception to the Building Protection Standards of Section 8 which is the flood grade of 2’ above the 100 year flood level if there is a new structure located on a one half acre lot or less, which our lots are less than the one half acre. That are contiguous to and surround by lots with existing structures constructed below flood protection grade of 619.1. I don’t think there is any dispute and if you look at both the picture and #3, which shows the houses to the Northerly section and #6 which also shows the same houses. That is on the northerly border of our property. Those houses and lots are well below 619.1’. Obviously SFLECC is to the East of our lots, the road going into lower Gingrich is to the West of our lots and exhibit 7 is a picture of the lot to the South of our lot, on which Pat Adkins are constructing a new structure. The picture I took was taken on Labor Day weekend after the filing of the application there is a foundation there. I have talked to Mr. Anderson and I think that foundation is probably at flood grade protection or 619.1. Apparently sometime between the taking of that picture and today’s date it is a lot closer to being a structure than when I took the picture. I’m not sure when it was in that condition last week when this was originally scheduled. I don’t think that makes any difference, I think what applies here is the condition at the time of the application. The reason that I suggest to you is there are a couple of analogies. If we had a obtained a construction permit the day before this flood hazard ordinance went into effect we could have still went ahead a proceeded to construct the house with respect to the ordinance. This ordinance itself or the variance procedure calls for notice to adjoining property owners. You notice them at the time of the application not if someone buys or sells at intervals. I don’t know exactly what is all involved in rules in Indiana, but as a general rule I don’t think the county council or the Commissioners can change an ordinance after someone has applied for relief under that ordinance in such a way as to deny the opportunity for relief. I think you can find the requirements of 10B are meet at the filing of the application.

Which brings us back to good cause and extreme hardship to grant the variance. If you will look at picture 8 that is a view of our lots from the SFLECC frontage looking Westerly. It is continuous to the road coming down into lower Gingrich, but there is no access. For access you need to look at the next set of pictures which are 9, 10, 11, and 12. Those are all houses at elevations northerly from our property. In picture 11 in the distance you can see the houses down on the point and I don’t think there is any dispute that those houses and those yards are below flood protection grade. On the right hand side of picture 12 you can see a couple of faint tracks in the grass that is the route by which we have obtained access to our property since it was purchased by my great grandfather and great uncle in the 30’s. That is simply a grass track, which comes along the frontage. Exhibit 13 shows a plat of the Gingrich addition. There are 3 lots that our Southerly from our lots which have a frontage of approximately 140’, that gets us to a little road that is going down in the middle of lower Gingrich called Clapper court. To the North of us is Southern lots with a total frontage of 350’. Exhibit 14 is an easement, which we now have for egress or ingress from either direction. We have to go approximate 140’ from the South access or 350’ from the North access to get to our property. Exhibit 14 is an easement, which we obtain after considerable effort and expense because at the time when the property was transferred to the Lakes Corporation, they didn’t want to provide us access. Any farmer could have told you that if someone had been using an access way for 65 years that they had a use of that access whether they had it in writing or not, but it took considerable expense and Appellate court decision to get that easement. Even with the easement I’m not sure why we would want to go 350’ on the grass roadway or 140’ on the grass roadway to get to our property so we could have a garage on the lakeside of the property. If you back at exhibit 4 we went to access from the West of the road which comes down into Gingrich. To do that we need to ask you to give us a setback variance to get a driveway off of the road into a garage. In order to get a garage and the elevation of the Southwest corner of, pardon me the Northwest corner of our property, which is about where the power pole is on exhibit 8. It is 630’ at the Southwesterly corner which is going up the hill, which is closer to 638’. We are already going to have to fill in a considerable portion to get a foundation to have a garage that we can get access off of the road coming down the hill. My contractor estimates to fill in the yard, we won’t have to fill in the whole yard but a considerable portion of the yard which is 615’ of elevation to do that to 619’ is going to require probably as much as 200 cubic feet of fill. The cost to construction of our house for that fill would be at least $20,000 additional cost. The other alternative of course is to elevate the foundation for the house 4’. If we do that we loose the benefit of being able to build a basement level and it will increase our construction cost if we still do a three-story residence by probably $45,000. We will simply be building a floor on top of the foundation as opposed to be building in part of the hill at essential lake level. What I mean by Lake Level is I’m talking about the lot not the actual water of the lake. That is our dilemma and that is why we are requesting the variation. I forgot to tell you the extreme flood event that NIPSCO calculates is not based on the 100-year flood, according to NIPSCO web site they think the extreme flood event would occur once in 5,000 years. I don’t think it will ever flood, that is why we are asking you to grant this variance. I only wish that I had asked for you to grant more of a variance I realize that I’m probably stuck with the 617’. After learning more about the NIPSCO operation and the dam, elevation of the lake, I would prefer to build at 615. I’ll take my chances and I know you will put a condition on there and give me a letter saying I’m in a flood plain. I’ll take my chances and my wife will take the chances that in the next 4, 920 years that we are not going to have an extreme flood event where this lake will start filling up. I’m sorry for taking a lot of time. I apologize to these people that are waiting. If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to try to answer them. I think there is good cause and I think there is hardship if we have to elevate our. People do not buy and maintain lake level lots so that they can fill them in or put them up on 4’ foundation. I think we comply with the ordinance and I ask your consideration.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, any questions from the board.

David Scott stated, maybe, just a minute.

Stephen Pacey stated, don’t think it could be that thorough sir.

David Scott asked, you want your house to be at what level?

Stephen Pacey stated, we requested 617.2, which is one tenth of a foot above the flood plain.

David Scott asked, the 100-year flood plain?

Stephen Pacey stated, the 100-year flood plain. Like I said I wish I just said I’d take 615 or 615.5. I requested that before I had the information on NIPSCO.

David Scott stated, the 100-year flood plain comes from the DNR.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Stephen Pacey stated, the purpose of the 100 year flood plain is one of the few things that the government does that makes sense, I agree with it and for every other body of water or running water in White County it makes sense. It does not bare any logical relationship to Lake Freeman or Lake Shafer. The reason I point that out is the precedence you are setting here is in the future is people with lake level lots are going to build or construct something new. You are either going to be requiring them to fill in their lots or elevate their houses. You are going to be setting a precedent that you are going to grant some relief that they don’t have to do that. I don’t think you are going to find too many people who have investments in lake level lots who are going to want to put their houses on 4’ foundations or fill in their yards.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I don’t think filling in the yard would be an option. If you are building in a flood plain you need to allow that area for the water to fill in. Putting more dirt there will in essence negate the purpose of having a flood plain that you shouldn’t be building in.

Stephen Pacey stated, I wanted to mention that because under Section 8 of the ordinance that, you can fill in, you got all kinds of requirements. I believe that is an option. I agree it doesn’t make much sense. To fill in 4’ of dirt and then dig down 3’ to put a footing for a foundation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

David Scott asked, you are 617.2 will be the floor level of the house?

Stephen Pacey stated, that is the lowest floor level.

David Scott asked, the lowest floor level in your house? A finished floor level?

Stephen Pacey stated, yes. Well at this point we want to build 3 floors. Take advantage of the hill.

David Scott stated, bottom floor though, this 617 will be the bottom floor, the finished level of the home?

Stephen Pacey stated, a finished floor, the other option is we will put it up on a 4’ foundation and only be able to build two stories. Then we loose the benefit of being on the sloping lot, which is essential lake level. If we get to lower it we get the benefit of building part way into the hill. Considerable less construction cost.

David Scott stated, I’m not trying to talk against what you are doing here, I know exactly what you are saying, but in light of what is happening here in White County in the last, I’d like to be real careful about what we approve. I live in a Town where these people would be, wished they had put their houses up out of the flood plain.

Stephen Pacey stated, I understand, that is why I went through a long explanation, I’m willing to wait for the Second Coming of Noah. I don’t think it is going to happen. I don’t think NIPSCO would take the chance of the lake going that high because the dam might give away. I’m not the scientist, but I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if you raise the level of Lake Freeman from 613, 4 or 5 feet, the weight of that water against Oakdale, or Norway Dam, the weight of that water against an earthen dam which was not designed for flood control, which is 80 years old, I don’t think NIPSCO would take that dice roll. They are going to continue to let water go through the dam.

David Scott stated, the way the dam is built, it could get up to 619.

Stephen Pacey stated, no, NIPSCO says it is water in and water out. They try to maintain the level at 613. The more rainfall there is the more water they let through. They just raise the gate.

David Scott stated, when they raise the gate all of the way up, what is the maximum they can hold.

Stephen Pacey stated, 50,000 cubic square feet.

David Scott asked, what level?

Stephen Pacey stated, I can’t answer that. What NIPSCO tells me is that they will allow 50,000 cubic feet per second through the gate to try and maintain the level at 613. The most that they have ever had to let through was in June of 1958, that is when they let through 20,000 cubic feet per second.

David Scott asked, is that when the 100-year mark was set?

Stephen Pacey stated, I have no idea. I don’t know.

David Scott stated, I would be curious to know what the maximum height would be if they would hold the dam back. The maximum height would be.

Stephen Pacey, I suspect they have computed that, but they won’t tell you.

David Stimmel stated, you said what the height of the dam was.

Stephen Pacey stated, the height of the dam is 623.1. Something tells me that they wouldn’t risk the dam holding that much water. That would be 10’ more water in the lake, pressing against an earthen dam which is not designed for flood control.

David Scott stated, you are telling us that the finished floor would be a couple of tenths above the 100-year flood plain.

Stephen Pacey said yes, I probably should have said 617.4.

David Scott asked, is that wood or concrete?

Stephen Pacey stated, it will be a concrete floor. It will be a big rec. room. Depending on what you do right now the size of our house is about between 4200/4300 square feet on three levels. They have to put it up 4’ then we are probably not going with three levels.

David Scott stated, no, I’m fine with what you are doing, I just want to make sure that you are with the 100-year flood. If it were a wood floor then I would question being that close.

Stephen Pacey stated, that is why I said 617.2 because, designed purposely to be just above the 100-year flood plain because I know that you can’t fight with FEMA. I wish I had asked for less but you probably wouldn’t have given me that so.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, Mr. Anderson have you been out to this site to see it.

David Anderson stated, yes I have.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, would you care to make any statements or add your expertise to the matter?

David Anderson stated, my name is Dave Anderson. I have met Mr. Pacey at the site. I agree with the 617.2, this is a precedent and I understand what he is saying about NIPSCO. NIPSCO does not regulate this ordinance. I could agree with what he is asking for on the variance, but anything less than the 100 flood which is… As far as determining what the elevation is, somebody asked the question. I don’t have any idea. I mean it has never been up that high. Possibly a foot and it may have been to 614, but 100 years is coming up here pretty close and we have another 18 or 19 years if that. I’m fine with what he is asking for.

David Scott stated, can we require that any wood part of the structure be...

David Anderson stated, I understand what you are saying to keep all of the materials above the base flood elevation. If his slab is there, I haven’t talk to him yet or seen his drawings yet, but most structures on a slab do have a short area.

David Scott asked, are you going to set this on a slab and then are you going to have a couple rows of blocks or wood plate going to be right down on the slab?

Stephen Pacey stated, I anticipate that we are going right on the slab. The slab is going to be just above 100-year flood plain. There will be some post for the deck, which will be wood. I can’t tell you that those will be above, those will have to be set in the ground.

David Scott stated, my concern is wicking, if you have your plate setting right down and the water happens to come up, I would like to see concrete or block.

David Anderson stated, to let you in, by code there is 6” difference between the siding and the dirt elevation. Wherever the siding comes down to, the dirt has to be at least 6” down. That may take care of what you are asking for.

Stephen Pacey stated, I’m not, I understand your concern, if NIPSCO let's that lake get up to 615.

David Scott stated, I don’t even care about NIPSCO, I’m going by the 100-year flood.

Stephen Pacey stated, I understand, you know the shoreline of the lakes. I understand what the 100-year flood plain is and I don’t think it will ever get there. I don’t think NIPSCO can afford to let it get there. They would have more complaints then their power rates.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there anymore questions?

Attorney Altman stated, I have a couple. Looking at 7B-1 talks about the total cumulative effective proposed development in line with any other development, all of these lots where put in at this level. Is there any increase in the regulated flood elevation? Do you have any idea? In other words if all of those lots were put in at that level they would increase the regulated flood elevation?

David Anderson stated, no, I didn’t look at that.

Attorney Altman stated, it wouldn’t raise it at all, okay. Would there be any increase in any flood damages or potential flood damages, if this whole subdivision were put in this way?

David Anderson stated, no.

Attorney Altman asked, if they were to raise the level to the height of requirement, that probably would be in fact raise the flood level?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, if they had to fill it in.

David Anderson stated, Mr. Altman I’m looking at this when you say raise the flood level, you are talking from Oakdale Dam all the way to Norway Dam. Yes it is a lot of dirt in a small subdivision, however, spread out over 13 square miles is... I don’t know how you would measure it. I just don’t think there is much there.

Attorney Altman asked, would it increase the flood heights if they grant this variance or create an additional for the public safety.

David Anderson stated, it would displace water someplace else, yes it would. That is the safest way to answer that.

Attorney Altman asked, by granting the variance wouldn’t do that would it?

David Anderson stated, as far as I’m concern no.

Attorney Altman asked, it wouldn’t causing any additional public expense or cause a nuisance or cause a fraud or eviction or conflict with any existing law or ordinance.

David Anderson stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, thank you very much. The lot is I understand will be on the sewer lines.

Stephen Pacey stated, I have a letter from the Twin Lakes Sewer district.

Attorney Altman stated, you understand that there are two lots here and if the variance is granted both lots are locked together and they can not be sold.

Stephen Pacey stated, I only signed up for one sewer line.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand I just want to tell you.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there anymore questions.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 1.9’ elevation variance to build a new home on Lots 48 and 49 in Gingrich Addition in Union Township, White County, Indiana.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 5295 S. Gingrich Court.


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

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

Attorney Altman stated, you must get your building permit before starting. I do believe even though it took quite a while to handle this, this is the first one we have done. I think it is real important that they board have a well organize presentation to assist us in bringing this up to speed.

****

#2358 Michael & Connie Lehe; The property is located on 10.277 acres, between Reynolds and Wolcott, North of U.S. Highway 24 at 367 N. 400 W.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 320’ separation variance from a dwelling not located on the same tract.

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


Mike Lehe stated, I’m Mike Lehe.


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


Mike Lehe stated, I’m not sure what you have in your file that explains the building, but what we are trying to do is put another hog barn next to an existing hog barn that is 6 years old. It is located away from our farmstead on a non-tillable piece of ground. It has its own driveway, well, utility, so it is a separate entity and I think it must be a 1,000’ from our house because we want a 320’ variation. That other barn has been there for 6 years, it has been working real well. It is nice to kind of have it away from the farmstead, yet close enough it is accessible to do chore work. I guess I would just like permission to put another barn next to the one that we have. We have received our IDEM permit, received our drainage and then this is the next step to get the local permits. IF you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.


David Scott stated, 360’ is away from your house?


Mike Lehe stated, no it is a 1,000’ from our house and your code as I understand it requires it to be 1320’, so it is 320’ closer than it is suppose to be.


David Scott asked, is this your house?


Mike Lehe stated, that is my house. My wife and I own this building. The home farm is the adjacent property of which we are one of the owners of the home farm and we are the only people that live in that house. We have been living there with the other building.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is yours the closest residence to this property?


Mike Lehe stated, yes.


Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so everyone else is farther away.


Mike Lehe stated, yes.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, all of the others are within the 1320’?


Mike Lehe asked, the others.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, all of the others are on the outside of that?


Mike Lehe stated, yes.


Currently going over the pictures.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the board?


Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any comments from the audience?


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 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 320’ separation variance from a dwelling not located on the same tract as that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana described by:

Commencing at a survey nail at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence South 01 Degrees 04 Minutes 09 Seconds East along CR 400 W and the section line 513.86 feet to survey nail and the point of beginning;

Thence North 88 Degrees 00 Minutes 53 Seconds East 1339.17 feet to a corner post; thence South 01 Degrees 06 Minutes 07 Seconds East 383.36 feet to a corner post on the North right-of-way line of the T.P. & W Railroad; thence North 87 Degrees 47 Minutes 32 Seconds West along said line 1341.41 feet to the section line; thence North 01 Degrees 04 Minutes 09 Seconds West 285.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10.277 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located between Reynolds and Wolcott, North of U.S. Highway 24 at 367 N. 400 W.


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

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


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


****


#2359 Ward Larell & Barbara A. Cree; The property is located on Part of Lot 7 in Silver Camp Addition, South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4289 E. Silver Camp Court.


Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ rear setback variance and a 2’ East Side setback variance to bring the existing mobile home into compliance.

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

Larell Cree stated, I’m Larell Cree. We recently purchased this small lot with an older trailer on it. The roof had been leaking so we wanted to replace that. Applying for a permit to do a roof over it, we would change the roofline. We were notified that we needed to get this variance for a 10’ setback for the rear and 2’ on the eastside to bring the trailer into compliance.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the board?

Director Weaver stated, we did have a neighbor come in an inquired about the request, I don’t believe they are here tonight. We must have answered their questions.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you really aren’t changing anything, you are just putting on a new roof and to bring that into compliance.

Larell Cress stated, yes, we want to add a roof over and add 2 x 4 to the exterior walls so we can insulate it, it doesn’t have any insulation.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, any comments or questions from the board? Anyone from the audience?

David Scott asked, what if they want to pull this off and put a new one in? Does that setback stay with that or does it, or would they be required to come in and get another one?

Director Weaver stated, the key is, they can’t put anything larger in there. The request is for this size of a mobile.

David Scott asked, so this would stay with this size of mobile home.

Director Weaver stated, right.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are we ready to vote?

Gary Barbour asked, is this 6’ on the side and 10’ next to the existing structure.

Larell Cree stated, yes.

Gary Barbour asked, does this accommodate this.

Director Weaver stated, I wasn’t aware of the 2’ x 4’ going down the side, so I can’t answer that.

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Cree are the 2’ x 4’ on the inside or the outside?

Larell Cree stated, the would be outside the floor line, if this trailer has extra siding that has been put over it, the over all increase would be minimal.

Attorney Altman stated, what we are trying to say that what you have asked for and what the survey shows and you’ve got to be very careful that you don’t do different from that and cause yourself to have a violation. That would cost you $500 per day and so you want to check and make sure and that you don’t get in that position. Gary is just trying to check because we don’t know. You better have it checked by Mr. Milligan.

Gary Barbour stated, what you are asking for here, you have to be 6’ and 10’ from the property lines. You can’t be any less than that if you are adding to the outside of the structure.

Larell Cree stated, we want to make sure that it is at that point.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything else?

Director Weaver asked, does he want the board to vote on this or does he want the board to table it?

Larell Cree stated, oh I will hold it at the 6’, whatever it takes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, you feel sure you can do that.

Larell Cree stated, oh yes.

David Scott asked, you are putting trusses and shingle roof on it? What about the overhang?

Larell Cree stated, well the overhang will have to stop at the 6’.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 10’ rear setback variance and a 2’ East Side setback variance to bring the existing mobile home into compliance on Lot Number Seven (7) in Silver Camp Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, Except: Beginning at a ½ inch iron pipe at the Northwest corner of the above said Lot #7; thence South 12 Degrees 38 Minutes West 98.64 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot #7; thence South 76 Degrees 58 Minutes East 16.00 feet to a ½ inch iron pipe; thence North 03 Degrees 25 Minutes 49 Seconds East 100.04 feet to the point of beginning.


COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4289 E. Silver Camp 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


Attorney Altman stated, make sure you get your building permit before you proceed.

****

#2360 Henry L. Jr. & Deborah J. DeParis; The property is located on Part of Lot 158 in Barr’s Addition and part of a vacated roadway, in the City of Monticello at 221 S. Bluff Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 32’ front setback variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to put up a 4’ and a 6’ fence.

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

Henry DeParis stated, I’m Henry DeParis. Am I correct that you have the information that I submitted at the time of the application?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we have a copy of the survey.

Henry DeParis stated, I was told that Area Plan would take photographs. Did they do that?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, yes they have.

Henry DeParis stated, I have additional ones for more clarification. Other than that I’m open for any questions. We just want to run a fence on the property line.

Attorney Altman stated, let me show you the photos that we have, that way you can make a decision.

Director Weaver asked, what other information did you submit to us.

Henry DeParis stated, whatever was required,

Director Weaver stated, the property record card. All of that information is in the file, but we don’t send that to the board. It is in the file.

Attorney Altman stated, the survey you had done by Mr. Milligan was circulated to the board members.

Henry DeParis stated, if there are no further questions.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I guess I’m wondering the 4’ fence would be on the North side of the property.

Henry DeParis stated, yes and partially on the South side. Basically the 4’ fence would run on the North side of the property beginning on the West End which is even with the porch running at a 4’ level until it starts to go into the gorge. Then we would adjust the height to no more than 6’ as we need to down to the property line at the end. On the Southern side beginning also at the western edge even with the Eastern side of the front porch running East 4’ level to the West side of the garage. It would only be after the East Side of the garage that we would request the 6’ fence. The main reason for the 6’ there is I need to stop animal traffic and kid traffic. There is a path worn through there. That hill is deadly to and until we can get some stairs in there I would like to stop the traffic that is going through there.

Director Weaver stated, I did get a picture of the bottom left of your pictures that is his garage and that is the end of the road showing, I believe the drop off is pretty close to that garage. That is what I was trying to show.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, this fence really wont’ come in front of the porch?

Henry DeParis stated, no ma’am. From the photos the colors to the house would be as far West as we would go. We just figured that would be a nice place to tie it in.

Attorney Altman asked, what kind of fence?

Henry DeParis stated, it would be wooden, my wife has not decided yet. Actually if I need to declare that, it might be wrought iron. She makes it I fix it. Decorative type picket, possible wrought iron. When we get to the back it will be wooden privacy fence going down the hill.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there anymore questions?

David Scott asked, is Jefferson Street vacated?

Director Weaver stated, part of it is.

Henry DeParis stated, I actually have the subdivision plan and it shows the street continues all the way to the water. From the pictures you can see that it does not.

Attorney Altman asked, is your lot line go to the Tippecanoe River?

Henry DeParis stated, there is a small section that NIPSCO.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, SFLECC.

Attorney Altman stated, you know you can not go beyond your property line.

Henry DeParis stated, yes.

David Stimmel asked, why would that not show up in the survey?

Attorney Altman stated, that is why I asked the question.

Henry DeParis asked, the road?

David Stimmel stated, no, the SFLECC property line.

Henry DeParis stated, I know there is a part because when we purchased the house it was that and the other. I guess when the house was originally built the guy just disregarded the lot line and went to far South. We had those questions. We were not going to buy a house that NIPSCO could come in anytime and so. It took a lot to get it figured out. I think it runs at the angle 6’ to 10’, but I’m not sure.

David Scott asked, don’t we need to see that on the survey? He needs to know where it is.

Attorney Altman stated, I think when you get your building permit you better bring a survey showing that part of it. I think we can proceed based on the fact that they are not going any closer than the property line.

David Stimmel asked, is that just a question of Mr. Milligan? Is that really all it is or not?

Attorney Altman stated, I think it is a question for Mr. Milligan, but when they get the building permit they have to have something to show that or otherwise, Diann doesn’t know how far the building permit is good for.

Henry DeParis stated, when we purchased the property I had extra pipes ran because eventually run a fence to the hill. One on each corner would not do it, and the ones on the eastern edge are the end of the property line. I know somewhere I guess on the plat it does show that strip, so that would be no problem to submit that.

Director Weaver asked, does the your subdivision plat you have does it show that by chance?

Henry DeParis stated, no I don’t think so. I don’t believe it does.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, on the survey it is referring to plus or minus 10’ it looks like to the edge of the waterway from the last iron pipe. Then the lower, the southern boundary is plus or minus 3’ to the waterway. Does NIPSCO or SFLECC own on the river or is it just on the lake.

Henry DeParis stated, I don’t know.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, this area I don’t think is, this area is considered.

Attorney Altman stated, it is very close.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know where their area begins.

Attorney Altman stated, all I mean to say is I’m not saying where it is, I’m just saying that if it is there they can’t build on it. It isn’t their property.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with you, around the Bluewater Beach area they do not own anything.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, there is an area that NIPSCO doesn’t own the water front because that was not created by the damming of the river. They own the frontage when the lakes were created, but they don’t own the property adjoining the river.

Henry DeParis stated, I was under the impression that we were on the river part, I don’t think I have ever seen anything official, but I would like to find out, if I could go all the way to the water that would keep the dogs in.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I can’t answer that one, but I’m not sure that NIPSCO owns that area along the river.

Henry DeParis asked, can I get the variance granted tonight?

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we can grant you the variance to the property lines, but not on someone else property. Once you determine that.

Henry DeParis stated, one final question. If this is granted how long to I have before I actually apply for the building permit?

Attorney Altman stated, if you get your survey tomorrow morning.

Henry DeParis stated, that is the problem, we live in Illinois.

Attorney Altman stated, you can wait, you said how quick?

Henry DeParis stated, no how long, I was wondering if there was a time limit.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, he doesn’t have to apply for the permit for a year, but once he applies he has a time limit to finish that.

Director Weaver stated, yes, they have to start within 6 months and have 2 years to finish.

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 32’ front setback variance and a 6’ rear setback variance to put up a 4’ and a 6’ fence on Lot One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) in Barr’s Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana, except that part thereof heretofore conveyed to the Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company, as shown by Deed Recorded in Deed Record 122, Page 215, also EXCEPT a strip of ground fifteen (15) feet in width off of the entire North side of said Lot (156) feet in addition, deeded to Harry Boothroyd etux and recorded in Deed Record 130, page 626.

Also, a strip of ground twenty (20) feet in width lying South of Lot Number One Hundred Fifty-eight (158) in said Barr’s Addition to the Town, now City, of Monticello, Indiana, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 158, running thence South along the East line of Bluff Street in said City a distance of Twenty (20) feet, and running thence East to the land owned by the Indiana Hydro-Electric Power Company; thence North along said line of said Power Company, to the South line of said Lot 158, and running thence West along the South line of said Lot 158 to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 221 S. Bluff 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 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

#2361 Matthew Land; The property is located on Lot 55 in Parse’s Forest Lodge 2nd Addition, North of Monticello at 5183 N. Crabapple Loop.

Violation: None

Request: He is requesting a 2’ North side setback variance and a 1’ South side setback variance to build a room addition and bring the existing home into compliance.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anyone representing this?

Matthew Land stated, I’m Matthew Land.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything that you care to share with us?

Matthew Land stated, no I think I have got everything in that I need.

Director Weaver stated, we do have a letter from the Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District.

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

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any questions from the board? You are not extending the addition any further than the existing edge of the house?

Matthew Land stated, no side by side, no.

David Scott stated, the people to the South of him do they, were they notified.

Matthew Land stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, should have been yes.

Attorney Altman stated, there are a lot of encroachments going around there.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, yes, am I reading that properly Diann, that.

Matthew Land stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, your neighbor’s house and shed are on your property.

Matthew Land stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it looks like, is that your shed.

Matthew Land stated, there is a concrete pad and a shed, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we don’t need anything from SFLECC for the shed? Is that your shed or the North Neighbor’s shed?

Matthew Land stated, that is my shed.

Director Weaver stated, we are not dealing with the shed.

Attorney Altman stated, you don’t, sometime wonder why, but since it is not being changed or added onto I think it is relevant procedure. Leave it alone and they just can’t do anything with it.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, all right. Do you understand that we are not and we don’t have the authority to approve the current position of your shed and the concrete landing, so what we decide tonight won’t affect that one way or another. It may come up at some other point and time. I don’t know what SFLECC is considering or what the neighbor considers. We are not considering that tonight.

Attorney Altman asked, the improvements that you are putting on, are they going to be the same roofline as the present home?

Matthew Land stated, no, it will come in at an angle.

Attorney Altman stated, single story.

Matthew Land stated, 2 story.

Attorney Altman stated, so it will be bigger.

Matthew Land stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, are you on the sewer system?

Matthew Land stated, yes.

David Scott asked, Diann when you were out there did you happen to notice if it blocks the view of the house to the South there as far as seeing the lake or the water or anything.

Director Weaver stated, I didn’t go on the waterside because I thought this addition was going between the garage and the house, I can’t answer that.

Matthew Land stated, there is a concrete slab there and I’m not going any farther than that.

David Scott stated, I just want to make sure we are not blocking your neighbor’s view here to see out onto the lake.

Matthew Land stated, it is not much of a view, it is a canal.

David Scott stated, it says Lake Shafer here.

Matthew Land stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, if you look at the front of your staff report, it says how to get to the property. Those boxes should be fairly accurate to help answer your question.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, are there any other questions? Dave? Any other comments from the audience?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 2’ North side setback variance and a 1’ South side setback variance to build a room addition and bring the existing home into compliance on Lot Number Fifty-five (55) in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 5183 N. Crabapple Loop.

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

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


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

****

#2362 Paul J. & Staci A. Spass; The property is located on Lot 4 in Fairview Subdivision, South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4465 E. Penrod Drive.

Violation: None


Request: They are requesting an 11’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, and you are sir?

Paul Spass stated, I’m Paul Spass.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything that you would like to add?

Paul Spass stated, two things that I would like to add, the two houses to the left of me, the 2nd to the left and 2nd to the right of me their structures are actually 6’ from the road and we are asking for 12’. We are not looking to extend it pass what they are.

Director Weaver stated, I did get pictures to show them.

Paul Spass stated, there is a one-car garage there now and basically I want to take that down and not come any farther than what that one care structure was. I just want to bring it across the property line.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the one car garage is coming down and then you will build an addition that would include that the area that the current garage is in, plus some.

Paul Spass stated, correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you won’t come any closer than the existing garage?

Paul Spass stated, correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it appears that there are some that are right on the property line up the road.

Paul Spass stated, yes, I measured two of them today. I believe we are at 12’ right now.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we are looking at a letter from the Twin Lakes Sewer District.

(The letter from Twin Lakes Sewer district was read)

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, you are planning on hooking to the sewer line?

Paul Spass stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, that may be some time down the road, that is not an area that they are doing at this time. It has been explained to him that his permit will not allow him to occupy the home until it is put to the sewer.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, occupy the home or the addition?

Attorney Altman asked, is this single story?

Paul Spass stated, no it is two stories.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, any questions from the board?

David Stimmel asked, Mr. Spass if that building remains next to you, that shed on your neighbor to the East catches on fire, that is going to put you in a little bit of predicament.

Paul Spass stated, well that is actually going to be moved.

David Stimmel stated, he is going to move it.

Paul Spass stated, no, the house will not be that close.

David Scott asked, you are moving your structure?

Paul Spass stated, yes, to the West.

(They are currently going over the survey)

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, will you be leaving the current house structure in place or will that come down?

Paul Spass stated, no we are leaving the current house structure there.

David Stimmel stated, what Mr. Spass just told us he is going to following the East line of the house that is going to be the East line of the garage.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, that does not jive with the survey.

David Stimmel stated, that does not go with the survey.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the drawings that we have for your floor plan.

Paul Spass stated, those were given before the variance. It was actually approved and then for some reason it wasn’t approved.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so you will actually be smaller than the print on the survey?

Paul Spass stated, correct.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, we can’t approve anything any bigger.

David Stimmel stated, this 5’ side setback variance is for what? The East Side?

Paul Spass stated, with the addition with what we are going to do is within I won’t need a variance for either side. We are not coming into.

David Stimmel stated, you will need the rear setback then.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the North arrow is up side down. North is not the top of the page.

David Stimmel stated, I thought it was up.

Attorney Altman stated, normally it is.

David Stimmel asked, what is the West Side setback suppose to be?

Director Weaver stated, it is to be 8’ and he has the 10’ on the other side.

David Stimmel stated, so are we voting on an amended variance then?

Attorney Altman stated, yes. It would only be for the rear variance.

Director Weaver stated, so you are saying that you are going to meet the 8’ on each side, we just asking for the rear.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, so the variance will just be for the rear setback.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for an 11’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance to build an addition onto the existing home on Lot 4 in Fair-View, a Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, the plat of which is recorded in Deed Record 122, page 1987, in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowe’s Bridge at 4465 E. Penrod Drive.

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

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

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

****


#2364 Gary W. & Leonila J. Harrison; The property is located on Lot 47 in O.P. of Norway, North of Monticello at 1905 N. Buckeye Street.

Violation: None


Request: They are requesting a 15’ front setback variance to put a carport on the property.


Vice President Carol Stradling stated, I’m assuming that you are representing this request.

Gary Harrison stated, yes.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, if you would please come forward and state your name.

Gary Harrison stated, my name is Gary Harrison and this is for a 20’ x 21’ steel carport.

Attorney Altman asked, for a garage?

Gary Harrison stated, it is a carport.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, the survey says garage, but you are not enclosing it, it is going to be a carport.

Gary Harrison stated, right.

Director Weaver stated, that is how the request was done, it was a carport.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, and that won’t be any further or any closer to the road than your house or the neighbor’s house.

Gary Harrison stated, absolutely not.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, it is set back about 15’.

Gary Harrison stated, yes, Buckeye Street, is actually called Buckeye, years back it was Norway. It is Buckeye and there is a 66’ road there.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything else Diann?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Vice President Carol Stradling asked, does the board have any questions? Anyone in the audience have any questions?

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 15’ front setback variance to put a carport on Lot Number 47 in the Original Plat of Mount Walleston, now Norway, White County, Indiana (Union Township).

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 1905 N. Buckeye Street.


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

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

****


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, how are you folks this evening?


Rick Read stated, I’m Rick Read and I came because of a variance for 2363, which was withdrawn. I still had some questions regarding procedures.


Attorney Altman stated, we can talk procedures only.


Rick Read stated, procedures. I understand. Sign posting that is required for a certain period of time or a certain location. Can you tell me what that is?


Director Weaver stated, 10 days.


Rick Read stated, 10 days.


Director Weaver stated, 10 days prior to the meeting.


Rick Read stated, notification of the variance hearings.


Director Weaver stated, it has to be mailed 10 days prior to the meeting.


Rick Read asked, to who?


Vice President Carol Stradling stated, to adjoining property owners.


Director Weaver stated, to adjoining property owners.


David Scott stated, adjacent or adjoining?


Director Weaver stated, adjoining.


David Scott stated, across the street is adjoining.


Director Weaver stated, this board has determined that across the street is considered adjoining.


Rick Read stated, we heard from a neighbor and I didn’t know how wide that was done.

I guess all of the petitions were granted this evening and I was wondering what grounds would be considered or would result in a petition not being granted.


Attorney Altman stated, we don’t know that until we see it.


Rick Read stated, until you see it. There seems to be a lot consideration for neighbors and others that oppose the variance. I would assume that you apply a lot of weight to that.


Attorney Altman stated, we listen to it, that is the best that I can tell you. It is like anything else, until we see it we can not judge it. Just like any other Judge, you can’t know your decision is until you know the matter and the merits.


Rick Read stated, all of these had to do with certain zoning regulations and restrictions. Are those available so I can get them?


Attorney Altman stated, you go to the White County Area Plan Commission tomorrow and get a copy.


Rick Read stated, one of the things that calls for some concern is in the subdivision that I live in is being able to cut trees and dig basement foundations and so forth before getting a permit. Since it is a high bank on Lake Freeman there has been a lot of concern about erosion and problems that would cause a lot of damage. In fact one of those properties has suffered a great deal of damage. I’m wondering how can I go about asking the County to change the procedures so that before a permit is issued that the plans, they can’t cut trees and digs holes. Have SFLECC permit in place what ever is required for that portion of it. How would I go about that?


Director Weaver stated, that would require a change of ordinance because at this time we do not regulate that.


Rick Read stated, so that would have to go to Commissioners?


Director Weaver stated, Area Plan Commissioners initiates the change in the ordinance.


Rick Read stated, Area Plan. So I would submit it to you.


Director Weaver stated, then I would take it to the Area Plan Commission, which is the other board. We have two boards.


Rick Read stated, yeah, I don’t understand how we do things, this is why I’m asking the procedure questions.


Director Weaver stated, yes, we have two boards.


David Scott asked, a person can start a basement without a permit?


Director Weaver stated, they can do excavation work without a permit, they can not pour concrete or anything, but they can start excavating. We do not regulate that.


Rick Read stated, so what we are thinking is that some people can get themselves into trouble at there site as far as preparation stand point and then not be able to build the structure that they thought they were going to put up. That doesn’t seem logical.


Attorney Altman stated, all I can tell you is that is what it is.


Rick Read stated, yes, okay.


Attorney Altman stated, we can’t go through the merits.


Director Weaver stated, I would just like to let you know that that request has been withdrawn and a permit has been issued for that property.


Rick Read stated, a building permit has been issued.


Director Weaver stated, yes it has.


Rick Read stated, that particular property is probably best that they do something, build something quickly. There is another one that is in trouble from an excavating standpoint. We are already there. I’m thinking about the future and other properties.


Vice President Carol Stradling stated, does the drainage.


Director Weaver stated, I’m not so sure that the, that might be something you check with the building inspector and see, I know once a permit is issued then he does regulate, I think he does regulate some of the situations. You might talk to Dave Anderson.


Rick Read stated, he may regulate.


Director Weaver stated, he might, I’m not sure.


Rick Read stated, then we have some subdivision covenants that I’m told are not enforceable through the county.


Director Weaver stated, that is right.


Attorney Altman stated, they are private restrictions, you have to do that yourself. We don’t enforce those.


Rick Read stated, okay thank you for your time.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, how are covenants regulated?


Attorney Altman stated, private.


David Stimmel stated, so it would be a civil matter.


Attorney Altman stated, yes a civil matter.


Vice President Carol Stradling asked, is there anything else?


Director Weaver stated, I gave two of you books tonight. We had our meeting last night with the County Commissioners for our consulting firms for the new ordinance and this is one of the booklets that one of the consulting firms left us.

Gary Barbour stated, this is actually the better of the two that gave presentations. The other person that gave the presentation actually gave us an update of the last ordinance that was 9 years old.

Director Weaver stated, he wouldn’t acknowledge it either. We also got our budget back and we did get money for security and I have talked to John Roberts the Sheriff about that. He said since it was for the county all we need to do is simply provide him with the dates of our meetings and he will provide us with a Deputy of some kind. A very simple procedure.

Vice President Carol Stradling stated, what I’m looking at here is lots of graphics, I like them, but how do they apply to the ordinance.

Director Weaver stated, those graphics are what they have done in other areas. I just handed out more minutes for you to review for the next meeting.

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission