Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, August 18, 2005 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 David Stimmel. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Richard Singer, Charles R. Mellon, Terry Beasy, Noel F. Lyons, Deanna Pass, Bruce Kercheval, Judy Kercheval, Mary Dishinger, Gerald Dishinger, Danny G. Martin, Ruby Deweese, Arthur Siegfried, Paul Keilman, Charlotte Keilman and Chris Brennan

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken. David Scott made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the Memoranda July 6, 2005 meeting. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2443 Gerald L. & Mary E. Dishinger, Owner, Stevenson Construction, Applicant; The property is located on Part 18 in Fairview Addition, also tract Out N ½ SW 32-28-3 .04 of an acre, being located south of Lowes Bridge at 4319 E. Penrod Drive. Tabled from August 2, 2005.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 4’ front setback variance to replace an unroofed deck.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and sir you are, I know, but I have to have it for the record.

Gerald Dishinger stated, I’m Gerald Dishinger and this is my wife.

Mary Dishinger stated, I’m Mary Dishinger.

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

Gerald Dishinger stated, we were here two weeks ago and we did not have everything in proper order and we are wanting to repair or rebuild an existing deck. Half of which is on SFLECC property and we want to elevate it approximately 12” so it is equal to an existing deck. Approval that we had from SFLECC did not address the 12” elevation. We have since taken the plans to SFLECC and we have a letter of approval that hopefully that that the board has.

President Jerry Thompson stated, I believe we do, Jerry do you want to?


Attorney Altman proceeded to read the letter from SFLECC.

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else for the record? This will be accepted into the record. This is what you were testifying about correct?

Gerald Dishinger stated, yes that is correct.

President Jerry Thompson asked, I don’t think it is a big deal, but on the back on this form cut by Chairman, who is that.

Gerald Dishinger stated, as far as I know it is a SFLECC form, so I have no idea.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you don’t recall the name, I can’t make it out.

Gerald Dishinger stated, oh no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry does it matter

Attorney Altman stated, well it does matter I do recognize Joe Roach’s signature, I’m sorry I…

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay just curious.

Attorney Altman stated, I’m sorry I don’t.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay just curious. All right, Diann anything?

Director Weaver stated, no I don’t believe so.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this variance? Carol do you have any questions.

Carol Stradling stated, this feels much better.

Gerald Dishinger stated, yes I agree.

Carol Stradling stated, as I look at this diagram I want to confirm and you might want to come look at this. This area is grass.

Gerald Dishinger stated, no concrete, this is the sea wall, concrete.

Carol Stradling stated, this area is lower.

Gerald Dishinger stated, this area is the same level at the lake the sea wall right here.


Carol Stradling asked, these steps go down to it.

Gerald Dishinger stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so this step is elevated and this portion is lower

Director Weaver stated, Carol Mr. Dishinger had presented some pictures to us the last time and I did not make copies of those, they are in the file if you want to look at them.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anything else Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, this is the first time I have seen this form before from SFLECC are they going to be doing this from now on. I know they have done the letter before. To me this verifies that they have seen the plans and approving it.

Director Weaver stated, I think this may be the first time you have seen this, but I do not think it is a new form.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t know what circumstances that they use it or don’t use it. I can’t explain that.

Gerald Dishinger stated, I do know one of the objectives of the form was for us to get the adjoining property owners to sign off. I don’t know

Carol Stradling stated, okay thank you.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Stimmel?

David Stimmel stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are we ready to vote.

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 4’ front setback variance to replace an unroofed deck on a tract of land out of the North half (1/2) of the Southwest quarter (1/4) of Section thirty two (32), Township twenty eight (28) North, Range three (3) West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a point which is South Seven degrees and twenty five minutes East (S & 25’ E) Sixty four and six hundredths (64.06) feet from the Southwest corner of lot number seventeen (17) in the Fair view addition as recorded in the office of the Recorder of White County in deed record book 122 page 186 and running South seventy three degrees and fifty seven minutes West (S 73 57’ W) twenty seven and one tenth (27.1) feet; thence North twelve degrees and twenty seven minutes West (n 12 27’ W) one hundred seventy eight and sixty seven hundredths (178.67) feet; thence in an easterly direction approximately forty and two tenths (40.2) feet along the waters edge to a point which is North seven degrees and twenty five minutes West (N7 25’ W) one hundred seventy five and forty six hundredths (175.46) feet from the point of beginning; thence South seven degrees and twenty five minutes East (s 7 25’ E) one hundred seventy five and forty six hundredths (175.46) feet to the point of beginning, containing thirteen hundredths (.13) of an acre, more or less.

The above described tract of land being subject to an easement by Northern Indiana Public service Company along the waters edge and also a strip of land forty (40) feet in width off the entire South side to be used as a public road.

The above described tract of land being known as tract 1 as recorded in Miscellaneous Record SS page 97A and is a part of lot 18 in Fair View Addition and .04 of an acre, more or less out of the N/E of E fraction of the SW1/4 of section 32 as shown in Miscellaneous Record SS page 98 A. This conveyance is subject to all easements and restrictions of record, all applicable zoning ordinances, set back requirements and other building restrictions.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located 4319 E. Penrod Drive, Monticello.


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

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


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

Gerald Dishinger stated, do I get that in this building.

Attorney Altman stated, Diann’s office.

Director Weaver stated, in Area Plan.

Gerald Dishinger asked, what time.

Director Weaver stated, we open at 8:00.

****

#2445 Danny G. & Susan K. Martin; The property is located on Lot 82 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, located North of Monticello at 5303 N. Stahl Road.

Violation: They built an unroofed deck, an unroofed patio and a privacy fence without a permit and too close to the front property line.

Request: They are requesting a 3’ front setback variance for an unroofed deck, a 4’ front setback variance for an unroofed concrete patio and a 26’ front setback variance for a 6’ tall privacy fence.

President Jerry Thompson asked, okay and you are?

Danny Martin stated, I’m Danny Martin.

Susan Martin stated, I’m Susan Martin.

President Jerry Thompson stated, thank you, Okay before we go to far. Again I think it is unless you have a different plan. Diann do we want to deal with the violation or the variance first or differently.

Director Weaver stated, like you normally do.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay so everyone knows up front. Okay Diann do you have anything you want to mention?

Director Weaver stated, this came to you originally in February of this year for a variance and was approved and when they came into the office the plans did not agree with the variance that had been requested. They re-filed and came back in March and when the building they got their permit and when the building inspector went out realized that they had put in a deck, patio and fence and were not meeting the setback requirements and that is why it is coming back to you tonight.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, we did if see on the survey, they survey does show that these things are encroaching on SFLECC property. We did receive a letter from SFLECC yesterday and I thought I made a copy of it with your pictures, but I don’t have a copy of it. So I’m not sure I got that copy made, but the original is in the file.

Attorney Altman stated, proceeded to read the letter from SFLECC to the board. (See letter in file.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, does Jerry have the only copy of that?

Director Weaver stated, I thought I had made a copy, but there is one in the file.

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

Attorney Altman stated, no I do not, other than we can not consent or condone the actions of encroachments. (Can no longer hear on the tape at this point.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone have any questions about this variance? Anyone have any questions? Who wants to go first?

Carol Stradling stated, I would like a little time to read, I think I remember it. (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Susan Martin stated, I would like to say that our lot is such that you can’t put anything on it, it is a triangle shape. (Can not hear the tape at this point.) The deck is 15’ from the seawall, I don’t know what SFLECC. What are my rights?

Carol Stradling stated, you can’t build on their property.

David Stimmel stated, you can’t build… (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Susan Martin stated, what will they do with that property, I mean I’m not trying to be a smart ass, but…

David Stimmel stated, I know, but if someone did that to you wouldn’t you have a problem with that.

Susan Martin stated, well yes and no, it is water front property I was forced to build my house 6’ above the ground. I’m not allowed to have steps. I don’t understand, if I have to go to SFLECC, still it is my lot. (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Director Weaver stated, had you been in about this deck,

Danny Martin stated, we were unaware.

Director Weaver stated, let me finish, if you had come to us or had it on the original survey and we would have been able to… (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Susan Martin stated, the concrete patio has been there 3 years ago and at the time the Area Plan told us that that we didn’t have to have a permit.

Director Weaver stated, Area Plan has always issued building permits. (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Danny Martin stated, we built the deck so that we would have steps.

Susan Martin stated, I did not do anything to defraud anyone. It isn’t very hard to hide.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol do you have anything else for the time being?

Carol Stradling stated, the survey doesn’t have SFLECC on here, oh okay I see it.

Susan Martin stated, I think there is a 14’ easement back from the seawall is my understanding, I thought we were right on the line when they did this survey.

Danny Martin stated, just one corner of the deck and corner of the patio.

Carol Stradling asked, at what point did you decide to put the deck and patio in.

Danny Martin stated, well the house was pretty much done and we was getting tired of climbing a ladder to get into the house and the builders said well I could do this and it seemed like a go idea.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave do you have something?

David Scott stated, you can’t approve the setback variance with that being encroached with SFLECC. Do you think we should table this and go to SFLECC to see if they can get this property and take another look at it.

Attorney Altman stated, the only problem with that is SFLECC sent a letter saying remove it.

Carol Stradling stated, that is their property and they can choose to do with it what they want.

Danny Martin stated, we can go talk to them we are talking 6”.

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Director Weaver stated, let me explain when they came in this is not the survey that they brought in, this survey came in after the request. The reason this came up was we were questioning the stairs and steps. (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Susan Martin stated, we are dealing with 6” I mean…

Attorney Altman stated, hold on.

David Stimmel stated, Diann are you saying we are dealing with two conflicting surveys?

Director Weaver stated, no the first one was not detailed enough.

Danny Martin stated, that is all we had to go by.

Susan Martin stated, yea, we paid a $100 for that survey, sorry it wasn’t detailed enough.

Attorney Altman sated, I don’t have any trouble tabling this if there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

President Jerry Thompson asked, can we table this and have Mr. Roach come to the meeting would that be proper?

Attorney Altman stated, or send a response a proper response, yes.

Susan Martin stated, so we have to go to SFLECC or who ever.

Attorney Altman stated, what I would suggest the board do is… (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Attorney Altman stated, I would give them the chance to go to SFLECC.

Carol Stradling stated, so this would give them a chance to modify their request. We can not approve this until it is modified.

Susan Martin stated, so we’ve got to get SFLECC to say yes.

Carol Stradling stated, I don’t know that they will.

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)

Attorney Altman stated, the board has made it very, very concrete line that they do not want 0 lot lines either on this stuff.

Danny Martin stated, we understand that.

Attorney Altman stated, and further back would be better all the way around.

Danny Martin stated, yes.

Susan Martin stated, the deck is 4’ wide and the house is almost.

Danny Martin stated, it is 6’ off of the house.

Susan Martin stated, the house is…

Danny Martin stated, The house is 24’ x 36’. (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, so do you want the board to table this or…

Attorney Altman stated, whatever you wish.

Susan Martin stated, so we need to go to the SFLECC.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, if you brought your sign back tonight you will have to re-post it.

Attorney Altman stated, the next meeting is September 15, 2005.

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)

****

#2446 Larry & Ruby DeWeese; The property is located on Lot 45 in the Original Plat in Headlee at 11100 E. Pennsylvania Street.


Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback variance to build an addition on the front of the existing home and also a 10’ front setback variance for a 3 ½’ chain link fence.

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)


President Jerry Thompson asked, ma’am you are?

Ruby DeWeese stated, I’m Ruby DeWeese.

Attorney Altman stated, wait before we go I think I passed out the wrong papers. (Jerry is going through the file to find the correct papers.)

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

Ruby DeWeese stated, just that we had… (Can not hear the tape at this point.) later realized we measured from the wrong place and needed a variance.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything?

Director Weaver stated, there is a building permit and I think when the building inspector went out he realized they were measuring from the wrong spot and they stopped. (Can not hear the tape at this point.) There is no violation at this time.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, (Can not hear the tape at this point.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this variance? Dave Scott or Dave Stimmel?

David Scott stated, no.

David Stimmel stated, no.

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour and Carol anything?

(Can not hear the tape at this point.)

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anymore discussion? Are we ready to vote?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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


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


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


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


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


6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance to build an addition on the front of the existing home and also a 10’ front setback variance for a 3 ½’ chain link fence on Lot 45 in the Original Plat of the Town of Headlee, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Headlee at 11100 E. Pennsylvania Street.

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

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


****

#2447 Richard M. Singer; The property is located on .08 of an acre, more or less and .18 of an


acre, more or less, West of Lowe’s Bridge at 3814 E. Bailey Road.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting an 8’ front and a 6’ rear setback variance for a 4’ split rail fence and a 6’ rear setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence. He is also requesting a 2’ setback variance (eave) from the side and rear property line for a detached garage.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Sir you are?

Richard Singer stated, I’m Richard Singer.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what do you have for us this evening?

Richard Singer stated, I just need to make these improvements to make some storage in the garage.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, again they have been in front of you before, for the home and that was in May of 2004 and I have sent the board a copy of the minutes and the permit that was issued and copy of the pictures done at that time. Also I want to mention when I was looking at the file today, I’m not sure that there isn’t a violation on the file front setbacks from the previous setback. On the previous survey it showed the home to be 28’ from the 20’ roadway and the current survey shows it 26’ and it shows a different size on the house. I’m not sure what the situation is there.

President Jerry Thompson stated, what, yes, April 20 and July 21.

Director Weaver stated, the July 21 is the current survey.

President Jerry Thompson asked, sir do you know anything on this?

Richard Singer stated, it is the front and what was the other one.

Director Weaver stated, it was 28’.

President Jerry Thompson stated, the one dated April 20 says 28’. The one for July….

Richard Singer stated, I don’t have anything.

President Jerry Thompson stated, the house is 2’ narrower.

Director Weaver stated, that could be the overhang. One survey could reflect the overhang. Is there an overhang?

Richard Singer stated, yes 2’.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what would you suggest?

Director Weaver stated, I’m not suggesting anything.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have a comment.

Attorney Altman asked, where is the one that says 28’.

Director Weaver stated, it is in the old variance file.

Attorney Altman stated, I thought I was looking at that.

Carol Stradling stated, there are several things that are different. Do you have an explanation to way the proposed house didn’t go where it was proposed, I mean it is not a big difference, but.

Richard Singer stated, I do not know why. The Wrede’s did the foundation.

Carol Stradling asked, pardon me.

Richard Singer stated, Wrede’s did the foundation.

Carol Stradling stated, it is further back from the 15’ drive, which puts it closer to the property to the north. It is closer tot he 20’ drive. I guess it gave you a bigger back yard.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann can this be approved with these discrepancies?

Director Weaver stated, well the request for tonight is not for the home.

Attorney Altman stated, I understand, but it almost requires that these be addressed, or made to be in compliance.

Director Weaver stated, the house will need another variance. If this is correct then the house needs another variance to bring it into compliance.

Attorney Altman stated, right now he doesn’t need anything with the garage.

Director Weaver stated, no, my understanding is you are not going to be doing that anytime soon, this is a future project.

Richard Singer stated, right that is a future project.

Director Weaver stated, he was just putting that on there and only have to appear before the board once.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess I didn’t realize we had this problem and I think we ought to have it settled all the way around before we add more to a lot.

President Jerry Thompson asked, what are the board’s wishes?

Director Weaver stated, so if we don’t vote on it tonight, he can table it and revise it and bring it back next month.

Attorney Altman stated, you need to re-advertise it if they are adding stuff, but yes I think so. We can do it right so we are not compounding the problem.

Carol Stradling asked, did the building inspector come out and inspect the foundation?

Richard Singer stated, yes. They’ve done everything they were supposed to. After the house was done Wrede had to come back out and cover ½ inch of block up with dirt all the way around the house. The inspector told me original that two blocks could be left open, but when he came back it had to be 1 ½ block.

Attorney Altman stated, I guess what I’m talking about is more the explanation we are talking about is this 2’ all the way around. Maybe that is something your survey came give us that one was at the eaves and one was at the foundation and that may settle the question and if it does you will probably need a variance on the house. I think you should do that now.

Carol Stradling stated, one was proposed so there was nothing to measure the older one was where they proposed to put it.

Attorney Altman stated, I agree, but now we have a deviation and need to get that straightened around at the same time.

President Jerry Thompson asked, so would you like to do that sir, would you like to table it.

Richard Singer asked, what do I need to do?

President Jerry Thompson stated, you need to contact Mr. Milligan.

Richard Singer stated, contact him.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann isn’t that what you suggest?

Director Weaver stated, we need to know…

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes, come on up.

Vicky Singer stated, I’m Vicky Singer, property owner also. I’m asking what is it that you are asking for the fencing, if there is such a deviation on the property measurements, we don’t understand how to correct it since it was surveyed. What is it that you want us to correct to get this permit for this fence?

Attorney Altman stated, you have two surveys, one shows the house 28’ off of the property line to the West and one at 26’.

Director Weaver stated, to the east.

Attorney Altman stated, to the East you are right, then one that shows it 9’ one shows it at 11’.

Vicky Singer asked, so we have to re-survey the home?

David Stimmel stated, if you were to take these survey to Mr. Milligan and have him explain why the differences

Vicky Singer stated, why there is such a deviation between the two.

Director Weaver stated, we also need to know if the difference for the size of the home is the overhang.

Richard Singer stated, it is.

Attorney Altman stated, let him say that in a letter.

Vicky Singer stated, in a letter okay.

Richard Singer stated, I see that one drawing is 30’ x 68’ and the other drawing is 32’ x 68’.

President Jerry Thompson stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that may solve the problem, but it if doesn’t solve it, we need to get it remedied now as to what is the right survey and dimension here. If you need a variance on it you need to do it now.

David Stimmel stated, can I ask that you move the garage to within the limits, you are asking a 2’ side is that an unreasonable hardship to keep the garage at the setback.

Vicky Singer asked, which way from the backside of the home.

David Stimmel stated, you requested a 2’ variance from the front and back, I’m saying if you move the garage 2’ back then you would not need the variance.

Carol Stradling stated, side and rear.

David Stimmel stated, side and rear is that what it says.

Vicky Singer stated, side and rear.

David Stimmel stated, that would be more in line with what the other distances to your property to the East.

Director Weaver stated, Dave and this is another thing, what is not shown on this current survey is a patio from the old home. Is that correct?

Vicky Singer stated, it was an old front porch from the old house.

Richard Singer stated, it was the front porch.

Director Weaver stated, that might hinder them from moving it back, and that needs to show on the survey.

Vicky Singer stated, yes there is a big cement block there.

Director Weaver stated, that needs to be shown on there.

Richard Singer asked, that is not shown on there?

Director Weaver stated, no.

Attorney Altman stated, that might be the second thing to be added on there, to ask him to remedy that.

Director Weaver stated, that would help the board understand why you are wanting to put the garage were you are. Without that on there it makes it hard for them to see why you can’t move it.

Carol Stradling asked, would that also explain why Wrede’s if they position the foundation of the house in a little bit location than proposed. That also might explain the measurements of the house to what the final survey shows.

Vicky Singer stated. I’m not sure why.

Richard Singer stated, I think what they if you look at the North end, they put the end of the house to the end of the concrete pad. The old drawing shows about 1 ½’ to a 2’ of concrete setting there.

Carol Stradling stated, so if that is where they stated.

Vicky Singer stated, they started building right up against it.

Carol Stradling stated, that is probably why they changed the location from what was originally approved and I think we need to determine why it was built differently than what was proposed.

Vicky Singer stated, they didn’t tell us that, we thought the variance or the home was. That wasn’t moving that was there, it was measured.

President Jerry Thompson asked, okay does the board wish to table this.

David Stimmel stated, yes.

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

David Scott stated, I will second it.

President Jerry Thompson stated, we have a motion and a second. This will be tabled until the September 15 meeting.

****

#2448 Judith K Kercheval, Owner; Bruce Kercheval, Applicant; The property is located on N ½ Lot 53 in WJR Addition, 110 N. Illinois Street, Monticello.

Violation: None

Request: She is requesting a 10’ front setback variance to place a freestanding sign on the property.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and sir you are?

Bruce Kercheval stated, I’m Bruce Kercheval and I don’t have anything to add.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Diann anything?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe so.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything?

Attorney Altman stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone here who wants to address this variance?

Diann anything?

Director Weaver stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol I’m sorry anything?

Carol Stradling stated, obviously this has been there for awhile so have you gotten any comments from the street dept?

Director Weaver stated, no I have not.

Carol Stradling sated, no more questions.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary?, Dave Scott, and Dave Stimmel any questions?

All responded no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, are we ready to vote? Lets vote then.

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-1, Retail 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 10’ front setback variance to place a freestanding sign on the North half (1/2) of Lot number fifty-three (53) in Walker, Jenner and Reynolds Addition to the Town, now City of Monticello, Indiana. Said North Half (1/2) of Lot 53 being twenty five (25) feet and eight and one half (8 ½) inches in width and one hundred and thirty two (132) feet in length.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monticello at 110 N. Illinois 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2449 Steven L. & Deanna R. Pass; The property is located on SW, SW 1-27-3 on 40 acres, The property is located at 8039 E. 400 N. Monticello

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting an 18’ front setback variance from C.R. 800 E to build an attached garage onto the existing house.

President Jerry Thompson asked, ma’am you are?

Deanna Pass stated, I’m Deanna Pass.

President Jerry Thompson stated, you are Deanna Pass, okay do you have anything else you would like to add?

Deanna Pass stated, I do not think so.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Diann is away for a minute. Jerry anything?

Attorney Altman asked, is the proposed addition single story or two story?

Deanna Pass stated, it will be single story.

Attorney Altman stated, it will be consistent with the home and exterior.

Deanna Pass stated, yes.

Attorney Altman asked, you are on the sewer system?

Deanna Pass stated, not that I’m aware of.

President Jerry Thompson asked, is there anyone who cares to address this variance? Dave Stimmel?

David Stimmel stated, not right now.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Dave Scott?

David Scott stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Carol anything?

Carol Stradling stated, no, the drawings are nice.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann is there anything else on Pass?

Director Weaver stated, there are plans in the file, but no nothing else.

President Jerry Thompson stated, if there is nothing else, ready to vote.

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 18’ front setback variance from C.R. 800 E to build an attached garage onto the existing house on the Southwest quarter (1/4) of the Southwest quarter (1/4) of Section One (1), Township Twenty-seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West, containing Forty (40) acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located northeast of Monticello at 8039 E. 400 N.


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

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


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

****

#2451 Arthur O. & Charlotte Dianne Siegfried, Owner; Chris Brennan, Brennan

Construction, Applicant; The property is located on .54 of an acre North of Monticello at 7844 N. Sparrow Court.

Violation: None.

Request: They are requesting a 5’ East side setback variance and a 5’ West side setback variance to build a room addition on the front of the existing home.

President Jerry Thompson asked, and you are sir?

Chris Brennan stated, I’m Chris Brennan. If you have a copy of the survey it is simply a two tiered deck on the lakeside. The top tiered deck is under a 5’ overhang and he wishes to take it out another 5’ so it, the setbacks are to following the existing house frame.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Diann?

Director Weaver stated, again this has been before the board before and I have sent the staff report, pictures, survey, minutes, building permits…

Chris Brennan stated, excuse me, the old survey is for an addition on the other side of the house a few years ago.

Director Weaver stated, right, the pictures, the current pictures the bottom right hand corner is the area they are going to be doing the work which is on the lake side.

President Jerry Thompson stated, okay. Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, will the roofline just be extended out another 5’?

Chris Brennan stated, yes, the roofline will continue out towards the water. It is out 5’ now and it will be extended out another 5’.

Attorney Altman stated, just straight out.

Chris Brennan stated, yes, the upper deck is 10’, we are just going to enclose the 10’ deck.

President Jerry Thompson asked, does anyone care to address this variance? Carol anything?

Carol Stradling stated, in these pictures I only see one level of deck.

Director Weaver stated, it is on the backside of the house, the opposite side of the house those pictures are.

Carol Stradling stated, I kept thinking there was a deck underneath it.

Chris Brennan stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, okay I couldn’t figure out how that was going to fit.

President Jerry Thompson asked, Gary Barbour, Dave Scott, and David Stimmel anything?

All responded no.

President Jerry Thompson stated, let’s vote.

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 5’ East side setback variance and a 5’ West side setback variance to build a room addition on the front of the existing home on a tract of land out of the West Half (1/2) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of section twenty one (21), Township, Twenty Eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana and described more fully as follows:

Beginning at a pint which is South Zero degrees East (S )’ E) one thousand seven hundred fifty seven and three tenths (1757.3) feet and South Eighty Eight degrees and fifteen minutes East (S 88 15’ E) two hundred thirty seven and four tenths (237.4) feet from the Northwest corner of the above said section twenty one (21) and running thence South Eighty Eight degrees and fifteen minutes East (S 88 15’ E) forty four and five tenths (44.5) feet, thence North Zero degrees West (N 0 W) Five Hundred thirty seven and seven tenths (437.7) feet to the waters edge, thence in a southwesterly direction along the waters edge to a point which is North zero degrees West (N 0 W) five hundred eleven and nine tenths (511.9) feet from the point of beginning, thence South Zero degrees East (S 0 E) five hundred eleven and nine tenths (511.9) feet to the point of beginning containing fifty four hundredths (.54) of an acre, more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello at 7844 N. Sparrow Court.


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

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


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

****

Appeal #4 Don Pauken and Bill Pyle, Appellants; Appellants are appealing the Area Plan Director’s determination (interpretation) of Article 9.4002 of the White County Zoning Ordinance at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005.

President Jerry Thompson stated, Jerry.

Attorney Altman asked, Diann do you have those here?

Director Weaver stated, you have them.

Attorney Altman stated, I do, oh. This says executive session.

Director Weaver stated, maybe I gave you the wrong file.

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have it.

(Diann went to the office.)

Attorney Altman stated, okay we are back on the record? We had stepped out for a minute.

President Jerry Thompson stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, essentially we have the ballots they are consistent and they support the determination as I said the appeal should be dismissed and that was the vote that was taken on the ballot, but I have prepared and present to the board. The last question #15, was not voted on by several people. Dave Scott was one of them that did not, there were however a majority of 4 that did vote on that no and therefore it is adopted. I guess I just wanted the board to be aware of the vote on that and record that at this time. Obviously we didn’t take everyone times to do that. Then on the ballot the proposal presented by Mr. Dellinger, I’m laying this out here. The ballot was consistent by each and everyone of you, in essential yes or of the that. I guess I would recommend or state as a determination and fact that obviously your votes be determined in this case unanimous and that is your finding of facts. That is all. That is for the record that the ballots speak for themselves.

The Board finds the following on form done by Attorney Altman:

1. Did Don Pauken and Bill Pyle file their objection on May 11, 2005? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: None

2. Is this the only objection filed by anyone that may relate to any action taken by White County Area Plan Commission on Rangeline Properties, Inc. rezoning applications #873 and #874? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: None

3. Did Don Pauken and Bill Pyle or anyone else file an appeal of the decision to table by White County Area Plan Commission of Rezoning #873 and #874 of Rangeline Properties, Inc. within thirty (30) days of February 14, 2005? Vote: 0 yes, 5 no. Reason: 1 ballot - Feb 14 – May 11 more than 30 days.

4. Did Don Pauken and Bill Pyle or anyone else file an appeal of the decision to table by White County Area Plan Commission of Rezoning #873 and #874 of Rangeline Properties, Inc. within thirty (30) days of March 14, 2005? Vote: 1 yes, 4 no. Reason: 1 ballot - March 14 – May 11 more than 30 days.

5. Did the Area Plan Director communicate her “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the White County Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005” to any member of the White County Area Plan Commission before May 9, 2005? Vote: 0 yes, 5 no. Reason: 1 ballot - N/A, 1 ballot - Per minutes

6. Did the Area Plan Director communicate her “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the White County Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005” to any member of the Board of Zoning Appeals of White County before May 9, 2005? Vote: 0 yes, 5 no. Reason: 1 ballot - N/A

7. Did the Area Plan Director communicate her “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the White County Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005” to any member of the White County Commissioners before May 9, 2005? Vote: 1 yes, 4 no. Reason: 1 ballot - N/A, 1 ballot - According to minutes.

8a. Did the action of Rangeline Properties, Inc.’s agent requesting a continuance on or about February 14, 2005 conform sufficiently to the requirements of White County Zoning Ordinance 9.4002 such that its rezonings #873 and #874 should be tabled? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: None

8b. Did the action of Rangeline Properties, Inc.’s agent requesting a continuance on or about March 14, 2005 conform sufficiently to the requirements of White County Zoning Ordinance 9.4002 such that its rezonings #873 and #874 should be tabled? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: None

9a. Did the tabling of rezoning #873 and #874 Rangeline Properties, Inc. that occurred on February 14, 2005 at White County Area Plan meeting occur as a result of the Area Plan Director’s “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005”? Vote: 1 yes, 4 no. Reason: 1 ballot - N/A.

9b. Was the tabling of rezoning #873 and #874 Rangeline Properties, Inc. on February 14, 2005 done by action of President Charles Anderson? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: 1 ballot - Director Weaver communicated to Area Plan board of Rangeline Properties wish to table the request.

10a. Did the tabling of rezoning #873 and #874 Rangeline Properties, Inc. that occurred on March 14, 2005 at White County Area Plan meeting occur as a result of the Area Plan Director’s “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005”? Vote: 1 yes, 4 no. Reason: None

-OR-

10b. Was the tabling of rezoning #873 and #874 Rangeline Properties, Inc. on March 14, 2005 done by action of President Charles Anderson? Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Reason: 1 ballot – Same as 9b.

11a. Did the Area Plan Director’s “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005” have any affect on the White County Area Plan Commission’s tabling of Rangeline Properties, Inc. rezoning #873 and #874 on February 14, 2005? Vote: 1 yes, 4 no. Reason: None.

11b. Did the Area Plan Director’s “determination (interpretation) of the Ref., expressed at the Area Plan Commission meeting on May 9, 2005” have any affect on the White County Area Plan Commission’s tabling of Rangeline Properties, Inc. rezoning #873 and #874 on March 14, 2005? Vote: 2 yes, 3 no. Reason: None.

12. Should the appeal of Don Paukin and Bill Pyle on May 11, 2005 be granted? Vote: 0 yes, 5 no. Reason: None.

13. Does the appeal of Don Paukin and Bill Pyle filed on May 11, 2005 request relief that would cause dismissal of the Rezoning #873 and #874 of Rangeline Properties, Inc.? Vote: 0 yes, 5 no. Reason: None.

14. Should the appeal of Don Paukin and Bill Pyle filed on May 11, 2005 be granted (1 no) or dismissed (1 yes and 4 marked)? Reason: 1 ballot – Director Weaver made correct interpretation.

15. Does the appeal of Don Paukin and Bill Pyle on May 11, 2005 request relief that can be granted by this Board of Zoning Appeals? Vote: 0 yes, 4 no, 1 abstained. Reason: None.

The Board finds the following on form prepared by Attorney L. Dowal Dellinger:

1. On the night of February 14, 2005, Jeff Van Weelden, as the representative for Rangeline Properties, Inc. and for Indiana Waste Systems, Inc., appeared at the White County Courthouse and requested Area Plan Director Diann Weaver to table the rezoning issue #873 and #874 until the next meeting. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

2. On March 9, 2005, Jeff Van Weelden, as the representative for Rangeline Properties, Inc. and for Indiana Waste Systems, Inc., requested in writing that the rezoning issues #873 and #874 be tabled until the next Area Plan meeting. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

3. On the night of March 14, 2005, Area Plan board President Charles Anderson announced that Rangeline Properties, Inc. and Indiana Waste Systems, Inc. rezoning issues #873 and #874 would be tabled until the next Area Plan meeting. At that time, no individual person or entity objected on the record to such tabling of the two issues. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

4. The term “table” is not found in Chapter 2.1 of the White County Zoning Ordinance and 2.0010 states any words not defined in Section 2.10 shall be construed in their general accepted meaning defined by Webster’s dictionary. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

5. The term “table” is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as follows:

Main Entry: table

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): tabled; tabling

1. to enter in a table

2a. British: to place on the agenda b: to remove (as a parliamentary motion) from consideration indefinitely c: to put on a table.

Vote: 2 yes, 0 no, 1 correct, 2 abstained

6. The term “table” refers to a parliamentary procedure found in Robert’s Rules of Order, specifically “to lay on the table.” “To lay on the table” is defined in Robert’s Rules of Order as placing an issue at hand and all issues adhering to it in a pending status until the issue is “taken from the table” at a later time. Vote: 3 yes, 0 no, 1 N/A, 1 Correct.

7. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, general consent may be obtained by the President making a decision regarding procedural and docketing matters and if no objection is heard to such action, then the body is not required to vote. Robert’s Rules of Order states the following:

“By the legitimate use of the principle that the rules are designed for the protection of the minority, and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect, business may be greatly expedited. When there is evidently no opposition, the formality of voting can be avoided by the chair’s asking if there is any objection to the proposed action, and if there is none, announcing the result. The action thus taken is said to be done by general consent, or unanimous or silent consent.”

Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 N/A.

8. Hearing no objection from the floor or from the voting members of the Area Plan Commission, Board President Charles Anderson’s announcement that the rezoning issues #873 and #874 would be tabled is a valid and lawful action of the Zoning Board under the terms of the White County Zoning Ordinance. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

9. By requesting the rezoning issues #873 and #874 be tabled until the following meeting on March 14, 2005, Rangeline Properties, Inc. and Indiana Waste Systems, Inc., by their representative, Jeff Van Weelden, did not fail to appear to present their rezoning issues pursuant to 9.4002. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

10. The Area Plan Commission has the right, pursuant to Paragraph 9.3003 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, to table or continue any hearing on any pending petition by a majority vote of those present at such hearing. Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

11. No person, individual or entity objected to the tabling of the rezoning issues #873 and #874 during the Area Plan Commission meetings of February 14, 2005 or March 14, 2005. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

12. The first objection to the tabling of rezoning issues #873 and #874 at the March 14, 2005 meeting was brought by Don Pauken and Bill Pyle in their appeal dated May 11, 2005, more that 57 days after the March 14, 2005 action of the Area Plan Commission. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

13. The appeal of Don Pauken and Bill Pyle is moot and should be dismissed because White County Zoning Ordinance 8.3 requires an appeal be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals within 30 days from the time of such (improper action). Vote: 5 yes, 0 no.

14. Area Plan Commission Director Diann Weaver made no determination of any procedural rules, specifically Zoning Ordinance Paragraph 9.4002, prior to the tabling of rezoning issues #873 and #874 either at the February 14, 2005 Area Plan Commission meeting or at the March 14, 2005 Area Plan Commission meeting. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

15. The “appeal” filed on May 11, 2005 by Don Pauken and Bill Pyle refers to actions of the Area Plan Director, Diann Weaver, not the actions of the Area Plan Commission. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

16. Because the appeal filed by Don Pauken and Bill Pyle on May 11, 2005 refers to actions taken by the Area Plan Director and not the actions of the Area Plan Commission which granted the tabling of the rezoning issues #873 and #874, the appeal must be denied and dismissed. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 correct.

The Board also finds the following:

1. That neighbors, contributors and two appellants were present.


2. That proper notice was given to all.

The objection was denied based on the findings of fact by the vote of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

****

President Jerry Thompson stated, all right. Diann any business?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t have any.

Gary Barbour stated, no way.

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing…

Carol Stradling stated, I have a question. A while ago, the first part of July we received some information on Harry DuVall, Jerry Bonnell, Russ Edwards.

Attorney Altman stated, that is on the Hanenkratt matter.

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

Attorney Altman stated, you, Jerry asked me about that before you came in. Diann’s off ice gave me the return and that is what we gave the Judge showing what we did this morning. I didn’t get it reviewed and asked the Judge for an extension.

Carol Stradling stated, so it is just going through the process and this is keeping us informed.

Jerry Thompson 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