Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, November 16, 2006 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: Rebecca Trent, Tina Bernacchi (Andrea Homes), Jeff Teel, Angie Teel, Michael Berry, Judy Bronowski, Bill Fraser, Ken Hardebeck, Greg Jacobs, Bob Wrede, John Myers, Don Pauken, and Andy Venters. Also attending but not signed in Vernie Criswell, Vickie Criswell, Bob Gollner, and Matthew Zook.

The meeting was called to order by President David Stimmel and roll call was taken. David Scott made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the October 19, 2006 meeting. Motion was seconded by Gary Barbour and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.

****

#2518 Ronald M. King and Marion B. Ballard; The property is located on Lot 8 in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, located North of Monticello at 4997 N. Canyon Loop. This request is being brought back to the BZA for a decision regarding whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions put on the variance at the June 15, 2006 meeting. The applicants have been given notice to appear and requested to respond and demonstrate their actions to comply. (See enclosed minutes.)

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing the Kings or Ballards? Do we want to table this or just wait for a response Jerry?

Attorney Altman stated, the only thing I can say is I talked to both of them today and told them that we just basically had 3 surveys, right Diann?

President David Stimmel stated, right.

Attorney Altman stated, that had a different dimension on all three positioning the house. I suggested that they have a surveyor tell us exactly which one is the correct location of the house on the lot. They did not, well I don’t know what they thought, they said that they would get a hold of Mr. Milligan or they have asked him to do that, so I called Mr. Milligan basically there are these surveys and we just needed to know which one was the primary one that correctly


showed the location of the house. He said he would be glad to do that. He did that and Diann brought over this afternoon a survey that includes wordage on the bottom that the survey above is the correct to show the location of the house on the lot. Signed by the Surveyor, James L. Milligan. It would seem to me that it properly meets the test of what we are looking at. It is just which one of the surveys is correct in locating the house. I think Diann and don’t you believe that then puts it such that the variance would be correct and they could be issued a building permit by the building department.

Director Weaver stated, I believe this satisfy what the board was wanting.

Attorney Altman stated, the board has to determine that, but that is the question.

President David Stimmel stated, this is based on the piece that we have in front of us.

Director Weaver stated, yes, the survey you have with your pictures this evening.

President David Stimmel asked, is there any discussion from the board?

Jerry Thompson stated, they had no correspondence with you at all.

Director Weaver stated, I have had correspondence with them several time, it is difficult for them to come in to the meeting, they are unable to drive and they are depending on someone else to get them here to the meetings. They tried to get another surveyor out there and they have had problems with that. Yes I have had contact with them several times.

Jerry Thompson asked, but did you know that they were not going to attend tonight?

Director Weaver stated, well at one point this afternoon they told me that they were going to be here and then later when I spoke to them I wasn’t quite sure if they were or were not going to be here. I am not surprised that there is no one here.

Jerry Thompson stated, I guess there are 11 pages here preparation by the office and then nobody shows up.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, we based our decision on the survey that we’ve got a copy of is that correct. I mean the copy that you have here.

Director Weaver stated, I believe that is the last one that was presented to us at that time. Is that what you are asking?

David Scott stated, we based our decision at that time on that survey, the 6’ off of the one property line.

Director Weaver stated, I believe so.

David Scott stated, see I know what Jerry is saying, but on the other side of that I’ve got a problem with it. You know 3 surveys that are all different, I think this guy made a good effort to go what was right and I don’t think we should give him a hard time any longer.

Gary Barbour asked, did the survey actually go out to the property this time?

Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t know if he did this time, I know that he had surveyed it.

Gary Barbour stated, the last survey, the reason he went out was he hadn’t even went out there, yep that is it.

Attorney Altman stated, yep, and, and I don’t know that.

Gary Barbour stated, so my question is..

Attorney Altman stated, I don’t know.

Director Weaver stated, the only thing I can tell you Gary is one of his people that works for him was in the office this afternoon and did comment that they tried to be more precise when they did this last survey.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I felt real comfortable with what you said until I looked at the dates on the packets before you presented the survey tonight. The most recent date we have on the surveys that were presented before this evening were August 30, 2006 and the one that was presented this evening was May 17, 2006.

Director Weaver stated, correct, that is the one he is saying is true and correct.

Carol Stradling stated, so.

Attorney Altman stated, that is the way we understand it.

Director Weaver stated, that is the way I understood it.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President David Stimmel asked, does the board want to take any action on it?

Attorney Altman stated, what you need is a motion and…

David Scott asked, what should the motion say?

Attorney Altman stated, the motion would be to accept the survey or reject the survey that was received on 11/06/2006 at 3:45 p.m.

David Scott stated, I guess by to my original question. We based our decision on 6’off the line here, that survey or the one that was 8’ off the line.

Gary Barbour stated, it was only 6’.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott stated, I’m satisfied with this.

Attorney Altman stated, then make a motion.

Jerry Thompson asked, we can make a decision without them here?

Attorney Altman stated, they’ve been given notice and yes you can proceed.

Jerry Thompson stated, okay.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave was that a motion?

David Scott stated, I make a motion that we accept the survey and the present here.

President David Stimmel stated, okay do we have a second? Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I would be happy to second it, but I want to make sure that we as a board and individually do not have any responsibility to where those property lines really are.

David Scott stated, there is a stamp on here from a register surveyor.

Carol Stradling stated, but that, I guess the issue is we have a few with the same surveyors stamp and there are variations and we has a board are not responsible for the veracity or the proximity or the margin of errors on any one of those. I will accept the recent one he signed off on. Not even the most recent one.

David Scott asked, can I put that in my motion?

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

David Scott stated, I add that to my motion.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second it.

President David Stimmel stated, all in favor say “aye”. Motion is carried 5 to 0.

President David Stimmel stated, I know this sounds cumbersome to the audience and one of the reasons we do this is because we had 3 different surveys with 3 different dimensions and if it is your property line and you are dealing with lake property which a lot of this is and 1’ makes a lot of difference in a lot of cases so it gets pretty nasty.

****

#2563 Matthew J. & Michelle R. McGovern; The property is located on Part of Lots 1 and 2 in Kaugh-Naugh-Waugh Addition, located North of Monticello at 4888 E. Harbor Court.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 28’ front setback variance to build a sunroom and a second story to the home.

President David Stimmel asked, anybody here representing this request?

Vernie Criswell stated, I’m Vernie Criswell, the general contractor on the job.

President David Stimmel stated, okay Vernie I’m assuming you have permission from the homeowners to represent them.

Vernie Criswell stated, yes.

President David Stimmel stated, okay that is great.

Attorney Altman stated, okay I received a letter dated November 15, 2006 from Matthew McGovern. (Letter was read into the record. See file.)

President David Stimmel asked, is there anything else you want to add to this variance?

Vernie Criswell stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I would like to let the board know while they are going over the information I’d like to mention that there is a pending rezoning on this property. This was presented to the APC on Monday night and received a favorable recommendation for the County Commissioners and will be going to their meeting on Monday.

Attorney Altman stated, the rezoning is what?

Director Weaver stated, it is a B-2 to an L-1.

Attorney Altman stated, at one time it was zoned B-2 and they are trying to take it back to a Lake residence. That is a condition if this is approved.

President David Stimmel asked, any comments or questions from the board?

Carol Stradling asked, how would the rezoning affect the setbacks? The setbacks you have.

Director Weaver stated, it wouldn’t be in compliance with a B-2 zoning because you can not have a residence in a B-2 zoning under the current ordinance.

Carol Stradling asked, so this house was a business?

Director Weaver stated, from the research that we did my understanding was the same people owned this house that owned the restaurant across the street at one time and they rezoned it for a possible expansion and evidently the expansion never happened.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave or Jerry?

Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t have anything.

President David Stimmel asked Gary any thoughts?

Attorney Altman stated, the survey does call, has the expansion of the road, West Shafer Drive on it and shows, of course, acquisitions of property that go with the expansion of the road, the building site plan.

President David Stimmel asked, any other comments from the board or any of the audience?

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned L-1, Lake District and on the sewer system.

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 28’ front setback variance to build a sunroom and a second story to the home on a part of Lots One (1) and Two (2) in Kaugh-Naugh-Waugh Addition, Union Township, White County, Indiana, being described more fully as follows:

Lot number One (1) except forty (40) feet off of the entire North side, all as more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe located South Seven Degrees and Forty Minutes East (S 7° 40’ E) Forty Two and Five Tenths (42.5) feet from the Northwest corner of Lot Number One (1) in said Kaugh-Naugh-Waugh Addition and running thence North Seventy-one Degrees East (N 71° E) One Hundred Twenty Four and Fifteen Hundredths (124.15) Feet to an iron pipe; thence South Three Degrees and Fifty Five Minutes West (S 3° 55’ W) One Hundred Nineteen and Seventy Nine Hundredths (119.79) feet to a point on Northern Indiana Public Service Company boundary line; thence South Eighty Six Degrees and Thirteen Minutes West (S 86° 13’ W) along said boundary Ninety Eight and Forty Two Hundredths (98.42) feet to a point; thence North Seven Degrees and Forty Minutes West (N 7° 40’ W) Eighty Six and Thirty Hundredths (86.30) feet to the place of beginning.

Also Excepting a part of Lot 1 in Kaugh Naugh Waugh Addition, the plat of which is recorded in Deed Book 123, page 220 in the Office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, and being that part of the grantor’s land lying within the right-of-way lines depicted on the attached Right-of-Way Parcel Plat marked Exhibit “B” described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 83 degrees 13 minutes 00 seconds West 5.03 feet along the South line of said Lot 1 to point “460” designated on said Plat; thence North 20 degrees 50 minutes 12 seconds West 34.40 feet to point “421” designated on said plat; thence North 15 degrees 10 minutes 15 seconds West 75.16 feet to the Northwestern line of the grantor’s land and point “422” designated an said Plat; thence North 68 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 41.87 feet along said Northwestern line to the East line of said Lot 1 and the Northeast corner of said grantor’s land; thence South 0 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West 119.79 feet along said East line to the point of beginning and containing 2708 square feet. More or less, inclusive of the presently existing right-of-way which contains 23 square feet, more or less, for a net additional taking of 2685 square feet, more or less.

Also, a part of Lot Number Two (2) in said Kaugh-Naugh-Waugh Addition more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe located South Seven Degrees and Forty minutes East (S 7° 40’ E) Forty Two and Five Tenths (42.5) feet from the Northwest corner of Lot Number One (1) and running thence South Seven Degrees and Forty Minutes East (S 7° 40’ E) Eighty Six and Thirty Hundredths (86.30) feet to a point; thence South Eighty Six Degrees and Thirteen Minutes West (S 86° 13’ W) Seven and Seven Hundredths (7.07) feet; thence North, Two Degrees and Fifty Eight Minutes West (N 2° 58’ W) Eighty Six and Eleven Hundredths (86.11) feet to the place of beginning.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located north of Monticello at 4888 E. Harbor 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.


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

****

#2569 Joseph & Kimberly A. Mardjetko, Owners; Bob Gollner, Applicant; The property is located on Lot 2 in the Isle of Homes Subdivision, property located west of Lake Road 10 at 3204 N. Cardinal Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 5’ south side setback variance and a 9’ north side setback variance to build a room addition and enclose a carport and to bring the house into compliance.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing that?

Bob Gollner stated, I’m Bob Gollner and I represent Joe and Kimberly.

Attorney Altman stated, we have in our file a letter. (See letter in file.)

Jerry Thompson asked, is he the contractor?

Bob Gollner stated, I represent the contractor. I’m a retired contractor I built home for 40 years. I’m representing my son of Gollner homes. We are requesting a 5’ variance on the south side and a 7’ from the north side to bring this into compliance. Apparently with the zoning rules.

President David Stimmel stated, give a few seconds and we will go on from there.

Carol anything?

Carol Stradling stated, that fence isn’t going anywhere if they need to get to the lake side of the property.

David Scott asked, have you heard anything from the neighbor from the south?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think so. Carol I don’t know that they can get to the lake side now.

Carol Stradling stated, good.

Director Weaver stated, I really don’t think they can.

Carol Stradling stated, the south side.

Attorney Altman stated, the north side.

Director Weaver stated, no the south.

David Scott asked, does it belong to them or the neighbors?

Director Weaver stated, I can’t answer that.

Attorney Altman asked, do you know who owns the stone fence?

Bob Gollner stated, I wear hearing aids and one of them just went dead. No I don’t know.

This man to the right owns the fence, the Mardjetko’s.

President David Stimmel asked, Jerry anything?

Jerry Thompson stated, nothing.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave anything?

David Scott stated, I don’t like going that close to the property line, but they aren’t making it worse than it is.

Attorney Altman stated, it is preexisting to the ordinance that is why there is no violation.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary anything?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, how are you going to get the equipment back there to do the proposed addition?

Bob Gollner stated, they are in an agreement with lot 3 which is the house to the South to get between the two houses. Not this lot here, but this one. They are neighbors and they get along very well.

President David Stimmel stated, that is a necessity out there. Any other comments anybody have any comments from the audience.

Director Weaver stated, a grinder pump isn’t going to be in the way of getting the equipment in there?

Bob Gollner stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, can you justify what this room addition will be and why they need to do the addition?

Bob Gollner stated, these people have 6 children and they are from Chicago and they come down here and use this for the weekends and I think there is going to be 5 or 6 bedrooms when we are done.

Carol Stradling stated, really. In that house!

Bob Gollner stated, well we are going to go up with a cape cod also. Not the area we are adding on just over the house.

David Scott stated, the design of the house, there is no way the proposed property can be moved back to meet the setback, I mean why, we don’t like granting these variances this close to the property line, I mean is there a reason why the thing can’t be moved over.

Bob Gollner stated, I talked to my son about that and stepping it over 2’ in the building, the roof line wouldn’t look good, if that is an option.

David Scott stated, I guess it isn’t a big deal the house is already there.

President David Stimmel stated, the question I would have is if he is going to go up does he need, once the house is in compliance he does not need a variance to go vertical with the rest of the house. Here is my point, how is that going to affect the neighbors on 3 and 1 the aesthetics of the house. It looks like one house is a single story and take that up another 8’ or 9’ that is going to be pretty significant.

Bob Gollner stated, the house on lot 3 sets forwards.

President David Stimmel stated, right but it will be significantly higher once you get the second story on to it.

Bob Gollner stated, the house on the North side is higher than this one now.

President David Stimmel stated, it is, I guess I don’t, okay. Just a thought.

David Scott asked, you said the proposed addition is not going to be 2 stories?

Bob Gollner stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, any other comments?

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. All will be on the sewer system.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ south side setback variance and a 9’ north side setback variance to build a room addition and enclose a carport and to bring the house into compliance on Lot Number Two (2) in the Isle of Homes Subdivision situated in Section 8, 9 and 16 in Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union and Liberty Township in the County of White State of Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of Lake Rd 10 at 3204 N. Cardinal 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 1 negative.


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

****

#2570 Gregory A. & Jerrielyn Jacobs; The property is located on Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 in O.P. Block 15, located in the Town of Brookston at 100 S. Prairie Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 7’ front (First St.) setback variance and a 25’ rear (East) setback variance to build a new retail building and a 10 space parking variance for on premise parking. Also, a 25’ front (First St.) setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence for a trash enclosure. A 10’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance for an on premise freestanding sign.

President David Stimmel asked, anyone here representing this variance?

Greg Jacobs stated, Greg Jacobs.

President David Stimmel asked, Greg is there anything you want to add to this?

Greg Jacobs stated, yeah the parking variance, the reason we asked for that is if you look on the North side on the First Street side you will notice that the parking lines extend past the right of way line. They have for years. I believe we address this with the Town of Brookston, the town board meeting last week. I’m not sure if they had communicated with you Diann they had no problem with continuing using parking spaces there even though they extended past our property lines. As you note there, there are two powers poles to the East and the West. You can see that although they extend pass the right of way line, they don’t even come close to encroaching on the traffic on first St that goes by there. They had no problem with that using those with those being allowed, we don’t need a 10 space parking variance.

President David Stimmel stated, okay.

Director Weaver stated, the town was to have gotten me a letter or try to have a representative here tonight. They evidently didn’t do either one. They did talk to me. Dave Rosenbarger talked to me and he is on the APC and the Brookston Town board and he spoke to me Monday night and said they are fine with these parking spaces encroaching on to their right of way. He said there is still plenty of space between the actual vehicles the surface of the road.

Attorney Altman stated, so with that he doesn’t need a variance for parking spaces.

Greg Jacobs stated, technically I believe we would, the ordinance says we need 1 parking space for every 300 sq. ft, plus one per each full time employee. The retail center that wants to occupy 8000 sq ft. probably averages around 3 employees. Then we are really not sure on the South end what is going to go there. So technically if you include the employees you would need..

Attorney Altman stated, I just wanted to make the record is all I’m trying to do. There is encroachment in the town.

Director Weaver stated, I haven’t received anything in writing yet. The town did mention to me about accessing to the alley with trucks are you going to address that somehow that it is going to work.

Greg Jacobs stated, I emailed the Dollar store company and they did extend the 5 ton weight limit pass the alley to the east so they can access the rear. They have said they have flexibility in terms of doing smaller delivery trucks. It wasn’t an issue.

Attorney Altman asked, are you going to take down the present building and put this up?

Greg Jacobs stated, that is correct the whole lot, the parking and everything will be gone and we will start from scratch, as you can see the rear setback is where the existing building sets now. Basically the same line.

President David Stimmel asked, Jerry do you have something?

Jerry Thompson asked, so it is going to be a Dollar General?

Greg Jacobs stated their competition, Family Dollar.

Jerry Thompson stated, Family Dollar.

Greg Jacobs stated, we are still dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s. This is part of the process.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, I don’t have anything.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Greg what about the sign, you are asking for a 10’ variance there? Is there any reason why the sign can’t go back 10’ and meet the regulations?

Greg Jacobs stated, well if you note there, just south of that North entrance that is the existing goal post signs have been for years for the convenience store. Everybody likes to get them as close to the property lines as they can and really I suppose they could scoot back. We were wanting to use the original foundations and put it there, it could go back enough to at least to where it was there in the driveway there.

President David Stimmel stated, the only reason I question that is because using your previous facility over the years and visibility in that area is a bummer. You know a lot of semis back and forth in those 2 or 3 blocks between 18 and that is just horrendous. Anything that adds to the lack of visibility there I think is an issue for me from what I have seen. To me it would make more since to move it back 10’. I don’t know what the ramification of that would be, but that is just my first thoughts on it.

Greg Jacobs stated, Dave I don’t that we have 10’, I don’t have a scale.

President David Stimmel stated, it says 1” equals 20’.

Greg Jacobs stated, would could take the one that is on the property line and you see where the radius is there. We really can’t encroach to the East farther than that radius because then we are getting into 24’ requirement of 2 lanes of traffic to get in and out of the parking lot. I don’t think we can get a full 10’, we can get 8’. Those footings are on 6’ centers so we could get 6’ to 6.5’ off of the property line. I think the biggest problem with the visibility there and I would be willing to remove that, there is that small orchard type of tree that sets there, right directly west of that. That is probably more of a visibility issue than the signs had ever been. If you look they are setting back 18’ to 20’ from the pavement now.

David Scott asked, are you intending on using the same footers for your signs or where you going to put in new footers and everything?

Greg Jacobs stated, our intention was to use them, if we need to move them back we can put another footing in. That is not that big of deal.

David Scott asked, would you be comfortable with moving it back?

President David Stimmel stated, I think he needs to move it back as far as he can economically, I guess that is at least move it back to the radius there. If that is alright.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes, we can do that.

President David Stimmel stated, as close as we can, would we be able to get a measurement on that to actually be able to define the variance correctly instead of a 10’ it ends up being a 4’ or something like that.

Director Weaver stated, I have a scale.

President David Stimmel asked, any comments from the audience? Anyone want to comment on the variance? If not are we ready to vote?

Attorney Altman asked, how is the gate on the trash going to swing? Is it going to swing out into the road?

Greg Jacobs stated, probably swing west or north.

Attorney Altman stated, North goes into the road easement, right.

Greg Jacobs stated, correct. Before we did that I would address that with the town.

Attorney Altman stated, they really need to approve that because you are encroaching in their right of way.

Greg Jacobs stated, it could go East into the alley, I’m not sure what type of dumpster arrangement they use. There are 3 options there depending what the town will allow.

Attorney Altman stated, I really think the town needs to approve that too.

Greg Jacobs stated, I agree.

Attorney Altman stated, basically approval of the sign going back as far as it can into that radius, the encroachment being approved by and the parking by the town, and also that the fence or gates used in the trash area being approved by the town also. Is that what you understand we are conditioning this on.

Greg Jacobs stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, scaling this out makes it to be a 4’ setback variance for the sign and that is to the leading edge of the sign.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 7’ front (First St.) setback variance and a 25’ rear (East) setback variance to build a new retail building and a 10 space parking variance for on premise parking. Also, a 25’ front (First St.) setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence for a trash enclosure. A 10’ front (Prairie St.) setback variance for an on premise freestanding sign on Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10) Eleven (11) and Twelve (12) in Block Fifteen (15) in the Original Plat of the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 100 S. Prairie 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.


8. The variance are conditioned upon the Town of Brookston’s Board approval of the sign going back as far as it can into that radius, the encroachment being approved by and the parking by the town, and also that the fence or gates used in the trash area being approved by the town also.


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


Attorney Altman stated, subject to the commitments listed above and you need to get your building permit before you proceed. You need to get that in writing to us before you get the permit.

****

#2571 Jackie L. Sr. & Nancy L. Jacobs; The property is located on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 146 and part Vacated Alley in Turpies Addition, in the Town of Monon at 701 N. Market Street.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 7’ front (US 421) setback variance for a new retail building and 3’ front (US 421) setback variance for an on premise free standing sign. Also a 13’ front (Harrison St) setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence for a trash enclosure.

President David Stimmel asked, Greg are you representing this one also?

Greg Jacobs stated, yes.

President David Stimmel asked, anything you want to add to this?

Greg Jacobs stated, after meeting with the Town board of Monon, there is one change that they have asked for. It is pertaining to the egress/ingress of the delivery trucks. They wanted us to provide an exit for the delivery truck to the North into the unimproved Harrison St.

Attorney Altman asked, is that a different survey than what we have?

Greg Jacobs stated, the only difference is you will notice on the survey you were provided that the parking spaces are not necessary so what we did instead of having 5 spaces to the North west of the trash enclosure we moved 3 of them over between the building and trash enclosure and provided an exit for the delivery vehicle to get back out into the highway.

President David Stimmel stated, when they made that modification was it already concreted in or something else.

Greg Jacobs stated, you know I was there and I didn’t pay any attention.

David Scott stated, there is no croach there for it. It is accessible.

Greg Jacobs stated, so what we would propose doing is just maintaining the gravel base that is there. It is a good idea and a much safer exit. They could go to the right and back to the South technically it is the railroads property to the East of the building.

(He is showing everyone the new survey with the new changes on it.)

President David Stimmel asked, any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience?

Director Weaver stated, in looking at this are you moving the trash enclosure?

Greg Jacobs stated, it shouldn’t be.

Attorney Altman stated, so does this need to be modified?

Director Weaver stated, it has to meet the setbacks.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave, Gary, and Jerry?

David Scott stated, no.

Gary Barbour stated, no

Jerry Thompson stated, no.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 7’ front (US 421) setback variance for a new retail building and 3’ front (US 421) setback variance for an on premise free standing sign. Also a 13’ front (Harrison St) setback variance for a 6’ privacy fence for a trash enclosure on Lots numbered Two (2), Three (3), Four (4) and One Hundred Forty-six (146) and thirty feet off the entire south side of Lot number five (5) in Turpies Addition to the Town of Monon, White County, Indiana. Also Lot number six (6) and thirty (30) feet off of the north side of lot number five (5) in Turpies Addition to the Town of Monon, White County Indiana, excepting there from ten (10) feet by parallel lines off of the west end of said lots.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Monon at 701 N. Market Street.

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


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


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

****

#2572 Jeffrey D. & Angela J. Teel; The property is located on Part S ½ S ½ 36-26-4 on 1.544, 0.454 and 0.236 acres, located West of C.R. 300 E at 2515 E. 700 S.

Violation: The house was built in 1998 and is not meeting the rear setback.

Request: They are requesting a 2’ height variance to build a pole barn 19’ tall for personal storage.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anyone here representing the Teel’s?

Jeff Teel stated, Jeff Teel.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anything else you want to add to it?

Jeff Teel stated, just for the record the house was built in 1997.

President David Stimmel stated, okay. We will address the violation afterwards. We will address the variance first. Is there anything you want to add to it other than that.

Jeff Teel stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, how far off is the rear setback?

Director Weaver stated, on the house.

President David Stimmel stated, I get it.

David Scott asked, is this zoned ag?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott asked, I asked, this before did we change this for ag?

Director Weaver stated, we have a proposal to change in the new ordinance.

President David Stimmel asked, Jerry any comments?

Jerry Thompson asked, are we dealing with the violation?

President David Stimmel stated, we are dealing with the variance first.

Jerry Thompson stated, I have nothing on the variance.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, no.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

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

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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


6. That the request is for a 2’ height variance to build a pole barn 19’ tall for personal storage on Part of the South Half of the South Half of Section 26, Township 26 North, Range 4 West of the Second Principal Meridian in the Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana more particularly described by:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 26 marked by a railroad spike; thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East, (based for bearings Grid bearings based on Indiana State Plan Coordinate System-West zone) along the south line of said Section 36 and along the centerline of County road 700 South, a distance of 2633.93 feet to a railroad spike at a point of beginning.

Thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds West a distance of 282.50 feet to a wood post; thence North 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 238.00 feet to an iron pipe, thence South 00 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 282.50 feet to a railroad spike; thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds West, along the south line of said Section 36 along the centerline of County road 700 South, a distance of 238.0 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.544 acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located West of 300 E. at 2515 E. 700 S.

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


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


President David Stimmel stated, okay now we are going to address this variance. Were you aware that you were out of compliance?


Jeff Teel stated, no, the builder submitted information in 1992. The drawing, the plot drawing that he submitted indicated where it was going to go at 89’6 plus or minus and there wasn’t anything said at that time. There is no doubt the permit says 100’, but no one said anything about the house being at 92’, so we didn’t.


Director Weaver stated, I have provided a copy of the letter that was sent, plus a copy of the permit and the drawing. He is correct what was presented at the time of the building permit was issued showed the house was only 89’6 plus or minus off the rear property line. The survey you have tonight shows it is 92’.3. He is correct, but it was not in compliance from the get go.


President David Stimmel stated, okay. Anybody in the audience want to commitment on this?

Jerry?


Jerry Thompson stated, the only thing I have to say is there probably wasn’t an issue until recently when the adjoining property sold.


Jeff Teel stated, it wasn’t an issue even the. It became an issue when we applied for the permit to build the building.


President David Stimmel stated, would this bring this into compliance then?


Director Weaver stated, no, we have not requested a variance on the home. We did not discover this until I was working on your staff reports.


David Scott asked, whose error would it be? I mean if the setback was on the permit and it says 89.6’.


Director Weaver stated, technically the permit should not have been issued with a measurement like that.


Gary Barbour stated, he still needs a variance.


Director Weaver stated, yes to bring it into compliance, yes.


Gary Barbour stated, I make a motion that we waive the fine and ask him to bring it into compliance and do away with the fine.


President David Stimmel asked, any discussion?


Jerry Thompson stated, I will second it.


President David Stimmel asked, any discussion? All in favor say “aye” and all opposed? Motion passed 5 to 0.


Gary Barbour stated, he needs to do it with in the next 6 months.


Director Weaver stated, there is a $75.00 file fee and he can use the survey that we have tonight to file that.


Gary Barbour stated, we ought to waive the fee also.


President David Stimmel stated, pardon me.


Gary Barbour stated, we missed it and we should waive the fee also. Can we do that.


Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think you are empowered to waive the fee, in fact it is not our department's fee, it is the building department's fee.


Director Weaver stated, no, it is our fee.


Attorney Altman stated, we don’t have the authority to waive the fee, this board doesn’t.


Carol Stradling stated, my feelings are like Gary’s if we realized it before he filed the first one on the height variance we could have included the two together, but it wasn’t realized and now that we have voted on the other one we can’t go back and…


Director Weaver stated, you couldn’t include it anyway.


David Scott stated, it has to be advertised.


Carol Stradling stated, we could have tabled it and re-advertised it. Surely there is a way we can legal waive that fee.


President David Stimmel stated, Bob Wrede if you have a question you have to come to the microphone.


Bob Wrede stated, Bob Wrede and I try not to stick my nose in places, but if you are going to amend the current one 100’ setback and amend the ordinance what is the new one going to be?


Director Weaver stated, it won’t amend the setbacks.


Bob Wrede stated, you don’t know if you are going to change the dimension. If you are going to change it at 90’ and you are at 92’, so it won’t make a difference.


Carol Stradling stated, what will change is the height on the barn, so in the new ordinance he would not have needed even that variance. Reconsider the last variance.


Attorney Altman stated, a motion to reconsider this is appropriate at this time.


Carol Stradling stated, reconsider the last variance.


Attorney Altman stated the vote on the last variance. Do you have to have somebody that is in the opposing side to make that motion. I think you have to have somebody and we don’t have anybody on that side.


Carol Stradling asked, what side do we need Jerry?


Attorney Altman stated, don’t you have to have someone on the negative side to make a motion to reconsider. I thought you did. If you did we are still in the mist of this matter, technically speaking a way for him to get away with so much expense.


President David Stimmel asked, is that something the commissioners can address?


Attorney Altman stated, no.


President David Stimmel asked, what about the APC?


Attorney Altman stated, well yeah, but it wouldn’t be quick enough for him to get relief.


David Scott stated, if we just had on the record that we waived the fine and the reason for it or not the fine, the fee we just can’t put it on the record why we…


Attorney Altman stated, you can, I just don’t know what the State Board of Accounts will say about that. You can do it.


President David Stimmel stated, all I’m asking is I’m wondering myself if the APC should instruct the Area Plan Director to rescind the fee on this particular application. That is what I’m asking would that be appropriate?


Director Weaver stated, I don’t know.


Gary Barbour stated, we’ve tried.


President David Stimmel stated, I don’t think it is a dead issue, it is just nothing that this board can do anything about right this second. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done.


Jeff Teel asked, who can?


President David Stimmel stated, that is the next question and I don’t think we can answer it here and we are wasting everyone’s time by pursuing it.


Carol Stradling stated, but if we don’t put a dead line on bringing this into compliance and it stands as it is.


Director Weaver asked, how long will you accept the survey?


Carol Stradling stated, the survey is valid.


Jeff Teel stated, it was just done.


Attorney Altman stated, is the survey is accurate we would accept and the survey would be fine.


Carol Stradling stated, there are lots of places currently out of compliance that don’t have to come before if they are not requesting…


Attorney Altman stated, presumably.


Carol Stradling stated, well we have voted not to fine him and that takes care of the violation and the only thing not taken care of is to bring it into compliance.


President David Stimmel stated, we just arguing about it or discussing it


Carol Stradling stated, if we don’t put a dead line on bringing it into compliance then he is fine until he builds on his property again.


Attorney Altman stated, he needs to bring it into compliance as soon as possible. You are right there are some violations that we don’t know and we don’t police that and I suspect you are right.


President David Stimmel asked, so is there a limit on Jeff bringing his property into compliance? Did we vote on 60 days?


Carol Stradling stated, I think Jerry suggested that.


Gary Barbour stated, Jerry said 60 days I said 6 months.


Director Weaver stated, in a 6 months time we can come up with a solution then.


Gary Barbour stated, okay 6 months. Everyone agree on that.


President David Stimmel stated, okay Jeff 6 months. Anything else?


Jeff Teel stated, no.


****


#2574 Kenneth C. & Michelle D. Hardebeck; The property is located on Part NW NE 23-27-3 5.00 acres, located East of S.R. 39 at the corner of C.R. 175 N. and C.R. 750 E. at 7553 E. 175 N.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 5’ height variance to build a new home.

President David Stimmel asked, is there someone here representing the Hardebeck’s?

Ken Hardebeck stated, I’m Ken Hardebeck. Requesting a 5’ height variance on a new construction improvement at said address.

President David Stimmel stated, okay, give us a minute. Anything Carol?

Carol Stradling asked, what is the current building there? Will it be staying?

Ken Hardebeck asked, which building?

Carol Stradling stated, it looks like it is log.

Ken Hardebeck stated, no it is not, it has red siding on it and falling apart. It is over a rock cellar, it is just a storage building. It is actually going to be torn down.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, nothing.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Jerry?

Jerry Thompson stated, nothing.

President David Stimmel asked, ready to vote?

Carol Stradling asked, is the height needed for the house or the barn?

Ken Hardebeck stated, the house.

Carol Stradling asked, is it a really tall house?

Ken Hardebeck stated, evidently 35’.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Ken Hardebeck stated, 30’ is the number now and I think Tippecanoe County is higher. I think with the new architect style with one primary peak or two on some of the houses, maybe needs to be raised. I’m not here to discuss that.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, I don’t see plans for the house.

Director Weaver stated, I agree with him and we are seeing more and more higher pitched houses.

Without further discussion the board voted.

The Board finds the following:

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

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

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit, and the height would not cause any problems to the neighboring properties.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

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

6. That the request is for a 5’ height variance to build a new home on that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union Township, White County, Indiana, described further by: Commencing at a railroad spike (RR) found at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter (North quarter corner) of said Section 23; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 08 seconds West (Indiana State Plane Coordinate System) along CR 750 E and the quarter section line 1,007.39 feet to a RR set at the point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds East 669.58 feet to a capped w/I.D. ½ inch iron pipe (I.P.) set, passing through an I.P. set at 20.00 feet thence South 00 degrees 12 minutes 58 seconds West 325.20 feet to a RR set, passing through an I.P. set at 305.20 feet; thence North 89 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West along CR 175 N and the quarter quarter section line 669.97 feet to a RR found at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 08 seconds East along Cr 750 N and the quarter section line 325.20 feet to the point of beginning, containing 5.000 acres more or less

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of S.R. 39 at the corner of 175 N. and 750 E at 7553 E. 175 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.

****

#2575 Michael J. & Mary E. Berry; The property is located on Lot 4 and Part of Lot 5 in Walnut Glen Subdivision, in East Monticello at 742 E. Canary Lane.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 19’ front setback variance and a 4’ east side setback to rebuild a home destroyed by fire.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anybody here representing that?

Michael Berry stated, I’m Michael Berry and I have also brought my contractor Bill Fraser with me. As you see through the pictures, my house was destroyed by fire and what we did was have the bad part removed and kept the foundation. That is what is existing right now. With the variance of 32’ we can not move the house back because the subdivision was build in 1956 on December 5 and when it was plotted every house on Canary Lane is not 32’ or doesn’t meet the variance. I did have the property resurveyed with Mr. Stine. I wanted to let Mr. Fraser.

Bill Fraser stated, I’m Bill Fraser and I’m the primary contractor for Mike Berry. The biggest issue that we have other than the corner was we are adding a 1.5’ extension by 9.5’ long on the front of the house which because of that addition we have to apply for the variance for him to make this within compliance, other than that the existing foundation we are not doing anything with that other than rebuilding what went bad.

Director Weaver stated, the existing, the house that was their previously was considered grandfathered. In order to build back on the foundation you do have to request a variance, it is not just because of the addition.

Bill Fraser stated, we figured, well.

Director Weaver stated, that is not the only purpose.

Bill Fraser stated, well it wasn’t meeting and we had to go through the channels.

Attorney Altman stated, so you are adding a little closer.

Bill Fraser stated, yes there is a 1.5’ x 9.5’ bump on that and then come the issue of the existing structure was to close as well that was the other reason, those are the two primary reasons why we had to get a variance.

David Scott asked, how did Diann determine what was the front property line?

Director Weaver stated, this one was easy compared to some.

President David Stimmel asked, Jerry anything?

Jerry Thompson stated, I have nothing.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling the survey we are looking at does not really have the footprint of your future home does it?

Michael Berry stated, it was added, it was re-surveyed. If you look at the bottom.

Bill Fraser stated, what she is saying is that survey doesn’t have the proposed 1.5’ bump out there.

Michael Berry stated, it should be on there.

Director Weaver stated, I believe it is on here, but it shows on here as a 3’ x 13’.

Carol Stradling stated, I’m looking at a 3’ x 13’ entry and then the carport.

Director Weaver stated, they had a carport there previously.

Michael Berry stated, there won’t be a carport there.

Carol Stradling asked, there won’t be a carport?

Michael Berry stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, so it will look similar to this?

Michael Berry stated, yes.

Carol Stradling asked, will you not have a garage?

Michael Berry stated, no.

Carol Stradling stated, and no carport.

Michael Berry stated, no.

Bill Fraser stated, it will just be the existing slab there now and it will be parking space.

Carol Stradling asked, will that porch be at the back?

Bill Fraser stated, the 12’x16’, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, so it essentially follows the foot print of the old house, just a little bit..

Bill Fraser stated, just the bump on the front and the deck on the back.

Carol Stradling stated, okay.

President David Stimmel asked, any questions from the audience?

John Myers asked, is this going to extend to the North any farther?

Michael Berry stated, no.

Bill Fraser stated, the existing pad you have is a 14’ pad and the deck is only going to be extended out 16’.

John Myers stated, so you are not coming to the North.

Bill Fraser stated, no we are not going to the North.

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. The home burned down and is being rebuilt.

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 19’ front setback variance and a 4’ east side setback to rebuild a home destroyed by fire on all of Lot Four (4) in Walnut Glen Subdivision; All of Lot Five (5) in Walnut Glen Subdivision, except a tract of land beginning at a point which is the southeast corner of said lot five (5) and running thence South seventy-nine degrees and thirty-five minutes west (S 79 ° 35’ W) one hundred and nineteen and six tenths (119.6) Feet; Thence North six degrees and forty-nine minutes West (N 6° 49’ W) fifty (50) feet thence south eighty-one degrees and forty minutes East (S 81° 40’ E) one hundred and twenty-five and one tenth (125.1) feet to the road; thence along the road right of way on curve to the left having a twenty-five (25) foot radius, a distance of ten (10) feet to the point of beginning, in Union Township, White County, State of Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in East Monticello at 742 E. Canary Lane.


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, first we have received into record 3 colored photos and black and white that shows existing structure before it burnt. The last page is a schematic of a home and I presume that is what you are rebuilding. You need to get your building permit before you proceed.

****

#2576 Andy & Emily A. Venters; The property is located on Lot 9 in Southlawn Subdivision Part 3, in the City of Monticello at 503 South Park Drive.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting a 15’ front setback variance to build an attached garage on the existing home.

President David Stimmel asked, is there someone here representing the Venter’s?

Andy Venters stated, I’m Andy Venters.

President David Stimmel asked, do you have anything to add to this request?

Andy Venters stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, any questions Jerry?

Jerry Thompson stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Gary Barbour?

Gary Barbour stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Carol?

Carol Stradling stated, I haven’t driven down that road in a while, but can you tell me what other homes have the garage, I mean S. Park Dr. was constructed, there all in a line along there and yours would be the first and only I think to bump out.

Andy Venters stated, directly across the street and West is another that built forward. I believe it was done a couple of years ago.

Carol Stradling asked, how many homes can you tell me?

Andy Venters stated, maybe a hand full.

Carol Stradling asked, a full hand full or a partial hand full?

Andy Venters stated, 2 or 3. I know across the street others have done it on the sides where they had room.

Carol Stradling stated, you don’t have any room on the side?

Andy Venters stated, there is 22’ from the side of the house.

Carol Stradling stated, to the property line.

Andy Venters stated, yes to the property line.

Carol Stradling stated, the reason the current space is inadequate is because.

Andy Venters stated, we want a two car garage.

Carol Stradling stated, then that will become an extra room.

Andy Venters stated, yes, it will be a bedroom with a bathroom in it.

Carol Stradling asked, Diann do you know how many? You know what I’m getting at don’t you?

Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t, yes I do.

David Scott asked, are there any neighborhood conveniences or anything?

Director Weaver stated, this subdivision was drawn up before area plan existed. It was drawn up with a front set back of 50’.

President David Stimmel asked, Andy are you ready to build right away?

Andy Venters stated, yes we are.

Carol Stradling asked, can you put a drive around and build in the back?

Andy Venters stated, no.

Director Weaver stated, I can go to the office and pull the aerials. You can see what you’re wanting to see.

Carol Stradling asked, does this matter to anyone else?

David Scott stated, it didn’t until you brought it up.

President David Stimmel stated, well I was thinking about tabling it, but I don’t want to make him wait.

Attorney Altman stated, that highway expansion is going to be worse.

Director Weaver stated, you are a road over for that.

Attorney Altman stated, oh you are right, I’m sorry.

President David Stimmel asked, do you mind if we take a 5 minute break? Let Diann get this stuff. Let’s take a 5 minute break.

The meeting reconvened.

President David Stimmel stated, meeting called back to order. We have been handed and I think Mr. Venters has a copy of the aerial photograph and just give us a minute to study it if you don’t mind.

(Currently studying the aerial.)

President David Stimmel asked, any questions Jerry?

Jerry Thompson stated, no.

President David Stimmel asked, Dave?

David Scott stated, no.

Carol Stradling asked, did Whiteds live across the street from you?

Andy Venters stated, yes they do. Well it is diagonal, it is where the pool is, but there is no pool there now.

Carol Stradling stated, okay, and that is the garage you said was.

Andy Venters stated, that has been done in the last few years. One of the reasons we didn’t want to build in the back was you can see there are pine trees and the left and right side of the house that goes through there, we also plan to build on the back and was told we should have included. We plan to build a family room on the back of the house someday. We didn’t want to take up the yard with a garage in the back.

Gary Barbour asked, the trees on the west side of your property where the garage is going to go, are they going to be cut down?

Andy Venters stated, we are going to try to take out 2 or 3 of them. There are 2 rows there, double thick. We will have to cut the limbs back or possibly take the trunks out from up rooting.

Carol Stradling stated, the property line is actually set off the roadway quite a bit. Isn’t it, there are no side walks in the area.

Andy Venters stated, yes, no. There is actually almost 50’ from the house and the road. The property lines are set back.

Carol Stradling stated, it is a wide roadway, but no sidewalks.

David Scott stated, we just have to decide whether we want to start something.

Andy Venters stated, most of the houses have already enclosed their garages, they have siding glass doors patio doors. The driveway goes to sliding glass doors to their house. Whether they add on to a garage. Most have enough room on the sides to squeeze through there.

Jerry Thompson asked, is there any fan mail from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything.

Jerry Thompson stated, I’m ready to vote.

President David Stimmel asked, are you 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 and on City water and sewer.

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, and basically conforms with the neighborhood.

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 build an attached garage on the existing home on Lot number Nine (9) in Southlawn Subdivision Part III, in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 503 South Park Drive.


7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 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 1 negative.

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

****

#2577 Andrea Homes Inc; The property is located on Lot 1 in Hughes Business Park Subdivision, located south of Brookston on the Southwest corner of S.R. 43 and C.R. 1250 S.

Violation: None

Request: They are requesting to amend Special Exception #2535 for sales of Modular Homes.

President David Stimmel asked, is someone representing this variance?

Rebecca Trent stated, good evening I’m Rebecca Trent, I’m an attorney, I’m here on behalf of Tina Bernacchi who is the owner of Andrea Homes. She is also here tonight to answer your questions.

President David Stimmel asked, is there anything either one of you want to add to the variance?

Rebecca Trent stated, I don’t think an explanation of why we are here, it is my understand we are here because the building site plan ended up changing as to what it was done in July when it was approved based on the necessary location of the septic system. The building need to be moved for the septic field to go in the location it is at in order not to go to a mound system. That is why we are here.

Director Weaver stated, before we go any farther, I did not realize the board wasn’t given a copy of the minutes for the original survey of this request. Does the board want me to make copies so you can review.

President David Stimmel stated, yes.

Carol Stradling stated, just the survey.

(The tape was shut off and it was not turned back on.)

The Board finds the following:

1. That the building site is currently zoned B-2, General Business and no residential use was permitted.

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 new 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 for the amendment but concerns were voiced about any further accesses or expansion of the special exception. No additional expansion of use were authorized.

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

6. That the request is to amend Special Exception #2535 for sales of Modular Homes on Lot Numbered One (1) in Hughes Business Park Subdivision in Prairie Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Brookston at the corner of S.R. 43 & C.R. 1250 S.


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


The amended special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 2 negative.

****

#2578 Judith Bronowski; The property is located on Lot 13 in Camp Munsee Addition, located South of C.R. 400 N. at 3702 N. Camp Munsee Court.

Violation: None

Request: She is requesting a 1’ elevation variance to rebuild a house. The White County Ordinance for Flood Hazard Area requires floor elevation to be 654’ and she is requesting it to be 653’. She is also requesting a 4’ front setback variance to rebuild and enlarge an existing deck to be 28’ wide x 7’ deep.

(The tape was shut off.)

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. Past history did not indicate a history of flooding and applicant accepted the risk of flooding if it occurs. The building would not increase the risk of other properties being flooded.

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 requesting a 1’ elevation variance to rebuild a house. The White County Ordinance for Flood Hazard Area requires floor elevation to be 654’ and she is requesting it to be 653’. She is also requesting a 4’ front setback variance to rebuild and enlarge an existing deck to be 28’ wide x 7’ deep on Lot #13, Camp Munsee Addition Liberty TL Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of C.R. 400 N. at 3702 N. Camp Munsee 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.


****

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission