Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.
Members attending were: David Scott, Charles Mellon, Gerald Cartmell, and Jerry Thompson . Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.
Visitors attending were: Sharon McKay, Leonard Clark, Nancy Clark, Carl Robinson, Bob Bryles, Nancy Bryles, Barbara Bozzo, Gino Bozzo, David Sare, Ray Lerma, Grace Oilar, David ???, Donya Tirpak, Don Pauken, Jim Mann, Robert Hines, Constance Schamberger, Robert Hutter, ???, Don Blair, Catherine A. Gross, Kelly Good, Tim Bryles and Greg Roth.
The meeting was called to order by Vice President Thompson and roll call was taken. Dave Scott made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the, July 26, 2007 meeting. Motion was seconded by Charlie Mellon and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.
****
#2615 Barry R. & Donya R. Tirpak; The property is located on Lot 14 in Southlawn Addition Part III, in the City of Monticello at 513 South Park Drive. This is continued from the May 17th and June 21st meetings and tabled from July 26, 2007.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 21’ front (Allen St.) setback variance to build a room addition on the existing home.
Vice President Thompson asked, and ma’am you are?
Donya Tirpak stated, I am Donya Tirpak.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay thank you.
Donya Tirpak stated, I have put new information together and to present to the board.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, for everybody else just to kind of correct, show the record, the reason why this matter has been continued for several of us meetings is because the vote on the, her application, she and her husbands application was a 4 to 4 vote and that means nobody got 3 votes. I told you about and it just gets continued to the next time. Thank you very much. I’ll put that in the file.
Vice President Thompson asked, Jerry do you want to make mention of these.
Attorney Altman stated, oh yes, I received, we just received in the record a black folder containing, looking at the index, first of all it says #1) is a hardship letter from Barry and Donya Tirpak with photo of utility location. 2) it says standard of granting variances letter according to comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision control ordinance, 3) survey, revised survey and letter of support from city, 4) Exhibit A- Variances approved in the past in the same district 5) exhibit B- property values, 6) Exhibit C- variances approved 1996, 7) exhibit D- properties in district on corner lots showing similar setbacks as we are requesting, 8) exhibit E- variance approved on Fisher Street, 2 fronts, same hardship, no letter of support from the city. And then continuing as I won’t address each and every one of them, each one of those exhibits is carried forth in the tabs and index of the exhibit of the applicant, okay thank you.
Vice President Thompson stated, all right, thank you. Okay.
Donya Tirpak asked, am I allowed to go through it?
Vice President Thompson stated, yes you are.
Donya Tirpak stated, okay. I’d like to start with #1), index #1, I’ve copied this information which is at the top right out of your ordinance, White County Zoning Ordinance. I made a copy here but I basically just went ahead and just typed it out and it states on 10-1001 that variances are allowed and the order for the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider an application for a variance at least one of the following 2 conditions must exist. Thought this would be important for me to go ahead and start from the very beginning, take out the ordinance, read it word by word and provide you with the evidence. Number 1, I don’t really think that maybe that pertains to me because of my lot is not narrow, it’s not shallow, or the shape but I do feel that we fall under B the application of the variance must allege that for reasons rather than those set forth in condition number 1 the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would cause undue or unnecessary hardship or would involve practical difficulties as applied to the property for which the variance is sought and a request is made to vary such regulations or requirements. So, the next one, key words, enforcement of this ordinance would cause undue or unnecessary hardship or would involve practical difficulty as applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Having a property located on a corner lot, which I am at 513 South Park Drive, brings a hardship to us as homeowners wanting to make any type of improvements to our property on the west side. Being located on a corner lot now requires us to have 2 fronts according to the White County Zoning Ordinance. Any reasonable person that purchases a piece of property on a corner lot would take the position that their property has 1 front, 1 rear, and 1 side. That is what happened to us when we purchased our property. Now having to meet the 32’ of setbacks required for the homeowner which is us definitely puts us at an undue and unnecessary hardship as the property owner. For a homeowner to make improvements on their side property which is considered to be a front according to the White County Zoning Ordinance it is now required to meet a 30’ setback compared to the 8’ side setbacks. This is definitely, definitely a hardship to us living on a corner lot because of the fact that we just lost an extra 24’ from our property line. Page 2, if my property was located on 511 South Park Drive I would not have to appear to you guys and request a variance because I would meet the 8’ side setbacks required from the White County Zoning Ordinance for the proposed family room addition that we are looking for. Enforcement of this ordinance would definitely cause practical difficulty to our property and to my home as you look at the layout of the first floor of our home. That you should have on file, a layout of the first floor of my home showing the rooms, you will see that it is not practical to travel through a master bedroom to enter a family room. When you enter the house and if you guys recommend that maybe we put it on the south side of the house you would have to enter the master bedroom or another bedroom to go through to get to a family room and that is not practical to have visitors over to your home and require them to travel through the whole house, enter through a master bedroom just to reach a location to sit. We did have an engineer from NIPSCO come to our property on August 2 to evaluate the possibility of locating the family room on the southeast end of the home verses the west side of the home. He also agreed it is not practical to locate the family room to the south, southeast end of the home because of all of the gas and electrical lines that are located underground on the southeast end of the property. He said that it would be more practical to place the room addition on the west end of the home where there are no utilities located. The difficulty of placing the family room addition to that southeast end of our home would bring a significant amount of undue and unnecessary financial hardship to us as a homeowner. For this to be done we would have to incur the cost of hiring an architect to come to the home and prepare a blueprint to restructure basically the whole layout of our house. We incur the cost of relocating all the electrical and plumbing on the east side of our home. We’re going to incur the cost of having to relocate of all of the utilities located on the south end of our home, the outside utilities. As a homeowner we cannot burn the financial cost to have all of this done. On the next page I’ve taken a picture on the south end of our home, what I call the southeast corner where you suggest maybe we could put it there and as you can see in the pictures the electrical box, there is no wires running from the utility poles to our house is all underneath the ground. Those would all have to be relocated, the gas box line, right there, all underground and of course the air conditioner. Index number 2, once again I gathered this information out of your ordinance and it’s under standards for granting a variance. These are the standards that you have to look at. Standards for granting variances the Board of Zoning Appeals after public hearing may vary or modify the terms and requirements of this ordinance if and only if the following facts, circumstances, or conditions exist at least one of two conditions set forth in section 7.3001 does in fact exist. I read that it does not pertain to us because it deals with modular homes. B, the grant of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and will not be contrary to the intent and purposes of this ordinance. If you see section 4 it will show variances granted within the last 10, 15 years by the Board of Zoning Appeals members that has never on your report of findings of facts that is your sheet that you complete to judge whether it’s approved or not that it would be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare and not be contrary to the intent and purposes of this ordinance. Basically in other words all the variances that have been approved in this district my subdivision has never caused injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. That is a fact. If you look on section 4 I’ve provided copies, pictures of the variance from the most recent. The first one, starting with Andy and Emily Venters on 503 South Park Drive. They requested a 15’ front setback variance on November 11, 2006 it was approved and I listed there the board members along with that you’ve got copies of the minutes and as I read over these minutes I do not see any type of hardship that was asked for by this homeowner. I do have a comment by Dave Scott stating we have decided whether we want to start something. I interrupt that, that if you want to go ahead and allow one that you take the chance of approving the rest that’s going to come before you. The variance was granted based on the findings of fact of the vote 4 to 1 and I also attached a copy of his survey and also attached a copy of the findings of facts and I attached copies of these to indicate to you no where did it indicate or say that it was going to be hazardous to the public. If you look at the yellow tab you will also see Dave and Bonnie Kelly, requesting 23’ of front setback variance, approved on June 15, 2006 and the board members. Once again as I look at the minutes…
Attorney Altman stated, pardon me but that shows a blue tab on mine.
Donya Tirpak stated, I ran out of some of the tabs, I’m sorry.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good, okay.
Donya Tirpak stated, so I did have to, okay so I’ll just say the next tab.
Attorney Altman stated, okay very good, just for the record.
Donya Tirpak stated, I provided a copy of his ordinance, I’m sorry his survey. Basically what I found very similar to my situation and this one is he already was, had an existing variance for his unattached garage and he requested to go ahead and add on to that so he was adding on the same distance that he was already granted before and from the findings of facts there was no indication that this was going to be harmful to the public. Next tab I have for another property that was located in our district, Richard & Cynthia Whited. They requested a 14’ front setback variance on June 21, 2001 it was approved by the board members never saw any type of hardship and also if you see in the aerial photos I’ve attached some of those. These people, same was as me, I never once read in the minutes where you guys indicated to them you have a lot of room in the back here how come you don’t use that, so that’s why I’ve attached copies of the aerial photos. Once again you’ve got their surveys and a copy of the findings of the facts. Nothing stating from all the board members that would be dangerous to the public. Okay, as I go back to number 2, index number 2, number 3, actually I’m sorry, C. The use or value of the land or area adjacent of the property which is the subject of the variance will not be adversely affected. We nor the Area Plan Department, we meaning I, Donya Tirpak the family has never received any written documentation from the adjacent land owners expressing that they will be affected if approved. Our property is the highest assessed in the district. We are not doing this to bring down the value. If you see section 5, tab 5, I’ve given a list of all the property values. This was taken off the White County website. Barry and Donya Tirpak, 513 South Park Drive, current total value 204,600, now I’ve just given you the information of the properties that are adjacent to me, Troy Green, 1108 Allen Street, current total value 148,300. Greg Vogel, 510 South Park Drive, total value 96, 200. Larry Norris, that doesn’t’ have a house on it I would say that would be 514 South Park Drive. There’s an empty lot there so current total value 20,100. Patricia Purdy, 511 South Park Drive, current total value 121,100 and last one is Crowell Living Trust, 1008 Allen Street, current total value is $112,000. So like I said I have not received anything in writing from anyone stating that they are against this. The Area Plan Department has not. I asked the girls today in the office before I came just to make sure if anybody had submitted anything and they said no. I also would like to say, okay lets move to D real quick. The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved and does not exist in similar property in the same district. In other words the hardship inconvenience or difficulty is unique and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same district. Well my need is no different than all the other variances that have been approved in my district. Whether it be 6 months ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, you guys still have the same ordinance that stated the same thing it has been about the hardships. It said 5 years ago in your ordinance, they would like for you to demonstrate a hardship and 6 months ago they had it, 5 years ago have it and today they have it. So what I’m referring to is in the past they’ve been approved without hardships and today I do present to you a hardship and there’s more on number 4 if you’d like to back to that one. E, the hardship or difficulty, well I’m not even going to read that because that doesn’t apply to me because that also deals with modular homes so I’ll go ahead and skip that one. Next page F, the granting of the variances necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possess by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. That’s correct. This variance has been granted by other owners, 2 other property owners in the same vicinity, same district but ours is currently being denied, I don’t know if you would actually say denied but a tie vote. The same front setbacks were approved on my property for an unattached garage in 1996. I’ve attached a copy of the variance that was approved for 513 South Park Drive for an unattached garage asking for the same setbacks and that is on index 6. So my job was to show you guy’s the findings as to each of these standards and I feel like I’ve done that pretty well by explaining and detailing every one. Number 3, index number 3, Barry and I would like to propose to you, we are going to amend our survey and cut back the requested room addition. This is a new survey that shows, we have changed it to a 24 x 20, instead of a 24 x 24 which was requested the first time. On the second page still I have a letter from the City of Monticello that was presented at previous meetings and I have had them call me and stop me and ask if it’s been approved yet and I said no and it looks like we have several council members here today and as you can see with their signature, them owning that street have granted me permission to go ahead and build this extending out to the garage. I think with the support from the City is pretty strong. I’ve also attached a copy of our old ordinance. Okay so we’ve covered 4, we’ve covered 5. If you would turn to index 7, I have provided you with copies of pictures of homes on corner lots in this district. By providing you with copies I am showing you that is not uncommon of granting variances like this. The request that I am looking for is definitely not something new. There’s a lot of houses that extend out this far. There’s houses out here that are extending farther than what I am. So there’s 3 pages of all the lots that are on the corners, same as I. And tab number 8 I have to bring up the fact that I just noticed in the past that you approved a variance that was given to 612 Hillcrest Drive, requesting a 9’ front setback variance on Fisher Street, approved May 23, 2007, listed are the board members, their hardship listed was it was a 32’ setback limits or options on our rear yard, they have 2 fronts. Mine falls under the same situation. Dave Scott stated, the only I thing can see wrong with this is that once you start doing this if all the neighbors want to build garages in this setback area you better be ready to approve them all. I would like for you guys to stand with that. There’s variances that have been approved in my district. Why deny mine? And I had a letter from the City of Monticello and granting somebody access off of a very busy road as Fisher Street without a letter of support was very surprising to me. At this time I think that’s it if you have any questions.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone else care to address the variance either for or against at this time? Okay, Jerry do you have any questions for Mrs. Tirpak?
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t have any questions other than I would just note that I did accept their whole exhibit as exhibit A, just note that for the record.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Diann do you have anything you want to present?
Director Weaver stated, no, I do not.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, all right. Gerald Cartmell do you have any questions or comments? Dave Scott do you have anything?
Dave Scott stated, yes, I just wanted to state that I may vote in your favor but if I do it has nothing to do with the variances that have been passed, granted in the past. Did I understand that you are adjusting your request to…
Donya Tirpak stated, 20 x 24.
Dave Scott asked, okay, so what’s that make your setback then?
Donya Tirpak stated, I’ll let Diann answer that.
Charlie Mellon stated, it makes it 25.
Director Weaver stated, well according to the survey it shows their going to be 14’ from the foundation to the road right of way.
Donya Tirpak stated, but instead of asking for a 21’ variance I’ll be asking for a, is it 18, no 19.
Dave Scott asked, where is that?
Director Weaver stated, well we’ve got to go from the overhang, I’m assuming you’ve got a 1’ overhang so.
Donya Tirpak stated, that, yes. I think the 24 gives it enough, I think the 24 is the overhang.
Dave Scott stated, the only thing I’m going to tell you about variances and everybody must hear, might hear but just about everybody except for Jerry on this board is fairly new and when we come on here there’s a learning curve where you have to learn things and we passed, when I first got on this board we rubber stamped everything that come through here. Anybody that wanted a variance got one, well you can see according, if you don’t like the way the setbacks are and everything, we’ve had over the past couple of years, I can’t tell you how many steering committee meetings to rewrite the county ordinances. The time if you want to build right on your property line the thing to do is to show up at the steering committee meetings and say that’s where we want to build. Now I don’t think that’s a good idea but if that’s what your opinion is or somebody’s opinion is then you need to come and get involved and say you know, that’s what I want. Having said that, what we’ve done in the past, like I say has been a learning curve for me and Mr. Stimmel’s got on here and made things and Gerald and we’re trying to do things by the book and it hasn’t been don’t that way in the past and I can show you instance after instance all over this county where it has created problems and hardships for neighbors and hardships for traffic. We go out to places to look at properties and there’s an 8’ right-of-way and people’s got to back out, no way a fire could be able to get down through there. These things have all been passed in the passed.
Donya Tirpak stated, um hum.
Dave Scott stated, well my tour here is going to be short lived but from now on somebody’s gonna prove hardship before I’m going to vote for a variance. Now I think you’ve justified your hardship being on a corner lot. I live in a town and there’s some corner lots we have that are unbuildable because of just what you said and, but I don’t want the people in the crowd or the people out in the town or everything think I’m going to rubber stamp everything that comes through here because things have rubber stamped in the past. People are going to show hardship or they’re not going to get a vote from me on the variance. I just thought I needed to say that for everybody’s benefit.
Vice President Thompson stated, thanks Dave. Charlie do you have anything for…
Charlie Mellon stated, no not really. We’ve heard all this here material before and I still think, I haven’t been on here very long but I was on the Area Plan for a long time and listened to situations for 12 years since I came to town and their stressing a hardship case more than they ever was and that’s what’s bringing up some of the tied votes since we don’t have 5 members and he’s right to a certain extent but still it’s been changed to quick and to strong, as far as I’m concerned. That’s about all I’ve got to say, I think we’ve spent enough time on this. We’ve got a lot of other ones to do and we’ve spent a lot of time with them in the past and I think it’s time to get it over with.
Vice President Thompson stated, Gerald.
Gerald Cartmell asked, so what is the overhang now?
Charlie Mellon stated, it would be a foot, she said.
Donya Tirpak asked, pardon me?
Charlie Mellon stated, didn’t you say a foot overhang?
Gerald Cartmell asked, how much overhang? Is that included now so it’s now 20’ including the overhang? Instead of 24, is that right?
Director Weaver stated, I’m looking, I’m trying to determine that.
Charlie Mellon stated, if you’re taking 4’ off your going to have 3, take a foot off on the overhang and there’d be 3 left.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I’m getting that clarified.
Dave Scott asked, what tab is that new survey under, can you tell me?
Donya Tirpak stated, yes, the survey is on tab 3.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes its’ a new survey, yes.
Dave Scott stated, 10’ I think it’s probably to the foundation.
Director Weaver stated, the survey states it is to the foundation, so you have to take a foot away so it would be actually 13’ from the overhang to the property line.
Vice President Thompson asked, satisfied? Okay, go ahead Dave.
Dave Scott stated, well the only other thing I’d like to say, I didn’t say is a lot of times when we did pass the variances without hardships after meetings and everything else people would come to me with the other side of the thing, why did you pass that. They didn’t show hardship there was no reason for this. And in your particular case I had a guy come to me and say he appreciated that we had turned yours down and well that’s all I’ll say about it.
Charlie Mellon stated, I think she’s got about one of the best explained hardship cases that we’ve had here lately with everything, wiring and everything on the southeast side, kitchen, bedrooms and everything and the place for it’s on the west side.
Vice President Thompson asked, any other discussion from the board? If no, we’re ready to vote?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, then let’s vote.
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. And the existing residence’s layout makes for practical hardship to expand the residence to the south.
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 owner
6. That the request was amended at the meeting to ask for a 19’ front (Allen St.) setback variance to build a room addition onto the existing house on Lot 14 in Southlawn Addition Part III in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 513 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 3 affirmative and 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, announcing the results of the voting today on the amended petition for a variance request #2614 and I’ll note for the record it’s amended by the survey that was delivered this evening to us bearing the date of August 19, 2007 signed by James L. Milligan showing a proposed addition that is apparently 14’ off of the lot line, the west lot line.
Vice President Thompson stated, I believe that’s the variance.
Attorney Altman asked, did I say the wrong number?
Vice President Thompson stated, yes you did.
Attorney Altman stated, 2615, I’m sorry, 2615 announcing the results of 2615 there are 3 votes vote for the variance 1 vote denying it. The variance as amended is approved.
Donya Tirpak stated, thank you.
Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit before you proceed.
****
#2631 Harold Myers; The property is located on 7.149 acres, Out NE Frax 21-27-3 and 7.384 acres, NW NW 22-27-3 Northeast of Monticello at 1995 N. East Shafer Drive. Tabled from June 28 & July 26, 2007.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 42' front setback variance to place cabins on the property.
Vice President Thompson stated, this variance has been withdrawn, withdrawn period will not appear again.
Director Weaver stated, no, not unless he reapplied.
****
#2643 Leonard D. & Nancy A. Clark; The property is located on Lot 34 in Parse Forest Lodge 2nd, South of Lowes Bridge at 5049 Canyon Loop. This is continued from the July 26th meeting.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 6’ Southwest side setback variance to build a new home.
Vice President Thompson asked, and you are?
Leonard Clark stated, I’m Leonard Clark.
Nancy Clark stated, I’m Nancy Clark.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay thank you, I knew that but just for the record we need that, thank you. Do you have anything you’d like to present other than what I read to the board?
Nancy Clark stated, we’ve got some additional letters.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, why don’t you give that to our attorney please.
Attorney Altman stated, I’ve just been handed a letter dated August 9, 2007 Area Planning Commission, Monticello, Indiana 47960. Attached is our letter of July 20, 2007 which wholeheartedly supports the efforts of Leonard and Nancy Clark in their request for a variance at their property on Canyon Loop Drive. Our property is directly across the channel. I understand the request has been deferred until the August hearing and that there may have been some misunderstanding concerning our support for the Clarks. As we mentioned in our July letter, a couple of years ago, we were contemplating making an offer on the same property and sketched out plans similar to the Clark’s to build on one lot and to maintain the garage on the adjacent lot. Our plan was to preserve the two lots as individual lots, one for the house and one for the garage. This presented us with much more latitude and opportunities for the future. The two separate lots would continue to be sized similar to most of the surrounding properties and would have provided the opportunity to further develop the garage lot if the opportunity presented itself in the future. The property on Canyon Loop was the worst maintained and a real “eye sore” to the neighborhood until the Clark’s purchased it. They have cleared the yard, are working hard on a dock area that’s been unattended for decades and need your approval to replace an almost uninhabitable house with a newly built one in the very near future. The Clark’s request for a variance clearly represents the most ambitious and positive development in our neighborhood since we purchased our property 5 years ago. Once again, we wholeheartedly support the Clark’s variance request and believe it is in the Clark’s, the neighborhood’s and the entire area’s economic development interest to approve their request to build a house on one lot and maintain the garage on the second lot. Please contact us if we can provide any additional information or support for the Clarks. Pat and Donna Carroll, 5171 Crabapple Loop, Monticello, Indiana 47960, 317-508-4327, and attached to that is a letter July 20, 2007 that I read at the last meeting before us. So I’m not rereading it. Now I’ll open an envelope that has also been handed to me by the applicants and I’ll read it. It is Ralph and Gloria Crook, 5053 Canyon Loop, Monticello, IN., to whom it may concern, Leonard and Nancy Clark are our next door neighbors. They have made great improvements to their property and maintain it very well. We believe the changes they want to make will be an asset to the neighborhood. We have no problem with the changes the want to make. Ralph & Gloria Crook. Anything else you want to read?
Leonard Clark stated, I don’t have anything else I want read but if you look on that survey that Mr. Milligan prepared there’s a mistake on the math on that. Actually I have drawn out on a paper the actual dimensions that should be on there. He’s actually got the thing, when you add the 42’ and the 9’ from that side that leaves me 9’ on the other side and he’s got it down to 5 or 6’, I believe so…
Gerald Cartmell stated, so you don’t even need us.
Leonard Clark stated, well I need…
Gerald Cartmell stated, if you’ve got a legal document that says that you don’t need us.
Leonard Clark stated, well I need 9’ or 8’ and 10’, I’ve got 9’ on both sides.
Vice President Thompson stated, he’s 9’.
Leonard Clark stated, you can go ahead and add it to.
Vice President Thompson stated, that still works.
Director Weaver stated, as long as it’s from the foundation, you can be 9 and 9.
Leonard Clark stated, I thought it was 10 on one side and 10 on the other side.
Director Weaver stated, you have to have a minimum of 8’ with a total of 18 between the two. So it doesn’t have to be 8 and 10. It can be 9 and 9.
Leonard Clark asked, from the foundation?
Vice President Thompson stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, no, from the overhang.
Leonard Clark stated, okay I still need, I’ll have a 1’ overhang then on that south…
Vice President Thompson asked, so you’re about 8 and 8, technically?
Leonard Clark stated, well, right.
Vice President Thompson stated, if you include your overhang, you’d be 8
Leonard Clark stated, it’d be 8’ from this side…
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, we don’t go to the overhangs now do we don’t we go to the foundation now?
Director Weaver stated, no we go to the overhang.
Dave Scott stated, to the overhang.
Leonard Clark stated, I don’t know if those guys want to look at that to see what it looks like versus what Mr. Milligan actually drew out.
Vice President Thompson stated, lets see what he’s point at to us here.
Leonard Clark stated, this would be the north side, this would be the south side. The purple lines are the lot lines, the black line is the existing structure and the red line would be the proposed new structure.
Dave Scott stated, you’ve got 18.
Leonard Clark stated, well this is actually 60.24, I think 6’ 3”. But I just drew it out 60.
Vice President Thompson stated, 9 and 9 but then you take off for the overhang and that takes it back to 8 and 8 so he still needs but not…
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s going on there that the overhang isn’t….
Gerald Cartmell asked, we don’t know what the overhang is for sure, do we?
Vice President Thompson stated, no we’re taking his word for it. Basically a foot overhang right?
Leonard Clark stated, it will be a 1’ overhang, that’s what I planned on putting on the house is a 1’ overhang.
Vice President Thompson stated, well yes.
Leonard Clark stated, on the new proposed new house.
Vice President Thompson asked, Jerry should we keep this or give this back to him?
Attorney Altman stated, we certainly want that yes, it’s an exhibit.
Vice President Thompson asked, do you have an extra?
Leonard Clark stated, I don’t have an extra but I can, I can draw another one out, I mean I’ve got all the dimensions at home.
Vice President Thompson stated, have you means of getting a copy for us then we can give this back to him.
Director Weaver stated, they can make a copy next door.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, okay what I don’t understand is where he has it 6’ on the, funny dimensions but on the varying of this, here’s the garage and it’s 9’ rather than 6’.
Leonard Clark stated, I’ll show you what I’ve got drawn on here.
Attorney Altman stated, I know what that says and I’ve just done the math too and I can do 9 and 42 is 51 that leaves 9’.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, you’re saying that there’s 9’ on the…
Leonard Clark stated, south side also there. I call this the south, I call this the north.
Attorney Altman stated, okay I’m going to say the nearest to that garage.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, because it’s awful hard to call that south at that angle.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, so you’re saying that’s 9’ not 6 or 5’.
Leonard Clark stated, right for the proposed new structure that would be 9’ to the foundation.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, okay. The board understand what he’s saying?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, okay I just, I think, so that the survey doesn’t show how far you’re going toward the garage, you’re only going basically and you got to stay 9’ off of that lot line.
Leonard Clark stated, off that property line, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, off that property line.
Leonard Clark stated, yes.
Diann Weaver stated, from the foundation.
Leonard Clark stated, to the foundation.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Leonard Clark stated, there would be a 1’ overhang there also.
Charlie Mellon stated, that makes it 8’ then.
Attorney Altman stated, so that there’s a modification, just clearing up there’s a modification of the proposed variance and still need a variance though. And we do have an exhibit here that shows and supplements Mr. Clark’s testimony and we’ll put that as exhibit A.
Vice President Thompson asked, do you have anything to add Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, I do just want to remind the board that this variance is only on lot 34, not 34 and 35 as the drawing shows.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes, okay. Anyone else here care to address the variance for or against? Charlie Mellon do you have any comments or questions for…
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, Dave Scott?
Dave Scott stated, no I better say anymore.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I guess we need to see something legal, I mean his drawing’s fine but…
Vice President Thompson stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you know he don’t have a little stamp down here and I don’t think that’s really to valuable, the looks of his drawing but, you know he’s the surveyor so we have to go by what, I think we need to see something legal there.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t want to keep people from building a house but your building a brand new house from scratch. Why can’t you build it into the setbacks that are drawn up?
Leonard Clark stated, well, quite honestly when I first started looking for a house plan I was kind of going by the, we live over in Illinois, in Bloomington Illinois, and the setbacks there were like 10% of the lot so I figured it was kind of a universal thing more or less. I could use like a 6’ on each side of the thing so I started researching house plans and I found something that would have the, like where the living room was toward the lake, house plans like that are hard to find where the living area’s toward the back. Most of it faces the road so I went ahead and proceeded, I found this house plan and it had a larger garage on it. I’ve already cut the garage down 2’ from what the original house plan was to try to make it conform to that and I can’t find another way to cut anymore footage out of the middle of the thing and still be able to put furniture and etcetera. In the thing so I kind of went by the rules and I thought it would be like a standard type thing and I got caught by it. I’ve gone to the expense of getting blue prints drawn up already and that’s why I’m here to ask for a variance so.
Director Weaver asked, is there a reason why you don’t want to join the two lots?
Leonard Clark stated, my son actually wants to build a house someday on the other lot. It’s a 60’ buildable lot and he would already know the rules you know, before, since I’m going through this process before he wouldn’t even have to come to try to even get a variance. I mean that wouldn’t be an issue for that lot then so and I’m trying to build a house that conforms to what’s in our neighborhood too. I’m not trying to build something that’s 75 or 80’ long. Most, all the houses in my neighborhood out there sit on those 50 and 60’ lots so I’m trying to build something that looks similar to everybody else’s in the neighborhood.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes, yes. Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, well that was one of the questions, the last time he was here, they had to build it all on 34 lot and he couldn’t go over on the other lot and I think he’s got that as far as the picture over there, I think we could go ahead and decide maybe and have him to get the legal end that Gerald wants and get it back to the office. I don’t know whether you’d be willing to do that or not, to get it over with. These people make 3 or 4 trips over here, it ain’t like uptown coming in here.
Leonard Clark stated, yes, I’m trying to do this kind of a long distance thing.
Attorney Altman asked, do you own the lots that are on the survey that shows no improvements there?
Leonard Clark asked, across the street?
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Leonard Clark stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, so you could put, you’ve got quite a bit of real estate in there.
Leonard Clark stated, I’ve got 2 lots across the street, yes.
Vice President Thompson asked, we could do that can’t we Jerry? We could approve this with a condition.
Attorney Altman stated, it could be approved with the condition that the survey shows the appropriateness, yes, that’s right, it could be denied too.
Vice President Thompson stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, just because of that doesn’t mean it needs to be approved.
Vice President Thompson stated, right. Dave Scott that, that work for you?
Dave Scott asked, Diann do you remember, the new ordinance that’s coming out, 60’ lot?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t remember Dave.
Dave Scott asked, you don’t remember?
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t.
Dave Scott stated, I mean that doesn’t really have anything to do with this one.
Vice President Thompson asked, I forget, did I ask, I might have, I’m sorry, did anyone else care to address the variance for or against, I may have asked, I’m sorry I’ve lost tract of where I’m at here. Gerald does that work for you?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m still contemplating.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. No my question to you was as far as even voting on the matter with the contingent of a corrected survey, that’s what I’m asking you.
Gerald Cartmell asked, he needs what, a foot?
Director Weaver stated, 2 feet.
Gerald Cartmell stated, 2 feet on the east side there, is that what we’re talking about?
Nancy Clark stated, no on the garage side.
Leonard Clark stated, I just need one on the south side, is the only thing I’m asking for. I thing I’m in compliance on the north side with 8’.
Director Weaver stated, correct but you’ll be 8’ from the south side also so you’ll need a 2’ variance.
Leonard Clark stated, yes about, so I’m not asking for anything on the north side, what I call the north side.
Director Weaver stated, that is correct.
Leonard Clark stated, I’m only asking for something on the south side, is all I’m asking for.
Gerald Cartmell asked, and you own that lot?
Leonard Clark stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, excuse me.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m still contemplating.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Dave Scott do you have anything else to add?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I understand their problem but I also understand our problem.
Vice President Thompson stated, I understand, yes I do. Back to you Charlie do you want to…
Charlie Mellon stated, I see, I’d like to see that go through. Go ahead and vote and make him get a…
Vice President Thompson stated, do we need a …
Charlie Mellon stated, legal end.
Vice President Thompson stated, we need a form of a motion pertaining to correcting the survey first.
Charlie Mellon stated, well I’ll make that motion.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay been moved to allow the Clarks to come back to the office with a correct survey.
Charlie Mellon stated, just like the one that he presented there which it’s all right. It’s all right, it’s 8’ on each side, 9’ with the 1 hangover take a foot off that makes it 8 on both sides. You talking about these little lots all being 60’, there all that way along these lakes mainly and then when they want to build something its going to come to a thing if your to strict there won’t anybody going to add on or build anything less they tear it down. Most of them tearing it down they want something bigger that’s the reason they’re tearing it down and as far as talking about the new deal, that new deal hasn’t come on yet.
Vice President Thompson asked, no, we got a motion do I hear a second for that motion?
Dave Scott asked, if I second the motion does that mean I have to vote that way?
Vice President Thompson stated, no. There two separate matters.
Dave Scott stated, I’ll second the motion then.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Been moved and seconded to pertaining to a corrected survey. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Board members stated, aye.
Vice President asked, all opposed? Okay any other discussion pertaining to the actual variance? Yes Dave.
Dave Scott stated, see you’re building a brand new house.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Dave Scott stated, on an empty lot, here we are wanting to give you, we don’t make these rules up, I mean and the county’s adopted an ordinance that says you have to be so far off of the property line.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Dave Scott stated, and what, I don’t you not to build your house, I, but if the county adopted an ordinance that says you got to be 18’ you got to be 18’. But you know what we’re doing here, if I approve this thing then the next guy comes in here and he says well you let him approve his just last month. Do you see where I’m at?
Leonard Clark stated, I see where you’re at, yes. If the place was where I could actually remodel it I’d probably go ahead and remodel the house, the, if you came and actually looked at the structure, the siding, it’s like a log type siding what you see on the outside is the walls on the inside. There’s no way to insulate the thing, there’s no way to do anymore with it.
Dave Scott stated, I understand, I understand and…
Attorney Altman stated, but that’s not the hardship of the ordinance okay. We understand that, it’s a concern.
Leonard Clark stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, but that’s not the hardship the ordinance talks about, that’s all I’m trying to say to you.
Vice President Thompson asked, Gerald do you have anything else before we vote? Charlie, you ready to vote?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson asked, Dave, are you ready yourself?
Dave Scott stated, no, but go ahead.
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 6’ Southwest side setback variance on Lot number thirty-four (34) in Parse’s Forest Lodge Second Addition, in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Lowes Bridge off of Parses Road at 5049 Canyon Loop.
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 3 affirmative and 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing results on the vote on petition #2643, there’s 4 votes cast, 3 votes vote the variance is hereby granted, 1 vote votes denying it. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
Leonard Clark asked, can I get a copy of that to get to the surveyor?
Director Weaver stated, you can’t get a copy tonight.
Leonard Clark asked, can I come to your office tomorrow and get a copy of that?
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Leonard Clark stated, so I can take it to the surveyor and bring that copy back from the surveyor back to you then, right.
Director Weaver stated, um hum.
Leonard Clark stated, thank you very much, appreciate it.
Vice President Thompson stated, your welcome.
****
#2650 Carl D. & Pamela G. Robinson; The property is located on 47 in Christy Addition, located in the City of Monticello at 551 Maple Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting an 8’ front setback variance to build an attached garage.
Vice President Thompson asked, and sir you are?
Carl Robinson stated, Carl Robinson.
Vice President Thompson stated, you are Carl Robinson.
Carl Robinson stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Do you have anything else you’d like to present to the board tonight sir?
Carl Robinson stated, I’m just reapplying, your concerns last time was, I didn’t have enough room for parking in front of the garage, I moved it back the 4’, even with the house. It gives me 25’ from the sidewalk, 24’ with the 1’ overhang but it doesn’t, isn’t going to be in the way for parking.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Carl Robinson stated, my reason for putting the garage there is to go, to be able to go in the utility room is in the front of the house the way I had to put the house on that lot and that if I went back further I’d have to go all the way back to get to the front door and that would just take up all my windows, it’d block every window in the house just about to do that.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, Jerry we have a letter here from the Robinsons. Does it need to be under more than what, it’s in the file?
Carl Robinson stated, it’s the same letter that was entered before.
Vice President Thompson stated, right I just wanted to make sure he’s aware of it, that’s good though.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, that’s fine. I think that was entered the last time.
Carl Robinson stated, right.
Attorney Altman asked, and now he’s modified his request but it’s the same request, right?
Carl Robinson stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, I mean the same numbers. What I mean but obviously it’s a different way, modification but its procedure.
Carl Robinson stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson asked, Diann do you have anything, any fan mail from anyone?
Director Weaver stated, no, I haven’t received anything, I just would mentioned we did send you a copy of his last request with the survey on the back so you can see what he’s requested in the past.
Vice President Thompson stated, all right. Anyone here care to speak either in favor or against the variance? Charlie do you have anything for Mr. Robinson?
Charlie Mellon asked, most of that lot, most of that garage is going to be on lot 46 then on the north side of your house?
Carl Robinson stated, in between, yes I own the two homes there and the vacant…
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, I figured you did.
Carl Robinson stated, lot in between, I’ve included that, that’s included with the, I’ve had it resurveyed, or re…
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Carl Robinson stated, what ever you call that put in with the…
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Carl Robinson stated, put in with the lot for the new house.
Charlie Mellon stated, it looks good to me.
Vice President Thompson asked, anything else Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Gerald Cartmell do you have anything?
Gerald Cartmell asked, how far back are you moving that now?
Carl Robinson stated, it’d be 4’, it’ll be 25’ from the sidewalk to the foundation the same as the house. I’ve got a full size van and I’ve measured it and it’s only 18.6 and I don’t think they make anything bigger than…
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Anything else Gerald? Dave Scott you have anything for Mr. Robinson? Nothing? Is there any other discussion or are we ready to vote?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, let’s vote. I’m sorry Jerry.
Attorney Altman asked, you didn’t build this house, right?
Carl Robinson stated, it’s a modular.
Attorney Altman asked, did you put it on there though?
Carl Robinson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay so you, and your hardship is how do you come to a hardship?
Carl Robinson stated, well I need to get off the street, it states on there my wife has to go to work at, I mean we’ve had vandalism to the vehicles there sitting on the street and during the winter time the plow just plows us in, covers us up and my wife has to go to work at 5:30 in the morning and I’ll shovel it out the night before and I have to get up to shovel it out again so she can go to work most of the time because they’ve come by again.
Attorney Altman asked, I understand you maybe need the garage but why don’t you sit it back and conform with the setbacks?
Carl Robinson stated, because it would just, it would cover all the windows up in the house. It would just take up my whole side. That was the whole reason of buying that other house and that lot is to have a side yard.
Vice President Thompson stated, he’s saying it will block everything on that side of his house.
Attorney Altman stated, I know but he created all the windows.
Vice President Thompson stated, he did.
Director Weaver asked, so are you saying at the time you built the house you did not own both lots?
Carl Robinson stated, I did but I thought it would be, I should have went ahead and included the two lots when I decided to put the new house in there. I just probably less than a year had obtained the one next to it and the extra lot but I thought it was going to be a big deal of including that extra lot with the existing lot that I had. Am I making any sense? I thought I was going to have to have a whole bunch of paper work to do it and we were in the process of buying the house and it was going to be here within a month of, after we bought it to put it in and didn’t realize that all I had to do is go downstairs and say I want this lot added on the that one and I, you know I would of put it length ways and I wouldn’t of had this problem at all.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, I think that hardship is sufficient because they plow that snow of a morning, I live down there not to far from him. They plow up 2 or 3 foot right up against your vehicles, sidewalk and everything, of course we don’t have sidewalks but if his wife has to get out emergency at the hospital or something, it looks to me like that’s enough hardship.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Let’s vote.
Director Weaver asked, Mr. Robinson you brought your sign back?
Carl Robinson stated, yes.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.
2. That the lots are lots of record and properly divided and both lots are a part of this request.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for an 8’ front setback variance to build an attached garage on Lot Number 47 and Lot 46 except 14 feet off the north side thereof all in Christy’s Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 551 Maple 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 3 affirmative and 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on petition, on the vote of petition #2650. 4 votes cast 3 votes vote the variance is hereby granted and 1 vote is the variance is hereby denied. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
Carl Robinson asked, how long is the variance, has a date, a certain amount of time or its okay?
Director Weaver stated, yes, no there is no time limit on it.
Carl Robinson stated, okay, thank you.
****
#2651 Martin D. & Sharon K. McKay Trust; The property is located on pt lot 22 in Blue Bell Park 1st addition, located North of Lowes Bridge off of East Shafer Drive to 600 North on Blue Bell Court.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 15’ variance to meet the requirements of a 60’ buildable lot.
Vice President Thompson asked, and ma’am you are?
Sharon McKay stated, Sharon McKay.
Vice President Thompson stated, you are Sharon McKay, all right.
Sharon McKay stated, we have a cottage that has frontage on Lake Shafer and then we own a lot behind it. The lot is 45' x 195', it has 8775 square foot and I understand you only require 7000 to build. We don’t want to build a house we want to build just a pole barn or a garage. The adjacent neighbor built a garage on the same size lot and he only has his house on the 30’ frontage lot on the lake. I brought pictures because I didn’t know if you had gone out there or not and seen it, if you want to pass around…
Vice President Thompson stated, okay just a second, I mean just so you know ahead of time now we keep those.
Sharon McKay stated, that’s okay you can have them.
Vice President Thompson stated, all right there’s no easy to put it but when you present them we keep them for your file, okay.
Sharon McKay stated, you can have them, you can have them. Our middle transferred back to Northwest Indiana in June because his wife’s had a 3 year battle with breast cancer. She’s a patient in the Valparaiso hospice center. He owned a house on a lake in Michigan and he’s currently living with us because of the situation and he has a boat and a lot of belongs and so we’d like to put the pole barn up as soon as possible to store his stuff. We’d appreciate you allowing us to build. All the setbacks are in compliance with what you require, the only thing difference is the frontage and we have a 45’ lot and it’s not 50’ or 60’ but, you know the setbacks we’d be putting it 32’ back and the side yards and everything would be all okay and we hauled that dirt in because we thought we could build and then we realized we couldn’t so that’s why the sands there.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, I appreciate the pictures because my camera died before I made it to your place so I did not have pictures.
Sharon McKay stated, I just thought that might help.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that I can add anything. She’s done a pretty good job at summing up the situation. The ordinance does require that for this to be a buildable lot it would have had to have been divided before December 21, of 1956. This lot was divided I believe in 1992. There was a permit issued for the neighbor to build a pole barn on the other half of this lot. I can’t explain that situation, don’t really understand what happened there but it did happen. When the McKay’s came and applied for their variance, or for their permit I realized the lot was too small and it was not a grandfathered lot and therefore they are applying for a width variance.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay Jerry do you have…
Attorney Altman stated, yes, we received on 7-13-07 a letter from the McKay’s. Do you want me to read that into the record or…
Sharon McKay stated, yes if you want to or I can it don’t matter I got a copy of it.
Attorney Altman stated, then you may do so, okay.
Sharon McKay stated, okay, Along Bluebell (formerly 6.3 E) the road is not currently taken care of by the county. The lots facing the water are 25’ to 50’ wide on the average. All the lots have cottages or homes. They are now served by public sewers. We have a 50’ lakefront lot with a home. Our other lot is across the road being a 45.25’ lot. We are wanting to build a garage. All the “set backs” are within the county’s guidelines. Our neighbor built a garage on the adjacent property with the same dimensions as ours. We would not be using water or sewers as it would be a “storage” only building. I understand the county ordinance calls for frontage of 60 feet and the county errored in giving our adjacent neighbor a permit for his garage. Our lot is worthless unless we can build a garage. It would also bring in extra dollars of property tax for your community. Therefore we are asking for a variance to build a garage. Sincerely, Martin & Sharon McKay.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Gerald Cartmell do you have anything for Mrs. McKay?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I was looking at your picture, well I was out there looking at it. So how much higher are you going to be than your neighbor that’s got the garage on there?
Sharon McKay stated, okay we had somebody come out today and the garage floor will be the same as his garage floor. He took one of those things and measured it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, one of those things.
Sharon McKay stated, well whatever you call it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, okay I got one of those.
Sharon McKay stated, to get the height. But our garage floor should be the same height as his garage floor.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I was just wondering because there is a thing about the water run off.
Sharon McKay stated, it looks high right now, yes. There is 2’ catch basin and then it goes over between our neighbor and another 2’ and then it goes into the lake.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s out on the road then.
Sharon McKay stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, and there’s one on your side of the road too.
Sharon McKay stated, yes. But if his measurements are right our garage floor should be, my husband when he piled it up he just didn’t get it pushed clear back.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s sand place is where the…
Sharon McKay stated, yes he put sand in there.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, I was out there too and that garage is to the east of where you want to put your shed.
Sharon McKay stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, and it looks like its high enough for run off, run off will be in between.
Sharon McKay stated, and I can’t see where it would cause a problem with anybody else’s drainage because you could, the water would run on each side of it to that drain.
Vice President Thompson asked, anything else Gerald? Dave Scott?
Dave Scott stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, no other discussion, Jerry do you have anything? I always forget you.
Attorney Altman stated, just mark these as the first photo that shows the front view is exhibit A, the second photo that says back view mark it exhibit B. Photos presented by the applicant.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, nothing further.
Vice President Thompson stated, if there’s nothing else, let’s vote.
Director Weaver stated, I did document that you brought your sign back.
Sharon McKay stated, okay good, thanks.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the building site 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 15’ variance to meet the requirements of a 60’ buildable lot to build a storage shed only on Lot Number Six (6) in Blue Bell Park Addition as recorded Record 118 Page 20 of the Records of White County, Indiana. ALSO, The West Half (1/2) of Lot Number Twenty-two (22) in Blue Bell Park First addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowes Bridge off of East Shafer Drive take C.R. 600 North to Blue Bell Court, property is on the South side of the road.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on the voting on petition #2651, 5 votes cast, excuse me 4 votes cast…
Charlie Mellon stated, I haven’t turned mine in yet.
Attorney Altman stated, Charlie I have 4 here, I thought. May I have it, please. Sorry I jumped the gun.
Attorney Altman stated, all right I think I can go ahead though I was in error earlier vote on 2651 we have 4 votes cast, and 4 votes vote that the variance is hereby granted.
Sharon McKay stated, thank you.
Attorney Altman stated, subject to the stated use in the request that it be for storage only, I think are the words used in her request.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
****
#2652 Gene A. Cooper d/b/a Cooper Salvage; The property is located on 10 acres, PT SW SE, 33-27-3, located in the City of Monticello at 546 S. Railroad Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a Special Exception to bring the existing Recycling Yard into compliance so they can build an addition.
Vice President Thompson asked, and you are?
Don Blair stated, I’m Don Blair. I’m here on behalf of Gene Cooper also with us this evening is Rob Hutter who is the builder on the project involved. I want to thank you all for the opportunity of appearing before you this evening. Gene is here seeking a special exception to build an addition to his existing building. He and his wife and family are in business doing recycling and doing business as Cooper Salvage. They’ve been in that business at that location since 1985. He has owned the real estate since 1988. They employ 8 persons. The property is zoned I-1. The existing structure, the existing building is 38’ wide 118’ long, this does not allow enough room to store equipment and service equipment. Consequently he proposes an addition to the building that is 32' x 96'. The building will contain no hazardous materials. It is not open to the public and Bob Hutter will provide you with more details on the project. Thank you all very much.
Vice President Thompson stated, thank you.
Robert Hutter stated, hello, I’m Robert Hutter. I own ARP Construction in Monticello. Pretty much I think Don just said everything, the building is just a storage facility, it’s a pole structure. The kit is being ordered through Midwest manufacturing and of course it would have to go through a design release in the state after the prints are made. This is just step one before we make step two.
Attorney Altman asked, is that the way you wanted it Don? Because that’ll be the exhibit, I just…
Don Blair stated, yes that’s fine, that’s fine.
Attorney Altman stated, okay. Mr. Blair has just passed among the members a 3 page document, if I’m right of an account that shows that shows first a floor plan on the first page with the north, south on it and then a covered from one end and then a covered by that, I mean built showing from the other end and we would mark this as exhibit A pages 1, 2, 3.
Don Blair stated, 2 and 3 are 3 dimensional.
Robert Hutter stated, yes I do.
Vice President Thompson asked, okay do you have anything else?
Robert Hutter stated, no that was it.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, all right. Diann did you have anything?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t think I have anything at this time.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, okay. Anyone here care to address the variance either for or against? Jerry do you have anything else?
Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Blair would you address how the existing recycling is maybe not in compliance as I think the request indicates just so we have that matter into evidence.
Don Blair stated, I’m not certain how it is not in compliance.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Don Blair stated, I think it is in compliance, in reading what a special exception is I really don’t understand…
Attorney Altman stated, you might speak into the mic.
Don Blair asked, sure, can you all hear me?
Attorney Altman stated, I can hear you, I’m not sure you’re on the record though.
Don Blair stated, all right, thank you. I’m not sure that we are not in compliance is what I am saying. We’re zoned I-1, in reading the definition of a special exception the only reason that I think it can be justified that we’re here tonight is that there is a star beside recycling for an I-1 and I-2, other than that I don’t think we need to be here.
Attorney Altman stated, and the star means of course…
Don Blair stated, that clarify it. It doesn’t clarify it for me because I don’t understand the rules.
Attorney Altman stated, the star means in our ordinance that it needs a special exception.
Don Blair stated, correct, and that’s why we’re here.
Attorney Altman stated, and it doesn’t have that right now, right.
Vice President Thompson stated, very good.
Attorney Altman stated, thank you.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone else care to address the board?
Gerald stated, they didn’t hear you.
Vice President Thompson asked, they didn’t? I’m sorry. Anyone care to address the board for or against? Charlie, you have anything for the Coopers?
Charlie Mellon stated, well there’s, I don’t know how much there is to it, it hadn’t got anything to do with this but he has erected a fence on the west side and the way I understood there’ll be a fence erected on the south side and those old trailers will be moved out of there and I think the city, something happened in the city to that effect and I don’t know really what happened. I was just a listener that night.
Don Blair stated, okay the fence, Mr. Cooper’s more than willing to put a fence up. What is the problem? The real estate has been there in its current condition since 1985, is that correct?
Gene Cooper stated, correct.
Don Blair stated, the road was constructed after, after the real estate, after the improvements were there and the problem is the road was built up so you can build a fence there but is it going to solve the problem? Probably not, not to the satisfaction of some people but we are cooperative in every way.
Charlie Mellon stated, one thing the way I understood it would be an 8 or 10’ fence and that would shut off the view maybe if it was a solid fence of the whole lot.
Gene Cooper stated, excuse me, I’m Mr. Gene Cooper, a 10’ fence to the south side of the property or to the rear of the property would not shut the view of the property off. When they reconstructed the road they built it up around approximately 5, 6’ higher than what my property is and so I’d have to build a 14’ fence to block the view on that side of the property and that causes a problem because I don’t know how we can hold it.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s possible I’m just relating to what I heard at a town meeting one night and everybody was happy that you put a fence up on the west side and there seemed like they was going to be happy that you was going fence up on the south side. That’s all I know.
Gene Cooper stated, right now we’re waiting on the city for approval from the city of where we need to put the fence at if we can come up on the, more on the city property so we don’t, so we can…
Charlie Mellon stated, okay, yes.
Gene Cooper stated, do that fence.
Charlie Mellon stated, up closer to the road you mean.
Gene Cooper stated, yes because the first fence we put up we gave the city our, we off set 14’ in for the city to give them an additional room for their park there.
Charlie Mellon stated, okay.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay if I can interrupt here a second this is all good and well. We’re not here for the fence.
Gene Cooper stated, no, we’re not here for the fence.
Charlie Mellon stated, no, okay.
Vice President Thompson stated, it may be coming down the line I don’t know but we’re concerned about a building tonight. Charlie do you have anything else?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay not to cut you short Charlie but Dave Scott do you have anything?
Dave Scott stated, I don’t have anything.
Vice President Thompson asked, Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I don’t know what’s going on for sure.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, the road you’re talking about just for the record, I think Mr. Blair, South Street, right that you mentioned that has been built after this use had been used on your applicants ground.
Don Blair stated, that’s correct.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Don Blair stated, that is correct.
Attorney Altman stated, okay you said street and I just wanted to make sure everybody knew it was South Street.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I do have a question.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes, go ahead Gerald.
Gerald Cartmell asked, what is a special exception?
Attorney Altman stated, a special exception basically, the ordinance says that you need to, it’s supposed to be a similar use to anything else allowed in the zoning in question. In this case an I-1 and the ordinance says basically yes your ordinance doesn’t exactly say this use is allowed there but that it’s close enough and that it isn’t harmful and it doesn’t damage the neighbors anymore than any other I-1 in this case use would be Gerald. So it’s similar and that’s a different vote than a variance vote, okay, they don’t need to prove a hardship, that isn’t involved and I think Mr. Blair just gave you a copy of the ordinance and I bet it’s open to the page that shows what a special exception requirements are.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well its exemption not exception.
Attorney Altman stated, well.
Charlie Mellon stated, well it’s about the same thing.
Attorney Altman stated, I think its special exception.
Vice President Thompson stated, its exception.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson asked, anything else Gerald? Ready to vote board?
Director Weaver stated, before the board votes I would just like to make you realize that if you put a fence up there are setback requirements for that fence so you may be required to go through a setback variance for that fence.
Attorney Altman stated, depending on where you put it, if you set it back it won’t matter.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I guess I do have one other question. This is a recycling yard, right?
Vice President Thompson stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, that’s what the request is for, it’s for a recycling yard.
Dave Scott asked, it’s not already that?
Don Blair stated, no, it is a recycling yard. Yes, that is correct.
Charlie Mellon stated, for the building.
Don Blair stated, is it already there, is there already a recycling going on now, yes it is.
Dave Scott asked, it said salvage, that’d take in more than just recycling, wouldn’t it?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I thought it was a salvage yard.
Director Weaver stated, the name of the business is Cooper Salvage.
Charlie Mellon stated, tin, metal and stuff.
Dave Scott stated, oh I see, oh down here I see it.
Director Weaver stated, they have requested a special exception for a recycling yard.
Dave Scott stated, I see, yes.
Director Weaver stated, and Gerald maybe to help clarify a little bit this is an existing business they’re wanting to build the addition so in order to be able to enlarge that business they must bring the property into compliance first. So that’s what they are attempting to do tonight.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned I-1, Light Industrial.
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a Special Exception to bring the present existing Recycling Yard as it exists today into compliance so they can build an addition on a tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in the City of Monticello, White County, Indiana, and described more fully as follows:
Beginning at a steel post in the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the above said Section 33 and running thence North 00 degrees East 489.6 feet to a corner post; thence North 88 degrees and 18 minutes East 220.1 feet to an iron pin on the West right-of-way line of the Monon Railroad; thence Southeasterly along said right-of-way line 517 feet to the South line of the above said Section 33; thence North 89 degrees West 340.6 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.10 acres, more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 546 S. Railroad Street.
7. (1) The special land use shall be and is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area.
(2) The special land use shall not and does not inappropriately change the essential character of the surrounding area.
(3) The special land use shall not and does not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property.
(4) The special land use shall and does represent an improvement to the use or character of the property under consideration and the surrounding area in general, yet also be in keeping with the natural environment of the site.
(5) The special land use shall not be and is not hazardous to the adjacent property, or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes, or glare.
(6) The special land use shall and is be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or it shall be demonstrated that the person responsible for the proposed special land use shall be able to continually provide adequately for the services and facilities deemed essential to the special use under consideration.
(7) The special land use shall not and does not place demands on public services and facilities in excess of available capacity.
(8) The special land use shall be and is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and the objectives of any currently adopted White County Development Plan.
(9) The applicant will put up the appropriate required fencing.
The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 3 affirmative and 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on the balloting o special exception #2652, 4 votes cast. 3 votes vote the special exception should be granted, 1 vote the special exception should not be granted. The special exception is granted as requested and that’s the petition.
Gene Cooper stated, thank you all very much. I’ll bring the sign back to you Monday Diann.
****
#2653 Gino & Barbara Bozzo & Peter Bozzo; The property is located on Lot 1 in Keans Creek Subdivision, located North of Monticello off of 400 N. at 3827 East Lake Road 26.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5’ south side setback variance and a 2’ front setback variance to build a 2 story addition and an unroofed deck.
Vice President Thompson stated, obviously you are the…
Barbara Bozzo stated, I’m Barbara Bozzo.
Gino Bozzo stated, and I’m Gino, husband and our son Peter.
Vice President Thompson stated, sorry about mispronouncing your name. Do you have anything you’d like to present to the board tonight other than what I read?
Gino Bozzo stated, well we did submit a letter for the hardship. This home was built in 1993 and we purchased it in 2003. I assume, we looked at many homes in the area on the water when we decided to buy this one because it fit our needs or what we thought would be the additions that we would like to put on the home. We have a very large family, 6 children, grandchildren and this is a second home however it’s only 2 hours from where we live and I can leave work in the evening and get to the home. I any case the home apparently was built in the wrong place when it was built in 93, it infringed on the setback on the south side so when I looked at the additions that I proposed to do at the time we did fronted an attached garage addition in 2005, of course that was approved. I had permits and what have you and we anticipated as soon as the sewers were put in to put this addition on the water side or the front which would be the east side and unbeknownst to us the setbacks were incorrect on that side so this is the purpose of our variance asking for permission, actually it’s a 2 level, 2 level addition. The home is built in a hill and the lower level would be two bedrooms and a bathroom and the upper level would be a continuation of our family room.
Barbara Bozzo stated, and kitchen.
Gino Bozzo stated, and to enlarge the kitchen.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Diann do you have anything to add to that?
Director Weaver stated, not at this time.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone here care to address the variance? Gerald do you have anything for, pertaining the variance?
Gerald Cartmell stated, what I see here ?? the existing house right?
Gino Bozzo stated, correct.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s going a fourth of the way.
Gino Bozzo stated, you probably would have to off set it, it would create a problem with the stairway to the lower level and making the rooms downstairs much narrower or the lower level which would be 2 bedrooms and there’s 2 very large I was told a hundred year old trees on the west side which would, I’m sorry on the north side which would either have to be cut down or the home would be right up against the oak trees.
Vice President Thompson stated, the, I’m going ahead of myself here a little bit. Do you want to make mention of this?
Attorney Altman stated, there’s a letter here. Do you want to read your letter in…
Barbara Bozzo stated, I don’t have it with me. I brought a lot of other stuff but not that.
Vice President Thompson stated, we’ve got extras, why don’t you read that for us please.
Barbara Bozzo stated, this was to Melanie Harl, We would like the enclosed information be presented at the meeting on July 26, 2007. I am aware that the cut-off date is July 5, 2007 we missed that one because we didn’t have all of the information in so we were put on this, so we have sent this information overnight because of the holiday. If you have any questions contact us and I put our telephone numbers. Thanks for your help with this. We purchased this property in May of 2003 with the intention of removing the second floor balcony and patio door, which was rotting and leaking water into the home, and adding an attached two car garage with living space above. This has all been completed according to building requirements. We also proposed enlarging the existing family room, lakeside, with an addition after the sewer lines were installed and we were hooked up to it. We have a large family, 10 adults and 2 grandchildren, with hopefully more to come. This is a home where we can get to together and have a nice family summer, also we are there in the winter weather permitting, and had this plan in mind when purchasing the home. We looked at other homes with the realtor but because of the potential we decided on this one. We are proposing a 22' deep x 28' wide, approximate size, two level addition to the front of the home, lakeside. The lower level will have 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. The upper level will be a continuation of the kitchen and family room. It will be more cost effective to tie the new room into the old one with the variance. Our variance is to continue the south foundation wall and south façade, with no off sets, having this additional 3 feet will provide us with the extra footage to provide the stairwell clearance needed. At the time of purchase we assumed that the home had been constructed in accordance with local setback codes. After viewing many properties with the realtor we selected this home and anticipated these additions to accommodate our large family. We are a close family so having a nice home big enough for all of us is very important. We are enclosing our plat of survey with the new addition dimension outlined for your reviewing. And then I gave you a list of our neighbors and I notice none of them came to protest. If there is anything you request for the cut off dates please let us know and I will over night it to you. Thanks again for all your help. Do you need this back Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no you can keep it.
Vice President Thompson stated, we have copies. Okay. Charlie do you have anything for…
Charlie Mellon asked, well I was out there and I didn’t notice the garage is it right on the west side of the house?
Gino Bozzo stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, the garage that was built there.
Gino Bozzo stated, it’s attached to the house on the west side.
Charlie Mellon asked, yes it’s the same width of the house almost then isn’t it?
Gino Bozzo stated, no.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh it’s smaller.
Gino Bozzo stated, it’s smaller.
Charlie Mellon stated, and on the north side there’s a stone drive around on the north side.
Gino Bozzo stated, correct.
Charlie Mellon stated, and you can’t, you’re not going to extend the house on the north side any then.
Gino Bozzo stated, no.
Charlie Mellon stated, it’s all on the south side. On the south side, I think you said 3’ that going to get awful close to them big trees? Those big trees are those still on your property?
Gino Bozzo stated, those are on our property, yes. It would not affect those trees if we continued the foundation straight out as existing.
Charlie Mellon stated, okay, well I didn’t get up there, walk up there, I looked from the road and I noticed it.
Gino Bozzo stated, well you’d have to go down the hill a little bit.
Charlie Mellon stated, I noticed them trees were awful close, really.
Gino Bozzo stated, the two oak trees, yes I was told there over 100 years old.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes and the property on the south side looked awful close yet. How much distance between your two houses?
Gino Bozzo stated, he has 17’ on this side according to the plat.
Barbara Bozzo stated, yes according to the plat that Jim did.
Gino Bozzo stated, that Milligan just did. There’s 17’ there.
Charlie Mellon stated, that might be, I didn’t think it might have been that much. It didn’t look like it.
Gino Bozzo asked, does the board have a copy of the plat?
Vice President Thompson stated, we have the survey.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes we got it. That’s about all I have Jerry.
Vice President Thompson stated, all right. Dave Scott do you have anything?
Dave Scott stated, nope.
Vice President Thompson asked, Gerald, nothing? Ready to vote then?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, let’s vote.
Director Weaver asked, you brought your sign back right?
Barbara Bozzo stated, yes.
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 5’ south side setback variance and a 2’ front setback variance to build a 2nd story addition and an unroofed deck on Lot Number One (1) in Kean’s Creek Subdivision in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monticello off of 400 N. at 3827 N. Lake Road 26 E.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results of the balloting on petition #2653, we have 4 votes cast, 4 votes vote the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
****
#2654 Ray F. & Calley L. Lerma; The property is located on Lot 53 in Bennett’s addition, located in the City of Monticello at 725 S. Bluff Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5’ front setback variance to add a roofed porch.
Vice President Thompson asked, and sir you are?
Ray Lerma stated, I’m Ray Lerma.
Vice President Thompson stated, ok, all right. Do you have anything you’d like to present to the board tonight other than what I read?
Ray Lerma stated yes I have a couple of items I’d like to present, I don’t know if you have a photo, we just bought this house and this is the way it looks, it’d look now but we want to completely…
Attorney Altman stated, okay, you’ve handed me a photo that shows the numbers on it as 725, I presume it’s a photo of home right now. Is that right?
Ray Lerma stated, correct.
Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Lerma. We’ll mark that exhibit A and then you’ve also shown me a elevation plan, plan by Ray Lerma, dated June 14, 2007, print to scale showing a right side elevation and front elevation, I presume of the proposal. Is that what that is?
Ray Lerma stated, proposed floors, correct.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, and I’ll mark that as exhibit B. Has the board seen these? Diann?
Director Weaver stated, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, I’ll get them marked real quick so they can look around.
Charlie Mellon asked, you putting that porch on the…
Vice President Thompson stated, Charlie just a second if you would please, I got one other thing I want to admit to the record and then we’ll go, okay. I think Jerry you want to mention that or not?
Attorney Altman stated, there’s on the staff report a paragraph, it says reason for a variance is that what you presented?
Ray Lerma stated, correct.
Attorney Altman asked, do you have a copy of that Mr. Lerma?
Ray Lerma stated, sure.
Attorney Altman stated, would you please read that into the record.
Ray Lerma stated, the reason for a variance. Let’s keep in mind that most of the houses in the neighborhood that have front porches are not within the required setbacks. As such, these houses were probably built before there were any established setbacks. The house in question, 725 S. Bluff Street, was built 33’ back from the front property line. Well within the required minimum front setback of 32’. However, it does not have a front porch. Under these circumstances, it will be difficult to build a front porch and stay within the required setbacks. Therefore, I will not be able to enjoy the beauty and comfort of a front porch.
Vice President Thompson asked, okay, Jerry do you have anything to mention to Mr. Lerma?
Attorney Altman stated, not at this time, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Okay anyone here care to address the variance? Yes sir, come forward please.
Dave Sare stated, my name is Dave Sare and I live right across the street from him.
Vice President Thompson stated, across the street.
Dave Sare stated, 726 South Bluff Street.
Charlie Mellon asked, across the street west from him?
Dave Sare stated, right across the street directly. You can’t get no closer and I hope you approve this, I hope you approve of this because what that house looked like before it was a total mess and he’s probably put $25,000 or better into that house and there ain’t a neighbor around here that’s against it. They are for anything he can do that house to improve our looks, trust me.
Vice President Thompson stated, all righty.
Dave Sare stated, we are really thrilled to have him come over and do what he did. We have no objection.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay thank you very much for that.
Dave Sare stated, thank you.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone else? Diann did you have anything. I don’t think I asked you did I?
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t have anything.
Vice President Thompson asked, Gerald do you have anything for Mr. Lerma?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I went and looked at it. He is improving everything but you look to the north, yes they are out, to the south they’re not. I guess it’s a trend, if he builds and the next guy builds and the next guy builds so everybody’s out to far then. I mean you know it’s not the way it should be but I don’t, you can’t jack the house up and move it I suppose.
Vice President Thompson asked, anything else? Dave Scott?
Dave Scott stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, Charlie Mellon, I cut you off Charlie earlier, I’m sorry.
Charlie Mellon asked, the porch is going to be built on the west?
Ray Lerma stated, correct that’ll be the west side which would be the front side of the house.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, front side. That’s all I, I thought maybe your going to build it behind, he’s got a lot of lumber back behind.
Ray Lerma stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, okay Jerry do you have anything else?
Attorney Altman stated, no, I don’t.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. The board ready to vote? I think we’re voting.
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 and the neighbor across the street appeared and endorsed this variance to put it in line with the neighbor’s porches.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 5’ front setback variance to add a roofed porch on Lot Number Fifty-three (53) in Barr’s Addition to the town, now City of Monticello, Indiana
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 725 S. Bluff 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 3 affirmative and 1 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results of the balloting on BZA #2654, 4 votes cast, 3 votes the variance is hereby granted, 1 vote denied. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
Ray Lerma stated, thank you.
****
#2655 John F. & Martha Rockey; The property is located on Lot 8 in Dolby addition, located south of Lowes Bridge off of 400 N. at 3880 N. Dolby Court.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5.5’ north side setback variance and a 3.5’ front setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance so it can be remodeled.
Vice President Thompson stated, this meeting is tabled until the September 20th meeting.
****
#2656 Robert G. Hines; The property is located on pt Lot 1, pt Lot 2, pt Lot 3, & pt Lot 4 in B & B Addition located in the Town of Brookston at 401 East 4th Street.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 22’ front setback variance to build a detached garage.
Vice President Thompson asked, for the record you are?
Robert Hines stated, Robert Hines.
Vice President Thompson stated, thank you Bob, I know who you are but the tape recorder doesn’t know that. Do you have anything you’d like to present to the board?
Robert Hines stated, nothing except basically my ambition is to, existing, the old structure was 28’ wide, 40’ long. The new structure will be 36’ wide, 32’ long, so it will be 8’ wider but 8’ shorter. I’m, as far as the cubic feet the new garage will be the same cubic feet as the old. The only difference is the old garage was an eye sore falling down, a 2 story. The new garage will be 15’ high as opposed to 20’ high of the old one. The existing concrete apron, the old garage will still be utilized. The new garage will be in the exact location as the old garage, as the old structure. It’ll just be 8’ wider and of course 8’ shorter.
Vice President Thompson stated, no wonder nothing made sense I have the wrong one here. We need more variances, more paper work. Okay Bob, I guess I’m going to take Jerry’s place here.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t understand.
Vice President Thompson stated, you have a little note attached, it’s from you. Do you have that handy? It says here due to my…
Robert Hines stated, oh that, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, if you’d read that you’d know your own hand writing wouldn’t you?
Robert Hines stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, present that for the record please.
Robert Hines stated, due to my present garage age and existing condition I was forced to tear it down, haul it away. I now have no garage for my personal vehicles and lawn tools nor any building to store anything in due to present rules and ordinances I need a setback variance in order to construct my new garage. My new garage will be in the same location as the old with the exception it will be 8’ wider but 8’ shorter than the old structure. At present I have no place to park my 3 vehicles except on the street which I consider to be a danger and hazard to the people driving and walking the street due other vehicles parked on the opposite side of the street. I personally deem my street to be to narrow for vehicles to be parked on both sides and a safety hazard when children on bicycles and meeting on coming autos. R.G. Hines.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, thank you. Diann you have anything?
Director Weaver stated, no, I do not.
Vice President Thompson stated, Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, for the record you applied for the west half of lots numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 for this variance. This is all the ground that you own then in this area I gather?
Robert Hines stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay and that you understand that if this variance is allowed that you’re marrying this ground all together that you can’t use any of it any other way without a variance. You can’t sell any of it off. And you understand that right?
Robert Hines stated, yes, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, I just want you to say that on the record, okay, Mr. Hines.
Vice President Thompson stated, anyone here care to address the variance? If not, okay. Gerald.
Gerald Cartmell stated well I kind of talked to the officials of Brookston and they said they didn’t have a problem with it as long as it was in line with everything else. Well it appears that your 3’ to close to the road according to your house. Is there anyway you can move that back so you’ll be 14 instead of 11? Could you move that?
Robert Hines stated, the, are you saying the front of the existing garage?
Gerald Cartmell stated, Davis Street, Davis Street.
Robert Hines stated, is…
Dave Scott stated, I’d like to add something to that I’d like to see that moved back 9’ so you can park a car in there without being across the sidewalk.
Gerald Cartmell stated, oh that’s right, I didn’t even think about that.
Dave Scott stated, I was just adding and you took 9 off of that, 15’ from his property line back there. What’s the rear setback on that Diann?
Director Weaver stated, 5’ from the overhang.
Dave Scott stated, 5’ from the overhang.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I didn’t even think about that.
Vice President Thompson stated, say that again Dave.
Dave Scott stated, I’d like to have it moved back so that there’s at least 20’ between the front of your garage and the sidewalk so that when you pull in there and sit, your cars not over the sidewalk to be in the foot traffic.
Robert Hines stated, well…
Dave Scott stated, I realize you’re talking about doing it…
Robert Hines stated, well, right now I’m 11’.
Dave Scott stated, right so 9 more feet.
Robert Hines stated, you’re saying another 9’
Dave Scott stated, right.
Robert Hines stated, well that would take out quite a bit of my garden behind my garage and it would also put me on the north east corner of the garage there’s a large maple tree and that would put me real close to that tree to the where the roof of the garage would, I mean the trees, I’d have to cut probably, I don’t know maybe 50% of that tree which wouldn’t look very good I mean if I cut out 50% of the side of the tree for the roof of the garage and that is a large shade tree I’d be, I’d really hate to do that. I can compromise maybe 3’ if that would be acceptable.
Charlie Mellon asked, are you using the foundation of the old garage?
Robert Hines asked, pardon?
Charlie Mellon asked, you're not using the foundation of the old garage are you?
Robert Hines stated, I still have part of the walls of the old garage are still there and of course all of the apron is still there, the existing, but my the problem with going back any further is getting into that tree, that big tree and I, it’s a beautiful maple tree. It provides a lot of shade and it’s the only tree, it’s the only large, I have 2 large maple trees on my property. One’s right on the street which is on town property line, the other is right there at the corner of the garage, the north east corner and, you know I can set the garage back a few feet but if I set it back the full 9’ it’s going to take, it’s going to wipe out quite of bit of my garden and like I said at the same time the new garage will have 9’ sidewalls and it’s going to get right into that tree.
Vice President Thompson stated, well, 3’s 3.
Dave Scott asked, Diann what’s the rear, what’s the south side setback have to be?
Director Weaver stated, well you’d have a rear and you’d have a side there and they’d both be 5’ from the overhang or which way you want to look at it.
Vice President Thompson stated, good shape there.
Director Weaver stated, I might mention too Dave, I don’t know if this matters but it’s in the ordinance we require for parking space to be 9’ wide by 18’ long.
Dave Scott stated, by 18, so if he would go back 7’ then he would fit that.
Director Weaver stated, well.
Dave Scott stated, pardon me.
Director Weaver stated, then he would be compatible to our size of parking space, what we require for parking space.
Dave Scott asked, did you hear what she said there, that required parking sizes is 18’ and your at 11 so that would move you back, you’d have to go back 7 more feet.
Charlie Mellon stated, you may not know exactly where that trees at.
Robert Hines stated, pardon.
Charlie Mellon asked, do you know exactly how far back that you’re talking about is?
Robert Hines stated, yes, I’ve already taken that into consideration on my new garage. That’s why my new garage I wanted to put the new garage in the exact location as the old garage and that’s why, that’s why I cut the new garage 8’ shorter and made it wider to keep out of that tree.
Charlie Mellon stated, its 8’ back further than the old one, then you’re saying then? The width is the more but you said the 8’ shorter.
Robert Hines stated, I’ll be 8’ shorter and I did that purposefully to keep out of that tree.
Dave Scott stated well I think part of our job here probably to protect the public thoroughfare and I mean I…
Robert Hines stated, well I park my cars and vehicles in front of the garage now and there’s with the existing structure there was, I’ve never had a problem, I mean I’ve got an extended cab pick up long bed and it’s probably 20’ long and it’s at least 3’ off the, 4’ off the curb when I park it in front of the garage, in front of the door. My car, it’s…
Charlie Mellon stated, well you’re back further that 11’ now then with the old garage. It says 11’ here.
Robert Hines stated, well it’s 25’, I’ve already measured it and I brought that up to the attention of Jim Milligan when I went to pick up the survey. I measured it’s 25’ from the edge of the curb to the front of the old garage, it’s 25’, now in on one of the photos in Area Plan they showed the property line to be on the west side of my new sidewalks that I put in, well according to Milligan the property line is actually 4’ to the east on the opposite side of the sidewalk which made this, brought that down to 11’, it brought it down from 15’ to 11’ from the property line. But it’s actually 25’ from the street because I measured from the outside edge of the curb or from the inside edge of the curb to the old existing structure, the front wall was 25’.
Charlie Mellon asked, do you drive over the sidewalk to get into your garage?
Robert Hines stated, no I’ve got an apron.
Charlie Mellon stated, well I know you’d have an apron but people using the sidewalk will be out further off the curb walking or ever what they, bicycle riding.
Dave Scott stated, the property line doesn’t have anything to do with where the curb is. Most are…
Robert Hines stated, no I’m just saying, it’s, I mean you were, the statement was brought up a while ago about the vehicles parked in from of the garage could create a hazard for the street, they don’t. Never did as a matter of fact I don’t park along the curb…
Dave Scott stated, but it does for the walkway.
Robert Hines stated, because I’ve had friends visit and their cars got sideswiped, got the mirrors knocked off. With cars parking on both sides there’s no way two on coming cars can pass so I don’t park on the curb it’s to dangerous. You wind up with your mirrors knocked off and scratches on the sides of the cars from the kids bicycles so I park in front of the garages. Normally I park in the garages but, overnight but…
Vice President Thompson stated, so back to what you were saying earlier, Bob though where it’s showing the Davis Street side there, where it shows 11’ you’re basically saying that it’s more than 11’. Do you think there’s a discrepancy in the survey?
Robert Hines stated, well there’s a discrepancy in the aerial view and Milligan said not to pay any attention to the aerial views because he said there invariably wrong quite often.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Robert Hines stated, it’s not uncommon for them to be wrong.
Director Weaver stated, that is correct.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he’s wrong quite often too.
Dave Scott stated, according to his survey though…
Robert Hines stated, his survey that the, on his survey the garage is 11’…
Dave Scott stated, from your property line.
Robert Hines stated, inside the property line.
Dave Scott stated, right, and I suspect that’s pretty accurate.
Robert Hines stated, pardon.
Dave Scott stated, I suspect that that’s pretty accurate.
Robert Hines stated, well he did the survey, I assume it’s accurate.
Dave Scott stated, because most of the, in most of the towns the sidewalks and the area between the sidewalks and the curb is out in the public right-of-way. So I suspect you’re 11’ off your property line with the front of your garage.
Robert Hines stated, probably so.
Dave Scott stated, what you’re saying is the front of your garage is 25’ off the curb, off the street curb.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s what he said, yes.
Dave Scott stated, which is possible.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes that’s what he said earlier.
Dave Scott stated, and that would probably make sense.
Robert Hines stated, basically I don’t want to cut that big maple tree and if I set the garage back any further I’m going to have to cut down a beautiful shade tree that’s been there for probably 30 years. I’ve been there since 1991 and it was a pretty good size tree when I moved there and it is a hard maple tree and I just, it’s to beautiful tree to be, I certainly want to cut it down but to cut a big hole into the side of to allow the garage roof to fit it’d look kind of goofy, you know.
Charlie Mellon asked, how’s the neighbors lot or building or house are they back farther than that, are they back farther than 11’, has somebody else along that street got a garage about like yours, is it any closer to the road than yours or back farther?
Robert Hines stated, right down the street from me, Bob Klinkhammer has got a 3 car garage quite a bit like I want to put up and his is I don’t know, he’s got a lot less clearance than I do. A lot less. Dave Rosenbarger has got a 3 car garage.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, I know him.
Robert Hines stated, same situation and as a matter of fact the edge of his garage is on an alley, right on a…
Dave Scott asked, how far is this from the school?
Robert Hines stated, pardon, from the school?
Dave Scott asked, how far is this from the school?
Charlie Mellon stated, elementary?
Vice President Thompson stated, it’s a good ways.
Director Weaver stated, it’s a ways.
Robert Hines stated, it’s 8, probably 12 blocks, 13 blocks.
Director Weaver stated, this is closer to town than it is to the school.
Robert Hines stated, it’s quite a ways.
Dave Scott stated, I just concerned about blocking that driveway, or blocking that sidewalk for pedestrians.
Vice President Thompson stated, I guess…
Robert Hines stated, believe it or not, in all due respects I’ve been there since 91, I spent a lot of money on my sidewalks 5 years ago, 6 years ago very few people use the sidewalks even the kids on their skates, their bicycles, they run the streets instead of the sidewalks which is common around there they just don’t run the sidewalks and the town has spent thousands and thousands of dollars putting new sidewalks in all over town and the kids, everyone they use the streets, they play in the streets, they ride their bicycles, their skateboards.
Vice President Thompson stated, I guess I don’t know what, I was going to, Charlie, ask him about a comparison and I was trying to look at this aerial view that gives…
Director Weaver stated, well if you look at your survey where the word site improvement survey is on that survey, the footprint for the house to the house to the south is on there. You really don’t notice it but it is there.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes, okay. Where were we at? Dave or Gerald where did I leave off here? Dave did you have…
Dave Scott stated, I’m going to, I’d like to table this till the next meeting so I can get a chance to talk with the officials in Brookston about their policy on keeping their sidewalks clear for traffic and everything. Did you contact the town council?
Dave Scott stated, no, I didn’t.
Vice President Thompson stated, no I’m asking Bob.
Dave Scott stated, oh, I’m sorry.
Robert Hines asked, the town council?
Vice President Thompson asked, did you happen to…
Robert Hines stated, I talked to Max Eldridge about it and he told me, he said Bob you’ve got a corner lot just lot I do, there isn’t a corner lot in this town that you can legally build on without a variance he said I don’t care what you do you’ve got to go for a variance. Anything you do on a corner lot he said they’re just not wide enough, they’re either not wide enough or they’re not long enough.
Dave Scott stated, I’ll tell you what if you’ll get us a signed document from the Town Board of Brookston stating this situation here I give you a positive vote.
Robert Hines asked, a signed from, concerning?
Dave Scott stated, concerning not having room to park your car…
Vice President Thompson stated, just more or less approving of his plan here.
Charlie Mellon stated, on the side…
Robert Hines stated, where it’s at now.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, right, yes if you can just get them to approve this plan I’ll give you a vote.
Vice President Thompson stated, in other words go to your town board show them what you’re doing if you haven’t already and if they have and they like what you’re doing have them put something on paper, Town of Brookston sign it. We can vote on this tonight once you being that in if they say it’s okay, we’re ready to go, you’re ready to go.
Charlie Mellon stated, um hum.
Robert Hines stated, fair enough.
Vice President Thompson asked, follow what we’re asking?
Robert Hines stated, fair enough.
Charlie Mellon stated, I’d make that motion.
Vice President Thompson stated, and it won’t slow you up another 30 days that’s the whole thing Bob, see what I’m getting.
Director Weaver asked, are you saying that you can vote tonight?
Gerald Cartmell stated, what happens if they don’t agree?
Director Weaver stated, I took it that Dave was saying to table it.
Vice President Thompson, okay I thought he was…
Robert Hines stated, you’re saying, you’re saying…
Director Weaver stated, I’m confused.
Vice President Thompson stated, he was saying he was in favor..
Attorney Altman stated, the motion was to table it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he wanted to table it until we seen…
Vice President Thompson stated, but then he, okay I’m sorry, I thought, I misunderstood.
Robert Hines stated, you’re saying you would approve it contingent to their approval.
Vice President Thompson stated, I might of put words in Dave’s mouth I thought he meant…
Dave Scott stated, no, my motion was to table it until next meeting.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, I’m, I though you more or less withdrew that and went back to the town board Dave.
Robert Hines stated, that’s going to put me probably 90 days behind building. Right now I’m 2 months out.
Attorney Altman stated, we have a motion, we need a second.
Robert Hines stated, another month would put me 90 days.
Charlie Mellon stated, you talked to Rosenbarger, he’s on the town board.
Robert Hines stated, that would put me in the middle of December.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay like the attorney said we do have a motion to table it. Is there a second to that?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’ll second it.
Vice President Thompson stated, moved and seconded. All in favor?
Dave Scott and Gerald Cartmell stated, aye.
Vice President Thompson asked, all opposed? Aye.
Charlie Mellon stated, aye.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay we’ll table it.
Dave Scott asked, what was the vote then?
Charlie Mellon stated, 2 to 2.
Dave Scott stated, 2 to 2.
Vice President Thompson stated, oh it was 2 to 2, I’m sorry I thought it was, it did not pass I’m sorry.
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Vice President Thompson stated, I though I was the only one that voted against it. Okay back to square one.
Robert Hines stated, I don’t have a problem going before the town board if, you know if you want to approve it now contingent to their approval that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that.
Vice President Thompson stated, and I said that.
Robert Hines stated, that would save me.
Vice President Thompson stated, just a second, I did say that, I want to make sure that’s correct with our attorney.
Charlie Mellon stated, I’d make a motion to that affect.
Attorney Altman stated, you can do that, I…
Gerald Cartmell asked, I don’t know how that works, how does it work?
Attorney Altman stated, a 2-2 vote is tied, it’s not approved is what it amounts to so you’re back to the main motion, and you’re talking…
Vice President Thompson stated, now we’ve got a motion that we make this contingent upon the town board's approval.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and that photo, then you need a second.
Dave Scott stated, I’ll second it.
Vice President Thompson stated, been moved and seconded all in favor signify by saying aye.
Board members stated, aye.
Vice President Thompson asked, all opposed? Okay.
Attorney Altman asked, is that 2 votes?
Vice President Thompson stated, I’m not sure I didn’t see any lips move on one person over there.
Dave Scott stated, I voted for it.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay I’m sorry, seriously, Gerald I didn’t, I wasn’t looking at you I didn’t know what way you went. Okay, then we can vote. Understand Bob?
Robert Hines stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, as long as he gets a piece of paper it’s no big deal.
Vice President Thompson stated, signed by the Town of Brookston, yes.
Dave Scott stated, if not he has to come back is that…
Attorney Altman stated, and I guess I have a fundamental question as I heard when you were discussing that you are moving it back 9’, that Mr. Hines indicated that he would compromise and move it back 3’ which would be 11 plus 3 is 14’ and is that the motion that we have now before us that we’re voting on to be back 14’ or is it at 11’ and I’m not, he offered to go 3’ and that’s why I’m just wanting to make sure for the record where we are right now.
Vice President Thompson stated, oh I thought we voted on it as presented.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, you have a little room, he’ll have a little room back to the tree and you don’t know exactly what that is plus the…
Attorney Altman stated, well he said 3 Charlie.
Charlie Mellon stated, well yes.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s why I’m just making sure we’re voting all on, or thinking all on the same.
Vice President Thompson stated, I voted on it according to how he presented it. Did the rest of you?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, I did.
Dave Scott stated, I’ll go that if they can.
Vice President Thompson asked, you wanted to say something Bob?
Robert Hines stated, no, I said that, yes the tree is sitting approximately 12’ off the northeast corner of the garage and you know, I mean Charlie you wanted to know where the tree was in conjunction of the garage it’s pretty much, it’s about 12’ off the northeast corner, the foliage is probably 30’.
Charlie Mellon stated, get all the feet you can to add it on to 11 that’s the main thing.
Vice President Thompson asked, is Joe Butz still the board president? Joe Butz is still the board president?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Vice President Thompson asked, is he?
Charlie Mellon stated, Butz down at Brookston is still the president of the board down there.
Vice President Thompson stated, Brookston.
Charlie Mellon stated, is still the president of the board down there.
Robert Hines asked, who?
Charlie Mellon stated, president of the board, Butz.
Vice President Thompson stated, town board.
Charlie Mellon stated, town board.
Robert Hines asked, Joe?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, Joe. Rosenbarger is on there too.
Dave Scott stated, Dave, um hum.
Charlie Mellon stated, and then town clown, I can’t think of his name. You said it a while ago.
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 22’ front setback variance to build a detached garage on West half of Lots One (1), Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4) all in Block Three (3) in Brown and Barnard’s Addition to the Town of Brookston, in White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the town of Brookston at 401 East 4th 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 3 affirmative and 1 negative contingent on approval from the Town on Brookston.
Attorney Altman stated, petition #2656, the vote on that is contingent upon town board’s written approval of the request. That’s the vote and we have 4 votes cast, 3 votes vote that the variance is hereby granted, 1 vote is that it’s denied. It is granted contingent upon the town board approving your plans as presented and then you need to get a building permit if they approve it as…
Robert Hines stated, as such.
Attorney Altman stated, yes and they have to do that in writing and give that to the department, okay.
Robert Hines asked, to her?
Vice President Thompson stated, give it to Diann, yes.
Robert Hines asked, Diann?
Vice President Thompson stated, yes you bring it to her, yes.
Attorney Altman asked, okay, Mr. Hines.
Robert Hines stated, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
****
#2657 Robert & Nancy Bryles; The property is located on 20 in the Isle of Homes, located North of Norway Dam off of East Shafer Drive to Lake Road 10 E. to 5122 E. Oriole Drive.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5’ west side setback variance and a 2’ height variance to build a 1st and 2nd story addition.
Vice President Thompson asked, and sir you are?
Kelly Good stated, Kelly Good.
Vice President Thompson stated, Kelly Good.
Kelly Good stated, Mr. and Mrs. Bryles are here tonight. I’m representing them tonight and they would like to speak and we have a neighbor here to speak as well. We are requesting 2 variances, 1 is for a side yard setback and then 1 is for a height setback. It’s an existing site that has a garage and a house. The objective is to attach to existing garage and house by adding an addition and then adding the second floor addition to the existing house. If you look at the survey on the west side the side yard setback is effective in one area on the west side. You can see the garage is 22’ on the west side of the property. The objective would be to add an addition at roughly 16’ to the south and line the two walls up of the garage to the south. I will point out that Mr. Milligan’s survey does not appear that the garage sits square on the property but when I ask him he said it does sit square on the property so that may be a question tonight. The other one is for the second story to be added. We’re requesting a 2’ height variance to go to 32’ as opposed to the 30’ and I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Bryles.
Bob Bryles stated, the only, I’m Bob Bryles.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, go ahead.
Bob Bryles stated, yes, I’d just like to say that on that west side there where we have the variance with the garage is that if you look at the pictures the garage is set pretty far forward to my neighbor and there is absolutely no obstruction that would come into play okay between my house and his house which is obviously important when your sitting on the lake. There’s absolutely no, there’s no windows or anything of that sort and I asked, him personally before I even got involved with this if he would have any objection to me doing this and keeping the garage the way it was and he actually signed off on that. I made up a small little variance note that he signed prior to me going to the building, for the variance so I don’t know if you have that proposed variance that I, that letter that I wrote.
Director Weaver asked, is it in the file?
Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t look and don’t see it.
Bob Bryles stated, all right let me…
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t see anything like that in this file.
Director Weaver stated, Jerry look right there attached to those papers there, it might be stapled.
Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t think I saw it.
Director Weaver stated, I didn’t remember that.
Bob Bryles stated, I have 2 of those letters at the time when I did this I didn’t know there’s a person on the other side of the street and I went and got this letter here is from my neighbor which is on the west which is where the proposed variance is involved and then the person on the right who is my other neighbor that’s here tonight, Greg Roth. Okay, he has no objection to it either.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, I have a document here that is signed by Bob Bryles. Do you have a copy of that Mr. Bryles?
Bob Bryles asked, what’s that?
Attorney Altman asked, a copy of this document that you…
Bob Bryles stated, I probably don’t have a copy of it. Oh okay.
Director Weaver asked, same thing?
Bob Bryles stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, read it. I think he wants you to read it.
Vice President Thompson stated, yes we’ll let you do the reading.
Bob Bryles stated, I am requesting this variance to build an addition to my home on Lake Shafer. The new addition does not affect the current setbacks except for the addition to the garage. I would like to be able to add a 3rd bay to the garage and have the exterior wall in line with the existing garage. This only affects one area to the West of the property for a space of about 16’-0”. I am also adding a second story to accommodate my family and grandchildren when they visit. My immediate neighbors are agreeable to this change to my property. Thank you, Bob Bryles.
Attorney Altman stated, okay and I do have, I’ll call exhibit A, it says proposed variance and it’s dated July 15, 2007, property location: Bryles, Isle of homes lot 20 at 5122 East Oriole Drive Monticello, IN 47960, Isle of Homes Lot 20. As proposed by architectural plan on 07/12/2007, adding to the existing garage following original garage on west side. Garage over hang from lot line is four feet. I’m requesting variance for this proposal. Once variance is granted, this would be considered to be permanent for the life of the improvement. By signing this document, your signature indicates that you have read the requested variance and grant this approval. There’s a signature of somebody appears to be a Steven D. Costerison and the address it shows is 5098 Oriole Drive, Monticello, IN 7-15-07. And the other one I marked exhibit B is the same body and the same body that I just read but it’s signed by Greg Roth and 5124 E. Oriole Drive, Monticello, IN 47960, dated the same day the 15th.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay. Diann do you have anything?
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t.
Vice President Thompson asked, anyone here care to respond either for or against the variance? Yes sir?
Greg Roth stated, hello, I’m Greg Roth the immediate neighbor to the east and I would just like to address this and I know the board has to take in to consideration the different variance for side setbacks that things don’t get to close and that’s why I backed down from mine when I did it but I feel that this one will complement the neighborhood. It will bring a much nicer looking home next to us, lets see here and I just, I feel that if we’re here to speak out for it and there’s nobody against it that I think we should give it a really strong consideration for this side variance. That’s it.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
Tim Bryles stated, my name is Tim Bryles I live at 5000 E Oriole Drive which is about 7 houses away in the same Isle of Homes and since I’ve been coming to the lake since I’ve been, oh a kid since 8th grade I’ve seen the lake really build up and the Isle of Homes is kind of a prestige place, I think on Shafer and a lot of people think so too. There’s several locations that have built, that have improved their existing property. Dr. Blazic, Dr. Mardjetko, we have right across the street from where my dad’s going to be building his, the Meders that they’ve improved their properties, the Roths improved their properties, the Speckmans improved their property that is on that island. There’s a lot of other people that are wanting to improve their properties. I think the improvement that he wants to make is a very substantial one that would bring a lot of prestige to the community as well probably up their tax dollars as well so, thanks.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Charlie do you have any questions?
Charlie Mellon stated, no. I was out there and I had trouble finding because his sign had blown down in the yard out there by the drive.
Bob Bryles asked, is that right?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, that’s been 2 or 3 days ago.
Bob Bryles stated, the 2 days I go home.
Charlie Mellon stated, beg your pardon.
Bob Bryles stated, I went home Monday and Tuesday and came back Wednesday.
Greg Roth stated, I didn’t knock it down.
Charlie Mellon stated, this was about Thursday, so I haven’t got anything.
Vice President Thompson asked, Dave Scott do you have anything for him?
Dave Scott asked, this proposed addition, you’re going to add a garage to that?
Bob Bryles stated, I’m adding additional…
Dave Scott stated, bay.
Bob Bryles stated, bay, correct.
Dave Scott asked, and is it on this proposed, is it like this part of it there? Is it right in here?
Bob Bryles stated, yes, that’s correct.
Director Weaver stated, Greg I have a question for you. Do you know how big your house it?
Greg Roth stated, yes, its 30’.
Director Weaver stated, I just thought that might be good for the board to know to compare.
Greg Roth stated, it’s very close yes.
Attorney Altman stated, gentlemen because the ordinance calls for it is there any idea what would be called a hardship to allow this, under the ordinance. I hear the neighbors are saying okay.
Bob Bryles stated, I understand I think the only that we’re trying…
Attorney Altman stated, but the ordinance doesn’t say this is okay if just all the neighbors say its okay.
Bob Bryles stated, I realize that.
Attorney Altman stated, it ask for and requires that you present a hardship.
Kelly Good stated, to me the biggest hardship is that he wants to leave the existing garage and the existing house so to do that and really to obtain the objective to add the garage and leave that, that’s the best option so we could potentially tear it down and start over from scratch which we might not be here then tonight but I believe this is the best solution is to add on to the existing garage.
Vice President Thompson stated, Charlie.
Charlie Mellon stated, he’s got one statement there that sounds pretty good. I’m also adding a second story to accommodate my family and grandchildren when they visit, you know. You don’t know how many of them there is and they need a lot of room. I think that should be entered in to hardship too.
Attorney Altman stated, oh I know.
Bob Bryles stated, I think what my architect is trying to say is that what we’re doing, if you look your taking the house and the garage and coming together as one now and then going up, yes we can surely tear down the garage and start over and make a 3 car garage but I mean the cost factor is considerably more doing it that way then sitting here and adding on 16’ and like I said the fact is if you look at the house and you were out there today there’s nothing in the way of okay of that addition that would affect anybody from looking at that lake and that’s always a major consideration when your on the lake. If I was sitting in front of it and blocking somebody’s view that would be another consideration.
Vice President Thompson asked, Dave do you have anything else for Mr. Bryles?
Dave Scott stated, no.
Vice President Thompson asked, Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, my only thing is how long ago was it we had somebody here on Hummingbird Drive that I see a lot of familiar were in here and they didn’t want that house in, you know. I’m not against your house or anything.
Greg Roth stated, yes, I know. We are a very tight knit neighborhood and that was due to safety not due to, we looked at that and his house plans have been passed around for several weekends, its been probably a month and a half they’ve been done but everybody has seen them and that I wanted to bring that up when I was up here that everybody’s seen and they would be here if they didn’t approve of it and I, I saw today on the agenda that this was last and I was thinking all day man I do not really want to go to this but Bob’s a great neighbor and I wanted to come and make a point. I told my wife I didn’t really want to come at all but I wanted to come just for the fact that we need to make the point that we are for it. A lot of people if they are for it they’re not going to come. They’re only going to come for the bad so that’s the reason we are for this is because it’s not a safety or a flooding issue it’s astatically better for the neighborhood and it’s going to improve the street, thank you.
Bob Bryles stated, let me just briefly address what you said about the one at Hummingbird, obviously I’ve been on this lake for 20 some years. I did look into that lot many years ago and the people that bought that lot unfortunately, I think are in, you know, have a lot that needs, they need to accommodate that and I would of surly came to that meeting and address it but because I was sitting here I would of rather not of abstained from dealing with that. And I think that they can come back and have the next house, you know if they put their 2 cents to it and come up with something different but the fact is I’m trying to accomplish, you know without enhancing or having something dangerous that we’ve already addressed last week. Thanks for staying up so late.
Attorney Altman stated, tell us how you’re going to handle the water problem that’s going to be created by this additional roof sir.
Bob Bryles stated, in his he’s got drainage running all the way around the house which is not there right now. I mean…
Attorney Altman stated, in your plans.
Bob Bryles stated, yes in the plans right now there’s drainage running all the way around the house.
Attorney Altman stated, so that the, all of the eaves trough will be a drain to the lake.
Bob Bryles stated, I would assume if that’s under code, yes, I mean that’s…
Kelly Good stated, and their tiled, we’re going to tile them.
Bob Bryles stated, they’re all tiled around.
Attorney Altman stated, please talk in the mic, I’m sorry.
Charlie Mellon stated, perimeter.
Kelly Good stated, yes we’re going to put a perimeter to catch the run off.
Attorney Altman asked, and off of the roof too?
Kelly Good stated, that is correct, that’s correct.
Attorney Altman asked, and take it to the lake?
Kelly Good stated, that is correct, I mean and I’m not 100% sure I don’t believe it’s in the code but it’s something we believe that we should do.
Attorney Altman stated, we believe you need to put it and tell us about it so that it’s part of the record before we vote on it.
Kelly Good stated, okay it makes sense.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s why I’m trying to get you in cement.
Kelly Good stated, makes sense.
Vice President Thompson asked, any other discussion? Let’s vote.
Director Weaver asked, you brought your sign back?
Bob Bryles stated, yes ma’am.
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. Applicant will gutter into tile all of the water off of the roofs.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting and neighbors were there and spoke for the applicant’s request.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 5’ West side setback variance for a garage addition and a 2’ height variance for a second story on Lot Number Twenty (20) in the Isle of Homes Subdivision situated in Sections 8, 9, and 16, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union and Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, as recorded in Deed Record 175 page 225 in Plat Book Record No. 1 Page 25, in the Office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Norway Dam off of East Shafer Drive to Lake Road 10 E. to 5112 E. Oriole 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 0 negative.
Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit and that really should show on it also the drainage.
Bob Bryles stated, right now it’s got that, yes.
Vice President Thompson stated, okay Diann. Do you have anything else?
Director Weaver stated, I can’t think of anything.
Vice President Thompson asked, Jerry do you have anything? Does the board have anything that needs to be discussed, if not I’m going to cut you off.
Gerald Cartmell asked, how many more long meetings we got?
Charlie Mellon stated, Diann, you been to the budget meeting?
Director Weaver stated, yes, went to the budget meeting earlier this month but we don’t find out anything, won’t find out anything until September but I did request more money for you guys.
Charlie Mellon stated, I think that’s what Gerald was wanting to know.
Vice President Thompson asked, after they all got done laughing what did they think?
Director Weaver stated, they don’t every say anything.
Vice President Thompson stated, I know they don’t, I know they don’t.
Director Weaver stated, and the thing is I don’t get a chance to come back, I mean when I get my budget back they aren’t in session like if I’ve got question I can’t go back to them and say not until the following month because they approve them and they run.
Charlie Mellon stated, these meetings will be getting shorter when Stimmel gets back, won’t be as many 2 to 2 votes to redo.
Director Weaver stated, well you got rid of 2 of them tonight.
Dave Scott stated, Charlie tonight they was all, I don’t want to hear that Charlie, tonight I voted for everything you wanted voted for.
Charlie Mellon stated, to much time spent on one.
Vice President Thompson stated, if there’s nothing we will adjourn. Let’s adjourn.
The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott, Secretary
Diann Weaver, Director
White County Area Plan Commission
“I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.”
_________________________________________________