Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.
Members attending were: Gerald Cartmell, David Scott, Charles Mellon, Jerry Thompson and David Stimmel. Also attending were Attorney Jerry Altman and Director Diann Weaver.
Visitors attending were: Jim Davidson, Toby Beach, Sandra Beach, Phil Vogel, Pat Mazgaj, Angie Mazgaj, Joseph E. Butz, Sharon Malysa, George Holmes, ???, Ronald Kot, Larry Mosier, Perry McWilliams, Kerry Wheeldon, Ronda Wheeldon, Bob Bryles, Neil Smith, Mary Smith, Catherine Gross, Mike ???, and Dave Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by President David Stimmel and roll call was taken. Jerry Thompson made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the October 18, 2007 meeting. Motion was seconded by Charlie Mellon and carried unanimously. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.
****
#2661 Sharon A. Malysa & Joseph Tadevich; The property is located on Lots 7 & 8 in Shore Acres 1st Addition, north of Norway Dam at 3508 N. Shore Acres Court. Tabled from September 20, 2007 & October 18, 2007.
Violation: The deck was roofed without a permit and is too close to the property line.
Request: They are requesting a 5.5’ side setback variance for a covered porch.
President Stimmel asked, and you are ma’am?
Sharon Malysa stated, I’m Sharon Malysa.
President Stimmel stated, okay, thank you.
Attorney Altman stated, for the record on October the 18th we had a vote on this variance and it was a 4 to 4 vote on that, 4 in favor of granting or denied.
President Stimmel stated, 2 to 2.
Attorney Altman stated, or 2 to 2, I’m sorry 2 and 2 all right get my math right.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Director Weaver stated, I believe also at that meeting that we did, the board did vote on the violation and I think that has been addressed.
President Stimmel stated, right the violations been addressed the only thing that was left was the 2 to 2 tie.
Director Weaver stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, and so that we’re now 5 members and that’s something I should of told every body, this is a 5 person board. All 5 members are here this evening. Diann and I do not vote, okay so you’re looking at the decks so to speak and I don’t have anything else.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right. Miss Malysa do you have anything else to add to what we’ve talked about already, anything you want to?
Sharon Malysa stated, no I think I’ve basically covered everything in the last 2 meetings nothings changed.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right. Are there any other questions from the board?
Jerry Thompson asked, contractors name?
Charlie Mellon stated, the guy that was here with you last week.
Director Weaver stated, he was here at the last meeting.
President Stimmel stated, he was here.
Jerry Thompson stated, but I don’t recall his name, I know he was.
Director Weaver stated, no, I don’t either.
Gerald Cartmell stated, Geraldo.
Jerry Thompson asked, is that what it was?
Director Weaver stated, that was the translators.
Sharon Malysa stated, no, Arturo.
Gerald Cartmell asked, that was the translator?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, I remember the face but I’ll never get the name.
Director Weaver stated, I can tell you. I’ve got the minutes right here.
Charlie Mellon stated, I think we remember him.
Sharon Malysa stated, I can look at my checkbook.
Director Weaver stated, Arturo Aragon.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Sharon Malysa stated, Aragon, right.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Charlie Mellon asked, has he settled the fine Diann?
Director Weaver stated, um Ms. Malysa came in and paid that fine the following day, I believe it was.
Sharon Malysa stated, right.
Director Weaver stated, that fine was paid.
Sharon Malysa stated, right because I withheld money from him until this was settled so I could pay it.
Charlie Mellon stated, okay, that’s good.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Charlie any more questions?
Charlie Mellon stated, no, not really only it’s not a very big area, the deck and I don’t know whether there’s about 3’, whether 3’ could come off of it or not without tearing it all the way down and start over. Might be able to take the 3’, I think about 3’ needs to come off if it’s 5 and a half and it needs to be 8’ so that’s about all I’ve got to say.
President Stimmel stated, okay, Dave?
Dave Scott asked, I don’t remember, um, can I ask how much the fine was for?
President Stimmel asked, 350 wasn’t it?
Charlie Mellon stated, 350.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, 350, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, that was with the builder, the builder paid that.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, the contractor, fined the contractor.
President Stimmel asked, Gerald anything you want to add? What are her options if we do not approve the variance?
Attorney Altman stated, okay, if, you can do a couple of things, Charlie’s mention about moving it in 3’ and the board actually can entertain that as a option or you can vote on the request of the applicant, if your options are and it is not approved then the options are to remove the improvement.
Jerry Thompson asked, does she have a certain time limit to remove the improvement?
Attorney Altman stated, generally it’s a reasonable time and that would be varied depending on the weather but you know 30 to 60 days would be usual.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, I’d like to make a correction. 3’ isn’t going to get it into the setbacks.
Attorney Altman stated, oh no, no it doesn’t but it would be, it would be less of a setback variance.
Director Weaver asked, but didn’t you ask if it was denied?
Attorney Altman stated, understood…
President Stimmel stated, if it’s denied what are our options but Jerry’s getting to the point and that is that there can be other options. She can submit a request for a variance that’s not 5 and a half foot.
Director Weaver stated, okay, okay. I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t thinking that was bringing it into compliance.
Attorney Altman stated, and Charlie mentioned if she moved it back 2’ that might change his, your thoughts, right Charlie.
President Stimmel stated, no.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, okay that’s what I thought you were saying.
Director Weaver stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay well I’m just trying to make sure we get it all out so she understands what the options are if it’s denied. Do you guys want to talk about it a little bit more or are you ready to vote? Ready to vote?
Dave Scott stated, well I’m going to tell you where I stand here on this thing.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott stated, um from the looks of this picture it looks nice and I hate to see you have to take it off there but we can’t let people build without permits and without getting a variances and I don’t know that I feel that $350 was enough of a penalty but we can’t do anything about that. I guess I’m thinking out loud here because I’m going to be the deciding vote.
Charlie Mellon stated, we had a discussion on the penalty values.
Dave Scott stated, um hum.
Charlie Mellon stated, it started out at 5 and then it got…
Sharon Malysa stated, and I … a number but it wasn’t up to me it was voted on a vote and…
Attorney Altman stated, it was up to the board.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it started at 500 and they started jewing on me.
Charlie Mellon stated, it got down to 2 and then we settled at 350.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Charlie Mellon stated, it was in the minutes.
President Stimmel stated, but that was just on the contractor, that was not…
Charlie Mellon stated, no that’s right.
President Stimmel stated, it wasn’t a fine on the homeowner.
Gerald Cartmell stated, the president bailed on me.
Charlie Mellon stated, no it wasn’t on the homeowner.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, well another thing it’s back, back on the back side of the house where the public and the neighbors, they got along with some neighbors all right which evidently they did.
Gerald Cartmell asked, what about the next neighbors?
Charlie Mellon asked, beg your pardon?
Gerald Cartmell asked, what about the next neighbors?
Charlie Mellon stated, well, yes, that’d make a difference.
Attorney Altman stated, um ma’am what I guess I heard one of the board members indicate is he was thinking about possibly about if you moved your deck in 3 more foot you might consider that as a proposal and I guess to get things off square 1 that is something you can do if you decide to make a modification of your application and that would basically take 3’ off of your deck and on the looks like the west side all though you certainly have a right to just go ahead and ask them to vote as you’ve requested so I’m just saying is you however, have the right to do it either way and if your going to modify it please do so now otherwise I think they’re getting ready to vote.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well the other thing is why don’t you just go back 5.5 and then she doesn’t need a setback all she needs is a permit?
Sharon Malysa stated, the purpose of that though is if you looked at it, it’s actually there and you take off 51/2’ is not serving any purpose and it would look actually ridiculous because it’s going to be so much wider and narrow where at that width I’d have to narrow it, just have a little thing over the door and it wouldn’t be a covered patio at all.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Sharon Malysa stated, 3’ yes, I would, that is still making it a useable patio that I would you know, if that gets voted today that’d just be…
Attorney Altman asked, so are you willing to modify your request?
Sharon Malysa stated, yes, that’s what I’m trying to say, yes I am willing to modify the 3, you know as opposed to tearing it down.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, so that…
President Stimmel stated, do you want to try to handle, I guess the question I have is do you want to try to handle that as a modified request now or make her resubmit for a different variance?
Attorney Altman stated, I would handle it this way since it’s coming in you can do that.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, it’s coming in you can handle it tonight.
President Stimmel asked, would that change anybody’s mind?
Attorney Altman stated, well we’ll see.
Dave Scott stated, I guess I don’t see the point.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, I mean if she’s not going to meet the setbacks, if she’s got to get a variance what’s the difference between it?
Attorney Altman stated, that’s your decision Dave.
Dave Scott stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s your decision, I agree with you, I mean I agree that’s it’s your decision.
President Stimmel stated, okay tell me when you’re ready to vote.
Jerry Thompson stated, ready.
President Stimmel asked, ready?
Board members stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, ready to vote. Dave, don’t do it unless you’re ready to seriously.
Dave Scott asked, Diann she didn’t get a permit at all?
Director Weaver stated, no.
Sharon Malysa stated, we discussed that I assumed, I thought that the contractor is supposed to get it because in the past the contractor did take care of everything like that and so that’s how this whole thing started and then when I found out that he didn’t get a permit and I went to Dave that’s when he sent me here because of the variance needed and that’s why I brought the contractor in.
Gerald Cartmell asked, actually Dave Anderson found it didn’t he?
Sharon Malysa stated, I don’t know.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he came by and left, you said he left his business card in the door.
Sharon Malysa stated, he left his card in my door yes and my friend brought it in when she brought my mail in, yes.
Dave Scott stated, and I want to apologize to the audience I’m getting brought up to speed because I missed last meeting.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s all right you read the minutes that’s all you need.
President Stimmel asked, are you ready to vote Dave? No, okay.
Dave Scott stated, and the fine was strictly to the contractor.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, supposed to.
President Stimmel stated, that’s correct however she paid it.
Dave Scott stated, I’m ready to vote, I guess.
President Stimmel stated, okay, let’s vote.
Attorney Altman stated, all right announcing the results of the balloting on petition #2661, 2 votes vote in favor of granting, 3 votes vote in favor of denying the variance. The variance is denied.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
The Board finds the following:
1. That no objectors were present at the meeting
2. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
3. That the request is for a 5.5’side setback variance for a covered porch on Lots Number Seven (7) and Eight (8) in First Addition to SHORE ACRES as shown in the plat of SHORE ACRES First Addition as appears in Deed Record 119 on pages 100 and 101 thereof in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana, said real estate being situated in the fractional part of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Nine (9), Township Twenty seven (27) North, Range Three (3) West f the Second Principal Meridian all in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Norway Dam at 3508 N. Shore Acres Court.
4. (1) The variance request (is) (is not) a variance from a use district or classifications under are plan law. Vote: 3 is not, 2 is.
5. (2) The granting of this variance (will) (will not) be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Vote: 3 will not 2 will.
6. (3) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request (will) (will not) be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Vote 3 will, 2 will not.
7. (4) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance is being applied to a situation that (is) (is not) common to other properties in the same zoning district. Vote: 2 is 3 is not,
8. (5) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance (will) (will not) result in unusual and unnecessary hardship. Vote: 2 will, 3 will not.
9. (6a) This situation (is) (is not) such that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that does not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning district. Vote: 2 will, 3will not.
10. (6b) this situation (is) (is not) such that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. Vote: 2 will, 3 will not.
11. (6c) This situation (is) (is not) such that the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will materially impair the purposes of the ordinance of the public interest. Vote: 2 will, 3will not.
12. (6d) This situation (is) (is not) such that the Board specifically finds the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is of so typical or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation, under an amendment of the ordinance, for such conditions or situations. Vote: 2 will, 3will not.
The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 2 for and 3 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.
****
#2664 Vogel Real Estate Co. Inc.; The property is located on Lots 1, 2, and 14’ lot 3, in Lake Drive Subdivision in Block 2, located in the City of Monticello at 1001 N. Main Street. Tabled from October 18, 2007.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback variance from Main Street to relocate an on premise sign because of the road widening.
President Stimmel asked, Phil.
Phil Vogel stated, hello again.
President Stimmel stated, again, we put you off but we had a lot of discussion in the interim.
Phil Vogel stated, jus a couple of things that I thought I’d tell you about. The city did go ahead and sign the consent to encroach. That is all signed and notarized. I’ve not recorded it because I wasn’t going to record it unless you approved it because it’s really up to you. I don’t know if again that there’s a couple of you that had looked at where I wanted to set it before last meeting and I’m not sure if all of you went there and kind of refreshed your memory and took a look at where I want to set it and why I want to set it and why I explained last time because it’s in a grassy area and I’d kind of like to landscape around it instead of putting it in the asphalt area which one reason and to if I put it in the asphalt I basically loose those parking spots at the corner of my building which I thought they’d probably run into it and I’m trying to get it out of the way a little more. Do you have anymore questions for me?
President Stimmel stated, Phil I don’t have any I, one of the other things we’ve talked about is the fact and last 3 to 4 weeks has been the fact that at least from my perspective I was under the mistaken impression that we actually had something to do with granting the, proving the right to encroach, okay which I was clarified on in the last couple of weeks that essentially we are not doing that we are really, the only thing we’re doing is voting on a 10’ setback variance or a 0 setback so a 10’ variance so incase somebody might have been under that same impression I’m just trying to clarify that, that the city has already granted that right to encroach.
Phil Vogel stated, I didn’t bring that, you had a copy of it last month.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, but it’s the copy they signed. I didn’t bring the signed copy with me but they have signed it.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Phil Vogel stated, and ?
President Stimmel stated, okay, okay. Jerry anymore questions or?
Director Weaver stated, Phil if this is granted we would need a copy of it signed encroachment.
Phil Vogel stated, well I thought I would record it.
Director Weaver stated, yes once you record it then bring us a copy or bring it up and we’ll copy it.
Phil Vogel asked, any other questions for me?
Jerry Thompson asked, Phil have you considered doubling up with your brother since your side by side?
Phil Vogel stated, I don’t know if I really had much discussion with him on that or not. I know that he’s not I know that he’s within the 10’ setbacks.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Phil Vogel stated, there, um and I guess I really have not you know really asked him yes or no on that because they are 2 separate owners and stuff like that but I understand where your comment.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
Phil Vogel stated, I would prefer to keep mine individually if I could. I’m going to landscape that grassy area no matter what, okay I just didn’t want to do anything to it if I did get the variance I want to put the sign and landscape around it and go from there.
President Stimmel asked, okay, Charlie.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes I think we thought of that too. I mentioned it to another director the other day and thought maybe we’d bring it up and I just said something to Jerry about it and it might take a little more reinforcement on the, you couldn’t put your sign on the bottom because I think It’d have to go on top and it might be bigger then his sign, I don’t know for sure. I think it’d probably be about the same distance and it would pass, it would help things out greatly as far as out concern. That’s about all I got to say.
President Stimmel stated, okay, Dave.
Dave Scott asked, do you already own the sign or do you have to…
Phil Vogel stated, it was the sign that was up that we took down during the widening of the project, ours, we had to take ours down like Taco Bell did not have to and the old Pizza Hut or Checks To Go, I don’t think they had to take theirs down and their…
Charlie Mellon stated, your brother didn’t either, Bruce didn’t have his down.
Phil Vogel stated, well he moved his.
Charlie Mellon asked, huh?
Phil Vogel stated, he moved his.
Charlie Mellon asked, he did?
Phil Vogel stated, um hum.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh I didn’t think he did.
Phil Vogel stated, and the um, I know that like I showed this to one of the board members, the Taco Bell sign is in the right-of-way.
Charlie Mellon stated, it is.
Phil Vogel stated, um and it doesn’t meet setbacks.
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Phil Vogel stated, Checks To Go’s doesn’t meet the setback and I mean I didn’t go up and down Main Street everywhere but I mean I understand your point of view we kind of had this discussion last, you know I’m not the only one that is in this boat a little bit about mine to reposition my sign but as I say putting it back up. If I can put it in there I save a little parking space, actually I feel like I save 2, minimum of 2 and also as I get closer and closer to the building because the new right-of-way became considerably closer because I think they took more of my side then the other side and that’s the reason why I want to kind of set it in there.
Charlie Mellon stated, so there’d be enough room to park parallel to your building maybe for a couple of vehicles. Wouldn’t it, if you put it where it’s supposed to be put?
Phil Vogel stated, well…
Charlie Mellon stated, over in the blacktop.
Phil Vogel stated, well it I put it where I’m supposed to put it, 10’ out your not going to be able to cut that corner I don’t think in between my building to come around my building because I think it’s going to be out in the asphalt that much.
Charlie Mellon stated, well you got to drive on the south there from the south it’d be better getting in there then the north we’d have to agree to that.
Phil Vogel stated, well you’re either going to pull in from the south or your going to pull in from the north, your not going to go from the north to the south or around.
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Phil Vogel stated, around the building if I sit it out in the asphalt.
Dave Scott stated, you definitely have a hardship there because of the road going through and all of this and I don’t have any trouble with granting the 10’ setback variance which is basically 0 if your going to be right up on the curb line. I struggle with being out in the right-of-way for a lot of reasons but once we give you the 10’ and then it’s out of our hands. Is that correct?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, and then the, if he’s got something from the City of Monticello he can go ahead and put it out wherever they say he can put it. Is that right?
Attorney Altman stated, within the variance that you grant.
Dave Scott stated, but we’re only granting him up to the property line according to the variance we’re granting him 10’.
Jerry Thompson asked, but didn’t you and Dave meet with some people recently?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, and if I understood you guy’s right just like here we have the City of Monticello, they basically are approving it. If I understood you right they pretty much, the people you met kind of gave us a green light to do as we please. Correct?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, I’ve been down this road before, this is all right until we take a position and then look out.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I’ve got a question. So you own the old Kernel Sanders, you don’t own it but say you own the old Kernel Sanders building.
Greg Vogel stated, um hum.
Gerald Cartmell asked, where, if you were sitting on this side are you going let him put his sign? It’s not fair.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’d be on the north side.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s not fair.
Greg Vogel stated, well he’s got, he can set it on his north side of his property line can’t he?
Gerald Cartmell stated, well you can too, on your north side.
Greg Vogel stated, no, my north sides going right down the middle between the buildings. He has a lot better situation than I have.
Gerald Cartmell stated, but he wants it on the south side, just like you do, maybe.
Greg Vogel stated, well but he has an option, I don’t have a, I’m not going to stick it in between my building and my brothers building right in the middle of the asphalt.
Gerald Cartmell stated, but I’m saying he wants it on the south side just, I’m just saying.
Greg Vogel stated, well but I’m saying he has an option Gerald. You know, if I didn’t have Bruce next door and I had a, I guess had a more distinct lot line there I wouldn’t have a problem with it but I don’t want to stick it in the middle of the asphalt.
Dave Scott stated, see the thing, I don’t mind the 0 setback because like I say there’s a hardship. If the leading edge of your sign was right on the property line I’d have no problems with that because you could pull out look down the street and all the signs would be on their own property and somebody sent me a copy of the Monticello City Ordinance that says you can’t do that.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Dave Scott asked, how did they, they don’t follow their own ordinance?
Greg Vogel stated, all I can tell you is I went to a council meeting and told them what I wanted to do, ask them I guess however you want to put it and…
Charlie Mellon stated, they went back on their own, they went back on their own ordinance is what they done.
Gerald Cartmell stated, and violated it.
Charlie Mellon stated, by giving you that encroachment is what happened.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so they want us to act on their violation.
Dave Scott asked, is there any way you can sit that thing and still keep your parking spots and keep the leading edge of it right on the property line or what we’re going to do is open up a can of worms for, we got Main Street to deal with and we got 6th Street to deal with, with these road widening. We let one guy encroach and you know…
Phil Vogel stated, okay I guess my question to you is and Dave you stopped by and looked, your talking about 0 Dave as your talking about will you set it right on the lot line?
Dave Scott stated, the leading edge of the sign. The edge of your sign up here?
Phil Vogel stated, um hum.
Dave Scott stated, and that’s basically, that’s what you’re asking for here, you’re just asking for a 10’ variance. Am I correct Diann?
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s right.
Director Weaver stated, well I’ve worded it which in hind sight think I should have worded it differently yes I’ve worded it to where it was to allow them to go to the property line.
Phil Vogel stated, okay so you’re not really even letting me, you’re not even considering about me putting a post on the lot line, you’re saying the edge of the sign so I’m really going to be 6’ in from…
Charlie Mellon stated, the line.
Phil Vogel stated, the line.
Charlie Mellon stated, 5 ½ .
Phil Vogel stated, 5 ½’.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, 11’.
Dave Scott asked, I think that’s all we can do isn’t it?
Director Weaver stated, that’s my understanding yes, is allow it to go to the property line beyond that then the city has to do that. Is that correct Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, I think that…
Director Weaver asked, am I saying that correct?
Attorney Altman stated, I think that if the city allows the encroachment you can allow it to go into the area where the city allowed the encroachment. You have the authority to do that.
Dave Scott asked, do we have to change the variance then to include the area that he wants to encroach?
Attorney Altman stated, yes, I think so, I think so. I didn’t realize that it was drafted such that it would limit to your lot line Phil is what I’m trying to say. It says that they’re requesting 10’ setback variance from Main Street for an on premise sign and that’s not your request that you’re trying to defend this evening, right? Your wanting to go as your survey says.
Phil Vogel stated, yes, I’m wanting to go as my survey which means that the edge of my sign would be 5 ½’ not stationary but hanging over the right-of-way.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it would be more than that. Your pole’s in the right-of-way.
Director Weaver stated, well the request is correct other than it should say to encroach.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, it should say to encroach.
Director Weaver stated, and we just omitted that part.
Attorney Altman stated, yes and, yes I don’t have any question of letting that.
Director Weaver stated, okay, well I’m just trying to clarify so I know…
Gerald Cartmell stated, you put a round base there.
Phil Vogel stated, well that’s what he drew.
Gerald Cartmell stated, that’s what we have to go by though.
Phil Vogel stated, I know but there’s no round base there that’s just what Milligan drew. I know but we were going to put the base completely ground level.
Attorney Altman stated, Phil, I would very much suggest that this matter be amended and re-advertised so that your request is properly before us because other wise we don’t have the option of going where you want it to be.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay but the thing that confuses me about that Jerry is are we, its city property, it’s a city street. Do we have the right to allow them the right to encroach on that?
Attorney Altman stated, if they allow us, if they give him the right to encroach we can approve that.
Jerry Thompson asked, but is the…
Attorney Altman stated, now I didn’t say we would.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, we have the right to do that.
Jerry Thompson stated, we have the right to.
Attorney Altman stated, is what I’m trying to say.
Jerry Thompson stated, but I mean I think the way it was worded is that we can grant the right to come up to the property line and then the city grants the right to encroach after that. That’s the way I would understand it, the way it’s currently written.
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s the way it’s currently would be before them however the setback variance should be granted by this board if it goes out into the encroachment area also.
Gerald Cartmell asked, the city’s passing the buck aren’t they?
Attorney Altman stated, well they’re making a proposal that you can either approve or not approve.
Greg Vogel asked, are you going to make Taco Bell move their sign?
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s grandfathered in.
Charlie Mellon stated, no it’s grandfathered in, you knew that.
Greg Vogel stated, no I didn’t know that but I know it now.
Charlie Mellon stated, well, all of them are.
Dave Scott stated, if we approve this variance that only takes it t your property line at this point.
Phil Vogel stated, that’s correct, but what your saying is I want to put my post, I want to put my post inside the property line. That’s what I wanted to do and that’s what it shows.
Gerald Cartmell stated, no, it doesn’t.
Phil Vogel stated, yes it does.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you’re in the right-of-way here.
Director Weaver stated, it shows the post in the right-of-way.
Phil Vogel stated, okay but that’s the end of my property line.
Gerald Cartmell stated, oh no you’re in the right-of-way with your post.
Phil Vogel stated, I said that’s what I want to be…
Gerald Cartmell stated, your property lines on the other side of that line, your post.
Charlie Mellon stated, its’ over on the blacktop.
Gerald Cartmell stated, your post is over on the city instead of on Vogel’s.
Phil Vogel stated, that’s correct. I said it’s on the inside of the right-of-way line but that’s my property line there. That’s my west property line.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s over in the blacktop though it’s not in the grassy area.
Phil Vogel stated, well you can tell it more defined by the new concrete they poured.
Charlie Mellon stated, well I suppose. I’d like to see you talk to your brother. That sign go over there, there wouldn’t be any problem at all and that encroachment as far as the city doing that, that’s against their, their rules. I don’t know why they would ever do it.
President Stimmel stated, but their entitled to do that, I mean that’s their business.
Greg Vogel stated, I was going to say if they consent I would think that would over rule their ordinance wouldn’t it Jerry?
President Stimmel stated, yes I mean that’s what they’re doing.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s what they’re doing.
Gerald Cartmell asked, well what good is their ordinance.
President Stimmel stated, well but that’s their, I’m not trying to be snippet but that’s their business.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I don’t understand.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s their business.
President Stimmel stated, that’s their business.
Attorney Altman stated, they can do it if they choose.
Dave Scott asked, but in order for Phil to put that where he wants that would have to be included in the advertising of this variance?
Attorney Altman stated, yes I would think so, yes.
President Stimmel stated, that’s the way he stated earlier I believe.
Attorney Altman stated, I think so, yes. So that he could go into the encroachment area.
Phil Vogel stated, so it’s what Dave's saying here Jerry, Dave's saying that even to approve this the way we submitted it I still couldn’t do what I wanted to do.
Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s right.
Jerry Thompson stated, because it only takes you up to the property line the way its submitted Phil.
Attorney Altman stated, your leading edge of the sign to the west would be at your property line.
President Stimmel stated, I’m sorry for the confusion but I think there is, there is, it is confusing and I think part of that confusion is about the overlap of responsibility between the two government agencies quite frankly. Okay who can do what up to what level, what point that’s, at least that’s the way I’m looking at it and I don’t know how else to describe it Phil and I wish it had been, had been done differently but I think you have to also help us understand I mean if I look and if Milligan’s drawing is incorrect then we need to correct that. Okay, he’s showing that base inside the right-of-way of that road. That’s what this drawing shows. He shows that base 10’ from the, well I mean several feet it doesn’t give a dimensions inside the right-of-way.
Phil Vogel stated, well.
President Stimmel stated, where the post is at.
Phil Vogel stated, okay he just drew a round base, okay.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, and like as you’ve seen on Schrader’s, you see he’s got 3’ round base?
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, down the road. Okay ours is not going to be a 3’ round base they were just going to dig a hole and pour the footer for it in the ground so I wasn’t going to have a base sticking up like him.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Phil Vogel stated, okay, but the base or if I want to call it the footer was going to touch the property line. I was going to be right up against the property line only I’m going to be on the west side of the property line which is inside the encroachment which is inside the right-of-way or encroachment.
President Stimmel stated, that’s correct.
Attorney Altman stated, but the sign edge would be out…
Greg Vogel stated, would be 5 1/2’ more where the center of the base and…
Attorney Altman stated, and that would be actually what encroaches.
President Stimmel stated, so that would be about 4’.
Greg Vogel stated, no about 6’.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Greg Vogel stated, I mean if the base is, let’s just say you pour a footer 2’ wide, you know and you got 5 ½’ on the side so you got another foot so you got 6 ½’.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Greg Vogel stated, basically that’s what your saying now.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, in the air, in the air.
President Stimmel stated, no.
Greg Vogel stated, now one of the things that when I was at the city, you know they talked about the height of the sign, they talked about you know whether the sign was going to block any visual thing for whether it be a semi, a truck, or a car or anything like that and I think it was going to be 11’ high which they said it wouldn’t to the bottom of the sign. Am I right on that? I don’t have the drawing right in front of me.
Attorney Altman stated, it is 11’ to the bottom of the sign, yes Phil.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, I can just say that if you want to have it voted the way I hear you telling us you want it voted this needs to be re-advertised.
Phil Vogel stated, okay, now I guess I’d ask a question for Diann. If I redo this can I get in next month meeting or am I…
Director Weaver stated, yes, yes.
Phil Vogel asked, so I need to amend this, come in and amend it for next months meeting.
Dave Scott stated, along with the encroachment statement.
Phil Vogel stated, I’ll just give her a copy, it’s signed and notarized, so I’ll just give her a copy. I mean you have a copy but it wasn’t a signed one that I brought it last time but it’s all signed and notarized now.
Jerry Thompson asked, so essentially are we going to table this thing?
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
Jerry Thompson asked, we’re not going to…
President Stimmel asked, not to split hairs though but how long is your encroachment right good for?
Greg Vogel stated, until they make me move it.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s the way it is.
Greg Vogel stated, what the consent to encroach does Jerry is basically gives you the right to have it there.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
Greg Vogel stated, but if the city said in 10 years from now, came and said we need you to move the sign because we’re going to change that corner then they’re not going to pay me anything and it’s my obligation to move that sign and get it out of there.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, just one, go ahead.
Attorney Altman stated, if you remember when Hanenkratt got consent to encroach there in Idaville.
President Stimmel stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s exactly what it said they had the right to do it so long as the county allowed them to do it.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, this is tabled.
President Stimmel stated, Phil needs to be the one to table it.
Jerry Thompson asked, is he going to table it?
Attorney Altman stated, no I think we ought to table it.
President Stimmel stated, not us.
Jerry Thompson asked, because?
Attorney Altman stated, because of the drafting of this.
President Stimmel stated, what we’re hearing from Phil the way he wants it approved is not what’s been submitted so and I think it’s just a split hairs it depends on who in the heck wants to table it but I think that may be the best route to go and just one of the point of clarifications just so it’s in the minutes. How much ground did you give up when the street went through? Did you give up 17’ or something like that?
Phil Vogel stated, I don’t even know, it’s whatever they wanted, you know, I didn’t measure it. I mean I couldn’t tell you without really looking at it even what it was.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Phil Vogel stated, it’s whatever they wanted to, see we lost it in 2 directions, we lost it on the west side and also lost in on the south side.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, I think that would be a good element for your case frankly.
Phil Vogel stated, and like I say I understand where you guys are coming from because I’m not the only scenario but I, and I guess I’m going to speak for myself. That’s why you got to take a look at each case. I can’t put that sign, I don’t think that’s very feasible I don’t say can’t but I mean I don’t think it’s very feasible for me to put it on the north lot line in between 2 buildings and that’s why I’m trying to put it in a spot where it’s kind of out of the way and that you know I don’t want to put up a doggie sign I want to put up and landscape and make it nice.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, and if you, I don’t know if you’ve all taken a look really at the building on the sidewalks and stuff like that but you need to take a look about, when your talking about 10’ where it would actually be because your talking about 10’ plus 5 ½’ your talking about 15’ without a variance closer to the building.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Phil Vogel stated, and that would be right in the middle there’s no way you could, you could, you either come in the front way or you come in the west way or you come in the south way. I’m trying to leave that avenue open really. Because sometimes it is busy on Main Street and we go out the south which is I think Lake Street, Lake or Center Street.
President Stimmel stated, okay 2664 is tabled.
Director Weaver stated, I have question. When we amend this request do we need to state how far he is going to encroach, the distance that he’s encroaching?
Attorney Altman stated, I’d certainly think so yes.
President Stimmel stated, you need to know exactly.
Dave Scott stated, and that would that include the whole sign like it’s supposed to.
Director Weaver stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, yes, sure would.
Director Weaver stated, okay I just want to make sure we get it right.
Attorney Altman stated, it sure would yes.
President Stimmel stated, Phil I’d make sure like Jerry said to make sure we understand exactly how much ground you did give up. Stress the hardship end of it quite frankly and the fact that you did give up a lot of ground.
Phil Vogel stated, well you know and I said you guys are the board I understand that and everybody’s going to have a different scenario.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, you know but I also think it depends on what you have and what you can do.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Phil Vogel stated, now if I have a brother that says no I can’t put it on top of his I’ve got to put a sign somewhere.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Phil Vogel stated, I’ll address before the next meeting.
President Stimmel stated, that’d be a good idea too.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s going to make it the 20th of December. Are we going to stick to that? Right.
Attorney Altman stated, yes I think we have.
Director Weaver stated, yes, that would be the 20th of December.
President Stimmel stated, the 20th of December.
Phil Vogel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, see you then Phil.
President Stimmel stated, sorry for the delay Phil. We’re trying to get it right, that’s what we’re trying to do.
****
#2672 George H. Holmes; The property is located on Lot 11 & pt of Lot 10 in Camp Reuben Addition, located south of Lowes Bridge at 4534 N. Reuben Court. Tabled from October 18, 2007.
Violation: He rebuilt an accessory building by the water and a detached garage that are not meeting the setback and height requirements.
Request: He is requesting a 23’ front setback variance and 4’ south side setback variance and 2’ height variance to bring the accessory building by the water into compliance and a 5’ rear setback variance and a 4 ½’ south side setback variance and a 3’ height variance to bring the detached garage into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody here representing that variance?
George Holmes stated, George Holmes.
President Stimmel stated, Mr. Holmes.
George Holmes stated, okay last month there was a question raised about foundations for the two buildings. I had a structural engineer look at the foundations and in his opinion… Everybody have one?
Charlie Mellon asked, you got enough?
George Holmes stated, yes, yes I do.
President Stimmel stated, thank you.
George Holmes stated, he says the foundations good for the structures.
Gerald Cartmell asked, where does it say that?
George Holmes stated, um I have one foundation detailed by the lakeside, by the lakeside west of the accessory building, three columns which would be added, the 3 columns on the lakeside of the accessory building by the water would probably he said would not necessary but certainly help some is how he put it. Um, on sheet #S2 the existing garage foundation is fine.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, I marked your exhibit.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry any questions?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes the remodeled garage area there on the survey. You’re stating that the prior garage foundation, it extended past the property line 3’.
George Holmes stated, yes it did. When I bought it earlier this earlier this year it did.
President Stimmel stated, okay. How are you going to enter that garage?
George Holmes stated, from the road.
President Stimmel asked, how are you going to do it?
George Holmes stated, there’s plenty room from the road to pull into the garage.
President Stimmel asked, in one hitch you can make that turn and put it in the garage.
George Holmes stated, I haven’t tried it but I’m sure I could. There’s a little park and a ?? on the other side of the street too which I could use to make a wide turn.
President Stimmel stated, I understand. What about coming back out of the garage, how far are you going to be out in the street before you can actually see if anybody’s coming?
Charlie Mellon asked, that’s a dead end, isn’t it?
President Stimmel stated, still it’s beyond, there’s 2 or 3 houses beyond it. Isn’t there?
George Holmes stated, there’s 3 houses.
President Stimmel stated, and I’m sure they have a vehicle.
George Holmes stated there are 2 people on up, well there’s 2 owners between all 3 houses.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
George Holmes stated, they’re seasonal.
Charlie Mellon stated, it is a dead end though.
George Holmes stated, yes. The same people own the last 2 houses.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, do you agree with what I’m saying, when you go to back out of your garage.
George Holmes stated, you’d have to pull out very slow, yes.
President Stimmel stated, you’d have to be very careful.
Dave Scott asked, Jerry to consider this wouldn’t we need something from the county or something? This is an encroachment it’s not a site, it’s not a variance or it’s an encroachment again.
Attorney Altman stated, I think you’ve hit it right on the head.
Director Weaver stated, I think I mentioned that to Mr. Holmes and…
George Holmes stated, it’s a private road.
Director Weaver stated, that’s what I was thinking you had told me.
President Stimmel stated, it’s not a county road.
George Holmes stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, it’s not a county road?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
Dave Scott asked, private road owned by the?
George Holmes stated, in front one of the houses is paved and in front of the other house, most of the house is gravel its, I don’t know who owns it but everybody seems to take care of their own portion of the road.
Charlie Mellon asked, the county just maintains on out to the blacktop though doesn’t it, 400 where you come it?
George Holmes stated, uh, yes.
Charlie Mellon asked, they don’t plow the snow or nothing around in through your places do they?
George Holmes stated, the gravel road coming through Ruben Court.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
George Holmes stated, they plow up there but I wasn’t here last winter.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh okay.
George Holmes stated, according to the neighbor they don’t get all the way who live at the end of the…
Dave Scott stated, it doesn’t matter who owns it somebody’s got to give a letter of …
Attorney Altman stated, he has to have a right to encroach.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, a right to encroach.
Attorney Altman stated, established in a court of law if it is an adverse possession like he’s saying it has been forever, for however ever was he has to establish that in court that he has a right to be there so that he can encroach or own it Dave, so that’s certainly a strong point. He needs to have that and establish that.
President Stimmel stated, I’m going to get to far off the point but how do they give a 911 address when they’re not on a county road?
Director Weaver stated, they do, they do. All dwellings are addressed whether it’s a county road or a private road.
Dave Scott stated, it’s by mileage or by footage or something like that.
Director Weaver stated, yes, yes. I mean I believe they even went in and named some private roads.
President Stimmel stated, I don’t want to back up to far Diann but help me, let’s walk through about the request itself and what the specific request and the footages are for and for what structures.
Director Weaver stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay, if you could go through that for me that would help a little bit.
Director Weaver stated, okay.
President Stimmel, go ahead I’m sorry.
Director Weaver stated, the first part is a 23’ front setback variance and a 4’ south side setback variance and a 2’ height variance for the accessory building by the water.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, okay that building is labeled on your survey as a remodeled boat house.
President Stimmel stated, all right, it says into compliance, okay.
Director Weaver stated, correct.
President Stimmel stated, in other words there was a building there previously for…
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that there was a building there previously but there is a building there now.
President Stimmel stated, there is a building there now. So it’s to bring that, the existing building into compliance then your saying?
Director Weaver stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay and that is new construction?
Director Weaver stated, the foundation is not.
President Stimmel asked, okay so there was previously a foundation there?
Director Weaver stated, yes, and correct me if I’m wrong.
President Stimmel stated, that’s correct.
George Holmes stated, yes there was a foundation.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver asked, how tall was it? Was it single story or two stories?
George Holmes stated, it was single story.
Director Weaver stated, and it is now 2 story, correct?
George Holmes stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, and you understand the violations, what the violations are? Do you really understand what that is Mr. Holmes in a sense that you were down to the footers and rebuilt, essentially your structure without any, without the proper variances or permits.
Director Weaver stated, correct.
President Stimmel asked, did he have the permits?
Director Weaver stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, no permits, no nothing.
George Holmes stated, yes, now I understand that.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
George Holmes stated, I didn’t have the permits because I was told erroneously that I didn’t need permits to rebuild existing structures. The boat house was there since 1920.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, the house by the water, or it’s not a house a building by the water, accessory building.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, now I know yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay. I mean you can understand how it would make sense that if, you know you take something down to the concrete that was a you know a 16 x 16 shed that was 8’ tall and then all of a sudden you built one up that’s 35’ tall or something how that might require a permit.
George Holmes stated, right, it’s not 35’ tall but…
President Stimmel stated, well but I’m just saying it’s something extreme.
George Holmes stated, the building, the existing building was over, over 50% of the exterior walls were, is, is brick and mortar, not brick and mortar it’s like field stone and cement and I didn’t touch that.
President Stimmel stated, okay, okay. That helped me.
Director Weaver asked, do you want me to go on?
President Stimmel stated, no that’s all right I think the other part we can see because that’s going to be the garage. I just couldn’t understand quite frankly the front part of it.
Director Weaver stated, okay.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie anything?
Charlie Mellon stated, I was out there twice and he’s good enough not to do anything in between from our last meeting. As far as the garage, the height of the garage it looks to me like it was about 19, maybe 20’ and there’s big trees around there and I don’t think that’d be one thing that I’d agree on the height of the garage I don’t think is going to hurt anything because the trees in the neighborhood around there it’s open to the north and field, farm field and stuff like that but uh I don’t know about the other to much.
President Stimmel stated, okay, Dave anything?
Dave Scott stated, not at this time.
President Stimmel stated, okay Gerald?
Director Weaver asked, what are you using the upstairs of the garage for?
George Holmes stated, storage, there’s a tunnel for storage.
Director Weaver stated, no living space.
George Holmes stated, no, no.
President Stimmel asked, do you guys want to study it a little bit? Yes sir? Yes would you state your name at the microphone please?
Pat Mazgaj stated, my name is Pat Mazgaj, M-A-Z-G-A-J, okay like I’ve said before I am not against progress but I got to reiterate what has been done on this property, okay. This gentleman here wasn’t here at the last meeting. Tore down an existing garage, built a 2 story garage. No permit, no variance. Remodeled the house expanded the size of the house, no permit, tore down an existing 1 story structure at the water level, built a 2 story structure, no permit, no variance. Number 1 I live across the lake and that I sure in the heck don’t want to see 2 story accessory building going up and down that lake. That would look terrible. Number 2, we can’t allow people to come into this county and do as they darn well please. The only reason why this is here is because I questioned this back in September, if the gentleman had gotten his permits and applied for variances I had no objections, I’ve said that before, okay. Regal Development a million and a half dollar development going right down the street from you, hey I’m not against it, Lighthouse Lodge half a million dollars, okay, 3 years ago, I’m not against it. All I want is, let’s do it so that everybody plays by the same fricking book. We have to have promise we have rules and regulations we have to follow. I don’t know this gentlemen, I feel sorry for him but I feel sorry anybody who comes in, and maybe he was trying to pull a fast one I don’t know. I am not accusing him of being wrong, okay, all I’m saying is that there were 5 variations from what I can see and you can’t allow people to do that. Maybe his intention was real quick to get it done and make a quick hundred thousand dollars and you know what, he would have laughed at us. He could of laughed at us, okay. I have no objections if someone wants to come in and do it legally and make money, go right ahead, legally that’s all I’m asking. Okay, and I don’t think it’s fair and number 1 and number 2 I don’t want to see these 2 story structures on the other side believe me there’s right down the road as I’m facing it would be on the south there’s a thousand feet of property some big construction company is going to come in an put a thousand feet of those suckers. If you don’t believe me take a walk to my house and look at it sometime. Thank you everybody.
President Stimmel stated, thank you very much. Board what’s your pleasure? Gerald do you have anything? Nothing?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I said it last time.
President Stimmel stated, oh okay. We’re going to address the variance first, variances.
Attorney Altman stated, Mr. Holmes something else you told us the last time and we have a member that wasn’t here but I’m sure he read the minutes by profession you’re a contractor, right?
George Holmes stated, well I am, well I, for the past 7 years I’ve been in real estate investor, now I’m a licensed general contractor in Hammond because that’s why I have to do it in Hammond, my home town to work on a house that I don’t live at any other municipality or location, city or rural in Lake County I don’t, I can get my own permits without being a licensed contractor as long as I’m working on my own buildings. That’s what I do.
Attorney Altman stated, all right.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, but you do have to have permits to work?
George Holmes stated, yes, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Are we ready to vote?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, this is on the variance.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, on the variances.
President Stimmel stated, variances, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, better pluralize that. Announcing the results of the voting on the variances found in petition 2672, there are 4 votes vote to deny the variances, 1 vote votes to grant the variances. The variances are denied.
President Stimmel stated, okay the variance is denied you’ll have to talk, Mr. Holmes you’ll have to Diann about your options after this.
George Holmes stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, because you have got structures up and as you may have heard earlier, there are, one is encroaching on somebody else’s property, the roadway.
George Holmes stated, right, yes.
President Stimmel stated, so we’re going to have to at some point in time, somebody’s going to have to address that issue. Is that appropriate for the Area Plan to do that?
Attorney Altman stated, no that’s them.
President Stimmel asked, that’s what?
Attorney Altman stated, that’s for him to, it’s his problem.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, you know it’s just not, not saying that harshly it’s just his problem.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and I guess on the denied variances I would presume that if, within a reasonable time that the improvements have not been removed that I would be directed as attorney for the board to file an action with superior court on a nuisance for removal.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Charlie Mellon stated, Dave.
President Stimmel stated, Charlie.
Charlie Mellon stated, he said four votes, wasn’t there 5 votes?
Attorney Altman stated, 4 to 1.
President Stimmel stated, 4 to 1.
Attorney Altman stated, 4 to 1, I’m sorry. One in favor Charlie.
Charlie Mellon stated, okay I didn’t get the one on there.
Attorney Altman stated, Charlie you voted 1 in favor. The board denied, thank you Charlie.
The Board finds the following:
1. That objectors were present at the meeting
2. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
3. That the request is for a 23’ front setback variance and a 4’ south side setback variance and a 2’ height variance to bring the existing accessory building by the water into compliance and a 5’ rear setback variance and a 4 ½’ south side setback variance and a 3’ height variance to bring the existing detached garage into compliance on Lot Number Eleven (11) and Ten (10) feet off of the South side of Lot Number (10) in Camp Reuben, as shown in the Deed of Dedication at Deed Record 120, page 146 of the Deed Records of White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located south of Lowes Bridge at 4534 N. Reuben Court.
4. (1) The variance request (is) (is not) a variance from a use district or classifications under are plan law. Vote: 3 is not, 2 is.
5. (2) The granting of this variance (will) (will not) be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Vote: 2 will not 3 will.
6. (3) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request (will) (will not) be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Vote 3 will, 2 will not.
7. (4) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance is being applied to a situation that (is) (is not) common to other properties in the same zoning district. Vote: 2 is 3 is not,
8. (5) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance (will) (will not) result in unusual and unnecessary hardship. Vote: 1 will, 4 will not.
9. (6a) This situation (is) (is not) such that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that does not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning district. Vote: 2 will, 2 will not.
10. (6b) this situation (is) (is not) such that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. Vote: 2 will, 3 will not.
11. (6c) This situation (is) (is not) such that the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will materially impair the purposes of the ordinance of the public interest. Vote: 3 will, 2 will not.
12. (6d) This situation (is) (is not) such that the Board specifically fins the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is of so typical or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation, under an amendment of the ordinance, for such conditions or situations. Vote: 3 will, 2 will not.
The variance was denied based on the findings of fact by a vote of 1 for and 4 against. A vote of 3 “for” is necessary to grant a variance.
President Stimmel stated, okay let’s address the violation. We’ve talked a little bit all ready in the sense that what Mr. Holmes had to say earlier about just not realizing he needed permitting. Any other discussion? Do you guys want to talk about that a little more? Suggest something?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I really don’t understand it you’re a contractor and you’re a real estate person why you would not know, I guess I can’t understand that.
Attorney Altman stated, make a motion.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I’m not making a motion yet I’m just throwing that out.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, I understand. Okay we’re on discussion.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I don’t understand what’s going on here.
George Holmes stated, well I’ll plead guilty for not doing adequate diligence.
Gerald Cartmell asked, plea bargain?
George Holmes stated, no, I ain’t plea bargaining but I did before I started building right after I bought it did come into the building department and I asked a young lady, very young lady who was sitting behind the desk what I needed to do, what permits I needed to rebuild my garage and build on my property. She said if you’re rebuilding it you don’t need a permit and I didn’t ask nobody else nothing else.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it wasn’t this young lady evidently.
George Holmes stated, no, I haven’t seen her in there since. I think she is probably gone.
Gerald Cartmell stated, there might be a reason for that…
George Holmes stated, I don’t know if the gal even worked there.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, or maybe she didn’t.
President Stimmel state, okay, Jerry.
Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t know.
President Stimmel asked, you got something?
Jerry Thompson stated, no I don’t, this is…
President Stimmel asked, any suggestions?
Jerry Thompson stated, this is one of a kind.
Attorney Altman stated, you can table this and bring it back next month.
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m glad you mentioned that. Can we, can we table it see what his plan of action, what he offers for a plan of action first or do we just address it now and move on?
Attorney Altman stated, that’s up to the board but you can do that, the violation the imposition of penalty, financial penalty doesn’t have to be right now is all I’m trying to say.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t know. This is the first one of these I think we’ve ran into.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well the violations automatically 500 bucks.
President Stimmel stated, that’s right.
Jerry Thompson stated, it is.
Attorney Altman stated, and then its $300 per day if there is a violation is what, those are the parameters or 0 to give the parameters.
Gerald Cartmell stated, or what ever we want it at.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson asked, what do you guys think?
President Stimmel asked, times two?
Gerald Cartmell stated, yes there’s 2 violations.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell asked, is that right?
Attorney Altman stated, well there’s 3 violations.
Gerald Cartmell asked, how many violations?
Attorney Altman stated, at least, right.
Director Weaver stated, 2 structures in violation.
Attorney Altman stated, 2 structures in violation.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well its 500 bucks a piece isn’t it? I’ll make a motion with that, $500 a piece for each violation which would be a thousand dollars and that’s to cheap.
President Stimmel stated, okay got a second?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’ll second it.
President Stimmel asked, anyone want to discuss it?
Gerald Cartmell stated, after I think about it I may withdraw that motion.
President Stimmel stated, it’s all right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s just not right.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, everybody’s got to buy a permit and its x amount of dollars.
President Stimmel stated, yes. Any discussion or not?
Attorney Altman stated, too late.
President Stimmel stated, moved and seconded.
Attorney Altman asked, did you withdraw your motion?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m going to withdraw my motion, that ain’t enough.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m happy with that after I think about it.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’s not fair when people do get a permit.
President Stimmel asked, do you want to consider what Jerry said and that is the fact of delaying any kind of judgment on the dollar amount until we have a chance to see what Mr. Holmes plan of action is about addressing the structures themselves here. Do you want to consider that?
Dave Scott stated, me personally, no.
Jerry Thompson stated, that wasn’t my intention.
President Stimmel stated, I’m sorry.
Jerry Thompson stated, my intention was assess the dollar fine as well as my idea was to do that initially, I’m not worried about how many days he’s violated, give him a chance to come in with plan B and if it looks, in my opinion looks like it will fly move on, if not then we can start counting the days.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so make that motion.
President Stimmel stated, all right say that because I really didn’t understand it Jerry honestly.
Charlie Mellon stated, already made one and seconded it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, yes, but I withdrew it. I want to think about it a little bit, we didn’t talk about it long.
President Stimmel stated well I was basically in favor of assessing the $500 per violation today with the right to come in at a later time after Mr. Holmes comes in with his plan of action, if we don’t think its appropriate then gives us the right to act further if necessary.
Jerry Thompson stated, well but I mean is the, I guess that would be a question for Jerry, I mean once the fines been levied, the fines levied right?
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
Jerry Thompson stated, you can’t go back and readdress the fine.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t believe.
Attorney Altman stated, unless, unless he continues to violate, in other words if it’s out there tomorrow morning that’s another violation so that is something you could assess a fine for that so long as it’s still there.
Jerry Thompson stated but we still have to approve what he’s going to come it with.
Attorney Altman stated, if he brings it back so it doesn’t need a variance you wouldn’t have to approve anything. If, you heard me say if so that you know you may never see it again if he brings it totally into compliance, you know however I assume you’re probably right Jerry, that he would want some sort of variance and you would see it back again.
George Holmes stated, I’d have to have a variance but, because there’s no room on the lot to move structures without still asking for a variance.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, does that sound familiar?
President Stimmel stated, yes, I mean obviously you’re going to have to come back with some other kind of a plan at some point and time if your going to continue to build, you know you have to have some kind of a game plan.
Dave Scott stated, maybe we can wait then till he comes back with a plan then. Is that what you were saying before…
President Stimmel stated, that’s a possibility, I’m not suggesting that that’s even what I want to do I was just trying to…
Jerry Thompson stated, I don’t quite understand yet Jerry why you think we just have one shot at this thing.
Attorney Altman stated, you have all the violation up to today.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, that you’re addressing.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and if you and if you assess a penalty for all the violation up to today you got one swing at that to do that then the violations that exist tomorrow and I would safely say he’s not going to remove everything by tomorrow.
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, so you would have that violation and the next day and the next day that you could assess a fine for.
Jerry Thompson stated, up till he presents…
Attorney Altman stated, until he…
Jerry Thompson stated, his plan of action.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, until he either removes it or gets a variance to put something in compliance but as far as everything from today going backward you got one chance and that’s tonight.
President Stimmel stated, okay I misunderstood too.
Jerry Thompson stated, that was kind of my intention but it didn’t sound that way.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Jerry Thompson stated, but go ahead, go ahead.
Dave Scott stated, if we make a motion to fine him for each violation and then we give him so many days to get it into compliance or we can assess another, a daily fine.
President Stimmel state, okay.
Dave Scott asked, so what’s a reasonable time limit for letting him get it or getting it into compliance or at least a plan, maybe he won’t have it in compliance because we’re getting in the winter.
President Stimmel stated, well, yes, it won’t.
Dave Scott stated, maybe give him 60, 90 days to come back with a plan.
Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest you, you know, consider 30 days.
Dave Scott asked, 30 days?
President Stimmel stated, right to come back with a plan I think.
Attorney Altman stated, to come back with a plan.
President Stimmel stated, right, say this is what I want to do to bring it into compliance or resubmit a different variance request.
Dave Scott stated, okay, I’ll make that motion. 30 days, a fine for each violation.
President Stimmel stated, for 3 violations.
Dave Scott asked, is there 3?
Director Weaver stated, 2 structures, 3 requests on each structure. 2 setbacks and a height on each structure.
President Stimmel asked, but they’re actually how many violations?
Attorney Altman asked, how many variances?
President Stimmel asked, how many violations?
Dave Scott asked, how many violations?
Director Weaver stated, 3 on each structure.
Attorney Altman stated, so that would be?
Jerry Thompson stated, 3,000.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, 3,000 per structure.
President Stimmel stated, no not per structure 15 per structure, right 3 violations per structure you mentioned 1500 x 2.
Dave Scott stated, I think that’s to stiff.
Charlie Mellon asked, what’s it x 2 for?
Dave Scott stated, I mean, since we’re turning him down we’re making him bringing it into compliance.
President Stimmel stated, make a motion.
Attorney Altman stated, make a motion.
Dave Scott stated, I’m going to make a motion to fine him a thousand dollars and we give him 30 days to come up with a plan.
President Stimmel asked, how much is the dollar amount?
Dave Scott stated, a thousand.
President Stimmel stated, I’ll second it. Do you want to discuss it some more? Ready to vote? All in favor?
Board members stated, aye.
President Stimmel asked, is that an aye Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, all opposed?
Jerry Thompson stated, aye.
President Stimmel stated, okay 3 to 2 it passes. A thousand dollars and 30 days to get a plan together.
Attorney asked, you voted for him?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay I didn’t know that.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, all right.
George Holmes asked, do you have any recommendations that you could offer me as to what I could do?
President Stimmel stated, sit down with Diann in the office and she’ll work with you.
****
#2673 Russell H. & Sue M. Franzman; The property is located on part lot 11 & part lot 12 in Bass Riffle Park, North of Lowes Bridge on North side of the lake, off of West Shafer Drive at 5149 E. Quiet Water Court.
Violation: A 6’ room addition was built out of compliance from the previously approved setback variance.
Request: They are requesting a 6’ East side setback variance and a 6’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the current home into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Jim Davidson stated, Jim Davidson.
President Stimmel asked, and Jim how do you…
Jim Davidson stated, I’m the contractor, the homeowner that bought this property this year and they were informed they could build this 30’ addition, okay. I went out there and gave them a price and did some measuring and then we found that the previous owner already built 6’ on to this house. They were given the approval to be 6’, well see if you get the survey there.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, we do have the survey that Mr. Milligan, October 11, 2006
Jim Davidson stated, yes, okay, okay. It’s 30 x 18, the house is 30 x 18. Do you see that on the drawing there.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, okay, well see the original house is 24 x 18 and then it was 6’ off the lot line well the previous he got the variance to build this 30’ addition off that 24’ point. Well what happened is he went ahead and built 6’ on and came off straight off the house instead of starting the angle. So now when I went out there and measured it, the house as it stands now is only 3’ off the lot line, okay so what I want to do is put a 30’ addition on but it’s going to run parallel to the point that’s already established there. So when I first went out there I didn’t even notice this, I didn’t notice that, I went to Milligan and said well your survey says 6’ off the lot line so I’m measuring only 3’ off the lot line from what I can kind of see where the fence there, and he said no it can’t be that and then we found out that the previous owner built this 6’, added on to the house and I didn’t notice it and the previous owner made the person that bought the house maybe has some paperwork and the paperwork showed 24’ house and I didn’t measure the house, the 24’ house and all of a sudden a, that’s where I stand.
President Stimmel stated, it’s a 6, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, so basically we’re changing the existing house now it’s 3’ off the lot line and I’m going to put the addition at that existing point and run parallel to the lot line 3’.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, so the violation was actually from a previous owner?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, yes.
Dave Scott asked, is that what I’m understanding?
Director Weaver stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, that’s what it sounds like.
Attorney Altman asked, Diann when was the permit obtained that he’s talking about, do you know roughly speaking? In other words how long ago was this built?
Gerald Cartmell stated, 04, it says 04.
Attorney Altman stated, 04., okay.
Director Weaver stated, okay.
President Stimmel asked, how long ago did the house sell Mr. Davidson?
Jim Davidson stated, I believe it was this summer they bought it and they had the paperwork and they gave them the paperwork that showed this 30’ addition, see the house has no bedrooms in it and they bought the house because this variance allowed them to build these bedrooms on the back and they contacted me and, because the paperwork showed that it was okay and like I said I didn’t realize that 6’ was already added on to the existing structure and making it, you know he should of put the bathroom on, the 6’ addition you should of start the angle and run it parallel to the lot line at the 6’ line, he didn’t he went straight out and then he stopped and ended up being 3’ from the lot line.
President Stimmel stated, yes. Board any questions? Anybody have any comments in the audience that want they want to make about this variance? I’ve been remiss I haven’t said that one single time tonight. Somebody should have slapped me, thank you. Not once. Jerry anything, any questions?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no only addressing the variance now.
President Stimmel stated, we’re addressing the variance.
Dave Scott stated, okay no I don’t have anything.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so you’re the person that found the mess up here?
Jim Davidson stated, well kind of between me and Diann and the surveyor, I mean when I went out there to prep, talk to Wrede’s to have them start the process I went out and measured the corner of the house and I was getting this 3’ measurement and I thought the survey was wrong so I went and talked to him and he said you got to change the survey because it says, it says it’s 6’ I only got 3’ well then Diann told me that the addition was built and I never even paid attention to the change of roofline and that’s how I found out that the previous owner had got this addition but he didn’t curve it. He came out straight and now I’ve got the 3’ deal here and I just want to extend where the 3’ is now and go parallel to the lot line.
Gerald Cartmell asked, you are a local contractor, right?
President Stimmel asked, what is the…
Jim Davidson stated, yes…
Gerald Cartmell asked, you do know that you do have to have a permit right?
Jim Davidson stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, okay, I was just checking.
Jim Davidson stated, no it seems to be a grey area, well no that’s how this all came about I came in for the permit and Diann says you’ve got a problem here.
Gerald Cartmell stated, exactly, exactly, just like you’re supposed to.
President Stimmel stated, question for Jerry Altman is what is the recourse of an owner like this I mean, is it just as a civil suite I mean if…
Attorney Altman stated, yes it would be.
Jerry Thompson stated, what’s done is done.
President Stimmel stated, the struggle I have Mr. Davidson, you have to understand and I don’t, well the board members do to but is the fact that after the fact the guy is gone, okay and all of a sudden we’re trying to perpetuate essentially something that’s already been a violation and you know, well there’s several options but it’s a…
Attorney Altman stated, the one option might be is in fact take a violation against the person that did it. That hasn’t been very successful because they tend to leave and go a long ways away or even a fair distance away and it gets expensive from the point of view of hiring an attorney to do that so it’s a very, but it’s maybe, as equitable as what we’re addressing tonight.
Gerald Cartmell stated, the realtors, when they have this ready for sale evidently they don’t research that part of it.
Jim Davidson stated, that was my dilemma because I contacted the realtor right away when I saw this 3’ I said well wait a minute here because they had the paperwork that said this was all approved so when I went there and started figured it up is how I found out. We went through different, they wanted a bigger variance and it was denied because they were going, yes okay.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, and from, well like I said the homeowner who had this property was giving me 30’ approval but it was under assumption he was going to make it parallel, it was going to turn it right away and he didn’t he came out straight.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he didn’t turn it.
Jim Davidson stated, he didn’t turn it and that’s where I’m stuck in the middle here and also they just bought the property, you know I said well um, the realtor, who do you put the blame on. Who bought the property, the realtor, or somebody should have checked something but obviously nothing got checked.
President Stimmel stated, but the struggle I had with it is just, by approving something like this we just perpetuate the problem, I mean we just, you know we just accept it as the way it’s going to be and people can just continue to do that it they can get away with it, you know, no big deal. Just let her go. You know.
Jim Davidson stated, oh yes, I see.
President Stimmel stated, everybody ends up I mean if that’d been a 1’ variance or no variance or I mean I’m sorry a 1’ setback or…
Jim Davidson stated, either across the lot line or something like that.
President Stimmel stated, I mean really.
Jim Davidson stated, well see I guess the option would have been, I mean would go back to the realtor, I think number 1. That’s what area it does and they said what do and I said I don’t know what to tell you.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, I said the realtor sold me on, to me the realtor in my opinion should have some responsibility.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, I mean its east to say well no it’s the homeowner but the realtor has to have some responsibility because his job is to sell property. If I sell I’m responsible for I sell.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, even if somebody else made it.
Dave Scott asked, what about the title company?
Attorney Altman stated, no the title wouldn’t have, I mean they don’t check things like the building permits and that sort of things so the title company you know they’re just not a player in this, is what, in this aspect of property.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t know how you could expect the realtor to know that something was built out of compliance either.
Jim Davidson stated, no, I’m not trying to blame them. I’m just saying where do you, you know because they have the paperwork and where, I don’t know where you stop it.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, the guy that owned it before.
Jim Davidson stated, unless it was surveyed before they bought the property, I mean.
President Stimmel stated, I mean that would be, that would be the property way, I think wouldn’t it, would be if the survey was…
Jim Davidson stated, I would have thought it would have been surveyed, but…
President Stimmel stated, I mean I would, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, and you see the paperwork and the survey. The survey was before the 6’ was put on it and that was what they had.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so they took an old survey.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jim Davidson stated, I’m not sure what was sold to the people. They have me the piece of paper that looked just like this but it only shows the 24’ it didn’t show the bathroom on there. It doesn’t show a 6’ addition on there.
Dave Scott stated ,well they made out a number. The only one that knows was the people that done.
Jim Davidson stated, the one that built it should, you know.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess the other thought is they could just…
President Stimmel asked, any comments?
Attorney Altman stated, put that in 6’.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m going to resign.
President Stimmel asked, huh?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m going to resign.
Attorney Altman stated, I mean you don’t exactly have to perpetuate it is what I’m trying to say.
Jim Davidson stated, well we do have a corner that’s 3’ off the lot line right now.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, I understand.
Jim Davidson stated, that was more responsibility of the homeowner or of myself. I think there was 2 owners.
Director Weaver stated, yes, I believe your right.
President Stimmel asked, 2 owners ago?
Director Weaver stated, I believe there was an owner in between the 2.
Jim Davidson stated, that’s right there was an owner in between that bought this house and only had it for a year and sold it.
Director Weaver stated, yes, I agree with you.
President Stimmel stated, I mean I can rationalize no fine because, yes, in my own mind because it’s not their fault but I’m having a hard time with just perpetuating the situation, you know because we’re going to get into these and have in the past where we just…
Attorney Altman stated, yes, vote on the variance then.
President Stimmel stated, we’re voting on the variance. Do you want to vote, are you ready to vote or you want to talk about it some more?
Jerry Thompson stated, ready.
Jim Davidson stated, now wait now the vote on the 3’ that’s existing.
President Stimmel stated, we’re voting on the request. The request is for a 6’ east side setback variance and a 6’ front setback variance to build an addition.
Jim Davidson stated, okay but I mean the house as it stands is 6’, is already 6’.
President Stimmel stated, it requires the minimum.
Director Weaver stated, you have to have…
Gerald Cartmell stated, you have to have 8.
Director Weaver stated, yes, you have to have at least 8.
Jim Davidson stated, what I’m saying is the structure right now is 3’ off the lot line.
President Stimmel stated, right, right.
Jim Davidson stated, as it stands right now.
President Stimmel stated, so it’s already, if that’s, it’s already in violation.
Jim Davidson stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, and we’re asking to build an addition and to bring the current home into compliance.
Dave Scott stated, into compliance.
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what the vote is.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Dave Scott stated, just, we turned down one, a previous owner for wanting to, is there any legal ramifications from approving this one now, basically the same thing except maybe smaller, I mean I guess that’d be the justification it’s smaller.
Attorney Altman stated, possibly, yes. You can look at it that way.
Gerald Cartmell stated, its 2 owners back too, that did the damage.
Dave Scott stated, yes, that’s true.
Attorney Altman stated, well however it’s whether you still grant a variance or not is all.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s all you have to look at.
Gerald Cartmell asked, you ready to vote Jerry?
President Stimmel asked, ready to vote?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m ready.
President Stimmel stated, okay, we’re going to vote.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the decision on petition on 2673, 4 votes vote that the variance is granted, 1 vote votes the variance is denied. The variance was granted.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Jim Davidson stated, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, you need to get a building permit.
Jim Davidson asked, paperwork, should I wait till the day after?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know if everything’s been submitted or not I don’t remember. I think it has but you can check with us in the morning.
Jim Davidson stated, okay, I’ll check in the morning.
Dave Scott asked, are we going to make a motion to wave the fine?
President Stimmel stated, we want to address the fine also. I’m sorry, apologize Mr. Davidson.
Dave Scott stated, I’ll make a motion we wave the fine.
Charlie Mellon stated, I second it.
President Stimmel asked, all in favor?
Board members stated, aye.
President Stimmel stated, all right there you go, up and down.
Gerald Cartmell stated, the reason for that is because it’s 2 owners back.
President Stimmel stated, 2 owners back, didn’t have anything to do with the previous owner.
Attorney Altman stated, and Diann did check the owner, the person that applied for the building permit that did this building apparently is from out of sate and I think by the time we spent the money to get to whatever we got it would cost the county more than it was worth.
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. It is smaller and on sewer.
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’ East side setback variance and a 6’ front setback variance to build an addition and to bring the current home into compliance on That part of Lot Number Eleven (11) in Bass Riffle Park Subdivision in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the above said Lot Number Eleven (11) which is the point of beginning; thence Southeasterly along the West Line of said Lot Number Eleven (11) One Hundred fifty (150) Feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot Number Eleven (11); thence North seventy-four degrees East Three Feet; thence Northwesterly parallel to the West Line of said Lot Number Eleven (11) One Hundred Fifty (150) Feet’ thence South seventy-four (74) degrees West Three Feet to the point of beginning.
Also: Lot Number Twelve (12) in Bass Riffle Park Plan, being out of the South half of the Southwest quarter, West of the Tippecanoe River in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Three (3) West,
Except: Beginning at a point Thirty (30) feet West of the Northeast corner of Lot Number Twelve (12), running thence West along the public road for a distance of Seventy (70) feet, thence South a distance of One Hundred Fifty (150) feet, thence East Ninety-six (96) feet, thence North One Hundred Fifty (150) feet, to the place of beginning, containing about two thirds of said Lot Number Twelve (12) in Bass Riffle Park Plat.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Lowes Bridge on North side of the lake, off of West Shafer Drive at 5149 E. Quiet Water Ct.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.
****
#2674 Kerry & Ronda K. Wheeldon; The property is located on 7.676 Acres, SW SW 8-28-04 located North of Monon and just East of intersection CR 200 W and CR 900 N at 1829 W. 900 N.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 5’ height variance to build a pole barn.
President Stimmel asked, and you are?
Kerry Wheeldon stated, Kerry Wheeldon.
President Stimmel asked, Kerry?
Kerry Wheeldon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, do you want to add anything to what I’ve just read?
Kerry Wheeldon stated, just that you know, I wrote that letter saying I’ve been trying to plan a garage or a pole building for a long and I had pretty much everything planned out so I came in to get my permit, they highlighted everything that I was going to need and there was nothing on there that had anything about a height so I didn’t think that I needed a height variance so then they came back and asked for some more information and as we progressed then they decided I needed a height variance. Well in the mean time I’d already bought all my materials and even had part of them delivered so I’m kind of in, a rock and a hard place here.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, but you haven’t built anything.
Kerry Wheeldon stated, no, I haven’t built anything.
President Stimmel asked, you haven’t built, okay. Anybody else want to say anything about this variance, now would be a good time. Jerry?
Gerald Cartmell asked, anybody around you have a problem with it? I don’t think there’s anybody around you really.
Kerry Wheeldon stated, no I’ve got a lot of space between me and all my neighbors.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Jerry Thompson stated, I have nothing.
President Stimmel asked, no questions Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, ready to vote?
Board members stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, let’s vote.
Attorney Altman stated, okay announcing the results on the balloting on petition #2674, 5 votes cast, 5 votes vote to grant the variance. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
Kerry Wheeldon stated, thank you.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Kerry.
Kerry Wheeldon asked, when can I obtain that?
Attorney Altman stated, tomorrow morning.
Kerry Wheeldon asked, tomorrow morning.
Director Weaver stated, I think yours is ready for tomorrow morning.
Kerry Wheeldon stated, okay thank you.
President Stimmel stated, okay there you go, speed the process.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.
2. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 5’ height variance to build a pole barn on the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Eight (8) in Township twenty eight (28) North, Range (4) West, containing forty (40) acres, more or less.
EXCEPT: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana described by:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the above said Section 8; thence North 00 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West along the section line 398.40 feet to the point of beginning, thence North 00 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds West 951.48 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 15 seconds East 1335.10 feet to the Northeast corner of said quarter quarter, thence South 00 degrees 48 minutes 45 seconds East along the east line of said quarter quarter 941.05 feet; thence South 88 degrees 42 minutes 30 seconds West 1338.95 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.044 acres more or less.
AND EXCEPT: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 4 West in Monon Township, White County, Indiana, described by: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the above said Section 8; thence North along the section line 371.40 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes East 384.50 feet to an iron pipe set; thence South 371.40 feet to the section line, thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes West 384.50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.28 acres more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Monon and just East of intersection CR 200 W. and CR 900 N. at 1829 W. 900 N.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.
****
#2675 Neil D. & Mary M. Smith; The property is located in the Original Plat, located in the City of Monticello at 107 N. Main Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Neil Smith stated, Neil Smith.
President Stimmel stated, thank you sir. Anything you want to add to that Mr. Smith?
Neil Smith stated, no sir that’s pretty much it just wanting to get the vehicles in the garage if we can.
President Stimmel asked, is this, this is not an encroachment issue is it?
Director Weaver stated, it is an encroachment.
President Stimmel stated, it is an encroachment issue.
Neil Smith stated, we had originally requested, thank you Diann. Originally requested 19 ½’ and I didn’t realize that that was in the alley way. We were going with the edge of the, what we thought was the property line and during survey Mr. Milligan stated that we were, if we went with that we would be 2’ into the alley way.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Neil Smith stated, so that being said we just made the garage 2’ shorter.
Gerald Cartmell asked, so the survey’s wrong then?
Dave Scott stated, so this survey’s wrong, there won’t be an encroachment?
Neil Smith stated, not to my knowledge there won’t be.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it shows you in the…
Neil Smith stated, the survey is correct but we’re not wanting to go that far now since he mentioned that we’d be in the alley way.
Attorney Altman stated, so the request is for just to the lot line.
Jerry Thompson stated, he’s asking for less so he’s okay.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, no problem with that.
President Stimmel asked, so he’s asking for a 0.
Neil Smith stated, for a 0.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, yes.
President Stimmel stated, for a 10’ variance. In the past though if we’ve had any errors in the drawing and that’s what this appears to be we’ve had them redo the drawing, I don’t, surely it’s not necessary.
Attorney Altman stated, it’s not an error it’s the way he requested it originally for a 19 ½ and when they measured it out it would, they realized they were in the alley way so they changed it and now your garage will be 17 1/2’.
Neil Smith stated, that’s correct, we’re going to be flush with the rest of the buildings that are in the alley.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Gerald Cartmell stated, just like the carport.
Neil Smith stated, yes sir.
President Stimmel stated, right there are no, there no numbers that Jerry just said that match what this survey, that’s what I’m confused about.
Jerry Thompson asked, but its 19 ½, isn’t it Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, there’s 19 ½ on here.
Director Weaver stated, um hum.
President Stimmel stated, it shows 19 ½ to the back of the property line.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s what it is.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Neil Smith stated, that’s correct.
Dave Scott stated, but this request is for a 10’ rear setback variance where does that take you.
President Stimmel asked, to the property line or not?
Director Weaver stated, to the property line.
Attorney Altman stated, to the property line, to the property line.
Director Weaver stated, um hum.
Dave Scott stated, okay.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s across the alley.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Charlie Mellon stated, it’s in the alley.
President Stimmel stated, okay anybody in the audience want to comment about this one, any testimony? Okay, Jerry anything you want to add?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
Gerald Cartmell asked, you don’t have any more documentation like something from NIPSCO or something from your neighbors or any?
Neil Smith stated, we have something from Alex’s Gerald that is not very formal, it is in writing.
Gerald Cartmell stated, let’s see it.
Neil Smith stated, we’ve talked to both neighbors and NIPSCO as well.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s fine.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it just helps you out.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, even though I know those guys it still helps you out.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, Mr. Smith is there a, isn’t there a NIPSCO pole right there at the corner of that…
Neil Smith stated, there is and I’ve been brought up to speed on that as well that that is in the right-of-way. All those NIPSCO poles are.
President Stimmel asked, it is?
Neil Smith stated, yes sir.
President Stimmel stated, well I’ll be darned.
Neil Smith stated, we’re going to be back from that.
Charlie Mellon stated, he’s inside the poles.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right, okay.
Gerald Cartmell asked, what about the gas meter up against the building what happens there?
Neil Smith stated, we’ve talked to NIPSCO about that, that will have to be moved. We’ve talked to Alex’s next door and they’ve agreed to let us put that meter on their property. We’ve talked to NIPSCO in reference to the meters as far as the electric goes and they’ve agreed that we can leave them inside where they can get in to read them so those don’t have to be moved. I don’t have that in writing but that’s what we, Mr. Dick Dilden.
Gerald Cartmell stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Neil Smith stated, stopped and we mentioned our plan and as well we went over both of those, gas meter and electric.
President Stimmel stated, get out your checkbook.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I wish we had documentation, I’m not calling you a liar…
Neil Smith stated, I understand, I understand.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m not calling you a liar, it’s just that people have been known to lie to us.
Neil Smith stated, that’s not my intention at all.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I know.
Neil Smith stated, all we’re wanting is to do this by the book and get a garage.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, okay, anymore comments? Ready to vote?
Dave Scott stated, um hum.
President Stimmel stated, voting.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on petition, on the vote on petition #2675, 5 votes cast, 5 votes that the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
President Stimmel stated, thank you Mr. Smith.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned B-1, Retail Business.
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit. It’s very similar to the buildings surrounding this area.
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 is for a 10’ rear setback variance to build an attached garage on Beginning one (1) foot North of the Southwest corner of Lot Numbered Thirty-eight (38) in the Original Plat of the Town, now City, of Monticello, Indiana, running thence East eighty (80) feet; thence South six (6) inches; thence East to the East line of said Lot: thence North twenty (20) feet six (6) inches; thence West to the West line of said Lot; thence South to the place of beginning.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 107 N. Main Street.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.
****
#2676 Ronald S. & Shirley M. Kot; The property is located on Lot 4 in the Isle of Homes Subdivision, located North of Norway Dam on the West side of the Lake at 3176 N. Cardinal Drive.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 6’ South side setback variance and a 1.5’ North side setback variance to bring the current house into compliance and to build an addition.
President Stimmel asked, and someone representing this variance, please.
Ronald Kot stated, I’m Ronald Kot.
President Stimmel stated, thank you sir. Can you, would you like to add anything Mr. Kot?
Ronald Kot stated, um well we’ve been in the house for about 25 years now and would like to add a couple of bedrooms and a bath and one of the bedrooms will be converted into a bathroom so we’d have 2 full baths in the house and did a couple of different drawings trying not to make it to big but make it practical and deal with the grinder.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Does a 6’ south side setback just bring it into, is that just going to bring the old home into compliance, Diann or is that in addition to the…
Director Weaver stated, the way we’ve requested it is to bring it into compliance and to build an addition.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Ronald Kot stated, the addition actually is inside, we’re bringing it in another foot of the side property line.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Ronald Kot stated, just to, even without an addition I guess we would be applying for a variance to bring a house into compliance for the future.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, but that house is built in 1960.
Ronald Kot stated, no it’s older than that. It was one of the first homes on the Isle of Homes that I’m aware of so…
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Ronald Kot stated, I would say that house is probably close to 75 years old now.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, well that’s why there’s no violation just so, for the record is what I’m trying to say Mr. Kot.
President Stimmel asked, is there anybody that has anything to say about it in the audience. If not Jerry anything?
Jerry Thompson stated, not really.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, the variance is just to bring the existing property into compliance, the new addition meets the setbacks.
Director Weaver stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, no, it doesn’t.
Attorney Altman stated, no it’s for A and B.
Dave Scott asked, did I miss something, is there a reason why you can’t move the proposed addition over? What does he need in order to…
Director Weaver stated, 8’ minimum.
Dave Scott stated, 8’ and he’s got 7.
Director Weaver stated, he’s got 7, yes. Actually I think maybe we’re looking at that as his 10’ side. Yes, we are because he’s got 8’ on the north side.
Dave Scott asked, so he needs, he would need…
Ronald Kot stated, and that includes the eaves I understand that 2’ of eaves from the roof so the property, actually the foundation is going to be in another 2’ from where that’s at because of the 2’ hangover of the roofline.
President Stimmel asked, are you guys ready to vote or do you want to talk about it some more? What are your thoughts Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I guess…
President Stimmel asked, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Are we ready to vote?
Board members stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, let’s vote.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on the balloting on 2676, 4 votes voted to grant the variance 1 vote to deny it. The variance is granted. You need to get a building permit before you start building.
President Stimmel stated, all right thank you Mr. Kot.
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. The home is quite old and before there were any ordinances.
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’ south side setback variance and a 1.5’ north side setback variance to bring the current house into compliance and to build an addition on Lot Number Four (4) in the Isle of Homes Subdivision situated in Sections 8, 9, and 16, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, in Liberty and Union Townships, in the County of White, State of Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located North of Norway Dam on the West side of the Lake at 3176 N. Cardinal Drive.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.
****
#2677 Toby M. & Sandra L. Beach; The property is located on .57 of an Acre, Out NE NW 8-27-03, located North of Monticello off of East Shafer Drive and CR 400 N at 3987 N. Dolby Court.
Violation: Built without a permit and not meeting setbacks.
Request: They are requesting a 22’ front setback variance (CR 400 N) and a 29’ front setback variance (Dolby Ct.) to bring the existing garage into compliance and a 21’ front setback variance (Dolby Ct.) to bring the existing house into compliance and for a room addition and a 2’ front setback variance (Dolby Ct. and a 4’ side setback variance for an unroofed deck and a 24’ front setback variance (Dolby Ct.) to bring the pool into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Toby Beach stated, my name is Toby.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Toby Beach stated, the first part of that was the existing garage and house, that’s just to bring those into compliance with the current setbacks, the second part of that was a pool and deck. That was put up, the contractor that we bought from told us that we did not need any permits and he sent a crew out and installed the pool and here we are.
Attorney Altman asked, who’s the contractor?
Toby Beach stated, Diamond Pool and Spa out of Lafayette.
Attorney Altman asked, what’s the address?
Toby Beach stated, that I couldn’t tell you.
Attorney Altman stated, we need the address.
Toby Beach stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and then we’d like to see a copy of the contract
Toby Beach stated, we would like not to have to move it, we have some pretty, some stuff there that means a lot to my wife and I and, well we had a daughter pass away and it’s kind of used as a family gathering area around that.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Toby Beach stated, I am sorry that we do have a violation however when I was made aware of it I did come in and try to make good with Diann as soon as we could.
President Stimmel asked, the violation is specifically for the pool, Diann?
Director Weaver stated, the pool and the deck.
President Stimmel stated, and the deck, okay.
Director Weaver stated, the proposed addition in talking with Mr. Beach when he came in to file, he informed us that he was going to be wanting to do the addition so we suggested that while he was going through this process that he do include that so he didn’t have to come back at a later date.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Jerry Thompson asked, the people that installed the pool for you, they’re doing the decking as well?
Toby Beach stated, no, that was all me. That would be my fault.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Gerald Cartmell asked, are you a contractor?
Toby Beach stated, no sir.
President Stimmel asked, any comments from the audience about this variance? Okay. Gerald your thoughts.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m still looking.
President Stimmel stated, okay, Dave? Charlie anything?
Charlie Mellon stated, well as I read all the article he wrote I think he’s got a hardship, no question about the hardship it seems like he’s got an awful lot of stuff there in a little area, really.
The family and him has had bad luck. I don’t know I think we ought to take that into consideration.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Jerry?
Dave Scott asked, it looks like he’s got 3 fronts here, doesn’t he?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Toby Beach stated, yes sir.
Director Weaver stated, he does have 3 fronts.
Toby Beach stated, that’s what actually creates part of the hardship, well actually most of it.
Director Weaver stated, something I noticed when I was out at the property it looks like where you’ve placed the pool, did you place it there because that looks like, that’s probably about the only level part of your lot.
Toby Beach stated, that is the only place that I could really put it.
Director Weaver stated, I thought so. When I was out there walking around that’s what it looked like to me.
Dave Scott asked, what’s the easement then, it says a 30’ easement.
Toby Beach stated, there’s a 30’ easement there for what reason I don’t know I’ve been told that the road is actually put in the wrong place, is that correct in the road way?
Director Weaver stated, well that’s what it appears, yes.
Toby Beach stated, for some reason the easements on either side of the road are different, for what we now know all of this stuff I just happen to live on the wrong side of the road.
Dave Scott asked, the 30’ does that include the 10’ of blacktop or is there 40’ there all together?
Toby Beach stated, that includes the, I don’t believe that does include the asphalt.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh, that’s extra. I think it’s 40.
President Stimmel stated, gees.
Director Weaver stated, I think only 6’ of the blacktop is actually on the 30’ easement is the way I’m reading that.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes because that’s 24 down below there.
Attorney Altman stated, I think your right Diann, looking at it.
President Stimmel asked, so did you proceed with a deck without a permit because of the fact, because of the fact of the pool people saying you didn’t need one in general you thought?
Toby Beach stated, part of the reason, yes.
Charlie Mellon asked, how about the addition over to the east of that?
Toby Beach stated, that addition is a proposed addition.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Toby Beach stated, that addition is not there currently.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh it’s not there yet.
Toby Beach stated, no sir.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh okay. It shows it, well maybe not.
Toby Beach stated, yes that’s…
Gerald Cartmell stated, it says proposed.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh okay proposed, that’s right, okay. Is it all right Diann, the proposed addition?
Director Weaver stated, well he, because of him being, um, with the 3 fronts he’s got to bring the whole house into compliance in order to build that addition. The addition itself is fine, yes but the rest of the house is not so he’s asking to bring the whole house into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, can we separate the issue with the deck and the pool from the proposed addition even though it’s all in one request here? Because it seems like to me that there’s 2 issues there. I wouldn’t have any problem with the addition, you know just personal but the deck I think, I just, I can’t, I can’t stand a 0 setback.
Dave Scott asked, is the deck right on the property line?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Toby Beach asked, did you clear that up with Mr. Milligan? You said you were going to get in touch with him. I don’t believe that is right on the property line, it’s not where…
Director Weaver stated, I did not, I apologize.
Toby Beach stated, you did not.
Director Weaver stated, no, I did not.
President Stimmel stated, it shows 0 and it shows 2’, Dave.
Toby Beach stated, I believe that’s after you take the setback away, I believe.
Attorney Altman stated, it’s drawn to be a 0 setback.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott asked, is the deck done?
Toby Beach stated, no sir I stopped as soon as we…
Dave Scott stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, yes it’s still…
Toby Beach stated, however it’s, I mean…
Dave Scott asked, and how far off the property line does he have to be with the deck?
Director Weaver stated, an unroofed deck has to be 4’.
Dave Scott stated, 4’.
President Stimmel stated, and he’s got about, what about 8’ from the pool to the property line according to the drawing.
Toby Beach stated, I don’t even think it’s that much.
President Stimmel stated, it might not be.
Toby Beach stated, I think it’s only about 4 or 5 at that.
Jerry Thompson stated, no that I like putting things off but would the board be in favor of tabling this and inviting the pool people to the next meeting.
Attorney Altman stated, um hum.
Gerald Cartmell stated, it’d be nice to talk to them.
President Stimmel stated, what’s the chances of them showing up I wonder.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes I don’t think…
Attorney Altman stated, I will send them a subpoena.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, well that and can you cut 4’ off of your deck and 2’ off the other end of it since your not done with it so that you can be in compliance?
Toby Beach stated, I probably could however that would give me no deck space around the pool. If I had to do that I would but that would kind of cut off the access to the pool. That would give me access on both sides. It is a private road there. So you can see my neighbors, actually my neighbors are a little bit upset that it came to this.
Dave Scott stated, I’m not really concerned about the 2’ because, but I’m like Dave I don’t like to build right on the property line with no setbacks.
Toby Beach stated, unfortunately the pool is pretty much as close to the house as we can get it.
Attorney Altman stated, the only option I can suggest to you was if you go to your neighbor to the south I’m pretty sure…
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Toby Beach stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, and get an agreement from him consent to allow you to do that.
Toby Beach stated, I can do that.
Attorney Altman stated, and then that would get that 4’ that way.
Toby Beach stated, absolutely I can do that.
President Stimmel stated, or purchase.
Attorney Altman stated, or purchase the 4’.
Jerry Thompson stated, they got 50 working feet in there it looks like.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, if you’ve got the 4’ then you would be in compliance on that side.
Toby Beach stated, explain to me again what that…
Attorney Altman stated, if you bought 4’ where the deck line runs along your south property line, 4’ of the neighbors…
Toby Beach stated, oh okay.
Attorney Altman stated, say 4 by 30’ piece of ground just that area and you…
Toby Beach stated, which would be better for him to write the note or for him to show up or, I doubt if he could show up because he’s a truck driver.
Attorney Altman stated, well you...
Toby Beach stated, his would be able to show up.
Attorney Altman stated, you need to have something in writing.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, it’s got to be in writing.
President Stimmel stated, I mean just because he approves it though, I mean, but it means what he would be doing is just even if he said its okay to build it there, that’s really not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for, that you have to…
Attorney Altman stated, a transfer of property.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, you’d have to Mr. Beach would have to buy it, the 4’.
Dave Scott stated or a…
Jerry Thomson stated, purchase agreement.
Dave Scott stated, an easement for a period of time…
Attorney Altman stated, or an easement.
Dave Scott stated, just the pool or deck is there.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, yes. That’s a purchase of ground or transfer of ground.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, so if you did that it would eliminate what Dave’s objecting to.
Toby Beach stated, get a lease for the…
Attorney Altman stated well an easement is…
Dave Scott stated, you need 4’ of ground from your neighbor one way or another.
President Stimmel stated, well number 1 did, we’re getting him confused here, I think.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, number 1 you mentioned a consent from the neighbor to allow him to be on the property line. Wasn’t that your first option.
Attorney Altman stated, right, and that’s an easement and if you got that you’d, then you’d eliminate that problem to that south for your deck.
President Stimmel stated, something’s wrong with that picture for me, I don’t know…
Jerry Thompson stated, well I know it too but…
Attorney Altman stated, well it’s the same thing we did in that park where they granted the 30’ to allow those people to put that trailer in um what’s that trailer park or that…
Director Weaver stated, Golden Beach.
Attorney Altman stated, Golden Beach where the association granted them…
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that Dave was here when that went on.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he wasn’t here.
Attorney Altman stated, oh okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, they granted, the association granted them the, enough setback so that they weren’t ever going closer on that side.
President Stimmel stated, okay but I mean what, in this specific case are we saying that the neighbor to the south needs to either grant an easement…
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, a legal easement or sell him.
Attorney Altman stated, or sell him.
President Stimmel stated, either one of the other 2.
Attorney Altman stated, 4’.
President Stimmel stated, 4’ to give him the setback.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay that’s really what we’re saying.
Toby Beach stated, either one of the two.
President Stimmel stated, either one of the two.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, either one of the two, he can grant you a permanent easement.
Toby Beach asked, how do we do that?
President Stimmel asked, how do you make that a legal entity in the sense of the easement exists?
Attorney Altman stated, the simplest thing probably is talk to Mr. Milligan about drafting a description for that and then you can prepare a deed and he can sign it or an easement and he can sign it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, probably need to go talk to the owner first to see if he agrees.
Attorney Altman stated, yes need to go talk to the owner, you bet.
Toby Beach stated, no he was rather upset that it came to this.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, then you do that and make sure your all right, get Mr. Milligan to draft a description and go to a lawyer and have them draw up the deed and that would allow it to happen.
President Stimmel stated, so what I hear you saying, go ahead Jerry, go ahead.
Jerry Thompson stated, no, no.
President Stimmel stated, I’m just saying that it sounds like there is not a lot of objection amongst the 5 of us, am I reading this right?
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, for everything else, the proposed addition and for the east side, right.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, it’s the south side that we’re concerned about and that that what we just said would address that particular issue.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and then the violation by that time we noticed up this pool place, if you’ll give us the address.
Toby Beach asked, you mean, I thought, didn’t you get the address Diann?
Director Weaver stated, let me look, we should have that on the permit.
Toby Beach stated, I thought we had it on there.
President Stimmel asked, do we table this or let the applicant table it? Does it matter?
Attorney Altman stated, I would suggest we table it.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, it ought to be…
Dave Scott stated, I’ll second it.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
President Stimmel asked, all right all in favor?
Board Members stated, aye.
President Stimmel stated, okay it’s tabled.
Toby Beach stated, just understand everybody seems like their in agreeance except for that one side.
President Stimmel stated, right, that’s correct I think, you know there’s no…
Attorney Altman stated, well we want to see the pool people in.
Toby Beach stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson asked, you’re not going to use that pool in the next couple of months are you?
Toby Beach stated, no but I would like to finish my project.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, I know, I know you would.
Toby Beach stated, my neighbors are more upset about that than anything.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t have your permit file here tonight but I do believe we have that address so Jerry I can look and see if we’ve got it.
Attorney Altman stated, good.
Director Weaver stated, if we don’t I’ll contact you okay.
Gerald Cartmell stated, but he’s not supposed to continue right until we get all of this.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Toby Beach stated, no, I understand that.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Jerry Thompson stated, the 20th of December.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, all right.
Toby Beach asked, so am I supposed to get that sign again?
Director Weaver stated, yes keep your sign up.
Toby Beach stated, okay. Thank you.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Mr. Beach.
****
#2678 Duffy Mullen; The property is located on Lot 3 in Lakeries Addition, located South of Monticello at 820 Terrace Bay Court.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 2’ elevation variance for a new home. Our flood ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation to be 619.3’ and they are requesting it be 617.3’.
President Stimmel asked, and you are ma’am?
Catherine Gross stated, I am Catherine Gross, I live on East Shafer Drive.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Catherine Gross stated, I’m with KJG Architecture and I’m representing Mr. Mullen tonight.
President Stimmel stated, okay, do you have anything in writing that allows that or nothing.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know, Jerry is there something in the file.
Attorney Altman stated, I’m looking in the file.
Director Weaver stated, I know that she was here last month with this applicant.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, he was here.
President Stimmel stated, really.
Catherine Gross stated, I was here with Mr. Mullen last time.
Director Weaver stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, she in fact is the person that signed as applicant on the request.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Catherine Gross stated, we’re requesting that we go with the DNR recommendation of the 617.3 for the height of the new structure. The house now is about 19” off of the water level. By going with what the DNR runs that raises the house 30” higher than it is now which is about as high as we would like to go. We would like it lower but Diann told me when we filed for the variance that wasn’t going to be possible. It would go over the 4’ we believe we are going to have a hardship or difficulty with drainage problems with grading issues and height issues based on other properties because all of the homes in there are about 19” off of the water level.
President Stimmel asked, is there any comments from anybody in the audience, okay? Jerry any thoughts?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, Dave you’re the elevation guy.
Dave Scott stated, I’m looking here.
President Stimmel stated, I knew you would be.
Dave Scott stated, and I didn’t do my homework, I apologize.
Gerald Cartmell stated, we were out there before though remember.
Dave Scott stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, okay we’ll run down the house.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes it was here the last time.
President Stimmel asked, so the existing floor elevation is 614.9, right.
Catherine Gross stated, yes, off of Mr. Milligan’s survey, I believe that’s the…
President Stimmel stated, right.
Catherine Gross stated, that’s when.
President Stimmel asked, and your requesting a 617.4 but your actually going to raise it 30?
Catherine Gross stated, we are raising, it will be raised about 30”
President Stimmel stated, 30”
Catherine Gross stated, 29 to 30” higher than it is now.
President Stimmel stated, okay and that would bring it up to the 100 year flood level.
Catherine Gross stated, right to what the DNR recommends in their letter dated October 18th.
President Stimmel stated, right, okay.
Dave Scott stated, is the 2’ our Area Plan…
Catherine Gross stated, that’s what Diann explained to me that that’s what your ordinance.
Director Weaver stated, our flood ordinance requires them to be 2’ above the base flood elevation.
Catherine Gross stated, we’re requesting that we do what the DNR has stated so that we keep the height of the house more manageable if you will.
Dave Scott asked, is this a stick built home, a wood structure?
Catherine Gross asked, the new structure, the new proposed structure?
Dave Scott stated, yes.
Catherine Gross stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, how long has the older home been there ma’am?
Catherine Gross stated, the older home, I think it was built in the 30’s Mr. Duffy said last month.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Catherine Gross stated, and it’s never, the waters never gotten beyond the slab.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, actually when you take a walk around it you need your boots.
Catherine Gross stated, it’s a little squishy.
Gerald Cartmell stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Catherine Gross stated, we originally proposed you know building it up but we’re building it up even higher than we originally thought it would be.
President Stimmel stated, yes, 30” is quite an elevation.
Catherine Gross stated, after Mr. Milligan’s survey.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman asked, and you don’t need a variance for the proposed home?
Catherine Gross stated, we did that last month. We just did not have the letter from the DNR last month in time to do it all at the same time.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott stated, they’re going to raise it up 30”.
President Stimmel stated, that’s quite a bit. Ready to vote? Charlie, ready to vote?
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, Jerry?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay, ready to vote, we’re voting.
Attorney Altman stated, all right the results of the vote on BZA #2678 5 votes cast, 4 votes vote that the variance is hereby granted, 1 votes to deny. The variance is granted. You need to modify your building permit.
Catherine Gross stated, thank you very much.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the building site 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. Because of the surrounding lands lowness, it would not be feasible to raise this area more. It would cause problems in this neighborhood.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for 2’ elevation variance for a new home. Our flood ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation to be 619.3’ and they are requesting it be 617.3’ on Lot Number Three (3) in Lakeries Addition, in Union Township, White County, Indiana
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located South of Monticello at 820 Terrace Bay Court.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.
****
#2679 Joseph E. & Rita Butz; The property is located on 2 in Rosi Addition and Part N ½ 22-25-4 30’ x 204’, located in the Town of Brookston at 613 E. 4th Street, Brookston.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 6’ height variance to build a detached garage 23’ tall.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Joe Butz stated, Joe Butz.
President Stimmel stated, thank you Joe. Do you want to add anything to that Joe?
Joe Butz stated, no, basically what I’m trying to do is continue with the same pitch as my house.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Didn’t we do a variance on the house or something or another out building earlier that you had? Okay I was mistaken. Okay.
Charlie Mellon stated, your house is across the street on the west, your house is across the street on the west.
Joe Butz stated, no, it’s not the same property.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes it’s the same property, isn’t there a street in front of this?
Joe Butz stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, just his driveway.
Dave Scott stated, his driveway.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh just your driveway, okay I was down there and went around the curve and there was, that was blank a couple of weeks a go so I see you got a building going.
Joe Butz stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, there’s plenty of room there and the height deal wouldn’t bother anything, match up with the rest of the buildings.
Joe Butz stated, I let my neighbors, talk to them.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, anybody have any issues from the audience? Anybody want to testify on this? Okay, no all right. Gerald any questions? Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie? Jerry?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Dave? No, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, the height will, that will living space up there just storage area.
Joe Butz stated, yes I’m not putting what they call livable stuff up there.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, okay, very good.
President Stimmel stated, just a little bit of side information, Joe’s father Raymond served on this board for several years, you remember, maybe you don’t.
Charlie Mellon stated, I do.
Attorney Altman stated, served very well.
President Stimmel stated, yes, for several years.
Attorney Altman stated, miss him.
Joe Butz stated, he’s in Georgia, they go there a lot.
President Stimmel stated, yes. Had a lot of good times with him.
Dave Scott stated, you guys are older than me.
Director Weaver stated, now wait a minute Dave, I remember it.
President Stimmel stated, be careful how you say that.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on petition #2679, 5 votes cast, 5 votes vote the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential.
2. That the lot is a proper subdivision of land as provided by the White County Subdivision Ordinance.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit. It would cause no problems in the neighborhood.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 6’ height variance to build a detached garage 23’ tall on Lot Number (2) in Rosi Addition, located in the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana.
That part of the North Half of Section 22, Township 25 North, Range 4 West in the Town of Brookston, Prairie Township, White County, Indiana described by:
Commencing at a ½ inch iron pipe found at the Southeast corner of Lot 6 in Block 3 in George H. Gwin’s Addition to the Town of Brookston; thence North 88 Degrees 50 Minutes 45 Seconds East (N 88° 50’ 45” E) 237.26 feet (240 feet DOC. #91-07-2852) to a ½ inch iron pipe w/I.D. (IP) set at the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 88 Degrees 55 Minutes 12 Seconds E (N 88° 55’ 12” E) 204.03 feet (205 feet 6 inches DOC. #91-07-2852) to an IP set; thence South 1 Degree 42 Minutes 03 Seconds East (S 1° 42’ 03” E) to the northeast corner of Lot Number Four (4) in Holden Subdivision, in the Town of Brookston, White County, Indiana, as recorded in Plat Record 1, page 88, in the office of the Recorder of White County, Indiana; thence westerly along the North line of Lots four (4) and three (3) in the said Holden Subdivision 204.03 feet; thence North 1 Degree 42 Minutes 03 Seconds West (N 1° 42’ 3” W) in to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Town of Brookston at 613 E. 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 5 affirmative and 0 negative.
President Stimmel stated, thank you Joe.
****
Jerry Thompson stated, one other thing and it’s a quick everybody is tired but why did the town let what you call it pile that contaminated dirt there.
Joe Butz stated, he didn’t.
Jerry Thompson stated, I pick corn in that field there right next…
Joe Butz stated, he’s going to have to move it. Right now he’s in violation, the EPA’s involved and on to him.
Jerry Thompson stated, I pick that corn there for Lehe’s and I couldn’t believe what I seen when I come off that fence rail.
Joe Butz stated, I think he’s in trouble.
Jerry Thompson stated, sorry I knew Joe probably knew.
Charlie Mellon stated, we’ve run into him before.
President Stimmel stated, we’re done with variances. Thank you Joe.
Joe Butz stated, thank you.
****
President Stimmel stated, we have some other business this evening also before us and I’ll let Diann explain how this came about.
Director Weaver stated, I’m sorry I thought you guys had these so let me pass these out. In August you had a variance come to you to request an addition and to, a garage addition to attach a home and a garage and is requesting a setback variance and they were also adding a second story to the existing home and there was also a height variance request. They have received their permit to do the additions and it was brought to my attention that they have torn the existing home down. The detached garage stays, it is still on the property but the home is gone down to the foundation and you do have pictures as it sits at this time. I did go out yesterday and I posted a stop work order on this property because I was not sure how the board felt about this if they felt that this was still in compliance with what was requested or if this jeopardized the variance that had been granted on this property. I did inform the owner and the contractor that I would be bringing this to the board this evening for direction if you want the stop work order to remain on the site or if you want me to remove it or leave it. They are now trying to say that this is a remodel, there was not permit issued and still to this time has not been a permit issued for a remodel, it is, the application is laying on my desk at this time it was submitted today. I’ve given you information, you know you probably want some time to look that over.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, if you have any questions let me know. I think that pretty summarizes.
President Stimmel stated, Perry we’re going to get to you in just a minute if you just give us a second but I think everybody wants to see this, take a few minutes to look at it first, if you don’t mind.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Gerald, any thoughts?
Attorney Altman stated, again for the record, just this is a bit informal because nothing has been noticed up but because trying to work with the situation a little bit and because it was within a day of our meeting Diann suggested that Mr. Bryles and his builder and his architect if they could come this evening they might be able to get some guidance. Diann has passed out the site improvement survey dated July the 17th, 2007 and the staff report and the minutes of the granted variance request that was at that same time and 6 pictures of the structure or the non structure apparently as of today or yesterday and the photographs of the variance request that received when we had the variance request…
Director Weaver stated, those were the ones that I took at the time of the variance.
Attorney Altman stated, the 3 sheets of photos and the stop work order. Okay that’s the record to date and I guess I want to emphasize to everybody that we’re, this evening can’t be as official as we’d like to and as you folks would like to but we can listen and talk so we’re ready to hear I think maybe to…
President Stimmel asked, Perry you want to comment about what you think they situation is?
Perry McWilliams stated, yes. I guess the situation is…
Jerry Thompson asked, name please?
President Stimmel stated, I’m sorry.
Perry McWilliams stated, I’m sorry, I’m Perry McWilliams.
President Stimmel stated, thank you.
Perry McWilliams stated, Bob and Nancy Bryles hired me to build this project so, all the blueprints that have been submitted fully support all the work that I’ve executed so far. Yes, you know this is a remodel project and it was submitted that way. I guess somewhere in the process of the paperwork being submitted, um the lower story was missed as far as being a remodel and so that was brought to my attention and I went in to Dave today to fill out that application then to have the lower story incorporated again from the time the variance was approved and at that meeting on, if it’s July or August, I don’t know what all the paperwork that was present for that meeting and the blueprints as well has not changed one iota so if there’s been a misunderstanding it’s not because the blueprints have changed. The project has not changed at all and if there’s been a misinterpretation it hasn’t been on, from the blueprints.
President Stimmel asked, Perry did you and I today that there were still some existing walls that remain on that structure?
Perry McWilliams stated, no, um…
President Stimmel asked, you didn’t say that?
Perry McWilliams stated, no, I did not.
President Stimmel stated, oh okay, I misunderstood.
Perry McWilliams stated, no I removed those lower walls there because I had to Dave, first off in the framing of that since we’re going with a second story some are 2 x 6 walls that are approximately 20’ tall.
President Stimmel stated, um hum.
Perry McWilliams stated, the existing structure was a 2 x 4 construction house at 8’ tall walls so…
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Perry McWilliams stated, the rest of that is actually 9’ tall walls and I, the amount of removal on those walls, on the existing structure was so great that it wasn’t, it was a no-brainer for me as a builder to remove what was there and make sure that I built it right.
President Stimmel stated, okay, okay. Just a question. Dave?
Dave Scott stated, I guess my question would be, I’m looking here at the variance request and he was requesting 5’ west side to bring the garage into compliance and a 2’ height variance for the second story and I don’t know why it would matter to us or to these variances whether he tore it down or whether he didn’t tear it down. Because the garage is still standing and it’s not moving and that’s what, that’s what the variance is for and the variance was for the height and he got that taken care of. Now he may have, I would think he might have an issue with the building department or the permitting because maybe he didn’t explain to them that he was tearing everything down and, but I don’t see as far as we’re concerned what has he changed, I mean he’s building it just like he said he was going to build it, the garage hasn’t changed and that’s what the variance is for and the height is, had better come out where he said it was going to come out. That’s what the variance was about. Now he may have some issues with the building department, I don’t know about that or with Diann as far as permitting or whatever.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t handle the permitting. Permitting wise he’s okay with me.
President Stimmel stated, your staying with, you’re staying on the same footprint.
Perry McWilliams stated, absolutely, I’m not changing anything.
Dave Scott stated, I’m not sure why we’re listening to this.
Director Weaver stated, my concern Dave was that if the board had known that the house was coming down that the board may have looked at the variance request differently and I know in past variances Jerry Altman has told me many times that a variance is very specific.
Dave Scott stated, okay but I would agree if it was a side setback or a…
Director Weaver stated, it is a side setback.
Dave Scott stated, for the garage.
Director Weaver stated, the garage addition.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, the garage addition.
Director Weaver stated, a 5’ west side setback variance for a garage addition.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, okay so this is going to be part…
Director Weaver stated, right.
Dave Scott stated, oh okay, okay that does probably look…
Director Weaver stated, the part that they were adding to connect the two.
Dave Scott stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, but still are we really just talking about this, just semantics, I mean just the fact that it’s either all tore down or it’s just remodeled, I mean and that is, is that just a definition of terms, I mean the spirit of the variance itself was for the side setback and the height variance. Right? I mean that was the spirit of that, of that, you know that variance that was granted. I mean how does that, kind of I guess I’m agreeing with Dave is how does that play into, you know I’m not saying, I don’t think Diann did anything wrong, I think that when you have a drastic departure from what was originally approved, Perry I think that’s an issue. I mean it really is it’s a drastic departure and I think you’ve already been told and I think it probably is, you know, you can’t over communicate, you know a 5 minute phone call might have greased the skids and this may not have been an issue I don’t know but the reality is we’re here now and you know we’re going to deal with it but the also I think it’s just, it’s almost a mute point I guess or I don’t think it has much to do with us, personally that’s just my one opinion.
Dave Scott stated, and the other part was that the existing dwelling and the existing garage, the proposed part didn’t change.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
Dave Scott stated, the proposed building didn’t change it.
Attorney Altman stated, see the problem is Dave, I believe Perry totally about his documentation but so often when we, when the department isn’t told that something changed the something changed is bigger than this and this maybe nothing and that maybe what you guys are saying but until they come in and lay this before us and you we don’t necessarily know that and like Dave’s saying maybe if a 5 minute phone call or something a little longer than that might have eliminated this problem but that wasn’t the way it happened and how it went down, I guess is what I’m saying.
Dave Scott stated, see because normally if he brings this in for variance and stuff we don’t even get the building plans.
Director Weaver stated, no.
Dave Scott stated, we wouldn’t whether the thing was going to get tore down or not.
Attorney Altman stated, no but you…
Director Weaver stated, that’s correct, but they stated in the meeting that it was an addition.
President Stimmel stated, right, right.
Attorney Altman stated, and the…
President Stimmel stated, but I mean had they not, had they not said that it wouldn’t be an issue.
Attorney Altman stated, it was part of their request.
President Stimmel stated, I understand that but had those words not been used…
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
President Stimmel stated, it would not be an issue.
Director Weaver stated, well and that’s why I brought it to you guys.
President Stimmel stated, okay and I understand that and I agree with that but all I’m saying is that we’re just talking about 3 words that were used that you know had they not been used this wouldn’t be an issue, period.
Attorney Altman stated, but it was.
President Stimmel stated, but it was I agree.
Jerry Thompson stated, when he requested a building permit you assign a dollar value to it.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t, no. The building department does.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay. That’s going to change.
Director Weaver stated, I review it, I review it only to make sure that the use, and the setbacks are in compliance.
Jerry Thompson stated, but that’s going to change.
Director Weaver asked, what’s going to change?
Jerry Thompson stated, even though it’s not our department that will change, now this is a whole different dollar project that he’s putting into it.
President Stimmel stead, right.
Jerry Thompson stated, see, I’m thinking about the tax rule things, I’m looking out for the tax people okay.
Director Weaver stated, your right, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and that’s what I told Mr. Dellinger last night is that’s another problem that building permits help our government efficiently add things to the tax roll.
Director Weaver stated, well we also had a similar request last year where a home had burned and was being built back on an existing basement and when that permit was issued it was issued as a new dwelling and the variance was granted for a new dwelling on that existing foundation.
President Stimmel stated, yes. So what, do we have some guidance for Diann then? If that’s what you’re seeking.
Director Weaver stated, that’s what I’m seeking, that’s what I’m seeking you know you tell me what you guys want.
President Stimmel stated, I know, I know, I understand, I understand. Charlie what do you think? Your being…
Charlie Mellon stated, boy I don’t know. I remember that place, looking at it on Oriole Drive.
Attorney Altman stated, I have a question Diann. At this time do you think the department has the correct information either had it or been provided so that you know now that the variances are being complied with and the building permit is accurate and correct or the one that is on your desk is accurate and correct.
Director Weaver stated, I have not reviewed what is on my desk but I mean at the time that the first permit was issued the footprint appeared to be correct with what had been requested for the variance.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, okay.
Director Weaver stated, and at this point in time I had no reason to believe that the footprint is not going to be in accordance with that.
Attorney Altman stated, just making sure of that so that we get a correct building permit and a correct building I guess is what we’re trying to get, right Dave?
President Stimmel stated, yes, yes, it makes sense to me.
Dave Scott stated, you know with nothing has changed as far as what I’m looking at here as far as this variance goes.
Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of at this time no.
Dave Scott stated, I’m not sure, he may have some issues like I say in your department or in Dave’s department or something but I don’t think he has one with us.
President Stimmel stated, yes. I agree. Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’m kind of lost. I don’t understand, I was kind of reading through here what Kelly Good stated, I assume that’s the architect.
Perry McWilliams stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, he said the biggest hardship is that he wants to leave the existing garage and existing house, I don’t see any house. That’s what I don’t understand.
Charlie Mellon stated, it’s gone.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Perry McWilliams stated, the house Gerald being the foundation and floor system that we have intact, okay and the garage of course is the structure that’s still standing right now. Those 2 entities we wanted to join into one. There’s a house there believe me, it doesn’t have walls to it but there’s a house there.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’d hate to live in it.
Perry McWilliams stated, me too that’s why I’ve got to get going pouring concrete guys. I’ve got work to do but…
Gerald Cartmell asked, so would you say that’s starting from scratch?
Perry McWilliams stated, um, starting from scratch would be all the way down to dirt where I need to dig the footings and re-pour the foundation. Granted that’s awfully close I’ll give you that. In fact what I’ve done is what I’ve had to do to rebuild this properly. They hired me to do a job, they have submitted the proper paperwork from the get go, from the very beginning and we’re not changing anything from what we’ve submitted.
Attorney Altman stated, but the original request said that you were going to build on the top of an existing 1st floor.
Perry McWilliams stated, and we are.
Attorney Altman stated, and that isn’t, the 1st floor, that 1st floor…
Perry McWilliams stated, from an existing…
Attorney Altman stated, isn’t there.
Perry McWilliams stated, you’ve got an existing structure, now if we’re going to start defining terms there’s an existing structure there, correct?
Attorney Altman stated, to add a second floor to an existing house.
Perry McWilliams stated, that’s correct and now I have to do the framing necessary to house that second floor, is that not correct.
Attorney Altman stated, yes but that’s not…
Perry McWilliams stated, if I don’t build it right then Mr. Anderson is going to tell me to tear it down, right. So if we’re talking about a building enforcement issue or a variance issue, I believe the variance issue has already been settled and resolved now let me go through the building process and let Mr. Anderson tell me as far as my building part of it, it enforce that. That’s all I’m asking guys and I’ve already been in this morning after they told me they somehow missed this lower floor. That was done, I was back in to reapply so that we’d be more than happy to pay the additional money that was necessary. Folks I didn’t try to sneak anything by and I want you to understand that, that everything submitted is from day 1 the same. We’re not trying to sneak anything by.
Dave Scott stated, your saying this particular case if he would of come, he didn’t request setback variances for well I guess it was for part of the proposed garage, I guess that’s the part I misunderstood.
President Stimmel stated, um hum
Dave Scott stated, but he’s still leaving the existing garage and that’s probably what I would have made my decision on, now if he tore the garage down and, I would have said meet your setbacks or try to meet your setbacks unless he could prove a hardship.
Director Weaver asked, how much of the existing garage are you going to leave? Are you taking the trusses off and changing the roofline?
Perry McWilliams stated, you know the roof, it calls for a roofline change that’s correct, it does call for that. But the garage itself is remaining as it is.
Director Weaver stated, all 4 walls will remain or…
Perry McWilliams stated, that’s correct.
Director Weaver stated, or 2 of the 4 or…
Perry McWilliams stated, no, no they remain there’s just a roof pitch change on that.
Dave Scott stated, well as far as I’m concerned, I don’t have a problem with what he’s done, I don’t have a problem really with what Diann has done.
President Stimmel stated, no.
Gerald Cartmell stated, Diann is just her job.
President Stimmel stated, you bet.
Dave Scott stated, she done her job I think tomorrow you ought to let him go back to work and…
President Stimmel stated, yes, a phone call would have been appreciated.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I think we need, yes we need communication.
Perry McWilliams asked, Gerald can I address that for a minute? I received a phone call at 11:00 2 days ago from Diann and Diann told me Perry we’re putting a stop order on your job. I asked her why, why is that and she said because of a variance violation, okay now had she called me and said Perry would you come in we want to talk to you about what your doing I notice some things I’m concerned about that you know what I did not get that respect. She called me and…
Gerald Cartmell stated, now don’t push the blame on her.
Perry McWilliams stated, well…
Gerald Cartmell stated, you’re the builder, don’t give her a rough time, she has a rough time keeping her job with things going the way it is I’m not going to listen to that. You should have made a phone call.
Attorney Altman stated, I think you changed the project.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you should of made the initial phone call when you were doing all of this stuff, say hey you know what we’re going to tear this thing all the way down, is that okay, that’s not a problem right, you know talk to her that’s what she’s there for.
Perry McWilliams stated, it’s the building department.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I’m sorry you should of called the building department then maybe it wouldn’t it would of happened.
Perry McWilliams stated, but we’re here because of the variance not the building department, right.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
President Stimmel stated, your right.
Director Weaver stated, Area Plan reviews all the building permits also.
Perry McWilliams stated, so…
Gerald Cartmell stated, so it’s over with.
Perry McWilliams stated, okay, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Perry McWilliams asked, can I go back to work guys?
President Stimmel stated, enough said…
Perry McWilliams stated, release the stop work order.
President Stimmel stated, we’re just giving guidance to Diann that’s up to her, her mental decision.
Attorney Altman stated, you’ve got to get your permit in compliance and you, Diann will review it tomorrow and I think if it is I would suggest we lift that stop work order if the building permit is correct Diann. I think it should be lifted tomorrow.
President Stimmel asked, enough, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, yes, I’m satisfied.
President Stimmel stated, all right, all right, good enough. That’s it. Any other business.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t want to undermine what Diann’s trying to do as far as that goes.
President Stimmel stated, no.
Dave Scott stated, I think it was probably handled as best as it could be. I know Perry’s upset because he’s probably got men on the payroll and the only thing I can tell Diann is if I was in her position if at all possible I wouldn’t put a work stoppage on a contractor unless I had to and you evidently felt like you had to.
Director Weaver stated, I felt like I had to because he was calling for footing inspections.
Dave Scott stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, and that’s why I called because he called Dave for footing inspections. I had already been over and told Dave what the situation was so Dave came over to me and told him he was calling for footing at, Jerry was in the office, asked what he should do and I told him to have Perry call me well I was busy when called so, I called at 11:00 yesterday, not 2 days ago, yesterday it was because I was returning his call from where he was requested to call me.
Jerry Thompson stated, no I agree you did what you thought was right at the time.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I wasn’t going to let him stand here and run over here that’s bull shit.
President Stimmel stated, no.
Director Weaver stated, no.
Gerald Cartmell stated, that’s his responsibility.
Attorney Altman asked, are we done from a business point of view?
Director Weaver stated, I just wanted to mention that I show that Gerald your term expires at the end of the year and so you’re up for reappointment.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I might not be here.
Director Weaver stated, and I also show Dave Stimmel that you are up for reappointment as of the first of the year.
President Stimmel stated, oh okay good.
Director Weaver stated, I just wanted to inform you guys of that.
Dave Scott stated, do we need the town board to do that, do you want me to…
Director Weaver stated, the town of Monon, we’ll send a letter out but yes if you want to go ahead and give them a heads up that would be fine. That’s all I have.
Dave Scott asked, and have you found a replacement for me yet?
President Stimmel stated, no.
Director Weaver stated, no I was told that someone else was working on that.
President Stimmel stated, they quit looking.
Director Weaver asked, do I need a letter of resignation from him for both boards if that’s what he’s choosing to do?
President Stimmel asked, are you getting off both boards Dave?
Dave Scott stated, well I’ll stay on the Area Plan unless you guys need somebody in that particular position to do in order to fill this one.
Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s probably right.
Dave Scott stated, if that’s going to be the case I’ll…
Attorney Altman stated, I’ll look at that to give you an answer but I think that’s probably right because it is very limited the numbers of people that really on that board that can qualify.
Dave Scott stated, so my board needs to find somebody that will do both, the office is not elected, is that right.
Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s right, I think that’s right.
President Stimmel asked, doesn’t the current board have to approve his resignation?
Attorney Altman stated, um hum.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you’re going to have problems with that.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right.
Dave Scott stated, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again I’m just not cut out for it. I know what I should do, I can’t do it. Half of these variances that went through tonight had no hardship.
Director Weaver stated, Dave you’ve come along way.
Dave Scott stated, I don’t know.
Attorney Altman stated, I can’t, I don’t think any matters illegal, okay.
Director Weaver stated, not for this board, that’s a miracle.
Attorney Altman asked, anything else?
President Stimmel made motion to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott, Secretary
Diann Weaver, Director
White County Area Plan Commission
Document Prepared By: __White County Area Plan, _______________________________________________
“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.”
_________________________________________________