Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, December 20, 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: Phil Vogel, David Kelly, Doug Davies, Greg Crockett, Ronald J. Simons, John Heimlich, Terry Pickens, Heidi Young, Barb Schrader, Phil Schrader, ??, Galen Schroeder, Jim Mann, and Grace Oilar.
The meeting was called to order by President David Stimmel and roll call was taken. Attorney Altman swore in all Board members and audience members.
President Stimmel stated, I would make a note that one variance has been tabled by the parties involved and that was the pool.
Director Weaver stated, Toby and Sandra Beach.
President Stimmel stated, Beach, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, number 2677.
President Stimmel stated, number 2677 has been tabled by the folks involved.
Attorney Altman stated, that’ll be tabled to the next regular meeting and that will be when Diann.
Director Weaver stated, I believe that’s January 17th.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, we might have the written down here.
Attorney Altman stated, well there’s no other notice and…
Director Weaver stated, yes, January 17th.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s why I like to make sure if you’re here and you want to know something about that it’ll be heard January the 17th at 7:30 in that evening, okay.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
****
#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 and November 15. 2007.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ Front setback variance from Main Street for an On Premise Sign to encroach 7’ into the road right-of-way due to the widening of Main Street.
President Stimmel asked, Phil do you want to add anything to that, you want to state your name when you come up here if you would for the girls?
Phil Vogel stated, I’m Phil Vogel with Vogel Real Estate and I was here last time and you tabled it because you, the variance was filed wrong, just a couple of quick things and I, and I think most of you know that I gave the property to the city, I lost property on both sides. I tried to invite any of you out to take a look at it, where I’d like to put it and the reasoning’s why. I really don’t have any other thing to say. I think you know most of you, some of you’ve stopped out and taken a look at it any you understand the reasoning why I’d like to put it there and to go from there.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, Phil and just so you know after you did spray paint, I went up and got new pictures so they do have new pictures showing that.
Phil Vogel stated, okay. And I forgot your sign Diann, I’ll bring it in tomorrow.
President Stimmel stated, thank you Phil.
Charlie Mellon stated, I can’t see the spray on there.
President Stimmel asked, any questions from the board for Phil, while he’s right there? Dave go ahead.
Dave Scott asked, does he have an endorsement from the city council? Do we have that on the record?
Phil Vogel stated, I don’t really need it from where I’m at on the city council.
President Stimmel asked, you’ve got a right to encroach, right?
Phil Vogel stated, I had the consent to encroach.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, and it gave me the footage there. I was not wrong with the city council.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Phil Vogel stated, and it’s signed and I think I gave Diann a signed copy, didn’t I?
Director Weaver stated, the board has a copy of that consent to encroach.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I do.
Charlie Mellon asked, that came from the council didn’t it Phil? That came from the council.
Phil Vogel stated, the city council, George Loy drew it up and the city council…
Charlie Mellon stated, we had a copy of that the last time.
Gerald Cartmell stated, in this mess somewhere.
President Stimmel asked, it’s in part of the minutes, isn’t it?
Phil Vogel asked, you got any other questions for me Dave?
Dave Scott stated, no I just want to put on the record that I’m probably going to vote in favor of this variance but only because of the endorsement from the city, I’m really not in favor of granting an encroachment to be honest with you but the city wants to say it’s all right. Who am I to say they can’t so, I just want that on the record that I’m really not in favor of this but I’m doing to…
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Phil Vogel asked, any other questions for me?
President Stimmel stated, okay. Anybody in the audience want to comment on the variance? Are you guys ready to vote?
Jerry Thompson stated, no.
Charlie Mellon stated, John wants to talk.
President Stimmel stated, okay, John I’m sorry.
John Heimlich stated, John Heimlich, County Commissioner and I’m here because George Loy’s in Arizona and he asked me to be here since he couldn’t. Back, I don’t know 2 or 3 years ago when these road projects started Main Street and 6th Street the, you know we had talked to Area Plan at that time about you know trying to make, make these road projects as painless as possible. It’s certainly our intention to try to get these road projects completed with as little impact upon business as possible and I’m not as familiar as, of course the negotiations on Main Street and I’m really not here to speak to this one in particular. I know that there, I think there are 3 of them on the agenda tonight that are related to road projects. So I’m speaking more in generality’s about all of them but you know I think it, from the County’s stand point we hope that a, that we can as I say get these projects done with as little impact on business’s as possible. I know from the County’s stand point on ours I think we had one earlier Diann on the north section where we had one that encroached into the right-of-way, I think it was part of a parking space on one and he had to get a variance on the number of parking spaces too.
Director Weaver stated, I believe you may be right.
John Heimlich stated, and I think that we try, I think to take care of those in the appraisal process because that’s usually when it comes up when the appraiser’s going to tell us, you know okay your encroaching so much here is he going to loose a parking space, is he going to be able to put the sign back up and that’s, I think that’s probably the time when we need to come to you and get those situations ironed out, you know I’m not sure in this case how that was handled but apparently he had, he was assured by the city that he would be able to put the sign back up but I guess that’s all I’m here to say on these in general that we hope that we can work together. It’s certainly not our intention to put people out of business or to adversely affect their business, you know not because of them moving something but because of the road, you know moving closer to their business. Thank you.
President Stimmel stated, thanks John. Any further comments? Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, the only thing that I couldn’t find in our big book that we got, I know some of you know it’s a big one and there’s two of them. I got 2 of them in the last, well we’ve had a couple of years on the one to check out the rules and maybe make some new ones and the County has spent 75 thousand to start with and I think John would probably know, I don’t know exactly but they spent about another 25 thousand to get that book completed and in that book I went through it 2 or 3 times and there’s never a word encroachment in that with all the rules and stuff that we’ve had it looks like if the city, an attorney, or mayor, all of them can vote in an encroachment that may be the law but as far as I’m concerned I never knew anything about it and once Phil or anybody, I’m not getting on Phil for anything starts that trend that’s going to happen whether your 10’ from the curb, 3 or 4’ from the curb, maybe the next time it’ll be right out on the curb and that just defeats our purpose as far as I’m concerned in the rules of the zoning book. And I’m like Dave I guess that was legal to do an encroaching and I’m against it but we’ll see how we vote.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Charlie. Anybody else? Jerry? Jim Mann?
Jerry Thompson stated, I’m sorry, go ahead, no you first.
Jim Mann was sworn in and then stated, Jim Mann on the City Council. Some of these situations along north Main Street have proven to be a challenge for everyone. The City in the project, the way the project worked out and everything with the various land acquisitions. The objective was to help the land owners after those acquisitions to be able to do things as close to possible what they were before, okay and you know with the situations we had there were certain, there were engineering decisions and things that were made that had to be made in order to keep the project going forward. The projects were designed and you know with all the right specifications and so on but certain things having to do with signage and what not, you know when you move the direction, in other words you acquire the property going the direction the property owner it changes the dynamic of the space that’s available for them to come back and do something with parking, with signs, with whatever it might be. So the City has appreciated the working with the Board of Zoning Appeals and Area Plan and the property owners to try to make the best decisions that could be made based on the circumstances that are there and that’s simply in terms of what the City is working toward, we feel certainly what we understand the Board of Zoning Appeals is trying to do the same thing. So it’s a give and take and we appreciate your looking at things with the detail that you have been and trying to do the very best to go by documentation in front of you as well as some of the conditions, the unique conditions that are out there. I just appreciate that very much and understand that it’s not as simple as it may be to someone that isn’t involved like you are.
President Stimmel stated, thank you Jim, appreciate it. Jerry, I apologize.
Jerry Thompson stated, no that’s all right. Diann have you by chance had time to go up and down north Main just to see how many potential situations like this we might be looking at in the future?
Director Weaver stated, it’s hard for me to say because I don’t know how many signs they took down that aren’t back up at this time.
Jerry Thompson stated, I’ll just keep on saying, north Main Street looks very nice, they’ve done a very nice job on it. I don’t look forward to voting on this because once we make this 1st vote I’m sorry look out. We’re, I, I don’t like the encroachment thing, we got a brand new street. I’m like you Dave I know the City of Monticello has approved, basically approved what he’d like to do but we put it off and we put if off. We got to act on it soon. That’s all I got to say.
President Stimmel stated, Phil go ahead.
Phil Vogel stated, one thing I’d like to say about and I know there’s going to be variances all the way up and down Main Street but one of the things that when I applied for this my base is going to be touching the encroachment line so I’m not right out on Main Street and I’m as far back as Taco Bell trying to keep them in line and you made the comment last meeting Dave, I know you work for the City of Monon and you know what the right-of-ways are for and there for when you’ve got to put something in or redo something and go from there and as I did mine I didn’t want to set it out in the middle of the right-of-way. All I wanted was the post right inside so I didn’t loose anymore parking spots and that’s why I’m kind of setting right on the line of the right-of-way, but yet in the grassy area so I can landscape around it. So I know that you’ve talked about difference of locations and stuff like that, that’s one of the things I tried to keep in mind and I’m not out in the middle of it I’m at the edge of it and I’m butting up to it and that’s where I want to put the base.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Phil.
Attorney Altman stated, Phil.
Phil Vogel stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, I have a question, a couple of questions. Basically, what you’re saying is this has created a hardship on your existing parcel of ground by the fact that the road has moved closer to you, right.
Phil Vogel stated, in two ways.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, tell us how.
Phil Vogel stated, with Main Street and Center Street.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, very good. And the second thing is, is why you could have been and maybe still could, sued for a condemnation of the value of your ground for this hardship that is imposed on you. What you and the City are trying to work out is resolving that hardship by allowing you to extend in an area that they can live with and so can you that is in the right-of-way, right?
Phil Vogel stated, yes. I mean and as I said earlier, I mean I lost it on 2 ways. If I had a solid property line on the south side where I didn’t have a road then I don’t have a problem with it, setting it back but I kind of did some spray painting and some of you’ve seen it and you understand why I kind of want a variance because I loose those 2 or 3 spots there on the corner and I know they’re even going to back up and hit it if I don’t move it a little bit and that’s why, you know to go back to what Dave said last meeting, you know that’s what right-of-ways are for is for when you’ve got to change city utilities. And I understand that and that’s why I’m staying right on the edge of it. I’m not going in the middle, I’m on the edge and that’s, you know when the City gave me that consent to encroach that’s measuring the edge of my sign sticking over but where I’m going to put the post.
Attorney Altman stated, thank you Phil. I just wanted to make sure we tied that together.
Phil Vogel asked, any other questions?
Dave Scott asked, do we have a signed copy of the consent to encroach from the City?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe we do. Have you provided us a signed copy?
Phil Vogel stated, I brought you one up, you should have.
Director Weaver stated, okay maybe there is one in the file.
Charlie Mellon stated, we had that the last meeting.
Director Weaver stated, the copy that we had was not signed.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott stated, okay, I just like…
Charlie Mellon stated, oh yes, they weren’t signed.
Phil Vogel stated, the first copy when I came to the first meeting was not signed but I got it signed the next week and I brought it up to Diann’s office.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, I knew you had talked about that. I didn’t remember receiving it though.
Dave Scott stated, I’d like to make that part of the commitment that we have to have on record a signed consent to encroach from the City.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, still thinking.
Jerry Thompson asked, was that a motion?
Dave Scott stated, yes, I’ll put that in the form of a motion.
Jerry Thompson stated, second.
President Stimmel stated, okay, it’s been moved and seconded and do you want to repeat it Dave because I’m afraid I didn’t understand it.
Dave Scott stated, I think we should have a signed consent to encroach from the City on the record.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right. All in favor?
All Board Members stated, aye.
Director Weaver asked, can I clarify do you want that after it’s recorded or before it’s recorded or…
Dave Scott stated, I’m not sure what…
Director Weaver stated, that consent will have to be recorded in the recorders office, I’m sure.
Phil Vogel stated, I did not record mine yet because if I didn’t get the variance it was no reason for me to record it.
Director Weaver stated, right.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, as long as we have one for…
Attorney Altman stated, it should be recorded, and they will record it, Phil has to be able to proceed.
Phil Vogel stated, well and it says in there that if we have to move it it’s our expense in that consent to encroach.
President Stimmel stated, everybody’s got a copy so I want to give you mine while we’re at it all right, I apologize number 1 that’s it’s taking us to much to do this and I hope you understand that really the only reason that that’s happened, okay, is the fact that this is the first one. Sometimes it’s bad to be number 1 I guess, and the second thing is I think there’s 5, 6, 7 people up here trying to do their due diligence, okay and I’m actually quite worried about the fact of allowing encroachments in general and there is some negatives that actually go with that and we’re trying to make sure 100% that everybody’s on firm footing and I think what it comes down to for most of us at least of the discussions that I’ve had is the fact that the City in their infinite wisdom has granted that right to encroach with their eyes wide open knowing that there are attached limitations and liabilities excreta, and if their aware of that and they’re going into it with their eyes open and I think we are too and I just want to make sure that nobody’s picking on you but it just happened to be that way. We’re trying to do the best we can.
Phil Vogel stated, I understand.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, one case at a time.
President Stimmel stated, one case at a time.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I have a question for Jerry.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell asked, that eliminates the County from any liability, right? Somebody runs into that sign…
Charlie Mellon stated, no, it’s the City’s liability.
Gerald Cartmell asked, is the City or is it Vogel’s?
Attorney Altman stated, it’s the City’s.
Charlie Mellon stated, sure it is.
Attorney Altman stated, well obviously that, you know, plain that who’s going to argue that everybody’s liable so that…
Gerald Cartmell stated, we have documentation that says that we are not liable, the County is not liable.
Attorney Altman stated, they would sue and I think that, yes, I would feel comfortable arguing that, that the County is or the City has given the consent to encroach and it’s Mr. Vogel’s sign ask he just said and, you know they are going to argue that everybody’s liable Gerald but that’s my opinion.
Charlie Mellon stated, the damage is in the right-of-way.
John Heimlich stated, it’s been my observation the County will always be listed on law suits.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I’m trying to say John, exactly.
John Heimlich stated, whether they had anything to do with it or not.
Gerald Cartmell stated, plus we have documentation that proves it, so what.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, just trying to get a paper trail.
President Stimmel stated, sure.
Attorney Altman stated, exactly.
President Stimmel asked, any other comments before we vote? Ready to vote?
Charlie Mellon stated yes.
Attorney Altman stated, before I announce the results of the balloting on petition #2664 I might comment that for the record that we have a quorum of the Monticello City Counsel present and showing what ever it shows that there present. There are 5 votes cast, 4 votes vote in favor of the variance being granted, 1 vote to deny it. The variance is approved. You need to get your building permit before you proceed.
Phil Vogel stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, thanks Phil.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is currently zoned B-2, General Business.
2. That the lot is a lot of record created by the road widening project for N. Main Street in the City of Monticello.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting and that the Council for Monticello, Indiana has given the applicant consent to encroach that is exactly what the applicant has petitioned for. Same must be properly recorded by the applicant.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance from Main Street for an on premise sign to encroach 7’ into the road right-of-way due to the widening of Main Street on Lots No. 1, 2 and the South 14.00 Feet (Measured along the East Right-of-way of Main Street), of Lot No. 3, Block 2, Lake Drive Subdivision, as recorded in Deed Record 118, Page 462, White County Recorder’s Office, subject to a 10.00 Foot access Easement, more fully described by: 10.00 Feet off the entire East side of Lot 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3. The 10.00 Easement being measured at right angles to the East Lot Lines, also subject to a right of ingress and egress across the parking lots as from time to time may exist on the West side of Lots 1, 2 and the South 14 Feet of Lot No. 3.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1001 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 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. Tabled from November 15. 2007.
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.
****
#2680 Willie J. Mote; The property is located on 20.00 Acres, Out N/S SE NE 27-27, located East of Idaville on the Northwest corner of U.S. Highway 24 and C.R. 1300 E at 664 N. 1300 E.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 3’ height variance for a razor wire around his 8’ fence and a 6’ rear setback variance and a 100’ front setback variance to bring the fence into compliance.
President Stimmel asked, is there somebody here representing that variance? You are sir?
Ron Simmons stated, Ron Simmons, general manager.
President Stimmel stated, okay Ron. Do you want to add anything to what we’ve read?
Ron Simmons stated, no that’s pretty much it.
President Stimmel stated, okay, do we have any documentation to allow…
Attorney Altman stated, the application is signed by Willie Mote and R M Simmons. Is that you sir?
Ron Simmons stated, Ron J.
Attorney Altman stated, Ron J.
Ron Simmons stated, um hum.
Attorney Altman stated, so I think that is certainly authority for him to proceed.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Give the board a chance to look.
Dave Scott asked, was the original fence built before permitting?
Director Weaver stated, probably prior to permitting fences because Area Plan has not always permitted fences.
Dave Scott stated, evidently we don’t have it.
Ron Simmons stated, it’s been getting worse and worse and worse. If you look in the court notes you’ll see that.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I see. Good employees stay all night and take care of that.
Ron Simmons stated, I did several nights.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you didn’t do a very good job then.
Ron Simmons stated, yes we did.
Gerald Cartmell stated oh you did.
Charlie Mellon asked, Ron you got 3 wires on top or 2?
Ron Simmons stated, it would be 3 on each side and then the razor wire in the center of the V.
Charlie Mellon stated, I saw them making them tops.
Ron Simmons stated, did you.
Charlie Mellon stated, out there at Rudy’s here a while back.
Ron Simmons stated, well Willie initially started this. He didn’t realize because of the height that it would have to be a variance.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes. That’s what, they didn’t want to cut them off.
Ron Simmons stated, right.
Charlie Mellon stated, they talked to me about them and I said the higher the better. Them crooks have to climb higher.
Ron Simmons stated, well I’ve been there 32 years and it’s nothing but got worse and worse and it’s really gotten worse as times get harder it’s going to get worse too.
Charlie Mellon stated, and ought to let the dog out there too, didn’t they?
Ron Simmons stated, they cut her out, let her out the last time. So she was outside the fence not inside.
Gerald Cartmell stated, well I think if somebody’s wanting to spend a bunch of money, so be it, trying to protect himself.
Jerry Thompson stated, I didn’t realize that was a problem.
President Stimmel asked, Dave? Gerald any more? Does anybody in the audience want to speak for the variance please. Okay you ready to vote?
Members of the Board stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on balloting on petition #2680, again 5 votes cast, 5 votes vote the variance is hereby granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
Ron Simmons stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, I guess I would remark here because I’ve heard the evidence and that the hardship here appears to be that times have changed, they additional element of exclusion by razor wire and what have you. Would that be a fair statement?
Ron Simmons stated, yes sir.
Attorney Altman stated, okay. Very good, thank you.
Ron Simmons stated, thank you.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is properly zoned I-2, General Industrial
2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit. That since ordinance has been adopted security demands more severe and higher fences, thus the hardship.
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 3’ height variance for a razor wire around his 8’ fence and a 6’ rear setback variance and a 100’ front setback variance to bring the fence into compliance on all that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 27 North, Range 2 West, lying North of State Road Twenty-four (24), containing Twenty (20) acres, more or less, in Jackson Township, White County, Indiana.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Idaville on the Northwest corner of U.S. Highway 24 and C.R. 1300 E at 664 N. 1300 E.
7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 5 affirmative and 0 negative.
****
#2681 James D. & Sandra S. Davies; The property is located on 4.08 Acres, on Pt SE 29-25-3, located East of Brookston, East of CR 1200 S and Springboro at 11751 S. Springboro Road.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 7.5’ height variance to build a storage barn.
President Stimmel asked, is there somebody here representing that variance?
Charlie Mellon stated, Doug, hi Doug.
Doug Davies stated, Doug Davies and just really the barn we want to build we have our home is kind of, this building is next to our home and our home is a reproduction of an 18th century home from Williamsburg and we want to build a building that will look historic and it’s really kind of an old fashioned type of barn and just wanted to get a request to, you know to build that height.
President Stimmel stated, okay, thank you Doug. Hang on for just a second incase somebody…
Director Weaver stated, so the Board realizes we did get a new survey yesterday that shows the house on the property as well as the barn. This is going to be a 2 story building, correct?
Doug Davies stated, it’s going to have a loft, yes.
President Stimmel asked, is it designed for occupancy Doug or not?
Doug Davies stated, no not at all.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Doug Davies stated, it’s for storage.
President Stimmel stated, for storage.
Doug Davies stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, probably antiques.
Doug Davies stated, junk.
Charlie Mellon stated, antiques.
Doug Davies stated, trash the trasher.
President Stimmel asked, Gerald any questions?
Gerald Cartmell asked, you’re not going to have an office in there?
Doug Davies stated, we may have an area that, you know I’ll work in just you know to, my computer and stuff like that. We take a lot of photographs of things and I’ll probably use it for that.
President Stimmel asked, Dave, anything?
Dave Scott stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no, not the comparison as the neighbors.
Attorney Altman stated, I didn’t mention that, that they do have 2 letters one, and I presume there neighbors, Andrew and Deb Ott.
Doug Davies stated, yes, I just sold them a lot so there just north of my house.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and the letter is and I’ll read the body of the letter, to inform the White County Area Plan that we are fine with Doug and Sandy Davies proposed storage building. We have seen the plans and believe that all aspects of the building, including its height would do nothing but make our area a better one in which to live in. We have given the Davies our approval for this structure and sincerely hope that you will too. The second letter is again from R. Gregg Sutter and he lives where?
Doug Davies stated, he lives in Lafayette but he owns land south of me.
Attorney Altman stated, okay. I, again I’m reading the body, I have known Doug and Sandy Davies for many years. I have observed their restoration and new construction of homes and out buildings in White, Tippecanoe and Carroll Counties. I understand their desire to building a historic style storage building compatible with their Williamsburg, Virginia reproduction 18th century style home that they built 10 years ago on property they purchased from me. I support the style and roof height as proposed by the Davies. I own property to the East and South of the Davies. I endorse their project entirely.
President Stimmel stated, thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to the variance? None, ready to vote?
Director Weaver stated, I would like to comment, I had concerns on this and want the Board to make sure that they understand if I understand correctly that this will store items that will be auctioned, correct.
Doug Davies stated, part of it, part of it will be personal storage.
Director Weaver stated, okay, I just want the Board to be aware of that so that there is no confusion later on that line.
Doug Davies stated, sure.
Director Weaver stated, so that’s why I’m bringing that up.
President Stimmel asked, ready to vote?
Attorney Altman stated, and we also have a new survey as Diann indicated showing the home on there and also the proposed frame building.
President Stimmel stated, okay ready to vote. Everybody’s voting.
Dave Scott stated, I’ve got a question. The height variance is it bigger in an agriculture than it is anywhere else or the same height?
Director Weaver stated, no, it’s the same.
Dave Scott stated, I wonder if that’s addressed in the new ordinance.
Director Weaver stated, it is, yes, it is.
Doug Davies asked, what is the purpose of the height ordinance, I guess I’ve never…
Director Weaver stated, so you can not have living quarters upstairs, because we only allow one residence per parcel of ground.
Doug Davies stated, sure I understand.
Attorney Altman stated, also to control size too, just size the other is harder to manage year in year out, policing that sort of thing.
Doug Davies stated, sure.
Attorney Altman stated, it it’s big somebody’s going to put it in there.
Doug Davies stated, yep.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results on the balloting on petition #2681, 5 votes cast again we have 4 votes voting the variance be granted, 1 vote votes the variance be denied. You need to proceed, if you proceed you need to have a building permit. Thank you very much.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is 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. Structure will be used for storage, personal and business and office area; no living area.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 7.5’ height variance to build a storage barn on a part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 25 North, Range 3 West, Prairie Township, White County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 29, thence South 89°59’ 35” West, along the South line of Section 29, a distance of 2668.00 feet to the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter and approximate centerline of Springboro Road; thence North 18°12’55” East, along said centerline of Springboro Road, a distance of 240.55 feet; thence North 10°05’05” East, along said centerline of Springboro Road, a distance of 1098.16 feet; thence North 11°36’00” East, along said centerline of Springboro Road, a distance of 45.42 feet; thence North 89°48’00” East, a distance of 1287.12 feet; thence South 00°22’35” West, parallel with the East line of Section 29, a distance of 310.43 feet to the Point of beginning; thence South 89°37’25” East, a distance of 431.19 feet; thence South 00°22’35” West. parallel with the East line of Section 29, a distance of 411.76 feet; thence North 89°37’25” West, a distance 431.19 feet; thence North 00°22’35” East, parallel with the East line of Section 29, a distance of 411.76 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 4.08 acres, more or less.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located East of Brookston, East of CR 1200 S and Springboro at 11751 S. Springboro Road.
7. That the variance herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variance is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variance under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.
The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 1 negative.
****
#2688 Phillip D. & Barbara J. Schrader; The property is located on Lots 11, 12, and Parts of Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Block 2 in Lake Drive Subdivision, located in the City of Monticello at 1015 N. Main Street.
Violation: None
Request: They are requesting a 10’ front setback variance to encroach 18.5’ into the road right-of-way due to the widening of Main Street.
President Stimmel asked, is someone here representing that variance?
Phil Schrader stated, yes sir.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Phil Schrader stated, I’m Phil Schrader.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Do you have anything you want to add to what we read?
Phil Schrader stated, yes, if I could.
President Stimmel stated, sure.
Phil Schrader stated, as Mr. Altman said I’ also one of the people that was affect by the widening of North Main Street and it wasn’t a voluntary effort to take my sign down it was forced on us and before the project started we were approached by Todd Frauhiger, the engineer of CTE and members of the community and government and in that we had negotiations with Mayor Bob Fox and City Councilman Bill Smith, Todd Frauhiger and some of the engineers with CTE that were closely associated with INDOT and we came to an agreement that I could replace my sign, redirect it back in the same spot when this project was done. I got a signed statement from the city to that fact and since then we have gone to the board of works and got a, I don’t know what, the a right to encroachment and also it was unanimously approved by the City Council, so we have gone to both, both units of government. Our particular parking lot is a really shallow parking lot and basically the only place we could re-erect this sign is where it was and the city engineers came down and looked at it and the engineers from CTE and they were all in agreement that was about the only spot it could go back and that’s why they agreed to this. I wasn’t aware that it had to go through White County Area Plan, you know, way back when, when I put the sign up we went through the City and so I’ve already put my base in. I wasn’t aware that I had to go through the Area Plan. I’ve got a lot of reasons why it won’t fit if you want to hear it if not I know you’re busy and it’s getting late but I just want to bring out that the engineers were highly interactive with INDOT and INDOT did approve this. I want to point out that our sign is going to be hung on a yard arm instead of a straight pole so it’s going to be offset away from the road. This keeps the sign from overhanging any part of the road which Diann was, she was concerned on that when she called, when we talked to her. Long before North Main Street was widened, our particular part of the property was all ready a 3 lane, in other words it 2 lanes but there was a passing lane that was already paved also on our side of the street and when people wanted to pull in to, where it’s Rural King now and the shopping center North bound traffic would take advantage of the paved area to the right of the street. Our sign right now is going to be the same distance that it was back then, the only advantage is now we have a curve that as Todd Frauhiger said it’s an INDOT approved barrier now. I don’t know that’s about it I’m, I don’t know if you have any questions or not but I’ll answer them the best I can.
President Stimmel stated, all right. Thank you Phil. Board members anything, Dave?
Dave Scott stated, I see a letter here signed by Mr. Fox, does he have a consent to encroach?
Director Weaver stated, not that I’m aware of, no.
Attorney Altman stated, I’ve not seen it in the file.
Dave Scott stated, okay, uh…
Jerry Thompson stated, it’s in the minutes though of the City Council.
Attorney Altman stated, yes, certainly in the minutes of the City Council yes.
Dave Scott stated, once again I think we need to have a…
Phil Schrader stated, George Loy did make a legal document to that.
Dave Scott stated, well we’ll need to have on the record a signed consent to encroach from the City.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Want to make that in the form of a motion Dave?
Dave Scott stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, so is that moved that we require the same as Vogel a signed consent to encroach by the City of Monticello for this variance.
Jerry Thompson stated, second.
President Stimmel stated, second, all in favor?
Board Members stated, aye.
Dave Scott stated, and then once again I’d just like to put on the record that I’ll probably vote for this but only because they have consent to encroach and that Monticello or the road project has created the hardship and just carrying on the City’s wishes that the signs be brought back although I’m not in favor of it.
Phil Schrader stated, I would, if I had the room I would definitely put it back farther. I have no choice.
President Stimmel asked, Charlie anything?
Charlie Mellon stated, well I’m going to say my peace again. Phil did you hold the Mayor and Council at bay, I understood that you were one of the later ones that donated the ground.
Phil Schrader stated, yes I did.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, and I thought maybe that’s just my thought that you held out until you got the okay from the Mayor and the Council to put it back where it was.
Phil Schrader stated, you know what that wasn’t the main problem with that property. The main problem I had was that they were not going to give me a Main Street entrance and that’s why I held out but the sign was already agreed. I mean that wasn’t a problem of contention with them.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh okay.
Phil Schrader stated, but…
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s just one thought that I had you know it might of helped some, really on your benefit.
Phil Schrader stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, but then you know out here where it is now just like we said a while ago, somebody comes down there and jumps that curb and gets killed or something the City’s responsible for that.
Phil Schrader stated, well according to George Loy’s contract it’s not.
Charlie Mellon stated, well he’s going to turn around and say yes there liability will take care of it as far as that goes but that’s not, that’s a sore eye for the City as far as I’m concerned.
Phil Schrader stated, well the only thing I can say back to you is the, you know our sign has been the same distance from the road with the extra lane and it didn’t even have a curb.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh yes I know that, I know that.
Phil Schrader stated, and we never had any problems with that.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes but it was a waste of traffic farther than it is now.
Phil Schrader stated, no when the traffic was stopped somebody turn in left…
Charlie Mellon stated, well yes.
Phil Schrader stated, there was a lot of traffic that went through there.
Charlie Mellon stated, but the curb is over there to the east or where that traffic was now. It’s only about 3’ 6”, 4’ from the curb.
Phil Schrader stated, that’s where the blacktop…
Charlie Mellon stated, yes.
Phil Schrader stated, the right hand blacktop was that people would go around so what I’m saying is the traffic was the same distance from the base that I have now from the original sign that I had.
Charlie Mellon stated, well the City and the County and everybody realized since we done one already here’s the one already again, we’re going to have to go along with all of them as far as that goes and I’m going to say again on the encroachment I haven’t saw anything that allows encroachment in our 2 big books that we got as far as rules. Somebody will have to prove that to me. I know maybe the attorney said it’s some new statue or something, but they’re always going to come with something to take care of what they’re thought was. Nobody else knowed anything about it so that’s about all I got to say.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right. Jerry anything? Gerald?
Gerald Cartmell stated, as long as it relieves the County.
President Stimmel asked, okay, ready to vote? I’m sorry Jim.
Jim Mann stated, I’m Jim Mann, City Council, I just want to clarify that the consent to encroach is a board of works, Monticello City Board of Works action and they did meet last Monday evening to receive this request and they did vote on it. Bill Smith would be here but he’s in the hospital. He had to go in this afternoon so I’m here to just inform you that Monday night’s meeting was something where the board heard the consent to encroach and I think George has left on a well deserved vacation and what not and the paperwork just hasn’t got back to where any copies are available but…
Dave Scott asked, they agreed to it?
Jim Mann stated, yes, yes.
President Stimmel asked, humor me Jim and in the sense that you’ve mentioned the Board of Works now twice and I think the Monticello City Council, one in the same?
Jim Mann stated, the City Council, the Board of Works is the arm of the City that does contractual work and a consent to encroach is a contract with that land owner and so they would be the ones that would actually hear that and either approve or disapprove it or discuss whatever.
President Stimmel asked, so in what way would the City Council interact with something like this?
Jim Mann stated, well the Council and the Board of Works work together to handle various things within the statues that we’re supposed to do and in terms of recommendations the City can make recommendations and we do often times because they may involve financial situations so we have to look at the budget but with regard to the consent to encroach rule that is handled through the Board of Works because it’s contractual obligation.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, who do we need that from Jerry?
Attorney Altman stated, obviously from the City of Monticello.
Dave Scott asked, so we actually need it from the City Council not the Board of Works or does it make any difference?
Attorney Altman stated, no the Board of Works…
Jim Mann stated, no the Board of Works is…
Attorney Altman stated, but from the City of Monticello.
Jim Mann stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, wherever they drew it and I understand that they’ve approved it we just haven’t got the paperwork, hasn’t quite got to our file yet.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and you made it subject to that getting to our file and properly done so that we’re covered there.
Jim Mann stated, I just wanted to clarify that the City had acted on that request Monday.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman asked, and it would be the same type of encroachment that we saw for Mr. Vogel, right?
Jim Mann stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, in style and…
Jim Mann stated, in style, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and in words. Obviously it would be for a different piece of real estate…
Jim Mann stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, and a different sign.
Jim Mann stated, the prod us for the encroachment would be for the same reasons would be certainly different parcel numbers and legals and things of that nature, yes.
Dave Scott stated, maybe I need to add to that the encroachment will have to be approved by the Council whatever the encroachment is, Jerry is that…
Attorney Altman stated, once you get an encroachment that’s all you actually need, a properly approved to encroach.
Dave Scott stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so long as we have all that.
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I don’t mind voting here, if we have all that in order and we’re assuming that’s a done deal. That’s how we’re voting.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s right. One condition on that being so.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I don’t agree but, too bad. That’s what tomorrow looks that way.
President Stimmel stated, okay, any other comments from the, I’m sorry Jim.
Jim Mann stated, that’s okay I just want to make sure.
President Stimmel stated, yes. Any other comments from the audience? You guys ready to vote?
Attorney Altman asked, and the sign would be Mr. Schrader, as you put in there with 3 signs on it, right?
Phil Schrader stated, yes sir.
President Stimmel asked, it’s kind of late Diann but do we have any comments from the neighbors or any fan mail?
Director Weaver stated, no, none that I’m aware of.
Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results of votes on petition #2688 5 votes cast, 2 votes vote to deny the variance, 3 votes vote to grant the variance. The variance is granted. You need to get a building permit before you proceed.
The Board finds the following:
1. That the property is currently zoned B-2, General Business.
2. That the lot is a lot of record created by the road widening project for N. Main Street in the City of Monticello.
3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.
4. That no objectors were present at the meeting and that the Council for Monticello, Indiana has given the applicant consent to encroach that is exactly what the applicant has petitioned for. Same must be properly recorded by the applicant.
5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.
6. That the request is for a 10’ front setback variance to encroach 18.5’ into the road right-of-way due to the widening of Main Street on Lots eleven (11) and twelve (12) in Block two (2) Lake Drive Subdivision, Union Township, White County, Indiana.
Also, Lots number thirteen (13), fourteen (14), fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) in Block number two (2) in Lake Drive Subdivision in Union Township, White County, Indiana, EXCEPT a tract described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the northeast corner of lot number sixteen (16) in Block number two (2) of the above said Lake Drive Subdivision and running thence south eighty nine and five tenths (89.5) feet; thence east forty-four and six tenths (44.6) feet along the south line of lot thirteen (13), Block two (2); thence north twenty-six degrees and thirty minutes west (N 26°30’ W) one hundred (100) feet along the east line of lots thirteen (13), fourteen (14), fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) in Block Two (2) to the point of beginning, containing five hundredths (.05) of an acre, more or less. Being off the east end of lots thirteen (13), fourteen (14), fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) in Block two (2) of Lake Drive Subdivision.
COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the City of Monticello at 1015 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 3 affirmative and 2 negative.
****
#2665 Terrence M. Pickens; The property is located on Lot 13, 14, 15, and 16 in White Point Hinshaw Addition, located just North of C.R. 225 N at 2406 – 2412 N. West Shafer Drive.
Violation: None
Request: He is requesting a 20’ front setback variance and an 8 parking space variance to bring the existing 4 rental units and corresponding carports into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance due to the road widening project.
President Stimmel asked, and you are sir?
Terry Pickens stated, Terry Pickens, 2410 West Shafer Drive.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Mr. Pickens do you want to add anything to what I read?
Terry Pickens stated, in order to enjoy the highest and best use of the remainder of the property that was impacted by the road project. I need to make these changes for accessibility and um, um for the parking and the lowering of the road affected the accessibility.
Director Weaver stated, I would like to make a correction and not your fault. We sent out 2 agenda’s because the first agenda that we sent to you had an error, had an omission on it. It is to bring the existing 4 rental units into compliance along with your corresponding car ports.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, so that’s what the 2nd agenda that we mailed to you was the correct one.
President Stimmel stated, I got the wrong agenda. I didn’t have the, I had the 2nd agenda. Let me reread that if you don’t mind. The location of the property is the same, the request is what I’m going to reread he is requesting a 20’ front setback variance and an 8 parking space variance to being the existing 4 rental units and corresponding car ports into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance due to the road widening project. That’s more like it, okay.
Terry Pickens stated, so in addition I lost most of the parking and the home that was there was traumatically impacted. I’m asking to add another car port to the one that’s next to the cottage that’s on lot 15.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, two of the carports are there currently. One is not built at this time, is that correct?
Terry Pickens stated, actually there’s on lot 16, there’s a roof structure that was exiting that was moved over to make way for the widening there was some questionable owner lines of ownership even after Greg Spence out of the survey so total of 4. The one closest to the water is a shelter structure. It’s been there for years.
Jerry Thompson asked, Diann do I hear him asking for more than what he advertised for?
Terry Pickens stated, I don’t think so.
Director Weaver stated, no, no it was advertised correctly, well I think it was advertised correctly. We requested…
Jerry Thompson asked, but aren’t you asking for additional carports?
Terry Pickens stated, no I’m asking for…
Jerry Thompson stated, not in print but I thought you made that statement just a minute ago.
Terry Pickens stated, a total of, there’s a 1 carport that I’m going to ask for a permanent that would be covered by the setback variance that I’m asking for.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay, evidently I’m the only that I thought I heard it, okay.
Director Weaver stated, well Jerry in any, to answer your question the letter that we received that we sent a copy to you states that it’s amended to include 2 carports that were build by my client on remainder property and I thought on down it said that there is, here, my client would require clearance from the County building department for post construction permits for his erection of the 2 carports he built and the issuance of the building permit from the county to erect another carport at the northwest area of his remainder property on the 3rd carport concerning this latter permit issue, my client has incurred the expense of self grading his remainder property to accommodate the use of said remainder as a direct result of extreme change of grade caused by the fee taking and construction of the public work in this case. So the way I read this letter it’s 3.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, that’s the way I read that.
Jerry Thompson stated, okay.
Dave Scott asked, is it 3 carports?
Terry Pickens asked, where?
Director Weaver stated, its 2 existing and 1 proposed.
Dave Scott asked, well where is the proposed, I don’t see where the proposed one is?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that you have anything showing it.
Dave Scott stated, oh okay I couldn’t see it.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I guess we’re going to have more information.
Dave Scott asked, where’s the proposed carport going?
President Stimmel stated, it can’t hurt.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I think we need more information.
President Stimmel asked, do you mind showing us where the proposed is please?
Terry Pickens stated, sure. That would be on, well it would be actually in place of where the garage no longer exists. We had to remove the garage because it was no longer useful because of the elevation. We had to bring in some equipment and lower the ground so we could pull in there otherwise we’re at a steep incline.
Attorney Altman asked, on lot 15?
Terry Pickens stated, yes sir.
Dave Scott stated, so the garage on lot 15 is gone.
Terry Pickens stated, there was, it’s gone. We lowered the ground there to accommodate the other structure of being a carport.
Dave Scott stated, so the new carport…
Terry Pickens stated, would be sitting in place of the garage that was once there.
Dave Scott asked, on the same footprint?
Terry Pickens stated, yes. I lost most of the parking through the widening of the roads so…
Dave Scott stated, um hum. Is there a setback as far as this new carport is going to be off of that lot line or are those lots on there all together or is…
Director Weaver stated, the request is to marry the lots together.
Dave Scott stated, so he doesn’t need to have a setback from that lot line.
Director Weaver stated, for those sides no.
Jerry Thompson asked, Dave did you, anybody get out there and look at this? I didn’t. Stimmel?
President Stimmel stated, no, I did not.
Attorney Altman stated, Gerald did.
President Stimmel stated, Gerald.
Gerald Cartmell stated, tight, very tight. He really, he got murdered there’s no doubt about it.
Director Weaver stated, I did try to take lots of pictures.
Terry Pickens stated, it’s not that easy.
Jerry Thompson stated, I know.
President Stimmel stated, the only thing that I’m questioning Gerald is I’m seeing a letter from, to George Loy from Barry Springer, Attorney, and it’s for said purpose only but the City agreed to this.
Several Board Members are talking at once.
President Stimmel stated, now would be a good time John.
John Heimlich stated, just waiting to be invited. John Heimlich, County Commissioner, again I’m here because George asked me to be. This property was in phase 1 of the 6th Street expansion out at Honey Creek Bay. Mr. Pickens house was a total taking, it was the only total taking in the project and I think maybe the reason these setbacks and parking spaces maybe got overlooked in the appraisal process is because the house was a total taking and that was the main, I think maybe the main focus. Yes, the County is supporting the setback variance and the parking space variance because obviously that was created by the road. I’ll have to confess I don’t know about the carports and George talked to me right before he left and he didn’t know much about those, I think those, well I think that came from your attorney to George after, kind of after the fact or kind of late, yes, and so I really can’t speak to the carport issue but as far as the front setback variance and the parking space variance, you know we are supporting that as I say this is, it was taken through a condemnation process and the final settlement is still being negotiated.
Dave Scott asked, have you guys seen where the new parking spots are going to be? I mean I’m, it’s hard to tell on here.
John Heimlich stated, I have not, no. As I say George has been handling the negotiations and I, I haven’t seen the documents.
Attorney Altman asked, have you seen this John, have you seen this then?
John Heimlich stated, no.
Attorney Altman stated, that might help you a little bit. That might help you freshening things up although I don’t know.
John Heimlich stated, I don’t know either.
President Stimmel asked, okay, Jerry any comments?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, I move we table this. I’d like to have a little more information and I think I’d like too even go look at it, so…
President Stimmel asked, what other information would you like? In other words I don’t want to leave Mr. Pickens sitting out here not knowing what you need if you need more.
Jerry Thompson stated, well…
President Stimmel asked, what else, what sort of information would you like?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, basically the carports there and on concerning lot 15 number 1 Dave, uh something a little bit more clearly designated I think unless I’m just not looking at the drawing properly.
Charlie Mellon stated, said the garage was on lot 15 and there’s lot 15 over there.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, and there’s the garage down there. That’s the one he said was taken down and there’s lot 15.
President Stimmel stated, I don’t know. Gerald what do you think? You were out there.
Gerald Cartmell stated, I’ll second that. It’s pretty tough to figure out I mean sitting there looking at it.
President Stimmel stated, we’ve got a motion on the floor and a second to table this at the Boards request in order to get more information. But I think what we owe Mr. Pickens is a detailed list of what that information is.
Jerry Thompson stated, true, okay.
Attorney Altman asked, would you need where the 3rd carport would go?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, do we also need to know where the lot, I mean I’m kind of confused, when I look at it I don’t know where the original lot lines are.
Terry Pickens stated, um hum.
President Stimmel stated, I don’t see those on the survey.
Attorney Altman stated, they are on the larger area.
President Stimmel stated, am I missing that. Okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and they are on…
President Stimmel stated, okay Gotcha.
Dave Scott asked, how many parking spots will they have for each?
Director Weaver stated, they are required to have 2 parking for each dwelling.
Dave Scott stated, okay and he’s requesting?
Director Weaver stated, he’s requesting an 8 space parking variance.
Dave Scott stated, okay. So there would just basically be 1 parking spot for each one or not even?
Director Weaver stated, it’s not even committing to that.
Gerald Cartmell stated, we really need to go look at that because it’s very tight, very tight.
Director Weaver stated, it’s not committing to any parking spaces Dave.
Dave Scott asked, how they going to, I mean…
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, because there’s 4 units so they’re required to have 8.
Dave Scott stated, right.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t have anything that really shows where that parking, I don’t think, where the parking will be.
Attorney Altman stated, okay that would be the 4th thing that I think that the Board would like to have from you Mr. Pickens, okay.
President Stimmel stated, so let’s list them. What are they?
Attorney Altman stated, where that 3rd carport is, where the parking spaces are, help me out again. Jerry do you remember what we just said?
Jerry Thompson stated, well you’ve already mentioned the one that I was concerned about. I just, physically I just need to go look at it myself.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s nothing, nothing that he can do.
Dave Scott asked, does each one of these, I can’t tell by the print does each one of these drives come out to West Shafer or do they use a common drive or what, what’s the situation?
President Stimmel asked, can you help us with that Mr. Pickens?
Terry Pickens stated, sure, I’m sorry.
President Stimmel stated, the 3rd carport. Can you identify where that is.
Terry Pickens asked, where the proposed one is going to go?
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Terry Pickens stated, yes that’ll be right in place of where the garage is showing on the print that the garage no longer exists.
President Stimmel stated, you’ll have to show that on the print, if you could. That would help us.
Terry Pickens stated, sure and that’s…
Jerry Thompson stated, highlight it in some fashion or you know.
Charlie Mellon stated, across from 15.
Terry Pickens stated, yes.
Dave Scott stated, right here see.
President Stimmel stated, across from 15.
Terry Pickens asked, just mark garage?
Dave Scott stated, yes, yes.
Terry Pickens stated, right and because it was too high elevation and we couldn’t access it anymore so we removed the building, brought down the level of the ground. I want to put a carport right there on the same footprint as what the old garage was standing.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, okay so that takes care of one.
President Stimmel stated, that takes care of one. Is that satisfactory Jerry or…
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, yes.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Dave Scott stated, but now does he need a rear setback for that variance? How far off the lot line is he on the rear?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know that I have anything that tells me that. They’re only required to be 5’.
Terry Pickens stated, I’ve got that.
Director Weaver stated, I believe so, I believe they do have the 5’.
Terry Pickens stated, we won’t extend any farther back than what the cottage is now.
Charlie Mellon stated, it’d be closer where the garage was, it’d be closer to the rear than the garage was because they took it all off the front the distance.
Dave Scott asked, yes, what is lot 17 there? Is that an open lot or does it have housing on it or?
Charlie Mellon stated, 17 I don’t think so.
Dave Scott stated, right here is a big lot 17.
Director Weaver stated, that is not his property.
Dave Scott stated, that’s what I’m saying, what’s on it. Is it…
Charlie Mellon stated, oh yes that’s out beyond.
Director Weaver stated, right, there’s structures on that lot. If you look at your pictures Dave the very last one, the page that has 5 on it, the very bottom picture, the building on the left is on that property. Keep going, there you go, the very bottom picture, the building there on the left is on that property that you’re asking and what’s there beyond that I cannot answer that question.
Dave Scott asked, does somebody live there?
Director Weaver stated, I can’t tell you that, I don’t know.
Dave Scott stated, I guess it doesn’t make any difference. We really need to know that distance, don’t we, from not necessarily a side setback but the rear setback on that garage where the carports going to be. Maybe we don’t need to know it but he needed to at least commit to be at least 5’ off the property line.
Terry Pickens stated, it will be, it will be 6’.
Dave Scott stated, okay so we don’t need, we don’t need to worry about it as long as, as long as they understand that we’re not approving anything less than what the setback is.
President Stimmel stated, right, this is exactly what Diann’s saying. They won’t get a permit.
Gerald Cartmell asked, some of them are 3’?
President Stimmel asked, what about the parking spaces, Jerry or Dave who had a question about the parking spaces?
Gerald Cartmell stated, we really need to go look at that.
Attorney Altman stated, and they ought to commit to that on their application, if it’s on this survey they ought to put on there where they are.
Gerald Cartmell stated, you can see by the pictures. We’re staying in the road.
Attorney Altman stated, yes. Do you understand what we’re asking for?
Terry Pickens stated, I haven’t seen the pictures. How old are they because some changes were made to the…
Director Weaver stated, last week.
Terry Pickens stated, oh they’re fine yes, then. As long as they’re current they should show…
Director Weaver stated, I was out there last week.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
President Stimmel stated, we got a motion on the table we’ve just been kind of talking about it. Let’s vote on the motion and the motion is to table the request. You guys ready to vote on the motion? Okay all in favor of the motion say aye.
4 Board Members stated, aye.
President Stimmel asked, all opposed, nay? Okay 4 to 1.
Attorney Altman asked, can I have the ballots back please?
President Stimmel stated, it’s tabled.
Attorney Altman stated, tabled to the next meeting and that’s again on the 17th right Diann.
Director Weaver stated, the 17th of January.
Attorney Altman stated, the 17th of January. You’ll have the benefit of being the first one on the agenda.
Terry Pickens stated, thank you and what would you like me to bring for…
Attorney Altman stated, I think you ought to talk to Diann. They’re asking about where the parking spaces are.
Terry Pickens stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and you ought to show maybe a little more detail on this survey where that carport will be and just, just so you have the flush out the record probably.
Terry Pickens asked, so is it okay to apply for a permit now or do I need to wait?
Attorney Altman stated, you need to wait.
Terry Pickens stated, okay, thank you.
****
President Stimmel stated, the other business we have before us this evening is Mr. Holmes and Mr. Holmes has been patiently waiting. We had requested that Mr. Holmes submit some kind of a plan at the last meeting on how he was going to handle the property that he has. We had denied the variance as I recall and we had assessed the fine. Is that correct?
Director Weaver stated, that is correct.
George Holmes stated, just for no permit.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, he has paid his fine.
President Stimmel stated, he has paid his fine.
Director Weaver stated, a thousand dollars, I don’t remember what date. Jerry do you have that in the file?
Attorney Altman stated, it is the 21st of excuse me November the 21st he paid the thousand dollar fine.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, and we did mail you a copy of what he is proposing to do. It was in your packet along with a copy of the staff report from his variance request.
President Stimmel asked, has everybody had a chance to look at that? What Mr. Holmes has indicated that he is going to do a big portion of the work himself.
Attorney Altman stated, this is what... Mr. Holmes come forward please. I have a couple of questions.
George Holmes stated, yes.
Attorney Altman asked, since the last meeting have you done any improvements or any building on this property?
George Holmes stated, improvements, I haven’t done any improvements no.
Attorney Altman asked, you haven’t built anything?
George Holmes stated, no, no sir.
Attorney Altman asked, you haven’t further constructed anything?
George Holmes stated, no sir but I did take down the second floor on the boathouse as it’s marked on here, accessory building by the water.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, I removed the second floor that’s all I did.
Attorney Altman stated, very good. We just wanted to make sure because we have, now we have a violation.
George Holmes stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, and we’re dealing with it because it was the denial and I wanted to make sure that we made the record that you haven’t proceeded to do anything further that would violate our Ordinance, okay.
George Holmes stated, I understand, no, I didn’t.
Attorney Altman stated, that’s what I wanted to establish today.
President Stimmel stated, and essentially what we’re saying is if I can paraphrase this I believe and that is that what Mr. Holmes has submitted he would have to bring for us in the form of a variance. In other words he would have request a variance but essentially that variance would, would be specific to these line items that you see on the list that he’s submitted all ready, in other words what we had asked for was a plan.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, and basically really all we’re trying to tell Mr. Holmes as I understand it would be that the plan that he submitted is probably, no guarantees but probably is acceptable that he needs to apply for the variance, come before the board, discuss it some more, take a vote. If it all matches up he should get a positive vote and the variance would be approved. That’s the way it should work, I think.
Jerry Thompson stated, but…
President Stimmel stated, but…
Jerry Thompson asked, are we going to force him to go ahead and at least have a purchase agreement whether he has the property or not? If he doesn’t get the property well there’s no need in going any further
.
Attorney Altman stated, he owns the property.
Jerry Thompson stated, no, he doesn’t. He’s offering to purchase it.
Director Weaver stated, no he’s got…
George Holmes stated, I couldn’t proceed until I do have a purchase agreement.
Attorney Altman stated, oh yes he would certainly have to…
Jerry Thompson stated, at least need a purchase agreement.
Attorney Altman stated, that would part of his plan and part of his variance request.
President Stimmel stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, I see what you mean about purchasing, you said the neighbors okay.
George Holmes stated, yes.
Attorney Altman stated, okay, I’m with you Jerry.
Jerry Thompson stated, I mean that’s his first step to show proof that he’s got the, wasn’t it?
President Stimmel stated, I think it is only in a sense of what he’s submitted to us is a road map as I understand it Jerry and that would be my interpretation.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, he submitted a road map to us and he may not have all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed right now.
Jerry Thompson stated, right.
President Stimmel stated, that’s the sense of having that agreement in hand but before he submits a new plan or a new variance he would have to have those things in effect.
Jerry Thompson asked, okay and then how much time are we going to give him to provide that?
President Stimmel stated, uh that’s an open question as far as I’m concerned.
Dave Scott asked, if he makes all these requirements he put here, will he need a variance?
Several Board Members stated, yes.
George Holmes stated, no I’m going to remove the garage that was on the property. The tops off, I’m going to remove the…
Charlie Mellon asked, 3’…
George Holmes stated, the, no about 8’ off the rear towards the road.
Charlie Mellon stated, okay, yes that makes it 5 in and it’s 3 over in the lane now.
George Holmes stated, right.
Attorney Altman stated, well if he doesn’t need a variance he doesn’t have to come back to us.
George Holmes stated, if I could get the land from the neighbor, I won’t need a variance for the shed, it will no longer be a garage it will be a shed.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, I’ll need a shed there at least that’s where my well is housed for the house.
Dave Scott stated, so if he meets everything on this…
Director Weaver stated, he will still need a front setback on the boathouse though.
George Holmes stated, yes, that I can’t get away from.
Director Weaver stated, there is no way for him to get around a variance on the boathouse.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
Attorney Altman stated, unless he just doesn’t put a boathouse in.
George Holmes stated, well if, I took the 2nd floor down already it’s built, it’s right now stands as it was built.
Attorney Altman stated, no I don’t mean that I’m just, I’m talking hypothetically.
George Holmes stated, I couldn’t remove it but, okay. I couldn’t remove it though, theoretically I couldn’t remove it without the hill behind it falling into the lake.
Charlie Mellon stated, yes, yes. What you got left is on the lower foundation.
George Holmes stated, yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, same foundation.
George Holmes stated, 3 foundation walls and, which are build into the side of the hill. About a 30’ hill, it’s a nice size hill.
President Stimmel stated, Jerry but to get back to your question I think its legitimate is that we need to have some form of documentation to verify that he has accomplished these things.
Charlie Mellon stated, purchased.
Jerry Thompson asked, have you had any response from either of his neighbors? I mean is there anyone here?
Director Weaver stated, I don’t believe we have since the last meeting, no.
Jerry Thompson stated, I can’t believe they haven’t come forward.
George Holmes asked, to do what?
Charlie Mellon stated, more than twice.
Jerry Thompson stated, well but…
Charlie Mellon stated, he’s across the water anyway.
Jerry Thompson stated, well yes.
Dave Scott stated, it’s hard to tell who’s encroaching on who is the bad thing.
President Stimmel stated, okay, all right.
George Holmes stated, well first of all…
Jerry Thompson stated, I guess I’m in a bad mood tonight, I don’t know.
George Holmes stated, before I proceed with filing for any variances I am going have to acquire the land needed from the neighbors to eliminate the side yard variance. I’ll have documentation once that’s done. I have been talking to the neighbor.
Jerry Thompson stated, good.
George Holmes stated, it takes a little time.
Jerry Thompson stated, I understand, I know it does. I’m just…
President Stimmel stated, we appreciate you bringing us up to date Mr. Holmes and I think that’s what all this is, is just to try to bring us up to speed on what the plan is and unless there’s some objection or further discussion on it…
George Holmes stated, now I’m thinking I’d need at least 90 days to follow through a good plan.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, that would mostly involve the acquisition of the land.
President Stimmel stated, all right. Gerald any more questions?
Gerald Cartmell asked, how many, what did you say your taking off the garage?
George Holmes stated, the garage would be 8’ off of the…
Charlie Mellon stated, north side.
George Holmes stated, north side.
Charlie Mellon stated, its 5’ out in the lane.
Attorney Altman stated, the east side.
George Holmes stated, the east side, the east yes.
Charlie Mellon stated, the east side yes.
Dave Scott stated, that’d put him back 5’ so then he doesn’t need a variance for that.
Charlie Mellon stated, that takes up the 3’ and he’s still 5’ off.
Gerald Cartmell stated, so he doesn’t need a variance then.
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel stated, well that portion, yes.
George Holmes asked, right?
President Stimmel stated, right on that portion.
Gerald Cartmell stated, but he does on the side.
Dave Scott stated, well then that is the property he’s going to acquire.
Director Weaver stated, not if he buys more property.
Dave Scott stated, I think he’s going to try to buy…
Gerald Cartmell asked, is there a crooked line down through there evidently?
Director Weaver stated, that’s what you’re going to wind up with.
George Holmes stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, but I think so far in doing that, that it will actually improve the neighbors because weren’t you discussing swapping some property with them so that their house doesn’t encroach?
George Holmes stated, yes but they didn’t sound, they sound too agreeable with that idea. There not concerned about their encroachment and that’s fine with me it’s really, you know it’s up to them, not up to me.
President Stimmel stated, okay. Dave? Charlie?
Charlie Mellon stated, no.
President Stimmel asked, Jerry?
Jerry Thompson asked, 90 days, is that okay with you guys?
Dave Scott stated, we’ll try that and if he can’t get it done with that he’ll have to come back for more time if he can’t get the property acquired by then or if there’s an agreement.
President Stimmel asked, so by the March meeting?
Jerry Thompson stated, that’s 60 days, 75. Yes I’d say by the March meeting, yes the March meeting.
Director Weaver stated, he should be on your March agenda is what you’re saying.
Jerry Thompson stated, yes, yes. That’ll give you almost 90 days, won’t it?
George Holmes stated, yes.
President Stimmel asked, can you get an update I guess is what we’re saying by our March meeting?
Jerry Thompson stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, give you 90, about 90 days.
George Holmes stated, hopefully be on the March’s agenda for the, hopefully just one variance.
President Stimmel stated, for the variance, yes, okay. Jerry do we need another motion for that regard?
Attorney Altman stated, I don’t think so not on this.
President Stimmel asked, just discussion?
Attorney Altman stated, yes.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Attorney Altman stated, the only thing is, is make sure that in the mean time that there’s nothing you’re doing that violates the ordinance.
George Holmes stated, oh no, I understand that.
Attorney Altman stated, okay.
George Holmes stated, I mean I’ll be chopping it down, I won’t be building nothing. I’ll be chopping it up.
President Stimmel stated, all right.
George Holmes stated, no matter what this plan is going require a chop down, the garage to a shed.
President Stimmel stated, thank you very much Mr. Holmes, I appreciate it, all right. Any other business before the Board?
Director Weaver stated, we did have another violation at the last meeting. I have not heard anything from her that was for Malysa and Tadevich.
President Stimmel stated, yes.
Director Weaver stated, I don’t know where that stands. I will try to go check on that property before the next meeting next week.
President Stimmel asked, she was going to have to tear that off wasn’t she?
Director Weaver stated, yes and well she still needs a building permit too because she hasn’t gotten a building permit and I haven’t heard any more from her she came in right after the meeting and brought her sign in but I will check on it.
Charlie Mellon stated, that’s a couple of meetings back.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, well, we actually voted on it last month.
Charlie Mellon stated, oh.
Director Weaver stated, it started longer ago than that. We voted on it last month.
President Stimmel stated, okay.
Director Weaver stated, that’s all I have.
****
President Stimmel asked, ready to adjourn?
Charlie Mellon 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.”
_________________________________________________