Get Adobe Flash player

 

 

 

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

 The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

 Members attending were:  David Scott, Charles Mellon, David Hall, Shaker Hites and Gerald Cartmell.  Absent:  None.  Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers.

 Visitors attending were:  Brad Gutwein

 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerald Cartmell.   

#2845  Gutwein Motor Co, Inc; All of Lot Thirty-six (36) and forty-three (43) feet of the entire South side of Lot Thirty-four (34).  Also seventeen (17) feet off the North side of Lot Number Thirty-four (34) and twenty-three (23) feet off the

South side of Lot Number Thirty-two (32), all on Market Street in the original plat of the town of New Bedford, now Monon, White County, Indiana; more commonly known as 300 N. Market St.
  Violation:  None
 Request:  The applicant requests a 0’ rear setback to expand their parts dept.  The required setback in the B-2 (General Business) zoning district is 30’.

Director Rogers described the request.  He explained Gutwein Motors desires to tear down an existing building to add on to their parts department.  The proposed addition would be a two-story building constructed 4’ from the alley on the

west side of the property (rear) along with an outside staircase also on the west property line.  Brad Gutwein was present to represent the request.  Dave Hall asked two questions:  Can the stairway be constructed inside the building? 

Brad answered no because fire code demands an exit from the second floor; Why doesn’t the town just close the alley?  Dave Scott and Brad replied that the alley is a utility easement for storm sewers, electrical, etc.  Dave Hall then asked

why the staircase could not be located on the north end of the building and Brad said per fire code the building must have a door within a certain number of linear feet so the door must be on the west wall of the structure.  Dave Hall moved

that a vote be taken.  Carl Hites seconded.  Result:  Five votes cast; 5 grant; 0 deny

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0
2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 
3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0
4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   5-0
5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not       

          based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  5-0
6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and 

                building.   5-0
****

#2846  Gutwein Motor Co, Inc;  Lot Number Thirty-five (35)  and Thirty-six (36) feet off the South end of Lot Number Thirty-three (33) on Arch Street, in the Original Plat of the Town of Monon, Indiana; more commonly known as 301 N Arch

St.
 Violation:  None
Request:  The applicant requests a 0’ front setback on the west and a 3.9’ north side setback.  The required setback in the B-2 (General Business) zoning district is 30’ front and 10’ side.

Director Rogers explained that in researching the property, the Area Plan office discovered the survey for a previous variance (#2254) on the same parcel did not match the present survey for the parcel.  Both surveys were completed by

the same surveyor.  The newer survey shows an encroachment in the Town of Monon’s road right-of-way.  A third survey, prepared by a different surveyor, has become the official survey to determine the property lines.  Joe stated the new

survey indicates a 3.9’ side setback rather than the 4’ setback initially applied for with the previous survey.  Joe further stated that the board would be voting on a 0’ front setback as the encroachment issue shall be determined by the Town

of Monon and that the board would be voting on each setback on separate ballots.  Shaker Hites asked if the Area Plan office had received any feedback regarding the request.  Joe stated that the office had received none.  Shaker then

asked Mr. Gutwein if the neighbor to the north was in agreement with the variance.  Brad answered that the neighbor was in full agreement.  Shaker Hites motioned that a vote be taken.  Charlie Mellon seconded.  Result:  3.9’ north side

setback, five votes cast, 5 grant, 0 deny  

Findings of Fact

7. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0
8. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 
9. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   5-0
11. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not       

         based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  5-0
12. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and 

                building.   5-0

Result:  0’ front (west) setback, five votes cast, 5 grant, 0 deny

Findings of Fact

13. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0
14. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 
15. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0
16. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   5-0
17. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not       

         based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  5-0
18. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and 

               building.   5-0

****
This being a special meeting, no business other than these two variance requests was discussed.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm.

****
Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________
Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary
Area Board of Zoning Appeals

________________________________________
Joseph W. Rogers, Director
White County Area Plan Commission

Document Prepared By: Gayle E. Rogers, WCAP  “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.”____________________________