Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY JUNE 16, 2011

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, White County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were:  Carl Hites, David Hall, Richard Holmes, Dave Rosenbarger.  Absent:  Gerald Cartmell.  Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers.

Visitors attending were:  Cory Kruega, Chad Eldridge, Nancy Loy, John Loy, Breanne Snyder

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Shaker Hites.  Dave Hall motioned to accept the minutes of April 21, 2011 as written.  Dave Rosenbarger seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.   

#2855  Cory Kruega; The East half (1/2) of the North half (1/2) of the East half (1/2) of lot numbered seven hundred thirty-eight (738) in William Raub’s Second Addition to the Town of Chalmers, Big Creek Township, White County, Indiana; commonly described as 207 W. East Street.
Violation:  None
Request:  The applicant requests a 13’ front setback to build a front porch and a 5’ east side setback for an attached garage.  The required setback in the R-2 zoning district is 30’ front; 10’ side.

Director Rogers showed photos and video of the property and described the request.  He stated Area Plan has received more positive support from the community than he can

remember ever receiving for a variance and nothing at all negative.  He requested the board consider this variance with the condition that the agreement between the petitioner and

the property owner to the east to transfer 10 feet of land along the east side of the proposed garage site be executed.  The southeast end of the land transfer will have to angle to

the southwest in order to split the 10’ gap which exists between the proposed garage and the pole barn on the neighbor’s property.  This will leave the southeast corner of the

proposed garage 5’ from the property line, as well as the pole barn next door, which is the reason for the variance request.  Cory Kruega was in attendance to represent the request.

He mentioned that he’s been working on this project for four years.  The Town of Chalmers requested that he improve the property from the condition it was in when he purchased it.

He can not do what he wants to with the property because of the small size of the lot.  The Board had no questions for Cory.  John Loy, the adjoining neighbor to the east who has

agreed to give up ten feet of his property to help Cory, stated that he is in complete support of this variance and of Cory’s project.  Cory is a hard worker, has done all the work

himself along with working a full time job, and Cory is improving the looks of the neighborhood immensely.  The Board had no questions for Mr. Loy.  Vice Chairman Hites asked Cory

if he had a particular preference as to what order the variances be addressed.  Cory did not.     

Front Setback:  Dave Hall motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded to vote on the request.  Result:  4 votes cast; 3 grant; 1 deny 

Findings of Fact

1.    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   4-0
2.    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   4-0 
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.   4-0
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.   3-1
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.  3-1
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.   3-1

Side Setback:  Dave Hall motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded that prior to voting on the side setback request, the board place the condition that the petitioner must complete the transfer of ten feet of property from the neighboring lot to the east to the petitioner’s lot before proceeding with construction if the variance is granted.  The Board voted 4-0 to accept the condition and vote on the variance request.  Result:  4 votes cast; 4 grant; 0 deny 

Findings of Fact

1    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   4-0
2    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   4-0 
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.   4-0
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.   4-0
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.  4-0
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.   4-0

****

As there was no further business, Richard Holmes motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm.  So moved.

****
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.”____________________________