Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY AUGUST 18, 2011

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, White County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were:  Gerald Cartmell, Carl Hites, David Hall, Richard Holmes, Dave Rosenbarger.  Absent:  None.  Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers.

Visitors attending were:  See attached

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerald Cartmell.  Shaker Hites motioned to accept the minutes of June 16, 2011 as written.  Dave Rosenbarger seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.   

#2856  James P Davis & David A Roth; Lots No. 43 and 44 located in the W. J. R. Addition to the City of Monticello, as per plat thereof recorded in the Recorder’s Office of White County, Indiana; more commonly known as 128 N. Railroad St.
Violation:  Abated with this application
Request:  The applicant requests a Special Exception Use to operate a tattoo parlor

Director Rogers showed photos of the property and described the request.  David Roth and Leland “Buddy” Wicker were present to represent the request.   Mr. Roth stated that he and Buddy are two of the three owners.  The third owner, James Davis, could not be present as he was working.  Mr. Roth and Mr. Davis are both employed by the White County Sheriff’s Department.  Their business is commonly known as “the cop shop”.  They have a clean, sterile environment that the neighbors frequent.  They have been in operation since December 20, 2010 and get 5 – 15 clients per day by appointment.  They have 27 parking places in their lot.   They operate a motorcycle sales business out of the same location. 
Eric Storm, Reynolds Deputy, Monticello City Councilman and White County Employee,  stated that he has known the applicants for some time, that they are running a legal, lawful business and the traffic is no worse than it was for the muffler shop that existed on the site previously. 
Ken Houston, teacher, said in his opinion we couldn’t have a better place or better people running, with a cop always in attendance.
Lori Cheever, Washington Street neighbor, said they have fixed up the building, have had no neighborhood complaints and are a positive influence on the community.

Shaker Hites motioned and Dave Hall seconded to vote on the petition.  Result:  5 votes cast; 4 grant; 1 deny 

Findings of Fact

1    Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance does authorize the special exception for this use in this zoning district.   5-0
2    The requirements and development standards for the requested use as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance will be met.   5-0
3    Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance.   5-0 
4    Granting the special exception will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same district because of:
a.    Traffic generation.   5-0; should help; off street parking
b.    Noise production.   5-0; N/A
c.    Becoming hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses.   4-1; Just because cops own shop it could still be disturbing to that part of town
d.    Destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance.   5-0
e.    Becoming detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.   5-0; class act
****

#2857  Joseph Elliott; Part of Lots 55 and 56 in the Original Plat to the city of Monticello, in Union Township, White County, Indiana; more commonly described as 130 N. Main St.
Violation:  Abated with this application
Request:  The applicant requests a Special Exception Use to operate a tattoo parlor.  

Director Rogers showed photos of the property and described the request.  He read the
letter of support (attached) into the record from WMRS radio that was received by the
Area Plan office after the meeting packets were sent out.  He also mentioned that he
spoke with Mayor Thompson and a City Councilman, both of whom stated their were no
community, municipal or personal objections to the petition.  Joseph Elliott and Shauna
Allen were present to represent the request.  Ms. Allen produced a letter of support
signed by area business people.  She stated that they are working hard to make a positive
impact on Main Street in Monticello.  Mr. Elliott said he has been in business for more
than 25 years and his business is not seedy, it is more upscale than average.  He opened at
this location on July 28, 2011 and is open from 12pm – 7pm Monday through Thursday
and from 12pm – 10pm Friday and Saturday. 
Joseph & Shauna’s mother, C. Allen spoke next.  She said the studio is clean and orderly.
She also mentioned that her parents, owners of Kelley’s Interiors, are supportive along
with much of the community.  Dave Hall motioned to vote.  Shaker Hites seconded. 
Before the vote was concluded, Chairman Cartmell asked about placing a condition upon
the granting of the use that had been discussed earlier.  Attorney Diener said the
condition could still be voted upon since the ballots were not yet complete.  Dave
Rosenbarger moved to require the condition that the applicant be reviewed in six (6)
months to determine that he is in compliance with all ordinances and his business has not
become a public nuisance or caused undue disturbances to the downtown area.  Shaker
Hites seconded.  The motion passed with a 4-1 vote with Richard Holmes voting against
it.  The board then submitted their ballots with the condition becoming part of the petition.  Result:  5 votes cast; 2 grant; 3 deny
Note: After the ballots were cast and results read by the Chairman, it was determined that one of the ballots cast was invalid nullifying that ballot resulting in a 2 -2 tie vote and no official action taken by the Board.  The petition is thus  continued until the next meeting.

Findings of Fact

1.    Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance does authorize the special exception for this use in this zoning district.   4 grant-0 deny-1 invalid; wrong type of front for downtown
2.    The requirements and development standards for the requested use as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance will be met.   4 grant-0 deny-1 invalid
3.    Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance.   4 grant-0 deny-1 invalid 
4.    Granting the special exception will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same district because of:
a.    Traffic generation.   4 grant-0 deny-1 invalid; street parking 2 hr
b.    Noise production.   4 grant-0 deny-1 invalid
c.    Becoming hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses.   3 grant-1 deny-1  invalid; parking limited in front; need to be located with more parking and diff location; review in 6 months
d.    Destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance.   3 grant-0 deny-1 abstain-1 invalid
e.    Becoming detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.   2 grant-1 deny-1 invalid; with comments on facebook I question his family values
****

#2858  Sandor Development Company; Lots 8, 9 and 10 in Turner’s Addition to the City of Monticello, Indiana; more commonly described as 834 N. Main St.
Violation:  None
Request:  The applicant requests a north front setback of 3 ½’ to expand the building.  The front setback requirement in a B-2, General Business zoning district is 30’.  

Director Rogers showed photos and video to describe the variance request.  Bill Niemier
and Jason Oskay were present to represent Sandor Development.  Mr. Niemier explained
that their prospective national retail tenant requires 800 – 900 more square feet than the
building currently provides.  They intend to add the necessary square footage to the rear
of the structure, however because of the configuration of the parcel, the addition is
impossible without a variance, thereby creating a practical difficulty.  Jason Oskay stated
that Sandor intends to renovate the building including sidewalks and parking lot.  The
prospective tenant will be a permanent year round tenant signing a 10-year lease rather
than the current fireworks tenant that is in house for six (6) weeks out of the year.  If the
renovations are complete, Advance Auto, a current tenant in the structure, will sign a new
five (5) year lease.  Shaker Hites motioned to vote on the request with a second by Dave
Rosenbarger. Result:  5 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
****

As there was no further business, Richard Holmes motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 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.”____________________________