Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY JULY 19, 2012

 

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, White County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

 

Members attending were: Carl Hites, Dennis Sterrett, Richard Holmes. Absent: Dave Rosenbarger. Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers

 

Visitors attending were: Mitchell E Billue, Nole Schaefer

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hites. First order of business was the meeting minutes of June 21, 2012. Denny Sterrett motioned to accept the minutes as written. Richard Holmes seconded. The motion passed with a 3-0 vote. Chairman Hites announced that there were three members present and a minimum of three votes is required to grant or deny any variance. The petitioners have the option to be heard at this meeting or to continue to the next meeting. Any petitioner may request up to two continuances on a petition. Both petitioners agreed to be heard at this meeting.

 

#2869 White County Agriculture Association; That part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 27 North, Range 4 West of the Town of Reynolds, Honey Creek Township containing 14.50 acres and 1.91 acres more or less AND that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 27 North, Section 4 West of the Town of Reynolds, Honey Creek Township containing 3.487 acres and 1.30 acres and 1.113 acres more or less; more commonly known as White County Fairgrounds, 12 N 25 E, Reynolds.

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests an exemption from all sections of the Zoning Ordinance, primarily Chapter 10, which limit the number of signs allowed in an A-1 (General Agriculture) zoning district

 

Director Rogers reviewed the petition for the Board and announced that he would be representing the applicant per the applicant’s request. Mr. Rogers also informed the Board that the office received no opposition to this petition. Mr. Rogers explained that when the sign ordinance was amended, the amendment didn’t account for signage allowances for commercial applications existing or allowed in an A-1 zoning district. A-1 properties are allowed only one sign that is not agricultural related. The zoning ordinance has thus created a hardship for the Fairgrounds since it would be impossible to safely or effectively conduct Fairground activities without numerous signs. A hardship is a higher level standard than that of a practical difficulty thus more than satisfying the statutory requirements to qualify for a variance. The intent of the request is to exempt the petitioner from any part of the ordinance (especially Chapter 10) limiting the number of signs allowed on their parcel. Richard Holmes motioned to vote on the petition followed by a Denny Sterrett second. Result: 3 votes cast; 3 grant; 0 deny; Petition is granted.

 

Findings of Fact

 

  1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 3-0

  2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

****

 

#2870 City of Monticello; That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Four, Township Twenty-six North, Range Three West in the City of Monticello, Union Township, White County, Indiana containing 9.190, .585, 2.709 and 4.025 acres; more commonly known as 724 S. Main Street.

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a 7’ parking setback and exemption from the curb requirement for the parking lot island. The required setback in the B-2, General Business zoning district is 30’.

 

Mitch Billue was present to represent the request. Director Rogers stated the office had two inquiries regarding the request and neither had any objections. Mr. Billue provided a graphic display of the park plans and explained to the Board what the city intends to do as far as a nature park. Mr. Billue explained the needs for the variance requests. Mr. Sterrett clarified the parking location which would be 7 feet behind the right-of-way line, not 7’ behind the sidewalk, resulting in parking being 17 feet behind the sidewalk. Several questions were asked concerning the parking lot island, the location which has been requested to be exempt from the curbing requirement of the ordinance. The island in the center of the parking lot will be a rain garden. The parking lot will be sloped so that the water from the parking lot flows into the island. The island will have a drain in the center which will then capture any excess water and direct it to an appropriate location, possibly to a stream or water fall. Denny Sterrett motioned to vote on the petition and Richard Holmes seconded. Result: 3 votes cast; 3 grant; 0 deny; Petition is granted.

 

Findings of Fact

 

  1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 3-0

  2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

  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. 3-0

****

Business

The BZA By-Laws will be continued to the next BZA meeting.

 

****

 

As there was no further business, Richard Holmes motioned to adjourn, seconded by Denny Sterrett; President Hites adjourned the meeting at 7:30 pm.; unanimously approved.

****

Respectfully submitted,

 

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary Joseph W. Rogers, Executive Director

Area Board of Zoning Appeals 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.”____________________________