Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, August 16, 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, Dave Rosenbarger. Absent: None. Also attending were Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers

Visitors attending were: Larry & Helen Keesling, Dean Trennapohl, John & Terri Raines, Wayne Holmes

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hites. First order of business was the meeting minutes of July 19, 2012. Richard Holmes motioned to accept the minutes as written. Dave Rosenbarger seconded. The motion passed with a 4-0 vote. Chairman Hites announced that there were four 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.

#2871 Larry & Helen Keesling; Lot Number 35 in “Isle of Homes” Subdivision situated in Section 8, 9, and 16, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Union and Liberty Township, White County, Indiana; more commonly known as 5091 E Bluebird Ct.

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a 652.2’ elevation. The flood protection grade is 654’. The maximum variance possible is two feet below flood protection grade, 652’.

1. Director Rogers explained to the board that upon visiting the site on both the 6th and 7th, the required notification sign was not posted. It was required to be posted by midnight August 5th. Since the notification period was not met, the petition could not be heard. Mr. Keesling stated that he had a doctor’s appointment on the 6th and was going to post the sign when he got home. The doctor put him immediately into the hospital where he remained all week. He called his son who posted the sign on the 8th. He didn’t think missing the posting requirement by a couple days would matter. Richard Holmes motioned to continue the request to the next meeting; Dave Rosenbarger seconded; the motion passed with a vote of 4 – 0.


#2872 River Terrace MHP, LP & Promiseland Two MHP, LLC; That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, Union Township, White County, Indiana containing 2.30 acres more or less; more commonly known as 1904 N Francis St.

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a 10’ northeast front setback for the house; a 49’ lot width rather than the required 60’; a 26’ front setback for a mobile home and deck; a 10’ rear setback for a mobile home and a 12’ rear setback for a mobile home; to subdivide out the house from the mobile home park. The required front and rear setbacks in the R-2, Single and Two-Family zoning district, are 30’.

Director Rogers informed the board that the applicants wish to subdivide out the existing house with a small lot in the middle of their mobile home park. Doing so will create several non-conformances that will require variances to bring them into compliance before a minor subdivision may be granted. Wayne Holmes stated that he and Dean Trennapohl closed on the sale of the mobile home park on May 31, 2012. They do not own any single family residential homes for rental and do not intend to own any. They do not own the mobile homes, only the land and they rent the lots, not the structures. Upon questions from the board, Mr. Rogers clarified that the variances, if granted, would pertain to only the existing structures. If the structures were altered or destroyed by more than 50% of their assessed value, any repair or new construction would be subject to current setbacks at the time. John Raines of Twin Lakes Fish & Game asked for confirmation that if a trailer was moved or destroyed, a new trailer would have to comply with setbacks and therefore be much smaller than any current trailer. This was confirmed. Mr. Holmes was given the choice of one ballot for all the variances in total or separate ballots for each variance. He chose one ballot because losing any one issue would negate the subdivision project. Dave Rosenbarger moved to vote on the petition. Denny Sterrett seconded. Result: 4 votes cast; 0 grant; 4 deny; Petition is denied.

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 2 favorable; house is already there – 2 non-favorable; R 1 house would be in the middle of trailer park; this would create a single family residence as an island within the mobile home park

2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 2 favorable – 2 non-favorable; new owner would possibly not be able to rebuild without another variance; there is the likely scenario of a residence either unoccupied or marginally kept

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. 1 favorable; they own mobile home park adjacent – 3 non-favorable; putting a house in the middle of trailer park; the single dwelling would not be under the new ownership and could deteriorate and further cause property issues; there is the likely scenario of a residence either unoccupied or marginally kept

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. 0 favorable – 4 non-favorable; house lot size & area adjacent to trailers is too close; the “neighboring” property owners are in the mobile home business and do not wish to enjoy the right of single family home ownership

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. 0 favorable – 4 non-favorable; lot is too small causing setback problems off site; parking would become issue of single dwelling and the comment from the floor was they would not invest in single residence, it would deteriorate; based on economic gain; the owners wish to be mobile home park owners and this property as is can apparently be a mobile home park

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. 1 favorable; lot size too small – 3 non-favorable; allowing this lot causes mobile homes to have setback problems; it would be severe due to the many dimensions to several lots including the single dwelling’s. Several 20’ dimension is too much for a property to be considered; a reasonable use of the land is possible without variance.


#2873 George Nastepniak; Lots Numbered Forty (40) and Thirty-nine (39) in Elmer Girtz’s Camp in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana, more commonly known as 4875 E Elmer Girtz Drive

Violation: None

Request: The applicant requests a 21’ front setback. The required setback in the L-1 zoning district is 30’.



BZA By-Laws: Following discussion Richard Holmes motioned that a special meeting be called to discuss the by-laws only. Dave Rosenbarger seconded. The motion passed with a 4 – 0 vote. Chairman Hites will request a special meeting. Secretary Rogers will set a date and time and notify board members accordingly.


As there was no further business, Dave Rosenbarger motioned to adjourn, seconded by Richard Holmes followed by a unanimous vote; President Hites adjourned the meeting at 8:25 pm.


Respectfully submitted,


Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary

Area Board of Zoning Appeals


Joseph W. Rogers, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission