TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. August 17, 2009

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS August 17, 2009 The Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, August 17, In attendance were Ms. Duffer, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Monnett and Mr. Gibbs. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Duffer made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Monnett reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Tonight our first hearing is BZA Mr. James said our first petition tonight is actually an administrative appeal. My interpretation that the use and structure at 150 N. Center Street; which at one time was a six unit multi-family apartment in the R-4 District, has lost its legal nonconforming. Here is the property here at 150 N. Center. It is in the middle of the R-4 zoning district. The property has about 6,800 square feet. To give you a little history about this on February 9, 2007 a fire did considerable damage to the structure. Before the structure was a legal nonconforming six unit apartment building in the R-4 District. The owner at the time of the fire did not repair the building within six months of the fire. The building was abandoned and a tax lien was put on the property and the bank foreclosed on the property and the bank deeded the property to the Hendricks County Drug Enforcement Task Force. So, the structure was never repaired and the Town had to go in and secure the property to keep people from entering the unsafe building. So, at the end of 2008 Mr. Vinod Gupta obtained the rights to the building by the tax sale. This is a better view of the property. There are seven parking spaces at the rear of the building. This is an alley that runs along the building. The building is non-compliant with some development standards, the side yard setbacks and with the number of parking spaces for a six unit apartment building you have to have two spaces for each unit. So, with only seven spaces it didn t comply with the required off street parking and then also it doesn t comply with the lot coverage for the R-4 District. The building covers over 36% of the property and the maximum is 35%.! 1

2 Here is a photograph of the building and its current condition; the front from Center Street and then the rear of the property. Here is the parking spaces back here. Article 9.1 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance provides regulations for legally established nonconforming uses and structures. In looking at that I made my decision that the property had lost its legally established nonconforming status because if it was abandoned for any period of time, the use was discontinuous for more than six months and the structure was destroyed over two-third of its market value. I already mentioned the noncomplying development standards. In addition to those the building also does not comply with several building codes. That was discovered after the fire marshal did an inspection of the structure after the fire. The petitioner has not provided evidence that the structure was not destroyed over two-thirds of its market value. So, considering these standards I made the interpretation that the structure had lost its legal nonconforming status and the petitioner wanted to appeal my decision saying that the property was in control of the government, therefore, it restricted impeded access to the premises. So, tonight if the board finds that the government did actually impede the access to the premises and the use of the structure has not lost its legally established nonconforming rights, then repairs can be done to the structure to continue the use as a six unit apartment building in the R-4 District. But it still must comply with the building codes. It would need repairs to comply with those codes. Another option is if the board finds that the government action did not impede access to the premises, then the use shall be discontinued. This leaves the following options: It has to revert back to the original intended purpose and use, which is a single-family home, which would be compatible with the R-4 zoning district. Also, that would be the purpose and intent of the Article 9.1, which does not encourage the continued use of legally established nonconforming structures and uses. So, if you find that it did lose its legal nonconforming status, another option would be for the petitioner to reuse the building for apartments he would have to come back to the board to seek a Variance of Use and a variance from two of the development standards, the seven parking spaces that would be put off off-street parking for three units. So, with that I will have a seat and I believe there is someone here representing the petitioner. Ms. Cathy Arzola said I represent Vinod Gupta. My address is 330 S. Vine Street, Indianapolis, I have been a real estate agent since 1998 and currently retired to become an asset manager for Vinod Gupta and some other investors. He resides in Boca Raton, Florida. We are here about the property located at 150 N. Center Street and according to the Plainfield zoning as we see it the concerns of the board is the parking and the reduction of the fair market value due to the fire. We would like to propose that the property can be utilized by asking for a multi-family variance for three units but we are not opposed to a duplex. I have some documentation from the assessor s office, which kind of shows the transfer of ownership and I have copies! 2

3 if everybody wants them. As you see on the transfer of ownership on the top in the middle it shows that Mr. Gupta received the property on March 17, It also shows that on January 16, 2008 that the Hendricks County Drug Task Force is when they had the property put into their name. Prior to that the bank had it and then the original owner that we are talking about left it in the condition that it is in. But the purpose of this is basically to show that the property was zoned for multi-family and the use of multi-family being unused for six months. The fire did occur when Mr. Smith owned the property, which was somewhere, I don t know what date that was, but he had the date. There was fire damage that occurred to two units of the seven unit apartment building. There are seven units in this building. The two units that had the fire damage were contained to those two units. There is a firewall down the middle of both levels so the fire was contained to just those two units. Inside of the units just the first two rooms of each unit, the first room of each unit was damaged as far as fire goes but there is smoke damage on the inside but can be fixed. We just don t know how long the property was vacant but because it took the ownership of March 2009 we feel that we are within the six month requirements for a variance. As soon as we found out, as soon as we got notification, we immediately started seeing what we could do to make this right. We would like to bring the property up to code and guidelines provided by the City of Plainfield. According to the zoning and planning there are currently seven parking spaces and each apartment must contain two parking units, which we understand that. With the dimensions and the setbacks and all of that there is just not the space so we understand that this no longer can be a seven unit apartment complex. But we would like to consider it three units, therefore, that would provide one extra space for additional guests. Of the three units that we are proposing one of them is an efficiency one room. The other two would be possibly three to four bedrooms. We have also looked at the fair market value, which was the second thing that they are trying to determine. It has been determined to be $85, and that is on your paperwork in the middle where it says valuation records, 2009, and if you go to the bottom, it shows that they did the fair market value at $85, I do have a small CMA that shows there is a current listing that is pending that is similar. The problem with this property is that according to the assessor s office there is 4,900 square feet, livable square feet. So, it is really hard to find comps comparable to that. So, what I did go on was based on four units and, of course, this is in good condition. So, based on the first one at the top, which is pending right now, it is a four unit and it is 3,200 square feet. It is on street parking and unpaved, which is similar to our conditions and they have it listed for $199, I don t know what the sales price is going to be but according to the current fair market value similar properties could not be found on the square footage or units but you can look at similar multi-family units that run between 3,000 to 4,000 square foot in good condition; based on that it would be around $190, Based on the four units on the condition of property located at 150 N. Center the fair market value would fall $80, to $100, in good condition. Based on the visual inspections of the burned units there is damage to each unit as I described. Therefore, the burned units are not a total loss but we would welcome any kind of reports that would! 3

4 state what work has to be done on those units. We just don t have that information for you now because we just didn t know about the seven apartments verses what we actually could get out of the parking lot. So, based on the $80, and let s say we take $10, damage for each unit then we are looking at $60, and that is only a quarter of a loss; it is not the two-thirds loss. Also, per the assessment records this property was assessed for $99, for the tax year of 2006 and $134, for 2007 and $85, for 2008 and 2009, which again we went to the fair market value so that is where we are right now. Five units are not damaged and I can personally take anybody there to inspect the building but we still think the fair market value is only 20-25% but certainly not over 66.67%, which is two-thirds of its value. Based on the evidence provided we would like to receive a variance for the proposed rehabbing of the multi-family home into three units, which falls into the parking guidelines and the fair market value guidelines. If for some reason the board does not approve the three units, we alternatively request that it approves two units just like the adjacent building, which is north which shall be furnished promptly. We are committed to fixing the property and providing the community with affordable housing and a property that can be viewed as an asset to the community. We do have some quotes on the exterior and that is what we would start on first. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Daniel said Ms. Arzola I think I should tell you there is no variance petition pending before the board tonight. The only issue before the board tonight is whether or not this property has lost its preexisting nonconforming use as a result of the fire and the fact that the apartments became vacant after that and it has not been utilized as an apartment building since then. This board tonight can t grant a variance or hear any evidence on a variance. It is just a question whether or not this board finds evidence that it has lost its status as a preexisting nonconforming use. Ms. Arzola said okay. Mr. Daniel asked, can I ask you a few questions please? Ms. Arzola said yes. Mr. Daniel said Mr. Arzola bought this at a tax sale I believe. Ms. Arzola said Mr. Gupta did. Mr. Daniel said I m sorry; he paid $22, for it? Ms. Arzola said yes I think it is somewhere in that range. Mr. Daniel said don t you think that established the fair market value of the property at that time. Ms. Arzola said not typically. Mr. Daniel said isn t that a public sale of this between an arms length and buyer and seller?! 4

5 Ms. Arzola said yes it is. Mr. Daniel said the fire occurred on February 9, 2007 and I think that was vacant until Mr. Gupta in fact it was vacant even past that. He purchased it September 27, Over six months had passed when he purchased this at the tax sale isn t that correct? Ms. Arzola said you have to wait two years before you can get it so he got it in 2009, is that what you re saying? Mr. Daniel said but the sale occurred on September 27 th, about eight months after the fire, isn t that correct? Ms. Arzola said okay. I mean that is somewhat correct but you don t get a deed to the property and cannot access the property until Mr. Daniel said I know he didn t get a deed but he purchased it at the tax sale. I believe I m correct that Mr. Smith gave the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure and then the bank gave the Hendricks County Drug Task Force a deed in lieu of foreclosure, is that your understanding? Ms. Arzola said that is my understanding. Mr. Daniel said so all three of those were owners. They were not operating as any government entity at that time were they? Ms. Arzola said I don t know about the drug task force. Mr. Daniel said but they took that as an owner didn t they? They took a deed on that property. Ms. Arzola asked, are they a government entity? Mr. Daniel said they are but they took it as an owner and not as a result of any independent government action. Ms. Arzola said okay. Mr. Daniel asked, do you agree with that? Ms. Arzola said I guess. Mr. Daniel said and then the redemption period expired I think September 27, 2008 and Mr. Gupta then got a deed in 2009, is that correct? Ms. Arzola said yes. Mr. Daniel said and that property had no use as a multi-family dwelling during that entire period of time of about two years, isn t that correct? Ms. Arzola said we are not allowed to access the property or do anything with that property until we get a deed so I would assume and that is all that I would be able to do is assume.! 5

6 Mr. Daniel said that s all I have thank you. Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on behalf of this petition for or against this administrative issue? Mr. Cecil Pugh said I m the owner of the property next door north of the double. Mr. Monnett asked, would you state your address too please? Mr. Pugh said I don t live at this property, it is a rental property. I ve owned this property since about Mr. Monnett said if I could interrupt you, what is your address though? Mr. Pugh said 630 Overlook Trail, Plainfield, Indiana, I would like to say first that I m pleasantly pleased that some kind of action has been taken on this building to go somewhere with it because I have owned that property next to it since 1984 or so. I ve completely remodeled it inside and out and I try to keep it rented and for years when somebody comes to look at my property that I have put thousands of dollars in and pay taxes on it and all that a citizen is supposed to do, they look at the property next door and they are turned off by it. So, that is why I say that I m glad that maybe something will be done with that building. It looks bad on my property and on our Town so with that said I was really concerned about how many units would be in that. If it hadn t cost so much, I would have bought it myself and tore it down. But anyway I m very concerned about there being too many apartments in that building because when it was occupied, I was constantly called by my tenants to come there and chase somebody down in one of the six or seven apartments to find who had parked over in their space. So, constantly ever since I have owned that property it has been a problem of parking. So, definitely there are not accommodations for the facility that was there the way that it was being used. I would not be opposed to it being a double. The only thought I had about that too is if you have two or three bedroom apartments in there and rent to children, people with children, where are they going to play? Where are they going to exist? That would be a downsize to that. I m not knocking Cathy; she seems like she is a very nice lady and I m glad she brought this for us to talk about tonight but I would not be opposed to it being a double or something to that affect where they would have ample parking and to park on their property and play on their property because I feel this way when we rent and my renters pay me the rent that I ask them, they ought to have their privacy to use their property for themselves and not them over there. So, my main concern would be how many units, the parking and above all of it probably is the appearance. Before the fire it was in very much disrepair and was not being fixed on the outside and looked pretty terrible so it is an eyesore and I would be glad to see something done for it. If these folks can do it, fine but there are surely not that many apartments and overloading it in the Town. But I would love to see something done to the exterior of that because there have been people coming there and get inside and then our renters are nervous because they have children because of people being inside there and what is going on and all of that. So, it is something that needs to be addressed and thank you very much.! 6

7 Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone else in the audience who would care to speak for or against this administrative appeal? Mr. Robert Ridgway at 139 N. Center Street said I live almost directly across the street from this property. We ve been there going on seven years now. This property has always been a concern to us because of the nonstop crime that it has attracted. Police are there all times of the day and night and the appearance of the structure. We put probably close to $40, into our home in the last four years and you can correct me if I m wrong, but we are in an historic district now as well. That structure does not go in our area and I m also representing my fiancée, Christine Kenworthy who also lives at the same address. We would like to recommend to the board that it be made into a single-family dwelling just because of the crime and the appearance and the detriment that it has been to our property values. Mr. Kent McPhail at 7764 Harnessmaker Court, Plainfield said I m a member of the Plainfield Town Council and I have been working with Mr. Ridgway and some of the other neighbors in this neighborhood for well over a year to correct this problem. I just believe that we have an ordinance that this property has lost its nonconforming use and I would ask you to support the decision of our Town planner that he has made in declaring that it has lost its nonconforming use. We have spent a great deal of effort trying to clean up the downtown area and I believe this is a blighted property that needs to be removed. Thank you very much. Mr. Monnett said before you speak can you take the Oath of Testimony please because you weren t here earlier. Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Rita Florentino. Ms. Florentino said I live directly across the street from that dwelling or that building and I just want to concur with the others who have stated Mr. Monnett asked, could we have your address too please? Ms. Florentino said 147 W. Center Street, Plainfield. Even if they put siding on it or whatever they would do to it, I don t think it would really it is still a building that is too close to the street. I just don t see that it would enhance our neighborhood in any way. I would also vote for the single-family or something that would enhance that property and would enhance that lot. As it is now it is an eyesore to the community. I had a personal experience with the crime in that location that somebody came and stole something from me and I had to call the police. So, the smallest number of units with the biggest possibility of having a family in there rather than having single people or low rent people would be something I think to consider. Thank you. Mr. Pugh said I would strongly favor the destruction of the building. I said I would be glad to even see this other done but my first choice was to see it gone. So, I think for the community, for me, for that area I think that would be the best choice.! 7

8 Mr. Monnett said with no one else coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for discussion or a possible motion. Mr. James said I have one correction to make. We changed the lot coverage in R-4 last year. It is not 40% so it does comply with the R-4 standard as far as lot coverage. They would not need a variance for that. Mr. Monnett said I will now open it up to our board members for discussion or a motion. Mr. Cavanaugh said my position is fairly clear. This structure has lost its legal nonconforming status due to the time period it has been abandoned and unused. The value may be up for debate but I think and agree with Mr. Daniel s comment and I think Joe made the right decision. Mr. Monnett said I agree. Mr. Cavanaugh said if there are no further comments, I would move that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny BZA as filed by Cathy Arzola for Vinod Gupta requesting an administrative appeal to allow reuse of 150 N. Center Street for a multi-family use in the R-4 Residential District. Second by Ms. Duffer. Ms. Duffer yes Mr. Cavanaugh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Monnett yes 4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-opposed. Motion carried. Mr. Monnett said our next petition is BZA Mr. James said this is a request for a Special Exception to allow the sale and serving of alcoholic beverages for Chicago s Pizza at 2230 Stafford Road, Suite 100 in the General Commercial District. This is a pretty standard procedure as far as this request. The Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Exception to serve alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial District. One of the owners is here tonight. I believe they would like to possibly open this week. They have a restaurant in Avon in a similar style shopping center. They didn t prepare a slide show but this is in the Stafford Shopping Center in the northeast corner of SR267 and Stafford Road intersection. It is right next to the Indiana Members Credit Union Bank, which is right on the corner. This tenant space is on the west end of the shopping center. They are going to take up about 3,400 square feet of the 26,000 square foot shopping center. The location will not have a bar so the serving of alcohol will be served at the tables. This will be the first restaurant in the center. There is only one other tenant space occupied, which is the UPS Store, which is right next to it. They have applied for a liquor license that will be heard in early September and they would like to go ahead and open this week but, of course, they would not serve alcohol until they got the liquor license from the Hendricks County Board. So, with that I will have a seat and Mr. Epple is here and he can answer any questions that you might have.! 8

9 Mr. Ronald Epple at 1035 Tulip Dr., Indianapolis, IN said he pretty well presented the case. There are a couple of corrections. I m involved in five other locations as part owner. There is one in Franklin, Indiana and one in Bargersville and one in Franklin Township in Indianapolis and then one in French Lick and one in Tell City, Indiana. Those are the locations that I m involved in. Four of those have a beer and wine license and none of these restaurants have ever sold more than one to two percent sales in alcohol. It is a courtesy to dad when he brings the family in. Mr. Monnett asked, what are your planned hours of operation? Mr. Epple said we open every day at 10:30 and 11:30 on Sundays. We close at 9:30 Sunday through Thursday and 10:30 on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Gibbs said the other locations that you mentioned are they Chicago s Pizzas? Mr. Epple said yes. Mr. Gibbs said and the one in Avon? Mr. Epple said I m not located in Avon. There is a Chicago s Pizza in Clermont but I m not involved in that one; that is a separate franchise. Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none I will close this portion of the hearing and open it up to the board or a possible motion. Ms. Duffer made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA as filed by Ronald W. Epple requesting a Special Exception to allow the serving of alcoholic beverages for on site consumption for Chicago s Pizza at 2230 Stafford Road, Suite 100 subject to the following condition: 1. The Special Exception is limited to Chicago s Pizza and is non transferable to a subsequent owner/operator of the tenant site. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called. Ms. Duffer yes Mr. Cavanaugh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Monnett yes 4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Monnett said our next petition tonight is BZA , Hardee s Food Systems. Ms. Sprague said we have brought some stuff back to you about Hardee s. This time we are talking about their wall signs. The same ordinance that changed the lot coverage for Joe we changed the definitions a little bit of how much wall signage is allowed. We! 9

10 decided to change it to facade plane areas instead of the whole full facade area. This is the facade plane that applies for Hardee s. It is just the tower. It seems to us that they have designed their signage so that it fits on the tower. It is not exactly a part of the building but it looks like it belongs there. Just for some numbers 10% is the area that they are allowed and 80% width is what they are allowed. In this case they would be at 22% or almost a 23% area and 96% width instead of the 10% and 80%. This is the front of the building. It is the narrowest. Under our old language, which was 10% of the whole facade this sign would have been permitted as far as the width goes and as far as the area goes. Actually, this drawing is a little bit light to be showing you on the projector but composition wise the signs look like they fit on the building. Now Staff feels that the ordinance, as it is currently written, doesn t necessarily work out for Hardee s. So, we encouraged them to apply for this variance. Basically, the only other thing is that we are working on trying to find a correction to see if we can come up with something that will accomplish both goals. But in the meantime this is what the Hardee s has been encouraged to apply for. Mr. Don Campbell said I m the Project Manager of Hardee s Food Systems at 321 Jeffries Rd., Rocky Mountain, North Carolina. The only comment that I would have is that we have added these architectural elements, which is the tower concept to add to the appearance of the building. If we would have just left it a box with a plain wall, then our sign would be in compliance. So, what we are asking is that you guys consider that in the fact that we are trying to add to the appearance of the building with an architectural element, which only exceeds out from the building, the thickness of the brick. Thank you. Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close it up to the public and open it up for discussion or a possible motion. I don t have any trouble with it. Mr. Cavanaugh said (inaudible). Mr. Monnett said I would agree with that. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA as filed by Hardee s Food Systems, Inc. requesting Variances to the Development Standards of the Sign Regulations to allow wall signage that exceeds the sign surface area and linear width per facade plane on a newly constructed Hardee s at 1630 E. Main Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the sign specifications file dated July 17, Prior to installation of any signs an updated Improvement Location Permit (ILP) be required. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called. Ms. Duffer yes Mr. Cavanaugh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Monnett yes! 10

11 4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Monnett said our next petition tonight is BZA Ms. Sprague said this petition is another restaurant requesting a Special Exception to serve alcohol. This building they asked for back in 2005 for the Special Exception for Joe s Grille, which was approved at the time. I don t know how the floor area has changed or if the floor setup has changed but the petitioner has assured me that the bar area is less than 25% of the overall floor area. It is not necessarily their goal; they are more interested in being a family type restaurant than a bar. The idea might be when the Colt s games are on people might stay later and they might have some beer but they will serve alcohol and liquor as well. I know the petitioners are here if you have any questions. Mr. Carlucci said I actually went in there last week for lunch. I think the old place had pool tables and that is all gone. It is really set up for family values. It is not set up for what you would call for Colt s pre year post games celebrations or during a game but I just wanted to report on that. To me when you look at the menu, it is geared towards family dinning. Mr. Dave Smerdel at S. (Inaudible) Parkway, Carbon, Indiana said he is right the bar area has been totally moved. There was at one time a large circular bar taking up almost a whole area. It has been removed and put in the back of the building. I tore down an old barn that was on my property and built the bar out of that. It has a rustic type setting, tin roof, antiques. This is the second restaurant we ve owned. I had one in Brazil for 15 years; the same scenario, the same atmosphere, no pool tables, no jute boxes, no trouble. We are in no way affiliated with Joe s Bar and Grille at all. Mr. Monnett said the one in Brazil is that Yesterday s I (one)? Mr. Smerdel said it has been sold. It was sold May 16 th and I started getting this one May 18 th and yesterday was the first day off in three months. Mr. Carlucci said the other thing I might mention too is that there is actually sunlight coming in the windows. Mr. Smerdel asked, how was the food? Mr. Carlucci said first of all it was very good and secondly I couldn t eat what I got. My wife and I both had to bring half of it home with us. Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close this to the public and open it up to the board for discussion or a possible motion. Ms. Duffer made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA as filed by Smerdel Enterprises, Inc. requesting a Special Exception to serve alcoholic beverages for on site consumption at Yesterday s II at 120 N. Perry Road subject to the following condition:! 11

12 1. Limiting this approval to Yesterday s II and the approval shall not be transferable to a subsequent owner/operator of the tenant site. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called. Ms. Duffer yes Mr. Cavanaugh yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Monnett yes 4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS Mr. James said I just wanted to let you know that we will work on the amendment to the sign ordinance regarding the side of the plane and we will bring that back to you in September and get your comments on that. Mr. Monnett asked, do you know what the agenda might look like in September? We will be absent a board member that day. Mr. James said I think we are going to have some petitions. I think one is going to be a Special Exception for the new Best Western for alcohol sales. A sign variance and then another Special Exception for Primo s because they have changed ownership. Mr. Carlucci asked, have we sent out any notices on this yet? Mr. James said no. Mr. Carlucci said if you don t think you are going to be there at that meeting, maybe we can find another date in that month and just put it on that month. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn. Second by Ms. Duffer. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Mr. Greg Monnett, President! 12