BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
January 15, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on January 15, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, James Robertson and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Stephen P. Nigro, Attorney Lily Schaeffer and Toni Byers.

Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for 12-18-02 and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Election of Officers:

Mr. Brickner nominated Mr. Detert as chairman. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Mr. Burns nominated Mr. Brickner as vice chairman. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Nigro stated that one thing we need to take care of is that last year the Board graciously accepted a cut in pay, normally $50 a meeting to $25. He asked if the Board wishes to remain at that level of pay or go back to the $50 per meeting.

Mr. Brickner moved that the Board go back to $50.

The motion failed due to lack of a second.

Mr. Robertson moved to keep the compensation at $25 for a year, in light of the financial crisis that Porter County is undergoing. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated that if the County passes a County tax, which could happen, should we revisit this in 6 months.

Mr. Robertson moved to keep the compensation at $25 per meeting for six months and look at it again at that time. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-1 voice vote, Mr. Brickner dissenting.

Pending Business:

Case 93-UV-1. Diane Adams, 81 W. 1050 S., Kouts, seeking renewal of a Use Variance for a publishing company home occupation at 81 W. 1050 S., in Pleasant Township. (This case was continued from the 1-15-03 meeting with the petitioner to appear in person. This is the last renewal available on this case.)

Mr. Nigro stated that we have received no correspondence regarding this case and Ms. Adams is not present.

Mr. Burns moved to send the petitioner a certified letter continuing this case to the 2-19-03 meeting and that she appear in person at that time. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Case 98-UV-2. Gary Porch, 498 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance for a saw sharpening business, on the West side of CR 250 W., between SR 130 and CR 500 N., in Center Township.

Mr. Porch stated that he is still operating the saw sharpening business and he would like to continue.

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Nigro stated that none have been filed.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 98-UV-2 for 5 years with the same stipulations as previous. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 98-UV-3. Gary & Joy Meadows, 929 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance for a coral farming business, on the East side of CR 200 W., between CR 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township.

Ms. Meadows stated that she wishes to continue her variance for her business.

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Nigro stated that there have been none.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 98-UV-3 for 5 years, with the same stipulations as the initial approval. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that he remembers that we had a sign in the window, wasn’t there a sign?

Ms. Meadows stated that she was able to put a sign up, but she has never done that. She stated that she wishes to do that, if that

is still possible. She stated that she doesn’t know what size it had to be and she doesn’t know if we really set a location.

Mr. Robertson stated that the window is the only place.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 98-UV-3 for 5 years, with a sign permitted in the window. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 96-UV-3. Constandino Vasos, 589 W. 500 S., Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting an automobile detail business, at 589 W. 500 S., in Porter Township. (This is the last renewal available on this case and this case was continued from the 12-18-02 meeting.)

Mr. Nigro read a letter from the petitioner stating that the shop is no longer in business.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 96-V-3. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 02-V-37. Petition of Rich & Carletta Cheek, 518 W. 450 S., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit use of a barn as guest quarters, to be located on the South side of CR 450 S., between CR 500 W. and CR 600 W., in Porter Township. (This Case was continued from the 11-20-02 and 12-18-02 meetings, with the public hearing closed.)

Mr. Detert stated that this has been continued for two meetings and we need to come to some conclusion.

Mr. Nigro stated that we have come to a conclusion and after more extensive research within the County Assessor’s office it appears that these buildings have been in existence since 1950, therefore they predate the creation of this body, so they are, by nature, grandfathered in, so we are going to have to refund them their money.

Ms. Schaeffer stated that it is a legal non-conforming use.

Mr. Nigro stated that we will reimburse the petitioner.

Mr. Brickner moved to adopt Mr. Nigro’s recommendation concerning Case 02-V-37 and in so doing dismiss the case. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 02-V-38. Petition of Metro Auto Parts, 2155 W. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a recycling operation within 200 feet of a residential district, to be located at 2155 W. Lincolnway, in Center Township. (This case was continued from the 12-18-02 and 1-15-03 meetings, with the public hearing closed.)

Case 02-SE-13. Petition of Metro Auto Parts, 2155 W. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit an expansion of an existing auto salvage yard, to be located at 2155 W., Lincolnway, in Center Township. (This Case was continued from the 10-16-02, 11-20-02, 12-18-02 and 1-15-03 meetings, with the public hearing closed.)

Mr. Nigro stated that he received a letter from Attorney Todd Leeth stating that he is going to represent the petitioners in these two cases and requesting a continuance until the February meeting.

Mr. Robertson moved to continue Cases 02-V-36 and 02-SE-13 to the 2-19-03 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of procedure for a public hearing.

Public Hearings:

Case 03-V-1. Petition of James Wertz, 1716 Liberty Ave., Michigan City, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required road frontage for a 10-acre parcel from 160 feet to zero, with access via a 60-foot easement, to be located on the South side of CR 375 S., between CR 200 W. and CR 300 W., in Porter Township.

Mr. Wertz stated that they have acquired 10 acres of ground that is off of the road, it is landlocked. He stated that they have been given deeded easement of 60 feet wide clear up to the road, which gives them rights to utilities, driveway, everything from the owners and they need to change the required frontage to zero in order to use it.

Mr. Detert asked if he is going to build there.

Mr. Wertz stated that they are going to build a single-family house.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that this is the second one we’ve got that reduced it to zero. He stated that he remembers that we had one last year and that was the first one we’d ever had like that. He asked if this is going to get to be a trend. He asked if he knew of the difficulty when he bought the property.

Mr. Wertz stated, yes, this is all family ground and there are 20 acres off the road and they divided it in half. He stated that they got 10 acres.

Mr. Robertson asked if his family owns the other 10 acres.

Mr. Wertz stated that they own the property in between them and the road.

Mr. Robertson asked if that is who gave them the easement.

Mr. Wertz stated that they gave them one portion and a relative gave them another portion.

Mr. Robertson stated, so there are three properties involved.

Mr. Wertz stated, yes. He stated that the property at the beginning of everything is a landlocked property from any…one relative owns what touches the road and then even to get to this 20-acre original parcel this family does not own anything that connects to it. He stated that it is a landlocked property a long time ago with the way the family had divided the properties.

Mr. Robertson asked how long the family has owned the property.

Mr. Wertz stated that it has been since 1860.

Gene Eldridge, 266 W. 375 S., stated that it shows pretty well He stated that it’s a little square there. He stated that this is 375 S. and we own this property and this and a cousin has this.

Mr. Brickner asked if Parcel 3 is theirs.

Mr. Eldridge stated that it is a cousin’s. He stated that Parcel 2 is theirs and the parcel that they are building on was. He stated that they gave them an easement across the corner so they could get to it.

Mr. Brickner asked why they didn’t just come straight down.

Mr. Eldridge stated that they don’t own that. He stated that the other side is the other cousin’s.

Mr. Burns asked when this was subdivided.

Mr. Wertz stated that the 20-acre split was just done last fall.

Mr. Burns asked if by subdividing they made it landlocked.

Mr. Wertz stated that it was landlocked from the beginning. He stated that the 20 acres is all landlocked and there is no road frontage to get to that property.

Mr. Burns asked if, technically, this was all one piece.

Mr. Wertz stated, no. He stated that the 20 acres back portion…this is owned by someone else and this is owned by someone else. He stated that the 20 acres was split in half so they have 10 acres to build a house.

Mr. Burns stated that his concern would be that they are subdividing and this is landlocked.

Mr. Wertz stated that this has always been landlocked, even if it was left as 20 acres, so they were going to have to get an easement somehow.

Mr. Burns stated, now this relative is going to have to come in…

Mr. Robertson stated that being as it has been there so long and it’s such a large lot he doesn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Brickner asked, there’s no home on this?

Mr. Wertz stated that there is a home that is outside the 300-foot notification area.

Mr. Brickner asked if that is a cousin.

Mr. Wertz stated that it is not a relative.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-V-1, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because it would not affect adjacent property owners; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the size of the property; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the land is landlocked and he needs the approval to get to his property. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Robertson - Yes

Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-2. Petition of Toy Ann Feldsien, 207 Carter Ct., seeking a Variance to permit construction of a garage in the front yard, to be located on the Northeast corner of Carter Court and Silhavy Road, in Washington Township.

Ms. Feldsien stated that she is the petitioner in this matter and that she is accompanied by Roger Runk, 2906 Coachman Trail. She stated that she is trying to put up a new garage, 30 by 40, and she cannot put it in her back yard, where she is allowed to, because her back yard is not large enough.

Mr. Detert asked if she has a septic system in the front.

Ms. Feldsien stated, no, the back yard is not big enough.

Mr. Detert asked if she is going to put the garage in the front.

Ms. Feldsien stated that it is considered the front yard. She stated that her house is in a hill and she is going to show some pictures. She stated that this is her back yard right here and this is where she wants to put her garage, in the Southwest corner of her house. She stated that she wants to turn her existing garage into livable area and put a new garage up. She stated that her septic is in the Northeast and this is all front yard here. She stated that her house faces this area right here and when you pull in this is her garage coming in here. She stated that everything is basically her front yard.

Mr. Nigro stated that this is a corner lot.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Dave Furman, 3608 Silhavy Road, stated that he would like to know where the septic is, which end of the house. He stated that before that house was built there was a problem with flooding going across from Country Club. He stated that the County put in a 16-inch culvert going across Silhavy, so water backs up on Country Club all the way back and then he has a variance on his lot, but he can’t do anything to stop the way the water flows on Silhavy, which flows through her yard, so, in relationship of where they are going to put this…he believes when he saw the little diagram, they are going to put this building on top of that culvert and then the culvert is not as back as the one that’s on Silhavy Road, so as water gathers on land, it increases more volume of water from his property flowing that way. He stated that they have never seen the water back up yet because they haven’t lived there long enough. He stated that they just moved in last year, but he presumes that is where they want to build it, right next to the driveway, on top of this culvert. He asked, and the reason why they can’t build it on the other side of the driveway?

Ms. Feldsien stated that if she could build on the other side of the driveway she would have to remove trees. She stated that it’s on a hill. She stated that it’s not a flat piece of property on the other side. She stated that this is the only place that she feels that she can put this garage.

Mr. Brickner asked if there is a culvert.

Ms. Feldsien stated, yes.

Mr. Runk stated that there is a culvert under there.

Mr. Detert asked if there is a culvert under where she wants to put the garage.

Mr. Runk stated that it is a 12-inch plastic culvert that runs right underneath her driveway through there and comes out on the other side and dumps into that small creek down there.

Mr. Burns stated that he doesn’t think they want to put a building over a culvert or a driveway over a culvert.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated the vacant lot that runs West from her driveway to Silhavy, does that belong to her?

Ms. Feldsien stated that it does not.

Mr. Brickner stated, so somebody is probably going to build on that.

Ms. Feldsien stated that it’s not big enough to build on. She stated that she had looked into purchasing that lot and it is not big enough to build on.

Mr. Brickner stated that that lot comes right up to her driveway and her garage is underneath the house right now and it comes up from the South and then in front of her house is a long, steep hill that goes all the way down to the bottom of the cul-de-sac. He stated that the only other place that she could build a garage is if she attached it to her house and that way she would either have to come in from the East.

Ms. Feldsien stated, but that’s a hill, also. She stated that it’s a big hill.

Mr. Brickner stated that looking at this he doesn’t think it’s a good place to put a garage. He stated that he knows it’s the only place she has, because he’s looked at the lot and there is no other place unless she builds it on the front of her house and attaches it, and then she wouldn’t even have to come and see us – she can do that without any kind of a variance.

Mr. Detert stated that the other possibility is if she wants additional living space, she could leave the garage where it is and expand her house.

Mr. Brickner stated that she would have to drive into her drive from the East.

Ms. Feldsien stated that she would have to turn West.

Mr. Brickner stated, but you would come in from the East. He stated that the garage would face the East.

Mr. Nigro stated, from a building code standpoint, we have Mr. (Raymond) Weltz here and asked if there is something he could address with respect to this case.

Raymond Weltz stated that he would like to know who put the culvert in. He asked if the developer put it in, is there an easement through there. He stated that another thing is structural integrity. He stated that if we are saying that this carries a strong amount of water and that pipe would rupture under the garage, now we’re looking at the structural integrity of the building and a possible washout. He stated that these things need to be looked at. He stated that depending on the size of the garage it’s going to have to have a foundation system put in and this is going to cause the culvert to be dug up at two points, so the culvert itself would then be disturbed. He asked if they put it in when they developed their lot and built their house or did the developer put it in and get an easement through there. He stated that there is a problem with structural integrity with that culvert being underneath that structure.

Mr. Burns stated that that was his concern. He stated that just for your own benefit, building on top of a culvert.

Ms. Feldsien stated that the culvert is on the East side of the property, so she can’t build there either.

Mr. Robertson asked how deep the culvert is.

Mr. Runk stated that it’s about 4 feet down. HE stated that it was put in there by the gentleman that built the home and it was a real deep swale through there and the water just come down and they told them that the golf course, they dug that all out and put ballasts in that hole and everything like that that it would maintain the water, so they just extended the culvert and filled that all in with dirt and compacted it and built it right on top of the culvert.

Mr. Detert asked how they know that the soil is stable if it hasn’t been there very long.

Mr. Runk stated that they took a backhoe and you couldn’t hardly dig it.

Mr. Detert stated, but if that was loose dirt that you put in that fill, that’s going to take a while for that to stabilize.

Mr. Runk stated that it was all compacted in there.

Mr. Weltz stated that if it was clay fill, it takes 7 years to go back to its original state, and other than that, they would be required to have a soils compaction test done before any permits would be issued, if this is approved.

Mr. Burns stated that looking at the sketch, it’s also looks like part of the garage would be in the low area. He stated that it may have a culvert, but, still, this is a drainage area and the garage would be in a drainage area.

Mr. Robertson stated that he agrees with Mr. Burns that it looks like the drain goes right where the garage is, and even though it’s flat land there is a high furrow up above it, which is going to carry water down through there and he doesn’t think he should build on top of that.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 03-V-2, finding that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because building on a culvert might impede drainage; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because of drainage problems; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because she has a garage at the present time. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Robertson - Yes

Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-3. Petition of Bradley Engle, 2053 Landmark St., Portage, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a “Coffee Express’ drive-through coffee service, to be located on the Southeast corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and SR 149, in Portage Township.

Mr. Engle stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that he would like to do business at 298 W. U.S. 6 in Valparaiso. He stated that they would like to sell coffee, small, pre-made food items and it would be a drive-thru restaurant. He stated that the hours of operation would be from 5 to 11 p.m., which is consistent with the current gas station. He stated that the site has been basically approved by the Technical Advisory Committee with a question regarding the building type. He stated that the building type according to Joe Hardy, the state building inspector, is an open concept building, which means that the electrical and plumbing are exposed. He stated that Joe Hardy and Skip Grant, the owner of Quik-Serve industry, who they purchased the cart from, concluded that the building is approved for the state of Indiana. He stated that Ray Weltz had some concerns because it still had the Oregon seal on it. He stated that with his conversation with Joe Hardy the Oregon seal is acceptable because of the fact that it’s an open-concept building. He stated that Joe also stated that this type of building can be put on a foundation, but does not need to be put on a foundation and was approved by him.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mr. Weltz stated that he thinks the gentleman needs to be aware that Joe Hardy may have verbally gave (sic) you those statements, but he’s going to have to put that in writing to his office verifying that that does not have to meet those requirements, otherwise he will have to file the project and he would have to also have to state in his letter the actual use that he has stated here, what’s going to take place.

Mr. Engle stated that he did request a letter from Joe. He stated that he asked him to give him some written verification and he said no.

Mr. Detert asked why he wouldn’t put it in writing.

Mr. Engle stated that he’s not sure. He stated that he said if there needed to be clarification a phone call to him would clear it up, and he does have his number.

Mr. Weltz asked what office he was from.

Mr. Engle stated that he is from the Indianapolis office, and his number is 317-232-1408.

Mr. Weltz asked, what office.

Mr. Engle stated that he doesn’t know. He stated, the state building inspector.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Schaeffer stated that she just wanted to mention that the variance is not concerning the use. She stated that the use is okay and the only problem, in discussing it with Mr. Nigro and Kevin Breitzke, they have no problem with it, and she’s spoken with Mr. Engle a couple of times and the concern simply is, as Mr. Weltz said, is that he is not for or against it and this came up before Valpo, too, our ordinances just don’t address this type of structure and whether it’s temporary, permanent, semi-permanent..Mr. Nigro sort of felt…

Mr. Nigro stated, I guess it’s as if it were a trailer and I’m not saying it’s a trailer, it’s just of that nature where it’s brought in, put on the property as such.

Ms. Schaeffer stated that Mr. Nigro’s concern was that it may be a great operation and everything, but if it goes out of business in five years or whatever then there we are sitting with this structure and nobody is willing to go on the record to say whether it’s permanent or temporary and if it comes before the Board and we approve it then there is some authority over it every year.

Mr. Brickner stated, yea, as a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.

Mr. Nigro stated that if he cannot satisfy the requirements of the state that Mr. Weltz is requesting, he will not get a building permit for that structure, so that’s not really the issue before us.

Ms. Schaeffer stated that that’s really not the issue, so, basically, I mean none of us, in discussing this, neither Mr. Breitzke nor Mr. Nigro nor Mr. Weltz could determine what animal we are talking about here and the same thing with Valpo. She stated that it’s a nice concept and everything, but I guess, your idea is that it’s better to have some control over it.

Mr. Nigro stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked if TAC has approved the location of this.

Mr. Nigro stated, absolutely.

Mr. Burns stated that he has seen one or two of these in other cities being placed very close to the road and causing visibility problems. He stated that this is a major intersection.

Mr. Brickner stated that this one is located in back.

Mr. Nigro stated that this is the site plan submitted to TAC and he is putting it up on the board. He stated that it’s a very small structure and it’s set way back and set back even further than the existing car wash. He stated that it doesn’t bother any corner vision clearance and one concern he brought up at TAC is that you have all the tanker trucks coming to fill up and he wanted to make sure that this wasn’t going to interfere with them filling underground tanks and, apparently, it wasn’t. He stated, so, basically, that’s what they are wanting, 8 by 16, a portable structure to be brought on the property to be fixed permanently to Mr. Weltz’s satisfaction, as far as tie-downs and everything. He stated that if it’s approved tonight he’ll still have to satisfy Mr. Weltz’s concerns and they will return to us next January to have the TCO renewed for the structure.

Mr. Weltz stated that there’s a possibility that the distances between the car wash and where this sets may not meet the building separation requirements, which could possibly put this in non-compliance as a non-conforming use, and would also put the new structure he plans on placing there in violation also, which would require fire ratings on the wall of the new building that he is putting in. He stated that that he will have to address when it comes time for the permit, because depending on how the occupancy classification is going to be classified on this building will determine its distance from other buildings, so it’s going to be anywhere from 10 feet to 20 feet separation between buildings.

Mr. Brickner asked if he knows what the separation is.

Mr. Weltz stated that that is addressed in the state codes, and he’s only showing 11.5 feet.

Mr. Engle stated that it is 11.5 feet to the curb and there is an additional possibly 2, 2.5 feet in the curb to the building.

Mr. Detert stated, if you can’t meet the code, then you are not going to get a building permit.

Mr. Engle stated that he understands this. He stated that this wasn’t brought up as far as the previous four meetings. He stated that they have gone through every hurdle and everything has been clear up to this point. He stated that this is the first time that this has been brought to their attention, that it would not meet the code.

Mr. Robertson stated that even if that is a problem if we approve it and it doesn’t meet the code…

Ms. Schaeffer stated, then they won’t get the permit.

Mr. Nigro stated that they have never received final approval before TAC and that is still pending before the building permit and so they will return to TAC and at that time they will go ahead and get the input.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-3 for one year, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because to get a building permit it will have to meet the guidelines of the Plan Commission; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because it will be an asset to the community; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because they need the Board’s approval for the variance. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Robertson - Yes

Detert - Yes

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Robert Detert, Chairman

Attest: Stephen P. Nigro
Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector