BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
February 19, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on February 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes for the January 15, 2003 BZA meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 89-V-4. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 439 E. 700 S., between CR 450 E. and CR 300 E., in Pleasant Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Jon Lyons stated that he is a lawyer here in Valparaiso and he would like to address the Board briefly on behalf of Mr. Drazer. He stated that first of all he would like to pass a picture around. He stated that here’s a picture of the structure involved. He stated that in a nutshell what Mr. Drazer has is what was originally a mobile home. He stated that it has been substantially worked on. He stated that what you don’t see in that photograph is that there is also a deck on the back and a garage. He stated that the structure is located on some acreage which also contains a dwelling house and some farm buildings, the dwelling house being occupied by tenants who are gone all day. He stated that each of them is employed outside the home so they are gone. He stated that I know that Mr. Drazer has had some problem with vandalism and problems with the farm buildings being ransacked and entered and stuff stolen and so on and he feels a lot more secure with someone on the premises. He stated that the tenant in this home is a man who is, I’m told, is in his mid to early 60s or somewhere around there and he is an early morning newspaper deliverer, so he’s out at 2 or 3 in the morning and is home by 6 or 7 when the people who live in the house leave, so that way he has somebody there on the premises at all times. He stated that that is the situation and he is hoping that he can continue that for a little bit. He stated that one other factor that I would throw in here, and I may not be correct, but my recollection is that the basic problem with this structure is that it probably does not have the required minimum square footage to be considered something other than a temporary certificate of occupancy situation. He stated that if that is true, he tells me that he would be happy to add an addition onto this structure, to make it qualify, if that’s what it would take. He stated that he wants to comply, he wants not to be not in compliance and that is his situation.

Mr. Robertson asked, isn’t the criteria the foundation, as well as the size?

Mr. Nigro stated that I think we’re getting way off base here. He stated that this is just a renewal for a TCO, as the use hasn’t changed. He stated that the gentleman residing in it, he is still there, he still works as farm help for Mr. Drazer, that was the original intent of this TCO.

Mr. Lyons stated that I understand and Mr. Drazer is present and can answer these questions. He stated that I understand that the fellow does some marginal helping around the farm. He stated that we don’t make the suggestion that the farm is operated by this guy.

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Nigro stated that there have not been.

Mr. Robertson stated that as long as he comes in every year and doesn’t mind the bother of having to renew it every year, it’s pretty much renewed if there are no complaints.

Mr. Detert stated that if he wanted to convert that to something permanent he could talk to the staff. He stated that what’s before us tonight is a TCO for one more year.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 89-V-4 for one year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated that he would also ask, that the petitioner, I believe if you just send in a letter requesting that you want to make the extension for another year, that would suffice, and I don’t know that you would need to come back here by yourself or with an attorney.

Ms. Byers stated that for some reason there was a notation last year that you wanted him to appear in person; you don’t always have to do that.

Mr. Brickner stated that this has obviously become a permanent building on this property. He stated that it is no longer considered a temporary occupancy permit, so I think Mr. Drazer should make the arrangements to have this thing be a permanent structure on this property.

Mr. Lyon stated that we talked about that.

Mr. Burns asked, do we want to do that?

Mr. Brickner stated that let’s do the variance for another year.

Mr. Robertson stated that if he does that you are going to have two on one property.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, actually, there are three residences on that property and that’s what bothered me more than anything. He stated that there is a house behind the house and then there is another house, which is the trailer, and I’m not sure who’s living, if he’s renting these out, then that’s not the hardship that it was originally intended for, and that’s what we really wanted to find out – does the hardship still exist? He stated that with three residences there – and I don’t know if there is somebody living in all three of them, but it looks like there is – then this isn’t the hardship that it was intended for and I don’t want to make a big case out of this, because it looks nice and I have no problem with it, other than I think we should go somewhere else besides a TCO on this.

Mr. Detert stated that he runs the risk of having put a lot of money into it and it being turned down.

Mr. Brickner stated that he put a roof on and a back porch and it looks like a home now.

Mr. Drazer stated that I put a gabled roof on it and a big deck there.

Mr. Hudson stated that I think the issue here tonight is a temporary certificate of occupancy. He stated that whether he adds onto it or wants to do anything else, if we tell him next year that he can’t have his extension, that’s his problem, not ours, pure and simple. He stated that it’s a temporary thing, year by year.

Mr. Nigro stated that he can contact staff tomorrow after we handle the issue at hand here on how he wants to do it in the future.

Mr. Brickner asked if he is paying rent to you.

Mr. Drazer stated, not very much, no.

Mr. Detert stated that the issue before us tonight is whether we want to renew the TCO for one more year. He stated that I would think the maker of any motion in favor of this would preface it with them looking at making it a permanent, or discussing with staff the future of it.

Mr. Brickner asked, do we want Mr. Drazer to come back next year then?

Mr. Burns stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think I do. He asked Mr. Hudson, do you want to put that in the motion?

Mr. Hudson stated, no, I don’t.

Mr. Brickner amended the motion that Mr. Drazer appear next year in person. Mr. Robertson seconded the amendment, which carried on a 4-1 vote, Mr. Hudson dissenting.

Motion to approve Case 89-V-4 for one year, with the petitioner to appear in person, carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 97-UV-4. Wilford & Joanne Webb, 608 Northeast Long Lake Road, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Use Variance to allow a communication and remote control business office at 608 Northeast Long Lake Road, between Clay Street and Jensen Street, in Liberty Township. (This is the last renewal available on this petition.)

Todd Leeth stated that I am here on behalf of Warren Webb and Will Webb Associates. He stated that the business that you indicted, we first appeared in front of this Board in 1997 and was granted a temporary variance for one year. He stated that there were no complaints after that one year and we came back in 98 and received a 5-year extension and we are now here back for our last extension under your ordinance, requesting five years again and I understand from staff that there are no objections.

Mr. Brickner asked if Warren Webb is still living.

Mr. Leeth stated that Warren Webb is. He stated that Wilford is deceased and his son is running the business.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 97-UV-4 for five years. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 98-UV-1. John Sawa, 232 S. SR 2, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance for a saw-sharpening business, to be located on the South side of SR 2, between CR 425 W. and CR 500 W., in Porter Township.

Mr. Sawa stated that he is the petitioner in this matter.

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Nigro stated that there have been none.

Mr. Detert stated that I go by there quite often and it’s very quiet.

Mr. Brickner asked, no signs?

Mr. Detert asked, wasn’t there some kind of a sign out front at one time?

Mr. Sawa stated that I covered it up.

Mr. Detert stated that it sits there but it’s got nothing on it. He stated that it looks like a decoration in the yard. He stated that the facing is gone on it.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 98-UV-1 for five years. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

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. Detert asked if the petitioner is here.

Mr. Nigro stated that she did receive a certified letter on the 17th of January, but staff did not hear any response from Diane Adams.

Mr. Hudson asked, do we know….is she still…?

Mr. Nigro stated that I don’t know.

Mr. Detert stated, usually when they don’t show they’re not doing the business anymore.

Mr. Brickner stated that I went out there and I don’t see any signs of any business, so it might not be there.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 93-UV-1. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call 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.)

Todd Leeth stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter and that he is accompanied by Steve Niehoff, project engineer, and Steve Dykstra, one of the petitioners in both matters. He stated that previously, I know, that this matter has been discussed at public hearings and by this Board back to October and I know that you were provided a packet very similar at the December 18th meeting and we’ve updated some of the things and Mr. Niehoff has provided this new packet, which is that updated information. He stated that as you indicated we are here on two matters. He stated that one is a developmental standards variance. He stated that that flows from the requirement under Table 19 of the Special Exceptions, which is the second petition and Item E on that Table 19 requires that Special Exceptions be more than 200 feet away from residential districts. He stated that immediately across Highway 130 is a residentially zoned district, however the use of that district is the B&E Auto Parts and the City of Valparaiso’s compost site, so I think the purpose of course is that there should be some separation from residential uses, but, in fact, the ordinance says districts and that’s the purpose of that specific request. He stated that as to the Special Exception, you well know from the earlier discussions that we are asking for an expansion of the existing salvage yard that’s on 10 acres to contiguous property further to the East along 130, which is 7 acres in size. He stated that I represented Metro Auto Parts in the late 1990s when Mr. Dykstra and his family purchased the property through their business. He stated that I consulted with him at that time concerning the use of the property – it’s a legal non-conforming use – we talked about cleaning it up and how he should best do that. He stated that as you well know, he’s added gravel, he’s organized the automobiles in the yard, he’s added some screening and planting and beautification issues, but, most importantly, he’s added that 8-foot high privacy fence that screens the property from 130. He stated that those were done and Mr. Dykstra came to you back in 1998 and asked for an extension at that time and you told him, let’s clean the things up, let’s do those things and then come back and he’s done that and back in October he petitioned you and that’s what he’s asking for. He stated that he’s trying to follow up with what he thinks were the understandings that he had, the direction he had from the Board back in 1998. He stated that that’s what’s happened since we were last here, Dec. 18th of last year. He stated that I think your discussions, as I’ve read your minutes, indicated that you kind of wanted to solidify what the City of Valparaiso’s position was and, to that end, Nancy Pekarek, the City Planner for the City of Valparaiso, has provided you a letter at least to your staff at the County offices and I provided a copy of that letter to each of you before the meeting began. He stated that in that letter, Ms. Pekarek, on behalf of the City, itemizes five specific things that she would like to see if your approval is positive, or your action on the petitions is positive, and I think that that is a very positive step for Mr. Dykstra and the petitioner in this matter. He stated that we certainly received that letter or a similar letter from the City and we took it as a positive step, and our new site plan that I provided to you in the bound material addresses, I think, most all of those five points. He stated that I want to now go through those with you so that we can show to you what we’ve done. He stated that the first thing that Ms. Pekarek says is that she said that we want to plant trees along SR 130. He stated that what we’ve done in our site plan and that’s the longer version, I think it’s the second sheet in there, if you’ll pull that out, that’s what I’m calling the site plan, and, in the bottom right corner, it’s labeled as that, site plan. He stated that what we’ve proposed is that in that far Northwestern corner, a concentration of plantings and the size and type of those are shown on the fence detail, which is the sheet right behind the site plan in the packet materials. He stated that as you can see, we’re providing, there’s the existing 8-foot high privacy fence, and we’re providing tree, uh, screening at that area. He stated that the purpose of this screening in this location, is as you know and I know from the evidence reading your minutes, as you come into the City of Valparaiso on Route 130, the elevation of the highway is high at that point, and, as you enter from the West, you can see over the 8-foot high fence into the yard. He stated and so, the thought that we had was, let’s concentrate the screening in that particular point where it’s going to best serve the purposes of shielding the view from 130. He stated that once you get to the property line, the road dips significantly and your eye level, sitting in a car, is approximately the bottom of the fence, actually, and so there is really no need to provide any visual screening any further than from that particular corner. He stated that that’s the purpose of the screening that we’ve placed there is to do exactly that. He stated that there was references in Ms. Pekarek’s letter to the Marshall property on Joliet Road and the plantings that we’re talking about are consistent with that – we’re just not going to do it the entire length of the frontage because it’s simply not necessary. He stated that on Joliet Road, Marshall’s property has a chain link fence. He stated that we don’t have a chain link fence. He stated that we have a solid fence that obstructs the visibility of the autos in the salvage yard. He stated that we want to concentrate the screening to block the view. He stated that that’s the purpose. He stated that we are trying to locate the screening to do just that. He stated that that’s the goal in our new site plan and I think Mr. Burns, as I read from the December minutes, that was something that you were specifically talking about, was the screening to block the view. He stated that the second item on Ms. Pekarek’s letter talks about expansion in the 7 acres being limited to the South one-half. He stated that that’s something we haven’t provided for because we don’t think that that’s a realistic goal or something that we would want to achieve through that. He stated that as you can see from the site plan, the rear, which I assume she’s referring to as the South, which is pretty accurate, is approximately a third of the rear of the property is already dense vegetation, so the last thing we want to do is concentrate our development in what’s existing dense vegetation because that means in order to maximize that we’re going to have to remove trees and that’s not what we want to do, so the site plan shows that the dense vegetation is not removed and that provides the buffer, if you will, to the property on that side of the proposed expansion area. He stated that what we have done is provided for a significant setback. He stated that I want to call to your attention, and I don’t know, Photograph #2, in the packet materials, there is a tab of photos, and I call to your attention Photo #2. He stated that this is a view, as it’s labeled, looking East along 130 toward Beauty Creek.

He stated that the billboard sign in that picture in the distance is on our property; actually, it’s well on our property. He stated that the screening and fence will be behind that, so that sign structure will be outside of the proposed new fence, so there is, as you can tell, a very significant buffer area between the road right-of-way and where the proposed expansion is going to be, so while we’re asking for 7 acres for the expansion, we’re really, due to the vegetation in the rear and the extended enhanced buffering to the front, we’re really only talking about 3 or 4 acres of actual useable area because of the screening that we are proposing. He stated that the third issue has to do with negative impact on Beauty Creek. He stated that there was an earlier belief that Beauty Creek was closer in proximity to this property, but as you can see from the site plan, it really isn’t and our drainage actually goes to the culvert. He stated that you can see the approximate culvert location by the railroad right-of-way – that’s where out drainage flows. He stated that it does not flow to Beauty Creek. He stated that if you have any questions, I think I’ll let Mr. Niehoff address those, but suffice it to say that our drainage naturally goes to that culvert location, not to Beauty Creek. He stated that we’ve provided for the vegetative swale on the South side and the berming along the right-of-way to direct the drainage to its natural flow. He stated that Number 4 in Ms. Pekarek’s letter has to do with fencing and plantings on the North and East side of the expansion area. He stated that I believe that if you review the site plan and the fence detail, you’ll see that we are exactly doing that. He stated that we are screening the North side and the East side of the new expansion area, consistent, I believe, with her letter and Number 5, add additional landscaping to the existing buildings. He stated that again I think we are showing a proposed planter box up by the recycling office on the existing 10 acres and that was added to address that specific concern. He stated that I think that we’ve addressed as best we think we can the issues and concerns that Ms. Pekarek has raised in her letter of January 10th. He stated that I’ll be happy to answer any questions and we’ll see where we can go from here.

Mr. Detert stated, Mr. Burns, you had some thoughts last time on the screening and plantings and would you…

Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to see more. He stated that I’d like to see a planting coming down more on the East side, on the new 7 acres. He stated that as you’re heading West you also come up to the crest of a hill and you can see over that property. He stated that also I’d like to see additional planting on the old section, the face of the existing 10 acres, facing 130..will be on your West fence at least 100 feet down the West fence. He stated that then put additional planting in front and then down the East side. He stated that they do have evergreen trees that will grow 30, 35, 40 feet high.

Mr. Robertson stated that I was echoing what Mr. Burns said about along the West side because the one place where you can see as you top the hill is over the West fence. He stated that I don’t know if the fence could be made higher there.

Mr. Leeth stated that you can’t make the fence high enough.

Mr. Robertson stated that there’s just a gap there.

Mr. Leeth stated that we’ve got the lay of the land, so to speak, working against us.

Mr. Robertson stated, what about, he’s talking about the special trees, what are they called?

Mr. Burns stated that they are thuja. He stated that they grow 35, 40 feet, sometimes 45 feet high. He stated that they actually make a green wall.

Mr. Leeth stated, between you and me, I think that’s the most critical part of the screening, is that corner. He stated that I don’t disagree with your concern at all there.

Mr. Burns stated that I think you have a very managed operation, but I think you need to screen it because of the type of operation and then there is another question of how high you are going to stack the cars.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you stack more than one high?

Mr. Dykstra stated, at times, when we stack them in stacks. He stated that there are times when we have more than one on top of each other.

Mr. Burns asked, what would be the max?

Mr. Dykstra stated, three. He stated that I understand your concern about wrapping this around that Western edge on both corners.

Mr. Burns stated that I would really like to see you wrap as much as you can.

Mr. Niehoff stated that I think it’s a good idea and I think that’s definitely the place to put the trees and I think the limiting factor is going to be the area for root mass there along 130. He stated that I think Mr. Dykstra’s intention, and I think the best option is to put the largest trees that can feasibly be planted that will grow there, I believe, so if that is a 30 to 40 foot tree, I agree.

Mr. Robertson stated that I asked another question about the drainage. He asked, what is the flow of drainage as it exists now? He stated that you say it all goes to this culvert and where does the culvert then go?

Mr. Niehoff stated that the culvert goes under the railroad and then back and then there’s another culvert that goes underneath Clifford Road to a low-lying area back there.

Mr. Robertson asked if it goes into a wetland.

Mr. Niehoff stated that it’s a depression, but to speak to whether or not it’s a wetland…it’s a wetland type area. He stated that I don’t see an outlet to it, it’s just a low-lying area where the drainage goes.

Mr. Robertson asked, when it does overflow, would it then go to Beauty Creek and that area?

Mr. Niehoff stated, no, I don’t believe it could because it would have to cross another road to get to Beauty Creek and Beauty Creek is well outside the drainage area for that culvert.

Mr. Robertson asked, what’s the area of this depression that collects water there, do you have any idea – is it an acre, two acres?

Mr. Niehoff stated that it’s about 3 acres, off the top of his head. He stated that Mr. Dykstra and I were looking at it one time from the road.

Mr. Robertson asked, does it seem to be vegetatively healthy?

Mr. Niehoff stated, it seemed to be at the time, but it was winter when we were there, so there wasn’t much greenery to be observed, but given the denseness of plants growing in it and everything, I don’t think that growth in there has been a problem.

Mr. Robertson stated that that’s where all this stuff ends up then and that would be the place to check for what runoff would come off the property. He asked, how long has it been in operation, how many years?

Mr. Dykstra stated that I’ve been there five years, more than that.

Mr. Leeth stated that we looked at aerial photographs long, long ago to create the non-conforming legal determination, so it’s been there, I would hate to hazard a guess how old those photos were that we were looking at.

Mr. Robertson asked, 20, 30 years? He stated, and the previous owners weren’t as meticulous as Mr. Dykstra was about taking care of it, so what we’re worried is perhaps the 10 acres that are there could be saturated with contaminants from the previous administrations which, over time, could wash through this culvert and then end up in this depression. He asked, we don’t have any details on the health and the ecology of this depression, where all this water has been collecting all these years?

Mr. Niehoff stated, we don’t have any analytical data per se, no.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you think it’s just a bowl depression, it doesn’t overflow anywhere.

Mr. Niehoff stated, we couldn’t venture back to the whole thing, because it’s on private property, near as we can tell, but from what we could see, there does not appear to be any defined outlet to the depression, no.

Mr. Robertson stated, now, on the new 7 acres, to the East of this proposed vegetative swale, does the flow there go again back to this culvert to the West?

Mr. Niehoff stated, yes. He stated that we don’t think there is going to be a lot of flow in that vegetative swale because the property generally tends to slope back toward the railroad tracks to begin with. He stated that the reason the swale was put there was just to alleviate any concerns of Beauty Creek, that in the event that we would have an act of God type rainstorm if there would be any runoff that would somehow make its way to Beauty Creek, that we would have means of conveyance to control it so it would not overflow the swale and towards Beauty Creek.

Mr. Robertson stated, so, essentially the drainage will be as it was before, which is South and a little bit West through the dense vegetation.

Mr. Niehoff stated, correct. He stated that there are not going to be a lot of changes to the drainage. He stated that the main reason for the swale is really to be a fail-safe, to protect the health of Beauty Creek.

Mr. Brickner stated that I guess the idea is to make this completely obscure from Route 130 in both directions. He asked, are you going to be able to do that, so that you can’t see anything from 130 going either East or West. He asked, all the plantings and everything, and the fencing, we don’t want to see any vehicles from the highway. He asked, is that possible to do?

Mr. Leeth stated, I believe so. He stated, the site plan that we are proposing is designed to do that. He stated, now, if someone were to stop on 130 and climb on top of their…He stated that I think that a reasonably traveled, the traveling public, once the trees are planted and the screening is imposed, that’s the goal – to obscure all the salvaged vehicles from view from Route 130. He stated that that’s the goal and that’s what we’re designing. He stated that we take the wraparound concerns and we’ll incorporate that.

Mr. Brickner stated that Mr. Robertson is concerned about how high you stack the vehicles. He stated that if we say we don’t want them stacked more than two high, can you live with that?

Mr. Dykstra stated, not a problem. He stated that it’s not a big issue in the operation.

Mr. Detert asked, how large are the trees going to be when they are planted? He asked, 10 foot, 8 foot, 6 foot?

Mr. Dykstra stated that they would start out at 8 to 10 and go from there.

Mr. Detert stated, so, initially, they are not really going to hide…

Mr. Dykstra stated, well, I think on this West end where the main concern is they would have to be higher from the road, 30, 40. He stated, I think, to be honest with you, I’d just change this fence line, maybe take away some of the corner of that lot, maybe take away some of the property – it’s not that big an issue – and screen plant all along that corner.

Mr. Hudson asked, when you go to crush cars, how high do you stack them before you put a truck, or do you put them immediately on a flatbed and haul them?

Mr. Dykstra stated, no, there’s times when they sit there, but,…

Mr. Hudson asked, so they’re about a foot high and squished down.

Mr. Dykstra stated, squashed down there’s probably 10 in that squash and I don’t think they are any higher than that 8-foot fence.

Mr. Hudson asked, how long do they typically set there before you take and haul them?

Mr. Dykstra stated that it depends on the market, when the market’s have been bad, yeah, they’ve sat there a couple of months but back in the corner, I don’t think…

Mr. Robertson stated, well, but you can promise us that it won’t be visible over the fence. He stated that that’s what we are concerned about, that it not be visible at any time over the fence. He stated and that you work to, where it is visible, to put in adequate plantings to hide it.

Mr. Dykstra stated that I think it should be noted, too, on the new plan of the 7 acres, that new fence is being proposed to be put on a 2-foot berm so that really then would be a 10-foot high shield, with the evergreens in front of that.

Mr. Robertson asked, should we ask Ms. Pekarek? He stated that in discussion there has been a little bit of deviation from her letter. He stated that he wants to ask about Item 2, which says that it would be limited to the South half and they say they don’t want to do that, because the South half is already dense vegetation, do you understand what they are saying there?

Ms. Pekarek stated, yes I do. She stated that Mr. Leeth and I met on this issue and we have worked it out. She stated that I understand why they had to do this.

Mr. Burns asked, how many trees are we talking, how close together, how high?

Mr. Leeth stated that I think our site plan, as part of the record, can be incorporated into your approval. He stated that we have a number of trees shown.

Mr. Burns stated, so we want more trees, we want additional trees, of course.

Mr. Leeth stated, in locations, the two wraparounds, I think that’s right. He stated that I think we need to specify similar plantings around the corner 50 feet or 100 feet or whatever it is to wrap around those two corners.

Ms. Schaefer asked, do you have some language that might be acceptable that you might suggest for the contingencies, because if it’s approved, that would have to be part of the findings that would be binding upon the client, in light of what we said?

Mr. Leeth stated that I think approval is contingent upon developing this with the site plan submitted February 19, 2003.

Mr. Burns stated that we had a case where they were supposed to plant around the fence and it was not done properly, like we thought it was going to, so we really want to lock you in.

Mr. Leeth stated, I understand, and…

Ms. Schaefer stated, I heard one of the members say so the stack of cars would not be visible..would that be an acceptable contingency…

Mr. Leeth stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated that what I would like to see, East and West, around the corners at least 100 to 125 feet from the corner towards the South and then I would to see you do something with the front, to the existing fence. He stated, yeah, there’s a fence, but it would be nice if you could dress that up.

Mr. Dykstra stated, I was telling Mr. Leeth today that when you’re coming West how you can see right in. He stated, I know you’re going by my word, but I’ve always been amicable. He stated, yes, that front end where you are looking into the yard, you’re looking at something.

Mr. Leeth stated, but he’s saying the entire frontage of 130 down to…

Mr. Dykstra stated that I don’t think that’s feasible to do it. He stated we’re 15 feet lower than the fence from the road, but coming down that first stretch to the East, and then wrapping, you would like more to the wrap on the South boundary, yes, but I don’t think we could even do it, because the swale goes…

Mr. Leeth stated, and Mr. Niehoff kind of alluded to that, as well. He stated that the right-of-way between the fence and the highway is pretty significant. He stated that right as you come off the fence, the elevation goes down into the roadside ditch so it would be difficult to come all the way down.

Mr. Burns stated, as you get to the corner, the West corner.

Mr. Dykstra stated that as you get to the West corner, actually that’s pretty flat there, but as you start going towards town, is when that starts making a very serious change there.

Mr. Leeth stated, so, we think there’s some practical difficulties, but beyond that, I simply don’t think it’s necessary. He stated that the fence is there – that’s what’s obstructing the view. He stated that as I drove in, actually it was in Steve’s pickup truck today, my eye line as we dipped down off of this corner, my eye line was even with the bottom of the 8-foot fence, so there’s a significant dip at that location and you simply can’t see the yard at that point, and the purpose of the plantings isn’t to hide the fence – it’s to hide the cars, so let’s put the trees where they can block the view of the cars.

Mr. Burns asked, well, how many trees are you talking, how close together?

Ms. Schaefer asked, what portions, for example, of Valparaiso’s letter would you agree to adopt and incorporate as a condition.

Mr. Leeth stated, well, I guess I’m reluctant to do that, because I think we’ve tweaked it a little bit and Nancy and I met on Feb. 5th and so forth. He stated that I’d like to refer to the documents that I’ve submitted tonight because I think that’s the best illustration of what we are looking to do. He stated, granted, it doesn’t show what we agreed tonight to do and that’s the wraparound part.

Ms. Schaefer stated, right, and that part of the condition.

Mr. Leeth stated, that’s exactly fine. He stated that you said 100 or 125, I think it needs to be one or the other.

Mr. Burns stated, 125.

Mr. Leeth stated, but let’s say that, because I think that’s what your counsel is trying to do, is to nail it down as best we can, and so we’ll say we’ll come around the corner on the East and West, as we’re calling it, with like plantings as we’re showing in the Northwest corner today on that site plan. He stated that I think you’ll admit that the purpose of that is to provide a solid screening in that corner, and we’ll want to provide that same intent as we wrap it around…

Mr. Burns stated, you said like screening. He asked, what’s like screening?

Mr. Leeth stated, exactly what we’re showing on the site plan.

Mr. Burns stated, but it doesn’t say how high and how close together.

Mr. Leeth, but I think that the typical screening along 130 on the second page does that. He stated that that’s the intent, of course.

Mr. Burns stated, I prefer to see a green wall. He stated that they do have trees that will do that.

Mr. Niehoff stated, I’ll tell you the truth – not being a horticulturist, I don’t know if we could sit here and specify how many trees and what spacing. He stated, I think we could phrase it in qualitative terms, where you know “an adequate number and spacing of trees will be planted so as to obscure view of the automobiles in the yard” I think is probably about the best we can do.

Mr. Burns stated, that would be fine.

Mr. Leeth stated, and the other thing that I want to caution the Board about, and I know you all recognize this because you deal with screening issues all the time, Mr. Dykstra was discussing the fact that we’re going to plant; some significant trees, but they’re not, today, going to provide that solid wall of green that you’re referring to, because we can’t do that. He stated that a horticulturist is going to tell you that you’ve got to give them room to grow and they’ll just kill one another off if we plant them too close together today, so this is going to be something that will mature to provide that wall of green.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-V-38, stipulating that planting and screening be required to ensure that stacked cars are not visible to motorists and the cars cannot be any higher than the 8-foot fence at any time, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because their existing business is there and it’s just an extension of the existing business; 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’s an extension of the existing business and there is limited residences in the area; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the business has to expand and that’s the only property to the East that they could expand – they could not expand to the West. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - yes Hudson - Yes

Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

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. Burns moved to approve Case 02-SE-13, stipulating that planting and screening be required to ensure that stacked cars are not visible to motorists and the cars cannot be any higher than the 8-foot fence at any time, finding that the proposed use is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the title because it is an extension of the existing business; the proposed use will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of neighboring property because there is limited residential homes in the area and this is the only direction they could extend their business; the proposed use will serve the public convenience and welfare because the area does need this type of business to serve the public. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes

Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Mr. Nigro stated that they will have to appear before the TAC for site review.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 03-V-4. Petition of Josh & Danielle Krueger, 415 Valley Run Drive, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a 6-foot high fence in the front yard, to be located at 415 Valley Run Drive, in Washington Township.

Ms. Krueger stated that she and her husband are the petitioners in this matter. She stated that I want to explain a little bit what this is all about. She stated that we are on a corner lot and we have put up a 6-foot privacy fence and first I want to apologize to the Board because when we put this fence up we honestly had no idea that we needed a permit to do so. She stated that after that was brought to our attention, it was also brought to our attention that all the fencing on the East side of our house couldn’t be any taller than 4 foot, which it’s 6 foot right now, so…She stated that what we’re here for tonight is to ask you to allow us to keep the fence at 6 foot high and our main purpose for putting the fence up to begin with was because we have two large dogs and we wanted to make sure that the neighborhood was safe, that we kept the dogs within our property lines, and we put a privacy fence up to deter out dogs from barking which, hopefully, sometimes does a good job and sometimes doesn’t. She stated that the reason why we are opposing having the fence at 4 foot is again because we’re concerned that a 4-foot fence is not going to do an adequate job of keeping our dogs inside of the fence. She stated that we’re concerned that the dogs might be able to jump the fence and get out and we want to keep our neighborhood as safe as possible. She stated that there are many small children in the neighborhood and like I said they are large dogs and some people are afraid of them, so we just want to make sure that the neighborhood is safe, so in saying that, we welcome any questions or concerns that the Board or anyone else may have.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Rose Stalbaum, 405 Deep Draw Ct., stated that I am actually speaking for about 12 people in the subdivision and several of the homeowners didn’t receive a letter and I don’t know if there is like a parameter that you have to send notices out or what. She stated that our first question was we didn’t understand why we’re here now when the fence is already put up. She stated that we feel we should have been here before the fence was erected. She stated that Number 2, our covenants of our subdivision actually state you can only have a fence in the back yard, which means they should have known because they received those at the time they built their home that that’s the only place you can put a fence in there. She stated, also, the fence itself is very uneven. She stated that they have two very large dogs, not that they haven’t gotten out, but underneath the fence there is big gaps underneath it. She stated that if the dogs wanted to get out they could. She stated that we would like to see the fence taken down or removed to the back yard because not only is it against Porter County rule, it’s against our covenants, which, I do have a copy if you need to see that. She stated that we’ve talked in our subdivision amongst all of us, they were aware that a majority of us, I shouldn’t say majority, I mean a group of us were against the fence anyways. She stated that we feel it’s an eyesore. She stated that we’ve had people who have bought property in our subdivision who have actually turned around and sold the property stating that it was because they felt the subdivision was going in a bad direction as far as the looks of it because of this fence. She stated, not only that, but some of the neighbors who live around it on the outside of the fence, as far as the upkeep, we don’t feel it’s being upkept as far as the grass being cut and that kind of thing. She stated that I don’t know if it’s stained or painted, but it’s very blotchy; it’s not even painted very nicely. She stated that that’s all I can think of right now, but we would like to see it either taken down or moved to the back.

Mike Brickner, 409 Deep Draw Drive, stated that I live next door to Rose and obviously the looks of the fence are a matter of opinion. He stated that I did bring some photographs for the Board to look at.

Steve Click, 406 Deep Draw Drive, stated that as they’ve expressed as well, there are small children in the subdivision, with them being rather large dogs, although we have not had a problem that I’m aware of of anyone getting bit by the dogs, but we’re obviously concerned with the security of our children. He stated that we have seen the dogs get out quite often…I shouldn’t say quite often…we’ve seen them get out, whether it’s the door being opened or them getting under the fence, but that is one of our major concerns. He stated that we are directly next door and I have three small children. He stated that that’s our biggest concern. He stated that I agree with Mike, my opinion of the aesthetics of the fence probably should be kept to myself, but Rose, I agree with basically 100 percent of what Rose stated, as well.

Mr. Hudson stated, I just wanted to see the covenants.

Mr. Detert stated that I just wanted to point out before we go on that the covenants really have no bearing on our decision and if we were to grant this and somebody wanted to take you to court on the covenants it would be another matter and I’ve always heard that covenants are pretty hard to override.

Ms. Stalbaum stated that I just brought that up so that you’re aware that they knew ahead that there shouldn’t have been a fence in the back (sic) yard.

Mr. Detert stated that we have no jurisdiction…

Ms. Stalbaum stated that I understand that, but I also wanted you to know that she made the comment that they didn’t know they could have a fence there.

Ms. Schaefer stated that you as neighbors have a right to go to court.

Ms. Stalbaum stated that we understand. She stated that actually my version is an older version, too.

Ms. Krueger stated that I just wanted to say in regards to the fence, you know, the way our lot…the slope of the land, it does slope down, so to try and get a fence to meet directly with the land as they are panels you have to sort of set them down and there is going to be a little bit of a gap. She stated, however, my dogs, you know, yay high, the gap, at most, this high, so it poses absolutely no risk that the dogs could get under the fence. She stated that if they have been outside the fence I do recall one occasion where a gate was not locked all the way and they did get out and we were called and retrieved them immediately. She stated that if they were outside the fence any other time we were outside with them. She stated that we also have two small children, so we understand the concern of other parents. She stated that we just moved in last May and in regards to the trimming of the grass, we don’t even have our yard in yet, so, what we’ve been trimming was just, it’s been…over the summer it was very hard. She stated that we had just moved in and we are doing our best to move in and get settled in and trying to make it look as nice as possible without even having much grass there to work with, so, we’re doing our best, just as I’m sure everyone else in the neighborhood is and, again, we just want to be in compliance with what the Board would like us to do.

Ms. Stalbaum stated that she was talking about the trimming of the grass. She stated that what I’m talking about is grass that has been established there that was not disturbed during their construction.

Mr. Click stated that the fence was installed in other areas, and we do not have any other fences that have been installed in our subdivision, but in other areas we have seen backfill that has been brought in so that the fence could be installed properly and would be level.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Burns stated that I went out there this afternoon and I think it’s an eyesore. He stated that I think it affects the neighborhood, especially the adjoining properties and I think it has to be corrected.

Mr. Robertson stated that the reason we don’t like high fences on corners is so that someone can see around the corner properly. He stated, kids on bicycles coming very fast it’s hard for vehicles…particularly on a corner where you have a high fence that obstructs that. He stated that you’ve got dogs and you’ve included the whole property for the dogs. He stated that it’s nice for you, but if it infringes on all the rest of the property owners, but if you do it outside of the covenants, and if you have dogs, perhaps they should be kept in a smaller place where they can be contained. He stated that this fence is just too tall and too big. He stated that it doesn’t fit the whole rest of the subdivision and it looks out of place. He stated that it’s a massive fence.

Mr. Brickner stated that the back yard…if you just fenced in the back yard, just go right straight back from the corner of your house, your dogs would have plenty of room, wouldn’t they? He stated that I really sympathize with the dog situation, because I have dogs, but I don’t have that much area fenced in for them; I just have a small area.

Ms. Krueger stated that I’m sure that that would be adequate space for them. She stated that the reason why we fenced in so much of the yard was when you have a fence you fence in so much of your yard, you don’t use the rest of your yard quite as much. She stated that we have two small kids and a playset out there and kind of make it…

Mr. Brickner stated that you may have another legal problem. He stated that Mr. Hudson might want to comment.

Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t know, it looks like…I’m not sure how far back…and this really isn’t an issue for this Board, but I’ve noticed your covenants that it says that…talking about easements…and you’ve got rear yard easements and no structure, including fences, shall be built on any drainage, sewer or utility easement, so I don’t know how far back just looking at the pictures, and I can’t tell, but maybe the back fence might be even closer to the property line than you’ve depicted.

Ms. Krueger stated that we’ve measured that out.

Mr. Robertson stated, and again, with covenants, it doesn’t matter what we say, we could give you all the right in the world, but if it’s against the covenants, they could take that to court and if you mention that the BZA said it was okay, well, it doesn’t matter. He stated, so, if you have trouble with the covenants you really have to deal with that personally.

Mr. Nigro stated that just to let you know, if this is denied, you can still have the fence; it just has to be 4 feet high from the Eastern wall of your house to where it ends, so…

Mr. Burns stated, or, the other option, you could move your fence like Marv said, behind.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 03-V-4, finding that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because a 6-foot high fence on a corner lot is dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists and it’s also an eyesore in the general community; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the fence, being an eyesore, will affect property values; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because other properties in the same area do not have a fence and they do adequately. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes

Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-5. Petition of Mehran Javid, 319 W. North Ave., Chicago, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn for storage of equipment and building material, prior to construction of the residence, to be located at 417, E. Furness Road, in Pine Township.

Mr. Javid stated that he is the petitioner in this matter.

Rick Cochen, 411 E. Furness Road, stated that he is an adjoining property owner. He stated that there was only one notice that was sent out. He stated that I have been combing the neighborhood.

Mr. Javid stated that I own property that is 16 plus acres of land. He stated that it is a pristine woods. He stated that he also resides on Furness Road and this is 16 plus acres of land that I have and there are some beautiful woods that I have and I am hoping one day to build a house on a ravine, on a dune top. He stated that closer to the road there was a bunch of Scotch pines that were really old and really ugly and out of control. He stated that I cleared that area and I was hoping to build a barn in that location without really interfering with the flow of the water to the neighbors, just to stay harmonious with the trees so that I don’t have to go inside of my land and not have to clear anymore trees. He stated that the barn is going to be built by FBI Builders and it’s not a big barn.

Mr. Nigro stated that he sent out 8 certified letters and has a notarized affidavit. He stated that six have come back certified mail and two of those 8 have not, so six of the 8 have been received. He stated that if these people chose not to come, it’s up to them.

Mr. Cochen stated that we met with all of them today. He stated that I spent the day going through the whole neighborhood and nobody received any of these notices.

Mr. Detert stated that somebody signed for it.

Mr. Cochen asked, can I get a copy of those?

Mr. Nigro stated, yeah, sure.

Mr. Brickner stated that you can take a look at them if you want to.

Mr. Cochen stated that I know a lot of people who said that they were never told. He stated that in fact I have one of them with me right now who did not get one.

Mildred Gorse, 397 E. Furness Rd., stated that she did not get one.

Mr. Robertson stated that the other thing is if somebody didn’t get it but they’re here, we assume they have been notified.

Mr. Cochen stated, well, they all didn’t want to come.

Mr. Detert stated that if they knew they had a right to come and they chose not to come, that’s their prerogative.

Mr. Nigro stated that Ms. Gorse is more than 300 feet away. He asked is she is more than 300 feet away from this person’s property.

Ms. Gorse stated that she is not. She stated that she is really close to his borderline. She stated that she has 20 acres up there. She stated that she is right next to his property.

Mr. Javid stated that, additionally, this ad was placed in the local papers and I have proof that we have paid for them.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Eileen Cochen, 422 E. Furness Road, Michigan City, stated that my aversion to the barn isn’t as great as the amount of junk that’s in his back yard that we have to look at every day. She stated that he just stated that he’s not putting a large barn in. She stated that there’s no way that he is going to be able to put all of this stuff in this barn, and he doesn’t live there. She stated that there is no way that he’s going to be able to put all of his stuff in that barn. She stated that he doesn’t live there, there is no house there. She stated that there are concerns of security. She stated that if he’s not living there, what happens if somebody breaks into his barn. She asked, what if there is a fire? She stated that there is any number of things. She stated that I’m just concerned that it’s become a dumping ground. She stated that with all due respect, I know he wants to put the barn in, and I think that’s great, but I’m concerned that because he doesn’t live there, things just get dropped off and he leaves and it’s a mess, it’s an eyesore.

Ms. Gorse stated that it is an eyesore. She stated that I’ve seen it. She stated that I’m a neighbor right there and I can see it and I’m right on Furness Road.

Mr. Cochen stated that I would like to submit pictures. He stated that I don’t want this to go on; I don’t want to live in a used storage zone. He stated that if you don’t live there, don’t build there.

Mr. Javid stated that those look like junk in wintertime, but if you really looked at them, it’s a chipper, it’s a truck to haul the chipper to improve the property. He stated that I’m a landscaper. He stated that I am going to plant. He stated that I am an artist landscaper and I am going to make a beautiful garden out of that area, so in the chill of the winter if you tell me that my truck is an eyesore, every other truck in the neighborhood is an eyesore, as well, and this sits well within away from the road and it is at least 150 feet away from the road and it’s away from this gentleman’s property and the only way, there is a grove of sassafras that covers this from the road and you don’t even see any of this in the summer, in the proper season. He stated that the only reason you see it now is because no one is out there and it’s clear.

Ms. Cochen stated that I would have to disagree with you because my kitchen is all windows and it looks out onto all of your junk, spring, summer, winter, fall, we have to look at it. She stated that you can see it from the street. She stated that there’s been heavy equipment where you were going to put the barn. She stated that all fall, all winter, it’s just been sitting out there. She stated that every once in a while you’ll stop by on a Saturday and dump more stuff off and leave.

Mr. Cochen stated that it’s an eyesore, it’s a dumping ground, it’s a storage area and I don’t want to live next to it, period, and I don’t know why more people didn’t get this.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that you say you’re a landscaper. He asked, are you storing things there for your business – you’ve got a chipper…

Mr. Javid stated that the chipper stays there all the time. He stated that I have a chipper, I have a small Bobcat and it just stays there all the time.

Mr. Robertson asked, why does it stay there?

Mr. Javid stated, because we are improving the property, it’s 17 acres and there are a few trees that we have to maneuver around, so you need some equipment; I can’t move those trees by myself, I can’t lift the dirt, so basically, my boat if there and it goes in the water in the summer.

Mr. Robertson asked, how long have you had this property?

Mr. Javid stated, 5 years, sir.

Mr. Robertson asked if he has had the Bobcat there the whole time.

Mr. Javid stated that we’ve had it there for a year and a half.

Mr. Robertson asked, and it hasn’t moved off the site, you just leave it there.

Mr. Javid stated that most of the time, it’s hid in the woods.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you move the Bobcat off the site, or has it stayed there on that site for the whole year and a half?

Mr. Javid stated that it stays on the property the whole time.

Mr. Robertson stated, and the chipper stays there. He asked, is there anything else that you move off the property from time to time?

Mr. Javid stated, yes, we move the trailer out, but the trailer is going to be a matter of more time.

Mr. Robertson asked what trailer that is.

Mr. Javid stated that it’s like a 25-foot trailer, like a traveling trailer.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you keep it there?

Mr. Javid stated, most of the time.

Mr. Robertson asked where it goes when you take it away.

Mr. Javid stated that we have taken it only one time out of there for four weeks and then we brought it back.

Mr. Robertson asked, where did you take it to?

Mr. Javid stated that I took it to Chicago and then back.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you work there in Chicago?

Mr. Javid stated, I do work in Chicago.

Mr. Robertson asked, now you plan to build a house here?

Mr. Javid stated, yes, I do.

Mr. Robertson stated, that if you have something around 2004 that would be next year, are you talking next spring, next fall.

Mr. Javid stated, I’m looking more like 2005, the summer of 2005.

Mr. Robertson asked, where do you live right now?

Mr. Javid stated, in Chicago, sir.

Mr. Robertson asked, how often do you come out?

Mr. Javid stated, I go to my property quite often, in the wintertime once every two or three weeks and in the springtime, summertime, once a week, maybe twice a week. He stated that I have a lot of friends in the neighborhood.

Mr. Robertson asked, I’m not prying – do you have a family?

Mr. Javid stated that the neighbor next door was my professor at the university and I go to his house quite a bit and down the road I have a couple of friends and the equipment that is there to remodel it, that belongs to Mr. Furness who has put it there and winter came.

Mr. Robertson asked, if you put this barn up, it’s about 2,350 square feet, can you put the Bobcat, the chipper, the trailer, everything inside?

Mr. Javid stated, that’s the purpose of the whole thing, sir.

Mr. Robertson asked, what would be outside after you build this barn? He asked, what would you leave outside?

Mr. Javid stated, maybe nothing, I have no plans of putting anything outside.

Mr. Robertson stated, now, the barn would have to be behind the house, the way our ordinance reads. He stated, you don’t really show it that way.

Mr. Javid stated, no, it is not.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you planning on putting it where it shows on this drawing?

Mr. Javid stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, that would be a problem also.

Mr. Javid stated, as I said, there are some groves of trees that if I decide to move the barn any further back I have to cut down these old premium trees.

Mr. Robertson asked, how close is that to the road?

Mr. Javid stated, the barn starts at 75 feet away from the road.

Mr. Robertson asked, that’s from the edge of the road?

Mr. Javid stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, from the culvert there, 75 feet. He asked, is there anything between the barn and the road?

Mr. Javid stated, no, sir.

Mr. Robertson asked, so that’s all just exposed there?

Mr. Javid stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated, looking at the sketch here, it does not look like he’s in the right location. He stated that it should be behind the future home. He asked, where is your business located, in Chicago?

Mr. Javid stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated, so it looks like you’re operating a business, you’re storing material for this.

Mr. Javid stated, no, sir, I never operate a business from this, no.

Mr. Burns asked, are you storing materials from a business?

Mr. Javid stated, no, sir. He stated, maybe a few pallets, but no, not really.

Mr. Burns stated, but some.

Mr. Javid stated, that’s because we don’t have the barn – where am I gonna put it? He stated, but if the barn is there, then it won’t stick out.

Mr. Burns stated, but then you’d be using the barn for business purposes.

Mr. Javid stated, no, it’s not going to be anything that comes and goes. He stated, this is all the items that they stay there.

Mr. Burns stated, so you use it for storage, business storage.

Mr. Javid stated, I am going to use this to put, hopefully, to use it, so I don’t have to have my equipment sitting outside.

Mr. Burns stated, I understand, but some of the equipment and materials is for your business.

Mr. Javid stated, I don’t think I have that kind of a business to use the chipper or the backhoe in the city. He stated that none of those are used for my business.

Mr. Burns asked, so it’s never used for your business?

Mr. Javid stated, never.

Mr. Burns stated that you say you have storage of pallets, materials, for your business.

Mr. Javid stated, I have nothing, really, pallets.

Mr. Burns stated that I thought you said you did. He stated that I thought you said you had some pallets.

Mr. Javid stated, I can’t recall.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess my biggest concern…one, a statement: If he builds the house first and then the barn later, there’s no issue. He stated that the issue is the garage first. He stated that I have a problem with the garage being in front of the house because our ordinance says it can’t be that way. He stated that the issue of the pallets, I have eight pallets in my garage that I keep on the floor, so I’m not sure that that’s an issue. He stated, I did get them from work. He stated, my biggest issue is with the garage being in front of the house. He stated, I understand that there’s trees that he would like not to take down, but I guess you take those trees down and plant other ones in front of it to shield them.

Mr. Brickner stated that the Board has to have some assurance that he is going to build a house. He asked, do you have any plans?

Mr. Javid stated, nothing yet.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, you can’t build a barn in your front yard, so you are going to have to put it behind the house. He stated that if you put it behind the house and we give you an okay to build it back there, we would give you two years to build your house. He stated that if you did not build your house within two years, then you’d have to tear the barn down.

Mr. Javid stated, I understand.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s the contingency that goes with building a barn before a house, that it has to be built within a certain period of time or you’d have to remove the pole barn, and if you can live with that, I think having a pole barn there might help all of your neighbors, because I can see there is a lot of stuff stored outside and I think that might help everybody. He stated that you folks might probably like to see all of that stuff under roof and if you put the pole barn there, all your stuff would have to go in the pole barn. He stated that we’d tell you you had to do that and it has to go behind the house. He stated that it cannot go in front of the house, that’s not allowed in the County, unless you have another variance. He stated that other than those things, the pole barn might be a good thing to have there, as long as he builds his house in two years.

Mr. Robertson stated that the other thing is about the business. He asked, is this a business?

Mr. Brickner stated, and no business equipment.

Mr. Robertson asked, is he running a business?

Mr. Brickner stated, he says he’s not.

Mr. Robertson stated, what about your business in Chicago?

Mr. Javid stated, I also already have a property in Chicago and I am quite comfortable. He stated, I don’t have to work, thank you.

Mr. Robertson asked, you don’t plan on opening a business out there.

Mr. Javid stated, absolutely not. He stated, I’m like within two years of retirement.

Mr. Robertson stated, I have no problem with it as long as we do like we said and it should go in the back – just so he understands that. He stated, we want everything put inside the barn so that the place is cleaned up, and I’m sure you’d want to do that just to make your neighbors happy and be a good neighbor and everybody friendly out that way and you understand that there is never to be a business and that you have two years to build your house or you have to pull it down.

Mr. Hudson asked, two years to start?

Mr. Nigro stated, correct.

Mr. Robertson stated, so, from now that would be what? 2004? 2005? He stated, so, by February 2005, he should have started, right? He asked, is that what we’re saying?

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, that’s what I’d like to see.

Mr. Robertson stated, I mean, he’s starting in the middle of winter, though.

Mr. Detert asked, is that travel trailer going to go inside?

Mr. Javid stated, no, that’s going to be disposed of. He stated, with all respect, the way this property sits, where I’m going to build my house, it’s a dune, it’s a higher elevation and there is quite a bit of water flows under it, so if I bring the barn any further back to make it level in the same plateau, a the same line as the house, I’m going to change the..not only I have to cut some precious trees down, it’s going to change the flow of the water and I know that that water when it washes, when it drains it goes down, it comes from my neighbors. He stated where we have it now, where the barn sits is away from this flow. He stated that if I move it further back, then it will have to interfere with the flow of the water, plus the fact that the dune.

Mr. Detert stated, before we go on, you would have to understand that you would have to have another variance to put the barn where you want to put it. He stated, what is before us tonight is the fact that you want to put up a barn before the house and our ordinance says it has to be in the back, so my consensus of what the Board is saying was that that they don’t want it in the front; they want it in the back if they’re going to give you the ability to put it up, so if you can’t put it there…and you might as well tell us now because there’s no point in us making a motion to grant it.

Mr. Javid stated, well, in the back it would be impossible because it’s too far away from the main building. He stated that it defeats the whole purpose of having a barn.

Mr. Robertson stated that he could make another petition for next month and just withdraw this one and make another petition for next month.

Mr. Nigro asked, withdraw or continue?

Mr. Detert stated, continue this and have him present another one for a variance…

Ms. Schaefer stated, he’s going to have to ask for another variance so there needs to be a renotification, no matter how you look at it.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, why don’t we just deny this one and let him…

Ms. Schaefer stated, well, he should withdraw it, if that’s the case, and file whatever he needs.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, if you withdraw this one you could file a new one and satisfy all these neighbors that they’re notified properly, then you could ask that it be moved up front. He stated that you need a new petition to do that. He stated that we can’t give you that right now because you haven’t asked for that through this petition.

Ms. Schaefer stated that we could table it.

Mr. Detert stated, she says to table it and if he wants to come back, and when you table it it’s not to a time certain. He stated that if he wants to do that and then present us with another variance to put it in a location inconsistent with the ordinance, then he could do that.

Mr. Robertson moved to table Case 03-V-5 to a date uncertain. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner asked, if you moved that back even with your house, if you put your house and the pole barn is even with your house, is that possible, I mean without going in the back?

Mr. Detert stated, I think what we need to do is to vote on this and then let him get together with Steve and decide whether he needs a variance.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, he could think about that before he comes back the next time, if he could do that.

Motion to table Case 03-V-5 carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-V-6. Petition of Timothy A. Jones, 179 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn in the front yard and, if approved, to reduce the minimum required front-yard building setback from 60 feet to 45 feet, to be located on the Northeast corner of CR 75 E. and Lamplight Lane, in Morgan Township.

Mr. Jones stated that I would like to start out by handing out a couple papers I have. He stated, I would like to start off with the information that I was given to get my building permit. He stated, first page here, I got a copy of it, and if you turn to where it says accessory buildings, to get my permit, I’ve done everything that this paper that was given to me, what it asked for and our problem is my drawing and according to this, it says a drawing of a property showing how many feet the building will be from all property lines. He stated that one of the main reasons for this variance is they say or the Plan Commission says that I lied on my drawing. He stated that I gave exactly what they asked for. He stated, I am not a land person and I know what is given to me and this is exactly what I turned in.

Mr. Detert stated, you’ve made that point.

Mr. Jones stated, okay. He stated, on the second page here, this is taken off of Lamplight Lane subdivision. He stated that this is accepted, this is the subdivision plan. He stated, first of all, I’d like to say that I’m not part of the subdivision. He stated that my plan for the house and everything was here before the subdivision was ever started. He stated, another thing I’d like to point out is exception. He stated, where it shows my property, it says, in big letters, biggest letters on the page almost, it says exception. He stated, to me that means when I look at this property of Lamplight Lane, that all this information does not include me. He stated, another thing on the same page is you see the dotted lines, it says a 20-foot utility and drainage easement and a 30-foot building line. He stated, now note that this does not go into my property. He stated, for the information that I had available when I started this, right here, it says it does not show those lines entering my property. He stated, it shows all the other information. He stated on the next page I have a survey. He stated that the Plan Commission, I was asking them about the setback and everything I had shown says I need 3 foot from my property line and I was asked by the Plan Commission if I would get a survey and so I called Donald Bengel and I hired him to do a staked survey to show exactly how far I am off the property line. He stated, and one corner is 4.4 feet and the other corner is 4.16 foot. He stated, and again, it has on there that it is not part of the subdivision. He stated, next page goes back to what I said about the Plan Commission saying that I lied on my drawing. He stated, here’s the application for the variance.

Mr. Detert asked, has anybody said you lied?

Mr. Jones stated, yes, falsified, lied. He stated that it says on this variance when I applied for my variance, it says again way down the paper, attach a drawing showing existing and or proposed improvement on property. He stated, now when I filled out my application for the variance, I turned in the exact same copy of my drawing and the reason why I know this is because I photocopied that drawing, and then that’s the exact same drawing I turned in and I was told by the secretary, a lady named Mary, that I could not turn that plat in because I am not showing Lamplight Lane and I told her I do not feel it’s right that I have to put that on there because it clearly states on this variance that you want to see my property, doesn’t show anything else, I give what’s shown to me.

Mr. Detert stated, Sir, I think you made your point that you complied with everything that you were asked, however, we have to live with the ordinance, and that’s the law. He stated that the reason you’re here today is that you want to keep the pole barn where it is and you’re going to have to appear before this Board and get a favorable vote.

Mr. Jones stated, okay, my next paper here is exactly what my building is. He stated, I paid a professional builder, a reputable builder to build this so I would not have any problems structurally wise or anything like that, what it is, what it cost. He stated, my building now is, it’s more than three-quarters of the way built. He stated, the only thing my building needs is the doors and the wall sheeting. He stated, it’s roofed, it’s shingled, it’s concreted into the ground and I called the builder back to see what it would cost to move it and he proposed $8,900 to move the building and, at the bottom of the paper it shows that I have $14,000 currently invested in this building. He stated, um, before I started building this building, actually when I started clearing trees in the lot, I talked with Floyd Aragon, he’s 50 percent owner of the subdivision and I talked to him and I told him exactly what I was doing and he had no problem with this and I just talked to him out of courtesy. He stated that he come (sic) by while I was outside and, you know, I just wanted to make note of that. He stated, I had my permit issued on December 13th, I had Ronald Connor come out, he drilled the holes in the ground and, uh, he said the posts in so I would get my inspection done. He stated that I had my inspection done, Ray Weltz come (sic) out and inspected my building, gave me a green tag to build and, um, when I had my green tag, I called Ronald Connor and, um, he had, as I said before, about three-quarters of my building completed and, uh, I got red-tagged for setback violations and not putting Lamplight Lane on my permit and, um, let’s see here, I was never notified of Lamplight Lane taking or restricting my property from anyway, and, um, nor did I receive compensation or anything for them restricting the use of my land. He stated, and, um, I don’t feel in any way that my building affects the property, and, um, I’m using my existing driveway as my driveway permit says, I’m using my existing driveway, so I have no intention of putting a driveway onto Lamplight Lane, and I don’t see no way (sic) that it adversely affects them or the road. He stated, um, there’s a ditch between my building and the road, so, I mean, I don’t see any problem with cars or traffic or anything like that. He stated, and, basically, that’s all I have.

Mr. Detert asked, did you, once you knew there was a problem, did you continue construction on the pole barn?

Mr. Jones stated, when I had, um, Judy Aragon call me on Friday evening and, um, she thought that it was in her property and I informed her that it was in my property and if she would like we could measure it together, cause the builders were coming the next day, which was Saturday and, uh, I told her I would stop the building if we have a problem. He stated that the next morning, she said, Mr. Jones, if you think it’s in your yard, go ahead and build it, and, the next morning, I called her when the builders showed up Saturday morning and I asked her again, do you want to come out here and check it; I have the builders here, they are gonna start, and I will stop if you think there’s a problem. He stated, as far as I’m concerned, my paperwork, everything shows that I am on my property, which, according to the survey, I was on my property.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, but you didn’t really answer my question. He stated, my question was, once you knew there was a problem, did you continue finishing the pole barn? He asked, was there work done on the pole barn once you knew there was a problem?

Mr. Jones stated, yes.

Mr. Detert stated, I just wanted to make that clear, that he understood that.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Chuck Parkinson, attorney, 107 Broadway, Chesterton, stated that I’m an attorney representing Judy Aragon, the developer of Lamplight Lane. He stated that I’m also here on behalf of a group of homeowners, or prospective homeowners – they haven’t built their homes yet, but property owners on Lamplight Lane, all of whom built, or, excuse me, bought their lots prior to this gentleman beginning construction of this pole barn structure. He stated, if I may, with your permission, I’d like to pass out to the members of the Board some proposed findings in opposition to the petition that I’ve prepared. He stated, I’ll hand them to you, Mr. Jones. He stated, I do have one question on the petition because the petition I’ve received references merely a setback, a variance that’s being requested. He stated, with the platting of this subdivision and the creation of Lamplight Lane in July of 1999 we also have the issue of whether or not this structure is proper because it technically is in the front yard, so I think the Board not only has to address any setback from the developmental standards, but also whether or not, first, and primarily, whether he can actually put this structure in the front of the primary structure, that’s a concern here because that is a corner lot. He stated that I don’t know when Mr. Jones purchased that particular property. He stated that it is true that the residence was there prior to the subdivision becoming platted, but certainly he or the folks he bought from were given proper notice of the subdivision, so any kind of issues as to whether or not this gentleman has a property right that’s been restricted by the subdivision going in there, certainly, are well beyond this Board’s concern tonight, because this was a proper subdivision in 1999. He stated, this road, I think, has been accepted by the County – it has, it’s been accepted since July 1999, uh, it does make this gentleman’s property a corner lot. He stated that I’d like to take just a minute to introduce Judy Aragon and I’d like to ask her to sort of talk about the subdivision itself, the character of the houses that are proposed, or at least, that her particular subdivision’s covenants and restrictions propose, and I understand that this Board does not enforce her covenants or restrictions. He stated, I also understand that this gentleman is an exception to the subdivision – he’s not in there, but it is important for the Board to understand what kind of homes are going to be built there, because they do impact…

Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t know that I care.

Mr. Parkinson stated that they certainly are going to be affected by this particular structure being built in such close proximity.

Mr. Brickner stated, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we need to hear this. He stated that I don’t think this has got anything to do with it and I’d just as soon not hear this. He stated, I don’t think we need to hear this. He stated that this is about the quality of homes that are going to be built, this has got nothing to do with the variance. He stated, I’m not really interested in what kind of homes are going to be built there. He stated, I’m only interested in whether he’s violating the setback and violating the front yard. He stated, I think that’s what we’re supposed to listen to.

Mr. Detert stated that the issue before us is whether or not…

Ms. Schaefer stated, well, the issue is whether he’s entitled to the variance that he’s requesting.

Mr. Detert stated, Judy, you can make a brief statement, but it’s not going to have any bearing, really, on our decision, because, I think what you are going to say…

Ms. Schaefer stated, I think what they are trying to say is that it’s going to impact on the value of their homes; that’s it in a nutshell, and I think they’re entitled to make a few brief statements.

Mr. Parkinson stated that Judy’s going to show the Board a few pictures of just how close the structure is to Lamplight Lane.

Mr. Brickner stated, we have those pictures.

Ms. Aragon stated, no, not really. She stated, well, he’s stating that it’s 75 percent complete.

Mr. Detert stated, let’s let her speak.

Judy Aragon, 127 E. 250 S, Valparaiso, stated that he’s stating that the building is 75 percent complete and I have to disagree with him. She stated that he also stated that he called me, or that I spoke with him on a Friday night, and I did state that I had some concerns as far as the placement of the building. She stated that I felt that it was too close to the County road. She stated, I never told him that it was on my property and I never made any type of statements that I was concerned that it was on my property. She stated, I was concerned that it was too close to the County road. She stated, he told me that it had to be 3 feet off the property line, and I again stated that it was on a County road and he said, well, you can come down tomorrow morning and I will measure, and I said, well, what are you going to measure off of, and he says, the fence, and I said what fence, and he says the fence on the Northern side of my property. She stated, and I said, the fence on the Southern side of the property is 3 feet off. She stated, I said, you cannot measure off of a fence. She stated, and I asked him, I said, do you know where your stakes are at, your property stakes, and he said, no, I’m measuring off the fence. She stated that he says, do you have a problem with that? She stated that I said, yes, I do. She stated, well, then, Saturday morning he called and he said I got a crew here to put this building up, and he says, are you okay with this? And I said, no, I’m not, and that was where I ended the conversation because he wanted to get argumentative with me. She stated that I told him on my survey the back of his property line was 152 feet. She stated that he said his survey was 160 feet – he didn’t care what my survey said. She stated, and, so, that weekend they put the posts up, um, and I think they put the roof trusses up and they shingled the roof over the weekend, his buddies – I don’t know who it was. She stated, um, and then Monday morning…oh, the conversation that we had Saturday morning, um, I told him, I said, well, I was concerned about the location of the building. She stated that his comment to me was, um, well, how did he state this, he said, well, nobody’s going to know what’s going on unless you go to the courthouse and start asking questions, and that was his comment to me.

Mr. Parkinson stated that with reference to the third thing that this gentleman needs to show that…for this Board to grant the petition, I don’t think that there’s no way he can put this building up on his property, uh, and, uh, or excuse me – he can put this building up in another location on his property without being in violation of the code. He stated, I think he can push it back a bit and still meet both the setback requirements and put it in his back yard. He stated that I think for that reason, strict application of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of his property, and, again, these other property owners here will all attest to the fact that this barn going up, where it’s going up, so close to Lamplight Lane, is going to affect the value of their property.

Mr. Detert stated that he has testified that he has a hardship ob about $8,000 if he has to move this.

Mr. Parkinson stated, that’s self-created, Mr. Chairman.

Lindy Allen, Lot 5, Lamplight Lane, stated that one of my questions is how he could get a variance in the first place when he was so far off. He stated that it either was misinformation or confusion on somebody’s part to give him a permit when he issued the information for the permit that it all wasn’t there, because, obviously, there is a big difference between what he says and the reality, so it was either misinformation or false information and I when I build my home there or somebody else does we’re going to be required to do that and I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be required to do the same thing everybody else does.

Bob Robbins, 436 W. 700 N., Valparaiso, stated that he is Judy Aragon’s father. He stated that I am concerned with the devaluation of her property. He stated, just as these other people here that she has sold lots to in that subdivision. He stated that everyone in that subdivision has paid in excess of $36,000 for their lots. He stated that they all plan to build homes in excess of $150,000, so this is not low-income housing, by any stretch of the imagination. He stated that the location and the size of this pole barn at the present time is greatly devaluing two of my daughter’s lots that is adjacent to this. He stated that she has one lot left. He stated that all of the rest of the lots in the subdivision are sold. He stated that those people are all here. He stated that the restrictions and covenants were very, very strict, and the reason she did this was to protect the valuation of the people that are going to live in this subdivision. He stated that the lot that is adjacent to this proposed barn is still for sale for $36,000. He stated that I would ask any of you if you would go in and pay $36,000 for a lot and build a home in excess of $150,000 and look out the window and see this pole barn where it’s setting and the size of it. He stated that I can’t help but believe that the size of this pole barn is large enough to house a dozen Hummers. He stated that I can’t believe that this man doesn’t have commercial aspirations in the future. He stated that this would also be very detrimental to the welfare of the people in the subdivision, so that’s exactly how I feel that this petition for a variance here should be denied.

Tim Porter, 78 E. Lamplight Lane, stated that I am actually the first house that was built in that subdivision. He stated that I guess my question to the Board would be basically when Mr. Jones applied for the permit, um, and he did his drawing and he said he was exempt from it, you know, I did my drawings at the same time and submitted to the Plan Commission for my home and building, um, and when you draw your plans because they’re not drawn by an engineer or architect or whatever they sit in the Planning Commission for two days before a permit is issued. He stated that from what I was told when I did this, this is for the Planning Commission to review for the permit and make sure that the measurements are correct and so on and so forth; this is what I was told because I expected to go in and get a permit that day. He stated that my question to you is, I don’t understand how Mr. Jones could put himself in this situation, um, and be given a permit and now he’s in a bad situation because he was issued a permit and allowed to do what he is doing and had a green tag put on it and the County was saying it was okay for him to do it and, you know, now he’s the one that whether he had to follow the rules or not or whatever that, you know, legal part of it is, I don’t understand how things got as far as they did, um, and has put him in a situation where now, you know, in a situation where he’s basically in big trouble financially and where the building is not where it’s supposed to be. He stated that that building, in all honesty, in my opinion, no, I don’t care for where it’s at, but it is on his property. He stated that if that’s where he’s chosen to put it it’s his choice, but, in all honesty, that building’s as close to my house as it is to his, but if it shouldn’t be there, when somebody went out and checked those posts to okay that thing, they should have saw (sic) that road 40 feet from there and said hey, Mr. Jones, this isn’t right, this isn’t on your drawing, this isn’t what’s submitted, and it should have stopped right there.

Mr. Detert stated, you made your point. He stated that as these questions come up, we’ll answer them after all the questions are asked, so is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Jeanette Eucatelle(?), 85 E. 183rd S., stated that my husband and I bought Lot 6. She stated that I just heard a few minutes ago a gentleman sitting here asking for a variance so that he could put up a pole barn and you denied that or tabled it because of the fact that it was going to be possibly in his front yard. She stated that this gentleman’s home, which the front door of his house faces South, would be, I would consider that…the front of his house faces South, his pole barn is in the front of his house. She stated, now, true, he says that his property enters from the main road, which is not Lamplight Lane Road. She stated that his house, basically, is facing South, which puts his barn, or pole barn, in the front of his property. She stated that after his pole barn was red-tagged, my husband and I drove out to our property to see how much ice damage has been caused by some of the freezing of our property, and so this gentleman…one of his friends, or somebody in a snowstorm, on the roof of the pole barn, with an air hammer applying shingles, even though he already knew that there possibly was a problem with that pole barn being there, in a snowstorm, on a Sunday, putting shingles on the roof, but I guess my main concern is, is he allowed to have that pole barn in his front yard?

Ron Berkoski, 304 Shamrock Lane, Valparaiso, stated that I don’t want to take away this man’s right to have a pole barn. He stated that he lives in the country and I think he should be allowed to have one. He stated that it’s unfortunate that the situation happened the way it did, but if the Porter County Plan Commission has rules that are supposed to be followed, this should be followed. He stated that he has a large yard, plenty of other places to put the barn, and I think he has the right to have it, but if there’s rules that are made for certain reasons…they should be enforced.

Greg Kazmarek, 1203 Meadow Glen, stated that me and my wife, Carrie, purchased Lot 2, just Southeast of Mr. Jones’ pole barn, and my feeling is that I would never have purchased this lot if I would have known this pole barn was going 15 feet from the North side of the road. He stated that I just feel that we shouldn’t be here right now, I mean if everything was researched and before this pole barn, whether it’s his fault or the Plan Commission’s fault, um, uh, I just don’t think we should be in this situation right now and I just feel that it’s going to be degrading my property. He stated that our house, uh, excuse me…we are going to built anywhere from $250,000 to $300,000 and we don’t want to have this pole barn as soon as you turn in the subdivision. He stated, I mean, there’s plenty of land, there is plenty of other places where this barn could be put, um, and, I guess basically that’s all I have to say.

Ms. Aragon stated that Tim had commented that he had no plans to access to Lamplight Lane. She asked, can I give you some pictures?

She stated that these pictures are of Lot 7 where he drives through his back yard and drives thought my property and drives out through Lot 7 and comes out to Lamplight Lane. She stated that you can see the back of his pole barn. She stated that you can see where he’s been driving through. She stated that basically where the pencil is, this is his building and that’s where he’s been…that’s that.

Mr. Jones stated that I would like to respond to a couple of them. He stated that I understand what these people say about decreasing their property value, but the first thing that these people understood is that when they looked at this proposal, the subdivision plot, they understood that I am an exception and they understood that I do not have to follow the rules. He stated that they understood the fact of what they might not like what I’m doing in my yard. He stated, and, Number 2, I had permission from Judy Aragon to go back there. He stated that she’s asked me before, you know, if I would burn piles for her, and we were on a good relationship until I put this pole barn and, um, I, I just believe that they totally understood when they bought that lot that I’m an exception.

Mr. Detert stated that you’re an exception to their covenants, not to the County ordinance.

Mr. Jones stated, but when they said that I’m decreasing their property value, they understood that I could be a person that does not take care of my property, does not take care of my house, I could have my grass 4 foot tall, and, basically, there is nothing they could do about it. He stated that they built the subdivision around my house and my property and they have to accept that.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that he is going to ask our building – Ray, do you want to address anything?

Ray Weltz stated that I am the building commissioner. He stated that I need to clarify a couple things. He stated that first of all, I did not do the inspection on the property, one of my part-time inspectors did. He stated, I have two part-time inspectors due to the financial situation of the County, so it’s harder to keep people trained and harder to keep them. He stated that there was some comment made about shingles being placed on the roof. He stated that I authorized those shingles to be placed on that roof to protect exposure. He stated that I would do that to anybody here that I had shut a job down on. He stated that I’ve done it many a time on houses, garages, sheds, whatever. He stated that I will not accept the liability of any damage, of water damage, of mold, contamination of any materials due to my shutting the job down, and there isn’t a building official anywhere in the nation that would not do that. He stated the comment was made about being only 15 feet from the road. He stated that he is 28 feet from the center of the road. He stated that all measurements are taken from the center of the road. He asked, Steve, is that correct? 28? When we measured that?

Mr. Nigro stated, I do not have that figure.

Mr. Weltz stated that the other issue is that there was a comment also made about moving that building further towards, closer to the house. He stated that that side of the house, I believe there’s a situation also with the septic field being towards that area. He stated that he should have a drawing showing the location of the septic, so by moving that building further over, it would be encroaching on the septic. He stated, but Mr. Jones did call me in reference to putting the shingles on the roof, and I granted him the right to do that, mainly to protect from exposure.

Mr. Burns stated that your sketch, your original sketch that you turned in to the Plan Commission, shows 15 feet side clearance. He stated that this survey is 4 feet plus.

Mr. Jones stated that that’s correct.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s the difference?

Mr. Jones stated, um, first of all that was a sketch made up before I put the building up, and I made that sketch off when I talked to Floyd Aragon, I asked him, approximately where is my building line at, because everything I’ve had, I understood I had to be 3 feet off my building line (sic) and what he explained to me and him being half owner I figured was pretty accurate, ended up not being my property line.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, so the sketch you turned in was not correct.

Mr. Jones stated, yes, you are correct, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated that that’s really the crux of the problem. He stated that the department issued you a permit based on your sketch, but your sketch, unfortunately, due to whatever reason, was not correct. He stated that it showed 15 feet, and it really was only 4 feet, so that’s why they gave you a permit. He stated, now, when did you discover that you were in a problem? He stated that you said you kept on building after that, but what was the point when you discovered that there was a real problem here?

Mr. Jones stated, when my building got red-tagged.

Mr. Robertson asked, when was that?

Mr. Jones stated, I believe that was December 30th.

Mr. Robertson stated, all right now, what have you done since December 30th besides putting shingles on?

Mr. Jones stated, nothing.

Mr. Robertson asked, you put shingles on – you haven’t done anything else?

Mr. Jones stated, no, sir.

Mr. Hudson stated, you know, I can sympathize…first of all, I guess I want to ask, how long have you lived on the property?

Mr. Jones stated that I have lived on the property for two years.

Mr. Hudson asked, and who did you buy it from?

Mr. Jones stated, I bought it from Denise and Richard Booker.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess I sympathize, for the people in the subdivision, um. He stated, I’m not sure that, um, the people before this gentleman, I don’t know if they were in favor of the development in 1999 or whatever the date was, it was sometime before this gentleman bought it, but I don’t think they asked for the subdivision to be there. He stated that it was pretty obvious that…do you know if there was any money offered to those people to acquiesce to whatever the restrictions that these other…

Mr. Jones stated that when I bought my property, they said that in no way does that affect…I’m not part of that…they made that strong and clear that I’m not part of the property and no way does that affect me.

Mr. Hudson stated that, he’s not asking that. He asked, did the people you bought your property from, were they paid any money to be a part of this development. He asked, where they paid any money to have a building setback that was in agreement…

Mr. Jones stated, no.

Mr. Hudson stated, they were there first. He stated that this little house has been there for quite awhile. He stated that it wasn’t built in the last 10 years. He stated it probably was built in the early 50s.

Mr. Jones stated that they never had compensation and they told me that as far as they knew, it did not affect the property.

Mr. Brickner asked, how long has Lamplight Lane been there?

Mr. Jones stated, I’m not sure.

Mr. Brickner asked, was it there when you moved in?

Mr. Jones stated that it was before I moved in.

Mr. Brickner stated that we have a problem with this being in the front yard. He stated that the setback aside, the error that you made on your sketch, now we have a problem, too, that this is in the front yard and he has two front yards, because he lives on a corner now. He stated, of course, it wasn’t that way before Lamplight Lane was built and it definitely is in the front yard now, so the problem is more than just the sketch and the setback.

Mr. Detert stated, I think he is asking for a variance to put it where it is, and…

Mr. Brickner stated, I was thinking that it was only going to be a variance for the setback.

Mr. Detert stated that but there is evidence of septic systems…

Mr. Robertson asked, how far is that septic system over there.

Mr. Hudson stated that he has 60 feet on his sketch. He stated, Mr. Chairman, I have a problem. He stated that this parcel, the adjoining parcel to this exception is the one that created these restrictions on his property without any compensation. He stated, that, now, I’m sure that our attorney will say that that happens all the time, but the people before him maybe didn’t realize that this development was going to restrict the use of their property that they had prior to these people developing. He stated, that I have a problem with.

Ms. Schaefer stated, well, I think, you know, that is an issue, unfortunately, is between him and the people he bought from and from those people and the developer, you know..I…I don’t know…it is unfortunate and I don’t…I mean, I guess that’s the emphasis always put on having an attorney and a surveyor, you know, helping you with these things.

Mr. Detert stated that we have had ample incidences of not having a surveyor and having problems with property, and I can’t emphasize enough that when you do building that you get a surveyor. He stated, I think we ought to make a rule that every property be surveyed.

Mr. Brickner stated that the problem is that he has nowhere else to put it now because he can’t even put it behind his house. He stated that he is limited with his septic system.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t think he can put closer to the septic system, because the standard for the septics said you have to have room, a setover area, so that he could add additional lines, you know, to his field, either North or South.

Ms. Schaefer stated that would certainly be a hardship…you know…I don’t think, Mr. Detert, that financial…if you were building something after you know it’s in violation, that financial hardship, under Indiana’s case law, is not considered a valid hardship, but what you’re talking about would, on the other hand, be considered a hardship, that there’s nowhere else, because that would be something peculiar to the property because there is nowhere else you can do it, but the fact that somebody goes ahead and now they are going to lose $8,000 really, I mean, tough as that seems, the courts have said we don’t care. She stated that that’s not considered a hardship.

Mr. Robertson stated that the testimony is kind of confused about if he knew that he was too close to the road or not. He stated that Ms. Aragon told him that he was too close to the road. He stated that his drawing showed 15 feet, which wasn’t true, so it’s a question if he knew that he was too close to the road, or if he worried about that, or he just went ahead and built anyway. He stated from the very start of his building was he in knowledge that he was in violation of the County, or possibly in violation of the County? He stated that it’s confusing. He stated that I agree with Rich that by making this subdivision it limited where he could put his, uh, his pole barn. He stated that the subdivision limited the use of his property, but, um..

Mr. Brickner stated that we could solve the setback situation by moving the pole barn back far enough to get it away from the road. He stated that we can solve that problem, but he can’t solve the front yard problem, so if the developers were to reimburse him for moving the barn, or, at least, partially, maybe they could work out a deal where we could at least solve that problem and then let him have it in the front yard, but back far enough away.. I think the people who developed this subdivision should be willing to at least, you know, reimburse him part of his $8,000 it cost him to set it back and maybe they could all make a deal and he could move it back away from the road, but I’m like Rick, I feel sorry for Mr. Jones here because he really, other than he made mistake on his drawing, which was not excusable, but he’s kind of limited in what he can do with his own property here and he is not part of the subdivision.

Mr. Detert stated that I think there is something to be said for the fact that he gave us a sketch and that he didn’t follow that sketch. He stated that I think at the point you decided to build closer to the road than what your sketch has said, but you should have checked with somebody here also, not just put in a sketch and then put the barn wherever else you wanted it.

Mr. Robertson stated that you must have measured from the edge of the road. He asked if that’s what you figured what your 15 feet was.

Mr. Jones stated, no, I measured off, basically like the center of the ditch, there was a post thing going in the easement and it goes from the front of the property all the way to the back of Lamplight Lane subdivision, and when I talked to the owner he said, you know, that’s the stake out for property line, and so the difference in what he said was the property line and which I found out was the real property line after I had this survey done that it ended up being 4 foot off my property line.

Mr. Hudson stated that that is a big difference. He asked, and you say you were going by what someone else told you was the property line?

Mr. Jones stated, yeah, Floyd Aragon. He stated that I had that conversation with him when I started clearing the ground, and I asked him, you know, that’s the reason why I made my sketch at 15 foot because everything that I had, I understood that I had to be 3 foot and I was making sure that I was more than that 3 foot. He stated that I knew it wasn’t right on, it wasn’t perfectly accurate, and that’s the reason why I was giving myself 15 foot, and it ended up being wrong, and it ended up being 4.

Mr. Detert stated, let me ask the attorney back there: Is there any way that we could work out a compromise between Mr. Jones and the property owners you represent? He stated that there are some hardships that he has.

Mr. Parkinson stated, the hardships though, with all respect, is that the petitioner, Mr. Chairman, testified to you that he purchased his house two years ago and the subdivision was platted in 1999, almost 4 years ago, I mean I’ve heard you speak about some measure of compensation going from the developer to the petitioner. He stated that I just don’t think that’s going to happen. He stated that the petitioner bought his property after the subdivision was platted, buying it subject to the zoning code and the ordinance.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I just want to comment, because this happened once last year and I was really quite distressed about it afterwards. She stated that it is not the province of this Board, and I don’t really want…I know we like to see compromise, but this Board really cannot be asking, you know, remonstrators and petitioners to strike a deal and go out in the hall and basically you have somebody in the position, one of the other, of being extorted from the other one. She stated, I just don’t want to ever see us do that. She stated that that’s their business. She stated that we’re voting on what is in front of us according to the law, so…

Mr. Detert stated that it’s kind of nice to get everybody happy.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I understand, but we just, legally, just can’t get in that box.

Mr. Burns stated that I guess what’s bothering me is that he purchased property after the subdivision was subdivided. He stated that it’s almost like buyer beware. He stated, I mean, he knew the subdivision was there when he purchased his property and he knew the street was there. He stated, if it happened the other way, then I would say, yeah, there’s a hardship, but the street was there.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 03-V-6. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated, if his septic is where it is, then where else does he put his barn.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, we don’t really know where his septic is. He stated that he’s got that drawing, but he might have room to move it that way, or he could move it, you know, farther up front, but it wouldn’t be as close to the road.

Mr. Hudson asked, should we give him an opportunity to maybe get the septic area located so he can see what his options are before we…I mean, we don’t know where the well is, we don’t know where, you know, there’s not enough information on the plat to…

Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t think we’re saying where he has to put it. He stated that we’re just saying where he shouldn’t put it, which is this close to the road.

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, I know he does have room to move it, but he can’t put it in his back yard. He stated that he does have room to move it back from the road, because I observed that when I saw your barn, but he could have moved it back away from the road a ways, you know, which he still can do, but he’s still going to have it in his front yard, no matter what.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that something we’d have to give another variance for?

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s something he would have to come back for.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess if he’s limited to where he can put that, and if this is, in fact…we don’t know if this is the only spot, if it takes doing some septic borings to see if some other areas that are open in the spot are the only place that his septic overlay can go, we’re denying him and causing him to take that out of there now without giving him a chance to…

Mr. Robertson asked, would you like to continue it a month and let him come back with a platted out septic field?

Mr. Hudson stated, to see where that’s not only where the septic is, but possibly where that overlay would be. He stated that even the people in the subdivision have to have an area on their lot that gives them the opportunity to put another system, or add onto their system if their system malfunctions, so that’s the County standard.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’d be willing to withdraw the motion and move to continue if that would satisfy Rich that he would come back with a platted…

Mr. Hudson stated, that’s going to mean that he needs to spend some…I mean, he has to make the decision whether he wants to spend the time and the money to do that..

Ms. Schaefer stated, and that would also allow if the parties wish to negotiate, they can do that.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think if we deny it tonight, we take that right away from him to be able to do that.

Mr. Robertson withdrew his motion to deny. Mr. Brickner withdrew his second.

Mr. Robertson moved to table Case 03-V-6, with the public hearing closed. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Mr. Burns asked, when this subdivision was developed in ’98, was this outlot covered in the language?

Mr. Nigro stated that he researched that and all this was zoned agricultural in what is today Lamplight Lane requested and received a rezone to R-1, single-family, so this property was never included in any of the development of this property.

Mr. Burns asked, was it the same owners at that time?

Mr. Nigro stated, no.

Motion to table Case 03-V-6 carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-SE-1. Petition of Kankakee Valley REMC, 114 S. Main St., P.O. Box 157, Wanatah, seeking a Special Exception to permit a utility substation, to be located on the West side of Baum’s Bridge Road, between SR 8 and CR 850 S., in Pleasant Township.

Brian Hurley stated that he is a Valparaiso attorney representing the petitioner in this matter and that he is accompanied by one of the petitioners, Scott Sears, system engineer. He stated that Kankakee Valley REMC is interested in developing a parcel of property into a substation. He stated that the parcel of property is currently owned by a farmer by the name of Wendell (inaudible) down in Kouts and the substation is a place where utility puts its electricity into and then it is separated and reduced out of voltage and then sent out for residential use, so what happens is that the system that is in place currently receives power for this particular area through an existing NIPSCO interchange. He stated that under the circumstances because we do get the power from NIPSCO, we are subject to whatever outages or whatever line loss or whatever problems occur in that NISPCO system upstream from us. He stated that therefore we really don’t have much control over the power after we purchase it or after we receive it. He stated that what we propose to do is put a substation here in Kouts to alleviate that problem and to provide neighboring people with more reliable service. He stated that to provide our customers with more reliable service or in the vicinity. He stated that this is a plat of the parcel in question. He stated that it is 1.06, or basically 1.1 acres. He stated that this is Baum’s Bridge Road and this is to the North. He stated that this is the outline of the parcel that we are going to purchase, and it is going to be gravel inside of a chain link and barbed-wire fence to prohibit access for safety purposes. He stated that the lines will come in, they will start out at about 60 to 70 feet and those lines will go into the perimeter of the substation. He stated that they will then attach to this structure at approximately 40 feet, and then they will be reduced down in height to about between 12 and 20 feet, and then it will be routed through the substation appliances and then it will be through underground surface taken back out to the poles that are along Baum’s Bridge Road. He stated that the Kankakee Valley REMC is a rural electric cooperative which provides electricity to a specific designated district or area. He stated that under state statute we have a designated area to which we supply transmitted power, and, under the circumstances, the Kankakee Valley REMC has determined that there is a public need and a public purpose for this particular substation and where it is going to be located. He stated that the property is Agricultural. He stated that it is Agricultural to the North and it is Agricultural to the South. He stated that the closest actual residence, I believe, is about 500 feet to the South of this parcel. He stated that as a utility, we are regulated, of course, by the Indiana…we’re not regulated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. He stated that however we are regulated by the National Electric Safety Code and all appliances, all regulations, all specifications, need to comply with the national electric safety code, and that is why we have the design the way it is. He stated that in addition to that, we’ve provided buffer zones in this area as well as this area. He stated that we haven’t put the fence right on the line or right off the line. He stated that we have given a 20-foto side-yard here and a 50-foot side yard here. He stated that, as you can see, the 80-foot building line from the center line of Baum’s Bridge Road is complied with. He stated that under the circumstances of your zoning ordinance, we need to have a Special Exception to locate this particular structure where it is located. He stated tha