|
 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2003
M I N U T E S
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 16, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.
Those members present 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. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the March 19, 2003 meeting and accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Pending Business:
Case 95-UV-13. Alan & Sheila Nevill, 375 N. 475 W., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a machine shop on CR 475 W., between CR 400 N. and U.S. 30 in Union Township. (This is the last renewal available on this case.)
Mr. Detert stated that this would have been the last renewal on this, but it is his understanding that the machine shop is no longer there.
Mr. Nigro stated that that is correct.
Mr. Detert asked, can we entertain a motion to dispose of it?
Mr. Nevill stated that the machine shop is still there. He stated that they just don't do the amount of work that they used to do.
Mr. Detert asked, so you do want to renew it for 5 more years?
Mr. Nevill stated, yes.
Mr. Brickner asked, do you still do the automotive gasket?
Mr. Nevill stated that they do.
Mr. Brickner asked, how many people do you have now?
Mr. Nevill stated, right now we have about 12. He stated that we have another building that we do the majority of the work in.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 95-UV-12 for five years, with the same stipulations that were on the original. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
Case 97-UV-6. Frances M. Roop, 686 W. 600 N., Hobart, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance, permitting a kennel with no more than 10 dogs, on the South side of CR 600 N., between CR 625 W and CR 725 W., in Union Township. (This is the last renewal available on this case.)
Earl Roop, P.O. Box 273, Portage, stated that my mom makes extra money out of this and she takes care of the dogs most of the time and I help her out. He stated that she keeps them clean and she sells maybe one or two litters a year and it helps her with her income.
Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Nigro stated that none have been filed.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 95-UV-6 for 5 years, with the same stipulations that were on the original. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
Case 02-UV-6. Dewayne Bailey, 774-1 Capitol Road, Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance, permitting a ceramics business and classes, on the West side of Capitol Road, between LaHonda Drive and U.S. 6, in Portage Township.
Mr. Nigro stated that we have received no correspondence from the petitioner on this.
Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 02-UV-6. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Hudson asked if they receive written notice.
Mr. Nigro stated that they do.
Mr. Robertson asked if that was a certified letter.
Ms. Byers stated that it's not sent certified the first time.
Mr. Brickner withdrew his motion to deny. Mr. Burns withdrew his second of the motion.
Mr. Brickner moved to send the petitioner a certified letter and to continue this Case to the 5-21-03 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Case 79-V-6. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 950 S., between Baum's Bridge Road and CR 150 W., in Pleasant Township.
Mr. Nigro read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 79-V-6 for one year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 95-V-8. Jose & Phyllis Rael, 413 W. 750 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 750 N., between McCool Road and CR 450 W., in Portage Township. (Petitioner must always appear in person.)
Phyllis Rael stated that she would like to ask for an extension for her parents. She stated that they are elderly and it's a hardship. She stated that her dad had two strokes and they both have diabetes and she would like for another year, hopefully more than that.
Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Nigro stated that there have been none.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 95-V-8 for one year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 96-V-15. Jodie Hatfield, 233 E. Tratebas Road, Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 233 E. Tratebas Road, in Jackson Township.
Mr. Nigro read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.
Mr. Brickner asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Nigro stated that there have been none.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 96-V-15 for 1 year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 99-V-15. Emmanuel & Eleni Manos, 798 N. 500 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the Southwest corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 500 E., in Jackson Township.
Mr. Nigro read a letter from Ms. Manos requesting a renewal of this TCO.
Mr. Burns asked what the original purpose of this was.
Mr. Robertson stated that he thinks it was for an elderly parent who lived in Chicago.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-V-15 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 80-V-3. John Dille Jr., 240 E. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 240 E. U.S. Hwy 6, between SR 49 and Mander Road, in Jackson Township. (This case was continued from the 3-19 meeting)
Mr. Nigro read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.
Mr. Brickner stated that the trailer is way back off the road, but this business is getting to be gigantic, and he knows that's not the issue right now - it's just the trailer, but the place has expanded to the point where the entire lot is full of construction equipment. He stated that he knows he needs somebody to look after that because he's got some problems with his health, so, he doesn't really have a problem with the trailer, but at least for one more year.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 80-V-3 for 1 year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call 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. (This case was tabled at the 2-19-03 meeting for more information and continued from the 3-19-03 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)
Mr. Jones stated, first of all, I had another discussion with the developer, Judy Aragon, and, uh, we talked briefly and we also, uh, went over my land on possible places maybe to move the barn and, uh, um, Mrs. Aragon asked of a couple things, um. He stated, first thing, is uh, my barn be moved. He stated that where they are asking is behind my septic to the East which is over 100 feet from where it's at now. He stated, now, I would have to pay for the cost to move the building, I'd have to pay to get my driveway extended out all the way back there and I also have a drain tile around my house that exits through the back of my property that would have to be dug up and a culvert put over it in order to drive over it. He stated that another thing is, um, she wanted me to sign a paper saying me or anyone that owns my property won't run a driveway to Lamplight Lane and, uh, another thing is, uh, the 80 foot of woods in the back of my property, she would like that to be left alone, if I was to move the barn there, okay? He stated, and, um, I have some approximate numbers here. He stated that my property is approximately 60,000 square feet. He stated that when they put the subdivision in, the developers, engineers, whoever planned it, when they put it as close as they did
to my land, they took away 100 foot by 375 foot of land. He stated that they didn't take it away; they restricted my use of it when they put in the subdivision.
Mr. Detert stated, that's not land you own.
Mr. Jones stated, yes, it is, and it's restricted use because they put their land so close to mine, the road so close to mine. He stated that the previous owner...
Mr. Robertson stated that you didn't own the property, so they didn't restrict your land; they restricted the previous owner's property and you bought it so restricted.
Mr. Jones stated that the law of the land follows the land, not the owner.
Mr. Robertson asked, but isn't what I just said true?
Mr. Detert asked, does your deed include that property?
Mr. Jones stated, yes, it does. He stated that another thing is if you add in the woods that I'm supposed to be left alone, that's another 80 foot by 60 foot restricted, if I leave that alone for visual impact, so you're talking out of 60,000 square foot, over 42,000 is restricted because they put a subdivision in that close to my property, an existing property. He stated that that leaves a little over 17,000 square feet unrestricted. He stated, I mean, this is getting a little carried away on what somebody can do when they come in next to your property, and, um, another thing I got to say is, um, the big issue on the minutes from the last meeting was about what the neighbors are saying and the close proximity to the road, okay? He stated, um, one issue, I believe a couple people stated, was that they wouldn't like to be the person that lives directly across the street from me and have to look at my building whenever they look out their windows. He stated that I have a picture here, and I'll give it to you, and it shows my barn in this picture directly at that house. He stated that their garage faces my property. He stated that there is not one window, side or door window, that faces my property that when they're in their house they would see my barn.
Mr. Detert stated that I think I made that comment that the only one that I could see that would be affected from a view standpoint would be that property. He stated, I don't know whether they would be or not.
At this time, Mr. Jones passed the picture around.
Mr. Detert stated, I think that you might be confusing the issue a little bit. He stated that I want to clarify it. He stated, you say the street that goes into that subdivision is part of your property and on your deed?
Mr. Jones stated, no, sir.
Mr. Detert stated, okay.
Mr. Jones stated, I'm talking about the easements that go into my property because of the road that is so close to my property.
Mr. Detert stated, I understand that.
Mr. Jones stated, um, another thing I'd like to say is on, um, the point of the proximity to the road. He stated, I took down exactly where my barn is, um, the solid trees of wood. He stated, I mean, it wasn't affecting anything. He stated that my woods behind my barn still go out the same distance. He stated that there's not a safety issue; there's a swale between my building and the road. He stated, the, um, um...her drainage and utility easements are not affected by where my barn's at.
Mr. Detert stated, you're getting back into all the arguments that you've already given. He stated, I don't know if the Board needs to hear that again or not. He stated that we had a tie vote and didn't take action on it. He stated, you were missing, Jim. He asked, do you need any other information that wasn't in the minutes?
Mr. Robertson stated, I just want to be sure about a couple of things. He stated that the septic, as I understand it, the setback precludes him moving it..what is it, South or towards his house.
Mr. Hudson stated, North, I guess.
Mr. Nigro stated that from his house, I believe, the septic is straight East.
Mr. Brickner stated that he would have to move his barn North.
Mr. Robertson stated that North is away from the Lamplight Lane, isn't it?
Mr. Detert stated, yes.
Mr. Robertson stated, if he moves it North he's encroaching on the extra setback for the septic, is that right?
Mr. Detert stated, yeah, according to the letter he had, yes.
Mr. Robertson stated, and, if he moves it East, he's moving it farther away from his house. He stated, I understand Mrs. Aragon was talking about him moving it East and that would be quite a ways around there.
Mr. Jones stated that East and North, it's over 100 foot.
Mr. Robertson stated that he can't move it West. He asked, can you move it West?
Mr. Detert stated that he'd be in the front yard then.
Mr. Nigro stated that it would bring it closer to the intersection if he brought it...
Mr. Robertson stated that it would still be the same distance from Lamplight Lane.
Mr. Nigro stated, yes.
Mr. Robertson stated, so, he's got a hardship. He stated, uh, he screwed up. He stated, he, uh, he, uh...you know, it's partly our fault, I guess, in that our handouts weren't completely clear...although the ordinance is clear, I guess our handout weren't completely clear about what he had to list on his drawing. He stated that he filed the drawing as he understood, followed the directions as he understood with the drawing; unfortunately, the drawing was incorrect, but, uh, I guess according to the letter that was handed out, he did follow it, so it's difficult to hold him in account for that. He stated that if he does move it I think it's a big hardship. He stated that Ray Weltz was here and I think he indicated that there was room along Lamplight Lane, even if it stays there, it's not a heavily traveled street. He stated that it is off it quite a bit. He stated that if anybody wants to enlighten me further, I'm inclined to...
Mr. Detert stated that there's a definite hardship there - there is no question, if he has to move it. He asked, they made you no offers on helping with the expense of moving it?
Mr. Jones stated, no, sir, and I believe, um, now I'm just speculating here, but I believe that their opinion is that they should not have to move it considering that the County gave me the permission to put it where it's at. He stated, and, um, another thing I'd like to say about it is even if I move it to where, um, they're asking me to move it, I'm now moving it even closer to the next lot.
Mr. Detert stated, to the subdivision itself.
Mr. Jones stated, to the lot that would be directly East of me. He stated, so even if I move it, I'm moving it closer to that next lot.
Mr. Robertson stated, the thing was that it is too close to the road, according to the ordinance. He stated that it is a small little minor subdivision (sic) road, uh, it isn't going to be enlarged. He stated that the only thing I'd like to point out is he keeps saying that they did it to his property and they didn't do it to his property; they did it to the previous owner's property and he bought
the property as is and I don't want it to be confused that it was done to his property. He stated that he bought the property the way it was.
Mr. Burns stated, if Mr. Jones was the original owner, wouldn't we look at this case different (sic)? He stated, let's say that he was the original owner.
Mr. Detert stated, I don't think so.
Mr. Burns stated, the developer, I think, has some responsibilities, too. He stated, I mean, maybe they should have created a buffer and they did do that. He stated that they took every inch of property for development, so, really, if we just look at the property itself, the developer caused the problem.
Mr. Hudson stated, so, if they moved the driveway 30 feet...
Mr. Burns stated, so, if Mr. Jones was the original owner, I think we might be looking at this case a little bit different (sic). He stated that I know I voted against it at the last meeting, but I'm kind of leaning the other way.
Mr. Hudson stated, I agree with what Rick's saying, and I think it was kind of my sentiment...not maybe the last meeting, but the meeting before last, those rights were taken because they tried to cram that road up against to get to maximize to their benefit - not to his benefit, not to that parcel benefit, regardless of who owns it, not to the benefit of that parcel, but to the detriment. He stated that they took rights without any consideration.
Mr. Brickner stated that we still have the problem is...it's violating two ordinances - the front yard and the setback both, you know, which is, I mean that's a lot to be considering. He stated, I mean, if it was just the setback, if it was just the front yard - now we've got two of them there. He stated, I agree, it's a hardship.
Mr. Detert stated that that hardship wasn't there before the development created it, so, that was Rich's point.
Mr. Robertson stated, you know, the corner lot, that's complicated, the corner lot.
Judy Aragon, 127 E. 250 S., Valparaiso, stated that at the first meeting it was requested that we come up with a compromise. She stated that the property owners came up with a compromise and we gave the information to Tim Jones and we also put it in writing and all of us signed it and I was hoping that we could submit this to you so you could at least take a look at it, but this is a compromise that we were requested to submit.
Ms. Schaefer stated that I think that perhaps you misunderstood the intent. She stated that the intent of a compromise is that the parties independently of this Board work out an agreement. She stated that this Board cannot enforce compromises and, indeed, I look very badly upon the Board trying to do that. She stated that the idea is that the parties get lawyers or whatever they want to do and out of the sight of this Board they reach a compromise. She stated that if they don't reach one, it comes back as the original petition and the public hearing is closed.
Mr. Detert stated that it's obvious that your compromise is not acceptable to him, so there is no compromise.
Ms. Schaefer stated, and just like in court, if I may say, in court it is absolutely impermissible to submit settlement negotiations in a court of law because otherwise they would be discouraged. She stated that's the principle of the law, so you can't submit what your settlement proposal was to him, because this is like a court and it's not their job to try and enforce settlements. She stated that they can't do that.
Ms. Aragon stated but I'm just wondering why the other area on his property was never taken into consideration for this barn to be relocated. She stated, you're right: You're saying it's in violation of two building codes, and if you give him a 15-foot setback, this pole barn is still sitting 34 feet from the County road.
Mr. Detert stated, that's why he's here, ma'am.
Ms. Aragon stated, and the variation (inaudible) is 45.
Mr. Detert stated, and this Board has to decide whether to grant it.
Ms. Aragon stated, but I'm just saying that this Board has never taken into consideration that there on other areas on his property that he could locate his building.
Mr. Detert stated, we just heard about another area, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's hardship, wherever he moves it. He stated that he has a hardship of moving it, financially. He stated that the Board has to consider all of these facts and since you didn't reach agreement we have to consider it as it was submitted; nothing else we can do, so thank you for your comments.
Mr. Hudson stated, something she said piqued my interest. He stated that she made the statement about the reduction and the printed word here under this case talks about the reduction of the minimum required front-yard building setback from 60 feet to 45 feet, and I think it would be like 34 feet, if the picture that he had the
survey...unless I'm misreading it. He stated that the plat of survey that was presented on...I'm not sure if this was last week or, I mean, um, last month...now realize his property line is not parallel to the road, but, is that a problem?
Mr. Burns stated, so what you're saying is he's not at 45 feet?
Mr. Hudson stated that it doesn't look like he's at 45 feet to me. He stated that I think if you look at his original sketch he shows 15 feet from the property.
Mr. Detert stated that there was a question about that at the last meeting.
Mr. Hudson stated that if you look at what was presented originally I think his sketch showed, yeah 15 feet, so, if you took half of the 60-foot right-of-way and added 15 it would be 45, but, in actuality, I think what we requested him to do was to find out exactly where his building line is and I think that's what precipitated this.
Mr. Detert stated, I think we did ask you to consult your engineer.
Mr. Jones stated, yes, that's why I had to get the survey done to show you exactly where my barn is located.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-6. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Brickner asked, were we going to talk about screening?
Mr. Detert stated, we should.
Mr. Hudson stated that I think at one time we talked about the possibility of screening that whole side.
Mr. Detert asked, you want to restate your motion for screening?
Mr. Burns stated, screening, the last couple meetings we talked about screening. He stated, I think we should define what type of screening because we had several cases where small pine trees, 18 inches or 2 foot doesn't get it.
Mr. Detert stated that we probably ought to specify what size.
Mr. Robertson asked, is this going to encroach even further into the road right-of-way there? He stated that if you put screening outside it's going to be even closer to the road there.
Mr. Hudson stated, well, there's like 4 feet, I guess they'd have to be right up against there, or maybe out into the road somewhat.
Mr. Detert stated, pretty close. He asked, put up a fence?
Mr. Robertson asked, are you sure it's necessary? He stated that I'm just worried about it being so close to the road. He stated that you got a ditch there; is that going to tend to clog up that ditch at all?
Mr. Hudson stated, no, the ditch is way away from the...
Mr. Robertson stated, it's far enough away from the...
Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Jones, do you have room for pine trees?
Mr. Jones stated, yes, I believe I do. He stated that I'm willing to put the screening up as I stated at the last meeting. He stated that I worked with this Board and the Plan Commission since I started.
Mr. Detert stated that if you put up greenery, like shrubbery..
Mr. Robertson asked, white pines or something?
Mr. Detert asked, would you obligate yourself to trimming that if it encroaches on the road, if that should happen?
Ms. Aragon asked, Mr. Chairman, can I be recognized?
Mr. Detert stated, you're out of order. He stated that the Board is discussing this matter.
Mr. Robertson stated, Rich, if you put arborvitae...
Mr. Hudson stated, those are kind of thin and tall, yeah.
Mr. Robertson stated, but they grow kind of slow. He stated that you have to be careful that you don't put small ones out...remember the Martinez manufactured home site on the edge of Lake County Road? He stated, I went by there yesterday and part of the deal was that he was going to put arborvitae. He stated, well, what he's done, he's put like 3 foot ones tall just behind the one place he's put in there. He asked, wasn't it supposed to be all the way down, I asked him. He stated that he said that as I do I'm going to do it. He stated that it's going to be 5 years, 10 years.
Mr. Detert stated, I think you better, if you're going to screen it you'd better indicate a height of the initial trees you put in.
Mr. Hudson stated, I think the initial trees...what's the height of a fence that could go along there?
Mr. Nigro stated, 4 feet for a fence.
Mr. Detert stated, you can get arborvitaes 4 to 5 feet tall.
Mr. Hudson stated, I was going to say a minimum of 6 feet.
Mr. Robertson stated, well, that's pretty expensive.
Mr. Burns asked, he's willing to do that, right?
Mr. Jones stated, I have one question about that. He asked, are you talking the whole length of my property because the whole length of my property in 375 feet.
Mr. Detert stated, the whole length of the pole barn.
Mr. Burns asked, would you agree to that, 6 foot?
Mr. Jones stated, yes.
Mr. Hudson asked, may I also ask the petitioner, would you agree not to have access off of that road?
Mr. Jones stated, yes I would, not to access a driveway to Lamplight Lane?
Mr. Hudson stated yes. He asked, would you be willing to put that in some sort of document?
Mr. Detert stated, you can talk to Steve about that and he'll direct you on how to proceed with that.
Mr. Hudson stated, just on Lamplight, no vehicular access onto Lamplight.
Mr. Jones stated, yes, I would.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-6 to allow the building in its existing position, with the stipulation that the petitioner will screen the portion of the barn that's adjacent to Lamplight Lane with arborvitaes of such height, I would say 4 to 5 feet, and also that the petitioner prepare a document that would be a covenant to his land that would restrict his vehicular and future vehicular access onto Lamplight Lane, and that the screening should be trimmed if it encroaches on the road and it be understood that this record document be submitted before he can commence continuing construction, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the building is in a rural setting and the barn will be screened with vegetation such that it will cover the entire South side of the barn; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance
will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner due to the same facts and also that there will be no vehicular access from the petitioner's property onto the adjoining road; and the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because of the fact of the setback from Lamplight Lane. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Discussion
(Inaudible) stated that I own Lot 5 and the only thing that I want to say is that I work for a utility company and if we would have messed up like the County's messed up and gave Mr. Jones his permit without a cross-section of the road, we would have been held responsible. She stated, in the future, talk to your building people to get the right information so that for you guys, for Mr. Jones in the future and for us in the future. She stated that I know what your ruling is, but make sure in the beginning that is correct.
Case 03-PUV-1. Petition of Robert & Melissa Janda, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance for an automobile repair, all indoors, as a hobby business, to be located at 6-1 N. 550 W., in Union Township. (This case was continued from the 3-19 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Leeth stated that I'm here on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Janda. He stated that, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, this case has been fully submitted and the public hearing has been closed. He stated that at the last meeting of the Board, there was a vote taken that was inconclusive at that time and we are now returning to you for final action, hopefully, this evening. He stated that also at your last meeting on the 19th of March there was an amendment, if you will, to our petition changing it to a temporary use variance for two years with conditions that were outlined by Mr. Hudson, who was the movement of that motion. He stated that all of the conditions are acceptable. He stated that Mr. Janda and his family and supporters are here and we'd be happy to answer any questions. He stated that as you'll recall, Mr. Duncan, who is also present, who is the only remonstrator, um, asking the denial of the petition and there was overwhelming support of the community in Mr. Janda and what he was doing there. He stated, again, I'll be happy to answer any questions, along with Mr. Janda.
Mr. Robertson stated that I see by the picture that it looks like he was running a business there. He stated that it's all for friends and anything, but I think it's beyond that - that's a lot of friends
and I think he was running a business there. He stated that I think he does do good work for the fire station and they seemed to agree with him and all the neighbors spoke enthusiastically, with the exception of the one across the fence. He stated that I went by there and it looks like it's been cleaned up considerably from this and if Rich can craft a resolution that would keep it in the condition that it's in now, um, and not become a, you know, all these cars all over the place, something like that, I think I'd go along with it.
Mr. Hudson stated that I made the motion and I think it was pretty clear about what they could do outside and what they couldn't. He stated that I'd be willing to add to it. He stated that it's on Page 43.
Mr. Burns stated that I have no further comments. He stated that it's a business that does not fit the neighborhood.
Mr. Brickner stated that this was changed from a permanent use variance to a two-year.
Mr. Hudson stated that my motion was for two years.
Mr. Robertson stated that that was another reason that I tended to be in favor of it. He stated that it was not permanent. He stated that we're making it subject to review by the Board and we can see if the provisos are being adhered to. He stated, I'm sorry, Rich; I'm reading your thing now and it looks pretty specific. He stated that it says no outside storage of any unlicensed vehicles, but how many vehicles...
Mr. Hudson stated, look up above. He stated that it says subject to only three vehicles a week that he can work on. He stated that I don't say anything about vehicles being parked out there.
Mr. Detert stated, that would be pretty hard to...
Mr. Hudson stated, I mean, if he wants to have everyone of his neighbors come by and park in his yard, that's, you know.
Mr. Leeth stated, Mr. Robertson, for example, over the last weekend I understand that the volunteer fire department had an Easter egg hunt on their property and Mr. Janda invited the fire fighters to park on his property so that that would leave them more available room on the fire department's property for the public to park, so there's a significant amount of parking that occurred last weekend, and, as I told the Board at the last meeting, Mr. Janda has a busy young family with sports activities and they have a child who has gone through some illness, so friends and family and parishioners and so forth will come and go quite frequently, so there is an awful lot of traffic on that property. He stated, not every car does he work on.
Mr. Robertson stated, across the road there is the fire department. He asked, he doesn't own across the road, does he?
Mr. Leeth stated, that's correct; he does not.
Mr. Robertson stated that across the road there's like three or four cars upside down. He asked, are those the fire department's?
Mr. Leeth stated that that's correct.
Mr. Robertson stated that it's okay with me, Rich. He stated, if you want to make that again, I'll second it.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve this Case for 2 years, changing it to the appropriate use variance number, subject to only three vehicles a week, Monday-Saturday; that there be no outside storage of any unlicensed vehicles; the hours Monday-Friday would be 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; no outside storage of any parts; no signage of any type; that work for the fire department be done at the fire station itself; no Sunday work; the area to be kept clean; and that there be no employees except for Mr. Janda. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - No Burns - No Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Case 03-PUV-2. Petition of Jeffrey Jirtle, 252 W. U.S. Hwy, 6, Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance for a landscaping and excavating business and contractor's storage yard, to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 6, between SR 149 and CR 200 W., in Liberty Township. (This case was continued from the 3-19 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Jirtle stated that he and his wife Beverly are the petitioners in this matter. He stated that we came here on the continuance of our permanent use variance and the need for it. He stated that we did get some facts and findings, which Bev is going to hand to you now. He stated that I would like to address any of the Board's concerns, if there are any concerns on us conducting business at 252 W. U.S. 6. He stated that otherwise, uh, I could go through the one, two, three and four.
Gordon Etzler stated that I am an attorney representing Wind Ridge subdivision homeowners' association, which is right across the street from this property. He stated that I know most of you are long-term Porter County residents and you've been up and down Route 6 when it wasn't so heavily traveled and you've been down there the last 12 months when it's been incredibly heavy traffic. He stated, a couple things: I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but there are a number of important aspects of this that I think the BZA should consider. He stated, the first thing is that this is a permanent use application and not a temporary use and that is a concern for me in working with the zoning ordinance and I think for the County, having that on both sides with permanent use variances with contractors and landscaping businesses, and, most importantly when these businesses
are located off the road, back in the woods area where you cannot see it from the road, cannot see the operations, you don't know what's going on back there. He stated that once a use variance is granted, it becomes almost like a rezoning and has the authority, like a rezoning, and I really think that once it's given, although there hasn't been any law to my knowledge, I think the constitutional issues of stopping that use variance, a permanent use variance, might infringe upon their property rights. He stated, so what we do, as to this property, we have to do tonight because once it's in there, it's going to be very difficult to stop it. He stated that with this property, and we all know that there are some people that work in construction here, this is a contractor's yard, a staging area, and frankly, I'm afraid it's going to become a dump because I know in today's world when you have a job with construction debris, which is everything from wire, from petroleum products, from drywall, anything gets dumped in the back because they can't afford to take it to a landfill. He stated that we have a problem with landfills in our area. He stated that we don't have sufficient capacity and the ones that are there are going to be 50 miles away, and they're not going to pay the costs to do it, so it's going to get dumped over the hill in the back and the problem is that the County does not have the money to enforce the ordinance. He stated that it does have the power - it doesn't have the manpower - to make the proper inspections. He stated that we will not know what is going on there and I can almost tell you it's going to be a dump.
Mr. Detert stated that I'm only going to give you one more minute, but you're repeating a lot of things that were said at the last meeting.
Mr. Etzler stated that there is no way to monitor that, um, I think if you consider going ahead there are a number of conditions that need to be placed on this use. He stated, one, that there be an acceleration and deceleration lane on the South side of 6, because the heavy equipment moving in and out, and, as this business expands there will be more employees who will be going in and out and that needs to be done. He stated, number 2 is that there needs to be a drainage plan with retention ponds that retain the leachage that comes off of the parking lot. He stated, that there be a right to inspect the property by a designated party of the neighbors because the County will not be able to do it. He stated, perhaps with County authority, but we have to have the right to inspect. He stated that there be no sign at the highway because it was represented that this is not open to the public and there is no need for an advertising sign; and the last item is that there be a cash bond of $20,000 for enforcement purposes for a period of time, and I ask that this be a limited use for not more than three years with these conditions so it can be monitored so we know what we are getting into, otherwise I know what's going to happen and you know what's going to happen.
Mr. Robertson stated that I drove by there the other day and you really can't see anything from the road. He stated that you drive back on 200 there and it's a modest operation and it looks like it's well-maintained and it seems like he has respect for the trees and property. He stated that he hasn't just cut things willy-nilly - he's kind of moved in between the trees and it's a family business. He stated that he's been there many years - it's not like this is a new thing. He stated that if we don't put our businesses like this along a highway like 6, then we are putting them farther out in the country and then you are really putting them on County roads and they should be sited, as much as they can, along main arteries if we've going to have larger trucks, that just seems to me to be the logical place to put it. He stated that it's not across from the subdivision - the subdivision is down a ways. He stated that the subdivision really was added after he's been there many years before the subdivision was put in there. He stated that I am concerned that once we make it a permanent use variance it could be enlarged a great deal. He stated that I'd just like to hear if anybody has any thoughts about that.
Mr. Burns stated that my concern is that it's spot zoning. He stated that that area is residential and it should stay residential.
Mr. Hudson stated, well, you got the vet business there and this does sit back quite a ways. He stated that I know it's residential on the North side, um, I guess this particular case being a permanent use variance I guess bothers me a little bit. He stated that I guess I would be more acceptable (sic) to some sort of a temporary use variance or a use variance instead of a permanent use variance for some period of time just to see what - I like some of the things the attorney said as far as, except the right to inspect, and I don't know if we can put that on there or not. He stated that I know the County certainly doesn't have manpower to go back from doing that. He stated that it seems like the business has been kept up very well for the length of at least 12 years, I believe that it was stated. He stated that there are no occurrences that give a permanent use variance that this thing could be sold and continued and expanded and less controlled, so I just think we have more control with a use variance.
Mr. Brickner stated that I agree with Rich and Jim and I agree with the temporary or the use variance instead of a permanent use variance and I guess I'd like to ask the petitioner, you understand what a use variance is as opposed to a permanent use variance where we would agree to give it to you for maybe two or three years and see how it works out and then you'd have to come back and we'd re-evaluate the situation at that time to make sure that you did what you said you were going to do with the restrictions that we'd put on it and would you have any objection to that?
Mr. Jirtle stated that the objection I would have is that they're telling me I can't have a sign out in front.
Mr. Detert stated that you might not get that anyway.
Mr. Brickner stated that you aren't going to get a sign, no matter what because that's not going to be...
Mr. Jirtle stated that I just feel that that would help even the traffic flow because I wouldn't have certain people trying to find me and actually...
Mr. Brickner stated that we can talk. He stated that what I'm asking you now is about a use variance.
Mr. Detert stated that what's before us is a permanent use variance. He stated that if he wants to change it...
Mr. Brickner stated, Mr. Etzler's thoughts and Jim's thoughts on a use variance, instead of a permanent use variance and you already have been running that business for what, eight years now? 12 years? He stated that your closest neighbor is your biggest fan and he really thinks that you're a great neighbor and you do a great job, so I think what Jim said - you got it well back off the road and everything is blacktopped, paved - there's no dust. He stated, you keep running the business the way you're running it now, you know I certainly wouldn't have any objection to the way you're running it now. He stated that I think it's done very well, but, if it gets to be extremely large or a lot larger and you have a lot more storage going on there and a lot more traffic and that sort of thing then I'd like to see you come back here in three years and make sure that we keep that under control.
Mr. Detert stated that I have the same concerns that you have on a permanent use variance. He stated that the problem with it is it could be sold and somebody else could come in that could abuse the privilege.
Mr. Brickner stated, that's right. He stated that if something happens that you're gone and somebody else could continue to run a business without restrictions at that location, so I'd like to make a suggestion to you that we make it a use variance instead of a permanent use variance and we put some time restrictions on it so we can see you again, if that's agreeable to you.
Mr. Hudson stated, I'm either missing something here and it came up when he talked about the sign, the way it's stated in here, it says permanent use variance for a landscaping and excavating business and contractor's storage yard. He stated that when I read this it doesn't say that people are coming to buy things here. He stated that he stores things for his job and takes them out of this facility to the job, does the landscaping, does the excavating and just basically stores materials here.
Mr. Detert stated that that was the testimony at the last meeting.
Mr. Hudson stated, then I don't know why you need a sign there, because...
Mr. Jirtle stated that the sign is so that this is our location. He stated that we get calls and we are in the Yellow Pages and that is as an advertisement. He stated that we're not asking for retail, we're not open to retail. He stated that we're not going to tell somebody that they can't pull in there, but we are not going to sell them anything as far as retail.
Mr. Detert stated, all I can tell you, and I don't know how the Board will vote, but the Board has been pretty strict about not allowing signs in the past, so you may or may not get a sign.
Mr. Robertson stated, I feel that way with signs in residential neighborhoods and it's true this is zoned residential, but it's on Highway 6. He stated that you've got all kinds of things there: the Fitness Barn, you got the animal hospital. He stated that it's on Highway 6, and if we don't have signs along Highway 6, it just seems to me that a small sign would be helpful, and I went to find this place and I didn't know exactly where it was and I went all the way to 149 and I messed up and went past 149 and I had to turn and come back and it took me about 5 minutes back and forth until I saw it because it's certainly not obvious where it is. He stated that I wouldn't mind a small sign on Highway 6.
Mr. Jirtle stated, that is exactly why we want to have a sign, because we feel that when we tell somebody this is our location and a client comes to see me to talk to me in my home office I want then to be able to get to my driveway without being slammed in the back or..
Mr. Detert asked, how big a sign are you talking?
Mr. Jirtle stated, I'm talking something no bigger than what Arbor View Animal Hospital has, not even 4 by 8.
Mr. Hudson stated that I think the subdivision signs along there, like for Mallard's Landing, that is huge.
Mr. Detert stated, well, gentlemen, what's before us is a permanent use variance, and, obviously, he wants a sign, uh, he's not offered to change it to a use variance.
Mr. Robertson asked, can I ask him again on that point, so maybe...
Mr. Detert stated, he's been asked a couple times, Jim.
Mr. Robertson asked, you're not interested in changing it to a use variance from a permanent use variance?
Mr. Jirtle stated, if we need to change it to a use variance, then that's what we'll have to do.
Mr. Robertson stated, now, with a use variance, what we often do is you get a one-time, this would be this time with a public hearing, we can do it for any amount of time, we often do it for five years - that's the maximum - then you come back in five years - it wouldn't be a public hearing. He stated, people if they wanted to come would just have to know about it, and we could review it and we could renew it for one time there, perhaps an additional five years. He stated that the second time he could come back and renew it for again for a possible five years. He stated that that would be a total of 15 years, or, we could do it three years and one year, or we could do it three, zero and zero.
Mr. Hudson stated, and he could come back for a permanent one later on.
Mr. Detert stated that in 15 years you could come back for another use variance.
Ms. Schaefer stated, so if in three years you had no complaints and everything was going well, you could come back and say to the Board, hey, all the fears that you had are not...you know, didn't come to pass, so now I would like a permanent.
Mr. Detert stated, but before he misunderstands, Jim, the maximum we can allow is five years at a time. He stated that the Board can decide to give you six months or a year, if they want to, so it's not guaranteed that if you came back that you would get another five years. He stated that a lot would depend on how well you are running your business and how clean you kept it, but it's totally at the Board's discretion. He stated, in five years many of us may not be here. He stated, I can't speak for all the Board here.
Mr. Brickner asked, Mr. Jirtle, do you plan to grow this operation? He asked, I mean, are your plans to make this a much larger operation than you have now, or are you planning to keep it relatively...
Mr. Jirtle stated, I'm as big as I want to be right now. He stated that I have no site for the future.
Mr. Brickner asked, so it's not going to be something that's going to expand.
Mr. Jirtle stated that I don't plan to be a G.E. Marshall, I don't plan to be a Reith & Reilly.
Mr. Detert asked, are you changing this to a use variance or do you want us to vote on a permanent use variance?
Beverly Jirtle stated that I'm Jeff's wife. She stated that this affects me directly. She stated that I work with the business, and I'm still not understanding, for a use variance, can we get a sign with that?
Mr. Detert stated, if you need more time you can come back to the office. He stated that it's up to this Board whether you get a sign.
Mr. Brickner stated, we can determine that tonight, the size of a sign.
Mr. Jirtle stated, then we'll do it.
Mr. Nigro asked, you will commit to the use variance.
Mr. Jirtle stated, yes.
Mr. Robertson stated, I'd like to further urge that we do it for the full five years; he's been there 12 years already and I think he's proven what he can do.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-PUV-2, changing that to the proper use variance number, for five years, with a sign 4 foot by 6 foot, and that there be no retail off the street, with hours of operation to be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 6 days a week, incorporating the petitioner's proposed finding of fact (said findings being in the file). Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - No Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Public Hearings:
At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.
Case 03-V-10. Petition of Hannelore Trump, 4005 Maplewood Avenue, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required building line setback from 60 to 50 feet for construction of a carport, to be located at 4005 Maplewood Avenue, in Center Township.
The petitioner was not present at this time, and this case was moved to the end of the agenda.
Case 03-V-11. Petition of John Catchur, 8744 Harrison St., Merrillville, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum required side-yard setback from 10.95 feet to 8.95 for construction of a house, to be located on the Southeast corner of Honelee Court and Rosedale Court, in Center Township.
Mr. Catchur stated that I need 1 foot. He stated that right now I have presently 9.95 feet space of easement. He stated, I don't have to 10.95 feet. He stated that I'm asking for 2 feet, but I need 1 foot, but, in terms of the construction, you know, if they're not exact on it, I don't want anybody with a ruler there saying I'm an inch off to build a new home. He stated that I...
Mr. Detert stated that you need to ask for enough to make sure that you can put it there.
Mr. Catchur stated that I have two 30-foot setbacks, it's a corner lot, so I thought it would be easier to ask for a foot on that side.
Mr. Detert asked, why do you want this? He asked, is there something peculiar about the house?
Mr. Catchur stated that it's my wife's dream house.
Mr. Detert asked, well, won't it fit on the lot?
Mr. Catchur stated that originally I took the print to the developer, Jeff Wozniewski, and I believe he got a little bit confused, because a lot of the lots in Emerald Ridge subdivision are 80 foot wide, and he was thinking 10 percent or an 8 foot minimum, because a lot of them have 8-foot minimums. He stated that he said it should fit, at first, then he called Steve, and asked him.
Mr. Detert asked, you cannot move it to avoid this?
Mr. Catchur stated, I have two 30-foot setbacks.
Mr. Detert asked, so, the other side you're going to be okay on?
Mr. Catchur stated that the other side I'm going to be okay on.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
No one spoke against this petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Hudson stated that I just question the fact that when you talk about the width of the lot, I thought it was 10 percent as measured, the width of the lot as measured on the building line. He stated that if he, in fact, measures it along the building line, start at the building line from the side street and go across to the side lot line, which would not be the 109 foot measurement, it would be somewhat less for, not less than 8 feet. He stated that I'm trying to find that here where it is.
Mr. Detert asked, who prepared the site plan? He stated, it was not a surveyor, is that right?
Mr. Catchur stated that Jeff gave me this legal document and that was just a blown-up drawing and the dimensions. He stated that the builder...
Mr. Detert asked, you have not had it staked?
Mr. Catchur stated, not yet.
Mr. Brickner stated, 1 foot; no, I don't have any questions.
Mr. Robertson stated that I don't understand when he gets to these 6 inches and 12 inches.
Mr. Burns stated that this is what we want. He stated that we want people coming to us ahead of time, because we had several cases where the houses were in and over the building line. He stated that here is a case where he has not started the construction and he's asking for a foot, basically, and you would go the bare minimum?
Mr. Catchur stated that that's all I need, I just asked for 2 foot because, like I said, the play of construction, an inch off or...
Mr. Burns asked, do you have a letter from the developer?
Mr. Catchur stated that I wanted him to be here but he had been on vacation shortly before here and he didn't have time to prepare. He stated that he's with a client today, I guess. He stated that I sent him certified mail, as well as the other residents within 150 feet and I spoke to him and he's not opposed to it at all.
Mr. Nigro asked, is the lot currently in your name or Jeff Wozniewski's name?
Mr. Catchur stated that I have money down and we have a closing date.
Mr. Nigro stated, so he signed it to allow him to go ahead and proceed with this request for the variance.
Mr. Detert stated that I don't have any objection to a foot, to even 2 feet, but I think he ought to get it staked, so we don't have any more problems.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-V-11 for 2 feet, but the petitioner to use the minimum amount and to make sure he gets a staked survey, incorporating the petitioner's findings of facts (said findings being part of the file). Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Case 03-V-12. Petition of Design Collaborative, 825 S. Barr St., Fort Wayne, seeking a Variance to reduce the required 20-foot rear-yard setback to 8 feet, the required 8-foot side-yard setback to 5 feet on the South side and 40-foot front-yard setback to 25 feet, for construction of a telephone equipment building, to be located on the East side of CR 450 E., between SR 2 and CR 300 N., in Washington Township.
Tim Hamilton stated that he is the architect for Verizon. He stated that I'm here this evening to present the case for the required encroachments on the setback and to get a variance for the three setbacks. He stated that the existing building that currently is on the land is in need of being replaced because of the type of construction it is. He stated that it was built in 1983 and it's approaching the end of its useful life. He stated that we're proposing to construct a new building. He stated that in order to construct that new building we physically need to build this new building completely around the existing building. He stated that it houses telephone switch gear and that switch gear has to remain in operation to keep everyone in service out in that area during the entire time of construction, so, in order to do that, we have to get it away from the building a little bit to construct the new building. He stated that as it sets right now, because of past changes and setback requirements since 1983 the building encroaches in the front yard setback in what would currently be required, the current building does now. He stated that the interior of the new building would be concrete block, the exterior would be brick. He stated that I've got some drawings here, if anybody would like to see those. He stated that we are proposing to put asphalt in for parking area for the vehicles that come there to hook up people's phone lines and to troubleshoot phone lines, so, with that, that is what we are asking for this evening.
Hugo Martz stated that he is an attorney representing Rick Conley, who is seated here to my left and we're going to speak in favor of the petition. He stated that he's the adjoining landowner and he, in fact, conveyed the 50 by 100 piece in 1983 and the 10 by 100 as an easement in 2001. He stated that Mr. Conley is concerned, however, that, in building, because it is so close to his land that they not come onto his land because 5 feet now on that particular side and also he was concerned because they have 1 to 2 vehicles parked
there at times now that with the larger building they not have three or four that sometimes would get on his land. He stated that he indicates that occasionally they do park on his land, so with that, and the things...I did provide a letter to you April 11th and with those comments and the comments I just made we would be in favor of it if those conditions are met.
Mr. Conley stated that as long as they abide by the earlier agreement that we signed in 2000, um, I have no objections to this, but I'm concerned that when they put cables in in 2000 they didn't respect the property lines then. He stated that they went 10 feet over them, and with this larger building, if they go over the property lines again, it's going to be a real bad ordeal for me, so as long as they respect the property lines and stay off of it, that's okay. He stated that I don't see how they can construct a building that large and do that.
Mr. Hamilton stated that Mr. Conley's right: In 2000 we put in some new phone service to that building they ran in additional phone lines off the road and unfortunately when the outside plant people who ran the phone lines came in they didn't put it in on the Verizon property. He stated that they were in error of where the property line was and they went off the property and had to go back to Mr. Conley and have discussions with Mr. Conley about that. He stated that Verizon, at that time, was General Telephone, no, it was Verizon at that time and they were in error, no doubt about that. He stated that we are not proposing to run any additional ducts in or lines in at this time. He stated that if we do we have the survey stakes in place currently and we will make sure that they are put in correctly and not on Mr. Conley's land. He stated that with the expansion of the building itself we are not going to see any increased traffic in people coming out there for phone service beyond the one or two cars that are currently there now. He stated that if there are issues with employees not parking on the site, we will address that. He stated that I will give Mr. Conley a card and his attorney so that they will know who they can contact if there is an issue and we'll see that that's taken care of.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Robertson asked, Mr. Conley, are you East, West, North, South?
Mr. Conley stated, I'm on Route 2 and I'm Southeast of that.
Mr. Robertson asked, you're his South side and his East side both?
Mr. Conley stated, actually, my property surrounds his.
Mr. Robertson asked, can you put up some kind of a fence around on the property line, would that help keep people off your property?
Mr. Conley stated that I don't think it's too much of a problem. He stated that my main concern is a lot of garbage that gets in there and a fence would help that, keep that restricted.
Mr. Robertson asked, would a fence be difficult to put in there?
Mr. Hamilton stated that a fence on the South side would be difficult because we're already asking for an encroachment on the setback of 5 feet and to put another fence in there would encroach further upon his property.
Mr. Robertson stated, but they couldn't park in there anyway, on the South side.
Mr. Hamilton stated, correct, and they will not be able to anyway, with what we are proposing we would put in asphalt parking with parking bumpers to keep them from going beyond the edge of the asphalt.
Mr. Robertson asked if that's on the East side or the West side.
Mr. Hamilton stated, that's on the South side. He stated that parking would be on the West side.
Mr. Robertson asked, would a fence be possible there in addition to your asphalt?
Mr. Hamilton stated that the place the fence would need to go would be on the South side of the property to keep people from parking on Mr. Conley's property, because there are trees on the North and trees to the East, so they really can't park off the property and the road is to the West.
Mr. Robertson stated, so it's just the South side that you would put in a fence. He asked would that help or is that just a red herring?
Mr. Conley stated, it's not really necessary, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Burns stated that my concern is that this parcel is too small for this building, that's what it sounds like. He stated, I mean he's asking for three variances. He stated a 12 foot for the rear, a 3 for the side and 15 for the front yard. He stated it's like he's trying to squeeze a building that's too big for the parcel. He asked, how come you're not looking for a larger parcel?
Mr. Hamilton stated that we can't move the phone service and put everybody completely out of phone service or completely construct another building with new switch equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to make that happen and to re-route...
Mr. Burns stated that that's not unheard of. He stated, I mean they do build new buildings and substations.
Mr. Hamilton stated that in order to build a new building, you build a new building, but you do not remove the building that's there and the issue is we don't need additional capacity, we need a new building to replace the existing building that is there, and in order to construct it we have to make it just large enough to be able to get in and work around it. He stated that it's not increased line capacity that we're looking for.
Mr. Burns asked, did you investigate the possibility of purchasing more land from adjacent landowners?
Mr. Hamilton stated that Mr. Conley would be the adjacent landowner but we have not investigated the issue of purchasing more land to the South at this point. He stated that it wouldn't regardless of purchasing that, we have a fixed location of an existing building that we have to construct a new building around. He stated that the only option there would be to purchase more land to the South or more land to the East.
Mr. Hudson stated the existing building that's there now, I'm not sure if it's depicted correctly on the plan here, but if I take the dimension from front to back of 130 feet and subtract...from what I understand it's a 60-foot setback from the road, which leaves us 70 feet, and if I subtract the building, which is 32, 33, just subtracting those numbers, if we were set on the building line the rear distance would be 37.67. He stated that it's pretty obvious that this building must be set back further than it's shown on here?
Mr. Hamilton stated, no sir, it's in the correct location. He stated that what's misleading is that the 130 foot lot dimension is from the centerline of the road, not the 30-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Hudson stated, but your 60-foot setback there's only a 30-foot building line from the 30-foot right-of-way, not a 40-foot.
Mr. Hamilton stated that it would be a 40-foot, because I believe if Mr. Steve would help me here, we have a minimum setback of 75 feet from the centerline of the road for 40 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is less.
Mr. Hudson asked, you're on 450, right?
Mr. Hamilton stated, 450 E., that's correct.
Mr. Hudson stated that 450 E. looks like a 60-foot right-of-way with a 30-foot...
Mr. Nigro stated, I agree with that.
Mr. Hudson asked, do you know how far your building sits from the back property line now?
Mr. Hamilton stated, that's currently about...that doesn't show the building. He stated that that's the original survey, but it doesn't show the building on there.
Mr. Hudson stated, I see what the problem is: He's got dimensioned as 130 when actually it's only 100 feet back.
Mr. Hamilton stated, that's what I said.
Mr. Hudson stated that the plat is dimensioned wrong.
Mr. Hamilton stated that I addressed it. He stated that I said that the 130 foot dimension, which is misleading, is from the centerline of the road, not the right-of-way line. He stated that it's 100 from the centerline.
Mr. Hudson stated that that makes sense. He stated that I still think he only needs to be back 60 feet from the front, not 70.
Mr. Nigro stated, I agree with that.
Mr. Brickner stated that that would help the rear setback. He stated, well, maybe not, because he has the building inside there.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the issue is that the existing building, which is 11 by 20, is in a fixed location, and in order to construct the new building around it we need to go 4 feet behind the existing building.
Mr. Hudson stated, so you're saying that the existing building, right now, is less than 20 feet from the back property line.
Mr. Hamilton stated that that is correct.
Mr. Hudson stated, but, your dimensions on here may be right dimensionally but are written down...
Mr. Hamilton stated that the 130 was incorrect.
Mr. Hudson stated that I was just trying to something I didn't think you needed anything because the numbers didn't...crunched out to be different.
Mr. Brickner asked, why do you need this extra space? He asked, is the building just too small for the equipment or just is too old or what?
Mr. Hamilton stated that we need to be able to build the building in order to construct it we have to build it larger than the existing building. He stated that the existing building cannot come down until we build the new building, and the existing building needs to be replaced because of the construction type that it is, it's approaching the end of its useful life.
Mr. Brickner stated, so you're building this bigger building so you have room to tear the old building down.
Mr. Hamilton stated, that's correct, without putting everybody's phones out of service.
Mr. Brickner asked, and you need all this space, I mean you can't make it smaller, it wouldn't work? He stated because on the one side you only have a couple of feet and the other three sides you got a lot more room. He stated that I'm not sure I understand why....
Mr. Hamilton stated that in order to demolish the building, the entire building has to be demolished and come out through a 4 foot wide door, so, in order to work next to this building and take pieces of construction debris down off of from overhead an existing phone switch we need some extra room. He stated that a guy takes a piece of conduit and lays it across a buspar, he can short everybody's phone line out and you need to have that extra safety room in order to do the work.
Mr. Brickner asked, so you couldn't leave one side of the building open while you dismantled...
Mr. Hamilton stated that that would expose it to the elements, the phone switch to the elements. He stated that it would be like taking the cover off of your computer and letting it sit outside and putting a tarp over it.
Mr. Brickner stated, well, I'm saying just leave one side open, not leave the roof off or anything, just leave the one side open so you can get things out of there and make it smaller.
Mr. Hamilton stated that for assurity to the people whose phones are in operation, there's no way to make that weather-tight and any contractor you talk to will tell you you cannot make it 100 percent weather-tight. He stated that all it would take would be a large storm to come through, like maybe tonight...
Mr. Brickner stated that I understand what you are saying. He stated that I guess I don't particularly agree with that. He stated that familiar as we all are with construction if there is some other way to do that besides trying to build a lot bigger building just to accommodate tearing down a smaller building.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the most we could reduce the width of the building, the 23-foot dimension, would be to drop it down a foot.
Mr. Brickner stated, Mr. Conley, I don't know if you plan to sell any of the property next to this building some day. He stated, I mean you only got 5 feet on one side.
Mr. Conley stated that we have a signed agreement that we were talking about that if you went on the property 10 feet and the signed agreement states that they can no longer buy any land or condemn it or anything. He stated that he agreed that he would not seek any more land in that agreement.
Mr. Brickner stated that my question to you is if you are going to sell any of the property to the South that you own you are only going to have a 5-foot, that building is going to be 5 feet from the property line and you don't mind it? He asked, you aren't going to have a problem with that if somebody decides to build a house there?
Mr. Conley stated that the way I see it he has the right to do with his land as he sees fit because I sold it to him, to the phone company. He stated that my concern was that they are going to take more land and make a bigger building, and more land and make a bigger building and eventually crowd me out of there, as well as the other homeowners, so I made that agreement in 2000 that says they can't do that and all the people that they assigned their company to can't do that.
Mr. Detert stated so your answer to his question is no, you're not going to sell the land.
Mr. Conley stated, no, emphatically no.
Mr. Hudson stated, there is, and I think this document says that, there is a 10-foot easement South of the property, so they have the right...so anybody that builds, anybody that has that South lot is going to have a 10-foot easement on it already, so they are going to be further away anyway.
Mr. Brickner stated that they will be 15 feet away. He stated that other than that, I mean, if you don't object and you own all the property around it...
Mr. Conley stated that as long they live within that agreement...
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-12 with the understanding that the phone company comply with the 2001 agreement, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because this facility is needed for the community and position on the site makes it such as to improve
the building that we have to encroach on the setbacks; 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 there is an additional 10-foot easement to the South of this property which restricts the building from the South and the owner has agreed that that is not a problem; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to the fact that the facility cannot be kept in service while improving the building and meeting the setbacks. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - No Hudson - Yes
Robertson - No Detert - Yes
Case 03-UV-3. Petition of Thomas Gielow Jr., 333 S. 600 W. Hebron, seeking a Use Variance to permit boat repair, to be located on the East side of CR 600 W., between SR 2 and CR 250 S., in Porter Township.
Mr. Gielow stated that I want to start repairing boats from my house. He stated that I've done it for my friends in the past. He stated that it's something that I enjoy greatly. He stated that I've got a lot of property there, room to do it on my property for a short period of time. He stated that when I talked to you guys originally on this I went for the 5-year increments. He stated that I would like to go for the 5-year increment without really wanting a renewal after that point because I'd like to take and move my business to a business zoning area where I can have the foot traffic and commuters going by where I can pick up more business, but at this point I would like to be able to take, instead of getting loans and putting myself really deep in debt on it, I would like to work out of my home without having to pay. He stated that the location down the road that I would like to have is $12 per square foot and in order to run a boat business it would cost me too much money and too much of an overhead to start it off, so I'm looking to kind of bankroll that money and kind of get myself set up so I can financially start the business.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
Roland Steele, 337 S. SR 2, stated that I own the property that runs from SR 2 down 600 W and 350. He stated that this would be right across from me. He stated that currently I have nothing sitting on that property - it's woods. He stated that I do have concerns. He stated that I would like to know what kind of hours this would be. He stated that I'd like to know how oils and solvents and degreasers and chemicals would be handled. He stated that another concern I have is that we are on septics and wells and I don't want my well going dry because he's working on his boats and he's got water to his motors and all of that stuff. He stated that I don't see the benefits. He stated that it's an all-residential neighborhood on both sides of him,
up and down 600 W. there is homes and there is nothing but residential homes around this and I understand and sympathize that he wants to start a business, but a residential area is not an area to start the business. He stated and concerns especially nowadays with (inaudible) and OSHA concerns, you know, he's going to be working on boats and I don't know what type of work he is going to be doing, whether he's degreasing engines, those solvents can be very harmful if they go into the ground. He stated that if there are spills, I don't know how he's set up for storage or handling of it and I don't know if he has equipment if something happens that a boat catches on fire or something of that drastic nature happens how is it going to be combated. He stated that boats nowadays are of fiberglass and I have some concerns about it being on that property with my property being right across from it.
Mr. Gielow stated that I've got Safety-Kleen that's going to be picking up my used oil because all my oil filters are actually being drained into a 55-gallon drum that's got a screen and it's required by law that all filters drain for 24 hours before being picked up. He stated that they are put into a 55-gallon drum until that drum is filled and it's removed from there. He stated that the oils are all being pumped into the same drum, which is at 55-gallon increments. He stated that there's not to be a 120 gallons of oil sitting there. He stated that it's just a 55-gallon drum and once that's full they will come out and pump that out. He stated that as far as spills and waste, I have all the environmental cleanup kits for it, I've got socks, I've got the aprons, degreasing and stuff like that I already have. He stated that a system is set up that catches any oils or any contaminants from going into the ground. He stated that as far as the water concern, we've got a 55-gallon drum and I've got a horse trough that actually the motor sits down inside it so there's not a real good consumption of water going on because I'm using the same water over and over and over again. He stated that as far as winterization goes, I've got an antifreeze recycling system that is ozone safe and animal friendly that actually takes the same cooling system when we winterize them and circulates it right through the same boat and maintains it all and nothing goes onto the ground, so I've got a pretty good handle on what needs to be done as far as environmental concerns. He stated that I don't have any problems with it as far as environmentally and spills and stuff like that. He stated that I've already prepared myself for that.
Mr. Steele stated that it's still residential, that's all I'm saying.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Burns asked how this came before us. He asked if there was a complaint.
Mr. Nigro stated that there was no complaint.
Mr. Detert stated that probably a boat repair business in that area, because you do have some lakes - you have Four Seasons nearby - probably isn't a bad location for that. He stated that I wouldn't want to see this location become anything permanent. He stated that I wouldn't mind giving him a shot at trying it and seeing if he can do well at it and then getting some commercial property to move it to. He stated that I wouldn't want it to go on for 15 years but my inspection of your place did show quite a bit of junk in the back. He stated that there's stuff back there, outside, and I think that needs to cleaned up.
Ms. Schaefer stated that he says that's the neighbor's.
Mr. Detert stated that it's between the two pole barns, behind the first pole barn.
Mr. Gielow stated that that's the kids' playhouse.
Mr. Detert stated that maybe it was just there temporarily. He stated that there were a couple bikes or something and some other things that were there. He stated that if you have a bunch of kids that ride bikes or whatever.
Mr. Burns asked when the pole barn was built.
Mr. Gielow stated that we built one last year and the other one was built 12 years ago.
Mr. Burns asked, what were the stipulations on that pole barn?
Mr. Nigro stated that I was not aware that he had pole barns built that recently on the property. He stated that for the main part we always try to make sure that when we issue the permit that it's not going to be used for business purposes. He stated that he has taken the proper path to correct that.
Mr. Robertson asked, is he is a subdivision maybe?
Mr. Nigro stated that he's fine as far as size. He stated that what I thought you were alluding to is that we issue building permits for pole buildings, we often try to explain to the person building that that it is not to be used to facilitate any type of business.
Mr. Burns stated that that's where I'm heading. He asked, were there any restrictions about any type of business?
Mr. Nigro stated that I'm sure there probably was, but...
Mr. Detert stated that I don't think there was a subdivision there...
Ms. Schaefer stated that it would have been illegal and now he's coming and saying that he wants to make it legal.
Mr. Detert stated that my point is that I wouldn't mind seeing it started there, but I wouldn't want to see it permanent there.
Mr. Burns stated that that is a busy business and a loud business and what with the motors I assume that's what the residents...
Mr. Gielow stated that I bought the mufflers for the boats. He stated that my neighbor that lives right beside me has got three horses and I don't want to spook them or cause any problems so I bought the mufflers so the horses - there's are all kind of noises going on, but I've taken efforts to actually quiet it down so it isn't as loud.
Mr. Detert stated that on a use variance you can make it anywhere up to 5 years, so if the Board has concerns and wants to see how it's going, you can make it for a lot less.
Mr. Robertson stated that you're thinking this is temporary and you're going to move, expand it up and move to a commercial place. He asked, what kind of a time frame are you thinking about to do that?
Mr. Gielow stated that I think within a two-year period I should be able to tell myself whether I can or cannot make this. He stated that I can't say two years exactly, but starting off this year, trying to build a name and trying to get some business to come through there.
Mr. Robertson stated, so you're thinking two years. He asked, would you need a sign?
Mr. Gielow stated, I would like to have one.
Mr. Robertson asked, do you have a lot of boats outside?
Mr. Gielow stated that I would like to keep the boats down to a minimum. He stated that I've got a 40 by 60 pole barn, I believe it is now and I want to keep most of them inside because first of all I don't want any theft happening.
Mr. Robertson asked, how many outside?
Mr. Gielow stated, maybe three.
Mr. Robertson asked, what about employees?
Mr. Gielow stated that I'd like to get one.
Mr. Robertson asked, what about hours of business?
Mr. Gielow stated, I'd like to run 6 days a week, maybe five.
Mr. Robertson asked, what hours?
Mr. Gielow stated that I would like to just do like 8 to 6.
Mr. Robertson stated that the sign is a real problem. He stated that in a residential area we just don't like to have signs. He stated that we don't think the neighbors like to put up with signs.
Mr. Gielow stated that my neighbor just down the road has a sign for a beauty shop.
Mr. Robertson stated that we don't know about it. He asked, could you do without a sign?
Mr. Gielow stated that I could, but I would like to have somewhat of a....
Mr. Detert stated that he's in a central location and I think he's easy to find if you give directions. He stated that he's just a couple houses off of SR 2.
Mr. Gielow stated that I would like to give the people some idea of where I'm at. He stated that I'm not asking for...
Mr. Robertson stated that he could buy a boat mailbox.
Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, put your name on a big boat mailbox.
Mr. Robertson asked Mr. Steele if we let him have it for two years, with those stipulations. He stated that I think he's got the environmental things pretty well covered. He stated that I think you were concerned about that. He stated that he's pretty conscientious about him taking care of that himself and keeping it to three boats outside, one employee, six days a week 8 to 6 and no sign. He stated that we're not asking you to agree to it, but just kind of...
Mr. Steele stated that I hope the Board understands what my concerns are.
Mr. Robertson stated that he has valid concerns and I just want to make sure that they are addressed.
Mr. Brickner stated that this petition should say boat and motor repair. He stated that it says boat repair and you're going to repair motors, right?
Mr. Gielow stated, boat motors.
Mr. Brickner stated, boat motors, not just boats. He stated that this should say boat and motor, but that's all right. He asked, are you going to do any painting?
Mr. Gielow stated, no.
Mr. Brickner stated so you're not going to be storing any paints or anything like that?
Mr. Gielow stated that I have some spray products.
Mr. Brickner asked, do you have gasoline storage on your property?
Mr. Gielow stated that I have acetylene oxygen for a torch.
Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to sell any parts for the boat, are you going to have any retail, are you going to sell any accessories for boats or motors?
Mr. Gielow stated, yes, I'd like to have a small line of that.
Mr. Detert stated, you mean you're going to sell them by installing them.
Mr. Gielow stated that I'll actually sell them. He stated that like the fire extinguishers come along with the boats. He stated that I'm not looking to have bait and tackle and all kinds of stuff and fishing poles.
Mr. Brickner stated that now you're talking bout a retail thing here that besides repairing and I don't think that's a good idea. He stated that I would rather not see any kind of retail sales other than what you put on the boat, in other words, you repair a motor and you have a part and that's fine, but to have a counter and sell boat parts like propellers and any other boat parts, I don't think...I'm not in favor of that in this particular location. He stated, so boat and motor repair, it's all done underneath the 60-foot building, it's fine, but no retail sales.
Mr. Burns stated I agree with Rich (sic), no retail. He stated that the traffic is going to increase.
Mr. Gielow stated that I don't understand. He asked, I can't have a product stock to have for sale for the guy to install?
Mr. Hudson stated that if I come to you and I have a 65-foot boat in my front yard and I need a propeller for the back I'm not going to come to you unless you take my boat and repair it. He stated that I mean I don't want to look in the phone book and find your name and I can go and buy a propeller from you, that's what I think they're talking about.
Mr. Detert stated that we don't want a retail shop there, is what they're saying.
Mr. Gielow stated that can I have the stuff in the shop for availability to have...
Mr. Detert stated that if you want some storage for parts, I don't think there is any objection to that.
Mr. Gielow stated, I just can't advertise that I sell...
Mr. Detert stated, that you sell parts.
Mr. Gielow stated, okay, yeah.
Mr. Detert stated that we don't want you advertising and a whole bunch of traffic going in and out of there because you're selling rope and...
Mr. Gielow stated that I just want to carry supplies that they actually need.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-UV-3 for two years and that there be no more than three boats outside at any one time, that there be one employee only, hours of business to be 6 days a week, 8 to 6, and that there be no sign and no retail sales, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Case 03-PUV_3. Petition of Michelle Wirsing, 1562 Ransom Road, Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit an equine training and stabling facility, to be located on the North side of Ransom Road, between CR 50 W. and Froberg Road, in Center Township.
Ms. Wirsing stated that seated on my right is my husband, Christopher. She stated that I live on 1562 Ransom Road in Valparaiso and I've lived in Porter County for over 30 years and I graduated from Boone Grove High School and from Valparaiso University. She stated that I've worked the majority of my adult life in Porter County and my husband has worked in this County since 1985. She stated that we are residents of Ransom Road and we have been residents there for the past 16 years. She stated that since a young age I've had a passion for horses and I've owned and managed horses for about 20 years of my life. She stated that in 1997 my husband and I purchased the 80-acre Schuin farm on Ransom Road, just about .2 of a mile to the West of our current residence. She stated that we purchased that for a number of reasons. She stated that first off, we plan to make it a personal haven for ourselves and our family. She stated that we will be making that our permanent resident (sic) in the very near future.
She stated that we plan on keeping the parcel as a whole 80 acres. She stated that we plan on keeping it environmentally friendly. She stated that we plan on maintaining it in a natural environment and we plan on maintaining it in what might be considered an agricultural state. She stated that another reason why we purchased that is that my husband enjoys gardening and small scale farming. She stated that we purchased it with the intentions of continuing my interest and hobby with horses and we purchased it to hopefully raise our children, our three daughters, in that same environment to enjoy our activities and our hobbies. She stated that since we've lived there we have been cooperative and peaceful neighbors. She stated that I've come to you tonight to request a permanent use variance for a semi-private equine stabling and training facility.
Darrell Bolling, 5103 Lynn, Valparaiso, stated that for the last approximately a year I've been working for the Wirsings to help them maintain this property and I hope to secure my future employment with them in support of this.
Mr. Nigro read a letter from Woody J. Dresden with some concerns. The letter is in the file.
Ms. Wirsing stated that I did have a conversation with Mr. Dresden. She stated that he is the son of the current property owners right now and yes, when I did speak with him he did not voice any objections to the horse facility. She stated that his concern was drainage. She stated that we obviously plan on doing this in a way that's approved by the drainage committee and right now I don't see that there are any problems that currently exist. She stated that we do plan on building our home and a barn and we plan on doing so according to County requirements.
Jim Perkins stated that I am a landscape architect and I'm helping the Wirsings do a site planning on the project here. He stated that Mr. Dresden lives over to the West of the property, West of those two ponds, which were constructed years ago and those ponds outflow onto his property at a point where the water naturally drained that way before. He stated that if you read this topographical map here you will see that there is really no more drainage going in that direction, in fact, with our construction of our barn in that area, all that drainage is going in a different direction, basically to the East really, more Easterly, and we are doing some drainage around that structure, the arena and the stables and it will go back to that pond down in the Southeast corner, which exits eventually into Beauty Creek, I believe. He stated that the whole point, I guess, is that we're not going to increase any drainage onto his property. He stated that I'm not sure why he's complaining, because that pond has an overflow point on it and it has not overflowed in over 2.5 years now, I believe. He stated that it's not even got up to the overflow point and that's the only place where it flows onto his property. He stated
that Dr. Wirsing actually extended a swale down to the West of the property line there, so almost no water can go onto his property from this property, so that should probably answer any questions that there are about that.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Hudson stated that my biggest concern was answered tonight when I came here, came by this - I live very close to this. He stated that it just so happens that their entrance onto Ransom Road happens to be at a high point when you sit at their driveway you have full sight view to the East and full sight view to the West, so my only concern was traffic and I'm happy with the presentation and happy to see that Mr. Perkins is involved. He stated that I've worked with Jim for many years, so, that's all I have to say.
Mr. Brickner asked, how many horses?
Ms. Wirsing stated that right now our stable was designed to hold 18.
Mr. Brickner asked, is that how many you plan to have - 18 or less than that.
Ms. Wirsing stated that it could be less than that.
Mr. Brickner asked, is this going to be open to the public?
Ms. Wirsing stated, no. She stated that this will not be a public riding stable. She stated that my interest is to train and to ride horses there. She stated that my interest would be to have other equine enthusiasts who enjoy the same type of riding discipline I do to be able to have training and lessons at our barn and in order to do that they may have to board their animal at our facility, so I call it semi-private because it's not open to the public. She stated that we will be quite discriminating as far as who enters our private property and who we will provide boarding services to. She stated that our home is planned to be looking right at and right next to the stable. She stated that we plan to maintain some privacy. She stated that we have many natural borders around the property and we plan to secure it with a gate.
Mr. Brickner asked, will you have a sign?
Ms. Wirsing stated, no. She stated that we do not have a need for a sign.
Mr. Brickner asked, do you plan to put a sign up?
Ms. Wirsing stated that we do not plan to put a sign up at this time.
Mr. Brickner asked, what about the disposal of the horse excrement? He asked, are you going to have that taken care of by someone?
Ms. Wirsing stated that actually it's quite valuable material. She stated that if I can explain, the way we will be bedding and maintaining our horses will be on some kiln-dried pine shavings. She stated that walking into our barn would not be like walking into a cow or swine barn. She stated that the shavings themselves will absorb an awful lot of the odor. She stated that what you get after that when you clean the stall is actually something that you might want to put around your own home because we put it around our flower beds and our trees and our garden so we will be, number 1, either spreading it to help promote the growth of our agriculture and the vegetation or else the other plan we are going to be doing twofold will also be composting it, and I think it will be quite some valuable material.
Mr. Robertson stated that I used to have horses and we had these pine shavings, too, and you just put them in a pile. He stated that it settles down, too, after a couple of years and makes a really fine mulch.
Mr. Detert stated that I know stables around my area, they usually give away the manure, with little signs there that say if you want some help yourself.
Mr. Robertson stated that if you have enough room, it's not a problem stockpiling it and it looks like they have enough room here.
Mr. Hudson stated that this is a beautiful area. He stated that I've walked this and I've lived out in this area for over 30 years and I've been over this property surveying it.
Mr. Burns stated that I'm like Rich; I don't live too far from this piece of property and I've passed it many times and at one time I was looking at buying it. He stated that it's gorgeous and pristine and I think it's a good use.
Ms. Wirsing stated that I would have to agree with Mr. Hudson that it is a road that I think the more homes that you would work into that area, the more treacherous it could be and I think by maintaining this parcel the way it is I think would just add to the benefit of the community.
Mr. Detert stated that my experience with horses is that they attract flies and when you live close by you get a lot of flies. He asked, do you practice some kind of fly control.
Ms. Wirsing stated that I think what attracts the flies is not so much the horses but maybe the way one manages them, how well they clean and maintain the facility, how well they maintain their horses,
how well they keep their paddocks and their pastures. She stated that my horses are too valuable to say that I'm going to create a place for flies. She stated that we do use some fly traps and we may be installing a sprayer-mister system in the barn that is to control insects and flies. She stated that with the diseases that are currently around, such as the West Niles virus - I don't know if you know much about it, but it's quite dangerous to horses, so it would be my interest to maintain the health of not only my environment and our family but also of the horses that we will be maintaining, so I think with good cleaning and maintenance and proper management of the manure, I think that we would do our very best to maintain the flies.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-PUV-3, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes
Case 03-UV-4. Petition of Donald Ehrick & Luann Jones, 576 E. 1400 N., Michigan City, seeking a Use Variance to permit boarding of eight dogs, to be located at 576 E. 1400 N., in Pine Township.
Mr. Ehrick stated that these are non-aggressive dogs. He stated that we want to stay away from the Dobermans, the pit bulls and the Rottweilers. He stated that we require all vaccinations to be up to date. He stated that there is a 12-guage security fence. He stated that they are 13 feet long and 4 feet wide and the gates lock.
Kathleen Turner, 552 E. 1400 N. She stated that I did not receive official notification; I guess I'm just beyond the boundary of that, and actually found out about it from neighbors that live in Illinois. She stated that I do have concerns because it is very much residential and there are no businesses that, to my knowledge, are run in the area. She stated that I guess my biggest concern would be animal noise. She stated that not knowing much about the boarding business, if you have a pet you know how to control your pet, but when you bring in other people's pets and you combine them in different ways, then I don't know anything more annoying than dogs barking 24/7 and eight dogs barking, and I am really well within earshot of that, so that would be one concern. She stated that another concern would be just simply the control of animals. She stated that I know you mentioned the dimensions, but I didn't hear a height. She stated that if the dogs do get loose or somehow manage to get out of their confinement, who is responsible? She asked, is the pet owner, if that dog should injure someone by biting them, or I don't know how that would work if that animal did, in fact, get loose, who would be responsible for any injuries or damage done by the dog? She stated that I have a particular situation, only for myself that my husband is
blind and hearing-impaired and if there would be an animal running lose, he might not hear a warning and might not see the dog coming at him. She stated that I also have small grandchildren that are at the house a lot. She stated that another thought was just the animal waste. She stated that I've lived on a farm all my life and I know how you take care of animal waste from cattle and horses. She stated, dogs I don't know anything about, and eight dogs times whatever, I would think that could create some animal waste that needs to be disposed of or taken care of. She stated, also, just the confinement. She stated that it seems reasonable to say that they are confined and they can't get out, but when you have 100-degree summer days and 80-degree summer nights, are the dogs going to be outdoors, are they going to be indoors, is there some kind of mechanism to control the noise? She stated, if not and they're outdoors, I don't know - if you have your own pets, you know how they behave. She stated that if you are taking in other people's pets it would seem to me that could create... She asked, will there be a sign?
Mr. Ehrick stated that about the noise, to address the noise problem, if you do have a problem with barking, we do have bark eliminators and other training tools for dogs, electronic dogs (sic). He stated that the bark eliminator will be activated when his vocal chords move if you do have a problem barker. He stated, and the waste problem, we in the back I grown an acre of sweet corn, and we just bury it in the back in the cornfield there. He stated, and running loose, there is a fence that runs between our property and to the West there. He stated that we could fence in the whole area, but actually they are boarded into the kennel run itself.
Ms. Turner stated that there is actually a few strips of farmland in between their area and my farm. She stated that those are agricultural, completely areas, and those fences haven't been maintained. She stated that I don't know that you have a fence that runs the full length of that property. She stated that it's also the Indiana National Lakeshore that's just beyond that, and I know very well, I negotiated with them through two takings of property. She stated that so whether those fences are maintained the clear length of the property once the animals get loose, maybe they absolutely cannot get loose, that may well be the case, but the concern is if they do get loose is there someone there 24/7. She asked, how often are they checked on? She stated that they seem like all very, very simple common sense things, but if they are not addressed, we are about as far East and North as you can go and still be in Porter County. She stated, so when you call for help from the police it's 25 to 30 minutes, if you're waiting for a County sheriff. She stated that when you have animals that are your own, you're fully responsible for them to make sure you take care of them. She stated, the boarding, I'm sure they take wonderful care, but the barking, are they going to be indoors, are they going to be outdoors? She stated that this bark eliminator, I'm not sure what that means; does that mean no barking?
Mr. Ehrick stated that there is a strip of farmland between me and then the next guy has goats there. He stated that he's run the fence between his property and my property, but that only covers the left side and then there are two more parcels of farmland before we do get to Mrs. Turner's property. He stated that I've messed with dogs all my life, and I've never lost a dog and the way this is set up, I don't see how they could get out, myself. He stated that if I did want to run the dogs, a mile away if you go past 1500, I'm a parcel owner of 18 acres there, adjacent to a 220-acre lease I have there.
Mrs. Turner stated that the fence you're talking about behind this building looks like kind of a standard farm fence with maybe a piece of barbed wire on the top, but it almost appears like some of it is down a little bit.
Mr. Ehrick stated that actually there is two fences there.
Mr. Detert stated, sir, as I understand it, the dogs are not going to run out there, is that correct?
Mr. Ehrick stated that they are going to be in kennels.
Mrs. Turner asked, on the 85-degree, hot, humid nights, are they going to be outside of that building and the pen?
Mr. Ehrick stated that they have a roof to keep the sun off and they run them big drum barn fans.
Mrs. Turner stated that I'm not so much worried about.. I should be worried about the dogs, as well, but, um, just that you're not going to keep them enclosed in a building, so, therefore, they are probably be outside of the building and maybe they'll bark, maybe they won't bark. She stated that there are all sorts to coyotes in the area.
Mr. Detert asked, are they free to move in and out of the building?
Mr. Ehrick stated, yes, they are.
Mr. Detert stated, and they could be in those outside pens.
Mr. Ehrick stated, yes.
Mr. Detert stated, and, if they wake people up, what controls do you have to control their barking? He asked, you said electronic collars?
Mr. Ehrick stated, yes, bark eliminators.
Mr. Detert stated, but dogs will bark at animals and they may not be a problem barker, and I guess what she's afraid of is they are going to wake them.
Mr. Ehrick stated that I have two dogs that are out there now, and they do not bark. He stated that I don't have no (sic) electronic devices on them, either.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Robertson asked if he has already built this.
Mr. Ehrick stated, yes.
Mr. Robertson asked, didn't you realize you were going to have to come before this Board?
Mr. Ehrick stated that I know ignorance is no excuse.
Mr. Robertson stated, you didn't realize?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no, I did not.
Mr. Robertson asked, how far is it from your place to Mrs. Turner's, how many feet about?
Mr. Hudson asked, you said there are two farms, two pieces?
Mr. Ehrick stated that a parcel of farmland, I would say, is 250, I'd say 1,000 feet.
Mr. Robertson asked, Mrs. Turner, what would you say it is?
Mrs. Turner stated, I would say 400 to 500. She stated that if you go by the end of my property, not where my house is. She stated that I would say an eighth of a mile.
Mr. Robertson asked, from your house, how far do you think it would be?
Mrs. Turner stated, maybe a tenth of a mile.
Mr. Robertson asked, does your house face toward his property?
Mrs. Turner stated that it faces towards the road.
Mr. Robertson asked, do you have an outdoor area that you socialize in.
Mrs. Turner stated, on the East side of the house.
Mr. Robertson stated, now, these electronic things, you only place them on problem barkers?
Mr. Ehrick stated, right.
Mr. Robertson asked, how much do they cost?
Mr. Ehrick stated, oh, they're about $100.
Mr. Robertson asked, you can reuse them?
Mr. Ehrick stated that they are rechargeable.
Mr. Robertson stated, you say a regular dog wouldn't bark? He stated that that's hard to believe.
Mr. Ehrick stated, no, they're not problem barking.
Mr. Robertson asked, are there other people that have dogs out that way.
Mr. Ehrick stated, well, usually the closest would be a farmer that has about 30 goats.
Mr. Robertson asked if the dogs are going to bark at the goats.
Mr. Burns stated that I have mixed feelings. He stated that a kennel in a residential - this is all residential area?
Mr. Ehrick stated that nobody's in front of me and nobody is next to me. He stated that this here is the goat man. He stated that this is my house right here and this is the barn.
Mrs. Turner stated that I am West.
Mr. Hudson stated, so the people to the East are not here.
Mr. Detert asked, are these vacant properties next to you and in front of you? He asked, can they be sold, are they available, they don't belong to you?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no, they don't belong to me.
Mr. Detert stated, so, they could be built on?
Mr. Ehrick stated that there is only one next to me.
Mr. Robertson asked, did you talk to your neighbors to the East?
Mr. Ehrick stated, yeah, they returned the letter.
Mr. Robertson asked, and they're not concerned about the noise?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no.
Mr. Robertson asked, do they have dogs?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no. He stated, yeah, they do have a little dog.
Mr. Brickner stated that I can tell you from experience that the bark collars really do a good job. He stated that I can't believe that you would pay $800 for bark collars to put on.
Mr. Ehrick stated, I only have two right now. He stated that Mr. Dowel is the closet neighbor I have and he doesn't have a problem with the dogs barking, or he would be here.
Mr. Hudson asked, how long has this facility been up?
Mr. Ehrick stated, I put the wire up last year, but we haven't used it, just for my own personal dogs.
Mr. Hudson stated, so there's no boarding dogs here yet?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no.
Mr. Brickner asked, how many dogs do you have?
Mr. Ehrick stated, three.
Mr. Brickner asked, so, you're going to have 8 dogs in addition to your three?
Mr. Ehrick stated, no. He stated that we are only going to board five additional dogs, no six. He stated that one of my dogs would stay in the house all the time.
Mr. Detert asked, how many total dogs are you going to have, maximum?
Mr. Ehrick stated, one in the house and eight outside.
Mr. Robertson stated that this boarding contract says kennel does not assume and will not be held responsible for any liability with respect to the animal, including running away, death, injury to persons or animals, or property (inaudible) caused by the named animal.
Ms. Schaefer stated that I think that's between him and the dog owner, though.
Mr. Ehrick stated that I got that out of a book.
Mr. Robertson stated that I'd like to see somebody responsible.
Mr. Burns stated that I feel better because it looks like there is a lot of space in between.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-UV-4 for two years, with a maximum of 8 dogs in the kennel and 9 total; to get rid of the excrement on a regular basis and screening around the kennel area in the way of pine trees to absorb some of the noise and bark collars to be used for excessively barking dogs, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of facts (in file). 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-10. Petition of Hannelore Trump, 4005 Maplewood Avenue, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required building line setback from 60 to 50 feet for construction of a carport, to be located at 4005 Maplewood Avenue, in Center Township.
There being no petitioner present, this case was tabled.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Robert Detert, Chairman
Attest: Stephen P. Nigro, Interim Director/Zoning Inspector
|
