BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
June 18, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on June 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, James Robertson and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Lily Schaefer and Toni Byers.

Mr. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 5-21-03 meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 93-UV-5. David Griffith, 901 N. 264 W., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a hunting preserve, located on the East side of SR 149, between CR 875 N. and the Indiana Toll Road Overpass in Liberty Township. (This is the last renewal available on this case.)

Mr. Griffith stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that we have a hunt club shooting license, shooting preserve. He stated that we are licensed with the state of Indiana. He stated that I've been granted two Use Variances to do this and would now like to get my permanent one so I can make long-term plans and investments with the property. He stated that I purchased the property and would like to continue on. He stated that I think there's a lot of potential there. He stated that I'm very happy with what the club brings to the local community in terms of business with the sport shops and certainly the restaurants do very well when I get done with the guys out there. He stated, it's my home, it's what I want to do, and I'd like to continue.

Mr. Detert stated, you said something about a permanent variance, but what you've applied for here is renewal of the existing Use Variance and if you want to have a permanent use variance you should have applied for that at this point, so all we're hearing now is a use variance.

Mr. Griffith asked, what is the proper procedure? He stated that I was under the impression that you got two and then if there were not any problems, you were granted the third and final permanent.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is the last renewal available on this case and then you can apply for a permanent.

Mr. Detert stated that you can have two renewals: You come the first time, and it's a public hearing, and then you have two renewals, so it can have as much as a 15-year span.

Mr. Griffith asked, so this is counted as a public hearing; the other times I was here were not public hearings.

Mr. Detert stated, if you want to change that to a permanent use variance you'd have to have a public hearing.

Mr. Griffith stated, tell me what to do.

Mr. Detert stated, well, you're here and you applied for a use variance and I would say we continue with it as such.

Mr. Brickner stated, I know this very well. He stated that I know the area and the hunt club very well. He stated that I think it's been marvelously run, and I don't have any problems with this at all.

Mr. Detert stated that that's pretty far North. He asked if we are having a problem with encroachment of people getting too close.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don't think so. He stated that it's pretty well isolated. He stated that the Toll Road and the railroad bound it on the North.

Mr. Detert stated that it's kind of a deadlocked piece.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 93-UV-5 for 5 years. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Case 80-V-13. Darrell L. Qualkenbush, P.O. Box 109, Wheeler, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home lying North of the North end of Third and Fourth Streets in Wheeler, Union Township.

Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner asking for a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner asked if there have been any problems.

Mr. Thompson stated that there have been none.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 80-V-13 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 87-V-9. Paul & Bernice Babbitt, 548 N. 300 E., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 548 N. 300 E., in Washington Township. (Petitioner to appear in person.)


Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner asking for a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Detert stated that there is a note on the file that the property has been sold and that the TCO should be dissolved.

Mr. Brickner asked what the original use for this was.

Mr. Thompson stated that it looks like there was a complaint that came in from the phone concerning this property.

Mr. Brickner stated that if it is, in fact, being sold, then the TCO should be...

Mr. Detert stated that we sent out a letter and they're not here. He stated that that's usually a sign that they're not using it.

Mr. Thompson stated that it states that this was for health reasons.

Mr. Robertson moved to send the petitioner a certified letter requesting them to appear in person at the July 16th meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 87-V-33. Jerome O'Day, 554 E. 1400 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 1400 S., between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township.

Robert O'Day stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that he lives in the trailer. He stated that we still need the TCO. He stated that both my parents have bad health, so we're there to help them out. He stated that my circumstances really haven't changed financially to be able to build right now. He stated that when we originally moved in 16 years ago we only brought the mobile home temporarily so we'd have some place to live, so we didn't have to live with my parents, but in the past 16 years I've filed bankruptcy and I don't have the credit line to be able to afford to build a new home.

Mr. Brickner asked, who's living in the trailer?

Mr. O'Day stated, I am, my wife and I and my kids.

Mr. Detert asked, who's Jerome?

Mr. O'Day stated, that's my father.

Mr. Detert asked, does your father own the property?

Mr. O'Day stated, he owns the property and they live directly across the driveway in the home.

Mr. Detert asked, is your intention to build a house there?

Mr. O'Day stated that it was, but, like I said right now, I can't. He stated that with both my folks in bad health what I'm basically waiting on is for my folks to both pass away and eventually someday we'll have their house.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, you want to live there until your folks pass away.

Mr. O'Day stated, exactly. He stated that we've been there 16 years, so...

Mr. Detert stated, we know, but we don't like to see these that go back that far.

Mr. O'Day stated, right. He stated that we moved in right after they put this new clause in and I've asked the same thing every year, so...

Mr. Detert stated that they're only meant to be temporary.

Mr. O'Day stated, correct, and I've done a lot of work on it.

Mr. Detert stated, 16 years is not very temporary.

Mr. O'Day stated that I agree.

Mr. Robertson stated that I'd be inclined to go along. He stated that it's been there 16 years and I don't see any reason to end it now. He stated that it's one of those situations where he's evidently in a tough spot. He stated that I don't know that making him move out of it would help anything.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for 1 year, but at the end of that time the petitioner is to appear in person and show either efforts to build a house or the trailer would be removed. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 89-V-24. Lillian Roman, 19 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of U.S. Hwy 6, between Meridian Road and CR 75 W., in Liberty Township.

Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 98-V-24 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 95-V-17. James & Ruth Allison, 1226 N. County Line Road, Westville, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of Porter-LaPorte County Line Road, between CR 1275 N. and Burdick Road, in Pine Township.

Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Thompson stated that there have been none.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 95-V-17 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 98-V-50. Robert L. Grant, 306 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a mobile home to live in while constructing a house, to be located on the South side of CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 350 E., in Jackson Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Grant stated that I am in the process of building and we have the foundation in.

Mr. Detert asked, how long has the foundation been in?

Mr. Grant stated that I got the permit, I think, in January and we got the foundation in.

Mr. Brickner asked, is this since '98, five years ago, that you applied for this?

Mr. Grant stated, yes sir.

Mr. Brickner asked, how long is it going to be before you get your house built?

Mr. Grant stated that I would anticipate that within this year we would have it done.

Mr. Detert asked, when did you get your permit?

Mr. Grant stated that I got it this year. He stated that I couldn't get it before we had the development approved and as soon as we got it approved, then I got the permit.

Mr. Robertson stated that I just have to make a comment, Mr. Grant. He stated that my daughter is an entomologist specializing in water bugs and she was horrified at what you did to the creek there. He stated that it looks real pretty, but by dredging that eighth of a mile of creek and then putting stones and everything in there it completely killed anything that was in there and over a period of time it will come back, but she was just horrified.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 98-V-50 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-31. H. Glenn Wiles, 920 N. 100 W., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 100 W., between CRs 900 N. and 1000 N., in Liberty Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Wiles stated that Mr. Musgrave, who owns the property also, is still in bad shape. He stated that he did have surgery last year, which was successful and he had a major setback in January and now he's on oxygen 24/7 and he's got a major problem with not absorbing the oxygen, so he has to be watched all the time, so his son and wife live there and help with him, because I can't take care of him and work and do everything else.

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Detert stated that he doesn't believe so.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 99-V-31 for one year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 01-V-10. Mark Lockwin, 53 E. 150 S., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of CR 150 S., between CR 75 E. and Smoke Road, in Morgan Township. (This Case was continued from the 5-21-03 meeting.)

Mr. Thompson stated that there is no correspondence from the petitioner.

Mr. Detert asked if he was properly notified.

Mr. Thompson stated that a certified letter was sent out and it looks like he received it and it was signed by Rebecca Lockwin.

Mr. Robertson asked, what was the original intent of this?

Mr. Thompson stated that it was to live in during construction of a house.

Mr. Detert asked when it was supposed to be done.

Mr. Thompson stated that I do not know.

Mr. Brickner stated that they were notified.

Mr. Robertson stated that they had a letter signed that it was received.



Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 01-V-10. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 03-V-18. Petition of James Treacy, 1903 Lakeview Dr., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the front-yard setback from 25 feet from the centerline of the road to 22 feet, to build an enclosed porch, to be located on the Northwest corner of Aaron and Lakeview, in Center Township.

Mr. Treacy stated that the porch will be 16 feet wide by 14 feet deep. He stated that the construction of this porch will not obstruct emergency or utility vehicles entering or exiting, nor will it obstruct the limited traffic that uses the private roadway. He stated that addition will not obscure the vision of the neighboring residents and all the residents that I could locate signed a petition in favor of this, which I have here with me now.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have any kind of a sketch or anything with you?

Mr. Treacy stated that I do.

Edward Skerritt, 1813 (inaudible), which is approximately 100 feet from Mr. Treacy's house. He stated that I am in favor of this. He stated that I believe it would enhance his property and the property around it.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Rich Manatrey opposing this petition. The letter is in the file.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that you are asking for a 3-foot reduction there, but what if you make your porch 3 foot...instead of 14 feet, make it 11 feet?

Mr. Treacy stated that when I was out of town, the contractor I talked to to do the work, he had a job at first and that job was canceled, so he called my wife and asked if it would be all right if he started the construction, and he did start the construction, so that's ... I also have a picture here of what the construction will look like from the corner, if you would like to look at it. He stated that I also have a picture of Rich Manatrey had been here a few years previously, asking for the same variance for a house that's even closer than what I am asking for.




Mr. Brickner stated that on your sketch, you show 16 by 14, you said 18 by 14.

Mr. Treacy stated that he said 16 by 14.

Mr. Robertson asked if there is already enough built that he couldn't reduce it. He stated that it looks like the sight line isn't going to be a problem.

Mr. Treacy stated that we are on the top of a hill where there is nobody actually on...

Mr. Robertson stated that it doesn't stick out sight-wise anymore than the house itself, just looking at it there, so I don't believe sight lines are a problem.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don't see a problem with the sight line, either. He asked, there is not a street that runs there either, is there?

Mr. Robertson stated that it's on a corner. He stated that there is Lakeview Road in the front and then Aaron Drive on the side.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don't see a problem with that.

Mr. Robertson stated, if he didn't already have it made, I'd ask him to make his porch shorter.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-18, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because there will be no impact or obstruction for emergency vehicles or utilities entering and exiting the private road, nor will there be any obstruction due to limited vehicle activity; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the adjacent properties will not be reduced in value or use and the porch will improve the area's appearance; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because he does not have enough frontage to cover where he needs to put his already half-constructed porch. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-19. Petition of Barry McCormack, 448 E. Private Road 170 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a 6-foot high fence in the front yard, to be located at 448 E. PR 170 N., in Washington Township.




Mr. McCormack stated that I'm out in the open, over there by the airport, and the wind is relentless and a 6-foot fence would help give us some windbreak and visual privacy and security.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that we granted you a 6-foot fence a few years ago, didn't we, on the back part of your property?

Mr. McCormack stated, no.

Mr. Robertson asked, didn't we grant you some other kind of variance there?

Mr. McCormack stated, no.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think it was the guy across the street.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you on...do you already have a fence up there?

Mr. McCormack stated, I plead ignorance to the law. He stated that I put that fence up last year and I was unaware that you even had to have a permit to put a fence up.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you on the North side of the private drive or the South side?

Mr. McCormack stated, the South side.

Mr. Brickner stated, the North side has a fence.

Mr. McCormack stated, my neighbor just erected a fence last month, and that's when I became aware that I needed to have a permit and we did the back half last year and then wanted to do the front half this year.

Mr. Robertson stated, I could swear we gave you some sort of Variance.

Mr. McCormack stated, I was here a couple years ago for a Variance on my pole barn.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, he is out there all by himself; he just has the guy across the street who doesn't seem to mind.





Mr. Brickner stated, I just want to know - you have really a beautiful yard. He asked, how much of that are you going to fence in, all the way to the road, or...?

Mr. McCormack stated, no, between the house and the pole barn.

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, you're going to go back West then.

Mr. McCormack stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, then I don't have a problem with it.

Mr. Robertson asked, will the house be enclosed with the new fence, or will it be to the side of the house?

Mr. McCormack stated, from the side of the house.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, then I don't have a problem with it.

Mr. Brickner stated, that's no problem. He stated, I thought he was going to go the other way. He stated, actually, you have two front yards. He stated that your house really faces the private road.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-19, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because this fence is out in the country, far from any populated area, and the fence is going to enhance the property value; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in this variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because there are no neighbors, except across the street and the visual impact across the street will be negligible; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the petitioner says that he has a wind problem out there and this will help him enjoy his yard a lot more and also contain his dogs. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-20. Petition of Steven Penrod, 686 N. 718 W., Hobart, seeking a Variance to permit a pole barn in the front yard, to be located at 686 N. 718 W., in Portage Township.

Mr. Penrod stated that this is not in the front yard. He stated that on the plot of survey, I bought 4.25 acres and put the house in the exact center and I turned it to face Duck Creek Golf Course and that, in turn, turned the garage to face the East side and that's why I want the pole barn, so I can have one drive come in so you can go either the garage or the pole barn. He stated, then when he said that the pole barn can't go past the front of the house, well, I went from



the one corner of the house straight across and he meant from the back corner of the house. He stated that a 40 by 60 pole barn won't fit in there because of my septic field and I have the trusses sitting there and the steel sitting there and I can show you on this. He stated that this shows the house and the septic field.

Mr. Detert asked, do we have any kind of a sketch?

Sue Sorden, 681 N. 719 W., stated that that we live directly across from Steve and we don't have any problem with where he wants to place the pole barn. She stated that we spend more time in the back of our house than in the front.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that you're in the deck business, building decks; is that what this pole barn is for?

Mr. Penrod stated, no. He stated that it's for I have my tractor and my truck and my other tractor.

Mr. Brickner stated that I had a hard time finding your place.

Mr. Penrod stated that it's at the end of the gravel road.

Mr. Brickner stated that this house sits at an angle. He asked, where the trusses are - is that where you're going to build?

Mr. Penrod stated, no, the trusses are for the pole barn. He stated that the pole barn is here, straight across and he meant this corner. He stated, well, it's 12 feet from that corner, right in the middle of the house, and I don't want to go any farther to my septic field. He stated that it's not my front yard; it's over here.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, it is, technically, probably, in your front yard, by zoning ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated, that by zoning ordinance, you're not allowed to place it in the front yard.

Mr. Penrod stated that it was a 4.25 acre field, so you start with where to put what and what are you going to do, so....my whole land falls one foot difference in level.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don't have a problem with it either. He stated that if the neighbor doesn't care. He stated that there can't be any more houses built past it.

Mr. Penrod stated, no, it's all landlocked.




Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-20, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because it's a very isolated, remote area that has only one neighbor across the street and one immediately North that have no objections and the pole barn is actually more in the side yard than in the front yard, but technically it's in the front yard, but certainly won't be a visual problem; 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 only one neighbor immediately adjacent to this property and they have no objection to this and the pole barn will probably actually add to the property value; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because as the zoning ordinance states he would not be allowed to put a pole barn in the side or close to the front yard and he has a septic field that prohibits him from putting it elsewhere. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-21. Petition of Robert E. Lang, c/o William A. Ferngren, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required side-yard setback from 8 feet to 3 feet to construct a garage, to be located at 512 Grandview Ave., in Center Township.

William A. Ferngren stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated I'm here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, Robert Lang, and all the required notices for this hearing have been given. He stated that I've provided the certified mailing list, the affidavit, notice of publication to the secretary; she has all that information. He stated that the property is 512 Grandview Ave. He stated that it's Lot 14 Block 4 in Hillcrest Park. He stated that it's located on the South side of Grandview Avenue. He stated that the lot is 50 feet wide by 150 feet deep and is presently used as a single-family residence and I've brought a few photos that might show an idea of what the parcel looks like. He stated that you're looking at the house on the right-hand side of your photo. He stated that it's a white - appears to be a ranch in this picture - but actually there's a full walkout basement. He stated that the variance that we're requesting tonight is a side-yard setback variance on the Eastern side of the structure, reducing the minimum side-yard setback from 8 feet to 3 feet. He stated that the purpose for the variance is to allow the improvement of the property and the addition of a new garage, with the potential future second story attached on the top of that, and I have, I guess, a revised sketch of the sketch that was handed out and made part of this petition. He stated that I've also got this blown up here for you to take a look at, as well, but if you...Grandview Avenue is located on the...the parcel is located on the




South side of Grandview Avenue, and the proposed addition is located on the Eastern side of the parcel, and, as I've indicated, there's approximately 13.5 feet to the side property line right now, and we're proposing a 10.5 foot addition in that side yard, leaving 3 foot side-yard setback, again for a new garage facility...a new garage addition back alongside there and some new living space above the garage in the future. He stated that the variance will allow for an enclosed parking space on the parcel. He stated that the property - I'm sure as you're all well aware - in this area is very congested, there's not much parking, if any, at all, on the street and this will allow an enclosed parking space to be provided for this lot, which will be a safer situation for the resident, as well as providing a safer environment for the travelers in the area, the additional residents and tenants in the area. He stated that cars will be - the parking will no longer be on the street, but will be moved to the garage area. He stated that it will eliminate, also, the blocked views potentially on these narrow, winding streets, at least in front of this particular residence, making travel again more safe for the residents. He stated that I also have a copy of part of the building code, specifically Section R-3-0-2, which is...I've highlighted for you, a notation on lot and this particular section discusses, or anticipates structures being located even less than 3 feet to a property line, and the concern becomes what happens with penetrations through this particular structure if it's less than 3 feet - how do you handle fire ratings and that sort of thing, and the code adopted by Porter County does not require any additional measures for fire and safety precautions with this particular location. He stated that the 3-foot minimum meets all fire and health safety standards provided for under your local building code, so I believe that this is another evidence that it will not be injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the area, or the actual resident of the home. He stated that all of the improvements will be located 3 feet or more from the property line. He stated that the proposed variance will not have substantially adverse effect on the use and value of the adjacent properties, in fact, this particular proposed variance is very consistent with the area. He stated that I will have a couple of more photographs to hand out to you. He stated that the first photograph, that I've marked as Exhibit 5, is a photograph showing the home immediately to the East of this residence, the red, Mr. Robertson has the colored photograph and it shows between the house to the East and the next house to the East. He stated that if you look at that photograph, the homes are built very close to the property line, if not right on top of the property line and, specifically, I'm referring to the house that's depicted as somewhat of a yellowish color. He stated that I have another photograph that I've marked as Exhibit 6. He stated that this is the same house, just on the other side, and again the property lines - I'm sorry, this is in the other direction, to the West, if you look again, here are attached garages that are constructed either at or on the property line, the same exact use that we're proposing here for you tonight. He stated that then I have a



final photograph that I've marked as Exhibit 7, again demonstrating that this is pretty much the norm in the area. He stated that these photos were all taken within five or six lots of this particular subject property, and, just walking up and down that area I was able to locate this many examples of how this is relatively consistent with what's out there at this time. He stated that another reason for the positive value effect, I believe, is that it will allow a significant improvement to occur to this building. He stated that right now, as you can see in the picture, it is in need of some care, as are many in the area and this variance will allow substantial investment to occur into this property - a new attached garage, a second floor, new siding and that sort of thing to make the property more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, as well as making it more valuable to the owner, and then increasing the values of the properties around it. He stated that another benefit will be...another value benefit will be the removal of things and items normally stored outside, to be stored on the inside, which will, again, be more aesthetically pleasing, in addition to the renovation. He stated that it will remove clutter and that sort of thing from the area. He stated that one of the photographs that you're - I believe it's Photograph 3 or maybe 4 - this property has a tremendous slope towards the lake, and creates a practical difficulty, without a doubt, for making any kind of access to the back of the parcel, where you could, potentially, park cars. He stated that it doesn't make sense to do that back there; it makes more sense to have it along the side, as is consistent with the rest of the area. He stated that the lakes have all been platted some time ago, platted as narrow lots and at a time when the amount of vehicular traffic was much less, not in anticipation of the size of the vehicles of today and the amount of vehicular traffic, and I believe that this will provide a better community project, it will be a better fit for this area, it will be a good end result project for the community. He stated that again, I would also like to add that the dimension of a standard, single-car garage is 9 feet wide by 7; feet tall, and this is pretty much the bare limit about what you can do to allow for that 9-foot door, to allow you access into that side garage, so that is the reason for that dimension being 10.5 feet and with that, I respectfully request that the variance petition is granted.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Jack Hiller, 510 Grandview Ave., stated that I occupy the property immediately to the West of the property. He stated that I'm here to protest the change. He stated that I brought some photographs myself and so I am passing them around. He stated that the property in question is already a blight on the neighborhood. He stated that the addition of a two-story garage would raise the second story above the main part of the building as it presently stands. He stated that if you're talking about aesthetically pleasing structures, that would not be the case. He stated that you have a layout here - this one - which doesn't show a structure in the back of the property that's



already on the property line next to my house. He stated that there are a couple of pictures of that in the packet that I gave you. He stated that I consider any addition here to be a degradation to the property. He stated that we are at the center of a short run between two blind curves on the road here. He stated that school children get on the bus at this corner, a car coming out into the center of the road where no one can see where it's coming from is going to be an additional hazard to this area. He stated that I park on the private part of my property, just adjacent to the road; that's no problem. He stated that it's a problem of getting snow on my car. He stated that there is not enough room on my property to put a garage where I want it without destroying the aesthetic value of the area, and I do not want to do that. He stated that we're told that this house has a full walk-in (sic) basement. He stated that that's not so. He stated, a partially walk-n basin. He stated that part of it's not yet dug out. He stated that every part of the construction or maintenance of this property has been less than second-rate, I suggest to you. He stated that a reference was made to a number of buildings that were similar to what we are being told that we would have here. He stated that most of the buildings referred to, I suspect, are buildings that were out there for many, many years, before interest was taken into the zoning of the area. He stated that the yellow building that was referred to which is close to the property line certainly is no asset to the property. He stated that making an additional departure would not be an advantage to the neighborhood, so that's my main concern. He stated that you see in the picture of the fence that goes across the front, the gutters have recently fallen off this building. He stated that the property as it now stands is decrepit. He stated that the roof is rotting through, so there is real roofing (inaudible) to cover that space, so even if new construction were there, I'm sure it would not be maintained properly. He stated that that's my main concern.

Kurt Wienhorst, 513 Grandview Ave., stated that I live directly across from the house that we are discussing tonight. He stated that a few years ago when the yellow house came in that we were discussing here that is close to the edge of the lot line, this client objected to any kind of improvements or garage addition being put on. He stated that he was one of three or four people that night that got up and spoke. He stated that that night I got up and mentioned that you would have to consider a domino effect when you talk about that side of the street, when you extend the rules for one, then one after the other will soon want the same. He stated that there will be a point in time when Grandview will not have a grand view anymore. He stated that it will be a view of nothing. He stated that it will be like driving down the street in Chicago with zero lot lines. He stated that I live across the street from this house and I have lived directly across from it for 23 years and have seen very little done. He stated that fences without permits. He stated that my view goes if this is permitted. He stated, not that I have a great view at the present moment, being as it is poorly kept. He stated that I'd like to maintain the character of the neighborhood as it is.


Kenn Grcich, 601 Grandview Ave., stated that that I live across the street, catty-corner from this area here. He stated that my garage, my driveway, would be just to the North of where he is building this. He stated that the gentleman here mentioned that it slopes way down to the lake. He stated that where he's planning on building his garage it's like an 8-foot drop-off. He stated that a lot of the neighbors walk their dogs. He stated that it's been mentioned that the school bus stops there at the corner where the private road comes right out to the front of his house. He stated that we have two blind corners there. He stated that it's a jogging road. He stated that this is more of country type living, instead of what most people consider a neighborhood where you got houses right next to each other, and the houses on that side of the street were built quite a while ago and they are pretty close as it is. He stated that for him to build this area up to make it road level where you'd even possibly to see the car out would actually make it real hazardous on the house next to him. He stated that if he keeps the garage down to ground level now and he comes up that hill, the road is up here, you'd never see him coming until that car is out onto the road. He stated that he cannot see people, children, walking their dogs or whatever and I'm just totally against what he has planned here.

At this time, Mr. Detert read a letter from Thelma Dickey in opposition to this petition. The letter is in the file.

Donald Kareiva, 501 Grandview, stated that I'm opposed to the petition on the grounds that especially with their thought of having a second floor eventually. He stated that that's going to take away from the character of the house itself and the surrounding area. He stated that I agree with the other comments, that we're trying to keep sort of a resort area and when you start getting this congestion where you have house against house, it reminds me of a street in Chicago and it's going to take away from the character of the neighborhood. He stated that I'm mainly opposed to that second floor because I think that it's going to be an unsightly appearance.

Mr. Weinhorst stated that I did mention to Bob at one point that the easiest way to remedy the situation on his property and it was just a suggestion from one neighbor to another would be to get del (inaudible) and jack his house up about 5 feet to get it up to grade level and optimally take what he's got up another story and put a garage underneath it. He stated that that would cure his parking problem and give him more than a single car garage - it would give him a 2, 2.5 car garage and he could extend the footprint of the house back farther where his deck is and he wouldn't have to get a special use variance, or a special variance for any of that. He stated that as long as he doesn't increase the footprint of the house, he would be in good shape, and being that his house is about 5 feet below street level it gives him a problem where he drives up the hill to come out of there and it would eliminate all that because he would be at street level and he wouldn't encroach onto the right-of-way at all or




anything like that, so there are other options of what you can do with that house. He stated that none of them are cheap, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.

Mr. Ferngren stated that with respect to the reason, the primary reason to make improvement to this property, there was a lot of discussion today about how the property is not maintained and it's really a detraction. He stated that the purpose for this is to allow for investment into the property to occur and improvement to occur, which will be better for the area. He stated that as Mr. Hiller mentioned, this is at the center of the turn approximately, and that further supports the reason to get cars off of the street, provide that off-street parking so that vehicles can get through. He stated that as the other gentleman mentioned, people walk their dogs there, they jog, they do those sorts of things and with cars parked right along on the street, it would provide opportunity for children being between these vehicles and to run out into other, into the street in front of others. He stated that it just narrows the whole use of the road, so, again, I believe that the addition of the garage supports our, and Mr. Hiller's contention, that this will be safer this way. He stated, I'm sorry, Mr. Hiller didn't contend it but I did, the off-street parking would make it safer. He stated that I'm not aware of any objection on any previous petitions filed with respect to any side-yard setbacks. He stated that my client has not advised me that he has made any such objections. He stated that with respect to the comment that the car will not be level when it enters the street, it will be level when it enters the street, the car will be at road level and not sticking up in the air where he indicated it would be. He stated that it will be level with the street, just as the rest of those driveways and his across the street do. He stated that the car will be level at the street. He stated that Mr. Kareiva's comment was that he wants to preserve the character of the area. He stated that this will be consistent with and will preserve the character because two-story homes are existing all over, up and down, the street; they're not all single ranch-style homes. He stated that I don't believe that the addition of a second story will be inconsistent at all, but would rather be consistent with the uses out there. He stated that as you can see and as I mentioned earlier the home is in need of repair and the maintenance issues are purely speculative. He stated that my client's informed me that he intends to make improvements. He stated that he was out there recently clearing a tremendous amount of brush and wants to make these improvements, but to put a significant amount of money into this property is just not economically or practically feasible with the layout as it is at this time, and I'm not aware of the cost of raising the structure, but what I'm aware of is that this project makes sense for my client financially and will induce him to make these improvements.

Mr. Hiller stated that the two-story houses that he has referred to are mostly but not exclusively, new houses, and all of them were constructed in compliance with appropriate ordinances. He stated that



this is obviously a departure from that. He stated that not long ago we were surprised to have a carport arise down the road from us, like a mushroom after the rain and we had not been given any notice that there was going to be construction, which is virtually on the edge of the road. He stated that these departures from the traditional layout of the land are exactly why, I think, we have a zoning ordinance so that we have some sort of compliance. He stated that those two things are relevant, because I think all the new houses going in are extremely well done. He stated that in terms of repair, we can only judge the future by the past, and there's not been any significant repair on the property since Mr. Lang purchased the property, and I don't expect there to be in the future.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson asked, we okayed a garage there recently, is that right?

Mr. Hiller stated that a carport was put up and we didn't have any notice.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you know if it came before this Board?

Mr. Hiller stated that I don't know that it did. He stated that there was never a notice to the neighborhood that it was going to go up.

Mr. Robertson asked, was that to the side or...

Mr. Hiller stated that it's right on the road.

Mr. Robertson stated that that could be a real hazard...

Mr. Hiller stated, lots of hazard and another invitation to departure from the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Robertson stated that there are a couple of other houses that do have garages to the side that seem to go all the way to the lot lines.

Mr. Hiller stated that that's right.

Mr. Robertson asked, were those done some time ago?

Mr. Hiller stated, 1949 was one of them, as I recall, and there was one before that. He stated that in recent times, I'm not aware of any addition that went to the property line, except the one I told you about that's on the back of this lot, on the property line.





Mr. Robertson stated, I remember, one case came before us several years ago, right in the same...do you remember what that was about, Marv?

Mr. Brickner stated that it was some kind of a carport that they wanted to put on the side of the house and they had a concrete wall they had to put up or some kind of a wall.

Mr. Robertson stated that we must have approved that then. He stated that it was pretty contentious. He stated that I can't remember, it wasn't unanimous.

Mr. Brickner stated that I remember the case on Grandview, but...

Mr. Hiller stated that it's not the one I was speaking of, because this has been within the last year.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we turned it down, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Detert stated that we'd have to check the record.

Mr. Robertson stated that I'm not particularly in favor of this. He stated that it really does change the character of the neighborhood, and these cottages are all set up there, and if we start doing it with one, it certainly has a domino effect, where they are all going to go to the lot line and put garages in there, and, like the gentleman says, you won't be able to see the lake as you go down Grandview anymore. He stated, I don't know if it's a right to see the lake or not, but I think it changes the character too much. He stated that I don't think it's possible to jack the thing up and go underneath; I mean, that would be horrendously expensive. He stated that I don't know what his answer is to get a garage, but it might not be possible to do it on that small lot. He stated that he bought it the way it is, he bought it knowing what the ordinances were, and that's just my feeling. He stated that I wouldn't be in favor of it.

Mr. Brickner stated that I kind of agree with that, but a different reason maybe is...if the guy had fixed...how long has he owned this property?

Mr. Ferngren stated, I'm not certain.

Mr. Brickner stated, if he had fixed this place up and then come in here and said I want to do this to my house, I would be a lot more inclined to go along with it, but the fact is that he's adding a new garage to a house that's really in bad disrepair, and if this guy has had this house for a while and never done anything with it, and now he wants to put a new garage on it, I think that's just adding a new piece of construction to something that should be fixed up first.




Mr. Ferngren stated that my client's indicated to me that he wants to make the improvements, but he doesn't want to spend money doing the rest...

Mr. Brickner stated that he's been living there for quite a long period of time, and he hasn't done anything and now he wants to put a new garage on this and you can see he's got a lot of work to do there besides putting a new garage on, and I agree it does cut down...I know why the gentlemen that live across the street, they don't want their view of the lake to be completely obscured, and I can understand that part, too, but also the height of the building to be above the height of the house, you know, is not in keeping with the neighborhood.

Mr. Ferngren stated that the intention would be to add a second floor to this particular residence, not just this one section. He stated that it would be to renovate the entire structure, and, with respect to Mr. Hiller's comments, obviously this is a departure from the zoning ordinance and that's why we're here tonight, but the state legislature also provides this avenue, and your local ordinance provides this avenue to allow you to receive departures from the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Detert stated that there is something in the ordinance that refers to blocking lake views except as I remember it it does not pertain to properties across the street - it pertains to your neighbors on the lakes property that you can't put an out building or something in there that would block his view.

Mr. Brickner stated, but it doesn't pertain to people across the street, it's the people...

Mr. Detert stated that I think our ordinance meant to include the yard that normally would be considered the back yard as a front yard that faces a lake, and in there it states that you cannot block the view, but it doesn't address anything of the neighbors across the street.

Mr. Ferngren stated, I'd like to make clear to you that the proposed structure does not go to the property line.

Mr. Detert stated, "the front yards of all lakefront lots shall be determined by the (inaudible)...in all lakefront lots no building or structure except the boathouse shall be constructed or erected with the water side setback less than the front yard requirement".

Mr. Ferngren stated that we can easily meet that requirement.

Mr. Detert stated, here it is: "In no event shall any building or structure be constructed or erected so as to obstruct the waterfront view of the occupants of adjacent existing dwellings facing the waterfront". He stated, so it's the neighbors. He stated that it's under front yards, but I assume the lake rear yard is considered a front yard, because you wouldn't have the lake in your front yard, so that's what it has to mean.

Mr. Robertson stated, Mr. Chairman, in reference to that, it looks to me like the house to the East, the red house, which would be next to the driveway there, would be the Northernmost window on that side, which is this window here, looks to me like it might be blocked if he built out here, it might block the view of the lake, I'm not sure. He stated that it looks like it might, if you took it at that last window there on the red house. He stated, if this is built here...

Mr. Detert stated, it would obstruct his view.

Mr. Ferngren stated, the waterfront view, I think, is what they're addressing there. He stated that I think that's the key provision in that, that the window that Mr. Robertson's pointing out, that's not the waterfront view. He stated that it's the furthest North window.

Mr. Robertson stated that it does have a view of the water and this building would obstruct that view.

Mr. Ferngren stated that the ordinance specifically says the waterfront view and the waterfront is that part of the building that faces the water.

Mr. Detert stated, you'll have to be recognized if someone wants to hear you, but my interpretation is that you can't block the view.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I think the intent is that you're not to block the view from your neighbor.

Mr. Detert stated, that's the way I look at it.

Mr. Hiller stated the nature of the lake is it curves around quite a bit to the West, so if the language, the waterfront means waterfront, not just the man's own property, then it will obviously obscure some of the view of that water.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 03-V-21, finding that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the grant allows a building to be built in intrusion of the setback line by 5 feet and also the grant would allow obstruction of a view of the lake for some of the neighbors; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the building would obstruct some views and it's not in keeping with the construction in the neighborhood because it would extend above the roofline of the house; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the property is not big enough to put a garage unless they intrude into the setback line and it does not affect the use of the property in any other respect because it has never had a garage to begin with so this would not make a big difference. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

At this time, Ms. Detert stated that we have one other item that we postponed, and that was the letter requesting the selling of produce and fruits at 5006 Campbell.

Mr. Robertson stated that I'd like to have seen him here to defend it a little bit.

Mr. Brickner stated that I drove by there like four or five times and I couldn't determine exactly where this place is, and I can't...

Mr. Robertson asked, if it was anywhere near where you think it might be, do you have a problem?

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, because the traffic on Meridian Road is, it's in a swale, there's like a hill there and..the only thing I worry about is the traffic.

Mr. Robertson moved to continue the case and sent a certified letter to the gentleman asking him to appear in person. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Detert stated that Mr. Brickner at our January meeting indicated that we were to continue our $25 a month stipend for six months and that six months will be up at the end of June.

Mr. Robertson moved to continue as before with the $25. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

At this time, Ms. Schaefer stated that we have the new rules of procedure to consider.

Mr. Brickner stated that it says that a quorum of the Board shall consist of three members and no action of the Board is official, however, unless authorized by a majority of the members of the Board at a regular meeting or properly called meeting.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess the confusion is there that a majority at the meeting could be three and a 2-1 vote would pass.

Ms. Schaefer stated that I never changed any of that language, so maybe we need to just clarify that language. She stated that it must be unanimous if there are only three people there to approve it.




Mr. Detert stated, why don't we just say, a majority of the total membership of the Board, or the full membership.

Ms. Schaefer stated that that solves it.

Mr. Brickner moved to adopt the revised rules of procedure with the change suggested at this meeting. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Robert Detert, Chairman

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., AICP, Executive Director/County Planner