 |
Regular Meeting July 16, 2003 M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on July 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, Richard Hudson, 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 6-18-03 meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Correspondence: Matter of Camacho request for seasonal sales. (Continued to the end of the meeting.) Pending Business: Case 98-UV-12. Peter Shiplov, 115-2 SR 2, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a lawn-care business on the Southwest corner of SR 2 and CR 300 W., in Porter Township. (This Case was continued to the 8-20-03 meeting at the petitioner's request.) Mr. Detert stated that the petitioner has asked that this case be continued to the August 20, 2003 meeting due to a conflict in schedules. Mr. Hudson moved to continue Case 98-UV-12 to the 8-20-03 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 81-V-20. Vicky Panozzo, 977 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 200 W., between County Road 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township. Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints. Mr. Thompson stated that there have been none. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 81-V-20 for one year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. At this time, Mr. Burns joined the meeting. Case 84-V-5. David & Girthon Reid, 456 W. 450 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 N., between Sedley Road and the Nickel Plate Railroad, in Union Township. Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal of this TCO. Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints. Mr. Thompson stated that there have been none. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-5 for one year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Case 84-V-16. George Sosnowski, 3603 Vale Park Road, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on Vale Park Road, between CR 200 E. and CR 325 E., in Washington Township. Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner's doctor requesting a renewal of this TCO. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-16 for one year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 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. (This case was continued from the 6-18-03 meeting with the petitioner to appear in person.) Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioners stating that they have sold the property. Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 87-V-9. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Discussion: Mr. Burns asked, what happens with the trailer if they sold the property? Mr. Detert stated that they probably sold the trailer and they are probably going to want to come in August and renew that trailer. Mr. Burns asked if we should make a motion to deny and remove. Mr. Brickner stated that if they want to file for a TCO, they can do that. He asked if we should put in our motion that they have to have that removed. Mr. Burns stated, but the original purpose of the trailer no longer exists. He stated that they are not using the trailer now and it should be removed. Mr. Robertson asked if you can have a trailer on the property if it's not occupied. Mr. Thompson stated that if they sold the property then the petitioner is basically no longer present... Mr. Robertson asked, what if it is just empty? Mr. Thompson stated that it should be removed because there are two residences on one parcel. Mr. Burns asked if he can amend his motion. Mr. Detert stated that he can make another motion that says you want the trailer removed. Mr. Hudson stated that the letter says that the people who bought it are coming back for a TCO. Mr. Burns asked, if the original purpose is not there anymore, do we really want to encourage the trailers? Mr. Thompson stated that someone picked up paperwork for it, but has not officially turned in an application. Mr. Detert stated, so it's not on the agenda. Mr. Hudson stated, I guess if we deny something, it automatically has to be removed. He asked, with our denial of the petition, doesn't that trailer just automatically...I mean, do we automatically send out a letter to... Mr. Detert stated that we can. Mr. Burns stated that normally, the ones in the past that we have denied, either the homeowner removed it themselves, or we give them a period of time. Mr. Hudson asked if we do that in the motion. Mr. Burns stated that this is kind of unusual because they are selling it with the property. Mr. Thompson stated that if you gave them 30 days, within that 30 days there should be an application in if the new owner is going to try to be there. Mr. Burns stated that I would like to be reasonable, too. Mr. Detert stated that I would think that you wait until next meeting and see what happens and if you still want it removed, then instruct the attorney to start the process. Mr. Brickner stated that I would think the owner probably sold the trailer along with the property and has received money for that. Mr. Detert stated that I suspect they did. Mr. Brickner stated, I suspect that somebody paid for that trailer and that shouldn't have happened, but... Mr. Robertson stated that like it's two residences on one parcel. Mr. Detert stated that you have two choices: You could make a motion now for it to be removed or you could wait till next month. Mr. Robertson stated that if you make a motion now, we kind of indicate our concern. He stated that they still have a chance to apply and then that would become moot. He stated that I think our concerns should be noted, so maybe we should make a motion. Mr. Robertson moved that the trailer be removed within 60 days. since the need for the TCO is no longer present. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Case 99-V-42. Raymond Phillips, 342 N. 625 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 625 W., between CR 300 N. and CR 350 N., in Union Township. Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 99-V-42 for one year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of order for a public hearing. Public Hearings: Case 03-V-22. Petition of John Holmgren, 323 N. 475 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home, to allow his daughter and grand-daughter to live in to give her time to find a more permanent residence, to be located on the East side of CR 475 W., between U.S. Hwy 30 and SR 130 in Union Township. Mr. Holmgren stated that I am asking the Board to consider this variance so that my daughter, Elizabeth and my grand-daughter, Christine, and also there is a boyfriend involved here, so they are probably all going to be living together, and they'll be living about 200 feet to the South of my house, but it would still be on my 5 acres of property, so I would appreciate any kind of help that we can get with this to help her get started and maybe get a job so that sometime she would have a decent income to maybe be able to afford something better. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked what length of time are you talking? Mr. Holmgren stated that I'm asking for five years. Mr. Robertson stated that that's one year at a time, but, do you think that 5 years will be enough? Mr. Holmgren stated, I think so. Mr. Robertson asked, may I ask how old your daughter is? Mr. Holmgren stated that she's 22. Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors? He asked, do you have a neighbor adjacent to you on both sides and across the street? Mr. Holmgren stated that we have neighbors, the Nowlins, which are to the North of us and it's pretty close to a quarter mile away from their house. He stated that you can't see any other houses from our place. He stated that the next property is like a sand-mining operation, which is about another 1/4 mile to the South of us, and then across from the road, um, there's already a sand mine in operation, and then closest thing around there is Wheeler High School. Mr. Burns asked, how many letters were sent out? He stated that there can't be very many. He stated that I know the area and it's pretty open. Mr. Thompson stated, three. Mr. Brickner asked where the trailer is going to be located. He asked, is it going to be behind the house? Mr. Holmgren stated that it's going to be approximately 60 or 70 feet inside from the road and it'll be more or less to the Southern extent of my property. Mr. Brickner stated, you have septic and well there. He asked if you are going to put in a separate septic and well for this trailer. Mr. Holmgren stated that we are going to put in a separate septic system and are planning to hook onto my well, which is 200 feet from the trailer. Mr. Brickner stated, so, they'll be using your well, but a separate septic system. Mr. Detert asked, have you got permission from the Health Department to do that? Mr. Holmgren stated, I have started and it's under way. He stated that I have a repair permit and a field investigation report, soil samples have already been taken - it's very sandy. He stated that the person who came out and did that work seemed in favor of that being the site of the septic. Mr. Detert stated that if they don't agree and you get permission from us, that may nullify it unless you do something else - drill another well or do whatever else they recommend. He asked, is that understood, that permission from us would be contingent on the Health Department okaying the new septic and the hookup to the well? He stated, as long as you understand that. Mr. Holmgren stated that there was...the person from the Health Department was not absolutely sure about the well, whether they would be able to hook up to mine. Mr. Detert stated, I'm just telling you that this action, if favorable, would be null and void if you don't get their permission, okay? Mr. Holmgren stated, yes. Mr. Brickner stated, I'm just curious. He stated that I don't really have any objection to this trailer other than if you are going to buy a trailer and you are going to put in a septic system and you have to put a well in, uh, would it not be better to put an addition on the house? He stated that that's a lot of expense and then you are going to turn around in 5 years and you'll have to sell the trailer, I suppose and get rid of the septic system. He stated that I would think it would be just as convenient to put something on your house for the time being. He stated, you've looked at that, I suppose. Mr. Holmgren stated, the house is an old, two-story brick house. He stated that I can't imagine remodeling it to the point to do that. He stated that maybe it's possible, but with 5 acres, I might be able to sell an acre to her to maybe even start a permanent residence there. Mr. Brickner stated that the Board is really reluctant to put new trailers unless there's an extreme hardship, you know, where you get some family that's ill or not able to take care of themselves totally. He stated that that's the way we look at trailers, because they are so hard to get rid of once you get them on the property. He stated that I was just hoping that you'd looked at everything, you know. He stated that in lieu of putting a trailer on there that you've looked at every other option and that nothing is conceivable other than a trailer, are you telling us that. Mr. Holmgren stated that we have reached the point where it's becoming unaffordable to allow her to rent places, you know, $500, $600 a month. He stated that she's not able to pay any of that. He stated that we're not only covering that, but also many of the utility bills and things like that. Mr. Robertson asked, Mr. Holmgren, you are saying that perhaps in the future that where the area where the trailer is going to sit where you are going to put the septic, you might split that off and build a house, using the same septic? Mr. Holmgren stated that I see that as a possibility. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-22 for one year, 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-V-23. Petition of Roger F. Dore Jr., 1261 Jefferson Ave., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to build a pole barn before the house, to be used for storage, to be located on the South side of CR 900 N., between CR 500 E. and CR 550 E., in Jackson Township. and Case 03-V-24. Petition of Roger F. Dore Jr., 1261 Jefferson Ave., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to build a 2,268 square foot pole barn, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located on the South side of CR 900 N., between CR 500 E. and CR 550 E., in Jackson Township. Mr. Dore stated that as to the first Variance, I'm wanting to build the pole barn before my primary residence. He stated that recently I've just secured a loan for the lot, for the acreage, and am hoping to build a house in the near future, depending on how.. a year or two or three, and I secured a loan for it. He stated that I'm going to have a fairly decent payment and pertaining to building the barn, it's going to be done with cash, and I want to get a primary area for my storage, basically for some family use, the stuff that I have and the future things and, uh, so I have to pertain to the second variance, too. He stated that my experience, because my brother lives behind me on the acreage and his brother-in-law, and he has a 36- by 48-foot pole barn and just looking at that, I don't think I would have a problem filling the pole barn. He stated that I'm not a person to just have things sitting outside. He stated that I want it to be very neat, I want it to be inside, not for people to be offended by, and for that size, it's actually somewhat smaller than what I wanted to do, but I was hoping for this size of a barn and building before my primary residence. Mr. Detert asked, what are you going to put in it? Mr. Dore stated that I have vehicles, and a lot of it is, a majority of it, is my mother's. He stated that they are paying for storage. He stated that I have a brother that's paying for storage, disabled, paying for storage that they don't need to pay for, and I volunteered to put up some of his stuff, and I think in the future, I'll have plenty of things to put in it, as for the loft, furniture, future things that I'm going to buy for my house. He stated that my house won't probably have adequate storage space, and I'm not too sure I want to have a garage if I'm going to have a barn that I'm wanting to build. Mr. Detert stated, not a business? He asked, you're not intending to run a business out of this? Mr. Dore stated, no sir. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Robertson stated that I drove by there and I couldn't tell where it was going to be. He stated that there's a wide field there between 500 and 550. He asked, is it going to be in that field there? Mr. Dore, stated, yeah, if you're going East on 900, it would be the first open lot to your right. Mr. Robertson asked, after the series of houses there? Mr. Dore stated, yeah. He stated that I think there's a Cape Cod house right there and there's two houses and one driveway and then a big area of land. Mr. Robertson stated that it goes quite a ways back. He asked, how far does your lot go back there? Mr. Dore stated approximately 635 feet. Mr. Robertson asked, how many acres do you own? Mr. Dore stated that in total I own, it will 9.69 acres. He stated that I've had it surveyed, so the acreage that I would be living on would be a 6.25 acreage. He stated that I have a 3 acre second lot right next to it. Mr. Robertson asked, when are you going to build your house? Mr. Dore stated that the plan was, I would love to build my house next year. He stated that but I thought more about it; hopefully, maybe two years from now. Mr. Robertson stated, what we often do is if we do approve these we often set a time limit, sometimes two, three, maybe four years, and if you don't do it within that time, you have to sign an instrument that you are going to tear it down if you don't build the house. He asked, do you understand that? Mr. Dore stated, yes. Mr. Burns asked, you don't have a house plan yet? Mr. Dore stated, yes, I've got a few. He stated that I'm wanting to build the barn with cash. He stated that the following year or possibly the next year I thought about putting in a septic and well because the barn might have a heated concrete and have a bathroom there, too, and just doing what I can pay instead of going out and getting another loan, because the loan that I've applied for for the land is a pretty substantial amount. He stated that I'm trying to put a dent in that loan before I go back and apply for a loan for the house that I want to build, and being that that would be the only payment I would be making a month, I think I can do pretty much what I want for the next couple years, setting up before I build my house and putting money away for hopefully a substantial down-payment. He stated that I don't want to borrow too much money. Mr. Burns stated that the only concern I have is that it appears that it's going to be a long time. He stated that I would feel better if you had house plans and you were ready to build in a year or two. He stated that it appears that you're really not sure. Mr. Dore stated, I am sure. He stated that I want to build next year, but I'm saying two years would be 100 percent that I would build. He stated that I guess the situation I have is that I work at U.S. Steel, and I'm paying off my bills, I finally have them all paid off, and I have a decent job and the only thing that keeps me is say a certain Number 13 going down out there, which would put me out of work for probably 6 months. He stated that I don't want a substantial house payment if that were to happen, so, knowing that, I can do these little things: build a barn and prepare it for when I can build a house. He stated that I'm being very cautious about it. Mr. Detert stated that I think it's pretty clear what you want to do. He stated that it's just that I think what we're searching for is maybe a more firm time. Mr. Dore stated, uh, two years, I would have liked three as a cushion, but I definitely want it in two years, but I would like a third as a cushion, but I really don't think that might happen. Mr. Hudson asked, what do you do? Mr. Dore stated, I'm a 150 operator. He stated that I'm contracted by U.S. Steel, IMS, in the slag division. Mr. Brickner asked, you don't have any equipment related to your job? Mr. Dore stated, no, it wouldn't fit in the barn, but, you never know, down the road it might, because of the big equipment that I drive, you know, I might just go out and buy a payloader and then the barn comes in handy - I'd have somewhere to put it. Mr. Brickner stated that we will tell you, if we do approve it, that you cannot run a business from this property, from this pole barn. Mr. Dore stated, I understand. He stated, I'm an operator; I'm not a mechanic. Mr. Brickner asked, three years, you think three years would be a pretty good time period? Mr. Dore stated, I would much appreciate it. Mr. Detert stated if in three years that's not built, you may have to come back before the Board and explain why the house isn't built. Mr. Hudson asked, what size were the dimensions? Mr. Dore stated, 36 by 48, actually, that's roughly 1,500 square feet just on the bottom floor and I want to put a loft. Mr. Hudson stated that the petition says 2,268, but the floor area would be 1,728. Mr. Thompson stated that we have to count the second floor. Mr. Hudson stated that the other thing you had mentioned is that you would maybe put a well and septic. He asked, you don't plan on living in it, do you? Mr. Dore stated, no. He stated that that was brought up when I came here, and I'll be honest with you, worst-case scenario, I do have a brother who primarily lives with my mother and stuff like that. He stated that if he could live in my primary residence within a couple of years, I thought about, would I have to go through all this process again, and I understand that, if I were to put something, whether it would be temporary or... Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-23, with the stipulation that the house be built within a period of 4 years from the time we approve this and that no business ever be run from this location and that the pole barn must be removed after four years if the house is not started, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the structure being considered will be well manufactured and well-constructed and well-maintained and in a large portion of property and the house will be built within four years of this approval; 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 not aesthetic problems with this building and it's a relatively rural area; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because this pole barn could not be built without the variance and without the house being built at a later date. 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-24. Petition of Roger F. Dore Jr., 1261 Jefferson Ave., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to build a 2,268 square foot pole barn, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located on the South side of CR 900 N., between CR 500 E. and CR 550 E., in Jackson Township. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-24, find that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because it's a rural area and he has 9 acres; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because of the size of the property; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because he will not be able to built a pole barn adequate for his needs. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Case 03-V-25. Petition of John Srednoselac, 334 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a fence and pillar structure, with its highest point to be 7.1 feet, in the front yard, to be located on the South side of CR 100 N., between CR 325 W. and CR 350 W., in Union Township. Mr. Srednoselac stated that my wife and I are looking to apply for a Variance to get a higher height on a fence in front of our property. He stated that we've got an unusual situation where we have natural wetlands on our property, actually it's myself, my wife and our neighbors, also. He stated that the strong recommendation by my insurance agent and their attorneys - they consider the water to be what they call an attractive nuisance. He stated that it falls under the same category as like a pool or a whirlpool or something like that and they suggested highly that we fence in the entire property to keep children that are 12 and under from getting in there. He stated that they said that if someone happens to get in there and drowns - God forbid - that #1 that would be a tragedy in itself, but, 2, that we could possibly get sued for everything we own. He stated that they had cases where people had lost court battles because they don't consider a person or a child that's 12 or under to be, I guess, I don't know what the word is, responsible and the ones that are 13 and over - and that's the quote that they gave me - I guess they should know better. He stated that a 4-foot fence would be okay, but I know quite a few 10-, 11-year-olds that are pretty good size and they would be able to hop that fence pretty easy. He stated that we've looked at 4, 5 and 6-foot fences. He stated that a 6-foot fence would be too high, would look like - we don't want to turn the place into a castle or anything like that. He stated that 5 seems like it would be right in the middle to where it would take quite a bit of effort for them to get over it and would be a good deterrent. Mr. Detert asked, what's the 7.1 feet? Mr. Srednoselac stated that the actual fence is going to be 60 inches, but then we're going to try to make it look real nice: We are going to do pillars that are 2 by 2 brick to match the house with limestone caps and then the light will go on top of that so we can light up the front end because it is a dark area. He stated that the house sits back about 150 foot from the road roughly, and that would give us a little bit more security in the front with the lights, and that's the total height with the lights and with the cap and the pillars. 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 think everything that he's told us seems to make sense, consistent with what I've...dealing with surveying issues and checking elevations and security around these wetlands and setting those things off, it probably makes sense, and the decorative entrance will maybe offset the additional height of the fence that's needed, must give it a little - I don't want to say class - but just it'll make it look nicer. Mr. Brickner asked, is this a solid fence or is this a chain-link? Mr. Srednoselac stated that it's going to be, along the lines of what they call ornamental iron. He stated that it's a company out of...actually I had to go to Chicago Heights, IL, to find this guy and they make it from scratch, everything's custom, I mean, it's not cheap and it looks like ornamental iron. He stated that we picked it out because, Number 1, it's sturdier because the kids are going to get on the fence and jump on it and we didn't want aluminum or something cheaper, but we wanted the pickets to where they wouldn't detract from the house or the land and also because of the steel, we can go with just a single bar across the top, instead of the dual bars. He stated that a lot of people do the dual bars for decorative purposes, but also for strength, and we won't need to do that. He stated that we want to keep the fence to a minimum because we are actually not fence people - we don't like the idea of having to do this, but because of the risk involved and the water, we have no choice, so we are trying to make everything the least deterrent away from the house as possible. Mr. Brickner asked, how far in front of your house is the fence going to be? Mr. Srednoselac stated that we've got a 130-foot building setback and we are probably going to go right there with it, from the center of the road. He stated that from the center of the road it's a 30 foot building setback that we can't put anything on - it's an easement - so we figured right there and that way a car can still turn in and turn around and it will be motor-operated gates, also. He stated that that way if we forget to close the gate, for our protection, it will be a timer on it where it will automatically close, so we don't have to worry about a little child sneaking in behind us when we leave getting in there. He stated that that is what we are really worried about. Mr. Burns stated that I don't have any problems with this. Mr. Robertson stated that I kind of have concerns. He asked, are the wetlands just on your property or are they on the other... Mr. Srednoselac stated that actually the neighbor has some on his, too. Mr. Robertson asked, is he putting a fence up? Mr. Srednoselac stated that I told him of what my insurance company lady said - for three years I've actually been arguing with her - and basically we've come to the point where both of us had thick brush around it so we didn't worry about anyone getting into the water, but we are both starting to get it cleared out now and we are both going to do ponds together and he has his own business, so he's not around quite a bit. Mr. Robertson asked if he is to the East of you there. Mr. Srednoselac stated that he's on the West side of me. Mr. Robertson stated that there's your house and then there's no house on the West side, it's kind of twisted around. Mr. Srednoselac stated that there's like 4.5 acres and then the pond is right in the middle. He stated that we have about an acre, and then he's got about another acre that doglegs alongside his house and we are eventually going to dig that out, I've already discussed that with my neighbors because we've got real good rapport, and I'm going to build a berm and put a fence on the West side, because I haven't had a chance to do that yet because the water is still there, and then he will be protected on his East side and out West side and he's got woods all the way around his house, so the only way to get into his house is from his driveway and he said he's going to look into doing something with his also, but I haven't talked to him lately because he's busy. Mr. Robertson stated that it's a pretty place that you have there. He stated that I just am reminded of the song, taking all the trees and putting them in a tree museum. Mr. Srednoselac stated, paving a parking lot. He stated that I've been fighting my attorneys and insurance agent for three years. He stated that we did not want to do this. He stated that I said, is there anything else we can do? He stated, and she says, you are taking an extreme risk of getting sued if a youngster 12 or under gets in and drowns, plus, me and my wife both work so we are hardly ever home and the neighbors in the last two months have had three parties and each party has had about 30 to 40 kids in the back yard and a couple of them have gotten loose. He stated, you know, parents can't be around the kids 24/7, but even if they get loose and get in there right now we could be liable for it, even though we're not home, and that was very scary, but after I talked to the attorneys, that's what convinced me that we got to do something, because he said you're taking a big chance. Mr. Robertson stated, it just dawned on me because I haven't heard this before, that we are going to be putting fences around all the wetlands. Mr. Srednoselac stated that it's actually not around the wetlands, it's around the property itself. He stated that what we're doing with the fencing is putting red-twig dogwood, which is around the whole fenced-in perimeter. He stated that eventually it will be over 5, 6, 7-foot tall with green, it'll be all green. He stated that we're trying to block out the fencing, but in the front we don't really want to put any bushes or anything there. Mr. Burns asked, what's going to happen with all the wetlands in the County? He asked, are you going to fence all the wetlands? Mr. Detert stated that I guess the people that own it are going to risk... Mr. Srednoselac stated that there is a gentleman off of 65 that did put a fence just around his wetland and to be honest with you, it looks terrible. Mr. Burns stated, I know, that's what we're concerned about. He asked, you wouldn't have the letter from the insurance company, would you? Mr. Srednoselac stated, no, I don't. He stated that this is three years of arguing. He stated that I've been going back and forth trying to figure everything I can to get around putting up a fence, because that's why we moved out in the country, is to have a nice, open area there, and we didn't want to do this, because she's always looking at the liability end on it. Mr. Robertson asked, your insurance agent? Mr. Srednoselac stated, yeah. He stated that we've tried everything we can and every option we can to... Mr. Brickner stated, you can put the fence up, because it's under 6 foot...the approval he needs is for the pillars. Mr. Thompson stated that he would have to go 4 foot in the front yard. Mr. Detert stated, and what he's saying is that it's not going to be high enough to keep the kids out. Mr. Srednoselac stated that we tried to go in between what would be the least deterrent in the front to make it...I mean, there's a substantial cost to us right now to do this, uh, you know, we're going with just about the best material that we can find and the sturdiest. He stated, second mortgage right now just to put this fence up, but it's not worth it for us not to do it and take the chance of possibly losing and having someone drowned and the possibility of getting sued and possibly losing everything we've so hard for; it just isn't worth it. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-25, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because this fence is to be used to protect a pond or natural water area and it will be a very attractive fence and keep the small children out of the pond; 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 of the attractiveness of the fence and the high quality and cost of the fence it will be an attractive addition; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the zoning laws would not allow a fence in excess of 4 feet to be built in the front yard and this does give them the option of having a higher fence to keep the children out. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - No Detert - Yes Case 03-V-26. Petition of William & Rebecca Cook, 107 Fir Ct., Hebron, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage to store personal vehicles, before construction of the house, to be located on the Northwest corner of CR 650 S. and 150 W., in Boone Township. Mr. Cook stated that I'm seeking a Variance to build my out building, a garage, before I build my permanent residence, which is going to be built in the spring, in April. Mrs. Cook stated that it's going to be 12 feet off our back property line. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hudson asked, you don't plan on running a business out of this? Mr. Cook stated, no, sir. Mr. Brickner asked, how soon were you going to build your house? Mr. Cook stated, in the spring. Mr. Brickner asked, do you have plans for your house? Mr. Cook stated, yes, I do. Mr. Brickner asked, do you have a building permit yet? Mr. Cook stated, no, I don't. Mr. Brickner asked, you wouldn't have any problems with the stipulation that this be done within one year, then, as far as a motion is concerned if we approved it? He asked, you could live with that? Mr. Cook stated, yeah. He stated, I'm a carpenter, Carpenters Local 1005, Merrillville, IN, and I'm going to build my own home. He stated, I mean, if something happened to me and I'm not here in the spring, you know... Mr. Brickner stated, that's not a pole barn, it's a detached garage? Mr. Cook stated, that's correct. Mr. Brickner stated, I don't have any problem with it. Mr. Burns asked, is this going to match the house? Mr. Cook stated, correct. Mr. Burns stated, I don't see any problems with it. Mr. Robertson stated, I have no problem. He stated, I'd give him more than a year, though. He stated, I was wondering if we could maybe think of having a standardized thing, like maybe four years. Mr. Detert stated, I think it depends on whether somebody has intention of building. He stated, I think that wouldn't be bad... Mr. Robertson stated, I hate to give one guy one thing and another guy another thing... Mr. Detert stated that those people that have houses to sell, you're not sure how long it's going to take to sell that because I've known houses that took two or more years to sell. He asked, do you have a house to sell? Mr. Cook stated, yes. Mr. Burns stated, I'd like to remind the Board, we took a survey of these buildings and 60 some percent was in violation after a period of time, if I remember right, so four years might be kind of difficult. He stated, I think you should go case by case. He asked, Bob, what was the percentage? Mr. Thompson stated, about what you said, about 60 percent. Mr. Burns stated, that claimed they were going to build a building and never happened. Mr. Brickner asked, was this before we had them sign the legal agreement that it be torn down if the... Mr. Burns stated, that's why we started that. Mr. Detert stated, you'll have to sign an agreement for whatever period is on here that you understand that that is the limitation. He stated, Bob can help you with that if you stop at the office. He stated that we've had others like this. Mr. Robertson stated, Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if we could think about standardizing it because it's true every case is different, but we should maybe treat every case the same, and if we give them some kind of affidavit, sometimes they ask for one year, sometimes it's two years... Mr. Detert stated, I think it's probably out of order to talk about our policy right now. He stated, we ought to focus on this case. Mr. Robertson stated, well, it's for this case, what we would do. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-26, with the house to be built within four years of the approval, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because this garage being built will allow them to store some of their vehicles and equipment in there and the house will be built within a reasonable time after the approval; 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 garage will be matched with the house, the construction of the garage and the house; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the zoning ordinance does not allow the garage to be built before the primary structure and this will allow them to do so. 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-27. Petition of St. Michael Evangelical Lutheran Church, 805 S. County Line Road, Hebron, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Laborers for Christ to live in for approximately three months while helping to build an education center, to be located at 805 S. County Line Road, in Boone Township. Tim Briney, 230 W. 750 S., stated that Laborers for Christ is an organization that is a retired organization that comes and helps congregations build churches and we are in the process right now of building an education wing, which is more than a big house - it's 7,200 square feet. He stated that we've set it up that when they come in that we would be able to hook them up to our septic system that we already have existing - we hook them up to the church's water, and we are using the existing septic system from the church and we ran a temporary service out there with 50 amp service, 220 to each of the trailers. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert stated that I was by there a few days ago and it looked like most of the campers were in place already - is that correct? Mr. Briney stated that they are already here and hooked up and we are waiting for the go-ahead so we can go ahead and move them out of our houses, because they've been here for almost three weeks. Mr. Burns asked, how many trailers? Mr. Briney stated, six. Mr. Burns asked, how many people? Mr. Briney stated that there is one guy that's a new Laborers for Christ that's out of Valpo and he's got a trailer there, but he's been going home every day. He stated that I have never seen his wife, so I would say there is four wives and six men. Mr. Burns stated that we have honored this request in the past for churches and I really don't have any problem with this. Mr. Detert stated that we have done this quite often in the past. Mr. Robertson stated that I'm all in favor of this. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-V-27, incorporating the petitioner's findings of facts, those being in 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-28. Petition of Glenn H. Berry, 1445 Capri Lane, Dyer, seeking a Variance to permit a 3,200 foot detached garage, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, for personal vehicles and a workshop, to be located on the East side of CR 450 E., between Division Road and U.S. Hwy 30, in Washington Township. Mr. Berry stated that I am wanting this variance to build an out building. He stated that it's not a pole barn. He stated that I'm going to build a 3,200 square foot brick ranch, it's very nice. He stated that I have the drawings of this. HE stated that what I want this for is right now I have two hobbies and I'm 52 years old and right now I'm looking for retirement and my two hobbies, one is that I like to do woodworking, I like to build cabinets and furniture and stuff like that and the other one is I like to work on antique cars and I do that and that's basically what this is for. He stated that there is no business or anything like that. He stated that this is strictly my hobby and that's what I like to do. Mr. Detert asked, do you have a permit for the house yet? Mr. Berry stated, no, I don't. He stated that I guess it kind of boils down to, like I said, I'm looking at retirement and I'm going to build this...at the time when I bought this property from John Hall he had some covenantses (sic) and one of them was the out buildings and stuff, so I showed him the drawing and showed him what I had and he said, yeah, he had no problem with that at all. He stated that I didn't' know that this was required and so if that means that I have to go farther South or whatever and I would have to put this property back up for sale. He stated that I really like the property and the building...it goes very well with the house and, so... No one spoke in favor of this petition. Nick Minton, 69 N. 700 W., stated that I own the 2.5 acres across from this gentleman and I don't know a whole lot about it, I just received this letter in the mail and I do have some questions that I'd like to have answered. He stated that my concern is the size of the building. He stated that to me it's kind of a large building for a minor subdivision. He stated that I talked to John Hall and I got a little bit of information. He stated that I would have liked to talk to this gentleman here, but here we are. He stated that I don't want to stop the man from moving there. He stated that I would like to have a neighbor. He stated that I have the land and I plan on building there when I sell my house. He stated that I don't want to stop him from having his hobbies or anything, but, I'm just concerned that it could turn into something...that large of a building is what bothers me, basically. He stated that I think it's like 40 by 80 and I don't know how tall it is or if it's going to obstruct or be where you can see it. He stated, woodworking...is this going to turn into more than just a hobby? He stated that if you have a garage that's maybe 32 by 32 or something, it seems to me you could do a lot of woodworking and carving and stuff. He stated that I would like to see the building down-scaled. He stated that my concern is that it's just going to get too big for that. He stated that that's why I moved out there also was to get away and not have more or less like a commercial zoning. He stated that the size of the building, to me, seems more appropriate for a commercial area. Mr. Berry stated that this is, of course you already know what the property looks like. He stated that the first drawing shows the outline of the minor subdivision and the second one shows a scaled drawing of the property itself with the house and the out building. He stated that the building and the house both. He stated that there are a lot of trees on the property and there is less than 25 percent of open land on this property; the rest of it is trees. He stated that both of them are going to be built into the trees. He stated that the neighbor right to the South of me - his house is kind of built into the trees, too. He stated that you can't hardly even see his house because there are so many trees and that's the same way that this building would be, but if you notice the building itself, and I do have drawings here of the house, it's going to be, going to go with that. Mr. Detert stated that I think you really need to answer his questions. He stated that he's concerned about the size and focus on why you need that size. Mr. Berry stated, like I said, I do cabinet-making and I do antique cars and I also have a boat, I've got a couple of motorcycles and stuff, and I don't like stuff setting outside - that's definitely an eyesore to me. He stated that that's just the size that I need. He stated that what I was going to do was split it down the middle so I have a 40 by 40 area and there would be a partitioning wall in the building. He stated that I'd have a 40 by 40 where I did my woodworking and stuff, and I'd have a 40 by 40 for my boat, my car and motorcycles and stuff. He stated, but, like I said, it's not, if you look at the building and like I said, the drawing with the building and stuff on there is to scale, so it's really not all that big, and if you look at the building, too, of the garage, it's not a pole barn. He stated that the top of the roof is 17 feet. He stated that it has a hip roof, which is the same as the house, same style roof that the house has and stuff. He stated that it's going to be brick up half the way and cedar siding the rest. Mr. Minton stated that I think I would like to talk to the gentleman. He stated that I don't know if he would be agreeable to a continuance where I could talk to him and then come back and maybe there's not a problem at all. He stated that I don't know if it's done that way, because I haven't seen anything. He stated that my concern is that I don't want a business in a residential area. Mr. Detert stated that he has a petition before us and it's up to him whether he wants to ask for a continuance. He stated that if he feels he needs that size, he's not going to go for that, I don't think. Mr. Berry stated that I can guarantee you and I've watched as they're doing this, it's in writing that a business can't be operated out of these things and, believe me, I have no intentions at all of running a business out of this and it's not going to turn into a business, either. He stated that this is strictly hobby. He stated that where I live at now, I also do a lot of stuff. He stated that I make pieces for St. Maria Garetti to be donated, you know. He stated that I do a lot of stuff for my neighbors. He stated that I build stuff for my neighbors. He stated that I am very neighbor-oriented in that I do a lot of stuff to help the neighbors. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Robertson stated that I had trouble finding this place. He stated that it's on the East side of 450 and there's a driveway, a gravel road that goes back and then there are pine trees that are cut out in the back. Mr. Berry stated that there is one lot where it looked like somebody started cutting down some trees, but my property is right to the South of that. Mr. Robertson stated that there is nothing there now, it's just an open, open area. He stated that it does seem like a huge building. He stated that he's got a good-sized lot and it seems like he...I'm not really sure. He asked, have you thought about making it any smaller? Mr. Berry stated that it's like when you get...did you ever walk into your room or something and especially if you have any kind of a wood shop or workshop and you walk in there and you say, god darned it, I wish I had this thing 2 feet wider, you know, and I've got a lot of stuff right now in storage and that's basically what I need. Mr. Burns asked, where do you store these items now? Mr. Berry stated that I've got some storage space. He stated that my garage at home is packed. He stated that that's got all my car stuff in it and my boat is in storage. He stated that I've also got my motorcycle and that's in my garage and my workshop is downstairs and I've got a bi-level right now and the biggest part of the area downstairs is my wood shop and it's very cramped. He stated that I have a lot of equipment to build cabinets and stuff. He stated that it is stuff like you go out and buy. He stated that it's very good quality and it's all handmade and nothing is junk and the equipment that I use to do this work, you know, takes up some space. Mr. Burns asked, the cabinets that you make - do you sell them? Mr. Berry stated, no. He stated, matter of fact, there's a couple ladies that we have at work that I work with, and they were, you know... a little bit and their husbands were having a hard time at work and they wanted to remodel their kitchens and stuff like that, and what I have basically done is you buy the wood and I'll make it for you. He stated that for me, that's where I get my most enjoyment is to build something and see what it looks like when it's done and to know the quality of it when it's done, so, no, I don't sell stuff. Mr. Burns stated, I don't really have a problem with the pole barn. He stated that I have a problem with the size. He stated that I prefer to see like a 2,000 or 2,400 square foot barn, personally. Mr. Brickner stated that it's really an attractive building, it's a beautiful building, half brick and a roof and everything and it's nice, but that's over double what we normally allow, 1,200 square feet, you're talking about 3,200 square feet, almost three times what we normally allow, and that is a huge building. He stated that I don't think it's going to be a problem as far as its visibility from the road and everything is concerned. He stated that I was out there, too, and I didn't know where it was either, but from your lot, which is across the road, I don't know if you'd ever be able to even see the thing. Mr. Minton stated, well, that was my question. He stated that I didn't have any information, if it was 30 foot high or something. Mr. Brickner stated that I think it's a little bit large and I'm kind of skeptical about the size. He asked, you can't get by with a smaller building? He asked, you wouldn't go with, say, a 2,500 square foot building? Mr. Hudson stated that I just want to make clear that there's not a business being run out of this. Mr. Detert stated, I think that would be my only concern, that you would go into the woodworking business and build stuff to sell. Mr. Berry stated that I know that you put that into your decisions, that businesses are not to be run out of that, and I'll guarantee you that if anybody around there thought that I was, you could shut me down in a heartbeat, but I can guarantee you it's not going to be a business. Mr. Detert stated, I guess he's doing something that I always wanted to do. He stated that initially in life I started out to be a high school shop teacher, woodworking was my specialty and I've never had room - I have a little shop in my basement, but if you are going to do woodworking, you do need quite a lot of room, I can tell you, because you get big boards in there and you've got to have the length and depth and so forth to do it, but if you are going to combine storage with that, obviously you are going to need some room. Mr. Robertson asked, on Lot 3 and Lot 1 here, which are going to be adjacent to where you are going to have that, are there trees there that would shield it so that the people on lot 3 and Lot 1 wouldn't see this? Mr. Berry stated, yes. He stated, their house, there are trees that have to go up, I want to say, 75 feet anyway on their property and plus that, these trees are so close together, you can't walk 5 feet without hitting them. Mr. Thompson stated, just the way you're talking and everything with no house there and everything, you're coming in for the variance on an accessory structure, you realize that you would have to start the house first prior to building this structure. Mr. Berry stated, yes. He stated that the only thing that I don't know...and I don't know if it got turned in or not, because he didn't say anything about it, but I had asked if I could put the foundations at the same time, because it's cheaper on me to get concrete all done at the same time, rather than doing...I would just like to do them both at the same time, the concrete work, anyway, and then finish the house and then finish the out building. Mr. Detert stated, if you left the concrete open you would have to cover it some way to...if you had a concrete basement that was open and it was going to remain open, you would have to cover it. Mr. Thompson stated that you would need the first two inspections on the house before we could issue a building permit on this. Mr. Hudson asked, can he be building them simultaneously, and if he can't start the accessory structure until after the first two inspections, one being footing, the second being foundation, so once he gets his foundation inspection for the other one, it would be right behind getting the...essentially at the same time. Mr. Thompson stated that the problem is that I can't issue any permit for the accessory structure until those two inspections are done with the house. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-28, with the understanding that there be no business operated out of there and for it to be done within three years, incorporating the petitioner's 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-V-29. Petition of Greyhound Guardians, 3069 Cordele St., Portage, seeking a Variance to build a 2,400 square foot kennel building in an I-1 zoned subdivision, to be located on the North side of CR 450 N., between CR 475 W and CR 400 W., in Union Township. Larry Lavery and Lee Lavery, 32 Rustic Lane, Valparaiso, stated that they are representing the petitioners in this matter. Ms. Lavery stated that we are a not-for-profit greyhound rescue and adoption group and we take the retired racing greyhounds from the racetrack, bring them in and get them medicals and get them altered so they cannot reproduce, make sure they are healthy and sound and then we work to find homes for them. She stated that we are asking for this variance so that we can build a 40 by 60 shelter building on the property that we purchased in Valparaiso. She stated that the reason that we are asking for this size building is so that we can have an office area, a reception area so that people can come and meet their potential new house guest or home mate, as the greyhounds are. She stated that we need an area to do food preparation, we need an area to do bathing of the animals so that they are kept clean, and then we need an area for kenneling. She stated that we also need an area for conferencing when our board of directors meet, and we are working on some craft projects, so we need a sewing area and we do this to help raise funds for our kennel. Brenda Keith, 17356 Sequoia Drive, stated that I am in full support and agreement. Jeanette Buzalski, 1640 Old Porter Road, Porter, stated that I own property that butts up against this. She stated that we have some concerns and one is drainage. She asked, how much is this going to cause draining onto our property, how much are they going to pave, and where is the drainage of the water going to go? She stated, Number 2, we were just in front of the zoning board a year and a half ago with Mr. Bengel and Mr. Cheeks. She stated that at that time, before he sold this land and divided it in anyway, he was supposed to put a turnaround and extend the road and this has not been done. She stated that third, we are concerned with a proper survey being done with this property. She stated, we know they've been doing a survey from a fence line, the West line, not from the section pole marker and our fence line is 7 feet East of the actual property line and we know prior that they've done this. She stated that also the former owner had bulldozed our fence line, which will butt up against theirs and that's not in the proper line and that has never been replaced. She stated that we want to know how many dogs they plan on kenneling here and how they plan on disposing of the waste is another concern of ours. She asked if they are purchasing all the land that is available there and how much is intended to be purchased. Mr. Lavery stated that Donald Bengel is our surveyor and engineer and he has been before the TEC (sic) board with our proposed residence on the property, the proposed building, the proposed driveway plans and topography and everything, and according to what was presented to the TEC (sic) board, they felt there would be no problem with drainage and that it would not affect drainage, causing any runoff onto anybody else's property. He stated that we do have a wetland in one corner, and they felt that that was sufficient. He stated that none of our waste will be going into any systems. He stated that it will be bagged and hauled away by a waste hauling outfit on a weekly basis. Ms. Lavery stated, twice a week, if necessary. Mr. Lavery stated that none of it will go into any septic systems or anything else. Ms. Buzalski asked, where did he say there was a wetlands there? Mr. Lavery stated, down in the far East corner. Ms. Buzalski stated, that's our property. She stated, the survey, to make sure that it has been surveyed properly. Mr. Detert stated that Mr. Bengel has surveyed it and he is an Indiana licensed engineer and surveyor. Ms Buzalski stated that she just wanted to make sure it was proper, because we've had other County surveyors survey it and it was surveyed wrong. Mr. Detert stated that he's not the County surveyor. He stated that he's in private practice and is a licensed Indiana surveyor. Ms. Buzalski asked, how many dogs? Ms. Lavery stated that we will have 24 dogs, maximum. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hudson stated, I guess I need to understand. He stated that this is I-1 zoning and they are here because of the size of the kennel or is a kennel allowed? Mr. Thompson stated that they were at TAC on June 13th and they did get approval from TAC based on the site review and we did review the things such as waste and drainage and everything. He stated that I made sure that the stipulation for approval was that they had to come in front of this board because of the fact that it is a minor subdivision done by a gentleman by the name of Cheeks and since it is a residential minor subdivision we do have the ordinance that states 1,200 square feet for a structure, however, a kennel is very much allowed in an I-1 zone, which this is. He stated that one of the suggestions that we even brought up to them at the TAC meeting as the ideal of the possibility of a second building if they wanted to split this building in two in case they needed to quarantine, they had two separate buildings all under 1,200 square feet, they didn't need to be here. He stated that they said they wanted one, so that's why they are here. Mr. Brickner asked, where are these dogs coming from? Mr. Lavery stated that they come from racetracks. Mr. Brickner stated, I know they are retired race dogs, but there are not any racetracks in Indiana. Mr. Lavery stated that ours come from Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, Texas,.... Mr. Brickner asked, so, you got out there and buy these dogs? Mr. Lavery stated, no, we don't buy them. He stated that we take them or else they put them to sleep. He stated that we take the dogs that they are going to destroy, bring them in, they are spayed or neutered, get all their shots, a physical, fecal, the whole thing. Mr. Brickner asked, and then you sell then? Mr. Lavery stated, no, we get our fee back. Mr. Brickner stated, but they cost $250, is that what you charge? Mr. Lavery stated that our fee is $215. He stated that we have the cost of feeding them, picking them up, of transportation. He stated that we are a non-profit organization. He stated that we don't make any money. Ms. Lavery stated that the reason that we have to ask for an adoption fee is for the veterinarians, for the medical work for the dogs. Mr. Brickner stated that I was just curious as to why you want to go so far to get dogs and bring them here. He asked, don't they have anything like that? Ms. Lavery stated, yes, sir, they do. She stated that there are approximately 300 adoption groups across the country and we manage to save 50 percent of these animals. She stated that they are retiring anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 of them a year. Mr. Brickner stated that there are several other of these organizations in this area, right? Ms. Lavery stated, one of them. Mr. Brickner asked, what about Petco? Ms. Lavery stated, no. She stated that Petco allows greyhound adoption groups to come in and use their store as a means to promote adoption, but the only two adoption groups in Northwest Indiana that I'm aware of are us, Greyhound Guardians and American Greyhound. Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, I looked at your website today and I saw what you folks do. He stated that that's admirable, I think, but I was just wondering why Porter County, Union Township, when the dogs...there are no racetracks anywhere in this area other than Kenosha, there's a greyhound track there, and why are we bringing the dogs into Porter County just to get rid of them when...I didn't know there were that many. He stated that the other question I have is, I don't know a lot about greyhounds. He asked, they are not notorious barkers? Ms. Lavery stated, no. Mr. Brickner stated, so this isn't going to be a noise with 24 dogs? Ms. Lavery stated, no, sir. She stated, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that greyhounds never bark, because they certainly do, but they are known to be very quiet, very calm, very gentle animals. She stated that I have frequently gone up to the racetrack at Kenosha and walked into a kennel where they have 72 dogs and it's just stone quiet. Mr. Brickner stated, the paper said 64 dogs, didn't it? Ms. Lavery stated that the facility would be large enough, if you measure it out, it could hold 64, but we certainly can't handle 64 and absolutely don't want to. Mr. Brickner asked, so you would never have more than 24 dogs? Ms. Lavery stated, 24 is our maximum. Mr. Burns asked, where is your kennel location now? Ms. Lavery stated, right now we use two vet clinics in Illinois and we have a network of foster homes to take the dogs into their home and care for them and feed them. Mr. Burns stated, so you don't have a kennel. Ms. Lavery stated, no. Mr. Burns stated that the other concern I had was the barking, also. He asked, are you going to put any screening up? Mr. Lavery stated that the building will be very well-insulated. He stated that that's part of our thing and the kennel will sit 170 feet off of the West property line and the nearest residence is Mr. Cheeks, and his home sits another 180, 200 feet in the other direction and he's been over, when we had the christening ceremony for our property and everything and he's very much aware of it. He stated that we do have a professional landscape architect who is going to do a master plan for us and the plan will be to soften the whole project. Mr. Robertson asked if Mr. Cheeks lives to the West of you there with the window and his yard. He stated that there is nothing to the East of you, then, except the lady who has the farm. He asked if you have any houses there. Ms. Buzalski stated, I have a house. Jerome Sikora stated, I have a house and a barn. Mr. Robertson stated, I thought the road kind of stopped there. He asked Mr. Sikora, how far away is your house there? He asked, is it on the other side of the field? Ms. Buzalski stated, probably about 1,000 feet. Mr. Robertson stated, if you do have a landscape architect who is going to soften the sound, try and do it in their direction as well as Mr. Cheeks'. Mr. Lavery stated, oh, definitely. Mr. Robertson stated, and they are quiet dogs. Mr. Sikora, 264 N. 375 W., stated that I am part owner of that farm and I farm it myself. He stated that Mr. Robertson talked about the road. He stated that we were up here about a year and a half ago before the zoning board with Mr. Cheeks. He stated that before that property was to be subdivided, he was to pay to have 450 N. developed to our property line at that little triangle on the North side of 450 N., abutting where they want to put the kennels. Mr. Robertson asked, was that this Board or was it the Plan Commission? Ms. Buzalski stated, zoning, I believe. Mr. Robertson stated, I think it was the Plan Commission. He stated that it was not this Board and it's not something that we have any control over. Mr. Burns asked, shouldn't we have a sketch where they are going to position this kennel on this property? Ms. Lavery stated, I think Mr. Bengel supplied you with one. Mr. Burns stated that I guess there's a question about the property, whose property, the boundaries. Mr. Lavery stated that it sits on 3.2 acres and it's toward the West side of it. Mr. Burns asked, has Mr. Sikora seen this? Mr. Sikora stated, no, I have not. Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Chairman, can he come up and see this? Mr. Detert stated, okay, as long as you recognize him. Mr. Burns stated that if they put screening through here...who owns this property here? He asked, is it also yours? (conversation is taking place away from microphones at the dais and is inaudible). He asked, how will that affect you? Mr. Sikora stated, well, if any runoff comes down onto our property. He stated that there is no county road ditch there anymore. He stated that it goes into the railroad, goes into our property and then from our property out to (inaudible) ditch and into Salt Creek. Mr. Brickner stated, I think this is a good place for a kennel, myself. Mr. Robertson stated that they are worried about drainage from the dog waste and the answer is that they are going to be taking the dog waste out and it won't be affected by the drainage and I think that should take care of their problems, along with the screening. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-V-29, subject to a landscape architect doing what they indicated in their testimony and that it be limited to 24 dogs maximum. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes Case 03-UV-9. Petition of Armand Boltovitz, 698 W. 600 N., Hobart, seeking a Use Variance to permit a car repair shop, to be located at 698 W. 600 N., Hobart, in Union Township. Mr. Boltovitz stated that I am asking the Board for a Use Variance so I can continue running my business at my residence. Mr. Detert asked, you've been running a business there? Mr. Boltovitz stated, yes, for the last 15 years. Mr. Detert asked, are you here because you didn't have approval and somebody complained? Mr. Thompson stated that there was a Use Variance on this under the name of Gabriel Hucke, the last renewal of which was approved in 1998 for five years, that belonged to his grandfather, who is now deceased. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hudson stated that if there have been no complaints over at least the least five years, this is essentially a continuation of the business. Mr. Brickner asked, the fuel storage that you have back there... Mr. Boltovitz stated that those tanks are inoperable. Mr. Brickner asked, and the semi truck that you have, are you, do you work out of that? Mr. Boltovitz stated that was a storage. He stated that there was a new building just put up in the back in the last two years and we are moving everything so we can get rid of that. Mr. Brickner stated that that would be a good idea. Mr. Boltovitz stated that we are trying to blend in with the existing property. He stated that my daughter is in the process of building a house right next to me, so we are trying to clean up. He stated that actually the building in the back was put up to keep a lot of the vehicles out of sight. Mr. Brickner stated that the place looked pretty good and I have no complaints at all. He stated except for the sign. He stated that he has a big sign up. He asked, did we okay that sign? Mr. Boltovitz stated that that was under the square footage. He stated that if I went any bigger I would have to apply for a permit for that. He stated that it's less than a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood. He stated that it was a 4 by 8 sheet cut down. Mr. Brickner stated that I guess we approved it. Mr. Boltovitz stated at that time you told me I had to put up x amount footage or if I went bigger I would have to apply. Mr. Detert asked, who told you that? Mr. Boltovitz stated this was 15 years ago. Mr. Brickner asked, does your neighbor repair cars, too? Mr. Boltovitz stated that he works on them. Mr. Brickner stated that I know he does because I saw him out there working on cars. Mr. Boltovitz stated that my neighbor has only been there for the last three years and I've only met him twice. Mr. Brickner stated that it looks pretty nice and it's pretty well kept. Mr. Burns stated that I guess the only concern that I have is those tanks. He stated, you said you're not using those tanks? Mr. Boltovitz stated that they are empty. He stated that they probably will be scrapped. He stated that they used to be used for my farm tractors. Mr. Burns stated that the only thing is the sign. Mr. Detert stated that I guess he's had the sign there for, what 13 years? Mr. Boltovitz stated, at least. Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-UV-9 for five years and to accept the sign that is there, and that the fuel tanks be removed, and that the same stipulations and restrictions that were applied at the original approval be applied to this one, incorporating the petitioner's findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes Case 03-PUV-4. Petition of Coffee Creek Life Center, 152 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit a wildlife rehabilitation center, to be located at 566 N. 450 E., in Washington Township. Mark Seegar, 3000 Silhavy Road, stated that I'm here representing the Coffee Creek Life Center board of directors to apply for a permanent use variance for a rehabilitation center. He stated that in front of you you have a packet with some of the history of the life center and I'm going to let you read through that. He stated that our proposal is that we would construct a 36 by 30 pole barn to house a animal rehabilitation program that would be supported by two of the local veterinarians in the area, Dr. Reed of Chesterton and Dr. McAfee from Valparaiso. He stated that we will house a list of animals - on the second page there's a list of possible animals that could be housed there and the maximum numbers. He stated that the program would be a volunteer program where people would go into the center to work with the animals and they would be released not on that site, they would be released offsite, so it would be not a permanent housing for any type of animal. He stated that it would be a coming in, being helped, raised, if it is sick or injured, getting them well and then released offsite. He stated that we have been operating out of the Westchester Animal Clinic in Chesterton in the Coffee Creek area and the Coffee Creek development in Chesterton for the past several years, and we have been graciously given some land, well, not given, but agreed to, two ladies that are here tonight to donate their land for us to put this building on. He stated that there is a house on the land right now and another barn. He stated that this post pole barn would be a separate facility and they would be gradually working to have a restoration of the pole barn and then eventually a nature center down the road in several years. All in the audience raised their hands in favor of this petition. Mr. Seegar stated that I also have two letters and email in favor. He stated that these are from the veterinarians. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Robertson stated that I think it's a wonderful thing you're doing. He stated that I drove out there and it's certainly out in the middle of nowhere and they ought to have a lot of room and I can't imagine anybody would object out there. He asked, was the place you were originally set up at, was it too small? Mr. Seegar stated, yes. He stated that it was an acre of land and it really wasn't a place where we could have done much with the animals. He stated that the area that we are proposing has the possibility of nature trails and those things for small groups to come out. He stated that right now we've been doing a lot of things out in the schools, taking educational animals out. He stated that we want to eventually have small groups coming in there, but nothing large. He stated that we don't want to disturb nature. Mr. Robertson stated, I think it's a wonderful thing you're doing. He stated, no question: A lot of people obviously have their heart in the right place, so I'm all in favor of it. Mr. Burns stated, I'm in favor of it, too. He stated that the only question I have is the odor. He asked, how do you control the odor if you have all these animals? Mr. Seegar stated, well, right now, with the animals in the proposal, for each cage we will have a tray to pull out and clean daily and then we are going to have dumpsters that will take it away. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-PUV-4, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of facts, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes At this time, the Board took up the matter of the request by the Camachos for permission to have seasonal sales. Mr. Thompson stated that they had been sent a certified letter asking them to appear in person this evening and that that letter was received but they are not here this evening. Mr. Burns moved to deny the request for seasonal sales. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote, Mr. Hudson having left the room. At this time, Mr. Detert stated that Randy Duncan is complaining constantly about the Janda operation and Mr. Thompson has been so frustrated because he has been getting a number of phone calls, but I don't think it's what we should be doing, is creating another public hearing because somebody is complaining. He stated that we have a process in place. He stated that the process is that you voice your complaints to the office and then, if the office decides upon their inspection, not the other guy's inspection, that there is a process they recommend the attorney take some legal action. He stated that we cannot have the office disrupted continually, so my motion, or my thought, is to not hear this at all. He stated that I would suggest that he be instructed to submit whatever evidence he has in writing to the office and Mr. Thompson at his leisure and his ability to have time and look at it. He stated that he is calling about three times a week and my suggestion is that Mr. Thompson not answer those calls because he is disrupting the office operation. Ms. Schaefer stated that in a sense I think maybe it's a little inconsistent. She stated that I can understand Mr. Thompson's problem because I've had the guy, Maurice Stille, calling on Young, calling me all the time, but I think that somewhere in our rules it says any matter properly come before the Board, and I think that if a person has a belief that there is a violation going on or anybody has a right to ask something publicly to be put on the agenda. She stated that I guess then it's up to Mr. Thompson whether he wants to put it on the agenda and I don't think, I'm reading the letter, and, if I were Mr. Thompson, I would say maybe this is nothing to put on the agenda because you haven't presented me any evidence, right? Mr. Thompson stated, yeah, I understand. Ms. Schaefer stated, I had the same thing last night at Valpo BZA, it was a neighbor dispute, and there was nothing there so the Board didn't rule on it and just said we're not going to listen to it. Mr. Detert asked, do you want him to appear here? Ms. Schaefer stated, no, what I'm saying I think is that it's in Mr. Thompson's discretion, if it's something legitimate, to put it on the agenda. She stated, I think you're right - I guess maybe we're agreeing in a different way. Mr. Detert stated, everybody else we handle by them giving complaints to the office. Ms. Schaefer stated, right. She stated, and I agree with this and that's what happened here, but I guess what I'm saying is that I wouldn't have even put it on the agenda unless the guy came to you with some facts to substantiate it, like this is going on and that is going on, as opposed to just conclusions of law that he has in this one paragraph. Mr. Detert stated, see, I'm against people coming in here and complaining and opening up something that should be a public hearing and was in this case and there were other people that were here speaking to this thing, and they're not here. He stated, I think that's wrong. Mr. Burns stated, I think, really, that you are saying the same thing. Ms. Schaefer stated, I think it comes down to Mr. Thompson saying, unless you can present me names, dates and blah, blah, blah, that this is not going anywhere. Mr. Robertson stated, I think he's going to do that. He stated that he did that the last time. Mr. Thompson stated that I have a whole page of car license plates that he asked me to run through the Sheriff's Department. Ms. Schaefer stated, but that's different. Mr. Thompson stated, he wants me also to go in and ask the guy for his receipt book. He stated that another time was that he wanted me out there on a weekend. Mr. Detert stated, I think this guy has a right through the legal system in civil courts to do what he is asking Mr. Thompson to do. He stated, I don't think we... Ms. Schaefer stated, we don't have an obligation to do that. She stated, he, technically, since the Board approved it, he needs to show that there is money changing hands or something. Mr. Thompson stated, I will contact Mr. Duncan and tell him... Ms. Schaefer stated, unless there's some proof of money changing hands, you're not going to go out and check license plates, unless, you get into another issue - is it a junk yard? She stated, you just tell him the County has limited resources. Mr. Brickner stated, we put restrictions on that; is he violating those restrictions? Ms. Schaefer stated, but what I'm saying is that he wants Mr. Thompson to do all this work. Mr. Detert stated, that's not Mr. Thompson's job. Mr. Brickner stated, he is saying the guy is operating in the wrong hours and... Mr. Thompson stated, there is a letter in the file that stated that if the gentleman is doing something for free then he can have as many cars as he wants in and out of there, where if he was accepting money, he can only have three, because that's part of the motion. Ms. Schaefer stated, as long as the cars were in and out. Mr. Thompson stated, in the application it says "hobby business", so Mr. Duncan thinks it should be limited to three cars, period, on the property. Mr. Detert stated, if we didn't put that in the motion...I suggest you recommend he take civil action. Ms. Schaefer stated, tell him it's a private nuisance and that the department doesn't have the resources. She stated that there are suits for private nuisance with neighbor disputes. She stated, I think that the bottom line is that you should just say that it appears that what you have here is a neighbor dispute. She stated, if you want me to do that, I will do it. She stated that I will write him a letter and say that it appears to be a neighbor dispute and the Board has already approved the facts that were before the Board, and the public was invited, it's been approved. She stated that it now appears that it's a neighbor dispute and you should consult a private attorney as to what your options are. Mr. Thompson stated, his big thing is he keeps on insisting, how are we going to enforce this, how are we going to enforce this. Ms. Schaefer stated, just tell him, if you read the paper, you know the County doesn't have money. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Robert Detert, Chairman Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
July 16, 2003