BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
December 17, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals was held in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr. and Toni Byers.

Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the November 19, 2003 meeting and accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 83-V-40. Indiana State Prison, P.O. Box 41, Michigan City, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 262 County Line Road, between I-94 and the Indiana Toll Road, in Pine Township.

Mr. Detert asked if there is a letter from the petitioner.

Mr. Thompson stated that he does not see one. He stated that he thought they sent one in and he must not have clipped it with the file.

Mr. Detert stated that we’ve had this for quite a while.

Mr. Burns asked, this is the work farm?

Mr. Detert stated that it is.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 83-V-40 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 97-V-55. John Schulp, 346 E. U.S. Hwy 12, Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of U.S. Hwy 12, between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E., in Pine Township.

Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner stating that they have found a home to move to and asking for permission to leave the mobile home there until the spring to give them time to tear down the mobile home and move their belongings.

Mr. Burns stated that with the weather conditions they probably won’t get that removed until May or June, so he would like to move to extend it to June 1st or June 15th, maybe.


Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 97-V-55 to 6-15-04. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 98-UV-13. H. Glenn Wiles and George Musgrave, 920 N. 100 W., Chesterton, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance for a retail flower shop, on the West side of CR 100 W., between CR 900 N. and the Indiana Toll Road, in Liberty Township. (This case was continued from the 10-15-03 and 11-19-03 meetings, with the petitioner to clean up the property.)

Mr. Detert stated that the Board had asked you before they would vote on this to clean up the property. He asked, have you done so?

Mr. Wiles stated that I have done extensive clean-up, as well as other things, and I still have a little bit to go. He stated that mainly I’m waiting for it to be picked up, the small amount that’s there.


Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 98-UV-13 for 1 year. Mr. Burns 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-49. Petition of James Jeppesen, 228 Michael Dr., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn in the front yard, to be located at 670 E. 950 N., in Jackson Township.

Mr. Jeppesen stated that I am new to this and I found out that being on a corner lot you have two front yards, so the variance is to allow the building to be put up on the North side of the property. He stated that the house is facing East and it’s at the highest point of the property because there is a swale running through the year and I have to have it up on that one side. He stated that the other alternative is to put it in the back yard, but the problem with that is that I don’t want to have it sitting there where the neighbor is looking at it. He stated that I want to have it sitting off to one side so that I can access it from the front. He stated that it sets along a tree line and it would be on the Northwest end. He stated that it wouldn’t be down where the curve of the road is. He stated that I have a thing here if you want to look at this.

Mr. Brickner stated, I was out there and I saw what you are up against.

Mr. Detert stated that if there is anyone in the audience who wants to look at this, you can.

Joe Young, 671 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I live across the street and I hadn’t seen the plat until now and I was afraid that it might go on the corner and now that I’ve seen the plat, I see no reason for not granting him this variance.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated, I looked at the property and, actually, that’s the only place that he could put the barn where it wouldn’t have been obtrusive. He stated that I was really against it when I first went out there, but there is no place else he can put that thing where it’s not going to be sitting out in front…you know, there are no pole barns in that area, and so I was concerned about how he was going to work it in there, but I see where he has it is the best possible place he could put it without being, you know, setting right out in front of the…I thought he set his house back too far, you know, when you set your house back, I thought, if you left yourself a little more room in the back…

Mr. Jeppesen stated, the soil in front is…

Mr. Brickner stated, I really don’t object to where it is right there. He stated that I don’t really like it, but I know he really hasn’t got any other choice.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mr. Thompson stated, looks like eight people.

Mr. Brickner stated, there’s quite a few homes around there. He stated that it’s pretty well-populated in that particular area, particularly for being out in the East part of Jackson Township. He stated that it’s pretty well populated there, so I was surprised that nobody showed up tonight to object to it, because I thought for sure there would be some objection to it.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s the use of the pole barn?

Mr. Jeppesen stated that I have three classic cars that I have no place to keep them. He stated that it’s a guy thing. He stated that you have to have a work area. He stated, wives will fill a garage up and you can’t ever do anything. He stated that I’ve wanted one for years.

Mr. Burns asked, it’s not for a personal business?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, oh, no. He stated, I have a business, but six days a week is enough.

Mr. Burns asked, what kind of business do you have?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, a power business, lawn mowers, extractors, chainsaws.

Mr. Burns asked, and you’re not going to operate a business out of this?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, absolutely not. He stated, like I said, six days a week is enough.

Mr. Burns asked, where is your business?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, Jim’s Lawn and Garden. He stated, power equipment. He stated, I sell tractors and chainsaws and repair them. He stated that I just built a new building in Chesterton.

Mr. Brickner asked, how big is that building?

Mr. Burns stated, 48 by 30. He stated that it’s a big building and that’s why I’m questioning it.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, you talk to people and when you get ‘em built, they’re never big enough.

Mr. Burns stated, and there’s none in the area.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, across the street there is.

Mr. Burns asked, what size?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, it’s even bigger than mine is going to be.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s 2 and three-quarters times larger than we permit. He stated, actually, I thought this was just for the front yard, but this is for, it actually has to be for larger than the ordinance permits also, right?

Mr. Thompson stated, no. He stated that it’s not in a subdivision.

Mr. Jeppesen stated that there’s one across the street that must be 40 by almost 80.

Mr. Brickner stated, not right across the street.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, no, it’s three houses down, towards the South.




Mr. Detert asked, how many old cars do you have?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, I have three. He stated that I have one that’s in restoration and I have two others that are complete.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s a pretty big building for just three cars.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, well, I have a car lift to get the height to get in there and work on and with a car lift you have to have a 14 foot and it’s only a couple of thousand dollars to go from a 30 by 40 to a 30 by 48; why not? He stated, it gives me the room. He stated, as I say you build them and you never build them big enough. He stated, it’s a one-shot deal. He stated that it’s the last thing I’ll ever build. He stated, I’m getting too old to come back and do any more of that.

Mr. Burns stated, I’ve got mixed emotions. He stated, to be honest with you, it’s so large.

Mr. Brickner stated, I’m really surprised that nobody’s complained about this. He stated, there aren’t any buildings that big right around it, that’s for sure. He stated, on that lot, it’s going to be a big building. He asked, how about down-sizing it a little bit? He asked, can you make it a little bit smaller than that, because that’s going to stick out.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, I’ll regret it the rest of my life.

Mr. Brickner stated, I’m not worried about you. He stated, I’m worried about your neighbors.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, that the house is 60 by 52, the foundation is. He stated that a 30 by 40 is even smaller than that.

Mr. Burns asked, did you notice the one across the street, Marv?

Mr. Brickner stated, I didn’t go down that far. He stated, I just looked in the immediate area.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, that’s the last two houses that are within 300 feet. He stated, that a neighbor has got one that is 40 and it must be 80 feet long.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s not in his front yard.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, it’s on the side of his yard.

Mr. Burns asked, sir, when are you going to start construction?

Mr. Jeppesen stated, the house is due to be delivered the 5th of January and then after they get that in there – it comes in in five sections – then I can get them in there, because they don’t want anything in there while they’re swinging the crane to put the house in.

Mr. Burns stated, oh, the house is not in there yet.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, no.

Mr. Thompson stated, they have the foundation. He stated that I was out there when I was doing the staff report and they were putting up the forms for the foundation, also.

Mr. Burns stated, I would like to suggest…I did not get a chance to look at this personally. He stated that I would like to get out there to look at it, because the size and the location.

Mr. Jeppesen stated, well, the only problem is that I’m going to get it stuck to me there if it’s after January because all the prices go up on the building permits.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think it would be a good idea if the other members take a look at this, because having looked at it, and first being against it when I first looked, I said there’s just no place he can put that where it’s going to…but that one spot, but that’s way too big. He stated, I didn’t realize it was that big. He stated, I didn’t see the size, so I agree with you. He stated, I think that the rest of the members should look at that.

Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 03-V-49 to the 1-21-04 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated, Bob, if you’d make a special note to other members to make sure everybody gets out there to look at this because of the size and the location.

Mr. Brickner stated, and also put the size down, 48 by 30, because it’s not in the agenda.

Motion to continue Case 03-V-49 to the 1-21-04 meeting carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-V-50. Petition of Robert & Shelley Schulte, 763 S. 575 W., Hebron, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 3,200 square foot pole barn for a landscaping business, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located on the South side of SR 8, between CR 250 W. and CR 350 W., in Boone Township.

And

Case 03-PUV-7. Petition of Robert & Shelley Schulte, 763 S. 575 W., Hebron, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit a landscaping business, to be located on the South side of SR 8, between CR 250 W. and CR 350 W., in Boone Township.

Mr. Detert stated that there was not proper notification and advertisement of these two cases, and so they are being continued to the 1-21-04 meeting.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 03-V-50 and 03-PUV-7 to the 1-21-04 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-UV-12. Petition of Gary Masonic Lodge #677, 209 N. Broad Street, Griffith, for a Use Variance to allow a private club, to be located on the Southwest corner of CR 675 W. and Division Road, in Porter Township.

Scott Inman, 3726 W. 90th Ct., Merrillville, stated that I’m presently the master of Gary Lodge 677 for the current year, 2004. He stated that we operate under and through the dispensation of the Indiana Grand Lodge of Masons, located in Indianapolis, and adhere to the rules laid out under our charter. He stated that Grand Lodge does not permit storing or consumption of alcoholic beverages on the properties established as subordinate lodges. He stated that we meet once monthly for our business meetings and may meet at other times during the month to conduct our regular weekly activities. He stated, from what we understand, our activities, in all probability, will be less than the activities conducted by the present tenant of the property. He stated that we would very much appreciate your allowing our proposed use for the property that our membership is considering for purchase.

John Collie, Jr., 871 Camelot Manor, Portage, stated that I’m a member of Gary Lodge for 37 years and I’m presently the second in line. He stated that I have twice gone out there, and I think it would be extremely suitable for the purpose for which we are asking it to be used, and I respectfully submit that it be approved.

Norman Staven 3725 Brown St., Hobart, stated that I was past master of the Gary Lodge and currently serving as treasurer and I’m also on the Board of Trustees. He stated that I’ve seen this property and I’m in favor of it, to move, if our membership gives the final approval.

Donald Brown, 881 Springdale Drive, Hobart, stated that I am presently a member of the Hobart Masonic Lodge, and I am the real estate agent representing the Gary Lodge in the proposed purchase of this building. He stated, as Scott mentioned, I think that the



activity carried on there will be very similar in nature to what it is presently being used for, and, actually will very likely be less activity. He stated that there will be no renting of the property to users outside of our fraternal organization, and I think it will make a very favorable location for us to locate.

Cheryl Nash, 20 S. 675 W., stated that I’m a neighbor of the church and I’ve been a neighbor of Faith (sic) Baptist Church for 17 years now, and God willing, I will be a neighbor of whoever purchases that property for many more years. She stated that everyone who has bought property to build on there realized there was a church on the corner. She stated that it was there before all of us were, and I might say that they’ve been excellent neighbors. She stated that I have no reason to believe that the Masonic Lodge would be any different. She stated, in fact, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the church probably uses that facility between 16 and 20 times a month. She stated that the Masonic Lodge would probably use it between 4 and 5 times a month. She stated that I can’t see why there would be any difference in their usage. She stated, I know that they do not serve any alcoholic beverages at any of their functions, and this would be one of my concerns. She stated, nobody wants fights in the parking lot or anything like that. She stated, from what I am told, it would be an offense to show up at any one of their meetings with alcohol on your breath. She stated, I am also the real estate agent who is representing Faith (sic) Baptist Church; I’m the listing agent. She stated that I’m also a neighbor. She stated, I don’t need to tell you people how difficult it is to sell a piece of property that’s a non-conforming use in a residential area. She stated, it could only be sold to another church, fire station, police station, library, maybe, church-affiliated day-care. She stated that these fine people from First (sic) Baptist Church have outgrown their facility. She stated that they would very much like to sell it to the Masons. She stated that they built a beautiful facility on 500 W. and they really need to move. She stated that I’m asking you to allow this variance.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mr. Thompson stated, six.

Mr. Burns asked, how many church members are there?

David Jacobs, 715 W. 350 S., Hebron, stated that there are between 135 and 150 members. He stated that I’ve been the head trustee over there for years.

Mr. Burns asked, how many members are in the lodge?



Mr. Inman stated that we have less than 300. He stated that we have about 280 members. He stated that less than half of that live in the area. He stated that a lot of people have moved out of state, but they keep their membership.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have family affairs where there are going to be three or four times the number of members there?

Mr. Inman stated, yes, we do. He stated that we have affairs where we would have pitch-ins where families come in, very similar to what you would see at a church.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s the reason I’m asking the question is I’m trying to see the traffic and the volume of vehicles and noise levels and all that. He stated, I take it you have parties and picnics out on the grounds, also?

Mr. Inman stated, we probably would. He stated that right now our membership, as far as participation, would be less than half of what the church would have on a regular basis.

Mr. Burns asked, did the church have picnics?

Ms. Nash stated, they have some youth activities.

Mr. Jacobs stated that it would be youth activities. He stated that the building is probably used Sunday, we have two services on Sunday; Monday nights, nine months out of the year we have youth group, and we have youth group and Wednesday evening services, so, basically, they are probably going to be using the building less than we are.

Mr. Burns stated, I think the Masons is an excellent lodge. He stated that I’m just concerned about the activities, that there would be more activities outside in a residential area than with the church. He stated, that’s why it’s not permitted without a Special Exception (sic).

Mr. Brickner stated, that is exactly what I was going to…how many members and what the activities were going to be, and roughly, if we could anticipate how much traffic was going to be at each one of these activities, whether it be 150 members attending – there would be 100 cars or so coming in and out of that particular…how big is this piece of property?

Ms. Nash stated, a little over 2.5 acres.

Mr. Brickner asked, is the access off of Division Road, the main access?

Ms. Nash stated that we are on the corner, so there is access both ways and there is parking both sides.


Mr. Detert stated, actually, most of the parking will come off of 675, because it’s all blacktopped.

Mr. Brickner stated that Division Road is a very busy road anymore.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t think it’s as busy as 100 S.

Mr. Brickner stated, maybe not, but it’s getting pretty busy out there, so I was worried about how many people you would have. He asked, and you said you have people about four or five times a month that you’d be…you have two meetings a month?

Mr. Inman stated, we’re going to meet…we have our scheduled meeting once a month, which is a business meeting that we attend to. He stated, then we have other meetings about once a week at the most. He stated that it might go to two, twice a week, once a month, something like that. He stated that we might end up using the facilities six times a month for our meetings. He stated that our meetings then are attended, usually, by about 25 members. He stated that you might see 20 or two dozen cars there at a meeting, and that’s a high attendance.

Mr. Burns asked, besides the meetings, members could rent or use the property for their own meetings or picnics or parties, is that correct?

Mr. Inman stated, no, trustees would need it…no, not without the Lodge permission. He stated that right now the lodge doesn’t do anything like that. He stated that we’ve had Easter egg hunts, and that’s been the biggest one item that we’ve had and we’ve invited the general public into that particular day, but that’s maybe once or twice a year you’ll see something like that. He stated that there are no other uses of the building, other than what we would be talking about right now.

Mr. Burns asked, would you consider some type of restrictions on outdoor activities if we approve this. He stated, what I’m concerned about is if your lodge started this or if you sell this to another lodge and they start having fish fries on Fridays and there’s 400 cars, a lot of increased traffic, a lot of picnics outside in the neighborhood area, that’s my concern. He stated, I don’t have a problem with your meetings and your lodge; I’m more concerned with the activities outside.

Mr. Inman stated, if that’s a concern of this Board, that won’t be a problem at all.

Mr. Detert stated, approving a Use Variance allows you to sell it and that use goes with that property as you sell it.




Mr. Inman stated, absolutely. He stated that that’s not a problem at all. He stated that it would not be inconceivable for us to possibly have something like that, so if you want us to put a limitation on it, then that’s absolutely well within acceptability.

Mr. Detert stated, this Board has a right to put limitations on what they grant.

Mr. Brickner stated, this is not a Permanent Use Variance. He stated, it’s just a Use Variance.

Mr. Detert stated, a Use Variance would be 5 years, so we’re protected.

Mr. Burns stated, I’d still like to put some restrictions on it.

Mr. Brickner stated, I agree with that. He stated, as far as activities outside of their meetings…

Mr. Burns stated, what I’m concerned about is if they sell it in the future to another lodge, it might be a different type of activities.

Mr. Brickner stated, the Use Variance doesn’t go if they sell it.

Mr. Thompson stated, it’s for the applicant, and the applicant only.

Ms. Nash stated, maybe if you could put some kind of restriction against a liquor license. She stated that I don’t think the neighbors would mind activity there. She stated, it’s on a little lake. She stated, I have a paddle boat; we all have little docks on the lake. She stated, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. She stated, I would have a problem with alcohol.

Mr. Burns stated, what I’m heading to is, there’s lodges that have bands outside as they’re having a party.

Mr. Detert stated, I’ve lived there 23 years. He stated that the church has been there all that time. He stated that I use those roads frequently and there’s never been a problem. He stated that I’ve even gone Sundays when church is in session and never had a problem. He stated, and I don’t see any problem with granting this to the Masonic Lodge. He stated, I do have one question. He stated, Robert, we had an expansion we okayed at one time on the church, and they never did expand, to my knowledge.

Mr. Thompson stated, correct. He stated that they were in front of this Board, if I remember correctly, and one of the things that they wanted to do was to add an all-purpose room that they were going to be renting out.




Mr. Detert stated, and then they decided to build a new church up on 500 W. He asked, so what happens to the granting of those expansion plans if we grant this Use Variance? He asked, are they null and void?

Mr. Thompson stated, I would almost have to ask Lily on that. He stated, I’m trying to think what the variance was for that they originally asked for.

Mr. Detert stated, I think one of the problems was parking.

Mr. Thompson stated, I think there was a developmental standard variance for parking.

Mr. Burns asked, weren’t they going to put a gym in?

Mr. Thompson stated, yeah, they were going to do a gym, and I think the reason was what we were looking at, the whole layout of the actual church was to see if there was going to be a service going on at the same time that a youth group was in the gym or something, and I think we were trying to work out the parking, so I think the Variance was for parking. He stated that it would stay with parking as it stayed as a church.

Mr. Detert stated, you could put a restriction on it.

Mr. Burns asked, can we ask the petitioner – are they planning an expansion or can we cancel that expansion?

Mr. Inman stated, there are no plans for expansion. He stated that we have absolutely no objection, we had no idea that was attached to this, no objection for it to just be completely eliminated.

Mr. Burns stated, if the petitioner agrees, we can cancel that.

Mr. Detert stated that there could be a restriction that that is not applicable.

Mr. Brickner stated, just say no expansion of the present facilities.

Mr. Burns asked, what can you live with for outside activities?

Mr. Detert stated, I assume what you want to do is just use the existing building, and if that’s what you want to do, that’s what he’s asking.

Mr. Inman stated, we’re going to use the existing footprint. He stated, there’s no reason for us to increase the size of that building whatsoever. He stated, we may have to make some modifications on the interior to fit our needs, but, outside of that…

Mr. Burns stated, if we made a petition…no liquor, of course, no outside activity, or are you going to have outside activities?

Mr. Inman stated, we would like to have the ability to have outside activities.

Mr. Burns asked, and what kind of outside activities?

Mr. Inman stated, we’re going to be looking at family activities. He stated, we would like to have some fund-raisers, but if that’s going to be a concern, that’s not an issue.

Mr. Detert asked, what kind of fund-raisers would you have?

Mr. Inman stated, what would we would like to do is invite family members of existing lodge members, plus for them to bring other family members here and we could help raise money for our lodge.

Mr. Burns asked, you mean like a festival type?

Mr. Inman stated, well, no, more or less like a pitch-in, a social, hot dogs, that kind of thing, maybe a fish fry once in a while.

Mr. Detert asked, not a Las Vegas night?

Mr. Inman stated, no, it’s against Masonic rules. He stated that you can’t have anything like that; it’s against the Masonic law.

Mr. Burns stated, the concern is increasing traffic and the noise level. He stated, I don’t have a problem with your lodge – zero problem. He stated, I have a problem with – it’s a residential area and any activities outside. He stated that that has to be somewhat restricted. He stated, what you are telling me is really what they want to hear. He stated, there’s a church down here on 700 and they have fish fries twice a month and the cars are parked out on 700 N. and a lot of activity. He stated that you can’t even drive down 700 on Friday nights. He stated, so I’m concerned about the traffic; I’m concerned about the people making noise.

Mr. Inman stated, I understand. He stated, like I said, whatever restrictions you want to put on there – if you want to say that there won’t be any fund-raisers whatsoever – we have no problem with that. He stated that of the opportunity is there, we might use it, but we typically don’t have…

Mr. Burns stated, you don’t have fund-raisers.

Mr. Inman stated, no, we haven’t. He stated, the biggest one thing we used to put on was an Easter egg hunt, and any kind of function that we have during the course of our business is during the day, anyway. He stated that we usually don’t have any kind of large meeting at night.


Mr. Burns stated, I’m kind of confused. He stated, we don’t want to restrict them where they can’t have any function, but, at the same time, I don’t want 500 cars parked out there.

Mr. Brickner stated, remember, we can do this for two years, three years, one year, and if we don’t like what’s going on, we don’t have to approve it again, so we can say, okay we’ll approve it with the restrictions of going by your word actually, because I don’t know what to say as far as limiting a fund-raiser or a fish fry or something – we can’t really do that – but outdoor activities – to keep reasonable outdoor activities or something of that nature.

Mr. Detert stated, what you could do is put a restriction on it that if there were fund-raiser activities that will increase traffic, that they have to have an off-duty police officer directing traffic during the course of that fund-raiser.

Mr. Burns stated, they have that right now on 700, and it’s a problem. He stated, matter of fact, it got so bad that they had to have people from the church out there directing traffic.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-UV-12 for 3 years, with there to be no liquor, no outside bands, no fund-raisers that will exceed the present available parking in the parking lot and will not cause any nuisance or noise levels for the neighbors and no exterior expansion, 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 Detert - Yes

At this time, Mr. Thompson stated that he sent a letter to the IURC regarding NIPSCO, as requested by the Board last month and he sent everybody a package Lily Schaefer requested out concerning the BZA case concerning the landfill will be in court with that tomorrow.

At this time, Mr. Burns stated that he has an issue that he thinks should be taken care of immediately. He stated that he was coming from South Bend today and there is a sign on 600 and Calumet – he was coming from the bypass – a Christmas tree sign that is blocking traffic 100 percent to the South.

Mr. Thompson asked if he knows if it is in the right-of-way.

Mr. Burns stated that it is.

Mr. Thompson stated that he will go out and put a tag on it and he will also contact the state and see if they would want to come out and look at it.

Mr. Burns stated, I think it should be removed quickly before there is an accident at the intersection.

At this time, Mr. Burns stated that he would like to recognize Mr. Thompson for this article on the award we got for land use.

Mr. Thompson stated that the land use consortium is a group of state organizations. He stated that with that award it’s the reason he will be going to Washington, D.C., to give a presentation with Cynthia Bowen.

At this time, Mr. Burns stated that we talked before about all the zoning issues and complaints and asked if there is any relief on this.

Mr. Thompson stated that he’s had a number of resumes come in and it is on the County web page and posted on the bulletin board. He stated that Mike Bucko and Kevin Breitzke are going to help him review the resumes, and, if they like any of them, they can talk about setting up interviews. He stated that his goal would be to have a recommendation from the committee coming to the Plan Commission hopefully no later than the second meeting in January and he also asked if Mr. Burns or Mr. Detert could take a look at them.

Mr. Burns stated that he would look at them Friday afternoon.

Mr. Detert stated that he could join the meeting to look them over on Monday morning.

At this time, Mr. Thompson stated that we had a situation in Valley Run subdivision with a man who came in with a petition for a 3,800 square foot pole barn and the neighbors came out against it. He stated that they are presently building two 1,200 square foot pole barns on the property, with a separation of 10 feet. He stated that we feel we cannot stop it because our codes only limit structures on a lot based on a percentage covered with buildings. He stated that it’s a loophole, and they challenged us.

Mr. Burns asked, but the intent doesn’t help us? He stated that the intent was to have one pole barn.

Mr. Thompson stated that we just talked about accessory structures larger than 1,200 square feet, and, if you look at it, Ray Weltz..because people called and complained, and, if you looked at it, I had to call them back and say there is nothing that I can do, and she said, well, what about covenants, and I said, yeah, do that yourself through an attorney.

Mr. Detert stated that that is something we have to address with the ordinance. He asked if we can make a rule that if you want to build more than one structure on your property that they have to appear before the Board.

Mr. Thompson stated, I don’t see why not.

Mr. Burns stated, what if they had 20 acres and weren’t in a subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated, if they weren’t in a subdivision, that person could have built a 3,800 square foot pole barn.

Mr. Brickner stated, it wouldn’t hurt to have them get an exception, even if they aren’t in a subdivision, to come in here and get it approved, so it wouldn’t hurt to say that, that they can’t build more than one accessory structure.

Mr. Burns stated, the farm community – they build barns and…

Mr. Thompson stated that we do have a definition for agricultural buildings.

Mr. Detert stated that he better watch those two pole barns when he’s out that way and make sure that he is not running a business out of them.

Mr. Thompson stated that he will speak with Ms. Schaefer and see it we can do anything.

Mr. Brickner moved to limit accessory buildings to no more than one per parcel, for all lots, except for agricultural purposes. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

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


PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Robert Detert, Chairman

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