 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting February 16, 2005 M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on February 16, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Rich Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Karen Tallian and Patricia Gibson. Election of Officers Mr. Burns moved to nominate Jim Robertson as Chairman. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Mr. Burns moved to nominate Marvin Brickner as Vice Chairman. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Pending Business: Case 97-V-38. Chris Birky, 799 S. 300 E., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of occupancy for a mobile home, located on the North side of SR 8, between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner stating that the home has been sold and moved to Starke County this past fall. Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 97-V-38. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 03-V-7. Carol Calvert-Ray, 1453 N. 425 E., Michigan City, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home located at 1453 N. 425 E., in Pine Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner asking for an extension of this TCO. Mr. Burns asked what the original use was for this TCO. Mr. Robertson stated that he thought she was going to build a stable and a home, but didn’t have enough money to build it all yet. Mr. Burns asked if she has the stables now. Mr. Robertson stated that he doesn’t think she has much at all and it sounds like she has a few health problems. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-V-7 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person at that time. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 04-V-1. William Bewick, 6919 Ash Avenue, Gary, seeking an extension of a previously granted Variance, allowing permission to build a pole barn prior to the house, located at 570 E. 50 N., in Jackson Township. Mr. Bewick stated that the weather this year hasn’t been on my side. He stated that there are pictures of the house and it’s about 75 percent complete. He stated that it’s rained so much that it’s slowed me down. He stated that with the weather this year he kind of got a late start. He stated that my contractor said he was going to start in July and he didn’t start until September and when he did start he had about one good month. He stated that it’s rained so much it’s just slowed him down. Mr. Brickner asked, do you have any idea when this is going to be completed? Mr. Bewick stated, I really probably wouldn’t even need 60 more days. Mr. Burns stated, let’s give him 90, just to make sure. Mr. Brickner moved to extend the deadline for Case 04-V-1 for another 90 days from today and if the house is not completed within that period of time he would have to come back. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 95-UV-1. Kerry Kapica, 3460 Anthony Drive, Hobart, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a part-time disc-jockey business and related storage, located on the Northwest corner of U.S. Highway 6 and Anthony Drive, in Portage Township. Mr. Kapica stated that nothing has changed; it’s the same as last time. He stated that basically my equipment is just in the garage. He stated that all my work is done at banquet facilities and homes, so it’s just basically storage. Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints. Mr. Siminski stated that there hasn’t been really any complaints. He stated that there was one gentleman who asked why there was some sort of a business use and he did research and he explained to him that there was a Use Variance granted and, in fact, that gentleman was at the public hearing for Mr. Kapica. Mr. Burns asked if there were any restrictions. Mr. Robertson stated that there were restrictions as to not becoming a nuisance with noise, moving equipment in and out, and with all equipment to be stored inside. He stated that he was going to come in late at night and so forth from his work and we didn’t want it to be a nuisance to the other neighbors. Mr. Kapica stated that the neighbor directly across the street told me to hand this to whoever it might concern. Mr. Siminski read a letter from Stephen E. Kyle, 3461 Anthony Drive, Portage, stating that his wife and he have never had any problems with the DJ business and hardly know it is there. The letter is in the file. He stated that as you come into Anthony Drive there is an empty field on the West side of the road and then Mr. Kapica’s house is the first house and it’s buffered by some evergreen trees. He stated that this neighbor is across the street and there are neighbors behind him that start on Debbie Lane. He stated that it’s hard to even see what’s going on over there. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 95-UV-1 for 5 years, with the same restrictions as originally imposed. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Mr. Siminski stated that this is the last extension available and if he wants to renew it next time around it would have to be a new public hearing. Mr. Kapica asked how this could be made permanent. Mr. Brickner stated that he would have to file for a Permanent Use Variance instead of a temporary one. Mr. Robertson stated that we would probably be reluctant to grant it in a residential area. He stated that a temporary allows us to have some control over it. Case 00-UV-3. Deborah Pressel, 111 S. Smoke Road, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting the operation of an in-home CPA office, located on the East side of Smoke Road, between Division Road and CR 150 S., in Morgan Township. The petitioner was not present. Mr. Siminski read a letter requesting a continuance of the Use Variance for another 5 years. He stated that he pulled the minutes for the original granting of this Use Variance. He stated that it did say that there was to be no signage and that is a sign that’s sitting on the front porch. Mr. Robertson stated that he thinks we said she could have a sign in her window and Mr. Brickner said something about some people put something on their mailbox, but we were pretty adamant about no signs. Mr. Siminski stated that he thinks its 12 square feet. Mr. Burns asked if it’s a residential area. Mr. Robertson stated that it is. Mr. Siminski stated that the petition was to renew, unless the Board wants to continue it for 1 month and request her presence. Mr. Robertson stated that we could approve it without the sign and say that the sign has to be removed. Mr. Brickner stated that he thinks we should. He stated that he doesn’t mind the business for 5 more years, but the sign is something he thinks she has to remove. Mr. Hudson stated that he agrees. Mr. Burns stated that he agrees, too, but he thinks she has to be here. Mr. Hudson moved to continue Case 00-UV-3 for one month, with a certified letter to be sent to the petitioner requesting that she appear in person at that meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 04-V-37. Petition of Ronald A. Loverich, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, P.O. Box 2357, Valparaiso, seeking approval for a Variance to permit the development into individual lots or parcels without frontage on an improved public street and to allow access to said lots on parcels on less than a 60-foot wide easement, to be located on the North side of CR 875 N., one-half mile West of CR 200 W., in Liberty Township. (This Case was tabled at the November 17, 2004 meeting.) Attorney Todd Leeth stated that he thinks you should ask for public comment tonight after my presentation. Mr. Robertson asked, didn’t we close the public hearing? Mr. Leeth stated that he’s not sure if it was closed or not, but we have amended the petition slightly. He stated that the proposal hasn’t changed, but the petition has been amended and for those reasons I believe the public hearing should be reoffered to those who many wish to speak. Mr. Robertson stated, that’s very generous of you. He asked, would you like to go ahead then? Mr. Leeth stated that as you indicated, the property in question is on the North side of CR 875 N. and it’s about one-half mile West of CR 200 W., in Liberty Township. He stated that Mr. Loverich, without my assistance, appeared at the original public hearing on November 17th. He stated that I have provided you a drawing of the property in question. He stated, as you can see, it’s quite unusual. He stated that it’s a 40-acre parcel to the rear of Mr. Loverich’s home. He stated that his mother’s home is on the opposite side of the rather narrow strip of property that connects the 40 acres in the back to a 7.7-acre parcel that narrows to its frontage on CR 875 to a distance of just under 45 feet in width. He stated that Mr. Loverich’s proposal is to take that 40-acre parcel in the back, divide it into four 10-acre parcels. He stated, by your definition, that is not a subdivision, because each of those parcels are 10 acres or greater. He stated, but, what we also want to do is to create buildable sites there which require frontage on a public road, and that frontage, or access then, also need to be 60 feet or greater. He stated that we only have 45 feet, so, therefore, we have two variances that we are requesting, both of which are developmental standard variances. He stated that the first is to have access on a private road of less than 60 feet; the 45 feet that we’re showing on that drawing, as well as a Variance to allow each of the four parcels to be allowed a building permit and a buildable site in the event that they have no frontage on a publicly approved and dedicated road. He stated that after the meeting on the hearing in November there was some questions, primarily from a developmental standards issues -- road access, visibility at the intersection of this private road and so forth -- so this body forwarded this case to TAC. He stated that Mr. Loverich and I appeared at the Technical Advisory Committee on December 10th, and again on January 7th, and following those two meetings, they made a favorable recommendation, and I think a fair interpretation of their actions would be provided that there would be some conditions, and those conditions are found in the TAC minutes of January 7th, and they are: 1. that the driveway be at least 20 feet wide for the first 50 feet off the North edge of the existing pavement; 2. that there be three signs -- a stop sign, a no-outlet sign and a private road sign; 3. that Rule 5 be adhered to, which, of course, is state law, so that’s true no matter what, but, again, that was one of their conditions; 4. that a driveway dedication be made; 5. that there be tapers at the entrance so that school buses or delivery trucks could pull off the traveled portion of 875 in the event that school children would have to be picked up or that mail delivery in that location. He stated that all of those conditions, of course, are reasonable, and acceptable to Mr. Loverich. He stated that in addition, and perhaps most importantly, there was a concern that if we were to create these four parcels that they could once again be subdivided in the future, not necessarily by Mr. Loverich, but by somebody who would purchase one, and, to address that concern, Mr. Loverich has agreed, and I’ve provided you with a draft copy, of an agreement for written commitments, which is allowed by state law to condition your approval upon the limitation that those parcels not be further subdivided, and if anybody wanted to change those, Mr. Loverich or one of the purchasers of these four parcels, they would have to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals and obtain your permission to change the written commitments. He stated, with the conditions that TAC has imposed and the agreement that Mr. Loverich has made through the document, the contract, if you will, between himself as the property owner and the Board of Zoning Appeals, then we can, I think, address all the concerns that came about as I reviewed the minutes of this Board from November. He stated that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have or those that might come up through the public comment. Mr. Brickner asked, that driveway that you have depicted, does your house and then is it your mother’s house...which driveway...there’s two blocked-out driveways that go off of 875 going North, which driveway is it that you are planning to use to get back to this parcel? He asked, is either one of those blacktop? He asked, is it the gravel road or is the gravel road on the other side? Mr. Leeth stated that it’s going to be a new road. He stated that the two driveways will more than likely be abandoned and a new driveway put in. Mr. Brickner stated, so, neither one of those driveways are going to be... Mr. Leeth stated that the new road will probably go in between both of them. Mr. Brickner stated that the concern is that that’s a really heavily traveled road now because it goes from -- it’s a cut across; it goes from 149 over to 200 and, my goodness, the traffic on that road is and if you ever come out of, what is it, Dalke Road there, you know...and that driveway, that area, there is a curve and a hill right there, a little bit of a hill with a bridge over Salt Creek and then there’s a curve just to the East of that and the vision with all those big trees there, that’s a tough place to get in and out of any time of day when I’m over there, and I’m kind of concerned about the safety of having traffic coming on and off of that road in that particular area. He stated that that’s a concern of mine, is the safety. He stated that all those things that you mentioned, I’m really glad that you mentioned those, Todd, because I was bound and determined this was not going to be a good place to have an access-egress road, until I heard some of the things that you plan to do with that road. Mr. Leeth stated that when we went back to TAC I reviewed the minutes from November, and, of course, that was one of your concerns that came through in your minutes loud and clear, and so, when we appeared in front of TAC first in December, we addressed that issue and Mr. Schelling from the Highway Department was well aware of that, and I think one of the things we did between the December 10th appearance at TAC and when we reappeared in January is we took photographs and Mr. Schelling then had the opportunity in the interim as well to visit the property and his memory was refreshed viewing the photographs, and I think he...I don’t want to misstate what the minutes show, but I don’t think the minutes show Mr. Schelling’s understanding that he felt that the sight distances were perfectly fine. Mr. Brickner stated, of course, the other concern we had was the number of families that were going to be back there, and sometime in the future, if I were to buy a parcel, a 10-acre parcel, I’d tell my son to go ahead and build his house back there and give him 5 acres and then the next guy would do the same thing, you’re talking about having an awful lot of traffic coming in and out of that subdivision, rather than just four families, but these guarantees that you’re making here, commitments that you’re making, are going to say that it’s one residence per 10 acres, is that right? Mr. Leeth stated, that’s correct, on the 40 acres in the back. He stated that we’ve still got that 7 acres, but that one could not be subdivided, we couldn’t get a building permit without some type of variance again from the Board of Zoning Appeals, so that may be in the future. He stated that I don’t want to mislead you and suggest that there won’t be a fifth house back there on that 7 acres, but today that would require an additional approval; four homes on 40 acres is the proposal before you. Mr. Robertson asked, just to help me out here, why is it that you can’t go one way or the other and make that wider there, that 44 feet, why can’t you make it 60 feet? He asked, is it that you don't own the property on both sides? Mr. Loverich stated, we own the property on the one side, on the West side. Mr. Robertson stated, and there’s that house there. He asked, would it encroach upon that house? Mr. Leeth stated, there’s an out building here that’s in fairly close proximity. He stated that there’s only a few feet from that building before this parcel starts. Mr. Robertson asked, is that out building attached to the main house? Mr. Leeth stated, it is not. He stated that it’s a garage and workshop for Mr. Loverich. Mr. Robertson stated, and the other side belongs to your neighbor there. He asked, have you approached him at all about buying that land? Mr. Loverich stated, my mother lives on the other side, and so, yes, it’s possible to make it additional, but the traffic I’m expecting with only four homes, years ago we thought that 45 feet would be an access for that back section, when we laid out the whole thing. He stated that I built and then my dad built and my mom’s there now, so that’s the reasons. Mr. Burns stated that the issues I had was the multiple driveways and you’re going to do away with the multiple driveways. He stated that the other issue was, could you gain some more space from adjacent property and you just answered that question. He stated that it appears you can, possibly. Mr. Leeth stated, one, we’re not sure, and two, the driveway isn’t going to be 60 feet wide or 45 feet wide, quite frankly. He stated that it’s going to be much narrower than that. He stated that your county roads are between 20 and 24 feet wide, so we’re going to have something that’s going to be much smaller than that. He stated that we simply, in my opinion, don’t need a right-of-way that’s 60 feet wide to service four homes, if you count Mr. Loverich’s home and the neighboring home, that’s six homes. Mr. Burns asked, but you’re going to have just one driveway. Mr. Leeth stated, we’re going to have one driveway and I think that adds to the safety issue, as well. He stated that we’re removing two driveways off of the County road that will then come off of the new road, in addition to the four homes in the back. Mr. Hudson stated, two questions: The two drives that are there now are both paved? Mr. Leeth stated, that is correct. Mr. Hudson asked, will this driveway be paved back for a distance, I mean at least to the first two homes, to access the first two? Mr. Leeth stated, we can do that. Mr. Hudson asked, they’re actually paved back to the two homes right now, right? Mr. Leeth stated, right. He stated that we clearly...it’s paved to the first two homes and then the idea is, hopefully, we will have the funds as those homes are built to go further. He stated that the property is quite large -- it’s 40 acres -- so it’s going to be quite an endeavor to pave all that. Mr. Hudson stated, I’m just concerned that you’re replacing...I mean I like the fact that you’re taking two drives and making one, but if you could make that drive, pave back at least as far as it is now... Mr. Leeth stated that it keeps the stone off the County road, as well. Mr. Hudson asked, do you plan on recording the commitment? Mr. Leeth stated that it has to be. Mr. Robertson stated, Rich, I’d just like to ask you, what’s your feeling on the suitability of 45 feet here for these possibly six houses? Mr. Hudson stated, well, I guess if you think about the right-of-way for a typical County road up until zoning came about in the ‘50s or ‘60s, there was a 50-foot right-of-way, so actually he’s got 5 more feet, or almost 5 more feet than a typical right-of-way was for a rural area and his area for his 40 acres is still going to be rural, then I guess I don’t see -- the 60-foot right-of-way makes sense if you’ve got many more houses. He stated that if he was to do 4 houses on each one of those 10 acres, then you’re talking 16 homes, then I might be concerned. He stated, especially since he’s only going back 80 feet, or 200 and something, and then it winds up to be 60 feet back there. John Schrader, 978 Meridian Road, stated that my only question is was the neighboring residents notified of this? Mr. Leeth stated, yes. Mr. Robertson asked, do you have the cards and so forth? Mr. Schrader stated, I’m just wondering about Louis Haas lived there right across from Domke Road and I was just wondering whether he was notified. Mr. Leeth stated that Mr. Loverich advises that he’s more than 300 feet away. Mr. Robertson stated, he’s not on the list here and they say he’s not within the notification distance. Mr. Schrader stated, I don't know if he was within the 300 feet. Mr. Robertson stated that if he wasn’t he wouldn’t have been notified. Mr. Schrader stated (inaudible). Mr. Robertson stated, well, if it turns out that he is then he’ll have something he can say, but it’s our understanding right now that he would not have to have been notified, and he was not notified. Ms. Tallien stated, Todd, one of the things you have suggested -- I’ve been reading over the written commitments -- one of the things that you talked about was removing two drives from 875 and making it into one -- that’s not in the written commitments? Mr. Leeth stated, no. Ms. Tallien asked, is that something that you intended to put into there? Mr. Leeth stated that we can modify the commitments to do that. He stated that that was not something that was in the commitments, because at the November meeting the big issue was further subdivision and we can add that in, yes. Ms. Tallien stated, I just was unclear. Mr. Robertson stated that also I’d like...perhaps you could add Rich’s idea about paving it the first distance back. Mr. Hudson stated, at least back to the front of the two homes there. Mr. Robertson asked, there’s adequate coverage in there for to keep further development..? Ms. Tallien stated, I wasn’t there. She stated that I didn't have any problem with that, but I did notice about the driveways. Mr. Burns asked, did I understand that the driveway for the 7.7 acres would be the same driveway as for the four 10-acre lots? Mr. Leeth stated, I have no idea. He stated that Mr. Loverich’s intentions now are to leave it as it is, but I don't want to leave you with the impression that there never will be a home there. Mr. Burns stated, I understand that there may be a home, but will we be back to a second driveway? He asked, if there’s a home, would there be a second driveway? Mr. Leeth stated, I would think that...I mean, it’s a perfect opportunity for them to use the same driveway. Mr. Hudson stated, I mean, that’s that 7.7 acres’ only access? Mr. Leeth stated, yes. Mr. Burns stated, my concern was that there would be a second driveway again. Mr. Leeth stated that it’s got to come through that 44 feet. Mr. Burns stated, okay, that’s fine. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-V-37 with the written commitments and it should include the single driveway and the paved portion back to the first two homes. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Brickner asked, does that include all the recommendations made by the TAC committee? Mr. Robertson stated, well, let’s see: What recommendations did they make beyond the commitments? Mr. Brickner stated, there was the stop sign, the widening of the approach. Mr. Leeth stated, I can bring in all of the Technical Advisory Committee’s conditions into the written commitments from their January 7th meeting. Mr. Brickner stated, because we don’t have those in front of us. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-V-37 with the written commitments and it should include the single driveway and the paved portion back to the first two homes and that the commitments also include all the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee, incorporating the petitioner‘s proposed findings of fact, 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 Public Hearings: At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for a public hearing. Case 05-V-1. Petition of Bruce Dudek, 1801 Georgia St., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum required lot size for a residence in an R-1 zone serviced by municipal utilities from 12,000 square feet to 8,381 square feet, to be located at 1801 Georgia St., in Center Township. Mr. Dudek stated that I’m requesting a developmental standard Variance. He stated that I would like to take 2,574 feet from my current home on this and just square up the lot because this is an irregularly shaped lot here and I have an empty lot next door that’s irregularly shaped, so, in order to put a new home on this lot here I need approximately 2,570 square feet by just taking...this is a current border... (At this time, Mr. Dudek posted a drawing on the wall of the configuration.) Mr. Dudek stated that currently I have a home here on Lot 48 and the current boundary between this lot and the empty lot is this dotted line here, so my proposal is to take this dotted line and bring it over here, so it gives approximately 2,570 square feet to this lot here, then these three lots would be similar in size so then I would be able to put in a small ranch home here with the proper front and rear borders. He stated that currently there are, I think, 6 spruce trees that are now along this new proposed boundary currently, so, from an aesthetic viewpoint, if someone were to go out and look at it now, they’d have a general idea of the difference between the two lots. No one spoke in favor of this petition. David Short, 1708 Burlington Beach Road, stated that my property also borders his extension there that he’s talking about. He stated that my only question is that for instance, the shut-off valve for my water line would be in his yard. He stated that if anything ever happened, I would be up beside his house or in his back yard to fix my problem. He stated, for instance, my neighbor’s water line this summer broke, and it involved digging up a section of that property to actually fix it, too. He stated, I mean, I would hate to be in somebody’s back yard digging a hole to fix a water line that actually pertained to my house. He stated, that’s all...my only concern, is I don't want to be on somebody else’s property to...in their back yard or maybe a kid’s swing set or something be in the way to actually solve a problem. Susan Gustafson, 1802 Georgia St., stated that I live right across the street. She stated that our concern is mostly traffic and flooding. She stated, especially when it rains in the springtime, the rain flows down the street and down that property, down Clayton Street and floods out our neighbor to the West and their neighbor to the West because that land slopes drastically and we have a ditch right behind our property. She stated that our neighbors to the West have that ditch flowing through their back yard, and the neighbor to the West of them generally has a flooded yard come springtime because of the rain that’s flowing down that property. She stated, secondly, the traffic is starting to get pretty heavy down that road because they’re using it as a bypass from Burlington Beach Road and all we need is more traffic on that road and more people trying to access it because there’s a new house going up. She stated that that area is already tight and, as that gentleman said, there is a water main behind that property and I saw the construction when they were trying to fix it, and I work for the water department so I heard the horror stories and that’s an old line, and it’s breaking some more and they’re not planning to replace it any time soon. At this time, Mr. Siminski read a letter in opposition to this petition from a Mr. Pryatel. The letter is in the file. Mr. Dudek stated that in regards to the water line, the water line does run along this rear border here, but it has the standard access that utilities are supposed to have. He stated that the new footprint of the home stays within the proper Variance for the front, as well as the back. He stated that there is a swale in front of this house now that currently will take the water away. He stated that it’s going to be a one-level ranch; it’s not going to be...there is still plenty of property along the border with Charles Street and Georgia Street. Mr. Short asked, is this going to be a rental property? He stated that I would be curious to know if it was a rental property and, if so, what was his standard for who he would rent to and who he wouldn’t. Ms. Gustafson stated, as the lady mentioned in the letter, his renter on the other property is parking on the street. She stated that I would like to know what other parking facilities are going to be available to this new house. She stated, yes, I’m aware of the swale. She stated that the swale doesn’t carry the water anywhere except down the street to Clayton to the ditch and to the properties that are getting flooded out. Mr. Burns asked, can you show us on the map where you are talking about? Ms. Gustafson stated, well, it doesn’t really show up on this map. She stated that the water usually flows this way, because this all slopes, it slopes this way, this way and there is also a culvert in in here (squealing of a mike; inaudible) a small detention pond behind this house, but it also floods in the back if it rains too hard and it also flows down the street like a small river when it rains too hard. She stated that it flows down here into her back yard, into his front and back yard and then it will flow into the ditch and into her back yard and our neighbor to our East, as well, and then it flows into a retention pond that heads off to Flint Lake, but sometimes the flow in here is not very good so it floods very badly in this area. Mr. Dudek stated that it’s not going to be rental property. He stated that I have a friend who wants to buy the piece of property because he wants to build a home for his mom and dad. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Burns asked, did this go in front of TAC about the flooding issue or not? Mr. Robertson stated, I don't think it will go before TAC unless we ask it to. Mr. Burns stated, I’m concerned about the flooding. Mr. Hudson stated, I guess my biggest concern would be any drainage issues that would be created or exacerbated by the development of this. He stated, the issue of the water main, I don't think that that’s...I would agree that there’s most likely enough room to get back in there. He stated, the fact that the kids play in this area, I’m not sure that that’s a... Mr. Brickner stated, I think it’s a bad idea to take an undersized piece of property and take footage away from that to add to another undersized piece of land so he can build a house on it and then you end up with two of them that are way under the minimum. He stated that to me this sounds like a really bad idea. He stated, the flooding and everything not withstanding, I think it’s a poor way to squeeze another house in here and I’m not in favor of this at all. Mr. Robertson stated, our attorney brought up, if it’s actually asking a Variance for two properties because it’s going to take one property and make it undersized, as well as another one and it’s making the second property undersized. He asked, were the people notified within 300 feet of that? He stated that it could be a notification problem. Mr. Burns stated that it might be one of the cases where the parcel is not buildable. He stated that there are some parcels in this County that are not buildable. Mr. Robertson stated that we okayed that one lot right across the way and he built that huge house that takes up the whole area there and that kind of maxed out the whole...I’m not so sure I’m in favor of this either. Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 05-V-1, finding that the grant would be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property would be affected in a substantially adverse manner; the need for the Variance does not arise from a condition peculiar to the property; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Robertson stated that our attorney was questioning about the findings. He stated that she kind of was questioning if she should be writing these, so we’ll add the findings afterwards and they will be incorporated in the minutes. Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 05-V-1, finding that the grant would be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property would be affected in a substantially adverse manner; the need for the Variance does not arise from a condition peculiar to the property; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - yes Robertson - Yes Case 05-V-2. Petition of Bernard Madej, 5583 Paw Paw Lake Road, Coloma, MI, seeking a Variance from the required lot area and lot width for a major subdivision, Damon Run, said Variances previously approved by the Plan Commission, to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road in Liberty Township. Mike Duffy stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that Damon Run was approved by the Plan Commission in February 2003 with the Variances on lot width and lot area. He stated that due to Judge Alexa’s ruling we have to now appear before the BZA for an administrative act to grant final approval for the subdivision. He stated that I’d be happy to answer any questions anybody might have. Jeff Barco, 18013 Griffey Ct., Orland Park, IL, stated that I work with Mr. Madej and I would like to support this project. J.F. Schrader, 978 Meridian Road, stated that first of all this project was approved in 2003 and I understand you want to relocate Arm III of Damon Run ditch to put this subdivision in and you have never applied for a permit from the Army Corps nor Indiana water quality control to have that stream moved. He stated that for that reason I don’t believe it should be approved at this time until they get the permits. He stated that another thing, I don’t believe this subdivision meets our present comprehensive plan, which is for, although not approved, which is providing space (inaudible) out in the rural area and for that reason I don’t think the Board should approve the Variance for smaller lots and another reason, these small lots out in the country I consider to be simply ghettos in the country and they have a problem: One is we’ve had before, which is the disposal of sewage which they are going to take to Chesterton, they say. He stated that the other one is storm water, which I imagine they figure on draining to Damon Run. He stated, now, they have got the water running the wrong way. He stated that the water in half that subdivision does not run East; it is assessed by the County to drain West. He stated, and another thing, they have a third water, the water from the sump pumps in the basements. He stated, in the case of Fox Chase Farms, why, the developer would not let them put that water in either the sewage or the storm water, and not in the storm water, I imagine they would be required to have to get an NPDS permit, so, consequently, that water has been drained onto the neighboring farmland, which is not right; it should not be, so, for that reason, I’m against this rezoning (sic). Loren Dzur, 875 N. Meridian, stated that I’m the one that’s down below that’s going to get all the water off this. He asked, have they changed this plan from the first one much? He asked, are they still running that ditch along the fence to the East in a culvert, or are they going to run it in an open ditch? He stated that they’ve changed it so many times, one time it was supposed to go through a 9-foot culvert, then they come back and said they were going to put it in an open ditch. He stated that I’d like to know something about that holding pond below there; it’s not big enough, I don't figure, to hold the water that they’re going to dump into there. He stated that it will flow right over top into my fields. He stated that I make my living in crop, grain crop and stuff like that and I can’t be flooded out by this. He stated that they have flow that 13 acres the wrong way all ready. He stated that it flows that to the creek and it should go West. He stated that it barely flows that way and they turned around and took that East, which ain’t right and down near the road there, the water hole below the entrance, right now it’s filling up. He stated that I don’t know if the tile under the road that flows West is plugged up or it’s just plain (inaudible) up. He stated that it ain’t going to be too long I’m going to have water in the basement out of that. He stated that if they put their surface water draining in there, that will make it 10 times worse on me, unless they get that opened up underneath the road there to flow it West, where it should flow. He stated, I don't know; it ain’t flowing no more like it did. He stated that I’m concerned about the water. He stated that you can't stop progress. He stated that if they’re going to build it, they’re going to build it, I suppose, but don’t flood me out down below. Mr. Duffy stated, Mr. Dzur’s comment, nothing has changed from what was approved by the Plan Commission. He stated that this is merely because of the judge’s ruling that we have to come back here and get the standards Variances approved. He stated that as far as the permit that was questioned, that is currently being pursued. He stated that right now we can't do any work to the ditch until that’s in place, and the state’s approved it and everything is all set with that. He stated that the lot width would, the lots, as they sit right now, which would come through under the intensity bonus with the greenspace ruling that came through the Plan Commission, they would all qualify, if it came back through. Charlie Ray stated that he is with Duneland Group and that we also meet all the requirements of the Stormwater Board and TAC for drainage and everything’s been designed for a 100-year event, so water won’t flood Mr. Dzur’s property. He stated that we’ve also worked with Kevin Breitzke (inaudible, someone coughing), the house that always floods to one side, we’re working with them on trying to alleviate that problem, too, so there have been a lot of things working with Kevin and the Drainage Board all along to take care of that problem. He stated that that’s one reason why the water runs in the other direction. Mr. Schrader stated that I checked today with the state and you have never applied for a permit for that, to move that stream. He stated that I understand that you are building houses on the present stream site and there has never been any permit applied for with the Army Corps or with the Indiana Water Quality over those two-year period and the water is assessed West. He stated that half of the property, the water is assessed West. He stated that there is a tile in there. He stated that the County put the tile in and it was supposed to drain the corner of 900 and Meridian Road, but the tile never reached 900 and Meridian Road. He stated that the tile was diverted into the wetlands on that property, so now they are saying that they’re going to drain all the water to the East to Damon Run and it can't run that way. He stated that the old, next to Mr. Dzur’s property, is tiled West. He stated, now if that’s left the way...I’d like to see them try to drain that East; they can't do it. Don Tracey, 153 W, 850 N., stated that everything that people can find fault is in the subdivision itself; it’s what the subdivision leads to. He stated that the subdivision is going to be built on a creek called Damon Run. He stated that Damon Run used to be a regulated drain. He stated that I understand it’s small when it starts. He stated that when it goes through my property, it’s 16 to 20 foot wide. He stated that it carries the runoff of five trailer parks, school, sewage treatment plants. He stated that all of a sudden it’s not just a little stream anymore and I understand they were going to build culverts to take it away. He stated that maybe they have the best thing in the world there, but any time you take property, build homes, the runoff is three times as fast as unimproved. He stated that everybody knows that. He stated that farmland holds more. He stated that a lawn doesn’t hold water, plus you put all kinds of chemicals on it. He stated that it is no more like country. He stated that what this is going to affect is the people downstream. He stated that if you went down there, the County does not look at Damon Run as a regulated drain no more. He stated that the way they look at a regulated drain, you take a petition, you go to your neighbors, we’ll tax you and we’ll come clean it up. He stated that that ain’t the way it used to be. He stated that when Mike Aylesworth used to be head of the Drainage Board you went to him and said, we’ve got a problem, and they responded. He stated that as you go down to Barney Michaels, we’ve got $6,000, clean it up. He stated that this is the problem of a subdivision out in farmland. Mr. Dzur asked, is this two fellows here, are they the same ones that came in with this other proposal, or are they two different guys; has somebody else taken over this? He stated that Walker walked that ditch and he said my ditch is not big enough to take it. He stated that when they were starting the subdivision they said that they would come down and help clean that ditch out and I’m just wondering if you guys are the same guys, the same bunch that’s going to hold your word on that. Mr. Ray stated that we’re the same company that’s doing it. He stated that we’re the ones that talked to you at the hearing and I was the one you talked to at the hearing. Mr. Duffy stated, I was the one outside when we went and looked at your property and the ditch. Mr. Dzur stated, I don’t recall, is why I’m asking the question, because that ditch needs help and if you guys agreed... Mr. Duffy stated that that’s part of the work we’ve been doing with Kevin to make sure that that doesn’t affect you at all. Mr. Dzur stated, I’d like to have it in the minutes that this subdivision is going to have to put up with cattle smells from John Sanders and from me and this will be what they’ll have to put up with. He stated that I may be gone two years from now or I may be here five years. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Robertson stated, just to understand, this was approved by the Plan Commission, but it was really done, according to Judge Alexa, not under the rule of law, is that right? He stated, the Variances that the Plan Commission approved do not have the legal right to do, so Variances can only be granted by the BZA. He stated, so they’re here to us to ask us now to grant these. He stated that we’re not under any obligation either to approve or disapprove. He stated that we have our own authority, so this is a new case to us. He stated that it’s not a carry-over case from the Plan Commission. Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Chairman, does this meet our new open space ordinance? Mr. Robertson stated, they say it does. Mr. Burns asked, do we know that from our side? Mr. Robertson asked, did anybody look at that? Mr. Burns stated, not that I don't believe you guys, it’s just from our side. Mr. Duffy stated, I believe it had to be just 20 acres out of the 75. Mr. Burns asked, are you counting retention ponds, detention ponds, in that number? Mr. Ray stated that there’s one here and there’s a wetlands here which would qualify as features. He stated that when we did this at Plan Commission, because they were giving us these allowances, they made us have a lot of open space and that’s why we went that way. he stated, in reality, if we’d gone back today, we would get an intensity bonus because of the added open space, we would actually still go because you’re allowed to go 70 foot on the frontages, which is were we’re at. He stated that it’s just that back then, when we took it through the first time, they gave the Variance at the time of primary plat approval because the lot coverage is actually far less than what would be authorized in R-1. Mr. Burns asked, how about the permit for Damon Run? Mr. Ray stated that we’re working with Earth Source right now. He stated, in fact, we talked to them last week to get moving on it to get it taken care of and we couldn’t start any work anyway until we got that permit, so, as far as construction or anything, we couldn’t begin it anyway. Mr. Burns stated, but, if you don't get the permit, it changes your plans, is that correct? Mr. Ray stated, yeah, well, the ditch runs like this, it’s a meandering ditch that runs down through here and what we were going to do is to move it over here and then down and what we’re going to do is to tube it so there wouldn’t be as much sand wash going down into Mr. Dzur’s property as is happening right now through scouring. He stated that we’re also going to detain it up here and through this area right here. He stated that the County already has a pipe that runs down through here, taking the water this direction and it’s not functioning very well and we’re going to fix that. He stated that that would alleviate a lot of flooding over here in this person’s property. He stated that either way, we cannot discharge any more than what... Mr. Duffy stated that we’re actually reduced far below what we’re allowed. Mr. Ray stated, yeah, I think we’re allowed a 15-year release rate, 10 year? He stated, and we’re four below that, so to make sure that we didn’t have any water running off on Mr. Dzur’s property, and we also wanted to make sure that when you were out there that you were going to help clean up part of this ditch and run it down and try to restructure it because of these sand washouts. Mr. Duffy stated that it’s important to remember that currently, right now, the water onsite goes directly into that ditch. He stated that now it’s being collected into our storm system, detained, and then released back into it at a far less rate than when it was pouring into it before, so, in addition to lowering the release rate, we’re also lowering our own water that’s entering. Mr. Burns asked, what size of tube will it be engineered for? Mr. Duffy stated, 72 inch. Mr. Ray stated, and it won’t run full. He stated that the reason it’s 72 inches is because of the flatness. He stated that what happens is with the flatter pipe, you get a certain quantity through and you have to go with a larger diameter, and the reason is the hydraulic radius on the bottom, so the pipe would never run full because we’re metering into that pipe, but it had to be that hydraulic radius to get our 5-year outflow. Mr. Burns asked, will it handle a 100-year rain? Mr. Ray stated that the pipe would never see a 100-year rain, because it’s metered before it gets to that, but the whole system has been designed for 100 year. Mr. Brickner stated, Mr. Chairman, I agree with everybody that spoke here tonight. He stated that this is really, really a bad place for a subdivision, but that’s not what we’re hearing tonight. He stated that we’re only hearing lot size Variance, that’s what this particular case is about, the size of the lots, and I’m looking at this plat, half of the lots in here are under our minimum. He stated that some of them are barely 8,000 square feet. He stated that I don’t think we could approve anything like that, not when over half of them are that size. He stated that there’s only a few lots in here that meet the minimum requirement for lot size. He stated that I don’t know how many -- I didn’t count them -- but if you take 11,000 square feet, there aren’t very many lots on this whole thing that are 11,000 square feet. He stated that most of them are 8, 9, 10. Mr. Duffy stated, in fact, there’s almost 50 percent that are over 11,000 square feet. Mr. Brickner stated, I didn’t count them up, but all these in the middle of the subdivision are under, some of them are barely 8,000 square feet, but, at any rate, the idea for having those smaller lot sizes is to get as many houses in this subdivision as possible, and the fact that this subdivision is poorly located and poorly designed and in a runoff area that’s highly polluted, I think that the Board’s objective should be to get as few houses in this subdivision as possible, and that this Variance for minimum square footage should be denied. He stated, I think this is a bad idea, to put this many houses in a subdivision under the minimum. Mr. Hudson stated that I’m not sure that everybody understands the new open space ordinance and I think if you took the overall lot size, the protection of the natural features, which is being proposed with the open space ordinance, it would appear that the wetlands area along the South property line of the West half have been reserved and I was just going to do the math. He asked, you said 75 acres? Mr. Ray stated, yes. Mr. Hudson stated, I think they’re averaging just a little under a half an acre a lot, and the clustering allows them to do smaller lots with the intensity bonus. He stated that that’s what that is, an intensity bonus. He stated that it allows them to get the same number of lots that they would complying with the ordinance, which, I believe, is 11,000 square feet, so it allows them, if they do protect the natural features up to the percentage that it is, that they are allowed to have the reduction in lot size because of that. He stated that that’s my interpretation. He stated, now, it’s a new ordinance and they didn’t come under that when they got their approval, but the fact that of the judge’s ruling brought them to us, so, I think the fact that, if we’re going to deny it, I’m not sure that’s the right...I’m not sure we’re the right body to deny it, because it’s been approved. He stated that the drainage has been looked at. He stated that it’s providing sewer and water. Mr. Brickner asked, has the sewage disposal plant been approved? Mr. Ray stated that it will actually be going to Portage. He stated that the other thing, too, is that it will have Indiana American Water. Mr. Burns stated, I thought it was going to Chesterton. Mr. Ray stated that this is part of the Damon Run Conservancy District and it is working with Portage, they have an agreement that they are finalizing right now, so I don’t know exactly. Mr. Burns asked, when do you find out? Mr. Ray stated, probably by the end of the week. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-2 to the 3-16-05 BZA meeting for the Board to investigate a little bit further and for the petitioner to have more definite facts as to who is going to supply the utilities. Discussion: Mr. Ray stated that we know that Indiana American Water is going to supply the water and the sewage, as far as it stands right now, it’s going to be Portage. Mr. Burns stated, see, I understood it was going to be Chesterton in the past, so that’s a change. Mr. Ray stated, what happened was, this originally, when Damon Run first started, Damon Run was going to go to Portage. Mr. Burns stated, no, it was going to have its own system. Mr. Ray stated, what happened was, another subdivision, Eagle Ridge subdivision, which was approved last year, they are located at 200 and Route 6, and I think you’ve seen them starting construction over there, because of that subdivision and the trailer parks wanting to tie in, and some other people in the corner, Portage worked out some deal, because they wanted to pick up along Route 6, 149, Portage, so that’s how the deal was worked out and actually they are finalizing the agreement now. Mr. Burns asked, but you don't have the final agreement right now? Mr. Ray stated, well, we do have an agreement now, but it’s not signed. He stated that it will be signed, I’d say probably within this week. Mr. Duffy stated, which would be handled as a final plat issue, because if we didn't have proof of municipal tie-up for sewage, we wouldn’t be granted any building permits or final plat. Mr. Hudson asked, who is signing this agreement? He asked, is this between the Board of Public Works of Portage and the Conservancy District? Mr. Ray stated, that’s correct. Mr. Hudson asked, so, it goes to the Board of Works meeting in Portage then? Mr. Ray stated, right. Mr. Brickner stated, well, maybe we should continue this. Mr. Burns stated, I’d feel better continuing this. Mr. Robertson stated, we should get a report from TAC on the drainage. He stated that I don’t know if we can get a report from the Plan Commission on the greenspace, if it would meet the greenspace ordinance or not. Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t think they technically have to, but it would appear, looking at it, that they have. Mr. Robertson stated, well, if it was denied, and they had to go back and redo it, it would fall under the greenspace. Mr. Hudson stated, correct. He stated, if this Board denied it. He stated, I’m not sure that...their development standards, you’re looking lot width and lot area. Mr. Ray stated, well, if you got the intensity bonus, we would actually meet the ordinance because of the new open space ordinance, which says that nothing 8,000 feet can have 70-foot wide lots and that’s the smallest one we have. He stated, 48 percent have 11,000...50 percent are between 10 and 11,000; 15 percent are between 10,000 and 11,000; 18 percent are between 9,000 and 10,000, so, there’s a very small percent that’s down around the 8,000 range and they would still be allowed utilizing the intensity bonus, under the current ordinance. He stated that we could actually go denser if we came back through again. Mr. Brickner asked, does 8,000 or 10,000 foot preclude the use of a septic field? Mr. Hudson stated, yes. Mr. Ray stated that we cannot do the subdivision unless we have sewer and water. Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, that’s what I was getting at, so, if you don't get an agreement with Portage, then you have to build a sewage disposal plant. Mr. Ray stated, no, we wouldn’t do that. Mr. Brickner stated, but, you can’t have individual septic fields. Mr. Ray stated, we wouldn’t develop it at all because that was part...the Plan Commission did say that you had to have a disposal system. Mr. Robertson asked, was there also a request for smaller roads? Mr. Ray stated, the roads are the right size. Mr. Robertson stated, they are, that wasn’t part of your... Mr. Ray stated, no, everything is County standards. Ms. Tallien asked, was this subdivision done under a PUD ordinance? Mr. Duffy stated, no, it was not, it was approved as a straight R-1 subdivision with Variances. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-2 to the March 16, 2005 meeting to make sure that they have the final resolution of utilities and also if TAC can give a report on the drainage and for Bob Thompson to look at the open space. Discussion: Mr. Brickner asked, do you have any idea when you are going to finalize this with Portage? Mr. Ray stated that we got the agreement and they are reviewing it right now, so we should have something in the next week or two. Mr. Brickner asked, so, continuing it for one month, we would know at that time, by this time next month we would know about the agreement with Portage for septic. Mr. Hudson stated, but there’s still going to be...either they’re not...is there a second? Mr. Robertson stated, no, no one’s seconded it. Mr. Hudson stated, whether they go to Chesterton or whether they go to Portage is immaterial. He stated that the subdivision is not going to go without offsite sewage. He stated that they are not doing the sewage treatment facility onsite, then the question here is that it would appear that they do meet the current ordinance, but they were approved under a prior ordinance, as Mike said, as a straight R-1 subdivision with variances, they’re still going to have the same layout, the same lot widths and they meet the current, which the current ordinance...which they’re not subject to, is that correct? Mr. Ray stated, correct. He stated that you didn't have the current open space ordinance at the time this went through, so you didn't have the intensity bonus, but now you do have the intensity bonus by protecting the wetlands and things like that, which we have done all along, so by going with an intensity bonus, we could go down to 8,000 square feet lots and 70-foot wide lots, and most of our lots are much larger than that, so I would imagine we could go with even more lots. Mr. Hudson stated, you could take them all down to 8,000 square feet. Mr. Ray stated, right, but that’s not the purpose of what we wanted to do. He stated that we just had one section in there that had smaller lots and that was it. Mr. Brickner stated, so, you’re saying you protected the wetlands, you did all that before you even knew about the intensity bonus. Mr. Duffy stated, correct. Mr. Brickner stated, so, the intensity bonus now is strictly to get more houses in the subdivision, as many as you possibly can. Mr. Ray stated, the intensity bonus, we would quality...the whole purpose... He stated, the intensity bonus is really to do as Rich said, which is to allow clustering of houses and leaving major open areas. He stated that some people agree with it, some people don’t. Mr. Brickner stated, but you were going to protect the wetlands anyway. Mr. Ray stated, right, you’re exactly right. Mr. Burns stated that my concern is that we have one subdivision in the County now where we have utility problems, Falling Waters, off of 100 S., okay, and that’s my concern. Mr. Hudson asked, they’re having what? Mr. Burns stated, utility issues. Mr. Hudson asked, getting utilities to them? Mr. Burns stated, yeah, the developer committed to a certain utility, okay, and it’s not working out, and there are residents in that subdivision that have major concerns, with letters written back and forth through attorneys. Mr. Ray stated, we can’t even build... Mr. Duffy stated, that can’t happen here. Mr. Burns stated, well, what happened is that they built the subdivision and the developer did not follow through on his commitments for utilities. He stated that it was a private utility company and some issues... Mr. Hudson asked, is your concern just the utilities? He asked, am I hearing that you don't have a problem with the Variances they’re requesting; you just want to make sure that the utilities are in hand. Mr. Burns stated, the utilities are in hand, and also the permit for Damon Run changing the ditch. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-2 to the March 16, 2005 meeting to make sure that they have the final resolution of utilities and also if TAC can give a report on the drainage and for Bob Thompson to look at the open space. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Hudson stated that the drainage issue should have been resolved at the Plan Commission. He stated that that’s a matter of looking at the record and I don’t know that they need to go back to TAC. Mr. Burns stated, just look at the record. Mr. Hudson stated, the record should... Mr. Robertson stated, and the Damon Run permit... Mr. Burns stated, yes, the DNR permit. Mr. Robertson stated, and a more formal analysis of this compared to the open space ordinance than just speaking. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-2 to the March 16, 2005 meeting to make sure that they have the final resolution of utilities; a review of the record on drainage and for Bob Thompson to give a formal analysis of this in regard to the open space ordinance and for the DNR permit concerning moving the ditch. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-1 voice vote, Mr. Hudson dissenting. Case 05-V-3. Petition of Mark & Kelly Holder, 458 S. 450 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from County code 16.32.020 (A) Streets, to allow lots in a proposed major subdivision to use a private drive not built to County specifications, to be located on the East side of CR 375 E., between CR 1325 N. and CR 1400 N., in Liberty Township. Mr. Siminski stated that there was an issue on this Case with the certified letters going out and they asked to continue to the next month. Mr. Hudson moved to continue Case 05-V-3 to the March 16, 2005 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 05-UV-1. Petition of Allen Watkins, 318 Jodi Lane, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a real estate acquisition, management and marketing business, to be located at 948 N. SR 149, Portage Township. Mr. Watkins stated that I own the property at 948 N. SR 149, approximately 3 and a third acres. He stated that immediately to the North of my property adjoins with property where is located a self-storage rental facility and immediately to the North of that is the I-90 overpass. He stated that immediately to the South and adjoining my property is a subdivision called Country Manor Estates, where my residence is also located. He stated that on the 3.33 acres I have just under 200 feet of frontage on 149 driveway that has my property from 149. He stated that I have a residence, a home, that I have rented out at the front of the property. He stated that 75 feet to the rear of the property is an existing frame building that’s 32 by 42. He stated that it’s a very old building with old metal roofing and siding. He stated that my desire is to remodel that building, put new metal roofing and metal siding on it, and to remodel the interior of that property so that I can house my real estate business within that building. He stated that that is my request before you. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Tim Wenzel, 317 Jodi Lane, stated that he basically answered my question. He stated that I was wondering if it was going to be at his residence, but it’s not. He stated, but, it’s not; it’s going to be on 149. Roger Bradford, 309 Jodi Lane, stated that our property adjoins this property on the South and I guess I have more of a concern and want some assurance that ingress and egress to this business is going to be off of 149. He stated that the residents there often use Leeper Drive, which is a street in the subdivision, and that dead-ends at the property line, and then go up a dirt driveway into the residence. He stated that that’s been fine, because residential traffic isn’t too bad. He stated that I just want assurance that business traffic isn’t going to be using the residential street, but will stay onto 149. Mr. Watkins stated, the one question was, yes, traffic would be entering from 149, and not through the subdivision. He stated, in fact, it would be more complicated to explain to someone how to get to my location through the subdivision, versus, just take 149 to the driveway. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hudson asked, is this on well and septic? Mr. Watkins stated, it’s on, the home itself has city water and is on septic. Mr. Hudson asked, so this would have City water and septic also? Mr. Watkins stated, correct. Mr. Hudson asked, are you going to put in a new septic system... Mr. Watkins stated, no, we’re going to tap into the existing septic, which is 75 feet from where the bathroom would be. He stated that I’ve already talked to a sewer contractor and had him look at it and had him look at the septic and the feasibility of tapping into that, and he said yes, it was very possible that that could be done. Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t know whether the Health Department would agree with that. Mr. Watkins stated that I had talked to the Health Department about that very issue, and they said that would be fine. Mr. Hudson stated, you have to get a permit for that. Mr. Watkins stated, correct. Mr. Brickner stated, the building that he’s going to use is next to a storage unit area. He stated that I think there’s a security fence between your place and the storage unit area. Mr. Watkins stated, that’s correct. Mr. Brickner stated, and I looked at the parking, and there is a turnaround so you can get on and off of 149 without having to back out, there’s a place you can turn around close to the building he’s talking about using and the residence sits up on 149, and I really don’t have a problem as long as we can limit it to a certain number of customers at one time so that we don’t have a whole bunch of people coming in and out of that driveway at one time, but I think it’s not obtrusive at all. Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with this -- just the sign. He asked, are you requesting a sign for your business? Mr. Watkins stated, yes. Mr. Burns asked, what size? Mr. Watkins stated that the storage unit has a sign in front of it that I think is approximately 3 by 6, something like that. He stated, I’m not sure, I haven’t made up my mind about what size of a sign. he asked, what would be allowed? Mr. Robertson stated, there’s really nothing allowed, so... Mr. Watkins stated, I mean it is a main road, and... Mr. Brickner stated that he has a sign now, you know? He asked, that’s your sign, right? Mr. Watkins stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, what’s the size of that sign? Mr. Watkins stated, it’s a standard real estate size sign, like 18 inches by 24 inches, I think. Mr. Brickner stated that it sits on a pole close to the highway. Mr. Robertson stated that signs are always the problem. He stated that we’ve had a problem with Mr. Jury and his sign and he’s on a major highway. Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Chairman, can I see the sign? Mr. Watkins stated that my type of business is not a storefront business, so it’s not like I’m trying to have customers come in off the road; it’s not that type of business. He stated that my rental property management acquisition type of business, I direct those occasionally...even though I encourage tenants to mail the rent, occasionally some want to come to the office to give the rent and contractors occasionally come to the office to pick up their paychecks. He stated that typically paychecks are delivered on the jobsites, but, you know, it’s not a situation where there would be a major traffic flow. Mr. Robertson stated, so, the sign doesn’t really bring people in. Mr. Watkins stated, no, it does not bring people in. He stated that what the sign does is initiate phone calls from people who have a home that they want to sell. Mr. Robertson stated, so, it’s general advertising. Mr. Watkins stated, yes. Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t know if we want to approve.... Mr. Brickner stated, the sign has to go. Mr. Robertson stated, the sign has to go. He stated that I think that’s what everybody is going to say. He stated that you could put a sign in your window. Mr. Brickner stated, that’s my opinion. Mr. Robertson stated, we like people to put signs on their mailboxes. Mr. Hudson stated that I would be in favor of the sign going. Mr. Brickner asked, can we limit this to a certain number of cars...how many people do you have coming in and out of there on an average business day? He asked, what is the most people you would have on an average business day parking in your driveway? Mr. Watkins stated that I have two full-time assistants and two part-time, and they each drive vehicles, so that’s four. He stated that in this large parking area that you observed, there is parking for three cars off to the South side of that parking area. He stated that my tenant parks there, and there’s parking for additional four cars, right up next to where my building is. He stated that I’m going to extend the driveway a bit there where the grass comes right in front of the building, so it would be level with the building, so I feel there is adequate parking. He stated that my tenant is an over the road truck driver, and they are out on the road more often than they are at home. He stated, of course, my activity would be mainly during business hours. Mr. Robertson asked, how many cars are we talking about? Mr. Watkins stated, five. Mr. Brickner asked, what are your hours of business? Mr. Watkins stated, 9 to 5. Mr. Robertson asked, that’s five days a week? Mr. Watkins stated, yes. Mr. Burns asked, does your tenant park his semi there? He asked, where does he park his semi truck? Mr. Watkins stated that the truck part, not the trailer part, he does park back behind the home in the parking area, yes. He stated, not the trailer, just the truck, and it’s not there very much, and, when he is there, it’s mostly on the weekends. Mr. Burns asked, just one tractor? he asked, two tractors? Mr. Watkins stated, one. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-UV-1, with the stipulation that there be no more than five cars and one truck parked at the residence at any one time; that the hours of business be restricted to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; access only off of SR 149, not from the subdivision; and no signs and the current sign will have to go. Discussion: Mr. Watkins asked, I’m curious as to why I would not be allowed a sign. He stated that other people along that road have signs for their businesses, and, if you’re not going to allow me to put a sign near the road on my property, will I be allowed to put a sign on my building itself so at least when tenants and contractors are coming they can at least see not to knock on the tenant’s door of the house in the front, but they’ll know to come to the rear because they’ll see a sign there on the building, at least. Mr. Robertson stated that the reason is we have this tension between residential and commercial. He stated that commercial property is allowed signs. He stated that residential property is not allowed signs. He stated that you want to use a residential property for a commercial venture, but it’s still a residential property and we try to keep signs out of a residential property in deference to the other people that have residential property around you. He stated that we do allow a sign in the window. He stated that if you want a sign, you go to a commercial property, a business property, but you’re asking for a Variance for the residential property, which we can allow or not allow. He stated that we’ve been pretty tough on signs in the past, trying to keep the signs down around residential properties. He stated that that’s the reason. Mr. Watkins asked, so my observance of other signs on residential properties along 149 is outside your permission? Mr. Robertson stated, if there’s something that you object to, you can always complain to the inspector and we’ll look into it. Mr. Brickner stated, no signs, unless you want to put one in your window or paint one on your mailbox, you can do that. Mr. Burns stated, you said he could attach it to his mailbox. He asked, he could attach a 3 by 3 to the mailbox, is that what you’re saying? He asked, what are we saying when we say attach it to your mailbox? He stated, I want to make sure we don’t send out mixed signals here. Mr. Hudson stated, I guess my understanding would be, if he was going to paint his whole mailbox as his sign, that would be fine, but to attach a sign, to physically take this sign and nail it on his mailbox, that’s not what I would agree with. He stated that he has a country mailbox, which is a pretty good-sized mailbox, he could put his name on both sides, with the address on the top, like I see a lot of people do. Mr. Burns stated, ‘cause we’re starting to see that, we’re starting to see attaching signs to the post of the mailbox now. Mr. Brickner stated, no, that’s not allowed. Mr. Hudson stated, I know that there’s a place down the road from him that advertises business cards, I see a sign and it’s been there for years; in fact, it used to be lighted at one time. Mr. Watkins stated, well, besides the fact that we have the farmer down the road who has these big, obtrusive signs that have vulgarity on it. He stated that he’s been there for the three and one-half years that I’ve lived there, and his signs have always been there. Mr. Robertson stated, okay, well, I can’t go into all the signs, but if you’d like to complain about it, we’re going to try to stick to this case. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-UV-1, with the stipulation that there be no more than five cars and one truck parked at the residence at any one time; that the hours of business be restricted to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; access only off of SR 149, not from the subdivision; and no signs and the current sign will have to go, with the findings of facts prepared by the Board attorney, 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 Case 05-SE-1. Petition of Rex & Janet Veach, 716 W. 1014 S., Hebron, seeking a Special Exception to permit a boarding and riding stable with stalls for up to 28 horses, to be located on the South side of CR 1014 S., between SR 2 and U.S. Hwy 231, in Boone Township. Ms. Veach stated that I’m requesting a Special Exception to board horses on my property. She stated that the property consists of 11 acres, plus or minus. She stated that it’s currently zoned Agricultural, with a Permanent Use Variance for our trucks. She stated that we did get a building permit and we do have a barn up. She stated that we are putting stalls in that barn. She stated that we’re not complete yet. She stated that I checked into the manure removal and according to the IDEM, if you have manure out, from what I understand, it’s $72 uncovered, and 90 days covered to spread on fields. She stated that the manure pile would be located South of the barn, and I do have a drawing of that, if you’d like to see that. She stated that for the urine in the stalls, I’ve acquired a company that they have what they call stall skins where the urine goes through to a filter system, it would go through rock and sand. She stated that that way it doesn’t sit on rubber mats and absorb into the shavings and create ammonia problems. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Janice Stokes, 713 W. 1014 S., stated that my concern is it’s a private road right now and it’s not being used that way. She stated that when I moved there I was told that there were not going to be any more houses than what’s already there and now this is the second time they’re trying to get what’s like a business into it. She stated that I moved out there not to be by businesses and my concern is just the traffic and it’s not a through street. Elizabeth Maquin, 70 W. SR 2, stated that I just have a question. She stated, when Janet was speaking, she’s just going to use an existing barn which she already has, or are we going to add one building? Ms. Veach stated that the building is already up. She stated that it is located behind our residence. She asked, would you like to see this (indicating a drawing that she then posted to the wall)? She stated that the building is up. She stated that this is our existing home here. She stated that this is our existing building. She stated that this is where we located the building that we have now. She stated that I do have nine horses on the property now. Ms. Stokes stated that my concern is the amount of horses she’s going to have for the property she has. Ms. Veach stated that as far as the road goes, one particular lady I have, it’s a husband and wife, and they have seven horses, so it would only be a husband and wife coming on occasion and they both work full-time. She stated that the other thing I would do, there’s a gentleman that would like to keep his race horses there when they’re on vacation, when they’re not on the race circuit. She stated, according to Porter County, in the Variance book, the minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet, plus 5,000 square feet per horse, over four horses. She stated that if I’m not mistaken, one acre is 45,360 square feet. She stated that if you multiply it out and divide it out, I should be able to have 83 horses there, according to the 11 acres, and I’m not asking for that. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Siminski then read the Inspection Committee Report. The report is in the file. Mr. Brickner stated, you have 11 acres, but you also have buildings... Ms. Veach stated that we have one other building, plus our home. Mr. Brickner stated, and a house, then your septic area, so how many acres do you have designated for the 28 horses? He asked, approximately how much of that 11 acres is going to be used? Ms. Veach stated, 10. She stated, I’m going to say 10. She stated that I’m not positive. She stated that I don’t know. Mr. Brickner stated, so, all the way around this 11 acres around your house is all going to be horse pasture? Ms. Veach stated that it’s all fenced, yes. Mr. Brickner stated that I don't know what the acreage is per horse, but that sounds like a lot of horses for 10 acres, to me. He stated that I’d be kind of concerned about how much grazing or how much capacity. Mr. Robertson stated, well, she read from the ordinance that said, she figured they’d be 88 (sic) horses. Mr. Brickner asked, what’s the 28 horse thing? He asked, did you decide you’re just going to have 28 horses or, 14 is not enough? Ms. Veach stated, I would like to board for myself. She stated that I have nine horses there now. She stated that I started out needing a facility for them. She stated that I had people inquire with me as far as being able to board. She stated that the building I have can house 22 stalls, plus my feed room, the tack room, so would have area for that. Mr. Brickner asked, so if somebody wanted to come over and ride horses, where are they going to ride them? Ms. Veach stated that right now they would ride in the pasture. She stated that we would have it fenced off separately. Mr. Brickner asked, and that’s it? He asked, there isn’t any other place they could ride? Ms. Veach stated, unless they wanted to come take their horse out and go ride elsewhere. Mr. Robertson stated, I would imagine you’re going to split this 11 acres into different areas and rotate the horses through them. Ms. Veach stated, yes. She stated that right now with the nine horses I still have to Bushhog three times a year, and we do maintain the road as far as we are the only people on the road that do live out there that do have a tractor large enough to grade the road. She stated that they do have someone come in and do the snow removal because my husband wasn’t home at the time to do the snow removal and our tractor is being repaired, and whoever did the snow removal actually took the gravel off the road and put it up onto the berm. Mr. Robertson stated, by rotating the horses through different areas, they wouldn’t all the time go on the 11 acres. He stated that they would keep some of them here for a while during the winter months. He stated that they would feed them almost all from the barn. Ms. Veach stated, right. She stated that most of them would be fed grain and hay from the barn and they would be out on the pasture part of the time, not all of the time. Mr. Brickner stated, the runoff from this 11 acres, though. He stated, I mean, you talk about handling the manure and the urine from the horses, the runoff from this 11 acres, where does that go? Ms. Veach stated that there are farm fields to the South and farm fields to the (inaudible). Mr. Brickner asked, does it drain to the South? Ms. Veach stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, which is farm field? Ms. Veach stated, yes, and to the West, which is still our property and it would never make it as far West. Mr. Brickner asked, you are making provisions to have somebody remove all the horse manure from the barns and have somebody pick it up? Ms. Veach stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, some kind of a disposal? Mr. Burns stated, I don't have a problem with the horses. He stated that I think, 11 acres, you have a right to have horses. He stated, my concern is, if you share a private drive with your neighbors, you may cause some impact with your neighbors -- dust control, traffic, that’s my concern. Ms. Veach stated that over two years ago, and I don’t believe Fred was here, a gentleman bought a portion of that road from Route 2 South. She stated that he bought that at a tax sale, because that was never put into anyone’s deed to pay the taxes. She stated that the taxes from Porter County were sent to the trust company and they said this property was sold and they threw those away. She stated, so, he actually owns from Route 2 South to the corner, so I do still own and maintain half of that road, all the way from that corner, all the way down to the end of the property. She stated that if I could put another road in...I know the state won’t allow me to put another road in coming in off of Route 2... Mr. Burns stated that that was my next question: Can you put your own road in because I’m afraid it will have a negative impact for your neighbors. He stated that that’s my concern. He stated that I don’t have a concern with your horses. Ms. Veach stated that I’m not going to have daily traffic. Mr. Burns stated that there would be increased traffic, not now, but, you’re talking 28 horses. He stated that that’s my concern. Ms. Veach stated that there may not be 28 there all the time. Mr. Burns stated, but, there will be at times. Ms. Veach stated that that was a number that I had to come up with. Mr. Burns stated, well, that’s my concern. He stated that my concern is dust control for your neighbors and increased traffic for the neighbors. He asked, are you going to put signs? Mr. Hudson stated, that’s my only concern, is the dust and you know the way get rid of dust is you either treat the stone or you pave the road. He stated that the traffic situation, to alleviate that, the road gets bigger to accommodate more traffic. He stated that the existing road may not accommodate all the traffic, so along with the dust and... Mr. Burns stated, I wish she could put her own roadway or driveway and that would resolve the problem. He stated that I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Ms. Veach stated that the property that we own from the road over to the West edge of the property is 100 feet. She stated, I don't believe being that close to another roadway on SR 2, as close as we are to Route 2 and 231, the state, I don’t... Mr. Burns stated that you’d have to contact the state. Ms. Veach asked, is there some way that I could work with the neighbors, as far as...and I don’t know what you treat a gravel road with, but, if there is some type of...I mean, I know they put oil on, but I don't think anybody wants oil in their driveways and on their concrete. She stated that I would have to investigate to as far as to see if there is any treatment for... Mr. Robertson asked, Rich, what could they treat it with besides oil? Mr. Burns stated, they can’t do it with oil. Mr. Hudson asked, is it calcium chloride? Mr. Burns stated, yes. He stated that there is wood mulch or some kind of wood solution, wood pulp. Mr. Robertson stated that you could do that to keep the dust down. He asked, what about the maintenance of the road. He stated that we were concerned about the extra maintenance and how that was going to split up. Ms. Veach stated that we take care of the road anyway, most of the time. She stated that when the gravel comes, we usually take the tractor out and spread the gravel. Mr. Robertson stated, so, you say that you’d take care of any further maintenance. Ms. Veach stated that no one else has any other equipment to do it, unless they shovel it by hand. Mr. Brickner stated, if you had 28 horses, say you did have, how many people would you expect to be at your farm at one time for traffic, for parking purposes. He asked, do you have room for people that want to ride that many horses or... Ms. Veach stated, well, like I said, one person owns seven of them, so there would be a husband and wife there and their vehicle, so they would have their seven, and they don’t ride them all the time. She stated that right now they don’t ride them at all, and they come in, they clean their stalls... Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to have the public, the general public, coming in to ride horses, or just people that own horses there. Ms. Veach stated, yes. She stated, see, when they said riding stable, that’s the only thing that the Variance calls for. She stated that it’s not really a riding stable. She stated that we’re not going to have lessons. Mr. Brickner stated, so, you’re going to be more like boarding horses. Ms. Veach stated, just boarding, and the people that have the race horses, they won’t even come see them. She stated that they will just come up when they go back to racing. Mr. Brickner stated that this is just a Use Variance. He stated that we could put a one year or something on it and see how it works out, and, at the end of a year... Mr. Burns stated that the only issue I have is you’re going to impact the neighbors immediately. He stated that that’s the difference from other cases. He stated that if she had her own driveway, her own private road, it’d be different. He stated that that’s my concern. He stated that there are four neighbors sharing a...five neighbors...sharing that road. Ms. Veach stated that there are four neighbors. Mr. Burns stated, plus yourself -- five. He stated that it’s kind of unique, so... Ms. Veach stated that nothing has been said about the (inaudible) of some of the neighbors up and down the road, so that’s another issue that could be brought up. She stated that it’s not just my traffic. She stated that I don’t have garage sales, but that brings in a lot of people into our neighborhood, also, on multiple weekends. Mr. Burns stated, I would like to see her go to the state and see if she could get her own driveway. Mr. Brickner stated, well, I’m not an expert on horses, but I still think 28... Mr. Burns stated, that’s a lot of horses. Mr. Brickner stated, I don't know how many to make it. He stated, maybe, let’s have 20 horses. He asked, would that be better. Mr. Hudson stated, she said she could house 22, or she had 22 stalls. Mr. Brickner stated, and then try it for a year and see how it works out, and if it causes a big problem.... Mr. Burns stated, I can’t do that. Mr. Siminski stated that this requires a Special Exception. Mr. Burns stated, I feel it’s going to affect the neighbors immediately, from Day 1. He stated that if it wasn’t going to have a negative impact on the neighbors, I would try it, but... Mr. Robertson asked, are you asking to maybe change it to a use Variance and give it a year? Mr. Burns stated, I’m against it, because I feel it’s going to affect the neighbors. He stated that it’s going to increase the dust. He stated that it’s going to increase the traffic immediately, so it’s a negative impact. Mr. Brickner stated, well, she has nine horses now. Mr. Burns stated that she wants to increase that to 28. He stated that that’s a lot of horses, a lot of traffic. Mr. Hudson stated that you solve the traffic problem by having a bigger road and solve the dust problem by paving the road. Mr. Burns stated, see, my thought was, she’s willing to go to the state and I kind of think the case should be continued, if she could do that and that resolves the problem. Ms. Veach asked, but now would my road have to be paved all the way, because we’re talking more than a quarter of a mile. She stated that we’re talking... Mr. Hudson stated, I would say that the state might make you pave the front part, coming off the state highway, but I don’t know that they’d make you pave the whole thing back. Mr. Burns stated, probably a portion of it. Mr. Hudson stated, just the apron off the highway. Mr. Brickner stated, well, the houses are back though. He stated that the people that would be affected by the dust and everything are back further. He asked, do you want to continue it for a month and see if...think about reducing the number of horses. He stated, see what the minimum amount you could come up with is. Ms. Veach stated that the barn will accommodate 22. She stated that I do have another place where I put six others, but I don’t have to fill those, in the back of our other barn, so it would be, I’d say, 22. Mr. Brickner asked, could you get everything back to us in one month, if you continued it for one month? Mr. Hudson stated, if you can’t you can always call the office and ask for a continuance. Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 05-SE-1 to the March 16th meeting and have the petitioner bring all the information about paving the road and treating the road and the number of horses. Discussion: Ms. Veach stated, right now we all share in the cost of adding gravel to the road. She stated that we all pay association dues. She asked, would that totally blacktopping that road come to me, because not only would I benefit, they would. Mr. Robertson stated, well, that’s what you have to work out. Mr. Brickner stated, talk to the neighbors and see what you can do, if you can get some help from the neighbors. Mr. Robertson stated, the number of horses, I think we’re on kind of weak ground with that because, according to the ordinance, you could have, what was it, 80 horses? Ms. Veach stated, 83. Mr. Robertson stated, I think she would know more about horses and what it could stand. He stated that it is an agricultural zone around there, but the road is a real problem. Ms. Veach stated for instance, cattle or hogs, how many can you have per acre? She stated, with hogs you can have 30 per acre, correct? Mr. Robertson stated, I don't know. Mr. Brickner stated, it has something to do with grazing, how they graze, like horses graze shorter than cows and sheep and I don't know. Mr. Robertson stated, well, the horses don’t live off what they graze. He stated that they really live off hay and what they feed them. Mr. Brickner stated, maybe that’s true, maybe they don't need any... Ms. Veach stated that there are people that do board their horses and don't put them on grass at all. Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 05-SE-1 to the March 16th meeting and have the petitioner bring all the information about paving the road and treating the road and the number of horses. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 05-SE-3. Petition of Century 21 Alliance Group, c/o William A. Ferngren, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a 200-square-foot, 35-foot-tall billboard, to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 375 W. and CR 250 W., in Union Township. Mr. Ferngren stated that he is representing and accompanied by Nick Sommer, of the petitioners. He stated that this is a Special Exception to allow a billboard on U.S. 30, near the intersection, the nearest intersection is CR 375 W. He stated that I would like to point out to you that the initially designed plan has been changed and really quite drastically. He stated that the original design called for a 35-foot tall sign, with 200 square feet. He stated that what we have done over the last month is had some discussions and we’ve reduced the size of the sign. He stated that the proposed height is now 10 feet and the proposed square footage is 96 feet, so that’s a reduction in the height by approximately 72 percent and the reduction in the square footage by over 50 percent. He stated that I have a picture of what the proposed signage would look like, and this is probably the best we can do just to give you a little bit of an idea about dimension and that sort of thing. He stated that Mr. Sommer is a local businessman and has lived in the community a number of years. He stated that he is located in the business complex just to the East of the development. He stated that Century 21, as I’m sure a lot of you are familiar, has certain unique colors, generally it’s a goldish color, and the franchise requirements are such that that is the color of the sign that you need to have. He stated that one of the difficulties Mr. Sommer is experiencing is that the color of the building and his signage really kind of blend in together and make his location really almost impossible to see until you’re right at his doorfront, which causes a problem for motorists traveling in the Easterly direction on a two-lane highway, 55, 65 miles an hour. He stated that I’m handing you a few pictures here. He stated that these are taken in sequence of the building heading in the Easterly direction, and I think as you look at those you’ll recognize very readily that the sign just really blends in to the existing structure and is, quite frankly, really impossible to see. He stated that he has had a number of his clients indicate to him that being this close to Shorewood Forest that they’ve left Shorewood Forest trying to find his location and gone by because they couldn’t see his spot, so the purpose of this sign is to provide that identifiable location. He stated that a Special Exception is what we’re here for tonight and how do we get to our Special Exception. He stated that your ordinance, under 17.60.030 really establishes three separate criteria. He stated that Number 1 is that the proposed Special Exception is to be located in a district wherein such use may be permitted; Number 2, that the requirements set forth in Table 19 for a Special Exception will be met, and three, that the Special Exception is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this title and will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of neighboring property and will serve the public convenience and welfare. He stated that I think tonight you’ll find that all three of those criteria are met. He stated that first, the proposed Special Exception is absolutely contemplated by the U.S. 30 overlay ordinance. He stated that the property is zoned C-4, which is commercial. He stated that a billboard is something that is expressly contemplated in that ordinance. He stated that moving to the second step, the requirements of Table 19, Table 19 does not identify and requirements for a Special Exception, billboard signage as we are requesting tonight, so what we’ve done is look to the overlay ordinance and we meet all of those criteria that are in the ordinance that don’t even necessarily apply to this sign, but what we are going to do is set the sign back a minimum of 65 feet from the proposed U.S. 30 right-of-way. He stated that it will be located at a minimum of 10 feet from the side property lines and at least 25 feet from the rear. He stated that as I mentioned earlier, the height of the sign will be about a third of what could be permitted and the square footage is also a third of what could be permitted in this area, 300 feet being the maximum and we are at 96 feet, which is a significant departure from the allowable amount. He stated that moving on to Step Number 3, as I mentioned earlier, billboards are contemplated and certainly contemplated in a commercial zone. He stated that this property is zoned C-4, which is about as intensive of a commercial use as you can have in Porter County. He stated that there are no other signs, billboards, within 600 feet of this sign, and, as I mentioned, it’s a small sign, not your traditional billboard type of sign that you would see from the large national advertising firms up and down along U.S. 30. He stated that as I mentioned earlier, the sign is greatly smaller than what could be permitted in this area, and a reduction from what was originally proposed. He stated, again, the height is 28 percent of what could be done and the square footage is about a third, 33 percent. He stated that the location of the sign with the setback will not interfere or obstruct any view of any person, whether walking or moped or motorists or any manner at all. He stated that it simply will not harm or obstruct any view. He stated that it’s consistent with the surrounding area. He stated that all of the adjoining property is zoned C-4. He stated that the property that is developed where Mr. Summer’s business is located is a commercial use. He stated that all the property that the sign sits on is a commercial use. He stated that all the adjoining property, should that ever be developed, will be used for commercial purposes, so therein, I think it’s very clear again, that the substantial and permanent injury to the appropriate use of adjoining property, that just simply will not happen. He stated that the adjoining property, if ever developed, will be developed with uses that will be much more intense than what is being proposed today. He stated that all the building setbacks are met, even though it’s specifically mentioned in Table 19, there are none, but we looked to a higher standard. He stated that there will be no effect on drainage. He stated that this is simply a professionally designed sign by a professional sign company, taking into consideration all the load factors for wind and that sort of thing required for the area, a professional company who will install this sign and maintain the sign for Mr. Sommer. He stated that the illumination of the sign is not there. He stated that it’s simply a daytime only type of attraction. He stated that at night, Mr. Sommer’s building, it’s visible. He stated that during the day, as you see from those pictures, it simply is not as all visible where its location is, and this sign will allow people to identify the spot in enough time to safely and appropriately enter the business complex where the signage would benefit Mr. Sommer’s business. He stated, again, the ordinance contemplates this type of use. He stated that it’s certainly something that was anticipated as a Special Exception in the U.S. 30 overlay in a commercial zone and will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of the commercial property in which this sign would be located and the public convenience and welfare is benefited by allowing people to again, in a safely and in a timely fashion, to identify this location and arrive at the destination they chose. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke in opposition to this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I would have to agree with Mr. Ferngren. He stated that from a safety standpoint it makes some sense in the fact that he’s reduced...if I understand correctly, you’ve reduced the square footage of the original sign down to something less. Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s correct. He stated that it originally was proposed at 200 square feet and we’re at 96 feet today before you. Mr. Hudson stated so, less than half. Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s correct, we’re at 48 percent. Mr. Hudson stated that I know, the businesses are there, I mean, that complex at some point in the future, may continue to grow, whether it expands out, whatever, that sign may not be needed at that time. He stated that maybe something different might happen, but I think from a safety standpoint on U.S. Hwy 30 in that location I’m certain that that’s 55 miles an hour, that small, I don’t want to say unobtrusive but very noticeable sign, because there’s no other signs around it, it’s an alert. He stated that it certainly isn’t as large as the sign advertising Aberdeen down at 250. He stated that I think from that standpoint that there may be some logic to the sign’s existence. Mr. Burns stated that my concern is, how many businesses are in that complex? Mr. Robertson stated that there are quite a few. Mr. Burns stated, what if they all ask for signs? Mr. Ferngren stated, I don’t know the exact number, but we visited with Mr. Thompson about that, and you’re permitted one sign on the parcel, and Mr. Sommer has worked with the owner of the land to say yes, we can use this land for the sign. He stated, incidentally, the Century 21 businesses, a lot of it is a drive-up, walk-up type of customer. He stated that many of these others in here are more appointment-driven, so if somebody really has to identify the location, they know where they are going right away. Mr. Burns stated, we could end up with a dozen signs. Mr. Ferngren stated, theoretically. He stated that I mean people could be back to ask for additional Variances, but this is only one sign permitted on this parcel. Mr. Burns stated that I guess this is hindsight, but a lot of the new developments are having multi-signs. He stated that they have a large sign at the entrance with small signs underneath them for businesses that are in that complex. He stated that that’s really the best way to handle that, it really is. He stated that you see them more and more, your new strip malls and stuff like that. He asked, Mr. Sommer, is this your sign right here? Mr. Sommer stated, no. Mr. Burns asked, what is this sign here, behind? Mr. Sommer stated, Chase Manhattan. Mr. Burns stated, you can see that sign. Mr. Sommer stated, yeah. Mr. Burns asked, can you change your sign so it would be more visible? Mr. Ferngren stated that that’s part of the franchise requirements and that’s just Century 21’s trademark, the color, and that color is what it has to be. He stated that Mr. Sommer visited with the folks at Century 21 and they said that’s the color. Mr. Burns asked, do you own this building? Mr. Sommer stated, no. He stated that that’s why the owner agreed for us to move forward with the sign, because that seemed to be the most logical and orderly approach in order to gain visibility. Mr. Burns asked, the same owner that owns this property owns the strip mall? Mr. Ferngren stated that that’s correct. Mr. Burns stated that I’d like to see, really, a multi-sign, that’s really the best way to handle that, but I don’t know how you would do that now. Mr. Brickner stated that since I’ve been on the Board we’ve turned down every single request for a sign in the overlay district. He stated that I don’t know of any we’ve approved. He stated that the Aberdeen sign was there 10 years ago, or put up nine years ago before some of us were here, or before I was here anyway, but I don’t remember ever having approved a sign in this overlay district, because if we approve one, like Rick just alluded to, we approve one, the floodgates open for anybody that wants to have a sign, and we haven’t been doing that. Mr. Ferngren stated, Mr. Brickner, if I may speak to that, I guess I respectfully disagree, not that you may not have approved signs in the past, but that this doesn’t necessarily open up the floodgates for everything to happen. He stated that it’s certainly a case by case basis. He stated that there may be other people who come before you seeking a Special Exception, however, reading through your ordinance, I believe we satisfy the criteria, and this case will be different from others, because this property is zoned C-4. He stated that it’s completely surrounded by commercial property. He stated that the adjoining uses are commercial. He stated that it’s consistent with the area. He stated that there is another billboard across the street, so it’s not like every other piece of property up and down U.S. 30, and I think on a case by case basis you’ll see when you apply the test in your ordinance about the spirit, purpose and intent, this is commercial property, this is a commercial use and it will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of neighboring property. He stated that I can't fathom how this sign could possibly do that. He stated that this property is zoned commercial and so is the adjoining use. He stated that a commercial sign in a commercial location of this size certainly will not do that, and then the public convenience and welfare, as Mr. Hudson mentioned earlier, it will identify...allow people to safely identify the location. He stated that it’s not obtrusive. He stated that it won’t obstruct any view of any passerby. He state that it will simply allow Mr. Sommer’s clients to safely identify his property. Mr. Brickner stated that the purpose of the overlay was for aesthetic purposes, to eliminate the billboards for aesthetic purposes. He stated that that was the reason for the overlay and that’s why the overlay is there. He stated that that’s why people thought that there shouldn’t be signs within 600 feet of Route 30 from the County line to the County line. He stated that the idea is to eliminate signs, not to put them there. Mr. Ferngren stated, and again, I respectfully disagree. He stated that I think one of the intents of the overlay ordinance certainly was aesthetics and how do we look at U.S. 30 through the County, but, if you look at the ordinance, it, one of the things that it absolutely contemplates is a billboard, and it says you can have a billboard with a Special Exception. He stated that if they were truly to say we don’t want any billboard, they would have said no billboards, period, not billboards with a Special Exception. He stated, so here they’re contemplating, absolutely contemplating, especially in a commercial zone, that a billboard will be there, and that’s when we then look at the next step and say billboards are contemplated and let’s look at the test. He asked, what is the test? He stated apply the facts of this case to our test and I think when you look at the facts of this case and you apply them to this test, the test is met, and this is an appropriate location for a Special Exception in the U.S. 30 overlay. Mr. Brickner stated, well, I don’t disagree with what you are saying, as far as the Special Exception is concerned, but I do disagree with the fact that, I know that if we approve a billboard, any billboard, that it is going to open the floodgates, that there are going to be more and more requests for Special Exceptions with the same principal that you just offered, that this is not a bad sign, it’s not a big sign, it’s not an obtrusive sign, but it’s a sign, it’s another billboard along 30, and we haven’t approved them, and I think if we start approving them it’s gonna be a big problem for us. Mr. Ferngren stated, and I think the time to look at those signs is at the time that they’re filed, and you look at the facts of those cases to see if it’s appropriate in those cases, rather than creating a blanket rule about signs no matter what in the overlay. He stated that those cases may not have the same facts as us, and I submit to you tonight that the facts in this case support this particular Special Exception. He stated that again, it’s a commercially zoned property; both sides of it are commercial. Mr. Robertson stated, thank you. He stated that you’ve said that several times and it’s well-spoken. He stated that I agree with Rick that the solution here is not for each business in here to have a sign in the adjoining property, but to modify their large sign...there must be some modification they could do so that the signs are all on that one big thing that we allowed -- and I’m not even sure that we should have allowed it so large, but we did allow it, but since it is so large, it seems to be that we should demand that if they want any future signs, that should be modified to accommodate them, to keep them all in one place, because Chase Manhattan could come in and say well, we really have difficulty with the sign that we have, it kind of blends in with the roof and we need a sign just like Century 21 has, and then somebody else could say, well, we need a sign there, too, and Marvin’s absolutely right. He stated that even...your problem here is the color, it blends in with the building. He stated, well that’s really Century 21’s problem. He stated that it’s a self-imposed hardship that they have a color that blends in with the building. He stated that they leased that building knowing the color was there. He stated that I understand your problem, but I don’t see it as a hardship, well, you don’t need a hardship for a Special Exception, but I would see a much better solution for the County and the people that drive along Highway 30 to be a modification of that large sign in front to include signs of the businesses that are in that complex. Mr. Ferngren stated, I believe Mr. Sommer has talked with the landowner about that and that’s... Mr. Sommer stated that that’s the U.S. Federal Credit Union’s sign, that is their property, that’s their sign, that’s part of their agreement and their lease arrangement with the landlord, so no one else has rights to that sign. He stated that I approached the landlord with that request, saying, could I add onto that sign, and I was turned down based on the fact that there are certain requirements from an electrical standpoint that only enable that type of illumination and that type of equipment to be there. He stated that his suggestion was, why don’t you put a sign in the property next to it, you’ll be the only person in there... Mr. Robertson stated that you’ll be the only person in there this month. Mr. Sommer stated, with all due respect, that building’s been there for quite some time and there is no signage. He stated that he won’t allow any other signs in there. Mr. Ferngren stated, again, in working with Mr. Thompson, identifying that one sign on the parcel.. Mr. Robertson stated, Mr. Ferngren, I just can’t believe there is just going to be one sign in two years if we did allow this, and limitations that are imposed by your landlord are limitations that you can negotiate with him or failing to achieve negotiation, you can go to a different parcel and it will have a monetary effect on him if he can't keep his tenants happy. He stated that I think we would be bailing Century 21 out because they have a problem with a color and I don’t think that’s our purpose. Mr. Ferngren stated, I don’t think it’s bailing anybody. He stated, I mean that’s certainly one of the factors that, one of the things that has necessitated us being here tonight, and Mr. Sommer being a businessman, looking always to further his business, however, again what I think we need to look back to is the facts, and whether this particular location, the facts in this case support a Special Exception, and I believe if you look at... Mr. Robertson stated, you’ve given us those thoughts many, many times. At this time, Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee report. The report in in the file. Mr. Ferngren stated that I think the Shellbourne sign is a good comparison in this location. He stated that the sign proposed before you tonight is not much different than that one, certainly when I think that it doesn’t harm anything within the U.S. 30 overlay and, again, it’s something that is contemplated within it. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-SE-3. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Burns asked, there’s no other solution? He asked, I mean, we can’t go back...I’d like to see you have a sign, but I’d like to see it up here. Mr. Sommer stated that there really isn’t any more room. He stated that after that sign is up there, there really isn’t anything else there, and this is really more directional than it is anything else, just because the client feedback, well, we missed your sign, we had to turn around and come back, and that just creates more crossover traffic on 30 and it’s really more just to make sure that the people are going in there. He stated that the other businesses are, there’s a dental office, there’s a human resource company, they’re all appointment only businesses, and ours is also...there are many appointments made at our office, obviously, but there’s also business that comes in or drives in and being in the location where we are, it’s not the most well-known office park in this area, and, so, that’s another reason, just where are you? He stated that the only other thing I could think of is, you know, we’re proposing a sign that’s not even as big as that area where we’re pinning up the papers. He stated, I mean, if there’s something smaller...all I want to do is make sure that people can get in and out of there safely and find our office, so if it’s a size consideration or anything like that, I’m open for suggestions. Mr. Hudson stated, I can’t remember how long ago we approved this, but on U.S. 6, as you go up the hill towards 400 E. there is a sign where the old Anderson Orchard used to be that...I’m not sure how it compares in size, but it’s very, very visible, but it says turn right, St. Andre’s or something like that, one-quarter mile. He stated that I don’t know if the size is an issue...maybe you could take a look at that sign and see if that size is doable... Mr. Sommer stated, and the Shellbourne sign... Mr. Hudson asked, how big is that? Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s 5 feet 6 inches in height and 8 feet 7 inches in width. Mr. Hudson stated, so, if you did it with a 4 by 8, instead of an 8 by 12. Mr. Ferngren stated that that would be a little smaller than the Shellbourne sign. He stated that I know what sign you are talking about on 6, and I would say this sign is probably comparable. Mr. Sommer stated that the sign is not that color. He stated that that’s the best I could do with my limited computer graphics scale on how to recreate the right sign. He stated that it would not be that loud, if you will. Mr. Robertson asked, you want to make a new motion, Rich, for a smaller sign, to see if maybe you could get a second? Mr. Hudson asked, what’s the Shellbourne sign? He stated, tell me that again. Mr. Robertson stated, 5 foot 6 by 8 foot 7, I think he said. Mr. Ferngren stated that if you look at Page 1 of the Inspection Report, it says the sign measures 32 inches by 8 feet 7 inches, and 5 feet 6 inches in height, so I would suspect it’s 5 feet 6 inches off the ground and 8 feet 7 inches wide, same general shape as ours. Mr. Hudson asked, when you came up with the size, width, are you getting, consulting with somebody, I assume? Mr. Sommer stated that the sign company is who we consulted with on that that designed the sign, with appropriate spacing of letters and visual distances and that sort of thing. He stated that they’re all in 4-foot-wide panels, so that’s how they’re engineered, so they’re always divisions of four. He stated that that’s how your dimensions are usually drawn up. Mr. Hudson stated that if a smaller sign would get you a sign, I think from a safety standpoint, and I have to agree with you that it does meet, if we look at these individually, it does meet the ordinance, the overlay zone does allow for it with a Special Exception. |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
February 16, 2004