BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
April 21, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 21, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Robertson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the March 17, 2004 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 91-UV-3. Harry B. Miller, 802 N. 625 E., Westville, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance allowing the sales of safety, medical and welding supplies, on the South side of U.S. Hwy 6, between CR 120 W. and CR 200 W., in Liberty Township. (A new public hearing was required on this case, and the petitioner has said he no longer needs the use variance.)

Mr. Detert stated that a new public hearing was required on this because the time limit on the old one had expired and it's my understanding that the gentleman that was due does not any longer need this Use Variance.

Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Miller called our office and talked to Toni and he said he no longer needed the Use Variance. He stated that we had asked for a letter, but he never sent one.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 91-UV-3. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Case 99-UV-3. Irish Campbell, 916 N. County Line Road, Westville, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a plant nursery and crafts shop, on the West side of County Line Road, between CR 900 N. and CR 950 N., in Jackson Township.

Ms. Campbell stated that when my husband passed away in 1999 I needed something to keep busy with besides my full-time job and just mowing the lawn, and being a craft person who enjoys making things and growing things, I was going to open this little shop and it's only open on weekends and it's only open during the seasonal parts of the year and in winter it's closed, and it keeps me busy. She stated that it helps me to meet people and just takes up a lot of my free time that I would otherwise be at a loss.

Mr. Detert stated that I understand you're in violation. He stated that you have a sign out there which was not granted.

Ms. Campbell stated that I got a phone call about that and I wasn't aware it was a violation, so, whatever the Board wishes me to do I will respond and take care of it.

Mr. Robertson stated, maybe just to explain to her, we understand people like to do these sorts of things, but to allow it in a residential district, it's something we would be glad to give you, but, because of the other residents that's why we ask that there not be signs. He stated that it's nothing against you, it's just a favor to the other residents. He stated that we're granting a variance for allowing you to do something that's technically against the law, but in exchange for that, we'd rather that you didn't put signs up.

Ms. Campbell asked, what are my options to landmark my property on the weekends when I'm open?

Mr. Robertson stated that some people put things in the window.

Ms. Campbell stated, I'm about 200 feet off the road, just for my house. She stated that the shop is at the back of the acreage, which is about another 220 feet.

Mr. Detert stated that the problem is that if we grant you a sign then everybody else wants a sign.

Ms. Campbell asked, what if I had a portable one that only was out on the weekends?

Mr. Detert stated, it's still a sign.

Mr. Hudson stated that in the staff report it talks, a quote from the motion that was approved back in '99, it says that there will be no "verbal" signage. He asked, does that mean she couldn't put a picture, a flowerpot out there?

Ms. Campbell stated, because there is a picture in the center. She stated that it's a golden pot with shamrock flowers coming out of it.

Mr. Hudson asked, does it have your name on it?

Ms. Campbell stated, not my name, no.

Mr. Hudson asked, does it have the business name?




Ms. Campbell stated that right now it says Pot of Gold on the top, and underneath it says gift shop because I got phone calls that asked me how many children were in my nursery, so I had to clarify it just a little bit, and so, instead of losing business because they thought I was a day-care center, I just painted that out and wrote gift shop in.

Mr. Detert stated that it will be dependent upon what the Board decides here tonight as to what you're allowed to do, but if it is passed and there is no sign provided for, we would expect you to adhere to that.

Mr. Robertson stated, I didn't go by there. He asked, Rich, you been by there at all?

Mr. Hudson stated that I was by there about a week and a half ago and I don't remember the sign. He stated that I was just trying to think when I drove up there was 900 N. is. He stated that it would be North of it and I don't remember seeing the sign.

Ms. Campbell stated that it is back off the road quite a ways.

Mr. Hudson stated that it must. He stated that it doesn't sit right up on the road.

Mr. Robertson asked, how do people see it?

Ms. Campbell stated, well, it's brightly colored and people that are familiar with the area and know that there's a little shop there, they look for the sign, because that's where they know where to turn.

Mr. Detert stated that it looks like a pretty good size. He asked, how big is it?

Ms. Campbell stated, it's 12 by 4.

Mr. Detert stated, about half a sheet of plywood.

Mr. Hudson asked, how far is it off the road. He stated that it doesn't look like it's up against the road.

Ms. Campbell stated, no, it sits back. She stated that there's the berm off the County line, then there's a great big ditch that's about 3 or 4 feet wide, and then it's another tractor width…two tractor widths from the ditch because I can run my mower through there twice, so it sits pretty far back. She stated that it's probably 10 feet or better.

Mr. Robertson stated, I just don't know what to do. He stated that I understand why she needs the sign in there, and, at the same time, that's our problem. He stated that it's in a residential district and if we have signs, it's not fair to people that are living in a residential district. He stated that it's not a business district

Ms. Campbell stated, I mean, my neighbors like it, but it's not up to my neighbors.

Mr. Detert stated that a business in a residential district is not allowed, so it's a privilege that you've been accorded and it's not fair to the people that rent and pay for commercial space.

Ms. Campbell asked, what if I paint out the words and just leave the picture.

Mr. Detert stated, it's not fair to the people that rent and pay for commercial space.

Ms. Campbell stated, I can't afford to do that.

Mr. Robertson asked, Rich, what would you say if she does that, paints out all the words?

Mr. Hudson stated, that would be fine with me. He stated, I know the gentleman who sharpens saws has a big saw blade up with his picture painted on it. He stated that I have no problem with it. He stated that I drive by that all the time. He stated that that would be okay with me.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 99-UV-3 for 5 years with the understanding that there will be no verbal signage. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 02-UV-5. Marylou Hamilton, 705 W. 50 N., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a catering business, on the Northwest corner of CR 50 N. and CR 700 W., in Union Township.

Ms. Hamilton stated that we were licensed a year (sic) ago in March and it's coming along. She stated that we're starting to get a little bit more business because it takes a while. She stated that it started off by word of mouth and now we have a few ads running, so we're starting to pick up business now. She stated that everything seems to be going all right. She stated that Mr. Fleetwood came out, checked the kitchen, we were passed, you know, no problems.

Mr. Detert asked, Fred, do we have any signage? He asked, was that approved?

Mr. Siminski stated that there is no signage on the property.

Mr. Robertson asked, what kind of traffic do you get?




Ms. Hamilton stated, none whatsoever. She stated that what we do is we drop off.

Mr. Robertson asked, how many people do you have come and help?

Ms. Hamilton stated, just myself and my daughter.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, that's what I remember. He stated, I think we gave you two years to see how it was going to go and I think it's going well…and your neighbors…have you had any discussion with your neighbors?

Ms. Hamilton stated, yes, and my own self, I'd like to mention one thing. She stated that we do a lot of repeat business, which I think is in our favor. She stated that it's not all just strangers coming in and then gone. She stated that it's a good thing for us.

Mr. Robertson stated, I'd just as soon go for five years then, since it's proved itself.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 02-UV-5 for 5 years. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

At this time, Mr. Brickner joined the meeting.

Case 79-V-6. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 950 S., between Baum's Bridge Road and CR 150 W., in Pleasant Township.

John Lyons stated that he is an attorney representing Mr. Drazer. He stated that before I sit down I'd like to hand you a photograph and have you pass it around. He stated that what's at issue here, as I understand it, is the fact that Mr. Drazer is the owner of what started life as a mobile home on some property down near Baums Bridge Road and 500 S. He stated that technically I think he's in violation of the ordinance. He stated that he has had at least one, if not more - I don't know precisely how many - renewals of his temporary certificate of occupancy. He stated that I would like you to understand that he has spent a significant amount of money on this structure. He stated that he has a significant investment in it and he's had it for a long time. He stated that there will come a time, I suppose, when he's going to have to say that I can no longer rely on that sort of rental income for my retirement, but, at this point, Mr. Drazer is roughly 80 years old or in his high 70s and frankly does not feel comfortable in abandoning the income he gets from that pretty modest structure. He stated that there is very little that I, as a lawyer, can say to justify keeping that going forever, except for the fact that in the nature of things the reason for the prohibition, as I understand it, is because, by and large, the traditional mobile homes or God forbid we use the word house trailer, were, in fact, pretty ugly and were blots on the neighborhood and may have had some adverse impact on values. He stated that I don't think that's true of this structure. He stated that that's kind of where we are. He stated that we would very much appreciate an opportunity for you to understand how important this is to Mr. Drazer and let him continue this, at least in the short run.

Mr. Detert stated, we had some discussion about cutting off a piece of property and making this a separate…

Mr. Lyons stated, I think maybe you may be thinking of another one. He stated that Mr. Drazer also has one in front of you people involving a somewhat similar situation at his home place. He stated that we would have had to turn the whole world upside down to make that one qualify and we are going to be before you in roughly about a month on that one. He stated that we've explored those possibilities and there is no economic way in the world that he can do that, so we will solve that problem by simply evicting the tenant in that one, and it will become a storage facility. He stated that this one is not in connection with his (inaudible).

Mr. Robertson asked, is this the only dwelling on this parcel?

Mr. Lyons stated that that's my understanding, but permit me now, because I've known Mr. Drazer for 150 years and I had in mind a different parcel entirely. He asked, Babe, is there any other building on this parcel?

Mr. Drazer stated, no.

Mr. Lyons stated, the answer is no.

Mr. Robertson asked, where is your nearest neighbor here?

Mr. Drazer stated, West, I got a house there and it's probably 400 or 500 feet.

Mr. Robertson asked, you say you got a neighbor to the West there. He asked which way is your neighbor?

Mr. Drazer stated, I got one on the West and I own the house on the East.

Mr. Robertson asked, how far away is the one on the West?

Mr. Drazer stated, probably a couple of hundred yards. He stated, quite a ways.

Mr. Robertson asked, and nobody across the street?

Mr. Drazer stated, no. He stated, I own all around it.




Mr. Robertson stated, I don't have a problem with this. He stated, I guess he's got it for income. He stated that it's been there a long time and seems not to be bothering anybody. He stated that the thing is he's going to live another 30 years, so we're just going to have to keep renewing it.

Mr. Thompson stated that to make this conforming, I mean, according to our codes, he does have the roof pitch there, but it does have to be 23 feet wide at the minimum and the 960 square feet, so with it being a single-wide unit like that, it will not meet code on that. He stated that the other thing is if he doesn't have like materials, such as a concrete type foundation underneath it and the same materials as the house then it cannot conform.

Mr. Hudson asked, it can't exist as a mobile home, is that what you're saying?

Mr. Thompson stated that what they consider to be a HUD red-tag type house, one that meets federal housing standards, which this is, this is just a very old, much older model, but there are certain things in the code that it must meet before it can be placed on what is considered to be a buildable lot and not be considered as a trailer. He stated, one, it has to be concrete retaining wall around the base to make it look like a like structure. He stated that it has to have a minimum of a 3:12 pitch for roof and has to be a minimum of 23 feet in width, must meet the minimum size and the construction material of the home itself must be like, made of like materials of the surrounding residences.

Mr. Hudson stated, so the only thing we can do is give him another year.

Mr. Thompson stated, in this situation since it's only probably 12 or 14 feet wide, yes.

Mr. Robertson asked, were those the specifications in 1979 when we first agreed to this?

Mr. Thompson stated, that I'd have to double-check.

Mr. Robertson asked, what's your feeling? He asked, do you think the government had that going like that back in '79?

Mr. Detert asked, maybe grandfathered in?

Mr. Robertson stated, that's what I'm thinking.

Mr. Detert asked, how long's it been for Mr. Drazer.

Mr. Drazer stated, 12 to 14 years.




Mr. Robertson asked, how come we got it to '79?

Mr. Drazer stated that it was only about a year old when I put it in there.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, so 12 to 14 years would make it after the '83 ordinance.

Mr. Robertson stated, but here it says 1979, and that's 25 years.

Mr. Detert stated, from our records…it was approved in '79, so it's been there all that time.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it's not like there's a lot of stuff around there, and everything's not the same, what you'd have there is not what you'd have in downtown Valpo. He stated that it's down in the levee. He stated that it's okay with me.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 79-V-6 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.
Case 95-V-8. Jose & Phyllis Rael, 413 W. 750 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 750 N., between McCool Road and CR 450 W., in Portage Township.
Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal of this TCO.
Mr. Brickner stated that it's a hardship.
Mr. Hudson stated that it's fine with me.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 95-V-8 for one year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.
Case 96-V-15. Jodie Hatfield, 233 E. Tratebas Road, Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 233 E. Tratebas Road, in Jackson Township.
Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of this TCO, which will soon be moved off the property. He stated that the letter says that the mother is now in a nursing home and the mobile home will be moved to her brother's property in Star City, IN, within a few months. He stated that he checked this morning and the mobile home is still on the property, but it looks like the skirting is starting to come down, so it looks like they are trying to start to move it away.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 95-V-15 for three months, with the mobile home to be removed by then. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-15. Emmanuel & Eleni Manos, 798 N. 500 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the Southwest corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 500 E., in Jackson Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of this TCO.

Mr. Robertson stated that this isn't too far from where I live and I go by there and I know that it's her mother. He stated that I think she had to bring her mother out from Chicago and this seems to be a hardship case.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 99-V-15 for one year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 04-V-4. Petition of James Breece, 124 Rue Touraine, Deer Park, IL, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a utility building, for storage of building materials, prior to construction of the house, to be located on the North side of Division Road, between CR 450 E. and CR 575 E., in Washington Township.

Mr. Breece stated that I purchased a parcel of approximately 11 acres here in Valpo and I plan on building this summer. He stated that we are probably 90 percent complete with the architectural drawings from Wagner & Associates here in Valpo, the architect for the home. He stated that we are placing our home in Deer Park for sale effective May 1, so during the time frame of construction we need a place for probably storage of building materials. He stated that we expect the building to be completed or the home to be completed late summer, early fall, if we're not, hopefully, too overly optimistic. He stated that they tell us six months is a reasonable time frame, so we think that during this time frame we may need to store extra supplies from our house in Deer Park and building materials while this new home is under construction.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, can I ask you what your business is?

Mr. Breece stated that I'm semi-retired.


Mr. Hudson stated, then I'll cut to the chase. He asked, you don't plan on running a business out of this?

Mr. Breece stated, no sir.

Mr. Hudson asked, strictly for your supplies now and your personal things afterwards?

Mr. Breece stated, that's correct.

Mr. Robertson stated that the thing that bothers me, Sir, is that, is it 3,060 feet?

Mr. Breece stated, that's right.

Mr. Robertson stated, that's a pretty big…I can see it for building materials, but after you get the house built, what are you going to put in there?

Mr. Breece stated, walking horses and bird dogs.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you have plans to build your house in the next year?

Mr. Breece stated that we are going to begin construction in May.

Mr. Brickner asked, and it will be finished…

Mr. Breece stated, hopefully by Octoberish.

Mr. Brickner stated, we have like a statute of limitations here where we impose a 24-month, your house has to be completed by that time.

Mr. Breece stated, certainly, no difficulty at all.

Mr. Brickner asked, is that a cul-de-sac?

Mr. Breece stated, it is on a cul-de-sac that actually ends on that 11 acres of property. He stated that it's zoned AG, and it's the Eastern extremity of what used to be Hall's Acres.

Mr. Brickner asked, looking at the drawing, which way is the front of your property?

Mr. Breece stated that the front of my property would be…it adjoins the saddle club to the North and to the South is Division Road. He stated that it will face Division Road.

Mr. Brickner asked, it's not in your front yard?

Mr. Breece stated, no, it's not.


Mr. Robertson stated, I guess I don't have a problem. He stated that it seems like it's a big building, but he's going to have a use for it. He stated that we often put a limitation on this thing, if you haven't got your house built in, say, three years, you would have to tear this building down. He asked, do you accept that?

Mr. Breece stated, if I don't have this house built in somewhere between six to nine months, I've got a much bigger problem than that.

Mr. Robertson asked, so you could put that into a written instrument, because, I'm serious, we really do, if you build something before your house and your house doesn't get built, we ask you to put it into a written instrument that you would be willing to have it torn down.

Mr. Detert stated, if you have any problem with that written instrument, staff could help you and show you what's involved.

Mr. Robertson stated, we do that because we've found we have a lot of cases where years later they're still there and the house hasn't been built, so we started adding that to approval of this sort of thing.

Mr. Breece stated, I have no problem with that. He stated that the only unforeseen thing is if my wife or I would pass away.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-4, with the understanding that if the house isn't completed within three years the utility building will be removed and that a written commitment be recorded to that effect, 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 Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-5. Petition of Robert Martinez, 298 S. 150 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in the front yard, to be located at 298 S. 150 E., in Morgan Township.

Mr. Martinez stated that he is handing out pictures. He stated that I am here tonight trying to get a Variance to build a detached garage. He stated that as you see in the diagram there, where it's located. He stated that currently, from what I've been told, the garage would be allowed approximately 25 to 30 feet West of where I want it, however if I did that, I would have to tear out a big vegetable garden and apple trees and all kinds of stuff and that really is a beautiful property and I'd hate to tear it up that way, so it would just make my life much easier and the very few neighbors that I have don't seem to mind at all. He stated that the structure will be done in very good taste. He stated that I'm in the building business and I'm going to landscape it real nice so it just won't look like a big old barn there.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, your property comes off of an easement that's used by other people also? He stated, these two homes, I assume, use that same driveway?

Mr. Martinez stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated that this is a unique situation, calling the front yard where it is, I guess, is open to interpretation and that interpretation by staff is that where it is is in the front yard, but if you were to take this 60 feet and his front yard was all the way up at his 60 feet it would even make things even worse. He stated that I don't have a problem with it. He stated that I think it's an appropriate place. He stated that I certainly wouldn't want to see trees removed to put the building there. He stated that I'm more concerned, I guess, with the use of the building. He stated that you said you were a contractor.

Mr. Martinez stated, well, I am, but I don't use my garage for my business.

Mr. Hudson stated, okay, that's fine. He stated, that's all I need to hear.

Mr. Brickner stated, when I went out there, the reason that you're putting it there is strictly because your garden and those three crabapple trees…three little, four little crabapple trees you have in the front…is that the only reason you're…you know, I'm not saying I'm against this, but to move the garden is not really a hardship. He stated, if you had a septic field or…you could put the garden a little bit up front and put the garage in back of the garden is what I'm saying and there's a little shed there, too, in between your house and your garden that actually you could put it almost where that is if you wanted to. He stated, but there's no hardship here just to move the garden. He asked, do you understand what I'm saying? He stated, I don't know whether the Board is going to approve it or not, but there is no hardship for having your garage in the front yard. He stated that it could be put where your garden is and your garden could be moved.

Mr. Martinez stated, I totally agree with you, however, if you were to do that and you say you went there, that's a very pretty property. He stated that I would hate to plow a driveway all the way through there to get to the back of the property, you know, when there's really, in my opinion no logic or reason to put it back there. He stated that it's not going to make any difference, in my opinion, whether it's back there or in the front.

Mr. Brickner stated, other than it violates the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Martinez stated, but, if you view this from the street…

Mr. Brickner, stated, I understand, but it's just that I was going to ask you if you couldn't move it back, move your house (sic)…it almost comes to the property and your house sits a little on an angle and that makes your line for your front yard a little bit further forward and I'd go along with using the back corner as your line instead of your front corner and running it straight South, but the fact is you've just got a garden there and you want to put it forward of the garden and I have a little bit of a problem with that.

Mr. Detert stated, he feels it's a hardship, so…

Mr. Robertson stated that the other thing, Marv, is that it is closer to the road this way if he had to put it on, he'd have to have more of a road to it.

Mr. Brickner stated, the proposal, where it is, it wouldn't be that far back if it was where the garden was. He stated that it would only be 50 feet back where the garden was, or maybe 60 feet back, it wouldn't be that much further back. He asked, how about a compromise somewhere. He asked, can you get it back a little bit further? He stated, get it a little bit further off the road, anyway.

Mr. Martinez stated, yeah, I could push it back towards the garden, you know. He stated that the main thing was that I don't want to tear up that garden or those what you call crabapple trees. He stated that I'd just hate to tear that up to put a garage there when I don't feel I really….

Mr. Detert stated, we're getting a little redundant here. He stated that I think we spoke to that about three times.

Mr. Robertson stated, I understand what Marv's getting at about maybe pushing it back a little bit and it wouldn't be that much of a hardship to redo the garden, but still, it would be a little bit. He stated that he'd have to redig it if he's already got it dug, so, it's so far off the road I don't think it's going to make a difference. He stated that it's way back. He stated that it's not like up close to where somebody driving down the street is going to say hey, that's out of line. He stated that I don't think you'd be able to notice it from 150 E. He asked, how far is that - 250 feet?

Mr. Martinez stated that it's approximately 400 or 500 feet back.


Mr. Detert stated that I'm a little more concerned with your business and what purpose is this garage for?

Mr. Martinez stated, I own a lot of tools. He stated that I like doing a lot of woodworking stuff and I need it for all my tools and for storage like junk you collect, you know.

Mr. Detert stated that you indicated that you go someplace and pick up your materials, so obviously you got some kind of vehicle, truck.

Mr. Martinez stated, see, what I have is a window and siding business. He stated that I don't do any of my installations. He stated that I have a crew that does that and it's a window and siding business and my crew picks the materials up at the manufacturer. He stated that nothing is…none of the work is done out of my house.

Mr. Detert asked, this out building is not for storage of your commercial vehicles?

Mr. Martinez stated, no. He stated that I don't own any commercial vehicles.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 04-V-5, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-6. Petition of Thomas Bell, 716 S. 544 W., Hebron, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,640 square foot pole barn for storage of personal items, larger than the 1,200 square feet permitted in a subdivision, to be located at 716 S. 544 W., in Boone Township.

Mike Sheetz stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that Mr. Bell is requesting to build a building larger than the 1,200 square feet. He stated that the reason they want to go larger than the 1,200 square feet is because they have a trailer, they have an antique car, they have a Mercury Cougar, they have a tractor, they have two lawn mowers, implements for the tractor. He stated that they live like 700 feet or so off the main road, so they have plows, and believe it or not, they have quite a bit of holiday ornaments that they are going to use the building for personal storage for stuff like that. He stated that the building is not going to be used for any type of business or anything like that.

Max Hernick stated that he just would like to see what the process is all about.



Julia Gahm, 544 W. 700 S., stated that I was against the subdivision in the first place, and now that they have a subdivision, now they want to build this great, big building back there and me and all the neighbors around are just really opposed to it, another big building going back there and I just can't see them doing it.

Mr. Sheetz stated, just to rebut, the ordinance says you can build a 1,200 square foot building and, as you know, I can build multiple square foot buildings. He stated that there is no ordinance that says you can't, so instead of building three buildings, you know, that are going to equal the same square footage, we would like to build something that looks nice, that's one building. He stated that it's behind the house. He stated that they have 5.5 acres. He stated that it's going to be a complement to the home, as well. He stated that it's only 10 feet tall and maybe 14-15 feet tall to the peaks and it's lower than the house and what we don't want is what we see the neighbors have (showing a picture). He stated that it's in the front yard and you're seeing a building and then another building that's detached, which is much bigger than what they are going to do. He stated that we'd rather just put up one building than put two or three multiple buildings at 1,200 square feet, which they need the room, so they admitted to me that they would probably end up doing that.

Ms. Gahm stated that some of the other neighbors did have questions. She stated that a couple of the questions that some of the neighbors did have about the property and the pole barn being put on the topo is that a retention pond was supposed to be put in as soon as the house was built and I was wondering if that had been finished and if the berm or the swale had been put in when the house was built and now they're going to be putting another building up and we don't know if all this other stuff has been done first.

Mr. Sheetz stated, honestly, I do not know if the retention pond has been built. He stated that I do know that there are some drainage easements and things like that out there, but I would request that we still ask for approval pending that those things are done, if that's what was requested before.

Mr. Detert stated that we can always put a…if we want to approve it, we can always put an added little sentence in there that says the drainage must be approved, must be to the satisfaction of the staff and/or TAC.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that I would much rather see one building than three small buildings. He stated, now, the issue of the detention pond, I'm not sure if that's part of this lot or part of the subdivision and I don't quite understand, so, if it was a requirement that the detention pond be put in before any homes were built then I think that's something, as you said, we can control that.





Mr. Detert stated that you can make your motion so that it specifies that it's subject to any retention that's necessary.

Mr. Robertson stated, and then some kind of a berm that she keeps talking about?

Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, I don't know. He stated, I don't want to go on just what she says; I'd rather find out exactly what was supposed to be put in and there may be more things.

Mr. Detert stated that you can make it subject to…

Mr. Hudson stated, whatever the requirements of the development were…you keep them open enough to include everything that may have been promised.

Mr. Brickner stated, 88 feet long, man. He stated that we're letting these, getting these buildings bigger and bigger and bigger. He stated that it's 2.5 times the ordinance, you know, maximum size the ordinance allows. He stated that I don't have a problem with the building, it's just it seems like you can't get by with a…you're not the one who's building a (inaudible), but something in the neighborhood of a more reasonable length, uh, 75 feet or something, but…88 feet long. He stated that it's twice as long as my house.

Mr. Sheetz stated that we sat down and did a schematic and trying to get everything in…they have the trailer, the cars that's on the outside, the camper, um, actually they wanted to go bigger and then again it goes back that they need that much square footage and I don't want to see them put more pole buildings up there either.

Mr. Detert asked, well, would you like to have them cut it down to 75 and then have them build another, so I think that's where we're at.

Mr. Brickner stated that I just wanted to voice my opinion about the size of these pole barns that these buildings that we're seeing now. He stated that they're getting so gigantic and, you know, if there's no neighbors…if the neighbors don't complain, okay, but I don't know who's going to build a house in that area, you know, somebody else will probably build there and then it's going to be an awfully big building.

Mr. Sheetz stated that there is actually just two lots down, as the picture shows there's even a bigger building on less acreage.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, just to be contrary, I'd rather see more buildings than a big building, more like a village there. He stated, I just was curious: Ma'am, would you rather have three buildings, because they can do that without even coming here, or would you rather we approve this one big building.


Ms. Gahm stated, well, I'd rather just see one, but I don't see why it has to be so big.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, I guess, Rich, why don't you go ahead with that motion?

Mr. Detert stated, I guess I've taken a little bit different approach on this than I used to take when I stop and think about how big a pole barn I'd need if I built one, and by the time I assign 25 percent of it to each of my three kids and I was left over with 25 I wouldn't have much room.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 04-V-6, with the stipulation that any and all of the terms of the approval of this subdivision that this building is being permitted in be completed prior to the commencing of the work on this barn, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-SE-3. Petition of Hebron Soccer Club, P.O. Box 365, Hebron, seeking a Special Exception to permit a private soccer development, to be located near the Southeast corner of CR 1000 S. and CR 625 W., in Boone Township.

Debra Nagel, 100 Walnut Ct., Hebron, stated that I am the president of the Hebron Soccer Club. She stated that what we want to do is we want to expand our soccer club. She stated that right now we play at MSD of Boone Township, the Metropolitan School District of Boone Township, on the one soccer field there. She stated that in the fall we have teams from age 4 to 14 and this past fall we had over 300 kids playing on one field, actually, two fields. She stated that we put one to the (inaudible), but besides sharing it with the high school boys and girls teams both. She stated that in the spring, we also have a spring soccer league for the high school kids, but at this point we have 40 kids that are involved in that.

Kim Zimny, 712 S. 400 W., Hebron, stated that my kids are involved in the Hebron Soccer Club. She stated that the playing time and practice time are limited at the school. She stated that we feel that it's a great thing for the community in Hebron to have something like this for the kids, as well as the entire community.

James White, 600 W. 1019 S., Hebron, stated that I don't want to say that I'm against it, but I would like to see a preliminary drawing of what it's going to look like. He stated that it's directly across from my house and there's just an easement of my driveway that separates me from this field, so I'd like to see what I'm going to walk out to every morning and look at before I even get into drainage issues or children, because I have a barbed wire (inaudible) with an electric fence on it, so I worry about liability issues. He stated that I would like to see some kind of preliminary drawing to start with.

Ms. Nagel stated that I don't have a drawing with me, but I did submit a drawing to your Board. She stated that basically we have gone and made a 40-foot offset around the whole property. She stated that we are planning on planting some sort of shrubbery to border it to also let our kids know that you can't go any farther than that border.

Mr. Detert stated that somebody commented or called about having a big fence there.

Ms. Nagel stated that we checked it out and we figured that it was about 400 feet from our property.

Mr. White stated, on this drawing, the parking is 150 by 150 in the middle?

Ms. Nagel stated, yes.

Mr. White stated that I don't see the layout of where the fields are going to be and that's where the children are going to be playing, on the fields. He asked, night games, lights, drainage issues, traffic?

Ms. Nagel stated that first of all, no night games. She stated that we cannot afford lighting. She stated that soccer is played only during the daylight hours. She stated that our earliest that we start is 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning on Saturday morning. She stated that we may play some Friday night games, but those are at like 5:30. She stated that as for the layout of the fields, we have kind of reserved it at this point because we don't want to put permanent structures on it because grass does get worn out and we might have to move them slightly, but we plan of having approximately nine fields, starting out with the 4- and 5-year-old fields, which are small, to the regular, um, regulation size soccer fields, which would be one. She stated that we are planning on having them run North and South on the property.

Mr. Detert stated I guess I just want to help a little bit here. He asked, where would your driveway be as opposed to his driveway? He asked, would it be directly across?


Ms. Nagel stated, no. She stated that we would actually come off of 1000 S. She stated that we do know that we have to go to the Porter County Highway Department and then have them tell us exactly what kind of culvert to put in.

Mr. Detert asked, are you satisfied with her explanation of the questions you asked?

Mr. White stated, yes. He stated, I have one other comment. He stated that it's not really a question. He stated that I would like some type of divider, natural boundary, between my property line and their playing fields, like maybe a berm or something, but little shrubbery - that's not going to keep a child from being hurt and I don't want that headache to deal with that.

Mr. Detert stated that the Board has the discretion to require that if they so desire.

Mr. White stated that I have a picture, if you'd like to see how close that field will be. He stated that that's looking to the West down my driveway. He stated that that's where it's been filled up and planted. He stated that that's how close it is to my barbed wire. He stated that it's about 2 feet from my fence.

Ms. Zimny stated that the land that was purchased there was for sale. She stated that being a long-time member of the community I would rather see soccer fields or something for the community that to have it go into more subdivisions.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think it would be a really good idea to have some kind of a dividing berm or a mound or maybe just trees wouldn't be enough, but maybe plant some trees and have some kind of a mound there; is that possible to do that?

Ms. Nagel stated, I think so, yes. She stated that we just planted some trees there.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many kids are going to be there, the maximum number of kids that would be there at one time?

Ms. Nagel stated that it would be a guesstimate on my part, but I would say at least probably 100 to 150.

Mr. Brickner stated, wow. He stated that that's a lot of noisy kids if you don't have some kind of buffer zone between this gentleman' house and these other houses and the field, to have that many kids out there.


Ms. Nagel stated, we've already planted 200 trees out there, and we plan on planting some more. She stated that we're not going to play on it until probably next fall or maybe next spring, depending on how the grass comes up, so it's going to be a while yet, before we're even going to be playing on it.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think we ought to have some kind of a mound there, some kind of…with trees planted.

Mr. Robertson stated, I wonder about a fence, because that really is a…

Ms. Nagel stated, to do a fence, though, I have to get a…I believe I have to go in front of a Board for that, too.

Mr. Robertson stated, because that really is a problem there. He stated that he's got an electric fence and it's 5 feet away from where these kids are going to be playing, and you know the kids are going to go everywhere and normally we don't vote against churches and soccer fields.

Mr. Hudson asked, Mr. Chairman, can I recognize the planner?

Mr. Thompson stated, I guess for a fence I wouldn't say you have to go to a Board on that, I mean in the front yard keep it at 4 feet, that's fine, but then anything past the front yard setback you can go up to 6 (sic) feet. He stated that I would much prefer to see a fence versus a mound and the reason that I'm saying that is because of the fact that I have two young daughters and you take them to the park and they see a mound or a hill - boom, it's an attraction. He stated that they're there, so if we're going to put it next the gentleman's yard, a mound or something like that, you're just going to have a magnet for kids, you really are, whereas if you put a fence and some screening and everything like that, in my opinion, it's a different story. He stated that it may not be such an attractive thing. He stated that I'm speaking from experience here because of being there and coaching a T-ball team in the Kouts area one year, they had a mound there and it was an attraction to those kids. He stated that it was just boom, right there.

Mr. Detert stated that the other thing I don't like about a mound, especially on something like this is, the tendency not to get them mowed as regularly as they should be and they sometimes become unsightly and I think you're right, I think a mound would attract the kids rather than keep them away.

Mr. Robertson asked, well, now, if we're talking fence, are we talking about a fence in just the front of this fellow's property or just in front of his fence or…

Mr. Detert stated that it's up to this Board.


Mr. Robertson stated that I'm, I'd like to ask Mr. What's His Name, is it White, oh, yeah, James White, Kenny White. He stated that we can see you really do have a problem there with 150 kids right next that fence. He asked, if we asked them to put a fence of their own to keep their children inside their property, how would you like to see that fence go?

Mr. White stated, I would like it to be appealing.

Mr. Brickner asked, chain link?

Mr. White stated, if it could be beautified some way. He stated, don't get me wrong. He stated that I really would love to have a soccer field there. He stated that I don't want another subdivision with homes, but I don't want to be a liability.

Mr. Robertson stated, we understand, that's what we're trying to do. He asked, what about those chain link fences that have the strips or something like that? He asked, and what about the length of it there? He asked, are you interested in the whole length of your property?

Mr. White stated that if you had a chain link fence and stopped it half-way they could go around that.

Mr. Robertson asked, what about the other homes right along there, next to you?

Mr. White stated that there is just one of them, one other home.

Mr. Robertson asked, so what kind of distance are you talking about?

Mr. White stated, about a quarter mile.

Mr. Robertson stated, a quarter mile long. He stated that that's pretty expensive.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think we have to have a fence there.

Mr. Detert asked, how long do you want it?

Mr. Brickner stated, at least the length of his property. He stated that nobody else seems to be concerned, nobody else has complained, but if I lived there, I'd want a fence on my property with that many children running around. He stated, but I don't know how long his property is, if Hebron Soccer can afford to build a 5 or 6-foot chain link fence the whole length of that property. He stated, you know, I don't want to make this overwhelming for the soccer club, either, but a fence should probably run the whole length of the soccer field.



Ms. Nagel stated that that would be about 1,312 feet, the whole length of the back, which would be cost-prohibitive for us.

Mr. Detert stated, a lot of these baseball fields and things, they enlist the support of the parents and the group that's sponsoring it to put up these fences. He stated that I would think that would lower the cost considerably if you could do that.

Ms. Nagel stated that we've already put out letters to local businesses asking for donations and at this point we have like $750 in donations. She stated that we're not talking about a big business district in Hebron, in fact, we're losing a lot of businesses.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, you'll have to agree by whatever terms the motion says.

Mr. Robertson asked, what other kind of fence might we have that might not be as expensive that maybe would work and look attractive and that would tend to keep the kids out?

Mr. Hudson stated, I'm all for teaching kids to have responsibility and that comes from parents and I don't know that I'm in favor a fence anymore in front of this gentleman's…they might be better off selling the property for a subdivision and finding someplace else to…

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, I guess I'm troubled with that because if we make it cost-prohibitive they will go someplace else and the gentleman will have homes there, which will have children in and they'll still play around his fence, so it's six of one and a half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, just put some screening up, like some pine trees or arborvitaes or something to screen. He stated that that wouldn't be as expensive as a fence and it would be something, some kind of a buffer.

Ms. Nagel stated that my comment is I have no problem putting arborvitae up. She stated that we put up over about 200 of them already, and we're willing to put more up because we've gotten them at a really nice discount at the Porter County Expo Center a few weekends ago, so that's not a problem with us and, of course, when it comes to signing up the kids we can have an information sheet that says they must stay within the treed area, they cannot go out - if they go out, then they'll have to leave.

Mr. Detert stated, I thought you'd say when they signed up they would have to bring in an arborvitae tree.

Ms. Nagel stated, that would help.




Mr. Robertson stated, even more than they'd have to leave, I would say they'd be out of the club or something. He stated that this seems to me to be a deal killer.

Ms. Nagel stated, that would be fine.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, you could double-row plant arborvitaes or similar type screening.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think that would be better in the long run than a fence because that's going to not only deter, but it's going to screen, and if the kids are out there maybe not be able to see them would be better than just a fence.

Mr. Detert stated, you might want to specify the distance and the height of such trees. He stated, you know, if you put them 6 feet apart it would take 100 years for them to get big enough to crowd it all out.

Mr. White stated, she did plant quite a few trees, but they're only like 12 inches tall and they're like my finger. He stated, I bought the same ones last year and they're a really good deal, but I just don't think they're much of a boundary.

Mr. Detert stated well one thing they would do is identify the boundary for the children.

Mr. Robertson asked, would you be able to put some bigger ones, at least around there in front of his property?

Ms. Nagel stated, I should be able to, yeah.

Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee report.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-SE-3, with the restrictions of a double row of arborvitae being planted along the edge of the soccer field, the entire length of the South edge of the soccer field and that in front of Mr. White's house hopefully they can plant larger ones to give him a buffer more quickly; no night games and no lights at the field; parking in designated areas only; access from 1000 S. only.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner asked, you're not going to have any shelters of any kind?

Ms. Nagel stated, not at this point, no.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you expect to build?




Ms. Nagel stated, eventually. She stated that we actually have the Lion's Club of Hebron is looking for a place to me and they would like to build a building and we would share it.

Mr. Detert stated, but that has to go before TAC, so.

Mr. Robertson asked, how about the culvert?

Mr. Detert stated, well, the culvert also has to subscribe to the Highway Department rules, so…

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-SE-3, with the restrictions of a double row of arborvitae being planted along the edge of the soccer field, the entire length of the South edge of the soccer field and that in front of Mr. White's house hopefully they can plant larger ones to give him a buffer more quickly; no night games and no lights at the field; parking in designated areas only; access from 1000 S. only; and the culvert to subscribe to the Highway Department rules.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson asked, the 17 acres as it exists today, is it farm ground?

Ms. Nagel stated that it was a soybean field.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, if it has no grass cover on it…

Ms. Nagel stated, not at this point. She stated that we just planted grass on it.

Mr. Hudson stated, so grass will help with drainage issues.

Ms. Nagel stated that we actually planted three-way athletic turf grass that has a lot of fescue in it which will really reach down deeply.

Mr. Hudson stated that that should decrease the runoff.


Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-SE-3, with the restrictions of a double row of arborvitae being planted along the edge of the soccer field, the entire length of the South edge of the soccer field and that in front of Mr. White's house hopefully they can plant larger ones to give him a buffer more quickly; no night games and no lights at the field; parking in designated areas only; access from 1000 S. only; and the culvert to subscribe to the Highway Department rules, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, with the addition of putting a double row of arborvitaes in front of Mr. White's house, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-SE-2. Petition of Vertical Real Estate(C/o CIS Communications LLC), 165 N. Meramec, Suite 400, St. Louis, MO, seeking a Special Exception to permit a 180-foot monopole wireless communications tower and equipment cabinets, to be located at 810 N. 330 W., in Portage Township.

Brick Storts stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that Vertical RealEstate is a third-party tower provider to the wireless industry. He stated, with this in mind, they are proposing a site located behind the existing Fitness Barn, off Highway 6. He stated that it's just slightly East of the Rieth-Reilly construction complex over there. He stated that basically Vertical RealEstate builds a multipurpose site that all the carriers can use. He stated, thus, it is a business venture for Vertical RealEstate, but one thing it does do for the communities where they have done this throughout the area is it cuts down on tower proliferation. He stated that they can build one site that will service everyone. He stated that in this particular situation we've had interest from literally five carriers on this site. He stated that I have two carriers that have actually submitted their formal letters stating they're ready to locate on this structure. He stated that the other three carriers have all taken this into consideration and they are, they've indicated that as soon as their budget permits, this would be the location they would choose. He stated that basically this is a 180-foot monopole and this does provide for multi-carrier use and did everyone have a chance to review the materials in this? He stated that it's a pole that's designed by Pyrod, Tab #5, and, as you can see on the antenna loading list, these are the theoretical spots that all the carriers could locate: 180, 170, 160. He stated that typically the carriers do need some type of separation for their antennas, but the reason this works well is that so many times, and I've been doing this a lot of years, and so many times when you have a single carrier that comes in to just build his one tower, they don't get to the extent to design this for the multi-use situation. He stated that I know that a lot of communities make them say, oh, well, you'll allow for co-location, but there is no way to really check how many carriers that can accommodate because they can always come back and say, hey, you know we would like to co-locate, but the tower just won't hold it. He stated that with utilizing Vertical RealEstate's model, this is done from the outset. He stated that we design the pole from the start to hold everything. He stated that requires us to do more extensive foundation in the ground and such, but the pole itself is designed so we can hold everyone. He stated that if you flip to the second page, this is the style pole that we utilize and it's a monopole design, that's an industry term. He stated that it's a taper pole and then the carriers put the antennas at the corresponding slots on the structure itself. He stated that it's a very solid structure, it's a very common structure in the more urban areas. He stated that basically there are no guy wires or anything of that nature. He stated that it's all supported by a foundation that is a deep drill foundation that's in the ground and it's a very solid structure, in fact, where there have been natural disasters, the monopole design in particular has been extremely resilient. He stated that in the case of the Okalahoma tornadoes, I know, unfortunately this area has suffered a tornado just recently where wireless communications were actually the first communications back online after this, a lot of the reason being that these structures will…well, nothing can usually withstand a direct hit from a tornado, the monopole design in the most resilient. He stated that it doesn't have a lot of things that can be grabbed onto by the wind. He stated that I'm not saying that it won't bend in an extreme scenario, but they do stay up in the air. He stated that basically the site plan itself calls for a 100 by 100 leased area with access to the rear of the property. He stated that the site is fully fenced. He stated that it's an unmanned facility. He stated that a tech from the various wireless carriers may visit the site once a month in an identified company vehicle. He stated that they will go in and tune the equipment and do any of the tuning. He stated that this structure is not required to be lighted for the FAA; we've already run all of the checks on that, also. He stated that typically the cutoff is 200 feet unless there is an air corridor or a guide slope or something of that nature in the immediate area. He stated that the site is critical for the carriers to get their wireless, to expand their wireless footprints and their coverage. He stated that there is not any existing structures in this area, so this is a good platform and a good way to do this from the outset, because this truly will cut down on six, seven different carriers coming in trying to dot the area. He stated that I hate to use this cliché but I use it a lot because it's very true: if we build it, they will come, so once the structure is up, folks like my company that are hired to do this go out and try to locate sites, we've looked for the existing structures first, that's the first mode of path (sic), that you always…we try to utilize anything that we can that gives the proper height for the carrier. He stated that when there is a structure like this already up, it makes things easy and everyone goes right to that structure.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.



No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that you have in here that you have subscribed carriers, but you do have somebody now, because you don't have any letters or anything.

Mr. Storts stated that I do now…

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, I don't want to see them. He asked, you did send out letters?

Mr. Storts stated, oh, absolutely, in fact I have T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular that have letters that say we're ready to go. He stated that what typically occurs with some of the other carriers, and I've had experience with them all, is a lot of them are very close to the vest on these letters unless they're…for example, U.S. Cellular has done their investigations and T-Mobile has because…for example, if this would get turned down, they don't want to be locked in to…they would rather try to come in themselves; that always occurs. He stated that that gets back to the if we build it they will come scenario, so, but we do have two carriers that are ready to roll; I have letters.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, you've addressed all of the issues in the ordinance in your presentation except the screening. He asked, are you planning any screening around the fence that you're going to put up?

Mr. Storts stated, we are open to all that, and we normally will defer to the staff on what they think, or we're very flexible to that. He stated that this particular location is zoned I-2, industrial, and the one aspect that when we talked to the developer, the owner of the property, is he has a sign up right now trying to sell commercial lots and I don't know what process he's in with the County, or if he is at all, or if he's just speculating or whatever, but one of our agreements with them is that if that does get built out as some quasi-commercial park or something, we would have a floating access agreement. He stated that the only thing that we care about is that we can get a truck or vehicle back to the site, so, we're willing to plant trees or do whatever it takes as far as screening. He stated that the site itself is pretty remote.

Mr. Robertson asked, Marv, isn't that in the ordinance, the screening?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, the screening. He stated, just make the general statement to comply with all the terms of the ordinance. He stated that the location of this tower is behind the Fitness Barn, 140 feet North of the fitness barn, in the Portage Township, South Haven area. He asked, where exactly is the soccer field back there, the football field back there that they used to use for the Fitness Barn? He asked, is it beyond the football field?

Mr. Storts stated that I've got it…I made copies for everybody.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think it's a great place for a tower. He stated that I don't have any problem with the location, that's for sure.

Mr. Storts stated that I've put a star as closely as possible for the location of the pool, then if you flip through the folder, the property and I think it does show the exact distances.

Mr. Brickner asked, is it 180 feet.

Mr. Storts stated, it's 180 feet.

Mr. Brickner asked if there is a 10-foot antenna on top or a 9-foot antenna?

Mr. Storts stated that the pole itself terminates at the 170-foot mark, but then on top there is typically a platform that will support, and they give or take…it won't be taller than 180, but it could be a 6-foot antenna, and then there's typically a lightning rod, and the platform area that is at the 170 height, and it usually will protrude up like 2 feet above the antenna height, but we usually give ourselves a 10-foot buffer over the tallest tip of the tower for the attachments and like if there's a public…typically like we'll offer public safety antennas on the tower. He stated that they will put yagis that will go up above.

Mr. Brickner stated, Mr. Carlson, he has an airport there.

Mr. Thompson stated, no, it wasn't Mr. Carlson. He stated that it's Putt Robbins. He stated that he's the owner of Robbinhurst Golf Course. He stated that he uses one of these fairways or something for a runway.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it's not approved, but can you still put a light on top of that thing?

Mr. Storts stated that typically we go by what the FAA mandates because of liability issues. He stated that they, believe it or not, if there's not an approved runway, the FAA would rather not light it because then…it then becomes a liability for the FAA. He stated that you, in essence, are allowing the guy who's maybe using his field for crop dusting and may not necessarily be an "approved" situation and lend it credence by lighting a tower next to it.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, I don't know. He stated that I'd still like to see a light. He stated, I mean the guy's been there, using that…you know, he flies in and out of his golf course there, you know, he's been doing that for 30 years or so.

Mr. Brickner asked, if you put a light up there, do you assume liability then?

Mr. Robertson asked, how do you assume liability by putting a light up?

Ms. Schaefer stated, excuse me. She stated, I may be able to circumvent (sic) this…or, you may not like it but…if it's regulated by the FAA, we have no authority over whether there's a light there or not.

Mr. Robertson asked, do they say that you cannot put a light?

Mr. Storts stated, they don't necessarily say that. He stated that they don't like…I guess, my only question on that, because you bring up a good question, is the liability aspect for the company and the carriers themselves. He stated that I've never had a situation where it wasn't required by the FAA, who is the aviation authority, I've never had a situation where we've lit a tower that wasn't required to be lit.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I, personally, as your attorney, think it's not our business to require a light on top of that tower.

Mr. Detert stated that the last I've heard on the takeoffs and landings is that it didn't look like the airplane has been moved much. He asked, do you know that the guy is actually flying?

Mr. Robertson stated, he uses it every once in a while.

Mr. Storts stated, at 180 feet, it's pretty low to be flying over there, I would think.

Mr. Robertson stated, just if you come in at night or something and it's dark and windy; you know, it's the odd situation, not the everyday situation.

Mr. Storts stated, if he's landing in a field, he cannot be coming in at night if it's not a certified landing strip with lighting and a tower, so he cannot do that legally, then he really should be shut down because he's a liability to everybody. He stated that he's a liability to everyone in the Fitness Barn.

Mr. Brickner stated, Hans Mugler, stated…can I read this: "We are not applying for a Special Exception because we cannot comply with the zoning requirements, but applying for a Special Exception because the zoning ordinance requires the facility be approved by a Special Exception permit". He stated that that reminds me of the guy that used to say if I don't ride with you, I won't call you. He stated, and then you get home and you say, what the heck?

Mr. Storts stated that he was trying to interpret…I think his point was, and I agree, I think that could have been better written..but let me tell you the spirit in which he wrote that. He stated that he felt that he can comply with the zoning ordinance setbacks, you know, all of the criteria in your ordinance, but you do require a Special Exception, regardless, so, it wasn't like, for example, that we couldn't landscape or there was a setback issue that we couldn't meet.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is a great place for a tower, I think, one of the best places that we've had in a long time, and there is a tower there.

Mr. Storts stated, yes, Reith-Reilly, and we approached them but they said with the nature of their business and such and they just said that they're ever expanding, changing how they're going to do their property and everything and they just said..it's your problem.

At this time, Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee report. The report is in the file.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-SE-2, subject to providing all of the tower zoning ordinance requirements are met, 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 Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

At this time, Mr. Detert stated that I got a call today, again, on the Sweeney litigation. He stated that I can't understand why two years have gone by and…

Ms. Schaefer stated that Mr. Thompson has the information and I believe I've given a report on it. She stated that we were told that the property was going to be sold and so, on the basis of being told that it was going to be sold, I had about 15 calls from the Realtor and the mortgage company and whatever it was last fall, I believe it was, last fall saying that you have to dismiss the suit in order to sell the property because otherwise it's a cloud on the title and they won't get financing. She stated that as you probably know if you've applied for a mortgage or something, they're going to do a credit check and the title company is going to have that as an exception, so they're not going to approve financing for somebody who has a lawsuit pending against them, so I dismissed it, what we call without prejudice, in order for that sale to go through. She stated that subsequently I learned, and I don't know at what stage and time it was, but we learned from one of the neighbors complained, and it was maybe a lady named Pat, I don't know, who called you?

Mr. Detert stated, Pat Brown.

Ms. Schaefer stated, yeah, well, I talked to Pat Brown two weeks ago and I told her what was going on, so I don't know why she's calling you again, because I told her that we have a court hearing coming up. She stated that I filed a motion to reinstate the cause of action, and to go back to court. She stated that we have a status hearing set on May 18th, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Detert stated, cutting to the quick, and not particularly this one, I think we have an obligation to the people of Porter County to uphold the ordinances, and in this particular instance, we got 25-30 or more vehicles and they've been parked there for over two years, maybe close to three. He asked, is there anything we have to do to the ordinance so that we can take faster action on these things. He stated, I mean, the property's there, they say they're going to sell it. He stated that it looks…they don't sell it, so…

Ms. Schaefer stated that to me, I think it was reasonable for me and Bob to say, okay, this is the course of action under these facts that we're going to take, because we actually have the mortgage company call and the title company, saying this is what has to be done, so obviously, to my mind, there was a buyer, otherwise I wouldn't be getting calls from such and such title company.

Mr. Detert stated, but it hasn't happened, that's the problem. He stated that the cars are still there.

Mr. Thompson stated, also, supposedly, I mean he did go through site review with an engineer and everything like that, building a new site out on SR 130, an industrial park. He stated that Fred went out there and looked at it, and he's dragging his feet on that. He stated that it is time to light a fire.

Ms. Schaefer stated that we have a hearing on May 18th; that's all I can tell you and the fact of the matter is…it's easier if somebody doesn't have a lawyer, but he has Todd Leeth representing him. She stated that he filed an answer to the complaint, so there, once you file the lawsuit, by the time you get service of summons, they have 30 days right there. She stated that the minute they hire a lawyer, they get another 30 days extension automatically under our local rules. She stated that then you've got to set it by local rules from the court, you have to get a status conference where there are two attorneys involved, you have to set deadlines - are you going to take depositions, are you going to do this, are you going to do that, then you're not even going to get a trial date until you go to the status conference, so, you know, I think under the circumstances I don't know what to tell you, Bob, but I've talked to Pat Brown several times.



Mr. Detert stated, well, and I'm not picking on anybody in particular, it's just frustrating to get these situations and people pull delaying tactics and this obscene property sits there for years and nothing's done. He asked, what do we have to do to change that? He asked, what can we do?

Ms. Schaefer stated that we have no power over the way the court system runs, for one thing, and I think this is a…I mean, the suit was filed as soon as I was authorized to file the suit. She stated that I was in communication with Bob about it and I told this particular woman that they had an offer to buy it and so on and so forth and I've done what I can. She stated that as soon as I found out that it was as bad as it was, I filed a motion to reinstate the lawsuit, and we now have a hearing on that on the 18th. She stated that there is no problem; the judge will reinstate it and we'll get a trial date - that's what we're going to do on the 18th.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess the problem with the laws is that people can thumb their nose at it and get away with it. He stated that I think there's something that we ought to be able to do. He stated that this shouldn't go on for two or three years.

Mr. Thompson stated that the problem is that we had one that went on for five years.

Mr. Detert stated, well, it shouldn't go on for five years. He stated that I'm not picking on this one in particular.

Mr. Thompson stated that Lily even got a nice fine levied by the judge on that particular case and a few months later, they're filing bankruptcy or what not, and we're probably not going to get a thing out of it.

Mr. Detert stated that that's what they usually do. He stated that it's very frustrating. He stated that you have rules and somebody doesn't want to adhere to them and the process is so slow…

At this time, Mr. Brickner asked, is there any way we can close the loophole on this 1,200 square foot…?

Mr. Thompson stated, yeah, I know, you all asked me about that once before, about three, four months ago and that's what Lily and I were talking about. He stated that she was mentioning to me that Valparaiso does state one accessory building per lot, essentially, so I'll try to get to it as soon as I can.

Mr. Brickner stated, we actually got threatened, either that or, and that seems kind of….

Mr. Thompson stated that in one particular case that brought it up was three, four months ago was in the one subdivision somebody came in and asked for it and it was turned down and a number of neighbors remonstrated against it and after it was turned down, the following week the person went back in and says, oh, yeah, by the way, your ordinance doesn't state how many I can build, so I'm going to build two 1,200 square-footers and the next thing I know I had the neighbor call me up and say, hey, wait a minute, he's got two up there.

Mr. Detert stated, you know, whatever we do with our ordinances, somebody's going to sit up nights figuring out how to get around them.

At this time, Mr. Thompson stated that on May 5th and 6th, right here in the conference room, the Plan Commission is going to be interviewing consultants to rework the Master Plan. He stated that there are six consultants and that he would like the BZA members to attend to offer their suggestions.

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

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

S/Robert Detert, Chairman

Attest: Fred M. Siminski
Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector