The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on May 19, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Robertson moved to waive reading of the minutes of the 4-21-04 BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 94-UV-3. Marilyn Katzmarek, 183 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a sharpening shop on the North side of CR 1050 N., between CR 200 E. and SR 49, in Liberty Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)

Ms. Katzmarek stated that it's just a small business and it keeps my husband out of the house. She stated that he's retired and he just does it as a side for extra income.

Mr. Robertson stated that I drive by there every day.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 94-UV-3 for 5 years, with the sign that was previously approved. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-UV-6. Mark Nichols, 178 E. 650 S., Kouts, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a masonry business, on the West side of Baums Bridge Road, between CR 650 S. and CR 700 S., in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that I don't have a letter, but I did talk to Mr. Nichols who indicated that he would like a renewal at this address, and he did pay the fee.

Mr. Brickner asked if there has been any opposition.

Mr. Siminski stated that there were no calls to our office and no problems at this time.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 99-UV-6 for 5 years. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.




Case 01-UV-5. Southaven Associates, LLC, c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a church in South Haven Square Center, between McCool and Juniper Roads, in Portage Township.

Mr. Detert stated that I understand that the church is no longer there - is that correct?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes. He stated that upon my inspection to there, the church is now moved. He stated that there is a business in its place. He stated that the only thing left is a little sign above the door that indicates it was there. He stated that we also received a letter from RDC Management Company indicating that they are no longer a tenant in South Haven Shopping Center.

Mr. Hudson moved to deny Case 01-UV-5. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-9. James & Marjorie Walton, 322 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 322 W. 100 N., between CR 250 W. and CR 325 W., in Union Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Walton came in this morning. He stated that I was having a hard time reaching him. He stated that basically the mobile home that he has on his property had his mother on the property. He stated that she is now in a nursing home and also his wife has been in the hospital having surgery and recovery, so that was the reason that I couldn't get a hold of him. He stated that he indicated to me that he is in the midst of selling the mobile home. He stated, in fact, he's planning on building another home right behind his home that's one floor since his wife cannot climb steps any longer, so he indicated that he needs a little time since he's spending most of his time with his wife in the hospital.

Mr. Detert asked, does he understand that he can't put a second residence on that parcel?

Mr. Siminski stated that he owns the property right behind him.

Mr. Detert stated, he also had some unplated cars?

Mr. Siminski stated that we talked about that also this morning and he is also going to clean that up, too. He stated that I did tell him that I would work with him because of the problem with his family and to keep in touch with me and I will keep in touch with him also.

Mr. Brickner asked, did he say how much time he needed?





Mr. Siminski stated that he didn't really know how long it would take to sell the mobile home and from the indications of his wife she may be in the hospital in like a recovery thing for at least another month or so.

Mr. Detert stated that I think 6 months would cover the selling time.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 84-V-9 for 6 months. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 89-V-4. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 439 E. 700 S., in Pleasant Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Jon Lyons stated that I am an attorney representing Jerome Drazer, the petitioner, who is here. He stated that the brief history is that this is a mobile home that has been occupied on the same premises as his home, a farm down on 700 S., East of Kouts. He stated that the last time we were in you gave us some time to explore the possibility - I think 90 days, if I'm not mistaken - the record will show what the number is. He stated that in the meantime we have explored the possibilities of bringing this building into compliance and that would require a masonry foundation and some other increase in the floor space and one thing or another. He stated that the upshot of it is that it would be way more expensive than we could justify doing that. He stated, so, Mr. Drazer has instructed me to, in essence, abandon all hope that he could keep what he has up there as his second residence that is being occupied by an elderly gentleman now. He stated that we've come to the conclusion that we are going to have to vacate it as a residence and convert it into a storage building. He stated that it may take a couple of months or so to get the tenant out and get him another place to live. He stated that we do not expect to continue maintaining it as a residence. He stated that that requires me to request that you give us another extension or just to agree not to do any enforcement for several months or whatever the methodology would be, but we would hope that that's a demonstration of our good faith.

Mr. Siminski stated that the only thing is if it does become a storage unit, would that be personal items or would that be farm items?

Mr. Lyons stated that I presume that it would be farm items. He stated that what it's going to be basically is vacant. He stated that Babe would like to sell it. He stated that I don't know if there is a market for a mobile home or not. He stated that it's not a piece of junk. He stated that it's not a bad-looking structure.





Mr. Siminski stated that if the mobile home is asked or denied for residence, he will have to disconnect the utilities from it, being that it's not a residential unit any longer. He stated that there is also a mailbox, I believe, in front of the house and that will have to be taken down.

Mr. Lyons stated that I don't know that we have a problem disconnecting the utilities because that would certainly sort of prove that we're doing what we are doing, but is there some requirement of the ordinance for a barn, for instance, that you cannot have a stool or sink?

Mr. Siminski stated that is you are approved as an accessory building. He stated that as a residence, you can't have any kind of utilities like septic or water or things like that.

Mr. Detert stated that you could have electricity.

Mr. Lyons stated that Babe is prepared to do whatever he has to do.

Mr. Siminski stated that if you do motion to approve this note that the mobile home is ahead of the main residence in terms of proximity to the roadway. He stated that there is a treeline between the mobile home and I think another accessory building right behind it and the residence, but still it is forward of the…

Mr. Lyons stated that I was out there today with that in mind, because I talked to Bob Thompson earlier today, and it looks to me, gentleman, as though that mobile home is almost directly in line with the front of the house. He stated that if it's a foot one way or the other, I'd be surprised, but there is a little porch up in front that extends maybe 8 feet or so, and that clearly is too close, but the structure itself, just eyeballing it, I'd say is dead center with the front of the house, but we may need a variance for that or whatever. He stated that we will come back and do whatever in terms of…

Mr. Detert stated that if we made a motion, we would have to approve it for an accessory building in the front yard?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, we could give him a continuance and then let him come back after that continuance has expired.

Mr. Detert stated that I just wanted to have Fred let him know some of the things that had to be done because this has been on our agenda about three times now.

Ms. Schaefer stated that I think it might be better to do a continuance because if he needs to petition for an accessory building


or for these other things, then he needs to find that out in the meantime.

Mr. Detert stated that I would just like to see us get past it, because it's been on our agenda what, three, four times now.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don't mind the extension, but I don't think that he should be allowed to keep this trailer on the property. He stated that that's not what we give trailers for. He stated that we give them for hardship purposes and that's gone beyond this. He stated that, to me, the trailer should be removed, not used as a storage building or not used as anything else. He stated that it should be removed. He stated that it's being rented now and there is no hardship here anymore. He stated that it doesn't exist and a trailer shouldn't be allowed to stay on the property.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I'd like to hear, if we give them an extension for a period of time - 3 months or 6 months - what they would come back with as far as utilizing it for something else.

Mr. Detert stated, I think what he indicated was for a storage building.

Ms. Schaefer stated that he also indicated that they might be trying to sell it.

Mr. Hudson stated that I would be willing to give them six months then.

Mr. Robertson stated, I guess six months, but I think Marvin is right. He stated that a trailer is a trailer.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I think the idea being that if you come back in six months you've either sold it or…(inaudible)

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 89-V-4 for six months. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 96-V-18. Keith & Janice Meyers, 318 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 350 E., in Jackson Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO. The letter is in the file.

Mr. Hudson stated that I see no problem.

Mr. Brickner stated that there is no opposition.

Mr. Robertson stated, no, it doesn't bother me. He stated that I drive by this one, too, and they've got a large farm operation there and they really do need to keep track of things.


Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 96-V-18 for one year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 97-V-22. Mary Carey, 356 E. 1500 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of CR 1500 N., between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E., in Pine Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of this TCO. The letter is in the file.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 97-V-22 for one year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-24. Daniel Herma, 1083 S. Baums Bridge Road, Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a manufactured residence located on the property in a temporary fashion, to care for in-laws, on the East side of Baum's Bridge Road, between CR 1050 S. and the Kankakee River, in Pleasant Township.

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

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 99-V-24 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

Case 04-V-7. Petition of Dan Cosentino, 9705 W. U.S. Hwy 30, Wanatah, seeking a Variance to permit construction of an 1,872 square foot storage building to house personal items, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located at 1113 N. 475 E., in Jackson Township.

Mr. Cosentino stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner, Roland Lursky. He stated that he is interested in putting up a 36 by 52 foot storage building that's going to be used to house his motor home, lawn equipment, snow blowers, snowplows. He stated that to the South side of him there is a treeline. He stated that there are no neighbors to the South or to the North. He stated that it's farm land right now and that's the reason why they are going to a bigger building, because he's got a lot of storage stuff that he wanted to put in there. He stated that there will be no bathroom, no plumbing, no septic inside the building. He stated that it's just going to be strictly used for storage purposes.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.




Mr. Robertson stated that I didn't see it. He stated 1,800 - you know, we started at 800, then we went to 1,200 and now we're going to 1,800. He stated that it just seems like people got a lot of things to put in there. He asked, what all do you have to put in there?

Mr. Lursky stated that to start off with, I have a 45-foot RV that I like to keep inside. He stated that I have two antique vehicles. He stated that this fall I'll be buying a pickup truck with a snowplow so I can plow my driveway, at least, and lawn equipment. He stated that I have a lot of equipment and I need a place to put it.

Mr. Robertson asked, did we get a drawing of where this is going on your property? He stated, oh, here it is. He asked, what about your neighbors there? He asked, does anybody have any barns like this around.

Mr. Lursky stated, I believe there is one to the North and I believe that is also a large one, larger than 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Robertson stated that this would be at the back of your property and you'll use the same driveway that goes to your house?

Mr. Lursky stated, correct.

Mr. Robertson asked, what's behind you?

Mr. Lursky stated, corn.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, he's got a lot of things.

Mr. Detert stated that I thought you were asking if he had a drawing on how he was going to place…

Mr. Robertson stated, place everything in there, yeah.

Mr. Detert stated, I would suggest to staff that when people come in and they want an oversized pole barn that you suggest that they give us a drawing as to how they are going to use it.

Mr. Robertson stated, some people have done that.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, we've had that occasionally, and it helps a lot.

Mr. Brickner asked, what business are you in?

Mr. Lursky stated, I was in the auto repair business.

Mr. Brickner asked, you don't do any of that in your…




Mr. Lursky stated, not anymore. He stated that I sold my business three months ago.

Mr. Brickner asked, and you're not going to do any of that in your storage shed?

Mr. Lursky stated, no.

Mr. Brickner stated that it's in your back yard, so that's a good thing. He stated, I haven't got any objection to this one.

Mr. Detert stated that I just want to reiterate that you cannot run a business out of this. He stated that if you do and somebody complains about it, you've got a problem.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 04-V-7 with there to be no business run out of the garage, 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-V-8. Petition of Rodney & JoAnn McLane, 52 Rushingwater, Portage, seeking a Variance to build a pole barn for use in storage before construction of the house, to be located at 562 E. 900 N., in Jackson Township.

Mr. McLane stated that we are here before you and the Board to ask for a Variance.

Ms. McLane stated that we presently live in a mobile home park and we also own a motor home and we also have a boat and also we bought this 4 acres because we are getting close to retirement age to retire there and we need that for storage. She stated that I look to have an organic garden because I have allergies to a lot of pesticides, so we would have a tractor and I would have my own garden. She stated that I was raised on a farm and my husband was raised on a farm and basically it's just…

Mr. Mclane stated that this is our dream. He stated that this is going to be our last hurrah. He stated that we bought this 4 acres in Jackson Township and this is a nice building that we have contracted to build, in fact, it's a $20,000 barn that we're putting up, 30 by 64. He stated that we want it to house our motor home and our boat, and then the other half, we have three vehicles and it would just be for personal storage and we're asking for a Variance to put the barn up now. He stated that we have our home for sale and we do have some prospective buyers, but we're thinking that might take two or three years before we do this and we're going to move in with our son



before we build a house out there because, like I said, this is going to be our last hurrah, and we don't want to rush anything - we want to do everything right and we're just asking the Board to let us put this barn up first.

Mr. Detert stated, you think maybe three years before you build a house?

Ms. McLane stated, we're hoping to do it next year.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson asked if this is in the front yard of your subdivision here. He stated that the drawing shows it North of the house. He asked, is 900 North of the front yard?

Mr. McLane stated that he is showing a plat and this would be 900 here, so the barn would be here and the house would be back here.

Mr. Robertson stated that that's the way I saw it according to this drawing here. He stated, that puts it in the front yard, doesn't it?

Mr. Brickner stated, looks to me like it's in the front yard.

Ms. McLane stated that there is a little knoll on the property and we would like to build on the little knoll, the house.

Mr. Brickner stated that the ordinance prohibits building a pole barn in your front yard, without a Variance, which, you're not seeking that tonight. He stated that you just want the pole barn now, but the Board has been really reluctant to put pole barns in the front yard. He asked, is there no where else you can put this pole barn that would be behind your house or in line with the front of your house, anyway.

Mr. McLane stated that we could move it back so that it would be in line with the house.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think you'll have to do that.

Mr. McLane stated, yeah, we could do that.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it's nice to build on a hill. He asked, would you want him to bring it back then?

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, yeah. He stated, I won't approve it in the front yard.




Mr. Robertson stated that the other thing I was wondering is if…is this in, the whole property a subdivision?

Mr. McLane stated that it's a minor sub. He stated that there is nothing there. He stated that it's all vacant ground.

Mr. Robertson asked, so how does that work with our 1,200 square feet.

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

Mr. Siminski stated, uh, yes. He stated that you would, the size of the pole barn was…

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it's about 1,800 plus.

Mr. Brickner stated, 1,920.

Mr. Siminski stated that it would need a Variance for the size of that building. He stated that you have 1,200 square feet is the normal size without getting a variance to go higher than that.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you need a variance for the front yard, you need a variance for the size of the building, and you need a variance for building it before you build your primary residence, and what you're here for tonight is just the Variance before the primary residence. He stated that you've got two other problems that have to be ironed out before we could ever look at it as far as building before your primary residence is discussed.

Ms. Schaefer stated, although they seemed to indicate that they would be willing to move it back.

Mr. Brickner stated, they'll move it back, but the size is still…

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, you've got to give them two variances, one to build before, and one to exceed the 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Hudson asked, can we do that tonight, Lily?

Ms. Schaefer stated, no, technically you can really only do the one that he has petitioned for.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, if we give you permission tonight it's for a 1,200 square foot. He stated that you're going to have to apply and come back for a Variance to build it bigger than 1,200 square feet.

Mr. McLane asked, what would that amount to?




Mr. Detert stated, another meeting like this.

Mr. McLane asked, do I have to go through the same paperwork?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah. He stated, see, if we'd known this, you could have probably filed two at a time.

Mr. Hudson stated, when you came in to make application did you indicate at that time the size of the barn?

Mr. McLane stated, well, we didn't even know that we were going to need a Variance until I went and applied for the building permit and she asked the size of the building and told me what the permit was going to be and that was…

Mr. Hudson stated, so when you told her that it was going to be 30 by 64…

Mr. McLane stated, yeah, she told me the permit was going to be $125.

Mr. Robertson stated, if it was our staff which didn't properly do it, maybe we shouldn't….

Mr. McLane stated that this drawing was submitted with the paperwork, so shouldn't this have been caught.

Mr. Hudson stated, I would have thought so, yes.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have any comments on the legality of what we have to do here.

Ms. Schaefer stated, well, still, technically what was published is what was published and that was the request for the building before construction of the home.

Mr. Hudson asked, could we waive the second application fee?

Mr. Detert stated, well, if you didn't have notification, somebody could come back and…

Mr. Hudson stated, no, I mean, just the fee itself.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, you can do that.

Ms. Schaefer stated, you can do that.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, we can actually approve tonight if they move it back beyond the front of the house and they say they will, we can approve that and the building before the house, but they have to come back for the size.

Mr. Detert stated, right.

Ms. Schaefer stated, really, we're just approving to build it before the house. She stated that they're not allowed to have it in front of the house, so, I mean…we don't have to do anything with that.

Mr. Brickner stated, unless they wanted to.

Ms. Schaefer stated, they would have to come back with that.

Mr. Detert stated, what if after they think about it they decide they don't need the bigger pole barn, I don't know. He stated, but, you know, we can't go against the publication requirements because then you could get in hot water, so if someone came up and objected to what we did, we'd have a pole barn half-built - you might have to tear it down. He stated that I understand you may have told the staff that, but staff is not responsible for everything that happens. He stated that we're undermanned and everybody's been pretty hectic position up there these days. He stated, so, I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Robertson stated, the other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that when we do allow the pole barn to be built in front of the house we put a limit on when the house should be built.

Mr. Detert stated, he's not going to put it in front of the house.

Mr. Robertson stated, no, no, I mean, timewise in front of the house, before the house, we put a limit on when…

Mr. Detert stated, you could put whatever limit you want.

Mr. Robertson asked, what have we been allowing?

Mr. Detert stated, three years.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think we've been doing 24 months, but I guess we can go three years if they have some evidence.

Mr. Detert stated that I think one of the problems with selling your own residence and a trailer is hard to sell, or harder than a house to sell, so I could concede a longer time would be necessary.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you have the plans for your house?

Mr. McLane stated, no, we were trying to do one step at a time.

Mr. Brickner stated that Mr. Detert has just explained that we normally say with two years you have to have your home built, or the barn comes down, or the pole barn comes down. He stated that in some cases we've gone three years, I think, but I'd like to see it done in two years. He asked, are you saying that you can't be ready in two years?


Ms. McLane stated, I can't say. She stated that I may be dead before the two years is up.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-V-8 for 3 years, or, if the house is not started in that time, that the pole barn must be taken down, with no business to be run out of the pole barn, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner asked, what kind of business are you in?

Mr. McLane stated that I work for Porter County Highway.

Mr. Brickner asked, you don't store any equipment or anything for your job in this building.

Mr. McLane stated, no.

Mr. Detert asked, no business?

Mr. McLane stated, no, no business at all.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-V-8 for 3 years, or, if the house is not started in that time, that the pole barn must be taken down, with no business to be run out of the pole barn, 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-9. Petition of Judith Brown, 1268 N. 450 E., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a pole barn in the front yard, to be located at 1268 N. 450 E., in Pine Township.

Judith Brown stated that she is the petitioner in this matter and that she is accompanied by Dan Cosentino. Ms. Brown stated that I have a drawing to show where the actual placement is. She stated that we'd like to build a 36 by 67 pole barn, which actually is next to the house. She stated that you can see in the photographs, there are lilac bushes that hide the propane tank, and we've talked about picking that tank up and turning it the other way so we have a bit more room to scoot down that way. She stated that there is also a storage shed there already, so this is actually as far back as I can really push it without being on top of, without taking out the storage shed and moving the propane tank, I don't know where. She stated that there is also a turnaround. She stated that in the picture you can see a truck that's sitting kind of crooked in the turnaround, and we kind



of wanted to place the pole barn also where we could extend the turnaround and then park the truck inside of the pole barn. She stated that part of this pole barn would be used for a workshop and this is for personal use, no business. She stated that my son and my fiancé like to build wood things, and also we have a couple of trailers, a couple of lawn mowers, a four-wheeler, a camper, a boat trailer and we want to park the truck also in that pole barn. She stated that the other side of the property, the septic field is in my whole back yard. She stated that it actually extends from the back door all the way to the South side of the property and the back yard slopes down and the rest of that was a drainage field, so there is no way I could put the pole barn back there. She stated that on the South side of the property, again, that area goes back to that septic field, so there is really no room to put the pole barn there either, and there is no access to it if you did try to put it on that side. She stated that we need to be able to get back to that septic field if there was a problem ever.

Mr. Cosentino stated that I would just like to add that to the North side where there property line is, I did speak to Fred today and he's been out there, but it's a wooded area to the North side of their property line. He stated that there is no resident houses, you can't see no resident houses (sic) and to the South side, all along 450 it is farmland. He stated that there isn't any residents there, either. He stated that I would just like to add that I talked to Fred about that this morning.

Ms. Brown stated that the property that's on the North side is all designated wetland. She stated that there is a very small area that if you put a house there it would be sitting right on the road. She stated that you can't go back because it's all wetlands. She stated that the gentleman purchased that property for hunting. She stated that that's really all it's good for.

Mr. Cosentino stated that this is what the building will look like. He stated that everyone says we put up really nice-looking buildings. He stated that it adds value to the property. He stated that it's not going to diminish it.

Ms. Brown stated that it looks more like a home than a pole barn, a traditional pole barn, and the windows will face the road, so there won't be an eyesore, definitely.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that it sounds like it's about the only place it will fit because of the house is already there and you have



the septic in the back. He stated that it's not way in the front; it's partly in their front. He stated that I could go along with it.

Mr. Hudson stated that something's weird about these dimensions on here. He stated that we have 110 feet to the front of the property.

Ms. Brown stated, to the back of the house - no, to the front of the house.

Mr. Hudson stated, okay, so you're going to be 20 - okay.

Mr. Brickner stated that the only reason that you want to move it forward is because you don't want to take you shed down and you don't want to tear your trees up.

Ms. Brown stated, well, if I move it back, also, it's going to be on top of the pool.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, it's going to be close to the pool, yeah.

Ms. Brown stated that the pole barn would be very, very close to the pool.

Mr. Brickner stated, but you have some space to go to the North a little bit, too.

Ms. Brown stated, to the North, it's wooded and kind of drops off and we're going to fill some of that in, but without getting into a huge expense of moving it all in, there's a culvert that runs on that side, so I don't want to get too close to the culvert.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, if you could move it back so that it was about even with the front of the house, I'd be a lot happier with it, because I'm not in favor of this in the front yard. He stated that I went out there and it's a beautiful place, you have a nice home. He stated that I just think that this big a pole barn - this is a big pole barn, 2,400 and some square feet, I think it's not going to look right in the front yard. He stated that nobody can build next to you on the North side, that's a wooded lot that goes all the way down to the farmhouse, so it's not a problem with anybody living on the North side of you, but I just think that it would look wrong in the front yard. He stated that I think it could be moved back, but you'd have to take the shed down. He stated that it's not a very big shed, it's a fairly small shed. He stated that if you're going to put a pole barn this big, you probably don't need the shed anyway. He stated that I'd like to see you make an effort to get it, to move it back a little bit closer to the front of the house.

Mr. Detert stated, Dan, you're the expert. He asked, can that be moved back?

Mr. Cosentino stated that they are willing to remove the shed. He stated that they do have the propane tank and I know was her issue about moving that and replacing it.

Mr. Detert stated that that can be moved.

Mr. Robertson asked, were there lilac bushes back there?

Ms. Brown stated that there is a lilac bush

Mr. Robertson stated, Marv, you can't cut down their lilac.

Ms. Brown stated that would have to come out and the propane tank, if I shoved this pole barn all the way back, I don't know where else to put the propane tank. She stated that there is a kennel next to the house. She stated that the only place I can think to put the propane tank is in front of the pole barn, and I don't think that would look very nice.

Mr. Brickner stated, you could put the propane tank behind your house. He stated that the septic field isn't a problem with the propane tank.

Ms. Brown asked, what about getting to it? She stated that I've never seen the trucks deliver it, I mean, I don't know, can they hose it back there at all?

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, they can hose it from your driveway back.

Mr. Siminski asked, what is the square footage of this building?

Mr. Brickner stated, 2,412.

Mr. Siminski stated that I'm definitely going to have to keep track of these applications coming in because on this application it doesn't talk about anything. He stated that it just says a pole barn ahead of the house. He stated that it doesn't say the size. He stated that there is a picture behind.

Mr. Hudson asked, is there a restriction on the size? He stated that this is not a subdivision, so there wouldn't be a…

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-9.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that I kind of side with Marv and I'm sorry, but because of personal problems I didn't get out there to look at it. He stated that I'd like to see it in line with the houses, if that's….I've never been to much in favor of putting things in front of the house.




Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-9, 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 - No Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-10. Petition of Michael Epler, 515 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Variance that allowed construction of a pole barn prior to the house, with house plans and construction date to be arrived at within three years, to be located on the North side of CR 200 W., between CR 100 W. and CR 200 W., in Porter Township.

Mr. Epler stated that they need more time.

Megan Epler stated that we need to get an extension on a Variance. She stated that we have had a lot of hardships in the last year. She stated that we were very serious about building. She stated that we did get our plans. She stated that in the last four months my father passed away, which we incurred a lot of extra expenses. She stated that I am also 5 and a half months pregnant. She stated that I am a high-risk pregnancy and we spent a week in the hospital. She stated that I had to have surgery on my knee. She stated that I am not working now because of it. She stated that I cannot go back to work for the rest of my pregnancy, so we do not have the money to build at this time. She stated that that is why we are requesting for the extension.

Mr. Epler stated that I have pictures of the building if you guys would like to see it and the plans for the house here.

Ms. Epler stated that we also brought photos to show you that it looks like everyone else's yard does in the area. She stated that we also took pictures of our neighbor's pole barn. She stated that my husband built the pole barn. She stated that it's a beautiful-looking pole barn and we also have pictures of the inside of the pole barn that houses all of our equipment that he actually keeps the area maintained, and that's why we had the pole barn originally.

Mr. Detert stated that we have a flyer here that you put out that the barn and the property are for sale, is that correct?

Ms. Epler stated, that is correct.

Mr. Detert asked, do you not intend to build?

Ms. Epler stated, actually, right now, we have a buyer that would like to purchase it that we have signed a purchase agreement with them. She stated that if we could get an extension for three years



they will be building and we wanted to keep the property and we just put it up for sale because of all the hardships that we've had and we just cannot do it. She stated that we can't afford it and we're currently living in my husband's parent's basement and if we cannot sell this property - I would like to have a place to bring a child home to, so we're having a very difficult time right now.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that it sounds like you've got a hardship. He asked, would you like three years? He asked, did you have three years last time?

Mr. Epler stated, actually, four years. He stated, three years to come up with the plan and then an additional year to build. He stated that the three-year mark will be the end of July.

Mr. Detert asked, if we give them three years, do we need the people that are going to buy it to sign the affidavit?

Ms. Schaefer stated, it would go with the property.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-10 for three years, with a written commitment to that effect, which will go with the property, 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-4. Petition of U.s. Cellular Corporation, c/o CIS Communications, seeing a Special Exception for a 190-foot monopole wireless communications tower and equipment shelter, to be located at 430 E. U.S. Hwy 6, in Jackson Township.

Hans Mugler, St. Louis, MO, stated that he and Brian Maguire of Lakeview, IL, stated that they are representing the petitioner in this matter. Mr. Mugler stated that we are proposing a 180-foot monopole to be built at what is basically Anderson Orchard back from the road, out in the middle of their orchard area. He stated that you folks, I believe, should all have a blue booklet complete with everything from top to bottom. He stated that I would like to point out the reason why we need the tower for U.S. Cellular. He stated that part of the mandate is to have a seamless wireless system in the area. He stated that there is virtually no coverage in that area for U.S. Cellular or



for several of the other carriers. He stated that I happen to have…AT&T in my briefcase has no coverage there at that same site. He stated that this is fairly close to an AT&T tower, within 2.5 to 3 miles. He stated that there are no other towers within the 2-mile radius that would be suitable for any sort of communications equipment antennas. He stated that the site is going to be a fenced compound, extremely secure. He stated that it poses no health problems, no noise problems, no traffic issues, no runoff or drainage issues, a very typical cellular antenna site, monopole - extremely safe. He stated that to go back to the 1968 Army Corps of Engineers' report, there has never been a cell tower fall over as a monopole.

Mr. Maguire stated that it's important to note, too, that the tower is built for up to 4 broadband carriers. He stated that U.S. Cellular typically, whenever possible, will locate on an existing structure because these are pretty expensive. He stated that there are no existing structures, as Hans has highlighted, that meet our needs, therefore, we are proposing to build a new structure. He stated that the tower will accommodate, at a minimum, four broadband carriers, probably more, depending on the antenna loading, so, in the future, we're open to co-location as Sprint comes along or any other wireless providers.

Mr. Mugler stated that just to reiterate what Brian said, as far as co-location goes, co-location is extremely important to almost all the carriers these days, specifically because U.S. Cellular is kicking off a national footprint program, building their sites across the country. He stated that coming from St. Louis, we are heavily involved with the U.S. Cellular project in St. Louis. He stated that it is very similar to what they are doing in Northwest Indiana. He stated that the primary goal is to co-locate first and foremost. He stated that in fact, in Porter County, of their existing sites and the sites that they have proposed, over 80 percent of them are co-locations.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that I went out there, not knowing exactly where the tower is going to be located, because it's hard to tell, it's just a big open area, but it looks like a great place for location for a tower. He stated that there is one question I have, on the letter that you write to co-locaters or potential co-locaters, I have your letter here, did you send out letters to all the potential co-locaters by certified or registered mail? He asked, do you have a receipt and have you had any response from any of those co-locaters?

Mr. Maguire stated, no, I did not send certified. He stated that I talk to these people pretty much on a weekly basis, and to be honest


with you, nobody is going to contact me and say that they are interested. He stated that usually what they do is send out site acquisition companies and see if there are any existing structures, if they need a site. He stated, no, I didn't send out certified. He stated that I can. He stated that I did verify that a couple received them. He stated that we can send certified and I can confirm that if you like.

Mr. Brickner stated that the Board would like to see something more than just a letter saying that you're open to co-locaters, because that really doesn't give us any proof that you actually tried to find somebody, that you've actually had communications.

Mr. Maguire stated, well, I can tell you, U.S. Cellular is not a tower company. He stated that I don't actively go out and try to drum up antennas on their tower. He stated that the tower is there and they're more than welcome to use it. He stated that all the carriers - Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless, Cingular - we have master lease agreements with all those carriers and we trade towers off. He stated, for instance, I'm working with T-Mobile on a site near Chesterton. He stated that when they are interested in a tower, they fill out a co-location application and that's it. He stated that the lease agreement is already in place. He stated that that's a form that they fill in the blanks, so…we make it very easy for them to co-locate on our towers, although we don't actively try to get them to co-locate on our towers.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, as of right now, you don't have anybody lined up to co-locate on that tower.

Mr. Maguire stated, no, we don't have anybody right now. He stated that I can tell you that as of right now I have been talking to Sprint. He stated that they are doing an extensive build-out in Northwest Indiana that just got approved for a site in Valparaiso, up on Calumet Avenue and I've ran this site just in discussion with them, because usually I like to show up with another party, and they said they were looking at the area, but they couldn't give me any response that they were definite about. He stated that they just said that they were looking along U.S. 6. He stated that I think the site is South Haven. He stated, no, just to be frank, we don't have anybody lined up. He stated that I can tell you…

Mr. Brickner stated, you sent out letters, but you don't have any response?

Mr. Detert asked, are you suggesting that we recommend that we prefer to see…

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, well, they always have had their registered receipts.

Mr. Detert asked, is that a rule for staff to pursue?


Mr. Brickner stated, well, it's not in our ordinance.

Mr. Detert stated, but, you can make it as a suggestion.

Mr. Brickner stated, really, that's what I'm concerned about.

Mr. Maguire stated, you're right, it should be addressed. He stated that I can tell you, I've been doing this for over 13 years. He stated that carriers and people in my position, their goal is build out cellular networks, don't carry letters and plat all these, because they get bombarded by sales people from tower companies: go on my site, go on my site, go on my site. He stated that they quite frankly don't plug these coordinates in and say oh, yeah. He stated that many of these companies work 200 search rings one at a time, and they don't have the means to do…they issue a search ring and then, if there happens to be a tower out there, they will co-locate, especially in Porter County, where it's highly recommended.

Mr. Robertson stated, as I understand it, the co-location would come in if somebody was looking, they put out a search ring, and if there is a tower there, would it show up in the search ring?

Mr. Maguire stated, yes. He stated that they physically send somebody out.

Mr. Mugler stated that I'm actually here today for two different reasons - one is to support U.S. Cellular and to present this case for this tower. He stated that I was also in Gary, IN, today, which is also Porter County (sic), looking at a site that's extremely valuable to our company who actually builds towers. He stated that we're actively soliciting. He stated that we're not a carrier like U.S. Cellular. He stated that we are a tower-building, tower-maintaining company. He stated that we do site acquisition because we're working for virtually all the carriers, all seven wireless carriers in the area, promoting our tower site in this region of Gary. He stated that that's extremely valuable to us. He stated that we've got the time to do it. He stated that they're a mega-sized company that doesn't make co-location a priority for them, but they don't turn down co-location. He stated that they just don't have - that's not really their business; it's my business.

Mr. Maguire stated, to make it clear, anybody, any company that wants to co-locate on a tower is welcome. He stated that all the companies that have master lease agreements with us, every major wireless carrier in Northwest Indiana, the terms and rents are pre-negotiated, so that's not going to be an issue.

Mr. Detert stated, well, we've kind of beat this to death. He stated that they have…they don't have anybody yet.





Mr. Robertson stated, where this particular tower is, I'm thinking that the closet tower is on 1000 at about 450. He asked, are you aware of that tower?

Mr. Mugler stated that on page 10 in this booklet, there is a…that's an SBA tower, 190-footer.

Mr. Robertson asked, 5 miles, is that what it is.

Mr. Maguire stated that it's just under 2 miles. He stated that there is a big difference in terrain between I-80 and U.S. 6.

Mr. Robertson stated, it goes up to 6.

Mr. Maguire stated part of why we wanted this location is because it's a very high spot. He stated that this tower would not achieve our RF objective. He stated that just to reiterate, if it would, I would be on it, because I wouldn't have to spend $150,000 to build a site. He stated, as I said, we co-locate whenever possible, but not all these towers meet all the RF design needs of every carrier.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think they do co-locate now because we've been pushing them so hard. He stated that when we first started they weren't doing it, but now…

Mr. Mugler stated that if you go back to 911, before 911 a lot of the cell carriers had tons of money, storage sheds full of money to build towers and to do site acquisition, build out their footprint, all based on the stock market. He stated that after 911 the stock market crashed. He stated that a lot of what came down was the cellular industry. He stated that the wireless communications business basically went in the toilet for the last two and a half to three years, so, as the business is coming back, every single wireless carrier out there, from Brian's U.S. Cellular company to Nextel to AT&T to Cingular, every one of these company's Number 1 idea is co-location, because we don't have the money anymore to build as many towers as we want.

Mr. Robertson stated that that is what I was saying. He stated that there used to be apple trees there and now we are going to grow towers, so I guess that's progress. He stated that I don't have a problem with it.

Mr. Hudson stated that I think it's one of the best sites that's been before us in a long time. He stated that I'm very happy with it.

Mr. Detert stated that I think there's a better site that he's talking about in South County, and I can speak from experiences, out toward Hebron is very poor.




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

Mr. Detert stated that the only thing I see there is the road condition. He stated that if those are incorporated in the motion you'll have to improve the roadway.

Mr. Mugler stated that in the plans that are in the booklet, it clearly states what kind of road will be put in. He stated that there is geotech fabric to be placed underneath and it's gravel road, very specific dimensions for it and specific depths.

Mr. Maguire stated that we always put a very nice access road.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-SE-4, with the Plan Commission recommendations, 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-UV-3. Petition of the Dunes Rifle and Pistol Club, LLC, P.O. Box 345, Hobart, seeking a Use Variance to permit a private gun club, to be located on the Northeast corner of CR 400 W. and CR 1000 S., in Boone Township.

Mark Goodrich, 9223 Broadway, Merrillville, stated that I am the attorney for Dunes Rifle and Pistol Club and that I have some more information that I'd like to present to the Board at this time. He stated that the purpose of tonight's hearing is that the Club is seeking a Use Variance to build a structure to house an indoor shooting range at the location mentioned in the petition. He stated, again, this would be an indoor shooting range. He stated that we have a preliminary sketch - this is in the very early stages. He stated that the property has not been purchased yet. He stated that the current landowner is Barbara Frye. He stated that a purchase agreement has been entered into conditional upon the Board granting the Use Variance for this shooting range. He stated that Dunes Rifle is a private club. He stated that I'd like to give you some background on the club's history and so forth. He stated that currently they are located in downtown Hobart at 311 Center St. He stated that this is a residential and commercial area. He stated that the club has been around for over 41 years. He stated that it was established in 1963 and has been at the current location for over 31 years presently. He stated that I did mention that this is a commercial/residential location in Hobart. He stated that the club has not received any complaints not citations, anything of that nature throughout their years of existence, and, again, that is a downtown area, and, as you can imagine, a shooting range, there might be some hesitancy to have such a facility, but, again, they have never received any complaints. He stated that the police chief of Hobart



is aware of the current location in Hobart and he can be contacted for any verification needed as far as any complaints or citations. He stated that the members total about 12 to 15 active members, members that are currently going to the meetings, participating in the weekly shooting get-togethers. He stated that that total is about 18 members enrolled. He stated that membership does fluctuate, but, again, does not get past 18 to 20 range, with a total of 15 that would be active. He stated that generally the club is planning to meet one time per week. He stated that fewer than the active members do attend these meetings, so we're looking at anywhere 8 to 6 that would actually attend the one night per week gatherings at the location, and we don't foresee that changing. He stated, again, this club has been around for 41 years and pretty much has operated in the same fashion. He stated that in addition to their shooting/marksmanship activities, the club is a charitable organization. He stated that they do hold fund-raisers. He stated that they currently had a fund-raiser to send money to the troops stationed in Iraq to help buy phone cards. He stated that they do support Boy Scouts and other local organizations. He stated that they are a private entity, but they do have charitable ties to the community, and, as far as the weaponry or rifles - I don't want to call them weapons, as such - they do use small-caliber rifles, mostly .22's, .38's and .45's, and again, I do want to point out again that in their current location they have not received any citations or complaints from neighbors. He stated that there are renters in their current location right above them and they've had no complaints to speak of. He stated that I did pass out some photographs of the proposed location and a preliminary sketch of what the club is proposing to do at this location. He stated that I'll just go over that. He stated that first of all, what's labeled A, that's facing North on 400 W., the property that is to the East and West, it's in a very wooded area currently. He stated that photograph B would be the second picture and this would be facing South on 400 and slightly angled to the Southeast into the property which we would seek to put the establishment structure (sic). He stated that picture C is facing North on 400 and again the lot that they are seeking to purchase that is on the right-hand side.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that where the club is going to be then?

Mr. Goodrich stated, well, if you take a look at the preliminary sketch, no. He stated that it would be…if you look at the first picture with the Realtor's sign, it would be just to the left of that, essentially. He stated that the parking facility would be in the clearing area. He stated that there is a photograph of this clearing area and that's essentially where they want to put the parking lot. He stated that photograph D, this is facing West on 400 across the ditch. He stated that photograph E is facing 400 again due East into a swale that was constructed. He stated that we don't know when this was put into place, but this was years ago to help with the rainfall



and some of the drainage issues that the property has, but that is another issue that we will address. He stated that Photograph D is from the swale looking South towards the property would be on your left-hand side and then the next picture would be labeled G and this is on the corner of the lot on 400 W., facing due East into that clearing that would essentially be the parking area. He stated that it would be a gravel lot, basically 100 by 100, but we will have to tinker with that in accordance with the County ordinances based on the required parking spaces. He stated that the next photograph labeled H would be the Southwest corner of the lot, facing due East on 1000 S. He stated that this is the Southern edge of the property. He stated that the property to be purchased would be on the left-hand side of that road. He stated that there is a note, there is another structure in the background, (inaudible) to the neighboring property owners. He stated that the only structure that is visible from the naked eye from this property. He stated that there is another structure more to the North, on 400 and on the East side of the road, but that's not visible due to the wooded conditions. He stated that located on the property now is some debris, some old inhabitable structure. He stated that this is labeled I and this is looking from the Southern edge of the property on 1000 S. He stated that this is into the wooded area approximately 20 yards facing North, uninhabited old house, cottage type structure. He stated that that would be approved and, essentially, Dunes Rifle would rebuild in that location. He stated that the facility would be slightly larger, but they are looking to rebuild in that general area of the property. He stated that right next door to that cottage is Picture J and that's about 20 yards into that property from the Southern edge. He stated that there is an abandoned bus, which, again, would be removed from the property to improve the state of the property. He stated that Picture K is just in front of the bus is another abandoned shed and that would be removed. He stated that Picture L would be through the clearing area, facing due West from the property. He stated that is, I believe, 1000 S. He stated that the roads are not labeled out in this corner of the County. He stated that picture M would be facing Southwest and would be just behind you as you look Southwest across this 400 W.

Mr. Hudson asked, whose mailbox is that?

Mr. Goodrich stated that I believe is the current property owner. He stated that the next picture would be looking again due West across and then to the West of 400 is a ditch. He stated that they are looking to house an indoor shooting range. He stated that this range would be built in consultation with the NRA regulations. He stated that all the members of the club are NRA members. He stated that they have 6 certified instructors among their membership. He stated that there has been no incidence of safety, any sort of accidents, that sort of thing. He stated that it's a very safe organization. He stated that other than that, they are still in the very early stages and this is part of a tentative purchase agreement of the lot. He stated that they do not currently own this, but if the Board was to



grant the zoning variance, that purchase would go through and they would proceed to build their indoor facility.

Jack Teitge, 7620 County Line Road, Hobart, stated that I am a member of the club and have been a member for probably 35 years, anyhow. He stated that basically what Mark said is correct. He stated that we are a small-bore target club. He stated that that's what we do - that's what we pursue. He stated that our existence has been up and down, because this is the kind of endeavor that varies in popularity through time. He stated that most of us fellows are older - there are not too many younger fellows. He stated that it's been our endeavor since probably the inception of the club to get our own location to pass on for future members. He stated that we have fund-raising operations and we have raised the point, we have done a lot of searching and chasing of properties and so forth in an effort to find something that might work out for us and that's pretty much where we're at.

Gene Arnold, 890 S. 200 E. stated that I am a member of the club and I am in favor of it.

Robert Buksar, 498 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, stated that I am in favor and I'm a member of the club.

William Lain, 22315 Chestnut, Lowell, stated that I work for William Steiner Realty and we sell farm realty in Lake, Porter, Jasper and several other counties. He stated that I've known the fellows from Dunes Rifle and Pistol Club for several years. He stated that they asked me if I had a piece of ground that might be suited. He stated that Mrs. Frye had been in and she is a (inaudible) lady and she was wanting to divest herself of the property and asked if I could sell it, and I said, you know guys, I've got a piece of property out in Newton County, or Porter County and so they went out there and made an offer and purchased it contingently. He stated that this ground is not valuable farmland. He stated that it's only good for recreational purposes and I believe it fits. He stated that I don't know if Mrs. Frye is here, but she hopes to sell it.

Steve Vowling, 125 S. Colorado, Hobart, stated that I'm for it, too.

Myron Meadows, 4127 N. 400 E., Wheatfield, stated that I own property to the South of this club where they want to put it at. He stated that what we do is take and we plant crops. He stated that we are certified through Porter County. He stated that we've gone out of our way to put back the wildlife. He stated that we dug a pond, we bought equipment. He stated that there is not one piece of equipment that we own that we harvest anything with. He stated that it is out there for the animals. He stated that the question that I don't understand is why the club wants to put another gunnery range in when there are five within a 30-mile area of where they are shooting at.



He stated that that is what I was wanting to know. He stated that we're not against guns. He stated that we're hunters and we all shoot at gun clubs. He stated that we're not against that. He stated that we're against the quality of our life (sic) as far as us putting into this land everything we got or we can scrape together and take our kids out there to fish and to hunt and like that. He asked, how is the County going to….the road right now isn't a very wide road. He stated that sometimes you have to get new shocks after you make one trip through and one trip back. He stated that with the increase of traffic and with the club having 18 people there is state-of-the-art facilities out there now with range-safe ammo right now that you can go to and places you don't even have to pay. He stated that they are manned. He stated that you can't shoot at a state range now without a person being there. He stated that we're worried about the safety. He stated that we are concerned about the safety of the environment. He stated that it's wetlands. He stated that the property is wet. He stated that I think he knew, the Realtor, when the property was sold to two individuals that we wanted it for hunting and it was wetlands. He stated that now they want to put a structure up there to (inaudible). He stated that we're asking that the Board take a look at the whole picture here. He stated that it's not a commercial area back there - it's agriculture. He stated that you got a house facing East, a house to the South, a house across the road, a house facing the North. He stated, and I'm worried about the safety and the environment. He stated that these gentlemen here are up in age. He stated that their membership's only 18 but how many more years are they going to go and then what's going to happen?

Nickey Markovich, 20132 Stoney Island, Chicago Heights, stated, I own five pieces of property in that area, which are very, very close, perhaps blocks apart. He stated that it's considered wetlands and I'm very in favor of not - we have a lot of deer and a lot of animals in the area and I'm strictly against it.

Robert Markovich, 1623 Golden Oak Drive, Crown Point, stated that I'm also a part owner of this property. He stated that my opposition is just the same as my brother's. He stated that it's mostly farmland and I think it should stay that way. He stated that it's also wetlands and some areas have been flooded numerous times and I think it should remain as farmland.

Ken Ribicki, 11534 Laurie Drive, Wheatfield, first, not only is it wetlands but it's also a flood plain. He stated, two, if they have such good standing in Hobart for 30-some years and nobody opposing them, why would you want to move? He stated that three, they have members 8 to 18, so why would you want to invest that kind of money down there? He stated, they said that five or six of them are teachers, firearms instructors. He stated that that shows you that they are going to be bringing more people in and part of the membership is bringing friends and family with you, so, when they do the fund-raiser, where are they going to park? He asked, how many people are going to be there? He stated, with everybody here, all the



adjoining landowners are here opposing, why would you want to come down there? He stated that we try real hard - like Myron said - that we try to improve the environment and it is wetlands and it is a floodplain - it does flood. He stated that I came up here to get the Variance for the pole barn and I'm against them having it. He stated that as Myron said, there are ranges in Crown Point and elsewhere - in Valparaiso, Hammond, Griffith and they don't have any problems in Hobart and why purchase the property - they have nothing to lose. He stated that the only ones that have something to lose are us, so there is no reason for them to move down there. He stated that they said an indoor pistol and rifle range, but it's going to be slightly larger than the structure that's there. He stated that the structure that is there is a little bigger than an outhouse. He stated that I can't see 18 guys getting in a structure with .22 rifles that have a range of up to a mile and a half shooting in a structure that's much larger than a 10 by 12 building, so, how big is that building? He asked, how big are the fundraisers?

Jeff Ribicki, 1041 S. 400 W., Hebron, stated that I'm opposed for it for one thing, for when I moved out there, we've worked the past 12 years buying that land and restoring it to wetlands like it's supposed to be, the Army Corps decided it should be and now they want to come down here, and it's all woods. He stated that the only open area is where the buildings are now, so they would be removing all the trees to create the parking lot and put the building and you get all the landowners here and they have 18 members and they can only get four members here to support that, which I think ain't (sic) too much show of support for the club, and, if they are so happy in Hobart, why are they leaving Hobart? He asked, why are they coming out here?

John Terpstra, 742 S. 500 W., Hebron, I talked to the two gentlemen and I kind of liked them. He stated that I don't know why they want to come down and ruin our way of life. He stated that I've been there 12 years and if you put those pictures up you could probably see my boy's tree stand and the woods across that little field there. He stated that the first three years I was there - been there 10 or 12 years - two of them, water ran over 400. He stated, now the County will verify that, they been down there putting gravel roads to keep it from coming from that side over to our side. He stated that the size of that building is 18 by 18. He stated that I don't think you're going to be shooting a pistol or rifle inside of an 18 by 18 building. He stated that and that's the only spot on there that don't (sic) get water on it, and maybe not now, but it could be in two weeks if Valpo gets a 4-inch rain, that water will be real high in the woods - are they going to be skipping shells across that woods? He asked, and what about our deer hunters that are hunting in our woods? He stated that it just don't make good sense that they are doing this.

Rudey Estes, 1999 W. 750 S., Hebron, stated that I would like to start out by saying that I'm not a lucky individual to own property



down there, but I am a very lucky individual to have the privilege to hunt in that area. He stated that one of the areas that I'm allowed to hunt - and many of you might not be hunters - may be against hunting - I don't know. He stated, I sit and watch this property from pre-dawn to after dusk. He stated, maybe only three months out of the year. He stated, I'm down there a lot more often than that. He stated that when you can sit there for that many hours and count two cars going down the road, I think in today's society that's a pleasure. He asked, how many of us sitting here near highways, cars going by constantly, you'll sit there and count 30, 45, 50 deer going across that road every day. He stated that you'll see turkeys going across there. He asked, where else can you do that and still be on private ground? He stated that you're going to have multiple traffic coming down through there and people. He stated that I just think it would disturb the area and I'm against it.

George Kats, 979 S. 475 W., stated that I could show you where this is located. He stated that this is the map from the soil and conservation. He stated that this is classified as a wooded wetlands and this is the river and this is the Breyfogle Ditch. He stated that it's between those. He stated that it's a flood plain. He stated that this here is a federal map that also classifies it as a wooded wetlands. He stated that for them to do anything, they would have to start with a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a permit from DNR and also a permit from DNR for any kind of septic, for anything like that. He stated that I farm in that area. He stated that I farm John's ground. He stated that I own property on the East side that adjoins that. He stated that I own 500 to 600 acres in the area. He stated that I live probably a half to three-quarters of a mile away. He stated that I've seen water on 400 W. over waist deep. He stated that I've canoed down there to feed the animals that the lady we moved here out at the end of the road. He stated, the wildlife, the deer, the turkey, that's…we're real lucky to have it. He stated that it's kind of like a preserve, our own park. He stated, I'm definitely against it and like John I got a lot of things to say - my son will back me up on a lot of this - but the mosquitoes this time of year - you shouldn't even be able to breathe down there. He stated that I don't know if they thought about this or what they are getting into, because there's a lot to be involved there.

Ryan Kats, 979 S. 475 W., Hebron, stated that my dad showed you a map that it's classified as a wooded wetlands. He stated that for them to even remove a stump, they are going to have to contact the Army Corps of Engineers in order to even remove a stump and then the DNR for construction in a wetlands and also DNR for the septic permit. He stated that that swale - there's a picture of it - that's 95 percent of the time there is water standing in that and that's only probably a third or two lower than the rest of the property. He stated that it's very wet. He stated, I don't see how they are ever going to be able to get a building built there that's not going to




flood. He stated that I don't have as much experience down there as some of the other people I've talked with. He stated that I've seen water over 400 a number of times, and it goes the same level if not lower (sic) than 400, so, that's about it.

David Freund, 1001 S. 400 W., stated that I'm a property owner just South and East of this property. He stated that I have 26 acres on a sand hill on a bend of the river. He stated that I have five children and I have lived there for 22 years. He stated that I have built a 4,000 square foot house there which probably wasn't the smart thing to do, but it has a full basement and a dry basement. He stated that my children caught the bus at the picture of this mailbox for years there till my wife took a job at the school and now she commutes the kids there with her. He stated that the pictures were kinda tactfully taken because it doesn't show my mailbox, it doesn't show my road, it doesn't show Mr. Markovich's house, which is just on the North side of this piece of property. He stated that my father owned a gun shop most of his life. He stated that I am pro shooting, but my views have changed on gun ownership, and that's just a personal issue with me. He stated that living down there 22 years, I don't…and knowing the area, and knowing the mosquitoes, the elevation of the property, I honestly don't see the logic in trying to build any type of a range on that particular piece of ground given it's a gravel road with very little maintenance, the mosquitoes, the water problems. He stated that I'm fortunate that I have a high piece of ground in that area with the wildlife and all the conditions, but this particular piece of ground, to bring more traffic down the road and try to build something there that members could use, I don't really see the logic in it, not this particular piece of ground, along with the safety factor of Markovich's house, my house and the change of that pristine, if you want to call it that - it's probably the most secluded corner of Porter County that's left and the wildlife is incredible basically because of the river and the fact that there is no residences in the area. He stated that I've been fortunate to have a piece of ground there for a lot of years, and enjoy it, what is there, and I really hate to see it change.

George Kats stated that you do know that 400 is a dead-end road and there is no County-accessible road after 900 S. He stated that the lanes in the pictures that you looked at and everything like that are all privately-owned and maintained by us. He stated that the County road stops at the end down there, so that place…900 is probably approximately a mile to the North of this property and that is your first other County road. He stated that there are no roads going East or West off of there.

Mr. Goodrich stated that the club is sensitive to the conditions of this piece of property. He stated that that's exactly why they selected this. He stated that this is what they kinda see as a golden opportunity to put their club in a location that's their own. He stated that these adjoining property owners have made their homes in



the area, have farmed that land because it is pristine, because it is out of the way. He stated that these gentlemen are outdoorsmen and they also understand this. He stated that they do want to have a structure, and, as far as the structure size goes, the dilapidated sheds…that was probably a mistake. He stated that they're going to be on that approximate location. He stated that they are not going to be that same size. He stated that obviously that is not plausible with a shooting range there. He stated that it would have to be 40 by 100, but, again, they would be in that location, towards the Southern edge of the property, that's what we mean by…when we refer to the sheds. He stated that getting back to the location of the plot, the Dunes Rifle Club has been around for many years. He stated that they've never had a place that they feel was their own and that's why they are leaving Hobart. He stated that there is no other reason. He stated that they are not being pushed out because they haven't made their rent payments or anything such as that. He stated that there have been no complaints, no citations, no ordinance violations in the City of Hobart.

Mr. Detert stated that one of the questions raised was why do they want to move.

Mr. Goodrich stated, again, mostly because they want to have a place to call their own. He stated that they've been seeking this. He stated that this is almost like a perfect location. He stated that as far as it being logical, well, maybe the same could be said for these individuals who put their residences there. He stated that I don't want to nitpick, but the mosquitoes, well, that's not really going to affect the members. He stated that this is an indoor facility. He stated that referring now maybe towards the floodplain issues, that can be overcome by meeting certain requirements in the ordinances as far as the height of the structure and its foundation. He stated that as far as I know, this will not have an basement. He stated that I don't anticipate it being a basement, so that's not an issue. He stated that as far as the wetlands classification goes, the Porter County Soil and Water Conservation District representatives visited the site as of yesterday. He stated that a member of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources was at the site yesterday. He stated that I'll refer you to the memorandum filed on our behalf from Mr. Harvey Nix, who's an engineer for Porter County Soil and Water. He stated that he believes as long as the structure is, again, located on the higher ground, away from the swale drainage area, that he foresees no problem with the DNR issuing a permit in order to put this type of structure in place.

Mr. Detert stated that I think I might shorten up some of the response, because we're aware of the other people that have input into this and if we gave approval, you would still have to get approval from the Army Corps of Engineers, or whoever else was involved. He stated, so, we're aware and we're not in position to make those determinations - somebody else is.



Mr. Goodrich stated that one of the gentlemen, Mr. Ribicki, I believe, questioned whether there were going to be fundraisers on this location. He stated that the location is too small to have any sort of fundraising. He stated that the members do not have their fundraisers at this facility. He stated that they go to other locations, gun shows, they have sponsored gun shows and that sort of thing and fairgrounds and other locations. He stated that that's not the purpose of this structure. He stated that this is for the members o gather, once again, once a week, not every day, not a stream of traffic coming in and out of this site. He stated that it is a dirt road, that is a concern, but that plays into whether this is a perfect building site. He stated that that maybe not the best decision the club can make but I don't think it's the Board's decision to say that that's a very plausible place, is that a good decision based on things that they don't have authority over. He stated that it's another issue that the club is going to deal with and that sort of thing. He stated that as far as nothing to lose, they haven't found a piece of property that they can call their own for the entire existence of their 41 years. He stated that if they lose this piece of property, that would be a very substantial loss. He stated that they have never proceeded this far with a purchase agreement in order to establish something that they can call their own, where the neighboring landowners have their own piece of property. He stated that if this was an individual seeking to put up a structure, I don't know if there would be as much opposition to this, based on this use. He stated that if I was an individual, I could clear the land and obviously the landowners might not like it, but since this isn't the case, since we do have to go through this process, it does give an opportunity. He stated that I don't think that would be the case if it was another individual, private individual just seeking to clear some trees. He stated that there would be some clearing that would need to be done, just the same as any other structure that has been built in the area. He stated that they've had to clear the area in order to build. He stated that several of the remonstrators referred to the quality of life, but that is exactly why the Dunes Rifle is seeking this location - quality of life. He stated that it's in seclusion. He stated that while they are not outside, they can go to a nice, quiet place and this is not a club that's going to be drinking all night and then start throwing beer cans and shooting them in the air. He stated that it's a totally indoor facility and the members are responsible. He stated that they are older gentlemen and there is enough turnover to keep the club going. He stated that it has been in existence, again, since the '60s and it will continue.

Ken Ribicki stated that we heard the size of the barn that they want to build is 40 by 100. He stated that that's a lot of trees and also about being hard to find property. He stated that I drive over an hour to work each day, there and back, and I see for sale signs everywhere that aren't wetlands, that aren't in a floodplain.






Mr. Freund stated that I understand why these gentlemen would like to build down there. He stated that if you've been down there for a while, you fall in love with it; I did, years ago, but, in all honesty, when you bring a club in, you're bringing 18 members. He stated that along with that….

Mr. Detert stated, I think you're being kind of redundant…

Mr. Freund stated that along with the 18 members, you're going to have their children, their friends or whatever. He stated that that area draws people because of the wildlife and those of us that live down there try to control… I guess you could say the trespassers somewhat and I believe it would be rampant once you initiated that many people to a 10-acre plot, because I don't believe that they would be content with the 10 acres that they have. He stated that they'll want to go on Buck's place or my place or Jeff's place because of the amount of wildlife that's there. He stated that I know from living down there and the changes in the last 22 years trying to control garbage on the road, trying to control the maintenance of the road. He stated that it's a hard enough job with just the few of us that live down there, not given the safety factor of my family and my children going in and out of the driveway that borders that piece of property. He stated that like I said, I'm not against shooting, but I just don't believe that that is the proper place for a range or a shooting club that's going to do any type of shooting there. He stated that there's enough ranges in the area that I don't believe that it really warrants it, and that's just my humble opinion.

John Terpstra stated that every time you pick up a magazine you read about saving greenspace. He stated that here we got a chance to. He stated that all you got to do is turn this down. He stated that I'm just totally opposed to it. He stated that here we have a chance to save some greenspace. He stated that in East Chicago today, they just give (sic) 'em $225,000, federal money, to create greenspace. He stated, now here we got it and let's keep it.

Myron Meadows stated that I know where their building is at in downtown Hobart and I've never seen a sign out front informing the public of a rifle and pistol range ever. He stated that I was just talking to the gentleman - I don't think that the town of Hobart, being in the proximity of the school where it's at, I don't think if they knew that there as a rifle and pistol range, I don't think they would have 41 years in there. He stated that I've never seen any advertisement at all. He stated that I'm vehemently opposed to it because, to me, honestly, it's not commercial down there. He stated that it's residential and agricultural. He stated that there are plenty of other buildings if they wanted to…there are sand pits. He stated that if they wanted to go, like some of the police departments, they go to a sand pit and they shoot.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.


Mr. Hudson stated that I'd like to hear the attorney's comments.

Mr. Goodrich stated that I would just like to quickly respond to a couple of new issues. He stated that as far as the town of Hobart not knowing that the club was located at that location, the police commissioner was aware of that location. He stated that he has been actually trying to see if there is any place…he's been in contact with the club, to see if there is any place that they would like to go, since they originally came to relocate in the Hobart area, he was going to keep his eyes and ears open to see if there was anything that popped up to help out. He stated that he is aware of the club. He stated that as far as any signage goes, I think actually that's what the club would try to keep. He stated that they don't want a huge sign up at this location. He stated that they don't need to advertise - they are a private club. He stated that the members know where they are located. He stated that there won't be a blaring billboard at this new location, either, saying that this is a gun club. He stated that that would just totally be against what the club stands for.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is tough for me. He stated that I'm an avid gun enthusiast and I'm a conservationist and a hunter, so I'm going to go right to the land use and thoroughfare plan that we have in Porter County. He stated that that has so many quotes in here if I read them all to you it would take me all night, but they all come down to what the mission statement says in our land use and thoroughfare plan, which is like a summary statement: "The mission of the Porter County land use and thoroughfare plan is to continue the commitment to preserve and enhance the unique and diverse character of the County, preserve open space, agricultural and natural resources". He stated that it goes on further to say that "Porter County preserves and maintains and enhances environmental resources, including wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, groundwater, rivers, streams, watersheds, protect the farmland and other agricultural businesses, to support agriculture production, preserve and protect lands containing significant natural resources and preserve and protect scenic river and stream corridors". He stated that we've been accused of not following this plan in the past, and it's a good plan, and I'm really opposed to building a 40 by 100 foot building in probably one of the most beautiful resource areas we have left in the County for the benefit of a few members that live in Lake County. He stated that to deprive everybody else of that natural beauty that we have out there because we want to have a private gun and rifle range I think is not in keeping with our land use and thoroughfare plan.

Mr. Robertson stated that I also believe in the 2nd Amendment very strongly and think you do have a right to shoot. He stated that I'm not sure this is the right place. He stated that it looks like a nice place, but on second reflection, hearing all the other people that live around there, I can see their point. He asked, can you help me out here? He stated that they say it's under wetlands. He stated that you say the Soil and Water Conservation District outlined areas that were above wetlands. He asked, what's the area, how large is it?


Mr. Goodrich stated that I can refer to the photographs again. He stated that these are photographs F and E. He stated that the swale is the low ground off of 400 and this is looking due East from 400. He stated that the structure would be located to the South of that, which would be down here. He stated that this is the clearing area where there is…

Mr. Robertson asked, can you give me an idea of how…you got 10 acres here: How much of that is above what you are saying,…

Mr. Goodrich stated that it's divided approximately in half. He stated that the DNR determined that this structure could be built there. He stated that there is all ready a structure there.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you going to put a septic field in there?

Mr. Goodrich stated that currently they would be using satellite facilities. He stated that I imagine if it's going to be a permanent structure that there could be septic, water and sewage.

Mr. Detert stated that that would be up to the Health Department.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think it would be difficult to put septic in. He stated that I think it's too wet for what they plan, for the large building they plan plus all the parking spaces that will be there. He stated, I just don't think it fits.

Mr. Goodrich stated, as far as that goes, I understand the concern. He stated that the neighboring landowners have managed to build structures, as well. He stated that one of the photographs shows a large structure closer to the river. He stated that I imagine that does deal with the water, but that can be met by meeting all of the various ordinances, building requirements. He stated that again it may come down to, is this a wise decision? He stated, possibly not.

Mr. Robertson stated, one of the problems, Mr. Goodrich, is that we allow things to be built in a floodplain and then, if there is a flood, we get into if there is going to be insurance covering it, the federal government gives you flood plain insurance, but now they are trying to pull back on that. He stated that they are really trying to discourage things being built in a floodplain. He stated that there's no question that it's in a floodplain. He stated that it's right by the river and that's just my feeling on this.

Mr. Hudson stated that I'd just like to make a comment on Harvey Nix's letter. He stated that I've read through it several times and it appears that, based on several documents here, that the property is in a wetlands, and, if it is actually in something that would be determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, the IDNR, as



wetlands, they wouldn't be able to build there without doing some sort of mitigation. He stated that if the area is suited and is not in a wetlands, they would have to build the building up high enough to be above whatever that flood elevation. He stated, now we're talking being in a floodway or a wetlands. He stated that that's two different things and I just wanted to make sure that…it might not be in a wetlands, but they would have to build high enough, usually 2 feet above some elevation, and I think Harvey alludes to trying to get that elevation from DNR, so I just wanted to make clear if it was wetlands versus floodplain.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 04-UV-3, finding that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because a shooting range near houses could be dangerous; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the surrounding area is undeveloped and this new development will change the character of the area; the need for the variance does not arise from a condition peculiar to the property because it's currently zoned agricultural and would need an exception to build this here; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought because there are other places where they could build. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated that I think, to me, that the character of the area is what is going to change here, and I think that's important to note that.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think it's important to note that it's not in keeping with our land use and thoroughfare plan.

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

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

S/ Robert Detert, Chairman

Attest:/ Fred Siminski, Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector