BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
July 21, 2004

M I N U T E S

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

Those members present were Richard Burns, Richard Hudson, James Robertson and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski and Toni Byers.

Mr. Robertson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the June 16, 2004 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 93-UV-8. Keith Reed, 60 W. 700 N., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a telephone disc jockey business and storage of audio and video equipment on CR 700 N., between CR 50 W. and CR 175 W., in Liberty Township. (This Case required a new public hearing and, though notice was sent of this requirement, to date, there has been no acknowledgement from the petitioner.)

Mr. Detert stated that this Case has been withdrawn.

Mr. Robertson moved to deny Case 93-UV-8. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 94-UV-6. Nikki Wisdom, 918 S. SR 2, Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a thermolysis business, at 918 S. SR 2, in Boone Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)

Mr. Detert stated that this lady is coming in from Chicago and I don't think she's here yet, so, with the Board's permission I'm going to move this to the end of the pending business agenda and we'll come back to it.

Case 99-UV-10. Tim & Cheryl Ziegler, 758 N. Acadia, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting home child care, on the West side of North Acadia, between Midway and LaHonda in Portage Township.

Mr. Detert stated that the petitioner has also indicated that they would like to withdraw this.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 99-UV-10. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.




Case 81-V-20. Vicki Panozzo, 977 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 200 W., between County Road 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. He stated that she had told me that that's her mother that's living in the mobile home trailer. He stated that I did check the mobile home trailer and it's still there and she does not charge any rent for her living there.

Mr. Detert asked, is that a hardship case, is the mother ill or what?

Mr. Siminski stated that the mother is elderly; she's 80 years old and they need to take care of her.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original use of that trailer. He asked, has it been there 30 years?

Mr. Hudson stated, no, I think they were just throwing that out there.

Mr. Detert stated, 22 years.

Mr. Hudson stated, 23, something like that.

Mr. Burns asked, is it strictly for relatives?

Mr. Siminski stated, it's for the mother.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 81-V-20 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-5. David & Girthon Reid, 456 W. 450 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 N., between Sedley Road and the Nickel Plate Railroad, in Union Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO. He stated that I did visit the location and there was a mobile home on the location in the rear and I did talk to Girt there and she said they still need the TCO.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-5 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-16. George Sosnowski, 3202 Vale Park Road, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on Vale Park Road, between CR 200 E. and CR 325 E., in Washington Township.


Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner's physician requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 84-V-16 for 1 year. Mr. Burns 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. Detert stated that it's my understanding that she has indicated that they will withdraw that.

Mr. Siminski stated that this was an extension, I believe, for three months and I did go by and the trailer is now gone.

Mr. Hudson moved to deny Case 96-V-15. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 97-V-38. Chris Birky, 799 S. 300 E., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of SR 8, between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Birky came to our office and this is a case where they needed the mobile home there while they were building their home and they are now living in their home, and I told them that they really need, they have been trying to sell the mobile home. At this time, Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner stating that they are working on selling the mobile home and anticipate its sale by fall. The letter is in the file.

Mr. Robertson stated that it's been disconnected and everything, so they're not living in it - give them three more months? He stated that if we go through legal proceedings and everything you already have like six months built into it, right? He stated, maybe we should just deny it.

Mr. Detert stated that if they don't sell it in the next few months, they're probably not going to sell it till spring. He stated, I don't know, I'd say six months, have him come back.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 97-V-38 for six months, with the petitioner to appear in person. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked if he could add to the motion that the trailer cannot be made livable. He stated that everything is disconnected now; if we extend it for six months they could move back into that trailer and I don't think we want that.



Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 97-V-38 for six months, with the petitioner to appear in person and that everything remain disconnected and the mobile home not be made livable. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-42. Raymond Phillips, 342 N. 625 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 625 W., between CR 300 N. and CR 350 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of this TCO. He stated that I did visit the site and the trailer is in the rear of the house and in the mobile home lives the son and daughter-in-law.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-V-42 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-V-22. John Holmgren, 323 N. 475 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the East side of CR 475 W., between U.S. Hwy 30 and SR 130, in Union Township.

Mr. Detert stated that I have been told that the petitioner wishes to withdraw this case.

Mr. Siminski stated that the plan was to have the daughter and the granddaughter live on the premises. He stated that actually he said there was never a mobile home on the property. He stated that they decided to move into Pleasant View Mobile Home Park, so they would like to withdraw this request.

Mr. Hudson moved to deny Case 03-V-22. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 87-V-33. Jerome O'Day, 554 E. 1400 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 1400 S., between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township. (This case was continued from the 6-16-04 meeting. Petitioner must appear in person.)

Robert O'Day Sr. stated that I am the one who lives in the mobile home and we would like to have an extension for one more year.

Mr. Detert stated that as I understand it your reasons are financial hardship.

Mr. O'Day stated, that, and we take care of my handicapped brother.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original use, original request?



Mr. O'Day stated that we got it because I have a handicapped brother at home that we help take care of. He stated that also my folks themselves are bad. He stated, in fact, my folks are stuck in Florida right now because my mom had to have surgery down there.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 04-SE-5. Petition of Vertical RealEstate, c/o CIS Communications, 165 N. Meramec, Suite 400, St. Louis, MO, seeking a Special Exception to permit a 180-foot monopole wireless communications facility, to be located at 178 S. 675 W., in Porter Township. (This Case was continued from the 6-16-04 meeting, with petitioner to explore moving the structure to a different location on the property.)

Hans Mugler stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that at the last meeting it was my understanding that the Board asked us to investigate moving the site to a new location that wouldn't interfere with the sight lines of a nearby neighbor, Mr. Randhan. He stated that Mr. Randhan is present tonight. He stated that we have come to an agreement to be able to move the site to the Northernmost property line. He stated that right down the middle of the page is the Northernmost property line, and there is a tree/shrub line. He stated that the site comes off…this being the property line, comes right on the property line, right off this road, CR 675 W., goes into…off the road a sizable distance, 178.64 feet to the compound, up against a wire field fence and some tree line, shrub line.

Mr. Robertson asked, where is Mr. Randhan's house?

Mr. Mugler stated that his house would be further down here. He stated that his house is here and the property line is up here. He stated that originally it was almost directly across from his house.

Mr. Burns asked, will this tower require lights?

Mr. Mugler stated, no, it's below 200 feet.

Mr. Robertson stated, Mr. Chairman, I was surfing the internet the other day and came across towers and one of the things they were talking about is the number of birds that are killed by towers every year. He stated that it's like hundreds of thousands. He stated that the worst offenders are these guy wires, but we don't have to worry about that because we have a monopole tower and it's also…199 feet is the other thing - if it's above that they get hit, and they don't like lights because that draws birds. He stated that another thing they mentioned was putting them in places where birds congregate, wetlands and so forth. He stated, I'm just curious: Do you know what the surrounding area is?



Mr. Mugler stated, farmland, followed by the lake, which is really one of the main reasons why this pole is in this location, to cover the lake and the recreational area and the homes around the lake.

Mr. Detert asked, are you talking about Lakes of the Four Seasons?

Mr. Mugler stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, but just in particular, just around, say in the acre area around it are there any..what's the terrain right there?

Mr. Mugler stated that they did not determine any wetlands. He stated that it's simply farmland.

Mr. Robertson stated, it's just something we should maybe be aware of in the future, maybe putting it in our ordinance, we could have something about birds.

Mr. Detert stated that ordinarily I would kind of shy away from another aerial there because we've got two in Lake County, one on a tower and one on the 123rd, just at the rear portion of Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated that I understand that there might be one co-locator going on there, that's the latest I've heard, but when they're owned by the cell phone company themselves I think once they get their tower they don't really push that co-location, and the one thing that I do like about this tower is that it's owned by somebody who is going to push people going on it because that's how they make their living.

Mr. Mugler stated, it's the only way they make their living.

Mr. Detert stated, and I have to tell you how bad the service is in Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated that I walked out the door of my house the other day and I heard my next-door neighbor's son holler, "Hey, Bob," and I looked around and I couldn't find him. He stated that he's up on the roof and he says this is the only place that my cell phone will work. He stated that he was on a two-story house on the roof.

Mr. Mugler stated, sure. He stated that the reason why U.S. Cellular needs this location and the reason why Vertical RealEstate has chosen to build at this particular location, own this tower and market this tower is it's not just U.S. Cellular. He stated that it's also Sprint and Nextel. He stated that nobody has a great signal there, which is what they're trying to have. He stated that some of the companies have a signal - don't get me wrong. He stated that it's not a completely dead spot. He stated that Sprint provides a little bit of a signal from a distance away. He stated that AT&T has a tower that's a little bit of a distance away. He stated that there's a T-Mobile tower on the other side of the lake that's a good



distance away. He stated that no one's really filling in this particular gap or really concentrating on Lakes of the Four Seasons, which is specifically why this tower is being built, to attract as many co-locators as possible.

Mr. Detert stated that I personally switched to T-Mobile and I have a real good clear service with them and I never had any good service with either Cingular or Verizon. He stated that T-Mobile works fine. He stated that the only problem with T-Mobile is that it doesn't work in my son's office in Hebron, so I told my brother-in-law, you guys better look at putting an aerial a little farther South.

Mr. Mugler stated that Vertical RealEstate has a tower in Hebron.

Mr. Detert stated, well, it doesn't work very well because everybody has trouble there.

Mr. Mugler stated that I don't know who the carriers are on that particular tower but they do have a tower with at least three co-locators on it. He stated that what we recommend… I mean it's a little off the subject, but what I strongly recommend to you guys if you have problems with your cell phones, from a coverage standpoint, is letters to the company that you get your cell phone from and tell them, I have horrible coverage, here's my area that's affected, and that's where they put new towers, that's where they go to look for new signals, is the amount of complaints that come in. He stated that that's what generated this site for U.S. Cellular specifically, is dropped calls on an area-wide plan that they're building out.

Mr. Detert stated, I was going to ask Mr. Randhan if he's happy now.

Robert Randhan, 175 S. 675 W., stated that the main reason why I came tonight is to thank the Board for your cooperation and your interest in my interests, I guess. He stated that I would also like to thank Mr. Williams and Hans from this company for their willingness to cooperate with everything that's come to this point. He stated that I have no further objections to anything. He stated that the only thing I can say is I appreciate everything you've done. He stated, thank you, very much.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-SE-5. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Siminski stated that Kevin made a comment, and it's right on that Northern property line, and unassigned… is there an easement issue there in terms of the case it would fall or something there?

Mr. Mugler stated, no, I mean, there shouldn't be. He stated that it's a monopole. He stated that monopoles, as I've said before



you folks several, five different times, in fact, the pole is designed not to fall over. He stated that that's why Vertical RealEstate invests in the monopole. He stated that the only easement that's here is an access easement. He stated that there's going to be a power line easement, as well, a phone line easement, that powers the station, but it's not a fall-zone issue with a monopole. He stated, don't get me wrong - there's other fall-zone issues with the other types of towers. He stated, monopoles it doesn't really apply because that's not how they are designed.

Mr. Siminski stated, I do know North of that is farmland because the farmer was out there the day I went out there.

Mr. Burns asked, how did we address the other monopoles? He asked, did we have a fall zone? He stated, I thought we did.

Mr. Robertson stated that, I think we've always said that even if it's designed not to fall over, it still can fall over.

Mr. Siminski stated that it's usually one-half of the full tower height would be is considered the fall zone.

Mr. Detert asked, are you in compliance with that?

Mr. Robertson stated, there's something in the ordinance, I forget what it is.

Mr. Mugler stated this shows the monopole being 42.8 feet from the property line. He stated that if a fall zone is required and you want us to comply with that, we're happy to do that. He stated that it's not an issue whatsoever.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think it's more than half.

Mr. Detert stated, he has to comply with the ordinance. He stated that he would have to have a variance to deviate from our ordinance.

Mr. Hudson asked, does that mean, the possibility exists if we approve this that he could have to move it South?

Mr. Detert stated, well, yeah, it's possible.

Mr. Hudson asked, how do we catch this, how do we….

Mr. Detert stated, well, TAC will have site review and they'll pick up on it.

Mr. Robertson stated, we don't want to get back to the problem where it's so far South that it's bothering the other guy.



Mr. Detert stated that it went through TAC already with this.

Mr. Mugler stated, preliminary TAC review. He stated that final TAC review is after.

Mr. Detert stated, I'm sure they looked at it….

Mr. Mugler stated that if you want to make that a condition that we move it according to your ordinance, whatever it says, if it's 100 percent height of the tower or if it's 110 percent.

Mr. Detert stated, you can add that to your motion, just to cover yourself.

Mr. Mugler stated that we moved it North quite a distance, say, to move it down a maximum of 100 to 150 feet…

Mr. Robertson stated that it has to meet whatever the ordinance says and can not be farther than that.

Mr. Burns asked, didn't we determine, the Board, how many feet the tower…

Mr. Detert stated that it's in the ordinance, I believe.

Mr. Burns stated, I thought we always approved that.

Mr. Detert stated, well, you can put some stipulation in or say whichever is greater, the ordinance or your stipulation.

Mr. Robertson stated, let's say it has to meet the requirements of the ordinance, but not be farther from the Northern boundary than the requirements of the ordinance dictate for the fall zone.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-SE-5, with the understanding that the exact site placement will have to meet the requirements of the ordinance, but be no farther from the Northern boundary than the fall zone dictates, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of facts, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 94-UV-6. Nikki Wisdom, 918 S. SR 2, Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a thermolysis business, at 918 S. SR 2, in Boone Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)

Ms. Wisdom stated that my business is Nikki's Removatron. She stated that it's thermolysis, it's similar to electrolysis, except



it's non-invasive and I've been in the business for about 10 years now and I do it just part-time now, since I do work in Chicago, so I don't have as big of a clientele.

Mr. Robertson asked, there haven't been any complaints, have there?

Mr. Siminski stated, I looked in the file and I didn't find anything. He stated that there are no signs, there is nothing.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 94-UV-6 for five years. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of order for public hearings.

Case 04-V-14. Petition of Michael Griffin, c/o William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Rd., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required right-of-way width for an ingress-egress easement for a minor subdivision from 60 feet to 50 feet, to be located on the North side of CR 1300 N., between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E., in Pine Township.

Bill Rensberger stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter. He stated that what we've got is a piece of property that sits like this here, this is an arm of the Kemper Ditch that feeds into the Little Calumet River. He stated that there is an existing 10-lot subdivision that lies along CR 1300 N., and there are two County drives that service these lots. He stated that they also service the acreage of Mr. Griffin so that he would like now to do a 3-lot subdivision on it. He stated that his house sits up here, which is over 10 acres, so, it's not in the subdivision. He stated that because this subdivision is so old - I think it was made in the '50s - there's only a 50-foot right-of-way here and a 50-foot right-of-way here. He stated that the County requires 60 feet. He stated that we're requesting this Variance to utilize this 50 feet to access these new 3 lots. He stated that it's really hard to come in off CR 1325 because of the Kemper Ditch here.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

David Plinovich, 323 E. 1300 N., stated that a few of the questions I have, the right-of-way to enter Lot 3 actually does not exist. He stated that that's actually my driveway. He stated that it was built by a previous owner to me and off the property by about 10 feet. He stated that the rest of that does not exist. He asked, who is responsible for building that entrance and exit and where would the drainage be located for that? He stated that mainly I have the concerns of who builds and maintains and where does the drainage go



from it, because right now there is a drainage ditch along that side of my driveway that does not reach 1300 because it's lower than the ditch that goes along 1300, so it actually drains back towards Lot 3, the way it goes right now. He stated that that was one of my concerns, as well as the entrance and exit to that.

Amy Sobas, 319 E. 1300 N., stated that I heartily oppose the development of this entire subdivision. She stated that I was originally told, six years ago when I purchased my property, that that was a nature preserve behind me and that it was unlikely to be developed and Mr. Griffin, I would say, shame on you. She stated that not only are you not caring about nature, you're not caring about giving your neighbors the shaft. She stated, if I may, they're proposing development of this road, this drive that David is talking about. She stated that on Lots 4 and 9 there is a drive that goes about halfway up the property. She stated that if they develop this, they're developing a road halfway up the length of my property, which, not only do I lose my privacy, but it's entirely too close to the houses to begin with and if they have to develop this property then I propose they use only the existing drive that is there and not develop a whole new road in my back yard.

Mr. Detert stated that I may point out that the only thing that's before us is reducing the width of the roadway. He stated that the final approval is TAC's approval, the Technical Advisory Committee, so the only thing we're considering at this point is whether to grant him the lesser 50 foot versus a 60 foot. He stated that he has a note from J.H. Renehen, 324 E. 1300 N., Chesterton, in opposition to this petition. The letter is in the file.

Mr. Rensberger stated that this will go in front of the TAC members if this Variance is approved, and you will be notified for TAC when he tries to get the plat approved. He stated that this is Meadowmac Acres, it's a recorded subdivision. He stated that when the people here purchased these lots, people in the audience, the recorded plat showed a 50-foot easement and a 50-foot easement. He stated that that's what Mr. Griffin has as his access to his property with that easement. He stated that this is in the Recorder's Office and there are also copies in the Surveyor's Office. He stated that it's a County-dedicated road, so the County should be maintaining that road. He stated that he's just planning on building one more house here and drainage will be directed towards this way, then up to the Little Kemper Ditch. He stated that the property was, I believe, put into a nature preserve, part of it, which will be taken out of that with penalties being paid to do that. He stated that with three lots, this lot here being almost 4 acres, drainage won't be affected much at all. He stated, but the right-of-way, the road, belongs to Mr. Griffin as much as it does to you. He stated, 1300 N., I live right here and I ride my bike on 1300 N. a lot and I don't see speeding cars up and down it very much. He stated that Brummitt Road is a different story, but 1300 N., I've never encountered much of a problem.




Ms. Sobas stated that traffic is bad on 1300 N. She stated that my mailbox has been destroyed two times in the last two years because of it, speeding drivers, and that is not a road yet - it's a driveway. She stated that I wish you gentlemen could see it. She stated that it's a driveway, the length of one car. She stated that he would be putting in a road that would destroy the value of my property. She stated that I would additionally like to say I have heard rumor that he is retiring to Florida, so he personally doesn't care what happens to the neighborhood. She stated that I do. She stated that I live there and want to continue to live there.

Mike Brooks, 298-4 1300 N., stated that first I'd like to agree with her, there is quite a few cars zipping up and down that road, not that that's an issue with me. He stated that what I'm concerned about and might not apply to this hearing, he made an indication that there's going to be drainage going over this way. He stated that my property borders Lot 1 here and I have a drainage problem in that this water from here flows over into my property and is causing a bit of erosion and I visited the Plan Commission and asked for a drainage plan, which I haven't been shown one, and I object to any development of the property that does not have a drainage plan supplied with it prior to any development or variances.

Mr. Detert stated that they do have to go through a drainage plan with the Technical Advisory Committee and that Committee has to approve it, so you could call the office and ask when that's going to be heard and you could appear there. He stated that it's on Friday morning and it starts at 8:30 and ask them where they will be on the agenda that day or you can write a letter to the County Surveyor or to Bob Thompson, the director, who conducts that meeting, and outline your concerns. He stated that what we're hearing here tonight is strictly a 10-foot variance on the roadway, so we don't have any control over the subdivision itself.

Mr. Rensberger stated that the drainage is flat, it is flat out there and in this area it breaks off sharp to the Kemper Ditch. He stated that these lots will have perimeter drain systems to collect the water around their septic systems and into the Kemper Ditch. He stated that we don't plan any kind of pond. He stated that we're talking three lots with nominal effect on the drainage. He stated that I don't expect the TAC members to make us make a pond. He stated that with three houses and the driveway, too, I don't think Mr. Griffin's going to want to make a superhighway. He stated that he's going to keep the same type of driveway. He stated that he might add additional gravel on it - it's gravel now. He stated that the aerial photo showed it coming up to this spot here and we'll just extend it another 100 feet to access his property…(inaudible) the new house that he owns there. He stated, so it will still remain 10 feet wide and, like I said, it's County right-of-way.



Mr. Detert asked, you don't know when you are going to be at TAC?

Mr. Rensberger stated, no, we haven't scheduled it yet.

Mr. Detert stated, the meeting for the 30th is canceled, so if you're not going to be here this Friday, which, apparently, you're not…I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman here who is concerned about drainage has an opportunity to be heard at TAC.

Mr. Rensberger stated that when it goes before TAC, the people within 300 feet of this project will be notified by certified mail.

Mr. Detert stated that that's after the fact.

Mr. Rensberger stated, right, after primary is approved.

Mr. Detert stated, but they can come in and make comments. He stated, I think it would be better, if they had concerns, to address the Committee at the time, although it's not a public hearing, but I think they should let the TAC committee know, during the planning stages, what's happening, either by letter or by appearance.

Mr. Rensberger asked, are you suggesting we invite them to the primary TAC meeting?

Mr. Detert stated, if you would be so kind as to send them a letter and get their name and address when you get the schedule I think they would probably appreciate that, and they don't have to appear in person. He stated that you can simply write your concerns down and give them to TAC. He stated that that's not our problem right now; our problem is on the roadway.

Mr. Griffin stated, I'm the owner of the property and, once again, I'm not really sure what's relevant here and what's not, but just to answer some of their concerns. He stated that I would first of all like to say that when this property was originally platted as a subdivision, as Meadowmac Acres, there were 24 lots and it was part, all of these homes that are up here, were part of that. He stated that we bought this property in 1984. He stated that my wife and I built our home back here in the woods. He stated that I'm not in the development business, I'm not a developer, and I don't…the two things that I do know that I don't just see how three houses is going to really increase traffic tremendously. He stated that if there were 24 houses going in I could see how that would be a huge impact, and the second thing is that when this drainage goes in, when we put in the drainage on this lot, I think it's going to help all of us because there are some drainage ditch problems out there.

Mr. Detert stated that that is irrelevant. He stated that that needs to be brought up at the TAC meeting.




Mr. Robertson asked, could I ask about the road there where it's so close to the woman's house?

Mr. Griffin stated that that's an easement that has been there since the Meadowmac Acres was actually platted. He stated that it's always been there, so once again, I don't really know…

Mr. Detert stated that if it's platted they probably have the right to use it.

Mr. Griffin stated that anybody that would have built in here would have had the right to use that.

Mr. Detert stated, the issue before us is whether we want to grant a 10-foot Variance.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, Mr. Rensberger, could I see the recorded plat that you have? He stated, I guess the people who live out there…does the County come and plow those short sections that are in.

From the audience, no.

Mr. Detert stated that if they build an ingress-egress road I'm sure they'd have to plow it.

Mr. Siminski stated that in the staff report I put in there, I was there yesterday, the one road on the West is approximately 12 to 13 feet wide, that's the actual pavement.

Mr. Hudson asked, when you say pavement, is it asphalt?

Mr. Siminski stated that it's asphalt.

Mr. Hudson asked if both of them are asphalt.

Mr. Siminski stated that the other one…I didn't have the map with me, so, there were like three or four houses and I really didn't know which driveway they were talking about. He stated that I know there was a second driveway going to Lot 3, but I did not know where that was. He stated, I think that's two houses over?

Mr. Plinovich stated, it's my driveway.

Mr. Detert stated that technically the public hearing is over. He stated that if somebody here wants to ask a question, you can respond. He stated, the lady in yellow, I'll recognize you one more time for a brief time.

Ms. Sobas stated that we share that driveway. She stated that I have a partial circle driveway. She stated that his driveway goes



straight and I have a circle driveway and it's just a small section there that we share and it's a very narrow driveway and it's not developed. She stated that it goes up to his garage and there it stops. She stated that if they make a road there it's going to be along the entire side of my property.

At this time, the public hearing was closed again.

Mr. Burns stated, I guess the concern I have, we have a small subdivision planned out for several years and now the landowner's coming in and wants to change it and to make it almost like larger. He stated that I know it's only three lots, but you're talking increasing the size of a roadway, an existing easement is used as driveways, so apparently they've been like that for several years. He stated that it was approved by the developer or the landowner and now he wants to come in and change that. He stated that I kind of have an issue with that.

Mr. Rensberger stated that this landowner did not do the subdivision. He stated that he purchased the land after the subdivision was made and he purchased it with the understanding that two 50-foot county right-of-ways to access his property.

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, but he sold these lots in front here.

Mr. Rensberger stated, no, he didn't.

Mr. Burns asked, these were already existing?

Mr. Rensberger stated, that's correct.

Mr. Robertson asked, on the one to the East of there, between the houses, what's the condition - is that a gravel driveway right now.

Mr. Rensberger stated, I don't remember.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that a gravel driveway there now?

Mr. Plinovich stated, it's an asphalt drive, but there's no sub-base.

Mr. Robertson asked, what's the width of it?

Mr. Plinovich stated, maybe 10 feet.

Mr. Robertson asked, does it stop even with your house there, or does it continue to the property line?

Mr. Plinovich stated that it goes just past my garage.




Mr. Robertson asked, but that property line to the North, does it extend to that property line?

Mr. Plinovich stated, no. He stated that it stops right at my garage.

Mr. Rensberger stated that the aerial photo that this was taken of shows the drive stopping just near Lots 9 and 10, right here.

Mr. Robertson asked, does it actually go into 9 and 10 now?

Mr. Rensberger stated, that's what the aerial photo showed, and I guess I didn't locate it physically in the field. He stated, but the flight data for topo…

Mr. Robertson stated, but he says it only goes even with his garage. He stated that if it goes even with his garage and it's asphalt, it wouldn't extend that far.

Mr. Plinovich stated, it's another 100 feet to the end of my property.

Mr. Robertson asked, what's past that right now, where that driveway would go?

Mr. Plinovich stated, grass.

Mr. Robertson asked, is there any way you could use the driveway to the West to access that Lot 10?

Mr. Hudson stated, you mean to access Lot 3.

Mr. Rensberger stated, I'm sure we could make a 60-foot easement, but that's Mr. Griffin's call and he has a 50-foot easement coming through here and a 10-foot easement on the South side over here. He stated that this has not been vacated. He stated that I don't know what would stop the people, the owners of Lot 3 utilizing this because that's a County road right-of-way there, unless it's vacated, so even if they make an easement through here, if I was the property owner of Lot 3, I probably wouldn't want to come up here and go over like that. He stated, maybe I would, but I'd probably just use the County right-of-way that's there.

Mr. Robertson asked, could they improve it to County standards, or would the County have to improve it? He stated, if it's grass there now…

Mr. Rensberger stated, I think Mr. Griffin is just planning a continuation of what's there, another 80 feet, to service his lot.







Mr. Detert stated, I think we're getting way off the subject. He stated that the question before us is the 10 foot here. He stated that we're not going to design the subdivision. He stated that if that has a bearing on whether you want to grant it or not, then fine, but…

Mr. Robertson stated, I'm just looking for an alternative. He stated that it seems like it's awfully close between those two houses and the one to the East…course it looks like there is only going to be one house back there, so it's not going to be a great deal of traffic.

Mr. Rensberger stated that the lot owners did buy it with the same information that's sitting there in front of you.

Mr. Detert stated, so TAC would have to deal with that.

Mr. Hudson stated, I have to agree with Mr. Rensberger. He stated, I don't know what would keep anybody from using that; it's a public right-of-way.

Mr. Detert stated, I don't either. He stated that it's on the plat, it's for public access.

Mr. Burns asked, does it have to be brought up to County standards?

Mr. Detert stated, if it's a private road, it may not be.

Mr. Hudson stated, but it's not a private road, it's a public right-of-way. He stated, I realize it's a drive for two houses, but it's a public right-of-way.

Mr. Detert asked, what are you petitioning for?

Mr. Rensberger stated, I'm assuming Mr. Griffin plans on just extending what's there, a 10-foot asphalt drive to service his Lot 3. He stated, I'm sure he doesn't want to put in a 30-foot wide County road or 26-foot wide.

Mr. Detert stated, so you're looking at a County road, is that what you're looking at?

Mr. Rensberger stated, and, unless it's built to County specification, the plows probably won't go in there.

Mr. Detert stated that it would be difficult to get a snowplow in and out of there anyway, for the County to maintain that.

Mr. Hudson stated, it's serving one house.




Mr. Burns asked, when it was originally platted, was that a nature preserve on the original subdivision?

Mr. Detert stated, what they do, they turn that over to the DNR and they get some kind of a tax break on it.

Mr. Rensberger stated, now, when he pulls that out, there will be some kind of penalty.

Mr. Hudson stated, the original subdivision, at least that plat, was dated 1957, so there's been a few days gone by since.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-14, finding that the grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because it's already platted that way and it won't be any wider; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the right-of-way is already on the plat; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because without the 10-foot Variance he would not be able to develop the property. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated, Fred, would you make sure that our director is informed of some of the comments that were made here, prior to this coming back to TAC? He stated that maybe some of that can be addressed before the final approval is given.

Case 04-V-15. Petition of Thomas C. Smith, 2277 St. Ferry Rd. Solsberry, IN, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum required road frontage for a 12+-acre parcel from 96 feet to zero feet, to be located at 1591 N. 435 E., in Pine Township.

Michael Smith, 1587 N. 435 E., stated that I'm appearing for my brother, Thomas Smith. He stated that he's unable to attend. He stated that he has MS and he's disabled. He stated that the reason a Variance is sought is that my brother's parcel is completely surrounded by property owned by our parents, Francis Smith, and therefore has no frontage on the County road. He stated that I'd ask that my brother's petition, which you have a copy of, be read into the record, along with the comments of the neighbors.

At this time, favorable comments from adjoiners and Thomas Smith were read into the record. The letters are in the file.

No one spoke against this petition.


The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated, well, essentially, he's landlocked really. He stated that there's no way he can get 96 feet, so I don't think that that's an issue. He stated that I don't have a problem with that.

Mr. Burns stated, I don't have a problem whatsoever.

Mr. Robertson stated that we've done it before for people who are landlocked.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-V-15, 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:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-16. Petition of David Fifield, 906 Tiller Dr., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in the front yard, to be located at 906 Tiller Drive, in Liberty Township.

Mr. Fifield stated that it's actually the side of my house, but I'm on a corner lot and they said it's two front yards He stated that I have a 2-foot no-access easement.

Mr. Detert asked, you can't set the garage further back?

Mr. Fifield stated, no, not really because it would be right in the middle of my yard and there would have to be a big long drive coming through the back of my house.

Jim Ksenak, 916 Plantation Drive, stated that I live just around the corner and where he wants to build the garage is fine. He stated that it's pretty far back. He stated that his property is different from most of ours because it runs rectangularly instead of oblongly like the rest of the properties, so his is as far back on the property as he can get. He stated that I just got the letter and it said that it was in front of the house and it's like who would want to build a garage in the front of their house, but I've got no objections to it. He stated that where he's trying to locate it is plenty far off the main road and it is close to the County road on the side, but it's not really bothering anybody; just so he follows the covenants that we have that it has to look like the house and I know he'll do that.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that it makes sense.



Mr. Robertson stated, I'm just curious - why couldn't he put it on the other side or farther to the West.

Mr. Hudson stated that he'd have a long driveway coming off. He stated that this way he can access the shortest distance.

Mr. Robertson asked, his driveway then is coming off of CR 275? He asked, what's that dotted line, Rich? He asked, is that a driveway going North?

Mr. Hudson stated, I don't know.

Mr. Fifield stated that the driveway to my house is to the North.

Mr. Hudson asked, it's not coming out of 275?

Mr. Fifield stated, yeah, my garage that I want to build is, yeah.

Mr. Hudson stated that I think what he's asking is what is this dotted line there.

Mr. Fifield stated, that's a utility easement.

Mr. Robertson stated, I got no problem, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Burns stated, no problems.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 04-V-16, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-17. Petition of Gary & Randy Tacker, 27 S. 117 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required road width for a major subdivision from 26 feet to 20 feet, to be located on the East side of Private Road 117 E., between CR 50 S. and Division Road, in Morgan Township.

Mr. Detert stated, before we can act on this case, we need your paperwork.

Mr. Tacker stated that Don Bengel told her that he had taken care of the paperwork that day.

Ms. Byers stated that I will assume it's on my desk.





Mr. Detert stated, I don't know, the paperwork's not in. He asked, what's the Board's pleasure? He stated, we don't know if the paperwork's been taken care of and I'm not sure we're legally able to vote on this.

Ms. Tacker stated, I'm sorry, I was told this morning that it was taken care of.

Mr. Detert stated, I suppose we could make a motion, subject that all the paperwork has been submitted.

Ms. Tacker stated that this is a zoning appeal to request to allow 20 feet wide paved road rather than 26 feet. She stated that the depth of the road will meet the Porter County standard of 10 inches of stone base, 2 inches of asphalt and 1 inch of asphalt surface with 2 feet wide stone shoulders.

Mr. Robertson asked, why can't you make it 26 feet?

Ms. Tacker stated, well, normally my husband would be here, but he's in Pittsburgh. She stated that I believe what we're looking at is based on the amount of traffic that would be used, because there's four lots currently on the property.

Mr. Robertson asked, which ones are those?

Ms. Tacker stated, Numbers 3, 2 and 1. She stated that we live in Lot 1, all the way in the back.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson asked, if it's possible to make it 26 feet, why should he need a variance?

Mr. Hudson stated, I suppose from a standpoint…we've been faced with an issue of erosion and sediment control, if you ever hear of Rule 5 or doing an NOI and they have, when I say they, municipalities have been allowing less pavement, more greenspace, greenspace catches grit and grime, keeps it from going off into the drainage ditches. He stated that it's a low-density road, as far as traffic. He stated that standards were written at a time where we didn't care. He stated that we're now in this Phase 2 part of the Clean Water Act and reductions of pavement hard surfaces have…I don't want to say they're in vogue, but there's a lot of…

Mr. Robertson asked, what about the difference for safety, you know, traffic getting in and out?


Mr. Hudson stated, well, you've got two 10-foot lanes. He stated that we're proposing…County Road 100 S., the County's proposing making improvements on it, which is a major road with two 11-foot lanes, so, there's plenty wide. He stated that it's slow. He stated that you're not talking about a 50, even a 30 mile an hour, it's not the…it's not going to have the traffic, it's not going to have the safety issues. He stated that if it was going a half a mile or if it was connected to another road…I mean this is essentially a dead-end, it's a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Detert stated that the (inaudible) in the back, I've looked at it, it's pretty low back there. He stated that it's a dead-end street.

Mr. Hudson stated, it appears they're being required to…is that a detention pond that they're proposing on Lot 11 and 10?

Ms. Tacker stated that that's been approved as a land…it's a very small, but there is going to be…it's something that TAC has already approved and taken care of as far as to maintain and ensure that there'll be proper drainage.

Mr. Detert asked, does it have to go through the engineer?

Mr. Hudson stated that I would think so. He stated that they'll have to comply with this application for NOI because they're disturbing more than an acre, when they build these homes.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess if this were a larger subdivision I'd be a little concerned about narrowing the road because you get a lot of joggers and stuff out on these roads. He stated that seeing as how it's limited to..what?…5 lots, how many lots?

Mr. Robertson stated, 10 lots.

Mr. Detert stated, I don't know. He stated that one of the problems that I have in Four Seasons that I see every day is that the roads are fairly narrow and you get traffic on it and joggers, but you have through streets there. He stated that I'm sure the reason for it is to conserve the outlay of money for asphalt pavement. He asked, it is going to be asphalt?

Ms. Tacker stated, yes, it will be asphalt and a very minimal population because, at the moment and for several years to come this is all grazed by my horses on this, from the wetlands down, so there is basically no traffic other than myself and relatives.

Mr. Detert asked, are all your relatives going to buy the lots?

Ms. Tacker stated, if we can work it out. She stated, we're a close family.




Mr. Robertson asked, is that 20 feet and then an additional 2 feet on each side of gravel?

Ms. Tacker stated, yes, it would be 20 feet and then there would be 2 feet wide stone shoulders on both sides.

Mr. Robertson asked, then, if you go farther off the stone, what's it like and can you walk off the stone, too?

Ms. Tacker stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated, he's showing side ditches and up in the upper right-hand corner of the drawing he's showing a cross-section with the side ditches in there also, so beyond the 2-foot stone shoulder, which would connect on each side of the 20 feet. He stated that he's got side swales, which are consistent with the design. He stated that I know there is a cost savings involved with this, but I guess I'd like to think of it as helping out with less pavement.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-17, subject to all the paperwork being in order, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-SE-6. Petition of Hopewell Mennonite Church Cemetery, Box 316, Kouts, seeking a Special Exception to permit expansion of a cemetery, to be located on the East side of Baums Bridge Road, between SR 8 and CR 700 S., in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Detert stated that the petitioner has asked that this case be withdrawn.

Mr. Robertson moved to table Case 04-SE-6. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

At this time, Mr. Burns stated, 130 and 400 N. He asked if Mr. Siminski has been out there and seen the large satellite dish that they're using as advertisement.

Mr. Siminski asked, with the chuck wagon and the sign?

Mr. Burns stated that they started out with the satellite dish and now there's a pumpkin.

Mr. Siminski stated that someone came in and he went out and took pictures. He stated that it has to do with Horse's Landscaping.




Mr. Burns stated, yeah, it has to do with advertising. He stated that now they have a chuck wagon. He stated that of course the van is advertisement and he doesn't know if you have any control over that and they have three signs on that triangular piece of property. He stated that it's an eyesore.

Mr. Siminski stated that I'm looking at it. He stated that they are doing some sort of earthwork back there.

Mr. Burns stated, well, that's the property I think we denied.

Mr. Hudson stated, we denied that house…I think they wanted to reduce the right-of-way and now they've made a cut off of 400 and I saw a painted van. He stated that it's psychedelic. He stated that I thought I was back in the '60s again.

Mr. Burns stated, well, now they have a satellite dish…

Mr. Hudson stated, but that was there before they started excavating off 400.

Mr. Burns stated, I brought that up, I think to Mary, about a year ago, nine months maybe.

Mr. Siminski stated, I think some verbiage has been put on the chuck wagon and it's probably inappropriate. He stated that it shouldn't be there.

Mr. Robertson stated, it was like industrial property and it was pointing South across the tracks there, but it's not there now.

Mr. Detert stated, talking about signs, Fetla's has a whole bunch of these signs about the size of a house for sale sign advertising their business up and down on either side of their business and I'm sure that they're illegal.

Mr. Siminski stated, I'll look into that.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS


S/ Robert Detert, Chairman

Attest: S/Fred M. Siminski, Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector