BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
November 17, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on November 17, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski and Toni Byers.

Mr. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes from the October 20, 2004 meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 99-UV-14. Frank A. Jury II, 235 W. U.S. Hwy 30, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a law office in a residential zone, on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 250 W. and Hayes-Leonard Road, in Center Township.

Mr. Jury stated that I am here seeking renewal of the 5-year Use Variance. He stated that I sent in the $100 a couple months ago.

Mr. Burns asked, how many attorneys?

Mr. Jury stated, just myself currently.

Mr. Burns asked, and sign, wasn’t there an issue on a larger sign?

Mr. Jury stated that there was an issue on the sign last time. He stated that I had come back to get permission on a larger sign, if I recall correctly.

Mr. Burns asked, what size sign do you have now?

Mr. Jury stated, honestly, sir, I couldn’t tell you. He stated, I never measured it.

Mr. Burns asked, is it within specs?

Mr. Jury stated, I would think so.

Mr. Brickner stated that it says 2 foot by 4 foot.

Mr. Detert asked, as opposed to a 2 by 3 foot?




Mr. Brickner stated, we approved it for a 2 by 3, and it’s 2 by 4.

Mr. Detert stated, and it’s lighted. He asked, did we include that?

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t remember if we approved a lighted sign.

Mr. Burns stated that may have been an issue. He asked, wasn’t one of the neighbors complaining?

Mr. Jury stated, I don’t believe there were ever any complaints. He stated that I think the issue was mostly with this Board in putting up a sign.

Mr. Burns stated, I knew it was an issue, but I don’t know where it came from.

Mr. Jury stated, to my understanding, I haven’t received any complaints in the past 5 years.

Mr. Detert stated, I would suggest if you make a motion to extend the Use Variance that you incorporate in it the sign allowance and that you indicate that it would be subject to the design of the existing sign so we don’t get some over-sized, gaudy sign of some sort later on.

Mr. Siminski stated, I did take a look at the sign today and I must have left it upstairs, the actual dimensions. He stated that I think it’s like a 32-inch by 72, or something like that, or 36 by 72.

Mr. Burns stated, oh, it’s much larger.

Mr. Brickner stated, it says 2 by 4 in here.

Mr. Siminski stated that the first time I went by there I just eyeballed it, and, since I read afterwards that there was an issue last time, I went back today and I did measure it.

Mr. Burns asked, was it approved for a larger sign? He stated, I don’t think it was.

Mr. Siminski stated, the minutes don’t reflect that at all.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think so.

Mr. Siminski stated, it is a nice sign in terms of…I mean, it’s a plain sign. He stated that it’s a sign that you can see from two directions, meaning that it’s like a triangle kind of thing where the back is open and there’s two little lights that shine up on each of



the sides, but it seems to be a little larger than what was approved last time. He stated, I think it’s a metal sign, too.

Mr. Jury stated, you know, actually, I’m not sure what it’s constructed of. He stated, it is, actually, my second sign. He stated that my first sign was run over, two cars that went off 30, so this was the replacement.

Mr. Burns stated, I think the issue was with him wanting all these different signs on 30 coming in.

Mr. Jury stated, I’ve done my best to put a nice sign there and keep it so it would somewhat blend into the background and not…I think that’s worked as some people still have trouble finding my office.

Mr. Brickner stated, but this is a residential area. He stated, our concern is that it’s a residential area and there are not supposed to be any signs, really, and we gave you permission to put a sign there, but a small sign, and I don’t think we gave any permission to have it lighted. He stated that it was not supposed to be a lighted sign. He stated that it was just supposed to be a small directional type sign that pointed the way.

Mr. Detert stated, if my memory serves me right, the idea of approving the sign was just so somebody could find the place, and I don’t know if you have office hours at night or not, but I would think you would not need the lighting.

Mr. Jury stated, the lighting I installed, but to be honest, I’ve rarely used it since installing it.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-UV-14 for 5 years, with the stipulation that it goes back to the original approval of the sign, 2 by 4 without lights.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated, let’s make sure that’s what it said.

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, we’re checking it. He stated, I knew there was an issue.

Mr. Brickner stated, I remember the case, but…

Mr. Jury stated, if I could state, I think one of the issues was, I’d done some research and talked with sign companies and they said 2 by 4 for Route 30 was a bit small and potentially hazardous as it could cause accidents as people having to slow down to be able to read it and I think that was one of the initial reasons I came back and requested a larger sign. He stated, and again, if there have been no complaints…




Mr. Brickner stated, we agreed in the last meeting to have a 2 by 3 foot sign, and it doesn’t say…but no lighting…I mean, it doesn’t say that it was not supposed to be lighted, but it doesn’t say that it was going to be lighted either, so…

Mr. Burns stated, see the issue, like you stated, it’s in a residential area.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-UV-14 for 5 years, with the stipulation that it goes back to the original approval of the sign, 2 by 3 without lights. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated, if you don’t change it, then this action will be null and void and Fred will be checking out on you.

Mr. Jury stated that it’s my understanding that the approval for a sign is limited to being affixed to the ground. He asked, if I wanted to take the sign out of the ground, then I don’t need approval, set it on, say, a dolly, for example. He stated that it is a very nice sign and I paid a good deal of money for it and I’d have to have an entirely new sign constructed if it is, indeed, is not the proper measurements, and, again, this is not something I’ve gone out there and put a measurement to myself, but it’s my understanding that if I take the sign out of the ground…

Mr. Brickner stated, your Variance was for a 2 by 3 sign and you should have made sure it was a 2 by 3 sign. He stated that if it’s bigger than that, then you’re going to have to replace it.

Mr. Jury stated, but my question was, if I remove the sign from the ground and put it on something portable…

Mr. Burns stated, no, it doesn’t make any difference.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s still a sign.

Mr. Jury asked, I can’t place a sign in my yard?

Mr. Burns stated, no. He stated that it’s a residential area.

Mr. Jury asked, what is the sign size?

Mr. Detert stated, 2 by 3.

Mr. Jury stated, that was the initial size. He stated that if I’m not mistaken, this was a long time ago, I think you increased that.




Mr. Siminski stated, this was November 17, 1999, this is the original hearing.

Mr. Jury stated, yes, but I believe you increased it at…when I came back several months later.

Mr. Burns stated, there was an issue. He stated, I think there was a complaint by the Planning Commission that you had to come back here.

Mr. Jury stated, no, I came back on my own because the size that you had approved was just too small.

Mr. Burns stated, oh YOU came back.

Mr. Brickner asked, not to the BZA?

Mr. Jury stated that the sign you approved was this big, which, on Route 30…

Mr. Burns stated if it had been zoned commercial it would be different.

Mr. Jury stated, I attempted to zone it commercial, but that was shot down, too.

Mr. Siminski stated, there’s nothing here on the jacket that says that there was any other…I mean, I’m not saying there wasn’t, but…

Mr. Jury stated, I believe it was in April of the following year.

Mr. Burns asked, and it was approved?

Mr. Jury stated, it was approved.

Mr. Detert asked, here, at this body?

Mr. Jury stated, correct.

Mr. Detert stated, well, you can change your motion to read as originally…

Mr. Brickner stated, whatever it was in April.

Mr. Burns stated, whatever the approval was initially.

Mr. Jury asked, could I request that the Board consider entertaining the idea that since there have been.. it’s my understanding, if I’m correct, that there have been no complaints in the past five years, and I have never received any, that you could consider amending it to the size sign that is there now, as the



measurements he spoke of. He stated, if there have been no objections…

Mr. Brickner stated, there are not supposed to be any signs there. He stated, that’s the idea of the ordinance that you can’t have a sign there, and we’re giving you a sign that you’re not supposed to have in the first place, and now you want a bigger sign, and I don’t think that that’s…no, I wouldn’t agree to that.

Mr. Jury stated, you did give me approval for a sign. He stated that we’re just dickering over the measurements of it.

Mr. Brickner stated, whatever it was in April that we agreed to…

Mr. Burns stated, without lighting.

Mr. Detert stated, Fred will search the records and let you know.

Mr. Burns stated, you can call the office and find out.

Mr. Jury asked, somebody will give me a phone call?

Mr. Siminski asked, this was April following the…

Mr. Jury stated, I’m guessing, but it seems like it was spring of the next year.

Mr. Detert stated, he’ll search the records.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-UV-14 for 5 years, with the stipulation that it goes back to whatever was last approved for the sign, 2 by 3 without lights. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 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 read a letter from the petitioners stating that they do not need a renewal as the mobile home is gone from the property.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 84-V-9. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 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.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner stating that he does not need the TCO, stating that it has been removed from the site.



He stated, I did go out there in an inspection. He stated that the mobile home has been removed from where it was. He stated that this is a farm now. He stated that there was some discussion at some of the meetings about using the mobile home for possibly storage of equipment or supplies. He stated that the mobile home is still on the property, but it’s in the rear. He stated that it’s not hooked up to anything and it’s sitting behind some metal storage farm bins or whatever, but it is visible now since the corn is down. He stated that it is on the property.

Mr. Brickner asked, does he have any intentions of removing it? He stated that it’s supposed to be removed.

Mr. Detert stated, well, if we deny it…

Mr. Brickner stated, well, let’s just deny it and then he’ll have to remove it.

Mr. Detert stated, and Fred can check on it.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 89-V-4, with staff to make sure that the mobile home is removed from the property. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 89-V-44. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, P.O. Box 471, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 150 E., between CR 325 S. and CR 400 S., in Morgan Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners stating that they no longer need the TCO as they sold the trailer and had it removed from the premises. The letter is in the file. He stated that he did go out there and inspected the area and the trailer is no longer on the property.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 98-V-44. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 96-V-37. Gerald Scott, 539 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the East side of CR 300 E., between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that the petitioner sent back the letter that was sent him and he wrote on it “no changes”. He stated that he did pay the renewal fee and I left a letter for him to give me a call. He stated that he did call and I explained to him if he would next time please either show up in person or send me an actual letter, but he said his parents still live in the mobile home trailer, which is right in front of their home and they’re elderly and they said they still need the use of the mobile home.




Mr. Burns stated that it sounds like it’s a hardship case. He stated that the father is 89 and the mother is 87.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 96-V-37 for 1 year, with the petitioner to either send a letter or appear in person next time. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 04-V-33. Petition of Edward Martin, 1245 Dogwood Dr., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the front-yard building line setback from 50 feet to 43 feet to build a porch, to be located at 1245 Dogwood Drive, in Westchester Township.

William D. Konolky, 7408 Parish Avenue, Hammond, stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that I’ve come up with this design with these screened-in porches. He stated that I make them by the section in the shop and I started them last year and I’ve been doing them since then and I come across Ed and he wants one on the front of his house. He stated that I’ve been through this one time before in Hammond but they couldn’t put it on the front of the house because they didn’t have enough room. He stated that I guess I’m just here to see if it’s okay if we can do it or not.

Mr. Siminski stated, I did meet the man when I went out there and he did say that another gentleman would be here from the builders to represent him.

Mr. Konolky asked, did you measure in front of that? He stated, because Ed said that somebody come (sic) out there and measured it and it was like 60-some feet instead of 50 er…was that you?

Mr. Siminski stated, I did go out there and gave copies of the street to everybody. He stated that according to this plat map, there’s…Dogwood Avenue has a 50-foot right-of-way, so half of that is 25 feet, then there’s another 50-foot building setback line, so there’s 75 feet from the center of the road. He stated that sometimes it’s hard to find out where the center of the road really is. He stated that I measured from the end of the pavement to the house where, actually to the inset of the house, because it sets out a little bit, the inset, and I measured 67.9 feet just from the edge of the road. He stated that the road was 20 feet. He stated that the street was 20 feet wide, so half of that would be 10 feet, but then I got a plat of this and it has showing the 50-foot easement….of course there’s not 50 foot pavement of the road at all, that’s just the easement, and I did talk to Bill Casbon about it, actually Ray, about this and it is showing the 50-foot driveway easement and then a 50-



foot building setback, for a total of 75 feet off the road and most of the houses are pretty well set back off the road, about that distance, so if he added 10 feet to this, this is about 77.5 feet from the inset of the house. He stated that I was told that this porch area that you’re building is only coming out 4 feet.

Mr. Konolky stated, it’s 10 by 20 or 19…it’s 10 foot out, but the house is shaped like an L. He stated that it goes back to the deeper part, so it actually only goes protrudes past the house 7 feet.

Mr. Siminski stated, okay, ‘cause I measured…there’s an existing minor porch there now, like a concrete thing, and it’s approximately 4 feet from where the house sits out to the inset. He stated that here’s a 4-foot little porch there now and that’s what he’s talking about I guess, 10 foot coming out..

Mr. Detert asked, coming out from there?

Mr. Siminski stated, coming out from there, or actually the first 4 feet is already legal and it’s just the remainder of what’s coming out.

Mr. Konolky stated, yeah, 6 or 7 feet, or whatever it is.

Mr. Siminski stated, it is an older subdivision and the houses are in line with this house, so…

Mr. Detert stated, the porch is going to extend out.

Mr. Siminski stated, the porch will probably extend out about 6 feet.

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 haven’t looked at this. He stated that I’m not sure exactly where it’s going to come out, but I don’t think it makes a big difference in looking down the street. He stated that I don’t think it’s going to be that much. He stated that I know it’s going to be out of line with the other houses, but I didn’t think it would look that bad.

Mr. Detert asked, is there going to be a roof over it?

Mr. Brickner asked, it’s a regular porch, is it not, not just a deck?





Mr. Konolky stated, right. He stated that we’ll build the deck first up and over the concrete to the front door and then put the room on top of that and then put a gable roof up unto his (inaudible – he brushed the mike).

Mr. Brickner asked, you’re going to put a gable roof over it?

Mr. Konolky stated, yes.

Mr. Detert asked, is there a gable now over the 4 feet?

Mr. Konolky stated, it’s the other way. He stated that I’ll be going into the roof.

Mr. Brickner stated, so it’ll come out about 6 feet, but I don’t think it will look that out of place. He stated that there’s quite a bit of room in the front.

Mr. Burns asked, were the neighbors contacted?

Mr. Konolky stated, yes. He stated that we sent out all the letters.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors?

Mr. Konolky stated, we sent out six of them registered letters.

Mr. Burns stated six, so, apparently across the street and adjacent.

Mr. Konolky stated, umm-hmm.

Mr. Burns stated, since the neighbors don’t object to this, I don’t have a problem with this either.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-V-33, 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 Burns - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-34. Petition of Emmett Fitzgerald, 59 S. Old Hickory Lane #D, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction of the minimum required rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet 6 inches to build an addition, to be located at 67 S. Old Hickory Lane, in Porter Township.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that there is an existing structure, 30 by 22, 660 square feet. He stated that it literally was a crack house, strip house,



flophouse, and to clean the neighborhood up, I bought the property. He stated that in my ignorance, I thought that the setbacks on the back side of the lot would be shared by myself and the neighbors. He stated that there are three structures within 350 feet on the alley that are within 2 feet of the property line. He stated that I would like to put a 26-foot addition on the back of the house and there would still be 5 feet from the lot line, farther from the lot line than the other three structures down the block on the alley, and an attractive sunroom on the front of the property. He stated that the old crack house will just be gutted and completely be 100 percent new on the inside. He stated that there will be all-new siding, new roof, new everything. He stated that it will be a definite asset to the community. He stated that I’ve lived across the street from this property all my life and it was tragic to see it go downhill. He stated that the only way I could figure to clean it up would be to purchase it and do some cleanup. He stated, heaven only knows that Lake Eliza needs it.

No one spoke against this petition.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, which lot number are you on?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated it’s 15 feet of this property and 19 of this, so it’s halfway part on 32 and part on 33.

Mr. Burns asked, so the house is in here?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, yes. He stated that there is one house here, one here, and one here and then there’s an empty lot.

Mr. Burns asked, so this was subdivided? He asked, is it an illegal house or was it…

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there’s three side by side.

Mr. Brickner asked if it was re-divided since this map was drawn. He asked, are these still the original lot lines?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that they are still the original lot lines, but, see, my uncle owned all that property at one time and I guess he did not locate the house directly within the lot lines.

Mr. Burns stated I guess the concern is that it’s placed across two recorded lots, unless it was subdivided.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have a clear title to that?




Mr. Fitzgerald stated, yes. He stated, I thought you had a copy of it. He stated that it is described as such: 15 feet of the South of Lot 32 and then 19 feet of Lot 33.

Mr. Detert asked, how long has the house been there?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, a long time.

Mr. Detert stated, so, it’s probably grandfathered in.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the paperwork I brought earlier should have a warranty deed in there.

Mr. Siminski stated, the South 15 feet of Lot 32 and the North 19 feet of Lot 33 in Lake Eliza View, as per plat thereof recorded August 31, 1926, in Miscellaneous Record.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that this map was prepared by PTGR for the Lake Eliza Conservancy District and these are the three cottages side by side that we’re speaking of. He stated that this is the alley.

Mr. Brickner stated, and they’re on 33 and 32 and then this is right in between.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, yes. He stated that this map shows every structure in the section. He stated, see these two garages here and this one here that are back on the lot lines. He stated that I won’t be as close as these. He stated that I’ll be 5 feet away and these are probably within 2 feet.

Mr. Siminski stated, I will say this, when I did go out there to take a look at this, the alley and even the street in front are not really straight. He stated that they jog a little bit either way, especially the alley becomes wide and then it becomes shallow. He stated that where Mr. Fitzgerald had his stakes out there, there is actually…I think there’s three garages further South that are farther to the alley.

Mr. Brickner asked, this is just an alley?

Mr. Siminski stated, in the back it’s like an alley.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there’s an unnamed street and this is Old Hickory Street.

Mr. Siminski stated that it will circle around to the street, like I said it goes wide and then it narrows a little bit. He stated that it’s maybe a one-lane road or alley.

Mr. Brickner asked, so, there’s no obstruction of vision problem that might exist?




Mr. Fitzgerald stated that these structures in the past have never caused any problem. He stated that we’re not going to be as close to the lot line as those other structures.

Mr. Siminski asked, you don’t own the property to the South of you, right?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, no.

Mr. Siminski stated, because there is a fence up to the South of him that I was trying to deal with, but anyway, that’s a different issue. He stated, actually, where his property is in the rear, that’s where it becomes wider, so there’s a little more room back there. He stated that that one pipe that’s coming out of the ground in the back, is that a cap on it?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, that’s a well.

Mr. Siminski stated, I did check, too. He stated that the electric is coming off the front and the gas is coming out of the front, too, I believe.

Mr. Detert stated, there are no utilities in the back; that was one of my concerns, because normally when they plat a rear setback, that’s reserved for some sort of utilities or drainage.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, except the well, and, like I said, that would be….

Mr. Brickner asked, is there a septic system?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that it’s Lake Eliza Area Conservancy District and the tank is out front.

Mr. Brickner stated, so there’s no septic field out there or anything.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated I guess another thing that I get concerned about is, are you sure you measured where you want to go, because if we grant you and you go farther out than what we granted you, then you’re going to be in violation.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, it’s not going to be a problem. He stated that what I propose is where it’s going to be. He stated that there’s a concrete box structure there and I took the dimensions off the concrete block structure. He stated that I’m not moving it. He stated that I’m not going to change that, but I need your permission to go ahead and put that on there.




Mr. Burns asked, are you going to use a surveyor to make sure or are you doing it yourself?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that I measured it off the concrete block and the lot lines fall halfway between these two structures. He stated that it’s not going any wider than the existing structure; it’s just going straight back.

Mr. Detert stated, and the top floor goes two feet over the bottom floor.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, yes, it will hang over the garage door.

Mr. Detert asked, why is that?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, to protect the garage door.

Mr. Burns asked, Fred, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, about 7.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess we get a little concerned because there’s a lot of helter-skelter building in Lake Eliza and we don’t want to add to it.

Mr. Siminski stated that there are 7 names listed on the affidavit and there are seven green cards.

Mr. Burns stated, so the neighbors don’t have a problem.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-V-34. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated, my only comment would be, make sure you measure right.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, I’ll work directly with Fred.

Mr. Burns stated, if I could expand on that, you may want to hire a surveyor. He stated that we have seen many mistakes on this Board.

Mr. Siminski stated, it didn’t seem like there was a problem in the rear. He stated that Mr. Fitzgerald also wants to put something in the front of the house and, again, the road, on paper it’s straight; when you go out there, it pulls to the West. He stated that the only problem I had was with his neighbor because I think it’s an illegal fence he’s got up there.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s not his problem.

Mr. Siminski stated, that’s not his problem, but what I was trying to do is where he put his pegs for the front, it seems like it does meet the porch of about the fourth house down. He stated that it’s kind of hard to tell with the fence there, but, again, you can’t find the middle of the road there because it’s such an old subdivision.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that this is the sunroom we’re talking about on the front of the property.

Mr. Detert stated, we’ve got copies.

Mr. Burns stated, we all have a copy.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, this will be a sunroom. He stated that the West-facing wall, a South –facing wall, a glass roof on the South. He stated, a place to start plants.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-V-34, 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:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-35. Petition of Janice Dicken, 438 E. Greening Rd., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required width of an ingress-egress easement for a minor subdivision from 60 feet to 38 feet to accommodate an existing shed, to be located at 438 E. Greening Rd., in Jackson Township.

Ms. Dicken stated that at this moment we’re trying to finalize a minor subdivision and in order to…well, today I’m requesting a Variance for an existing shed that’s on an ingress-egress easement and have it reduced…I was told according to planning that it should be 60 feet and we want it reduced to 38 feet within the shed area.

Terrance Dicken, 438 E. Greening Rd., stated that the whole purpose behind this…we bought this property approximately 6 years ago. He stated that at the time, the previous owner, Joe Hammond, had already gone through all the appropriate legal and monetary aspects in order to finalize the subdivision because he was selling it to us. He stated that at the time of our selling it (sic) he handed over the paperwork and assumed that this minor sub was taken care of. He stated that with no little consternation we found out at a later date that the minor sub had never been formally recorded. He stated that in the intervening period between finding out that it had never been formally recorded and taking possession of the property I built a 20 by 20 storage area because we were moving into the trailer that was there at the time, so we needed a place to store all our stuff. He stated that at the time, knowing that my whole plan was not only to live there for a while until we paid it off but also to build a house



in back, had I known that I’d be building on an easement, as such, I actually never would have done that, so, unfortunately, we’re trying to sort of fix a problem that we’ve inherited, so to speak. He stated that moving the shed would just be basically tearing it down. He stated that as far as using it right now there’s still a number of things in there that I don’t really know where to put. He stated that after living in our new house for the last two years we finally managed to empty out the garage enough to park vehicles in it, so these are some of the reasons and situations that I’m looking at and that’s the reason why I’m looking for the Variance.

Mr. Detert stated, apparently, you didn’t get a permit when you built the shed.

Ms. Dicken stated, yes, we did.

Mr. Detert asked, did staff approve that?

Mr. Dicken stated, yes, sir.

Ms. Dicken stated, we didn’t know about the subdivision until after the fact that it was actually started.

Mr. Detert asked, at the time you built the shed…

Ms. Dicken stated, we didn’t know about it.

Ms. Byers stated that if it wasn’t recorded it wouldn’t have had an easement, so we would have issued the permit.

Mr. Dicken stated, right.

Mr. Detert asked, it wasn’t recorded yet?

Ms. Dicken stated, correct.

Carole Caselli, 436 Greening Rd., stated, I just wanted to say that I have no objection to this. She stated that I’m one of their neighbors and I have no objection to the Variance. She stated that it hasn’t caused any kind of hardship to anybody else. She stated, hopefully it will be passed.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner asked, this minor subdivision, is it going to be developed or is this just…it’s recorded now, right?

Ms. Dicken stated, no, it won’t be recorded until this Variance is, hopefully, granted. She stated that according to Mr. Thompson he said that’s the last thing we need to get it recorded.


Mr. Brickner asked, who owns the property?

Ms. Dicken stated, we do.

Mr. Brickner asked, you own all the minor subdivision, the property back there?

Ms. Dicken stated, right.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you plan to develop it sometime in the future?

Ms. Dicken stated, at this point we don’t know.

Mr. Brickner stated, if you are going to develop this in the future then this might be a problem. He stated that if you’re not going to develop it then I don’t know if it would be a problem. He stated that if they are going to have a subdivision back there and you’re only going to have a 38-foot easement, a road going back there, that might be a problem.

Ms. Dicken stated that I’m asking for a reduction just for the shed area.

Mr. Brickner stated, from 60 to 38.

Ms. Dicken stated, correct. She stated, that would be only, what, within 20 feet of the shed.

Mr. Brickner stated, and your storage shed is going to sit right on the edge of the road then?

Ms. Dicken, stated, um, no. She stated, I think from what I remember the shed is about 18 to 20 feet from the road, from the edge of the road.

Mr. Brickner asked, from the 38 foot?

Ms. Dicken stated, um, we…the easement…

Mr. Brickner asked, from the 38-foot easement.

Mr. Dicken stated, it would be up to the edge.

Mr. Burns asked, what size shed is this?

Ms. Dicken stated, I believe it’s 20 by 20.

Mr. Burns asked, and what type of a structure?

Ms. Dicken stated, as far as the type, it’s structural steel.



Mr. Burns asked, is it on a foundation or is it wood posts?

Ms. Dicken stated that it was existing poured concrete for the walls.

Mr. Dicken stated that it was an existing foundation that I found with just concrete walls approximately 8 inches wide going down in the dirt. He stated that I placed the 20 by 20 storage area on top of that.

Mr. Burns asked, so you poured a footer?

Mr. Dicken stated, actually, on the existing, it was rectangular. He stated that in this area here I did pour a footer and blocked up with 8-inch block that other end, but the rest of it, it’s all existing and then the new one I poured a footer.

Mr. Burns stated that the biggest problem I have is because the minor subdivision, you have to vacate it for us to reduce the easement because you may develop that.

Mr. Detert asked, how many acres do you have on your lot?

Mr. Dicken stated that the total is 4.6 acres.

Mr. Detert asked, and the lot you’re going to have your house on?

Ms. Dicken stated that we have a house already on Lot 2.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess there’s a little confusion as to…what’s the total parcel consist of, how many lots?

Mr. Dicken stated that the total parcel will consist of two lots.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, that’s what I thought. He asked, you don’t own the other lot though, just…

Mr. Dicken stated, we own the entire thing. He stated that this is the rectangular line. He stated that our house sits back here. He stated that the road comes up right along the edge until you get about halfway back and then it curves up to the house.

Mr. Detert stated that we have this drawing. He asked, where is the shed on this drawing? He stated, mark the shed on this drawing.

Mr. Dicken stated that that’s where the mobile home used to be, but we tore that down once we took occupancy.

Mr. Detert stated that there’s been a lot of consternation at the Plan Commission regarding these roads and private drives and turnarounds and Plan Commission has not been very favorable to these kind of roadways.


Mr. Burns stated, any time you have private drives, it’s a problem. He stated, that’s why it’s a 60-foot easement. He asked, what’s the acreage of your house, 2 acres, and the second parcel is 2 acres?

Ms. Dicken stated, it’s not divided yet.

Mr. Burns asked, but once it gets recorded?

Mr. Dicken stated that the one lot would probably be a little over 2 acres, and then whatever is left would be like 2.5 acres.

Mr. Burns asked, do you have plans to subdivide that 2 acres?

Mr. Dicken stated, no, just two parcels.

Mr. Detert asked, you’re going to leave it the way it is?

Mr. Dicken stated, yes. He stated, two parcels of 2 acres, and then the other thing is that the road is already in, it’s already back there. He stated that there’s already electric to the house in back as well as, you know, REMC, NIPSO, etc., so on.

Mr. Burns asked, there’s a house back there?

Ms. Dicken stated, right. She stated, we’re living in it.

Mr. Brickner asked, in addition to your house there’s another house back there?

Ms. Dicken stated, no. She stated that once this subdivision is approved the front will just have the shed and the back lot will have the house.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, the alternative would be you have to take the storage shed down, and you don’t want to do that, that’s what you’re telling us, you don’t want to have to take the storage shed down in order to get an easement the proper easement going back there?

Mr. Dicken stated, I guess as I tried to explain, I’m trying to make good of a really bad situation.

Mr. Detert stated, a big concern here is that if we grant you a Variance and then you decide at a later time to make four lots instead of two, or five lots or three lots we’re stuck with a private road that doesn’t meet the criteria.

Mr. Dicken stated, if it would make the Board feel better, I’d be more than happy to sign off on that’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s going to be, two lots of 2 acres each. He stated, we have no real



intention of dividing it into some four-plex. He stated, I’ve got to live there.

Ms. Dicken stated, plus, if we ever decide to change it around we’d probably have to present it again.

Mr. Detert asked, you would be willing to sign a covenant to that effect that you would not develop any beyond the two lots?

Mr. Dicken stated, exactly.

Mr. Burns stated, I did not get a chance to see this parcel, did you, Marv?

Mr. Brickner stated, no, I didn’t.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 04-V-35 to check out the property.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated, we’re real strict about reducing easements and setbacks.

Ms. Dicken stated, well, we were told that everything’s according to code and that this would be the last request, the Variance, in order to finalize the subdivision.

Mr. Siminski stated, I talked to Janice today about this. He stated that once this minor subdivision is in effect, there will be a shed on this property alone, okay? He stated that this is in a Rural Residential zone, RR, which means that if a house is ever built on that property, the house has to be either equal to or in front of the shed, or a Variance needs to be granted at that time. He stated that I just wanted to be sure that you understood that, so that there was no misgivings about that.

Mr. Burns stated, that was one of my concerns. He stated that that’s why I want to look at it. He asked, is there room to put the house in front of the shed without a Variance? He stated that I don’t think there is. He asked, is there proper room to put the house in front of the shed without a Variance?

Mr. Dicken stated, at 170+ feet back from the centerline of the road, you know, and actually, the way that the land is, the way that it drops off, because there’s that Army Corps creek that runs through the center of it, up in front, and actually right around the front of the storage area is about the only place on the lot which is viable to actually put a house. He stated that you look at the place and unless you want to have something that looks like a three-story walkout in back, it would be ridiculous.




Mr. Detert asked, do you still want to make the motion you made?

Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to see the property.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 04-V-35 to the 12-15-04 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Case 04-V-36. Petition of Daniel Hurst, 453 E. 337 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in the front yard, to be located at 453 E. 337 N., in Washington Township.

Mr. Hurst stated that basically it’s a minor subdivision that was created by a separate party. He stated that my home is the first house within the subdivision, therefore it’s a corner lot and therefore we have two front yards, so basically what I wanted to do was have it adjacent to the existing driveway, next to the house.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Siminski stated, we just received this today. He stated that it’s the survey location report. He stated that we didn’t have this earlier, and it’s showing that on the private road, 337 N., there is a utility easement through the East of his property. He stated that his house faces CR 450 E. and the driveway comes off the private road 337. He stated that it’s showing easements here that we didn’t know that there were until tonight. He stated that there is a 20-foot utility/drainage easement and then there’s a 30-foot building line between that easement and his house.

Ms. Byers stated that the 20-foot utility easement is incorporated within the 30-foot building line. She stated that what we didn’t know at the time, we didn’t have the plat of survey. She stated that it shows the measurement on there from the house to his property line of 40 feet, 10 feet back from the 30-foot building line. She stated that he’s proposing to start his garage 15 feet further in, across the building line, from where the house is, which puts him already right there 5 feet over the building line, before you even start. She stated that by the time he’d end up he’d be one foot from the property line. She stated that we didn’t have that knowledge when he came to apply.

Mr. Hurst stated that I gave the outline of the subdivision to you, I think. He stated that I was unaware that there was a 96-foot ingress/egress easement. He stated that I did not know that existed. He stated that I was under the impression that if I went 30 feet from



the edge of the road, that would cover me as far as the utility/drainage line and the building line.

Mr. Siminski stated that this minor subdivision has four homes. He stated that his is right here facing the road. He stated that there is a second house here facing the private drive; there’s another home that’s kind of pushed back here, kind of even with this house here, and there’s a house way back here. He stated that it’s a long drive to get back, and so it’s a four-home subdivision.

Mr. Brickner asked, these are his two front yards?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, and his house sits back here, so this is his back yard back here.

Mr. Siminski stated that his back yard is here, because his house faces this way.

Mr. Burns asked, and he wants to put an additional garage where?

Mr. Siminski stated, right through here.

Mr. Burns stated, it’s too far forward.

Mr. Siminski stated, yeah, right now it’s showing that it’s too far forward.

Mr. Detert asked, by how much?

Mr. Brickner stated, oh yeah, it’s only 4 feet, according to this. He stated that it’s still in the front yard. He stated that even though this is a private drive, it’s still considered his front yard. He asked, what do you got behind your house?

Mr. Hurst stated, well, actually, we noticed that there’s a problem with this, so we could put it on the opposite side. He stated that I do have a septic field in that vicinity, but I believe that there’s enough room to make an access road to where I need to be.

Mr. Detert stated, I think in light of this information you may want to continue this and come back with a drawing.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you wanted to use your same driveway for your existing garage. He stated that that’s why you wanted to put it.

Mr. Hurst stated, from what the covenants and restrictions required us to have a paved driveway to any newly constructed out building of any kind, like a garage or what not. He stated that I spoke with the developer about the subdivision and he said he would





write an addendum allowing me to put a garage on the opposite side of the property and have just a gravel road.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think you’re going to be able to put it there, for sure.

Mr. Hurst stated, I was unaware…I talked to him Sunday regarding the whole situation. He stated that he mentioned that there was a 96-foot ingress-egress easement and I’ve been here several times and I did not know that that even existed. He stated that I was under the impression that there was a 20-foot utility easement and then there’s another 10-foot building setback. He stated that from my house to the edge of the road there was 78 feet, but now probably it’s changed.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 04-V-36 until he gets a new drawing that shows a new location.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated, he can’t build it where he wants to.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s right.

Mr. Brickner stated, whatever he wants to do after that, I don’t care, but tonight, as far as I’m concerned, we can just deny it.

Mr. Detert stated that if we deny it, then he’s dead in the water.

Mr. Burns stated, he can’t come back for a year, is that correct?

Mr. Detert stated, if we continue it, he could come back with new drawings.

Mr. Brickner stated, whatever his drawing is going to be, it’s probably going to be okay because it won’t be in the front yard, right? He asked, what does he need a Variance for if he’s not going to put it in his front yard?

Mr. Detert stated, well, then he doesn’t need a Variance, if that’s what he comes up with. He stated that if it’s continued to next month and he solves the problem we just deny it.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think we should just deny it.

Mr. Burns stated, well, if we deny it now and he can’t work it out he’s dead for a year.

Mr. Detert stated, I’d like to give him a chance to work it out, I guess that’s all Rick’s saying.




Mr. Hurst asked, if that’s the case then if I’m denied tonight, does that mean that I can’t build anything for a year, or just for the front yard?

Mr. Brickner stated, no, it just means that you can’t build it where you want to build it.

Mr. Hurst stated, okay, like you said, if it’s the front yard, it’s really not an issue anymore because there’s no room. He stated, I mean, I could put it on the opposite side. He stated that it wouldn’t look right in the middle of the front yard.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, you can’t put it in either one of your front yards. He stated that you have two of them; you can’t put it in either one of those. He stated that you got to either go to the side where you want to put it or in the back, but not in the front yard.

Mr. Burns removed his motion.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 04-V-36, finding that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community; the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner; the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because it would be over the building line and would be in the front yard. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-37. Petition of Ronald Loverich, 229 W. 875 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the width of a required access easement for a proposed minor subdivision from 60 feet to 44.82 feet, to be located on the North side of CR 875 N., one-half mile West of CR 200 W., in Liberty Township.

Mr. Loverich stated that I am petitioning to have a Variance on providing access to a 40-acre parcel I have behind my house. He stated that I can show you on this drawing. He stated that I own, with my wife, this parcel here, 7.7 acres, and then this is a 40-acre parcel behind me. He stated that this is the County road here, 875 N., and my house now is here and my mother’s house is here. He stated that we have 45 feet approximately from the road to here for access, and that’s what I’d like to do. He stated that what my intention is to sell these off as individual 10-acre lots, eventually. He stated that this parcel will go with my house because that falls into some category that you have 10-acre parcels.

Mr. Detert asked, have you applied for a minor subdivision?





Mr. Loverich stated, apparently it doesn’t need to be because of the 10-acre parcel rules. He stated that this whole road has got people living on large sections. He stated that my neighbor, Mr. Venderman, has got 5 acres now, which is right here. He stated that across the street is a 10-acre parcel with a house, which will only be a single house, so there’s large parcels in this area. He stated that next to him is Mark Corbin, and he’s got 20 acres. He stated that Showers is across the street. He stated that my intention is to keep it farm-oriented. He stated that this is now farmland. He stated that this is woods here and this is farm.

Ms. Byers stated that she talked back and forth with his engineer and he wavered back on forth on whether to do a minor sub or 10-acre splits. She stated that the only thing, if he’s not doing a minor sub, then the reduction needs to be from 96 feet instead of 60 feet, because on the 10-acre parcel you need 96 feet; on a minor sub you need 60.

Mr. Detert stated, well, we withdrew the minor subdivision at the Plan Commission. He stated that one of the big reasons for the withdrawal is the fact that the minor subdivision, the Commission feels, has been abused to some extent, but really spearheading it was the fact that we’re getting all these streets with the minors that are not built to County standards and there are no bus turnarounds or anything. He stated that it’s a fire or a safety issue, so the Board decided to withdraw minor subdivision.

Joe Vendramin, 223 W. 875 N., stated that I have no objections.

Betty Bennett, 908 N. 200 W., stated that I am opposed just because there’s so much traffic on Babcock Road now. She stated that we heard of a man who wants to put a front porch up. She stated, I have a porch, I don’t sit on it because there’s so much traffic on that road now and there’s a large subdivision of Babcock Road South of 6. She stated that they’re building another one South of 6, right across from it. She stated that there’s two smaller ones North of 6 and one medium-sized one near 20, all on Babcock Road. She stated that Babcock Road is the only one that goes straight through from 6 to 20. She stated that there’s no other roads off of 875, other than Babcock Road, and I just think there’s too much traffic.

Mr. Loverich stated that I would like to say something about that. He stated that I live on 875 where I’m talking about it and I am also concerned about traffic. He stated that I’d like to keep the traffic to a minimum, and this is my solution to not having this broke up into 40 1-acre lots some day. He stated that I do like the street that we’re on because it has large parcels. He stated that Mrs. Bennett is on 200 and it’s going to be going through some changes, not maybe in the near future, but on down the road, and I hope that she gets a minimum of traffic, larger parcels is my solution.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated, on each side of the easement, you live on one side and your mother lives on the other side. He asked, how much space is there between the edge of the road easement to the two houses?

Mr. Loverich stated that the proposed easement is 45 feet. He stated that to our driveways…60 feet would go into each driveway on each side. He stated that the driveways go up on the sides of the house, and then the garages are opposites. He stated, in other words, you drive into the side of the house with the garages.

Mr. Detert asked, is there any way that this driveway could go back to these lots…

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s about 10 feet then, right?

Mr. Loverich stated, yeah, that’s about right.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, there’s about 10 feet between the edge of the proposed easement and his driveway and 10 feet between him and his mother’s driveway.

Mr. Detert asked, is there any way that one drive could be incorporated for a subdivision as well as their…

Mr. Loverich stated, that I don’t know. He stated that when we built in 1985, my dad built here and I built the other one, we thought 45 feet was going to be enough access to this back here. He stated that we didn’t do any checking on ordinances or anything back then, so that’s why it ended up 45 feet and both of us put our driveways near our side property lines.

Mr. Burns asked, does the driveway turn into the houses? He stated, you could remove the driveways?

Mr. Loverich stated, Fred, you had been out to the house. He asked, did you see how our driveways go up to the pad kind of in front of the garages?

Mr. Siminski stated there is a garage at the end of the drive. He stated that there is a garage at the end of his house. He stated that I forget the mother’s house, I mean it goes in.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, you have to make a left turn off of your driveway to get in your garage?

Mr. Loverich stated, I make a left turn off of my drive, which – if you can picture – is just enough to get your vehicle turned and then pull in the garage.




Mr. Burns stated that they are asking for a 51-foot Variance, if we go from a 96 feet.

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, that’s what I figured.

Mr. Loverich stated that we are locking into only 4 homes back here.

Mr. Brickner stated, let me ask you a question about that. He stated, in other words, those are 10-acre parcels and if somebody buys a 10-acre parcel back there and wants to have a minor subdivision, they can subdivide that 10 acres into…

Mr. Loverich stated, you’re saying yes? He stated, I’m not getting that answer. He stated, once I do this, I lock it in as you can’t do that. He stated that they would certainly have to go for a Variance.

Mr. Detert stated that it would have to be a major subdivision, but he could do exactly what you’re saying.

Mr. Brickner stated, then you’d be dealing with a whole bunch of lots, a whole bunch of homes back there with a 40…

Mr. Detert stated that all you need for septic is an acre, if the soils are decent, so you can have 10, 20, 30, 40 lots back there.

Mr. Loverich stated then you’d have to go through all your major subdivision ordinances with your driveways and your curbs and all that.

Mr. Brickner stated, I understand that. He stated that all I’m saying is that’s a possibility that we have to consider when we’re looking at a 51-foot Variance here for a road and that could happen and then that would be a serious problem as far as fire trucks and ambulances and anything getting up and down.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s been a big concern, especially on the Plan Commission, with the advent of mini-subdivisions we’ve run into that problem. He stated that school buses can’t back, garbage trucks can’t get back; ambulances have difficulty. He stated that fire engines have difficulty. He stated that my feeling on this is that probably you could deny it, or if you want to continue it and send it to TAC for their input. He stated that we’ve got three engineers that sit on there. He stated that there’s drainage issues. He stated that if this could be subdivided again and again, there could be drainage issues. He stated that I think with this being the potential of a large subdivision some day, as you sell off…

Mr. Loverich stated, I’m trying to rule that out, is the idea here.




Mr. Detert stated that you’d have to write some covenants on the lots that they could never be subdivided.

Mr. Siminski stated, I do believe that if it goes for a major subdivision, then you would have to have the 96-foot easement.

Mr. Detert stated, so, he’s asking for 51 feet.

Mr. Burns stated, you might be doing more damage to your property if you decide to subdivide it.

Mr. Loverich stated that I don’t want to subdivide. He stated that when I talk to people like Bill Rensberger, my surveyor, they tell me that once I do this, that it’s irreversible, that it’s one house on a 10-acre lot, I mean that’s the way it was approved and I agreed to.

Mr. Detert stated that I think you’ve been told wrong. He stated that we just had several cases come before the Plan Commission lately that were subdivided just like you’re talking about and the last one was that guy that wanted to put two lots in there.

Mr. Brickner stated, you know that there’s going to be a minimum of 4 homes back there, I mean that’s the minimum number of homes, or you say the maximum, but there’s going to be 4 homes and even with that amount of traffic coming between your house and your mother’s house on that narrow an easement, I mean, I wouldn’t…

Mr. Loverich stated, the road is actually 20 feet.

Mr. Brickner stated that if I were in your position, I’m not sure that would be desirable to have that kind of traffic coming in and out between what is now a really nice residential quiet area. He asked, you haven’t got a Plan B here, do you?

Mr. Loverich stated, it’s landlocked.

Mr. Brickner asked, have you looked at any other way to get in there and make it a little bit wider?

Mr. Loverich stated, no, unless I can negotiate with my neighbor, Junior Lenburg. He stated that he’s got a lot of frontage on the County road there, but he’s not interested. He stated that he’s setting on it.

Mr. Detert stated, we can’t tell what’s down the road. He stated that you sell off the 10-acre parcels and that person has a right to come in and do what he wants to do with his land under the ordinance, so, if he wants to subdivide it, he could come in and request that.




Mr. Loverich stated, I’m surprised. He stated that that’s new information for me.

Mr. Brickner asked, this road comes onto Babcock Road?

Mr. Loverich stated, no. He stated that that’s 875.

Mr. Brickner stated, I was thinking Babcock Road; that’s kind of congested.

Mr. Loverich stated, four additional families, but we don’t expect to solve all…when we have one person who’s interested in (inaudible).

Mr. Brickner stated, there’s some things…that idea of going to TAC with this…

Mr. Detert stated, there’s potential here of those 10 acres being subdivided, as we said. He stated, now you’ve got a larger subdivision, you’ve got drainage issues. He stated, that’s what the engineers are there for. He stated, if the lady who spoke is correct, Mrs. Bennett, there are traffic issues and the highway engineer sits on TAC. He stated that it’s going to be a private drive and the Plan Commission’s been frowning on private drives.

Mr. Loverich stated, I was told I can’t even consider putting a house on my septic is behind me. He stated that that all has to go in with my house, which is what I want anyway.

Mr. Detert asked, what if you sell your house and that person has that parcel and then wants to subdivide? He stated that that’s the problem. He stated that we don’t have a big problem with you.

Mr. Loverich stated that obviously they can’t off of this road. He stated that they couldn’t off a 60-foot road, and you’re never going to get 90 feet out of it. He stated, I don’t know where that’s coming from.

Mr. Detert stated that if we had a plan where we knew what the potential was here, then I would see our way clear to granting a Variance, but at this point…

Mr. Loverich asked, is there anything I can bring, a covenant or something?

Mr. Detert stated, at this point I’m leery of what you…what this could ultimately end up being.

Mr. Loverich stated, well, the people that are interested in this kind of property only want this kind. He stated that they’re not developers.




Mr. Detert stated, but, the point is, what if one of them buys it and sells it to another party and that party wants to develop it.

Mr. Loverich stated, then they’d have to go through this kind of meeting, don’t they?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, he has to go back, but we’re now stuck with four 10-acre parcels, whereas…

Mr. Loverich stated that that would be desirable.

Mr. Detert stated that if this was a major subdivision from the get-go it could be designed better. He stated that you could have turnarounds in there for garbage trucks.

Mr. Burns asked, you built the two homes in front, right, and you own this parcel?

Mr. Loverich stated that it was in an estate and my brother and my dad and I all offered just to…

Mr. Burns asked, so you landlocked yourself, in a sense?

Mr. Loverich stated, yeah…

Mr. Burns stated, I’m not being critical, but…

Mr. Loverich stated, we thought that that was enough.

Mr. Brickner stated, if there’s something that we ought to look at…

Mr. Detert stated, it needs to be looked at more thoroughly.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think we ought to take a closer look at it.

Mr. Burns stated, I have no problem sending it back to TAC.

Mr. Brickner asked, can we do that?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, we’ve done that before. He stated that the minutes will relay to them what the concerns were here, and they will look at it and give us a report back, so we send it back to them and we would like a report back.

Mr. Brickner asked, do we continue this with the recommendation that it goes to TAC?

Mr. Detert stated, at this point, you’d be better off to table it and send it back to TAC, because we don’t know how fast it would get


back to us. He stated that if you table it, then you could bring it back at any time. He stated that if you continue it, then you have to bring it back at the December meeting.

Mr. Brickner moved to table Case 04-V-37, with the recommendation that this be presented to TAC and that the Board also have a chance to look at this property. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 a.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

s/ Robert Detert, Chairman


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