Porter County Government - March 16, 2005

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
March 16, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on March 16, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Rich Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Patrick Devine and Toni Byers.

Mr. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 2-16-05 BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:
Case 00-UV-1. Deborah A. Pressel, 111 S. Smoke Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting an in-home CPA office on the East side of Smoke Road, between Division Road and CR 150 S., in Morgan Township. (This Case was continued from the 2-16-05 meeting, with the petitioner to appear in person.)
Mr. Robertson stated that I think our problem with your thing was the sign.
Mr. Brickner stated that we approved the business last time with no sign.
Ms. Pressel stated, sure. She stated that I thought the understanding was that the sign wasn’t to go in the front yard, but I thought you had encouraged me to put some sort of marking on the house because the issue was that it’s a busy road, people only come once a year, and it’s hard to identify.
Mr. Brickner stated that I understand all that, but when we approved the case last time it was with no sign, absolutely no sign. He stated that we said if you wanted to put something on your mailbox, like an inkwell or…
Ms. Pressel stated, or something on the house. She stated that I thought you also mentioned putting something on the house.
Mr. Brickner stated that your sign is on the front railing on the house. He stated that I’ve seen it.
Mr. Robertson stated that I feel kind of conflicted here when she brings that up ‘cause I think we did say that she could put something in the house. He stated that I remember the minutes, if I remember…
Mr. Burns stated that I had concerns about that. He stated that I think the discussion was that she could put a little sign, a cardboard sign, in a window.
Mr. Brickner stated, right. He stated that that’s what it says in the minutes of the meeting, but there was not supposed to be any sign advertising the business anywhere else.
Mr. Robertson asked, can you reduce that sign and put it in the window?
Ms. Pressel stated, sure can.
Mr. Robertson stated, with that understanding, I think that’s the only question we had about it, right?
Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have a problem with the business.
Mr. Robertson stated, reduce the sign and put it in the window. He asked, what size?
Mr. Burns stated that this is the problem we have, okay? He stated, I’m not saying you’re going to do this, but let’s say you have a large picture window and you have a 4 by 6 sign inside the house in the picture window. He stated, I mean, we need to give her a clear understanding.
Mr. Robertson stated, you’re right. He stated that the one that’s there now is 3 foot by 4 foot.
Mr. Burns asked, are we going to say like 81/2 by 14 cardboard sign, or are we going to say like 3 by 5, or no sign is no sign?
Mr. Brickner asked, if it’s inside the house do we, can we say that?
Mr. Hudson asked, can we say that if it’s inside the house?
Mr. Burns stated, I don’t know. He stated that that’s what I’m saying. He stated that I think we’re giving conflicting information here because we tell people you can’t have any signs in the front yard, but you can have one in the window or on a mailbox or whatever; what are we saying? He stated, I mean, we should tell them what we want or what they should have.
Mr. Brickner stated, obviously, she misunderstood.
Mr. Burns stated, she misunderstood, but I mean, I think we need to tell her and others what are we looking for?
Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I have a problem telling her what she can do inside her house and what she can put in her window. He stated, if I want to paint my mailbox pink and you don’t like it that’s….
Mr. Burns stated, we’re talking about signs, Rich.
Mr. Hudson stated, I mean, but I want to put…
Mr. Burns stated, we’re getting off…we’re talking about the sign. He stated, if you put a sign in the window…
Mr. Hudson asked, if we say no sign, does that mean she can’t a sign in her window?
Mr. Burns stated, that’s exactly what I’m saying. He asked, are we saying no signs?
Ms. Pressel asked, can you then no longer say, Merry Christmas, you know, on the…?
Mr. Brickner stated, that’s not a business. He stated, you have a business.
Ms. Pressel stated, well, it is a business, actually. She stated that it’s a big business.
Mr. Burns stated, see, we’ve been going both ways. He stated that we tell some people no signs and we tell other people they can put a sign in their window or on their mailbox. He stated that it’s confusing.
Ms. Pressel stated, it was…you know…you highly encouraged me to put something…make a big mailbox…I mean, I remember…we talked about, it’s across the road and my big issue is that, I mean, Smoke is hilly right by our house…I don’t want people to miss…I mean, my concern is for…I do, um, probably 20 elderly widows, you know, that come to my house once a year and they don’t drive so well, and I don’t want them missing the house. She stated that I don’t do it for advertising. She stated that I don’t take any new clients. She stated, I mean, my business…I’m full, and my concern is for my clients, and for their safety, that they don’t miss the house and that’s the main reason that I have the sign and I can make it smaller, but, you know, my concern is for my elderly clients. She stated that they come once a year. She stated that they don’t drive so well, and Smoke is not a good road to be pulling in and out of.
Mr. Brickner stated that I think the Board understands and is sympathetic to that, but our problem is signs in residential areas are just not permitted. She stated that if you want a business in a residential area, we can okay that, but if everybody puts a sign that cuts hair or does fingernails or something, so, that’s a problem, is the sign in a residential area, so I know you understand that.
Ms. Pressel stated, I understand that.
Mr. Brickner stated, if she put a sign in her window, I wouldn’t object to a sign that’s inside her house in her window that said…
Ms. Pressel stated, I can put it right in the office there.
Mr. Burns stated, just as long as she understands…
Mr. Brickner stated, but the sign she has now is not acceptable.
Ms. Pressel stated, it’ll be reasonable. She stated, it’s only up for two months, I mean, three months.
Mr. Robertson stated that that’s another thing, I mean, it’s a tax business, it’s not all year round. He stated that she takes it down, so, it does serve the purpose of keeping those lovely women, you know, off Smoke Road as quick as they can.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 00-UV-3 for 5 years, with the sign that’s presently on the front porch to be removed; allowing a reasonable sign in the window for customers, and all the previous stipulations from when this was originally approved. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.
Case 05-V-2. Petition of Bernard Madej, 5583 Paw Paw Lake Road, Coloma, MI, seeking a Variance from the required lot area and lot width for a major subdivision, Damon Run, said Variances previously approved by the Plan Commission, to be located at the Southeast corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road, in Liberty Township. (This Case was continued from the 2-16-0 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting a continuance on this Case.
Mr. Hudson moved to continue Case 05-V-2. Mr. Burns seconded the meeting, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Case 05-SE-1. Petition of Rex & Janet Veach, 716 W. 1014 S., Hebron, seeking a Special Exception to permit a boarding and riding stable with stalls for up to 28 horses, to be located on the South side of CR 1014 S., between SR 2 and U.S. Hwy 231, in Boone Township. (This Case was continued from the 2-16-05 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Jim Reed stated that he is an attorney representing and accompanying Ms. Veach. He stated that it is his understanding, for the purposes of the record, that this was to heard at the February meeting and was continued to tonight. He stated that he had a chance to go over those minutes and what I see in this situation, a couple of big concerns on the part of the Board and I am going to break them down into categories, Number 1, the number of horses. He stated that there was some discussion, and I think properly so, your ordinance controls how many horses we can have on a given unit of land. He stated that the requirements in this case allow her to have far more horses than she is asking for. He stated that the number she is asking for is 28. He stated that according to the calculations that I guess your Plan Commission put together it would be 3.2 acres, give or take a little. He stated that we have roughly 11 acres here. He

stated that under the ordinance, I think we should be okay with that. He stated that another issue had to do with the manure disposal. He stated that I had a chance to talk with Janet about that. He stated that I think in the ordinance what it calls for for a Special Exception, it has to be something that will be approved by IDEM. He stated that what we did, we went to IDEM and Janet made some phone calls and talked to them and we found out that IDEM doesn’t control operations that are this small. He stated that they have certain numbers that they start at, and they are basically confined feed lot operations. He stated that down in my neck of the woods, in Newton County, for example, some of the big dairy farms you see down there. He stated that they really don’t have any rules, necessarily, that they want us to follow. He stated that what that does is it puts it up to the common sense test, that is, what can we do with this that’s reasonable, not only to her, but also to the neighbors. He stated that what Janet has done is, she’s talked to a disposal company and she can give you all the details if you have questions, but she will have a 10-yard dumpster there and that will hold approximately 4,000 pounds of waste. He stated that that dumpster is simply going to be emptied weekly. He stated that she will incur the cost for that. He stated that the refuse company is okay with that. He stated that she’s asking for a riding stable, but I think it was properly noted at the last meeting that actually what this is more akin to is a boarding place where she’s just going to be boarding horses for other people. He stated that again, with regards to the manure disposal, that will all be done offsite and we won’t have a spreading problem and by doing so we greatly eliminate any concerns that there might be with runoff or anything like that, and, again, all that will be done offsite. He stated that there was some concern with regards to storage, travel trailers and things like that. He stated that Janet does have, I believe, two trailers, is that correct, horse trailers, and those are already on site, those are hers, and obviously, with that being her residence she would like to keep those there if there’s no objection from the Board with regards to that. He stated that with regards to other trailers, it would be quite simple: She’s just not going to allow any other storage of horse trailers there – just her trailers, and that’s it. He stated that we don’t anticipate there being any more than the two horse trailers that she has right now. He stated that I don’t know if she ever has plans of buying any more, or if there would even be any need to buy more horse trailers. He stated that we are certainly willing to represent to the Board tonight, if you want to make it a condition of any action taken, that there will be no storage of any trailers that belong to anyone else, and that would be the same with trucks or anything like that, any of the moving equipment that some of the neighbors may be concerned that might be sitting around. He stated that the other big concern – and this was the big one that I got looking at the minutes – had to do with the ingress and egress as well as the effects of the dust and stuff like that. He stated that there were a lot of ideas kicked around and the one that seemed to carry the most steam at the last meeting was a separate roadway. He stated, quite frankly, when I looked at that, my initial thought was, why would we want to essentially double the

surface area of gravel and stone. He stated that now we’re going to have the private road that everyone uses now and we put something parallel to it that would be hers, and we now would create even more dust because we’re going to have a separate roadway and more surface area to create the dust. He stated that what Janet and I have talked about and we are throwing this out for discussion tonight, rather than try to affect the amount of roadway is to affect the use of the roadway, and, in doing that, what I’ve done with clients in the past and also a brief history, I mean, I’ve had the opportunity in Lake and Newton counties to represent a lot of municipalities. He stated that I was Newton County’s Plan Commission and BZA attorney, so I’ve been able to argue it from both sides, but, by limiting her hours of operation and by limiting the number of people that can be there at any given time, what we plan to do is to limit the use of the road. He stated, keep in mind, we’re not talking about a big, full-blown riding stable, lessons, all of that stuff. He stated that what we’re going to have here is a handful of people that own one or more horses, and I think right now she has someone lined up that owns seven and numbers like that. He stated that part of the business is tied in with the racetrack in Illinois, and there will be people who are snowbirds or out of town or whatever, and when the horses cycle through the racetrack and they’re not there for racing purposes, they need a place to keep them. He stated that it’s not like we’re going to have something here every single day or that people are going to be coming out to ride their horses. He stated, notwithstanding that fact, and I’ve certainly read the minutes about the concerns that especially one neighbor had about the number of cars and the dust and I think a Board member brought that issue up, what we’re saying is if we could limit it to a reasonable number of cars, what we’re doing is we’re putting one, two, three cars a day on the road and that’s it. He stated, that, I think, is certainly a reasonable condition, and your attorney can advise you better as to what you can and can’t put on as far as conditions, but that would be our suggestion, and we throw that out for discussion, as to how to address the usage problem and the dust that would be created from that. He stated, now, with that as a setup, I’m going to let Janet discuss briefly what her thoughts are as far as hours of operation and number of people that would be coming in and out of her place if this is approved.
Ms. Veach stated, the hours of operation that I would like to have would be say from maybe 8:00 to 8:00. She stated, if I could do that, the only other thing is if it were to be on weekends, because there are a lot of people that wouldn’t’ come, you know, that aren’t able to come during the week that would maybe come on a Saturday or a Sunday. She stated that I don’t plan on having that many vehicles. She stated that I’ve had one friend visit to look at my barn because they’re putting up a barn, so I’ve had one friend on a horse issue since the last meeting that I was here. She stated that I have my niece’s two horses there which she buys the feed and they’re just there. She stated that I tend to them and she hasn’t even been out in a month.

Mr. Reed stated, Janet, when you talked about 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., if the Board is concerned, are you willing to work with those numbers?
Ms. Veach stated, yes.
Mr. Reed stated, and you also talked about possibly during the week and during weekends would you be willing to work with regards to putting some limitations, maybe nothing on Sunday morning when people are going to church or adjust the times, have a day off during the week, or something like that? He asked, would that adversely affect your plans for keeping these horses?
Ms. Veach stated, I don’t think so.
Mr. Reed stated, also, when we discussed this before, you talked about limiting the number of people per day.
Ms. Veach stated, yes.
Mr. Reed stated, why don’t you share your thoughts with the Board.
Ms. Veach stated, I thought if I put it to a limit of say three I wouldn’t have any problems with that. She stated, like I said, I haven’t had anybody out in a month, so…
Mr. Reed asked, and you’re willing to allow that to be a condition of any approval this Board might give you?
Ms. Veach stated, yes.
Mr. Reed stated, and you understand that that would mean you’d have to have a scheduling program so people don’t come out whenever the want to. He stated that they’d have to call ahead and schedule.
Ms. Veach stated, right, I could keep a log on that.
Mr. Reed stated, and we’ve also discussed for insurance purposes that it may be advisable anyway rather than just having people come in and out at will. He stated that you should keep track of what’s going on in case anything ever disappeared, in case any one would ever get hurt. He stated, I’m a real stickler on keep your paperwork in order and that way I think you can avoid some future potential problems. He stated that again, some of the suggestions were, you know, sodium chloride, the paving things like that. He stated that the problem that we have, obviously, is, Number 1, the cost of paving almost 1,000 foot of roadway would not be reasonable in this situation. He stated that the other thing is we still have to share a roadway. He stated that even if something could be worked out with the neighbors, as far as the proportion, you know, who’s going to pay for what. He stated that we admittedly would take a bigger piece of the pie because we would have a few more cars and be using the road more than anyone else

and the logistics of setting that up is untenable. He stated that it realistically can’t be done. He stated that that’s why we decided to take the approach from a different angle and try to get it, again, by limiting the number of cars, the hours of operation, and things like that. He stated, a couple of other things, just for purposes of the record. He stated that some of the concerns that were set forth in your prior discussions and in the ordinance, the signage. He stated that I think Janet may have shared with you before that there will be no commercial signs, not on the house, not in the window, not on the mailbox. He stated that this is something that is simply word of mouth. He stated that she’s not out to build up a huge business for herself. He stated that she has an opportunity to board these horses and she has horses of her own, and she simply would like the opportunity to board additional horses. He stated that one thing I will share with you again and I will defer to your attorney, one of the things I’ve always noticed, sitting on either side of this table, when it comes to Special Exceptions, a Special Exception is kind of a unique animal in that if you meet the requirements of the ordinance there’s not a whole lot of discretion with regards to approval or disapproval. He stated that the big question is, do they meet the elements of the ordinance, and we went through this a couple years ago in Newton County with the landfill. He stated that reasonable conditions can be placed – and the key word is reasonable. He stated that I look at the list that was generated prior to my involvement in this case and what would be required. He stated, again, the minimum lot area, and we certainly meet that; the minimum yard and the setback footage, we meet that; minimum height of structure – we do not have a problem with that; the screen planting where abutting residential use – again, where we have it’s either abutted on the roadway or to farmland. He stated, now, again, my interpretation is they don’t need that, but we’re certainly willing to work with the Board on any concerns that you folks might have with regards to doing that. He stated that we have to be careful, them being horses, they’ll eat what’s there, so there has to be some planning, perhaps, either through Purdue or the University of Illinois to make sure that the planting would be proper, but, again, I don’t necessarily think it has to be done at this point. He stated, number of principal entrances to the major thoroughfare, one, and she already has that, and that’s the other argument with regard to an entirely separate drive, and now actually what we’re doing is we’re creating another entrance, so she’d have two entrances, which would fly in the face of the ordinance. He stated, the advertising sign –we would simply stipulate that there would be no signs. He stated that she doesn’t want a sign. He stated that she doesn’t want people coming in that are curious, so there’ll be no signs. He stated, disposal of liquid and other waste shall meet the approval of the state Board of Health. He stated, again, we’ve done some checking with IDEM and we’ve also checked with other facilities and the prevailing way seems to be this offsite disposal, and certainly that’s what Janet is trying to do. He stated that the last one I have on the list here is no parking in the front yard except as provided in 17.6, again, there would be enough paved area, if this is approved, to allow for that to happen, and we certainly

have no objections to any of that. He stated that I’ve been doing all the talking here just trying to give some background and, if nothing else, to make sure I’m up to speed and understand the history of what happened in this case. He stated that we’d be more than happy to try to answer any questions the Board may have for myself and for Janet.
Mr. Burns stated that my biggest concern was the dust affecting the neighbors, what impact it would have, and I feel it still would have a negative impact on the neighbors.
Mr. Hudson stated that I guess with the limitation of the number of people at any one time would probably be less than the number of people that I have come to my house in any given day, so I’m not sure that that’s that big of an item for me anymore. He stated that I like the conditions that they offered and the questions that they’ve answered. He stated that I guess I don’t have a problem with this anymore.
Mr. Brickner stated that one of the questions that I had, it says in the Special Exception that this was a boarding and riding stable. He stated that we talked last time that this was just going to be a boarding, primarily boarding, and people are not going to come out there to ride. He stated that my concern was riding 28 horses or so on 11 acres seemed like an awful lot, but this is not going to be a riding stable, it’s just going to be a boarding stable?
Ms. Veach stated, right. She stated that what we would like to do, for myself, because we can only ride so many months out of the year, so I do like to ride my horses to still condition them for showing, which, we start in May and normally around here we can’t really start riding comfortably without winter clothes on until around April. She stated that we would like to, in the future, not tomorrow or not next month, but we would, in the future, like to put a small riding arena out there, which would be just another accessory building, but as far as a riding stable where I would rent horses out or have people just come out and ride, no.
Mr. Brickner stated, the other question I had was, the solid waste you explained. He stated that you’re going to have a dumpster, have them pick it up once a week. He asked, is this going to be where it’s not going to get rained on and washed out of a dumpster, is it going to be inside or outside?
Ms. Veach stated that it couldn’t be inside because that would create a health issue with the horses. She stated that it would be covered with a tarp on the outside on the South side of the building.
Mr. Brickner asked, now how about the liquid waste? He asked, is there a pump of some sort in the stable where you can dispose of…
Ms. Veach stated, what I have inquired about so I don’t have as much sawdust in the manure as a lot of places do, I have inquired

about a product called a stall skin. She stated that what it does, you put a filter system, rock, gravel, underneath the stall. She stated, you put the stall skin in, you have your shavings on top and what that does is when the horse urinates it goes down through and it does not sit on…a lot of places use rubber mats where then the urine sits on top and then you have a wetter condition.
Mr. Brickner stated, and then you remove that every once in a while.
Ms. Veach stated that it would be removed on a weekly basis.
Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have a problem with this at all except that all these things, we want to be sure they adhere to all these things they say they’re going to do and I…with a Special Exception we don’t have the ability to have them come back in five years or three years to see how they’re doing.
Mr. Reed stated that you do have the right to put the reasonable conditions on.
Mr. Brickner stated, well, I understand that we can put them on.
Mr. Reed stated, well, I’ve fought this battle from your side of the table before. He stated that if they don’t meet and continue to meet the special conditions that you put on, you don’t have a five-year review, but there are some remedies available under the law that if she doesn’t meet her conditions it can certainly be addressed. He stated, I mean, this isn’t a one-shot deal, and if she doesn’t meet the conditions, you folks know what you need to do. He stated, I don’t think that’s going to be a problem, obviously, but you’re proper in thinking that way – what if? He stated that you don’t want to be painted into a corner that you can’t ever get out of. He stated that that’s just good work on your part.
Mr. Robertson asked, how many horses do you have there now of your own?
Ms. Veach stated that I have nine, one expecting today and one expecting in May.
Mr. Robertson stated, so, like 11, and then you’re talking about 28, so you’re talking about 17 additional, approximately, right?
Ms. Veach stated, yes, and I may not even have that many.
Mr. Robertson stated, you say they come in bunches. He asked, do they have some kind of opportunity with some racehorses in Illinois, you said, where they’re looking for places to keep their horses?
Ms. Veach stated that what they do is when the horse isn’t running at the track and they’re not training the horse, they let the

horse be a horse, and they would keep them, say six months, and then they would go back into training – six to eight months – and then they would go back into training.
Mr. Robertson asked, you don’t need a lot of room for that, for a horse to be a horse they go to run around.
Ms. Veach stated, I have my pasture. She stated that we’re going to divide them up more, but I have my pastures divided up now to where they would be sectioned off so I can rotate, but they are fed their grain and their hay in the barn and then they’re put out on pasture which, if you fill them up beforehand they don’t eat as much.
Mr. Robertson stated, so, if you have several horses under one group or something you can limit this number of cars to three a day or so because you’re not going to have 17 additional people – you’ll have three or four different people. He stated, the other thing, in the Plan Commission, when this came up before the Plan Commission for a recommendation, Mr. Biddinger, I think he’s the Porter County Extension agent, as concerned about possible erosion. He stated that he says, and I quote here: “With 28 horses on 11 acres, something to keep in mind is that a full-grown horse at 1,500 pounds” well, he’s talking about grazing, and you’re not really going to have them graze.
Ms. Veach stated that they will be out there and they will have the opportunity to graze, but, like I said, they’re fed indoors. She stated that they’re fed hay and grain.
Mr. Robertson stated, from my experience, horses beat up a pasture pretty quick. He stated that I don’t think there’ll be much grazing if you got that many horses.
Ms. Veach stated, that’s why I do rotation. She stated, and now, even with the horses I have, I still have to Bushhog at least three times a year.
Mr. Reed stated that I assume you gentlemen understand what she’s talking about. He stated, a normal farm boy and having my sheep I certainly do. He stated, I mean from A to B to C to D not only helps your grass, it also helps you with parasites and things like that.
Mr. Robertson asked, would you be able to call upon these people for what they call management intensive grazing. He stated that he’s worried about erosion. He stated that I haven’t seen the property. He stated that I don’t know what it’s like, but I’m really concerned about that, so, if we do pass this, I just ask that you make yourself, avail yourself of the expertise offered by Purdue Extension and so forth.
Ms. Veach stated, I did get hold of him. She stated that Eric and I have talked and he gave me some information on the state of

Ohio, the University of Ohio (sic), which is more in regards to the manure management. She stated that I had talked to the Porter County Health Department and they don’t have any regulations as far as manure goes for horses and IDEM does not regulate such a small operation. She stated that they start at 500 head. She stated that I did talk to them about the manure management and he had recommended a composting situation where you are still going to keep it there and you’re still going to accumulate it. She stated that just for everybody’s sake I would rather get rid of it.
Mr. Reed stated that I think the concern that the chairman is having right now is not necessarily with the manure management, but if you eat the pasture down to this table top and you get a good 100-year event, you get a good 3-inch rain overnight, there is going to be some runoff from it. He stated that I think what he wants to do is to make sure that they get a commitment from you that you’re going to stick to your rotation program, that you’re going to stick to your planting program, if the pastures need it, and Purdue has some wonderful programs with regards to that, and that would be the first place that I certainly would recommend you go.
Mr. Burns stated that you say you’re going to have three vehicles per day. He asked, how are you going to control that?
Ms. Veach stated that they would have to call me and let me know they are coming and then if I already have three for that day, then they would have to make that the next day. She stated that I may not be there all the time and I don’t want people on my property when I’m not home, either. She stated that it’s not like it’s going to be an open door policy.
Mr. Robertson asked, now, are we saying that we’re not going to do anything about dust control because we’re limiting it to three cars a day, is that kind of what you’re coming up with?
Mr. Reed stated that I think that’s the best way to approach it. He stated that we’re open to suggestions, but that way we don’t have a whole flood of cars, and I think that was the concern the last time we were here. He stated that if you have 17, 18, 19, 20 cars coming on a day, in and out, yeah, that would be a legitimate concern. He stated that to combat that, like she said, not only for the dust reasons, but also for insurance and management reasons, keep the number of cars down so we don’t have this big problem. He stated that way we don’t have two roadways creating dust. He stated that if we have a separate drive and we have all those cars coming, you’re still going to have dust. He stated that the only problem with paving or something like that, the cost is just prohibitive and then you get into a big maintenance question.
Mr. Brickner stated, if it was oiled every once in a while. He stated that that’s 875 foot of road.

Ms. Veach stated that it’s 860 coming in and then you have East and West.
Mr. Burns asked, but the vehicles coming won’t have trailers?
Ms. Veach stated, if they’re going to bring a horse in, then they’ll have a trailer or I’ll be bringing a horse in and I’ll have a trailer, but the horse would have to get there somehow.
Mr. Burns stated, but, if you had three vehicles a day…
Ms. Veach stated, if they’re boarding there they shouldn’t have a reason to. She stated, now, if they’re going to go on a weekend trip, they’re going to come with a horse trailer, pick their horse up, leave and bring their horse back when they’re done, whether it’s a day or week.
Mr. Burns stated, the more axles, the more tires, the more dust.
Ms. Veach stated that I’m being fair…just because somebody, like the lady that has the seven, just because she has a horse in there I can’t tell her she can’t bring a horse trailer in and get her horse.
Mr. Reed asked, do you anticipate a lot of that from what you see in your experience with operations like this, is there a lot of “we’re going to take them out to the state park and ride them there”? He asked, or, with the people that you’re going to be dealing with, is it primarily they’re there, they stay there, and then they take them out occasionally but not very often.
Ms. Veach stated that they would take them out occasionally. She stated, I would say, not more than four times a year, and that would be the lady that’s just boarding as an individual, not the racetrack people. She stated that those I would just take back.
Mr. Burns stated that something else it would help, too, if you tell your boarders to obey the speed limit. He stated that the slower you go on a gravel road, of course the less dust you kick up.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-SE-1, subject to a maximum of 28 horses, including her horses in that number; that this be a boarding facility only, not a riding stable; that the horse waste (both ends) be removed, one by the dumpster and the other utilizing the method as described, placing the stone aggregate down with the material on top and that material being removed from site and that would be emptied weekly; that there be no signs; that the trailers on site be limited to her personal trailers that would be kept there and trailers coming and going, once the horse is dropped off, would be removed so that there is no other storage of trailers that are not personally owned by the petitioner; regarding the issue of ingress and egress/dust control/speed, encourage the petitioner to post the speed

limit maybe at the beginning of the entrance off of SR 2 and then at the bend put another sign, maybe a slow sign;
Discussion:
Mr. Reed stated, if I may, by way of modification of your motion, I think there already is a sign there when you first go off of 2, but I think you have a very good point.
Mr. Hudson stated, a slow, a caution, something.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-SE-1, subject to a maximum of 28 horses, including her horses in that number; that this be a boarding facility only, not a riding stable; that the horse waste (both ends) be removed, one by the dumpster and the other utilizing the method as described, placing the stone aggregate down with the material on top and that material being removed from site and that would be emptied weekly; that there be no signs; that the trailers on site be limited to her personal trailers that would be kept there and trailers coming and going, once the horse is dropped off, would be removed so that there is no other storage of trailers that are not personally owned by the petitioner; regarding the issue of ingress and egress/dust control/speed, encourage the petitioner to post the speed limit maybe at the beginning of the entrance off of SR 2 and then at the bend put another sign, maybe a slow sign; that the number of people accessing the facility would be limited to three cars a day, controlled by a personal scheduling log/program that the petitioner would implement and keep records of; that the hours of operation be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with Sunday hours beginning at noon.
Discussion:
Mr. Brickner stated that she wants to be able to ride her own horses there, and as far as that goes, do you anticipate anybody else to be riding there or just you?
Ms. Veach stated, just me. She stated that I don’t have any reason to have anybody riding there.
Mr. Hudson stated that I said no riding. He stated that her personal riding is not an issue.
Mr. Burns asked, why 8:00? He stated that we didn’t’ get a chance to ask here. He asked, why so late? He asked, is there a reason for that?
Ms. Veach stated that I was just thinking if somebody got off work at 5:00, went home and ate at 6:00 and maybe came out for an hour or so after that, that was my reasoning, because not everybody is able to come out 8 to 5.
Mr. Burns stated, I was just thinking of the neighbors.

Mr. Reed stated that that’s why we didn’t make it any later. He stated that during the summer I think it’s pretty reasonable. He stated that during the winter I think you’re right.
Mr. Burns stated that we’ve been controlling some of the businesses, 6, 7.
Mr. Robertson asked, Rich, were you satisfied with the 8, or would you want to modify that?
Mr. Hudson stated that I’m happy with the 8. He stated that we’re only talking about three cars of people.
Mr. Brickner stated that I’d like to have the load of litter covered if it’s going to be sitting outside. He stated, maybe it should have a tarp on it.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-SE-1, subject to a maximum of 28 horses, including her horses in that number; that this be a boarding facility only, not a riding stable; that the horse waste (both ends) be removed, one by the dumpster, with said dumpster to be covered with a tarp, and the other utilizing the method as described, placing the stone aggregate down with the material on top and that material being removed from site and that would be emptied weekly; that there be no signs; that the trailers on site be limited to her personal trailers that would be kept there and trailers coming and going, once the horse is dropped off, would be removed so that there is no other storage of trailers that are not personally owned by the petitioner; regarding the issue of ingress and egress/dust control/speed, encourage the petitioner to post the speed limit maybe at the beginning of the entrance off of SR 2 and then at the bend put another sign, maybe a slow sign; that the number of people accessing the facility would be limited to three cars a day, controlled by a personal scheduling log/program that the petitioner would implement and keep records of; that the hours of operation be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with Sunday hours beginning at noon; 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 Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes
Discussion:
Mr. Siminski asked, is this to be based on written commitments?
Mr. Reed stated that I think you can put the condition. He stated that I typically don’t recommend on a Special Exception that we have commitments. He stated that I think if it’s part of the motion, then it’s binding on her, but I defer to your counsel.
Mr. Devine stated, I would agree with that.
Public Hearings:
At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for a public hearing.
Case 05-V-3. Petition of Mark & Kelly Holder, 458 S. 450 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from County Code 16.32.020 (A)Streets, to allow lots in a proposed major subdivision to use a private drive not built to County specifications, to be located on the West side of CR 450 E., between CR 400 S. and CR 500 S., in Morgan Township. (This Case was continued from the 2-16-05 meeting, with the public hearing open.)
Steve Stofko of McMahon Associates stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioners in this matter. He stated that what we have is a proposed 4-lot subdivision by the name of Holder Estates, which consists of 14.43 acres fronting on the West side of CR 400 E. He stated that what we are trying to do is there’s a nice row of trees located at the front of the property. He stated that it has a lot of nice character and kind of secludes the rest of the property. He stated that they have an existing driveway for an existing house which would become potentially Lot 2. He stated that this road that they are proposing to maintain through a series of easements to become the private drive basically to service all 4 lots. He stated that it’s a total of almost a quarter of a mile, about 1,000 feet of roadway that will be installed, thus they are petitioning to respectfully request to maintain these lots not fronting on a road built to County standards.
Mr. Robertson stated that they are also asking to reduce the required County road frontage to 215 feet.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
John Remster Jr., 368 E. 400 S., stated that I’m not opposed to this. He stated that I have a question or two. He stated that I’d like to get a better look at the map. He stated that you were in the way. He asked, could you explain to me where the driveway is or how it is accessed.
Mr. Stofko stated that 400 E. is located on the East side of the property. He stated that they have an existing drive located on the South property line and they plan on maintaining that, which is a cultivated field, this dashed line through here. He stated that they are proposing to maintain an existing drive entrance on the South end of the property and wrap a drive directly North on the West side of the trees and run directly in between the lots.
Mr. Remster stated, so there will be no houses facing 450.
Mr. Stofko stated, correct.

Mr. Remster stated that I only have a comment. He stated that I don’t have any opposition to it. He stated that the ditch on 450 sometimes runs a lot of water and the culvert that’s under your driveway now is probably too small. He stated that this is my opinion. He stated that I’m not giving you an engineering opinion, just the opinion of a farmer driving by, it’s too small, and I would think that it would be in the best interests of all the landowners around that the culverts be larger. He stated that I don’t know what the minimum requirement is in Porter County, but please don’t put in the minimum diameter culvert. He stated that I’d say 3 feet in diameter, maybe. He stated that there can be a bunch of water in there. He stated that most of the year there’s not. He stated the water issues, that’s always a problem.
Mr. Stofko stated, as far as the culvert size, we will take that into account when we perform drainage calculations for subdivision approval and we will review that with Mr. Breitzke, the County surveyor, at that time.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Burns stated that if they are going to take care of the drainage issue, the possible culvert issue, I don’t have a problem.
Ms. Holder stated that the culvert, the existing culvert, that’s has been there for probably before I was born. She stated that the property has always been agricultural property and so it’s an existing culvert that we utilized for our drive when we moved because for the same reasons: We didn’t want to break up any of the tree lines or anything.
Mr. Burns stated that it may be okay, but are you going to have the engineer look at it?
Mr. Robertson stated, that’s on the existing driveway. He stated that that is really not the issue we are addressing here. He stated that he thinks he is talking about the new driveway.
Ms. Holder stated, it’s the same.
Mr. Holder stated that it would be the main entrance. He stated that the house that is on the property now was built 6 years ago and, at that time, the culvert was adequate. He stated that he doesn’t know if the codes have changed at all.
Mr. Burns stated that what we try to do as we develop a plan, we try to improve drainage at the same time.
Mr. Holder stated, we’re right in the channel. He stated that we do get a lot of water. He stated that it’s never come over. He stated that it’s always maintained. He stated that we’ve got the creek right next to us. He stated that it pulls it right in. He

stated that it’s a very deep ditch, I would say a good 7 to 8 foot ditch, very deep, but it does hold a lot of water, but it flows real well, so. He stated if the culvert needed to be replaced, I’m sure that’s something we would take care of.
Mr. Burns stated that if the engineers deem that it needs to be replaced, you’d have to replace it. He stated that it may be okay. He stated, I don’t know.
Mr. Stofko stated that we will meet the County standards.
Mr. Hudson stated that I agree with Rich that they may have to do something or it may be adequate.
Mr. Brickner stated that the concern that the Board has and the county has in cases like this is always can you get a fire engine back there, are these roads – I haven’t seen these roads – but, a 20-foot road, my question is, you got a right-hand and a left-hand turn here. He asked, can you get an emergency vehicle back there? He asked, is there any place for them to turn around.
Mr. Holder stated, I can vouch for that. He stated that a fire engine came in through the entrance. He stated, unfortunately, the volunteer fire department had to come out and get rid of a small fire my wife started.
Mr. Brickner stated, so, you know by experience that you can get…
Mr. Holder stated, definitely, at least through the existing entrance. He stated that it has to turn, a left-hand turn, this turn here, as they come in they have to make another one to get back. He stated, obviously, if a house is on fire, they’re going to shoot up this driveway and across the yard.
Mr. Brickner stated, but somehow they can get back.
Mr. Holder stated that the width of this new driveway is going to be, you know, adequate enough.
Mr. Burns stated, but Marv brings a good point up. He stated that when you have your turn there you want to make sure it’s enough radius if a fire truck has to take the turn.
Mr. Brickner stated, of course, school buses will not go back there, so the children that…you plan to sell three lots back there – is that what you’re going to do?
Mr. Holder stated, well, right now our intention is…there’s about a 70 percent chance we’re going to actually build a home in the back lot.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, there will be three more homes…you anticipate having three more homes using this road.
Mr. Holder stated that’s correct unless…
Ms. Holder stated, four lots total.
Mr. Brickner stated, Lot 1 is a 4-acre lot. He stated that if you sell it to someone, they’re not going to divide it and put two or three more houses back there?
Mr. Holder stated that I understand your concern. He stated that I think there are soil issues, we have to have so much…
Mr. Stofko stated that we have to have one acre of useable soil for septic, and right now three of the lots conform. He stated that one of them is grandfathered in and two of them have exactly 1 acre, so there will not be any further subdivision of the property.
Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t have any objection to this.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-3, 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 Hudson - yes
Robertson - Yes
Case 05-V-7. Petition of William J. Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to reduce the required road frontage for a proposed minor subdivision from 160 feet to 115.01 feet for the West lot and to reduce the required lot width for an existing accessory structure in the East lot from 160 feet to 125.01 feet, to be located on the South side of CR 850 N., between CR 100 W. and CR 200 W., in Liberty Township.
Mr. Rensberger stated that that I am here for Marian Cheney, the owner of the property. He stated that she has about 4.5 acres. He stated that the existing house where she lives she would like to cut off another lot to transfer that to a friend of hers. He stated that what you got is 170 here proposed for this lot, the existing house, and you got 115 feet here for the new lot. He stated that we could get by without a variance here by creating a 60-foot easement, but this is where the proposed septic is going to go for our proposed house here, and the new owners of this property would like to put their septic and own their septic and not just have an easement for it, so we are requesting a Variance from the 160-foot to 115 foot of lot ownership at that point. He stated that down here, there’s an existing frame garage and with the lot division like this like I’ve

created it, there’s only 115 feet from here to here. He stated that you’re supposed to have 160 feet where the building is, so I’m asking for that Variance. He stated that once again, we could shift this lot line down this way to get by the garage and not have a Variance, but the new lot owners would like the option to build up this way as close as possible. He stated that it costs less to put the drive and the utilities in. He stated, so, that’s what we’re asking for is a Variance from this lot width from 160 to 115 and here from 160 to 115.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
No one spoke against this petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Brickner stated that there are an awful lot of roads back in there, private roads that people have built back in there in that particular parcel to get to their homes that go way back, you know, so I really don’t have any objection to this. He stated that I think I know about where it is, so…I don’t have anything.
Mr. Burns stated that it looks like about the only spot the septic system can go on, is that correct?
Mr. Rensberger stated that I think the septic can go in this area. He stated that this is where the borings were taken and this is where they’d like to put it. He stated that as you get down in here, you might be going over the 15 percent grade. He stated that it would be the best place up in here.
Mr. Hudson stated that I see two building lines on here. He stated that I see a 30-foot building setback going across the front of both 106 W and 104 W. and then I see you’ve got labeled back here along the rear of the 115.01, you’ve also got that labeled as a building line.
Mr. Rensberger stated that I just noticed that about 5 minutes ago myself. He stated that I should have stopped this building line right here.
Mr. Hudson stated that I just wanted to make sure that the building line that we were going to restrict the building beyond that.
Mr. Rensberger stated, right. He stated that on secondary plat I’ll put it.
Mr. Hudson stated, just take that 40 off.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-7, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes

Case 05-V-8. Petition of William C. III & Laura Strand, 90 E. 700 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from building a roadway to County specifications and for lots with no frontage along a County road, for the division and replat of Lot 2 in Liberty MS 1825-A-1 into two parcels, Lots 2A and 2B, to be located on the South side of CR 700 N., between Meridian Road and Calumet Road, in Liberty Township.

Eric Banschbach stated that he is representing and accompanied by Mr. Strand in this matter. He stated that my clients are seeking a Variance from the requirements to construct a drive to County specifications in order to access a proposed additional building site for the division of Lot 2 in Liberty MS 1825-A-1. He stated that additionally my clients would need a Variance from their requirements to front on an existing County road since the access to the lot would be a private drive located within an existing 60-foot ingress-egress easement. He stated, a little background. He stated that the original two-lot minor subdivision was created by Dr. Gerald Ronneau and recorded September 2002. He stated that this divided the parent parcel into the then proposed building site on Lot 1 and the existing homesite located on Lot 2, as shown on the plat in front of you. He stated that since that time Dr. Ronneau has built a new house on Lot 1 and sold Lot 2 to the Strands. He stated that he is aware of and supportive of the proposed division, according to the Strands, and he will be required to sign the new driveway maintenance agreement once the replatting is approved by the Plan Commission. He stated that the Strands are proposing to divide Lot 2 as currently platted into two residential lots. He stated that the existing home will be located on what is proposed as the South lot, or Lot 2 B, as shown on the plat, and the vacant North lot, or Lot 2A, will be created to allow Robert & Bonnie Mueller, who are the parents of Laura Strand, to construct a new home. He stated that the Muellers desire to build a home close to the Strands’ existing home on the proposed Lot 2 B in order to care for their grandchildren. He stated that Laura Strand is employed as a commercial airline pilot, which obviously necessitates a great deal of traveling with unusual hours and William Strand is a disabled veteran, retired from the U.S. Navy. He stated that having relatives living in close proximity and available at basically any time of the day would assist in the care and development of the children and is a primary concern. He stated that the current ordinance requires the access drive to be built to County specifications or provide the required frontage along an existing County road. He stated that Lot 2 does not front on an existing County road and constructing a road to County specifications for approximately the 660 feet to serve only one

additional house is impractical and financially unfeasible for the petitioners. He stated that the existing homes on Lots 1 and 2 of the minor subdivision are currently served by existing asphalt drives. He stated that no additional earth disturbance would be required to provide access to the proposed lot as it is proposed to be serviced by the same existing asphalt drive. He stated that a driveway maintenance agreement was executed on the recorded minor subdivision plat to establish an agreement for maintenance, repairs, snow removal and the like on the existing drive between Lots 1 and 2. He stated that the proposed replat will contain a new driveway maintenance agreement to equally divide the responsibilities of the drive between the existing Lot 1 and the proposed Lots 2A and 2B. He stated that the agreement will run with the land so that successive owners will be held to the same agreement. He stated that in addition it is understood that the open space ordinance, Ordinance 04-21, will not be applicable to this development since it is a replat of a minor subdivision and the ordinance specifies that a minor subdivision with four or less lots shall not be required to set aside open space. He stated that if this understanding is correct, then acknowledgement of that by this Board would be appreciated. He stated that at this time I can answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Strand stated that I live at 90 E. 700 N., Valparaiso. He stated that I’m a disabled veteran. He stated that I have a permanent rating of 70 percent and I have a couple of neurological and neuromuscular conditions that when they activate I’m 100 percent and I actually have to go into the hospital. He stated that I have already spent two days in the hospital this year. He stated that I have a 2.5 year old little boy and another child that’s going to be here in August and having my wife’s parents available to help us out when my wife is flying and I am out of commission is a great comfort to both of us that our children are taken care of. He stated that I am also on the inactive reserve list for another 6.5 years. He stated that it’s unlikely that I’d be called back to active duty but it is a possibility, so, again, having my wife’s parents there is a good thing for us. He stated that Dr. Ronneau and my wife and myself have worked out a very good relationship. He stated that he’s practically an uncle to my little boy and he has no objections to anything that’s been said here.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that the only question I have is when you come out onto 700 off of that road and you have to turn right, you got enough room to make a right-hand turn without going into the Westbound lane. He stated that you put your mailboxes there. He stated that I would have like to have seen a bigger apron out there. He stated that

I don’t know if it’s possible to do that, but it sure would make access onto a busy road a lot easier, a lot safer, and there is enough room for vehicles to turn around back there, emergency vehicles and the house way in the back, the big gravel, so I know there’s enough room to get emergency vehicles back in there, a fire engine or anything, so actually I don’t have any objection to this, other than I’d like to see that apron widened out onto 700 so that you have a little bit easier time getting out onto the road.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-8, with the stipulation of widening out the apron at the entrance, incorporating the petitioners’ 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 Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes

Case 05-V-9. Petition of Robert Carroll, 659 Harvest Road, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance allowing two residential structures on one parcel, to be located on the East side of Leisure Drive, approximately 248 feet North of Edgewater Beach Road, in Center Township.

Mr. Carroll stated that I want a Variance to put two residences on one parcel. He stated that there are three lots involved and one overlaps one lot line by eight feet. He stated that I’ve been working on this since 1994 when I purchased the property. He stated that I originally only bought half lots and very recently this other half of all those lots came up for a tax sale. He stated that the woman couldn’t pay the taxes and she approached me and she knew I was interested because I figured I needed to buy the other half of those lots in order to build some property, or build a home on there. He stated that instead of paying it just for the tax sale I offered her fair market price, actually, more than fair market price. He stated that as I found out this one home that’s existing is on one of the lots lines. He stated, if I can show you this it might explain a little better. He stated that this is what I originally bought. He stated that this is a section here which is my 17, 15 and 16 and I recently purchased this other half, which has a home on it. He stated that there is already a home in there right now that I want to demo. He stated that it’s in disrepair. He stated that it’s a hazard and I want to put a log home in. He stated that this is an exaggerated size of what I want to put in. He stated that it has city water and sewer. He stated that Oakwood Terrace is vacated from this point on. He stated that I’ve already been in touch with the Army Corps of Engineers because the wetlands have encroached on it and I’ve got permission to improve the road so that I have access to it. He stated that I haven’t even had a good chance to get in and see if that one is salvageable, but, for now, I want to keep it in case I can remodel it. He stated that this is going to be my retirement cabin. He stated that I have a survey here.

Chad Keel, 5402 Third Ave., Valparaiso, stated that I have with me a plat of survey done by Emil Beeg, land surveyor. He stated that in regards of the wetlands issue and also showing Lot 15 and 16 and 17 in which Mr. Carroll had purchased, in regards of this what we are asking of the County is to build and extend…it’s not an issue of Lot 17 or Lot 16 in building a home. He stated that it’s in regards of the lot being subdivided. He stated that unfortunately in the lake area there when it was originally platted and subdivided and so on and so forth and throughout the course of time they have split lots, changed lots, cut them in half, a lot of crazy things have happened. He stated that Mr. Carroll when he originally approached me he had owned the half lots of 15 and 16 and 17, which then he purchased the full lots of 16, 17 and then on his paper showing the 32 feet of lot 15. He stated, if I may present this, this is in regards to the wetlands. He stated that we have also been in contact and have been permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers in regards under IDEM blanket 401 certification for putting back the road bed along the edge of the wetlands approximately 48.4 cubic (inaudible) of the 53 limestone will be discharged as part of the roadbed along the 345 feet of the wetlands edge extending in an average of 7 feet. He stated that we are causing minimal erosion and minimal destruction to the vegetation cover landscape and so on and so forth that’s presently there for Mr. Carroll to access the home. He stated that we don’t feel that is the issue that needs to be presented this evening. He stated that the issue more aligns in regard to the lots and what the Board will approve and not approve in regards to building a new structure on the existing lots.

Mr. Carroll stated, if I can comment, the area is a mess there. He stated that the structure that’s there is a hazard. He stated that nobody has done any maintenance to the property. He stated that there’s leaves from years and years, downed trees and everything else and I plan on doing nothing but improving the property and making it a better place to live.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Kathy Ward 5406 Leisure Dr., Valparaiso, stated that I share the North property line of the property that’s in question and though I’ve only been in the area for a little over a year now there are a few things I have questions about. She stated, Number 1, yes, the property is a mess. She stated that it’s my understanding that Mr. Carroll has owned a part of the property since 1994. She stated that it is also my understanding that the dilapidated building, highly hazardous dilapidated building, that’s sitting on that property has been sitting on the property since he’s owned it with no improvements made on it. She stated that that sits close to the channel. She stated that the house that is in front of it, the foundation is block. She stated that it is completely falling apart on the North side of the house. She stated that the house is trash; it should have been condemned. She stated that people that are still living in it and

they are living in it without running water or heat. She stated that their heat comes from the limbs in the back yard. She stated that the son no longer lives there. She stated that it’s my understanding that the mom lives there and the son carts in bottles of water for the son to use to flush the toilet or what have you. She stated that both structures on the property are clearly marked for teardown, without question. She stated that I do have a question. She stated that I do know you are working on that road and I would certainly benefit from that road, so I don’t mean to rain on any parades or anything. She stated that I would like to know if the road, in fact, has been approved when the road, if the road, will in fact be put in down behind the property. She stated that it’s my understanding that you want the two structures that you’re looking to get a Variance for is for the older structure and for his new one. She stated that obviously the new one I have no objections to, however, keeping either of those buildings…I mean drive by, you guys, take a look. She stated that they are clearly marked for teardown.

John Hughes, 911 Grandview, Valparaiso, stated that I live very close to this property. He stated that I think it might be helpful – I’ll pass out plat sections so you can understand what we’re talking about here in a neighborhood sense. He stated that this is part of the Hillcrest Park subdivision which was platted in the early 1920s by Jonathon and Ann Price. He stated that their daughter, Dorothy, inherited the subdivision and she passed it on to her niece and two nephews, Eleanor Burton and Kenneth Burton and Richard Burton. He stated that they acquired the property in the late ‘80s and they were very concerned about the problem that had been created by the way the whole subdivision was laid out, and, as they sold off lots that they retained, they sold them off in groups of two, three and four lot sites out there. He stated that at the time they were selling these off my wife and I bought what was designated as Lot 3, which is a wetlands adjacent to what was platted as Oakwood Terrace and it’s a part of the channel between Flint and Long Lake and it’s one of those delicate ecological environments where we can remember the frogs croaking at night loudly about 15 years ago, and there was a drought and the frogs stopped and they just started to come back, but it was amazing to me how something that was so prolific disappeared because of a change in conditions in the environment. He stated that my concern is and I live with my wife on Lot 7 and we also own Lot 8, ‘er, we live on Lot 8 and also own Lot 7. He stated that our property overlooks the wetlands and overlooks what was platted as this Oakwood Terrace. He stated that Oakwood Terrace comes out onto actually Grandview. He stated that Edgewater Beach Road comes down to the channel. He stated that there’s a big culvert there and you cross over it and you go all the way up the hill and that’s Grandview and, again, I don’t have a lot of pictures, but here’s a picture of the exit of Mr. Proffitt’s driveway. He stated that he’s the only one, he can only access Lot 4, that driveway. He stated that that’s a picture of that driveway that we put in about 20 years ago. He stated that it’s a very dangerous intersection, very difficult to get in and out

of there, and so this is the entrance, I believe, that Mr. Carroll is proposing to use to get back to the back ends of lots or a portion of 15 that he owns, 16 and 17. He stated that certainly there’s an issue about emergency vehicles being able to get in and getting out back there. He stated that what has happened is that Mr. Proffitt, in putting in a roadway – this past season’s sequence – this is a picture of the driveway as you approach Mr. Proffitt’s property and this next picture, he’s hung a little cast-thing over the corner of his property, which is Lot 4 and I’ve got, I believe, that one is the one that shows how he strung a string to the opposite end of the property and it runs along the tree line and here’s a view from my back (inaudible) of the wetlands area. He stated that that tree line…I don’t see how anyone could put in a road for where Oakwood Terrace is platted without taking down that tree line or else you’re out in the water. He stated that we haven’t seen any plans for any proposed road. He stated that I don’t believe the Army Corps of Engineers had any discretion in granting the permit, according to my conversation with Mr. Sprecher. He stated that the size that was proposed to be filled was lower than they had any ability to regulate. He stated that I believe that the DNR is the entity that should be contacted to deal with this issue since we’re talking about a navigable waterway between Flint and Long Lake. He stated that one of the misfortunate things that occurs because of Mr. Proffitt’s driveway, and he’s here today, but he’s a little uncomfortable getting up and speaking so some of the things I’m going to tell you are on his behalf – he’s got a house built basically on a garage with the second level is his living level and it looks out over the wetlands. He stated that obviously if these trees are removed or any tree line, he’s going to be exposed and is going to lose the benefit of those trees. He stated that additionally, there’s always the problem of people coming down that driveway – not a big problem – that don’t belong there, and I’m concerned that if an additional access is allowed back there we’re going to get more traffic back there and it’s going to create a safety hazard to those of us whose back yards overlook the wetlands, so that’s another concern that we have. He stated that as far as the structures that front – on the plat it says Summit, but it’s actually now called Leisure Drive – and I have some pictures. He stated that there’s a garage and I have some pictures that show disrepair of the garage that faces Leisure Drive. He stated that there’s pictures of the house that faces Leisure Drive and there’s pictures of – I don’t know what you want to call it – cabin that is in the back that Mr. Carroll has owned for 10 years and has allowed to be in that condition. He stated that Mr. Carroll has attempted to use Mr. Proffitt’s driveway as recently as a week ago, pulled in there, I expect, to go inspect the back of his lots, but certainly the neighbors should not have to deal with that sort of intrusion when they’ve been told not to. He stated that I certainly don’t want my neighbors’ property unless they’ve invited me. He stated that there’s access to the 32 feet of Lot 15 and both Lots 16 and 17 from Leisure Drive. He stated that there’s no reason why

whatever living structure there is going to be there shouldn’t be accessed from that location. He stated that there’s no reason to put an additional burden on the wetlands. He stated that that plat, when it was laid out, certainly was not done from a topographical point of view and I’ve lived there for 33 years and there has never been a roadway of any kind until Mr. Proffitt had to put his driveway in because it was the only to get back to his house about 20 years ago. He stated that I would ask that the request for a Variance be denied and as I said there’s a very serious health situation. He stated that I think Ms. Ward pointed it out with both structures and before you add a second structure, certainly the first structure, the main structure on the property out to be put into – either torn down and another house built or put into habitable condition some way.

Beverlee Frazee, 5504 Leisure Dr., Valparaiso, stated that I just concur with every single thing that John just said and I just wanted to go on record that that was how I feel and the same way with what Kathy said. She stated that the first structure in the front should be really addressed before another structure should go up. She stated that I also agree with the wetlands. She stated, if you’ve ever come out there and walked back there, it might have been platted – how many years ago when it was platted – but there’s never been a road back there, ever, and I have been going out there for over 40-some years. She stated that I’ve lived in Valparaiso probably 33, and I’ve loaned land out there in probably ’73. She stated that I just think this should go very slow. She stated, I also have written permission to represent Paula LaGioia, who is the executor of Patricia’s LaGioia’s estate at 905 Grandview, and she said for the record: “Notice of said hearing was sent via certified mail, but never received by the estate. Therefore, to attend the hearing at such short notice is not possible.” She stated, so we discussed it and she gave me written permission to go on record that she is against it and the same thing for Glen and Kristee Frazee at 907 Grandview – I have written permission to represent them since Glen is having surgery and they cannot be here and I just feel that this is something that should go slow.

Kenneth Hill, 5504 Leisure Dr., Valparaiso, stated that I live with my wife and two daughters (at this address) and I just wanted to share my objections to the petition. He stated that there are two main reasons – firstly, the lots are too small to have more than one structure on them, referencing Lot 15, Lot 16, and 17 dimensions – Lot 15 is 32 feet by 175 feet. He stated that the remainder of Lot 15 18 feet of that is part of adjoining Lot 14 with Lot 14’s garage sitting on that 18 feet of Lot 15, owned by another party. He stated that Lots 16 and 17 are 50 feet by 173 feet in dimension. He stated that currently, as others have indicated, there are two dilapidated homes, neither of which really are (inaudible). He stated, another structure, a 24 by 24-foot garage that is also less than a desirable structure. He stated that Hillcrest Park is about 80, 85 years old, originally developed for summer cottages, vacation homes, part-time

residences, therefore, the small lots. He stated that it has, in the last 15 or 20 years, portions have been rehabilitated by others who have purchased those part-time cottages and converted them to year-round, some real nice dwellings interspersed with others than are less than desirable. He stated that back when Hillcrest was first platted those lot sizes were very small by today’s standards. He stated that putting more than one structure on those lot sizes are unacceptable to us. He stated that when you have one lot removed from the parcels, my wife and I own Lots 19, 20 and 21, just to the North of those parcels. He stated that we don’t want to see our property values diminished by an excessive number of structures on Lot 17. He stated that another objection is one of environmental considerations. He stated that the information in the petition indicates that they are going to improve Oakwood Terrace, a private road, with the help of Army Corps of Engineers, and they will not adversely alter the landscape in any way. He stated that that Army Corps of Engineers help implies that they are going to be filling in part of the wetlands, Parcel 3, owned by the Hughes, Oakwood Terrace as plotted. He asked, are those wetlands going to be filled to gain access to the lots from the East? He stated that that’s definitely going to alter the landscape in a negative way and similar to Mr. Hughes, I’m not sure that the Army Corps of Engineers are the proper stewards, from an environmental perspective, to put the stamp of approval on filling the wetlands. He stated that my background is environmental engineer, bachelor’s degree from Valparaiso University, Master’s from IIT, environmental engineering, and kind of the concept that I use speaking to groups is you gotta think globally but you gotta act locally. He stated that never more have I needed to act so locally on an issue as this. He stated that filling the wetlands – you never get that stuff back – and the impact of just filling that portion of the wetlands impacts further out in the wetlands in a negative fashion, degrades habitat, degrades effectiveness of those wetlands in purifying the water moving back and forth between Flint Lake and Long Lake. He stated that it’s just not a good thing to do, and, once it’s done, you never get it back and my kids and future generations need to be real careful about any wetlands, especially valuable commodities in that lakes area before you start filling in. He stated that all the lots in the petition have very good access from Leisure Drive. He stated that Oakwood Terrace, as it sits, has never been a road for 75 years because it should never be a road. He stated that to make it such at this point in time just isn’t sensible. He stated that those wetlands are a treasure and they need to remain so. He stated, love the idea, love the idea of building a log cabin on that several parcels. He stated that the best thing, I think, for the petitioner, as well as the neighborhood, is to put it closer, or at least accessible, from Leisure Drive, perhaps to place some of the dilapidated structures there.

Walt Breitinger, 255 Park Ave., Valparaiso, stated that I also own property in the Flint Lake watershed on Wildwood and also own property on Long Lake on West Long Lake Road. He stated that I’m the

president of the Valparaiso Chain of Lakes watershed group. He stated that our 350-member organization has as its mission to protect and conserve the chain of lakes North of Valparaiso and especially to continue to provide quality habitat for fish, wildlife and for human recreational use. He stated that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hill have already talked a little bit about wetlands, so I won’t take too much time on that topic, but I think a lot of people are aware that up until 20 or 30 years ago wetlands were just considered swamps or wastelands that should be filled. He stated that nowadays we recognize that almost 90 percent of all the wetlands in the state of Indiana have already been filled or ruined or devastated. He stated that there’s not much left. He stated that wetlands provide some very important functions that help maintain economic values of the property. He stated that some of these are economic functions. He stated that others are recreational functions or environmental functions. He stated that one thing not mentioned is that there are a lot of people that like to fish in these lakes and this particular wetland is not just any wetland. He stated that it is a channel that connects the two lakes. He stated that fish migrate through that area. He stated that it’s used as a breeding ground for fry, or for baby fish, and without that type of area being protected we won’t have perch or largemouth and smallmouth bass. He stated that we need a place for the small fish to live and to breed and that’s where it serves as a hatchery or a breeding ground or a nursery for the small fish which later populate Long Lake and Flint Lake. He stated that I do have a brochure on the organization. He stated that I had board members of our organization call me on this and ask that I speak on behalf of the group, and I feel that it’s absolutely essential that the wetlands not be disturbed and I think the amount of damage that can take place when you talk about 7 feet into the wetlands could be substantial.

Connie Hughes, 911 Grandview, Valparaiso, stated that I’ve been in this area for about 18 years and you know spring is here when a canoe comes down from Long Lake and goes through a channel and all the lily pads are there, they’re blooming. She stated that what Mr. Carroll calls the lot that is a mess is kind of a natural way that happens when trees get old and things just kind of decay. She stated that that’s what happens in this area alongside the road, in the wetlands, and if he’s concerned about the lot that he owns being a mess, well, he’s owned access to that area since the beginning of the year, then he should get down there and clean it up. She stated that it’s a wonderful place to live. She stated that John talked about the frogs, ribbit, ribbit, and it’s wonderful, and we’ve got blue heron and we’ve got cardinals and blue jays and orioles. She stated that we’ve got all these wonderful birds that are in these trees along the road, singing on these wonderful springlike days and into the summer and into the fall and if he gets to build his road, the trees are going to be gone.

Mr. Carroll stated, first of all, this road is platted and has been established. He stated that it’s in the records of the County in

this building here. He stated that it’s not a new road. He stated that it’s been there since records. He stated, so, everyone thinks I’m creating a road – I’m not. He stated that all I’m doing is taking as little as I can to get a vehicle back there. He stated that this has all been described to the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that they did soil samples. He stated that they told me exactly how to go about it. He stated that there’s not going to be any impact. He stated that we’re not even getting into water, actually. He stated that we’re getting into a little bit of a bog area, is about what it amounts to. He stated that this wetlands extends Easterly probably a half a mile and I’m not even touching any of that. He stated that I’m going about, what would you say, Chad? 10 feet, maybe 15?

Mr. Keel stated that according to what we filed with the Army Corps of Engineers, 7 feet outward from the delineated wetlands boundary. He stated, if I can add to Mr. Carroll to also help to try to explain to the Board some of the other concerns that were stated. He stated that it’s not a question of the existing house being in poor condition. He stated that there’s been a permit issued to the County has been granted for the demolish (sic) of the existing home that sits in back and does face the Long Lake area. He stated that any concerns of the other home, a permit has not been taken at this particular point in time, but that structure, as well, in the near future, will be upgraded for living conditions for Mr. Carroll’s family members. He stated, back to the wetlands issue, in regard of some of this, in regards to the plat of survey. He stated that all proper steps, according to the federal guidelines, have been taken and abided by – I can also provide to the Board the actual letters. He stated that to answer one of the gentlemen – I didn’t quite catch his name – to answer some of the other questions in regards of IDEM. He stated that all of the proper authorities have been notified and have been furnished copies from the Army Corps of Engineers and all paperwork that is required for those offices have been filed and granted with those offices.

Mr. Carroll stated that I do have a demolition permit for the one piece of property. He stated that someone mentioned that it looks really kind of nice back there, pristine, which is the way it is. He stated that apparently they haven’t walked there, tripped over the couches and the tires and the cinderblocks and concrete, and all the other garbage that I plan on cleaning up. He stated that it’s terrible. He stated that there are just years and years of leaves that have just laid there, not to mention thorn bushes and everything else that have gotten out of control. He stated that all I want to do is improve this. He stated that there’s a motorcycle laying in the back yard. He stated that if this is the way these neighbors want this property to stay, I just don’t understand it. He stated that I’m not like that. He stated that I want to improve it.

Mr. Keel stated that we are more than glad to furnish to the Board any and all paperwork in regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, fill, types of material used, and so on and so forth. He stated, once again, in addition – and I know I’m being repetitive – there’s .06 of the acres that is going to be affected here. He stated that as Mr. Carroll stated, this is not – I guess you’d say, true wetlands, even those it is classified as the wetlands. He stated that 7 feet is from me to you. He stated that we’re not looking at a very large distance. He stated that in concerns of access for ingress-egress, fire codes, etc., they’re all of that. He stated that this property, as you can see on the plat of survey, has existing city water and sewer to it, so all of the amenities are there – we’re just asking to build on the property.

Mr. Carroll stated that I purchased this property from a widow who was going to lose it on a tax sale for $2,800. He stated that I know the people ‘cause I know her mother. He stated that I bought the other half from her mother. He stated that the day before it went for tax sale, I struck a deal with her and I gave her a fair market, I paid her $30,000 for this property. He stated that it’s not worth $30,000, but she needs it. He stated that she’s got two kids. He stated that I just figured I was going to do the fair thing. He stated that the house was uninhabitable at the time. He stated that since then they’ve paid $3,000 to have the water upgraded, NIPSCO turned back on. He stated that they have heat. He stated that they have running water. He stated that they have gas, so whoever said that they didn’t is wrong, otherwise the County would throw them out, the Health Department would say you can’t live here anymore. He stated that there’s been a few false statements made here, and once again, all I’m trying to do is improve.

Ms. Ward stated that I just saw the son that brings the water over the day before yesterday and he had told me that it’s not a matter of the water being shut off. She stated that he told me it’s the pipes have broke – they’re so old. She stated that nothing’s been taken care of and the pipes actually burst and that’s why there is no water in that house. She stated that I would also like to point out again that, yes, it is a mess down by the water, down behind that property, but, again, it has been a mess for 10 years. She stated that I have been down there. She stated that I have attempted to clean it up. She stated that I have moved the canoe, the old rotted boat that sat down behind my property and I’m aware of the motorcycle and I’m aware of all these things sitting there for at least the last year, and, from what I understand, much longer while under Mr. Carroll’s ownership. She stated that I’d also like to state that in order for a house to be inhabitable it needs to have a stable foundation and, again…and lastly, yes, I’d love to see a new house. She stated that I’d love to see that property cleared and a new house put on it, but one other thing I want to disagree with. She stated that the amount of money that was paid for that property was a bargain.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Siminski read two letters in opposition to this petition. The letters are in the file. He stated that I did ask Bob about jurisdictional items, and Bob had mentioned that the Army Corps has considerations over wetlands and DNR has considerations over flooding, and, according to our map, it’s not definitive in terms of exactly where everything is positioned, but there is a flooding area – this comes off the official maps of flood zones – so, if you’d like t o see that, I’ll pass it down.
Mr. Brickner asked, how long have you owned this property?
Mr. Carroll stated that I’ve owned it the first parcel since 1994.
Mr. Brickner asked, the first parcel being…
Mr. Carroll stated, the half lots of 17, and then in ‘96 she sold me the other half lots of 16 and the 32 feet of 15.
Mr. Brickner stated, so, you’ve owned all of this since 1996.
Mr. Carroll stated, no, in ’96 I owned all half of the lots. He stated that only within the last four months have I owned the other half. He stated that that’s when I paid $30,000 for the other half.
Mr. Brickner asked, on which half is all this debris that everybody’s talking about, the motorcycle and the couches.
Mr. Carroll stated that it’s all over. He stated that the property is a mess. He stated that I don’t understand why all these people don’t want me to clean it up.
Mr. Brickner stated, I guess my question is, why haven’t you cleaned it up?
Mr. Carroll stated, because I haven’t had access to it until I get the road.
Mr. Brickner asked, this property that you’ve owned since 1996, you haven’t had access to that?
Mr. Carroll stated, no, because if you come off of Leisure Drive, it drops off 10 feet down. He stated that you can’t drive a car, vehicle, truck, anything down to get where the garbage is and I didn’t own the front property until recently. He stated, in other words, clean up my mess back there, I didn’t have access. He stated, in fact, Mr. Proffitt, who’s here, had a vehicle parked across the roadway.
Mr. Brickner asked, who lives in the house that’s, who lives in this existing house?
Mr. Carroll asked, the back house?
Mr. Keel stated, it’s dilapidated.
Mr. Brickner asked, there’s somebody living there though, right?
Mr. Carroll stated, yes. He stated, I told her of the conditions, till she could get on her feet, that she could have this place for 12 months rent-free. He stated that Oakwood Terrace is vacant.
Mr. Keel stated that the half lots adjoining Oakwood Terrace in which he owned those for several years before acquiring the front lots..if you look at this diagram basically these halves…
Mr. Carroll stated that this is the first parcel I bought off of Constance Pavlick, then she offered me this portion in ’96. He stated that recently I bought this to complete it because I was told I can’t build on this half lot. He stated that I would have had to replat the whole subdivision.
Mr. Brickner stated, so there’s somebody living in this house here.
Mr. Carroll stated, yes, she is.
Mr. Brickner stated, and there’s nobody in this house here.
Mr. Carroll stated, no. He stated that that’s falling down. He stated that I want to knock it down; I want to get rid of it.
Mr. Brickner stated that the Variance is for two dwellings on one piece of property, that’s all the Variances he’s asking for, right, two dwellings on one piece of property?
Mr. Carroll stated that the issue of the road I don’t think should even be in play here.
Mr. Brickner stated that the Variance doesn’t even say anything about the road, no. He stated that it just states the two residences.
Mr. Carroll stated, and I’ll put a garage on that half if I have to.
Mr. Brickner stated, but, if you can’t get to it, if you have no road to get to it.
Mr. Carroll stated, well, so far I’ve got approval from IDEM and the Army Corps of Engineers to do this work. He stated, I have it. He stated, if you need copies, I’ve got them. He stated that they have approved it. He stated that I’ve been going through this for almost two years now. He stated that I’ve tried to take all the right steps, do everything by the book, and, you know what? He stated that it’s just not working.
Mr. Burns stated that I’m concerned about the house that people are living in. He stated, is it a safe house for the people? He stated, I mean, I’m really concerned about that.
Mr. Carroll stated that I don’t want to say that they’re not good people – they are – but, they’re just not very neat.
Mr. Burns stated that my concern is, is it healthy, is it safe for those people?
Mr. Carroll stated, as far as I know. He stated, like I said, she, in order for them to have the gas and the water turned back on they had to spend $3,000 and have repairs done. He stated, as far as the bottles of water coming in, I don’t know if that’s hearsay, I don’t really know.
Mr. Burns stated that I was just having a difficult time making any decisions to approve this property if there is some major issues with homes on it right now.
Mr. Carroll stated that I’m going to knock this place down. He stated that I have not been inside.
Mr. Burns stated, but you own it.
Mr. Carroll stated, yes. He stated that I’ve been inside to a point where I’ve seen the mess. He stated that if I find out that this property is not even worth remodeling, it’s going down.
Mr. Burns stated, I have to ask counsel, do we have the authority to ask the proper agencies to look at this property, including our staff, our building inspector, and whatever agencies that’s required to look at this property, since there might be a welfare, health, safety concern?
Mr. Devine stated, I would say yes. He stated, certainly those concerns are well-taken and, in my opinion, if you’re going to approve a Variance based on this submission, that’s certainly something you have to be concerned with before you do it, and I’m concerned that if you do it without checking on this you might be remiss and become at fault for not doing so.
Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-9 to have all the proper agencies, including our staff, our building inspector and whoever, to go out there and inspect the property for health and safety issues. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Robertson asked, is a month enough time?
Mr. Burns stated, that may not be enough, by the time we get with all the proper agencies. He asked, 30 days is enough or table it or…

Mr. Brickner stated, two months.
Mr. Hudson stated, I think once we get the reports back. He stated, I mean, I don’t know if they can do it that quickly.
Mr. Burns asked, should we table it?
Mr. Hudson stated, I think just table it.
Mr. Devine stated, I would suggest to you that you also receive copies of all the documentation that you’ve been told exists in terms of who has approved this and who…that all ought to be reviewed by counsel.
Mr. Burns moved to table Case 05-V-9 to have all the proper agencies, including our staff, our building inspector and whoever, to go out there and inspect the property for health and safety issues and that we receive all the paperwork from any agencies that have been contacted that have authorized things. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Case 05-SE-2. Petition of Nextel Communications, Inc., c/o Michael Hennon, 3960 Brown Park Drive, Suite I, Hilliard, OH, seeking a Special Exception to permit a 190-foot monopole wireless communications tower and equipment shelter, to be located at the Southeast corner of CR 750 N. and CR 450 W., in Portage Township.
Carrie Fitzsimmons and Jerry Bain stated that they are representing the petitioners in this matter. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated that she is with General Dynamics. She stated that I have a couple of business cards for the stenographer with our names and addresses. She stated that I have a couple of things I’d like to enter into the record. She stated that the first is a copy of the title search and the notices that went out.
Mr. Hudson stated that typically in the past we’ve received information ahead of time in the mail, typically in a packet of information.
Mr. Robertson stated, you’re absolutely right. He stated that we always have received those in the past. He asked, isn’t it part of our ordinance?
Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think it’s part of our ordinance, but they always, in the packet, they always listed the ordinances that we have for towers and their agreement to fulfill those ordinances and, of course, also any co-users that you have lined up, we’ve also been interested in seeing. He stated that we don’t have any of that tonight. He stated that hopefully you have something with you, because we normally get that so we can review it before you get here.

Ms. Fitzsimmons stated that it was my understanding that Mr. Hennon had sent some information, an application along with the criteria for a Special Use permit under your ordinance, as well as a copy of the site plans, two letters of commitment, one was a letter of intent to share the tower space with future co-locaters, and another commitment just indicating that the tower will be on air within 30 days of construction. She stated, I don’t know if that information wasn’t disseminated to the rest of the Board, but I do have some packages here tonight that would have all that information and a little bit more as well.
Ms. Byers stated that they sent the application materials, just as any petitioner would. She stated that it was rather difficult getting hold of Mr. Hennon from time to time. She stated that he was out of the office a lot, although he got back to me, but I told him as I tell all wireless communications companies that typically you guys..they prepare a fairly voluminous presentation and if they wanted to get that to you that they should mail it out to you individually. She stated that I never got packets and they are encouraged to do it themselves anyhow, because the County can’t bear the expense of mailing out such heavy mailings.
Mr. Hudson stated, well, I know in the past we’ve always received these ahead of time so we get a chance to look at it and we’re not here…I’m not saying I’m against anything. He stated, I’m just saying that I thought the procedure was set up in the past. He stated that I know it’s been awhile since we had anything, but the last one last year was a document that was handed...
Mr. Burns stated that the last several years we got packets.
Mr. Siminski stated, let me just throw this in. He stated that this Case was originally scheduled for January’s meeting. He stated that January’s meeting was postponed. He stated that Mr. Hennon said that he could not make the February meeting and that’s why it’s now into March and then also our office has been short-staffed, too. He stated that Mr. Hennon, I’ll just say this, he has been in communication with us and tried to get the proper papers to us in terms of that. He stated that I do have something like this. He stated that I don’t know if this is the information that they’re requesting or not. He stated that this is all the information I got here.
Mr. Burns stated that it looks like part of it, but I don’t think it’s complete.
Mr. Siminski stated, normally it’s the responsibility of the petitioner to mail directly to the BZA members copies of that. He stated that it may or may not have been done unintentionally, but due to some of the situations that were happening.
Mr. Brickner stated, all of that information that you have for us tonight…I mean, we have people here to listen to your petition, and we

haven’t even seen this and there’s no way that we’re going to be able to go through all the information and we do go through it, page by page, if you give it to us here tonight.
Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that we can start off by giving it to you here tonight and see where we go from there She stated that we realize that the hour is late. She stated that I am prepared to cover the material in a thorough way. She stated that we do meet all the ordinance requirements and I can point that out and direct you to exactly where in this package all that information would be.
Mr. Robertson stated, maybe we should accept the packets and continue it, and then we’d have a chance to look at it…
Mr. Brickner stated, all these people that came here tonight…
Mr. Robertson stated, had to wait for it, and the towers are always the last one. He stated that you should really not come first thing, although if we continue this, it would be as part of pending business, so it would be towards the front part of the agenda.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, everyone here is in support of our petition.
Mr. Robertson stated that it will be at the beginning of the meeting. He stated that it will be in the first part of the meeting next, the third Wednesday of next month. He asked, would anyone like to make a motion to continue?
Mr. Siminski asked, before you make a motion, can I ask one question? He asked, if we do continue it to next month, since we did not have the public hearing tonight we’ll have to re-advertise.
Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t think we’ll have to readvertise.
Mr. Burns stated, if we don’t have the public hearing.
Mr. Devine stated if you don’t have the public hearing tonight you’ll have to give notice of the public hearing.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, could you open the public hearing and then make a motion to continue?
Mr. Devine stated, that’s up to you guys. He stated that I don’t see a problem with doing that.
Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t we do that. He stated that we’ll open the public hearing. He stated, why don’t you just give me two minutes here and then we’ll continue it.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated that we are proposing a 190-foot monopole on the property of the South Haven Little League. She stated that it

will be in a 100 by 100 compound. She stated that it will be graveled and it will be accessed through a partially existing access road, partially approved access road into a culvert, I believe, was recommended, that we put in, which was on the site plans. She stated that Nextel Communications has a coverage gap in the area that is currently licensed and to provide communication service by the FCC and that coverage gap exists between the tollway and 130, and if I can hand these out now…
Mr. Robertson stated, yeah. He stated that we don’t want to look at them now, but we will accept them. He stated that that would be nice.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated that if you flip to Tab 4 you can see the coverage plots of Nextel’s existing communications facilities and the proposed facility. She stated that the first colored plot that you see shows the coverage in the area without the proposed facility at the Little League Field, and, as you can see, the top right line that you see is the tollway, the fainter white line with the two sites names Hobart and Wheeler, that would be 130, and our proposed site is directly in between those two existing sites, so if you flip back and forth between the two coverage plots you can see the service that there is today, which would be the first one, and the service that’s proposed by the facility which would be at the Little League field, which would be the second plot.
Mr. Robertson asked, is it also showing here, the other towers in the immediate vicinity? He asked, do you have a map that shows that?
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, yes sir, you can actually see the existing towers…
Mr. Robertson stated, I’m not talking about your towers, all towers in the existing vicinity?
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, I believe this only shows Nextel’s current coverage.
Mr. Robertson stated, we really would encourage you to look at all the other towers, since we’re pushing for co-location so hard.
Mr. Burns stated, Mr. Chairman, I have to question that. He stated that there is the NIPSCO tower on 700.
Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, that’s about two miles from there. He stated that I think it just barely makes the radius, the two-mile radius, because I was over there.
Mr. Robertson stated, Rich was over there, too, I believe.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated that I can actually address that issue. She stated that we previously tried to co-locate very recently on two

of NIPSCO’s towers and they declined to accept co-location carriers from wireless…co-locations from wireless carriers due to security reasons and they have issued a citation that they received from the federal government since 911 that they didn’t want any co-locations on their existing towers. She stated that it wasn’t on this one, specifically. She stated that it was a site that we are working on in Hammond, IN, right now, but I can provide that documentation, if that would please the Board.
Mr. Robertson stated, maybe when you come back, also have copies of what other towers, other than Nextel, are in the immediate vicinity.
Ms. Fitzsimmons asked, how far of a radius would you like me to search?
Mr. Brickner stated, our ordinance says two miles.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, there is only one existing tower within the two-mile radius that we have found, as of today, which is the Vertical RealEstate tower, that I think everyone is aware of, and that tower was permitted, I believe, just about a year ago and constructed, and there is a letter in your package from the frequency engineer from Nextel Communications describing why that site is not sufficient for their engineering needs.
Mr. Siminski stated, if I may interrupt just for one second, later on, or maybe today, there is a report, an Inspection Committee report, that we did, and we’re listing four towers within a two-mile zone, and I can give you a copy of that so you know where those locations are at.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, actually, I have a copy of that report.
Mr. Robertson stated, I think those are things we’re interested in. He asked, shall we continue it then, and come back next month, the third Wednesday?
Mr. Burns asked, should we hear from the public?
Mr. Robertson stated, if it’s open, we can hear from them….you want to hear them? He asked, you want to go through it now?
Mr. Burns stated, I feel they came out and sat here for three hours.
Mr. Robertson stated, you’re right, you’re right. He stated, if you’d like to speak now that would be fine. He stated that we’ve got three people signed in, more people can come if they want. He asked, would anybody like to speak in favor of this petition?
Jerry Brunner, 704 Dearborn, Valparaiso, stated that I’m currently on the Board of Directors and have been for the last 8 years of South Haven Little League. He stated that this particular tower – and I know that there are towers in the area – if there’s a question of why another tower needs to be – this one’s a little bit different and the situation is, we’re not asking the Board’s approval for a tower to be located on farmland or a business. He stated that this is on a Little League field. He stated that it’s an unincorporated area that we’re trying to provide funds for the Little League, which is a great opportunity for income for us, that tower being located on the field. He stated that the field is hurting very desperately for money. He stated that this would be a generated income for us. He stated that when Nextel approached us, as far as coming onto the property, we opened our arms for them to come in because of the revenue that they would generate for us because of the Little League itself. He stated that the community is behind us. He stated that we support 250 kids a year. He stated that our fields are in shambles. He stated that the monthly…or, the yearly…sponsorship that we have, fund-raisers that we have, just is barely enough to survive. He stated that this would help us provide a more safe environment for our kids. He stated that this year we are celebrating our 40th year and we really hope to continue on. He stated that this is something we would love the Board to consider and that you would take this under consideration when you have this meeting again.
Mr. Robertson stated, just out of curiosity, you said everyone is in favor of it, how many people here are in favor of it? He stated, raise your hands, if you wouldn’t mind. He asked, is there anyone here opposed to it? He stated that the public hearing will still be open then.
Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not against it. He stated that it’s just that we don’t have the information. He stated that we’ve been very particular in the past. He stated that I sympathize with you and I’m very supportive of the Little League program, but it’s just, we’ve asked all these people in the past to be very specific and present this information and if it’s not done the next time, we’re going to wind up paying for it in a different situation. He stated, I’m not saying I’m against it. He stated, you just have to understand what we’ve gone through with cell towers over the last five or six years and I’m sure you can appreciate that.
Mr. Bain stated, may I say something? He stated that Fred was saying that the meeting was supposed to be scheduled for January and then February and then there was confusion along the way with the mailings and things like that and the packets. He stated that I know that it’s all been planned for quite some time now.
Mr. Hudson stated, the understanding of the position we’re put in as a Board all the time is to be consistent with our procedures and the way we accept things and the information that we expect and the format that we expect it in, so it’s not anything against the cell tower presentation or the presentation that’s here; it’s more of a procedural thing that we’re all caught up in.

Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, and I sincerely apologize. She stated that I have just been recently…I’ve been involved with the project throughout the whole span of it, but, very recently, became involved with the zoning end of it and put this package together for your review tonight and, hopefully, that will address some of your concerns. She stated, additionally, what I plan to do is address each specific paragraph of the ordinance. She stated that I have full faith that we do meet all of your Special Exception criteria. She stated that I believe that you’ll find the same, and we’ll put it on paper. She stated that I can fax it over to you as an addition to this package here tonight so that you’ll have everything that you need to make a decision.
Mr. Hudson stated, get it to us…we’re kind of short on funds, too, as far as the County goes.
Mr. Robertson stated, they can mail it. He stated that typically they mail it directly to us. He stated that you can get the addresses from them and maybe just mail it to us.
Mr. Brickner stated that the Board is really interested in co-location on existing towers and on your tower.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated, as we are. She stated that Nextel searches for co-location opportunities. She stated that I can build probably five to six co-location sites for every one raw land site within my budget, so, of course, we want to build as many sites as possible, but we also need to provide good coverage pursuant to our FCC license, and we also need to make sure that the sites work in conjunction with each other and that we’re not just building an island that’s going to have some coverage gaps. She stated that Nextel is not only a big service provider to their wireless customers, but also to a lot of public safety entities – things of that nature – and we pride ourselves on having a contiguous network with zero coverage holes as our goal, and we do the best that we can, so it’s very important to have these placed, and I believe if you review the plots you can see where this site is ideally located, that it’s going to close that gap for service between the two existing sites, but we will definitely address the four other sites, as well as any other ones we find, and have all that information for you at the next meeting.
Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 05-SE-2.
Discussion:
Mr. Bain stated that it is our internal process and strategy to co-locate first, mainly from running our business and the costs that are associated with building our network, so that is our first and foremost strategy. He stated that to always do a raw land, in this case, is a last opportunity. He stated that we go through the engineering tools and models that we have to try and make these co-

locates work. He stated that when they don’t work, we present raw land. He stated that we feel confident that our justification, our reason behind that, is there.
Mr. Burns stated, Sir, I have a question on that. He asked, what have you experienced about that. He asked, I mean, does your competitors charge so much where it’s not feasible to co-locate? He stated that we have that in our ordinance, but we don’t see it happening much. He asked, what’s happening?
Mr. Bain stated that the main issue is that there are a lot of what we call slam-dunks. He stated that we see a co-locate and when we issue a search ring we know where they’re at and we make the ring very small. He stated that it steers our site acquisition personnel to go sign an agreement with the co-locating tower. He stated that simply due to the varying technologies of the other wireless providers, they don’t always tend to marry up with our technology, or their technology doesn’t marry up with ours from their coverage expectations, their capacity concerns and their quality issues they’re trying to address, and some of the reasons why you’re seeing the industry trying to consolidate. He stated that technology is starting to converge upon each other. He stated that to stay in existence and plan and grow and survive in the future, the opportunity for raw lands are always out there for us to pursue simply because the models that we use in our engineering world don’t allow us to tweak and peak, or make adjustments to more or less make it work. He stated that we do the best we can to make these co-locates work, if they can.
Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 05-SE-2 to the April 20, 2005 BZA meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 a.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

S\Robertson, Chairman

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