Porter County Government - April 20, 2005

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
April 20, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 20, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes for the March 16, 2005 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Mr. Robertson stated that Case 05-V-2, petition of Bernard Madej for Variances for Damon Run, and Case 05-V-11, petition of Jack Cochran to divide off a 4.59-acre parcel without going through subdivision control, have been withdrawn.

Case 03-UV-3. Petition of Thomas Gielow Jr., 333 S. 600 W., Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a boat repair business, on the East side of CR 600 W., between SR 2 and CR 350 S., in Porter Township.

Mr. Gielow stated that I would like to extend my Use Variance on the business. He stated that it’s been going quite well, but I’d like to extend it on.

Mr. Robertson stated that this was granted in 2003 for two years.

Mr. Detert stated that this gentleman is from the area where I live, and while I have not had any boat repairs done with him he has done a stellar job with the people that I’ve talked to and he’s helped a lot for the Four Seasons area for servicing boats, pontoon boats. He stated that from what they tell me he’s reasonable and has a lot of integrity.

Mr. Brickner stated that when we approved this we said no more than three boats outside at any one time, no signs, all of these same restrictions apply to this…will apply to this extension.

Mr. Gielow stated that I would like to take and ask at this time for a sign. He stated that where we’re located at is on a hillside. He stated that I’ve had a couple close calls where people drove past and then start backing up and then someone came over the hill. He stated that right now I’ve got a mailbox right now down there that says Four Seasons Marine and is shaped like an outboard motor. He

stated that I’d like to make something that would stand out just a little bit more so someone would know just exactly where we are located at.

Mr. Detert stated that I think that something for identification purposes might be appropriate for safety reasons. He stated that this is like the second driveway, I believe, off of 2, so you come across 2 and usually those people coming across there are in a hurry and I’ve had some of them tell me that they go by and then they have to back up.

Mr. Brickner asked, what size of a sign are you thinking about – a directional-type sign with a…

Mr. Gielow stated that I was thinking of maybe even like just a 3-foot square sign that just says Four Seasons Marine, nothing huge, just something that they know more where they’re at. He stated, the outboard motor, a lot of people drive past it. He stated that they don’t realize, it’s painted white; I didn’t want to make it stand out and draw big attention to it, so it’s white and just says Four Seasons Marine on it. He stated that if someone’s paying attention to detail, yeah, they can tell it’s actually a motor, but like you said, when you cross over Route 2, they’re doing 60 miles an hour, so you give it the gas to get across. He stated that by the time they get across safely they’re already getting ready to pass up my driveway. He stated that it’s more of a concern.

Mr. Brickner stated that I understand that part of it and we might have some more to say about that. He asked, do you still have just one employee?

Mr. Gielow stated, at this point I have none.

Mr. Brickner stated that that was the other thing that I stipulated in our approval, just one employee.

Mr. Detert asked, you were using your son, weren’t you?

Mr. Gielow stated, actually, my uncle was helping me out for a little while.

Mr. Brickner stated, you know the area better than I. He stated that I don’t object to a small sign.

Mr. Detert stated that it’s not a real good area because if you pass it up then there’s a real good hill right beyond it and then if somebody starts backing up there it’s not real good, or somebody swings off of 2, it’s not very good. He stated that I think it would help if there were something there to identify where to turn in.

Mr. Hudson stated, from a safety standpoint, I think the sign is probably needed.

Mr. Robertson asked, what are we talking about size-wise?

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-UV-3 for five years, with the stipulations in the previous approval: one employee and no more than three boats stored outside at any one time; operating hours between 8 and 6; no retail sales; and a 3 by 3 sign.

Discussion:

Mr. Gielow stated that the other thing I would like to ask at this time if I could actually have storage available for the boats. He stated that I’ve got letters from both of my neighbors on both sides of me stating that they have no problem with outside storage. He stated that the area that I’m located at, I’ve got two acres that are in the back and can actually put boats there just for the off-season for storage.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many boats?

Mr. Gielow stated, I don’t know. He stated, I guess whatever comfortably can fit back there without causing problems. He stated that the boats that come to the shop right now when they sit outside, the boats that do come through there, they pull the battery out or disconnect the battery so there’s not a chance of electrical fire causing issues with it. He stated that I called up my neighbors and I asked them if they would have a problem with this and I’ve got one on each side that they don’t have a problem with me having storage there and at this point I’d like to take this opportunity to ask the Board…

Mr. Detert stated that it’s a place that’s very difficult to see so I don’t think you’d even notice them from…

Mr. Brickner stated, but I’d like to know, I don’t want this to become a marine storage and this is a residential area.

Mr. Detert stated that he’s trying to get some permanent storage and I know when we discussed this the first time, shortly thereafter he was working with the POA of Four Seasons and they have a storage area and he thought they could set up shop there and then run the storage for him. He stated that I think he had that pretty well okayed until the attorney for the POA got into it that they didn’t want the liability. He stated that I know he’s looked at a couple other areas, and I know there’s one right down on the corner from me, which is already zoned commercial, but some guy bought it and he bought it, I think, for $65,000 or $75,000 and he wanted a half a million dollars for a corner.

Mr. Brickner stated, I guess the question is, we don’t want an unlimited number of boats. He stated that he says he’s going to store them in a certain area, but ….

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t know what the yard area would carry. He stated that he’s got two big pole barns on it, so there’s not a lot of area back there.

Mr. Gielow stated, my intentions, too, are not to stay here. He stated that I just want to get a little bit better developed, a little bit better cash flow, and I do want to take it away to somewhere right in that area. He stated that the one property that came available – I tried getting it – the Realtor held it up. He stated that that was a C-2 or whatever that I could actually do the boating. He stated that that one fell through. He stated that the guy wants an astronomical amount of money for it, so once something comes available that I can afford, that’s my next step, is just to get it out of there. He stated that I don’t particularly care for people coming over Sunday when I’m cooking on the grill and they show up, but my intention, like I said, is it’s not something that’s going to be permanent there. He stated that I just would like to take and not to have to steer people in another direction to another marina to have them take care of that part of it. He stated that I’ve got some inside storage space that I already have on a barn someplace else that I put them inside. He stated that they’re inside. He stated that nobody even knows they’re even there.

Mr. Brickner stated that I understand all that. He stated that I just don’t want boats stored in your front yard, so this is obtrusive to the neighbors in a residential area.

Mr. Detert stated, you can put that stipulation on it.

Mr. Brickner stated, nothing stored in…

Mr. Detert stated, the back yard is pretty well hidden and I wouldn’t want to see them in the front yard either. He stated that that would be unsightly.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m like you, Marv. He stated that I don’t have a problem with the business, but the storage. He stated that it’s almost like a C-2 zoning.

Mr. Detert stated, well, what he’s trying to do is to get a commercial area to set up something permanent.

Mr. Gielow stated, I’d just like to have the clientele base before I make that jump and then turn around and come back and close down shop because I don’t have the clientele. He stated that that’s where I am right now.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-UV-3 for five years, with the stipulations in the previous approval: one employee and no more than three boats stored outside at any one time; operating hours between 8 and 6; no retail sales; and a 3 by 3 sign; with no boats to be stored in the front of the residence and boat storage to be limited to the back part of the area where it’s not visible from the neighbors.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked, how many boats?

Mr. Brickner stated, he doesn’t know.

Mr. Gielow stated, that’s my question. He stated that you can have small boats and big boats.

Mr. Detert stated that you have two big barns. He asked, how much property you got there?

Mr. Gielow stated, we got 2.25 acres.

Mr. Detert asked, how much would you say behind the house?

Mr. Gielow stated, it’s probably about a half acre.

Mr. Detert stated, you got two barns.

Mr. Gielow stated that the house sits forward of the shop. He stated that there’s probably about 100 feet from the house to the shop, then from the shop behind there is where I would store them, so it wouldn’t even be behind the back of the house. He stated that to put an actual number, I couldn’t tell you. He stated that I don’t know how they would fit in there.

Mr. Robertson stated, give us an idea.

Mr. Detert asked, can you put some kind of number on it? He stated that the Board would feel more comfortable.

Mr. Gielow stated, 30.

Mr. Brickner asked, 30 boats.

Mr. Gielow stated, well, it just depends. He stated that pontoon boats are 9-foot wide; fishing boats are only 4-foot wide. He stated that I don’t know what to say.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s true. He stated, I don’t think you could get more than 30 pontoon boats.

Mr. Brickner stated that I can’t imagine 30 boats of any size.

Mr. Gielow stated, I honestly can’t tell you what I think would fit back there. He stated that I know that I can keep it behind the shop, little behind the house – I can keep them all from there behind the shop, but to actually give you a set number, I can’t tell you that. He stated that I really don’t know.

Mr. Hudson asked, how wide is the property? He stated that maybe we look at, you know, you can’t have any boat storage within 25 feet of the side yards or the rear lot line, and it has to be behind, then, the pole barn buildings. He asked, is the back of the property treed?

Mr. Gielow stated, it’s all…actually, what’s behind me and our neighbors, it’s all grub.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, you could keep a 25- or 30-foot strip on both sides or across the back and behind the pole barns and store in that area.

Mr. Gielow stated, yeah. He stated that the property is 150 feet wide.

Mr. Detert stated that the two pole barns are pretty much over to one side, if you’re facing the house. He stated that the one that would see any stored boats in the back there would be him out his back window because the house would pretty much cover it, plus the two barns would pretty much cover it from the side, so the exposure there would be his, probably.

Mr. Robertson asked, so, how does that sound, Marv: a 25-foot strip on three sides?

Mr. Hudson stated that he would have to keep that maintained as green screening.

Mr. Robertson stated, and then behind the barns.

Mr. Brickner stated, we’ll do that.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-UV-3 for five years, with the stipulations in the previous approval: one employee and no more than three boats stored outside at any one time; operating hours between 8 and 6; no retail sales; and a 3 by 3 sign; with no boats to be stored in the front of the residence and boat storage to be limited to the back part of the area where it’s not visible from the neighbors; with there to be a 25-foot easement (green zone) around the property with no boats stored within 25 feet of the side property lines; to be limited to 25 boats. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated that he had a legal question. He stated that he did not advertise for outside storage. He asked, does that make a difference? He stated that he advertised for boat repair.

Mr. Detert stated, it’s an identification sign, I think. He asked, what are you going to put on it, just Four Seasons?

Mr. Robertson stated, not just the sign, Bob. He stated that I think he’s talking about it’s going to be now a boat storage facility, as well as a boat repair business and was it properly advertised?

Mr. Burns stated that it’s now repair and storage. He asked, does that make a difference?

Mr. Detert stated, well, a lot of people put their boat in storage and during the winter he works on them. He stated that it’s convenient to do that. He stated that if you try to get a boat repair place – I don’t care where you go – and you try to hit them in the spring and they’re loaded. He stated that you’re not going to get your boat till June, so it’s just a handy thing to have the boat there where he can work on it. He stated that it hasn’t been a problem.

Ms. Tallian asked, what did the application ask for? She asked, what was the notice in the paper?

Mr. Siminski stated that this was not a public hearing. He stated that this was just a renewal from a previous, a case two years ago. He stated that the original case was for boat repair.

Mr. Burns asked, is this enough of a change to have a public hearing, maybe that’s what I’m asking?

Ms. Tallian stated that it’s a little iffy, but it’s an expansion of the previous use, but it’s still a Use Variance.

Mr. Detert stated, we’ve done that all the time. He stated that we change the rules as we go.

Ms. Tallian stated, but I also think people, when they make their applications, should be encouraged to put down everything that they’re asking for at the time.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-UV-3 for five years, with the stipulations in the previous approval: one employee and no more than three boats stored outside at any one time; operating hours between 8 and 6; no retail sales; and a 3 by 3 sign; with no boats to be stored in the front of the residence and boat storage to be limited to the back part of the area where it’s not visible from the neighbors; with there to be a 25-foot easement (green zone) around the property with no boats stored within 25 feet of the side property lines; to be limited to 25 boats. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-UV-4. Donald Ehrick & Luann Jones, 576 E. 1400 N., Michigan City, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting boarding of eight dogs, at 576 E. 1400 N., in Pine Township.

Mr. Ehrick stated that we’re just looking for an extension of our dog boarding business. He stated, no changes.

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints?

Mr. Ehrick stated, no.

Mr. Brickner asked, you’ve kept a maximum of eight dogs in the kennel?

Mr. Ehrick stated, actually the most we’ve had was seven.

Mr. Robertson stated, and we talked about getting rid of the excrement on a regular basis and screening around the kennel. He stated that I guess we did have screening, according to our notes from staff.

Mr. Burns stated that if I remember right there was a neighbor that was concerned about this.

Ms. Jones stated that that’s the neighbor to the South.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-UV-4 for 5 years with all the same stipulations and requirements on the original case. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-UV-5. Robert & Melissa Janda, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting an automobile repair business, at 6-1 N. 550 W., in Union Township.

Mr. Robertson stated that the petitioner has requested that this Case be moved to the end of the meeting agenda.

Case 95-V-8. Jose & Phyllis Rael, 413 W. 750 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 750 N., between McCool Road and CR 450 W., in Portage Township.

Mr. Robertson read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 95-V-8 for 1 year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

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

Mr. Robertson read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there was an inquiry as to who was living in the trailer and it turned out to be a different parent. He stated that one parent died two years ago and this is a different parent but the same status. He stated that it was reported to Bob about it.

Mr. Robertson stated that he thinks we had that last time.

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 99-V-15 for one year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call 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. (This Case was continued from the 3-16-05 meeting, with the public hearing open.)

Carrie Fitzsimons stated that she and Jerry Bain are representing the petitioners in this matter. She stated that we were here last month and we had presented an application to the Board. She stated that we submitted materials that night and we had a request to let the Board members review those materials adequately to come back and this month be prepared to discuss the Special Exception requirements. She stated that in the interim I sent a package to one of the Board members who was not able to attend the last hearing and additionally recently submitted supplemental materials for some issues we had been working on since the last meeting and since the letter we had gotten from the County addressing some concerns that they had with our application. She stated that we come here tonight prepared to present our case for the Special Exception and we have a few minor documents we would like to submit as a part of the record just since the last review of the ordinance, a couple of documents that we can go ahead and do along the way. She stated that at this time at the Board’s discretion I can either take questions from the Board specifically or we can go through the ordinance requirements or, basically, in the interests of time and a full agenda I can address some of the issues that I’m sure are outstanding in your mind that have been brought up in the past and we can hit those and see where we go.

Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t you do that, Ms. Fitzsimons. He stated, pick out what you think would be interesting and we’ll let the public have a chance after you hit what you think might be important.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that I have additional site plans if anyone needs them to kind of go along, just let me know. She stated that I’d like to start out tonight with the inspection letter that we received from Mr. Siminski. She stated that he was able to go out and review the parcel, review our application and he had some comments. She stated that we’ve made some changes to the plans that you all received prior to the meeting tonight and we did those in an attempt not only to address the comments of Mr. Siminski and some of the issues that came up in the meeting last time, but we were also at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting on April 8th and they made some recommendations. She stated that those changes are all reflected on the plans. She stated that the biggest issue, I think, that we are dealing with from the Inspection Report is the issue of the setback for the tower. She stated that according to your building ordinance you have two separate setback issues. She stated that you have one setback requirement that is 50 percent of the tower height away from the public way, which would be CR 750, and then you have a second which would be the fall-zone area of the tower, plus 10 percent of the tower height. She stated that we were able to address both of those issues at the last meeting. She stated that if you can turn to Sheet C-1 in the revised plans, and again I have extra plans should anybody need revised plans. She stated that following along on Sheet C-1, you can see that we moved the center of the monopole location to the Southwest corner of the compound and on the sheet before that, which is the survey, actually delineates the actual setback lines, the first one being from CR 750 N. She stated that you can see that we’re now at 95 feet, which would be 50 percent of the tower height, including all appurtenances, so we now meet that setback. She stated that the second setback is from the property line, the design fail area plus 10 percent of the tower height. She stated that we submitted it as part of the supplemental package a letter from the tower manufacturer, licensed engineer in the state of Indiana, per requirements of your zoning ordinance. She stated that we submitted a fail-zone letter from that engineer stating that the fail-zone area in this area for the monopole in question, specifically for the 184.5-foot monopole going in in South Portage, Porter County, Indiana, would collapse within a radius of 40 feet from the base of the tower, so the 40 feet plus 10 percent of the tower height, which is 195 feet with all appurtenances would give us a fall zone of over 60 feet, which, as you can see from our drawings, we are more than 60 feet – we are 60.2 feet – from the property line to the East of the property. She stated that the next issue that was brought up in the Inspection letter was the additional towers located in the area. She stated that according to your ordinance we have to provide reasons satisfactory to the Board by the engineer for Nextel as to why any towers located within a 2-mile radius could not be used and why we are proposing a new facility at this location. She stated that there were four towers that were noted in the Inspection letter and to go ahead and address them one by one, the first tower that was at 550 N. 625 W., which is actually Number 3 on the Inspection report, the tower is owned by a company called Spectrasite Communications, that tower is actually built by Nextel

Communications several years ago, and Nextel is currently located on that tower and operating on that site on air from that tower. She stated that that tower is outside of the two-mile radius of the tower that is being proposed, according to coordinates, latitude and longitude, as the crow flies, it is more than two miles, and in the supplemental package that you did receive is a map with a two-mile radius drawn around the proposed site. She stated that you can see that there are only two of the four towers that actually are located within that two-mile radius. She stated that the second tower is the tower at 587 N. 625 W., and that is the tower owned by Verizon Communications and that is just up the street. She stated that I went up there and drove the site myself and saw that it is literally a few blocks away from the tower that Nextel is currently operating on and would just provide duplicate coverage for Nextel and is, again, outside of the two-mile radius. She stated, so, with the two tower locations that would be within the two-mile radius, there is one tower that is directly to the West of our proposed location. She stated that that is a tower that is owned by American Tower Corporation. She stated that it’s a 190-foot monopole with two carriers already located on that pole. She stated that we had our RF engineer, based out of Indiana, run the coordinates for that tower with the available height to see if it would provide adequate coverage needed to close the coverage gap at this area and I have Jerry Bain here who can talk a little bit about how the handoff works and capacity issues that we’re actually having, all the technical information that you’re going to need to explain it further and one of the letters that was submitted was a revised statement of need, including that American Tower site that you got in your supplemental package. She stated that additionally what we did to help you out is more visual, instead of just putting it into a textual form. She stated that what you got last time – and it’s easy to tell because we did one that’s green and black and now this one, the new one, is blue and black – the one we did last time shows the area with no proposed tower and then the area with the proposed tower turned on, so you can see how it stands today and then what kind of coverage you will get from the proposed tower, and those are your green and black plots. She stated that the first sheet on the handout that you had tonight shows the area still as it stands today and then the second plot shows it with the proposed, excuse me, the existing American Tower site, and, as you can see from your plots, the first page on your package is as it is today; the second page is with Nextel locating on the American tower site, you can see that still leaves a very significant coverage gap in the area that we’re trying to cover with this proposal.

Mr. Robertson asked, which one is the…Hobart or Wheeler, the extra American tower?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that this is the way it stands today and then this is the American tower site, right here, and then your third and fourth page is on the fourth tower that we’re going to address tonight. She stated that this is how it is today. She stated that

you can see it’s in red and they’re not, it’s turned off right now. She stated that this is how it is today, this is the coverage we would get with that site turned on.

Mr. Detert stated, it doesn’t look like a lot of coverage.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, no, it’s not a big coverage increase. She stated that you can see it’s going to be a lot of duplicate coverage to this Wheeler site and this is the Spectrasite location that we were referring to that Nextel is already on and operating off of. She stated that the fourth site is a site that we are very familiar with as we were trying to get on the zoning agenda for several months. She stated that it’s the Vertical Real Estate tower that was recently constructed on Route 6 by the Fitness Barn and that tower currently has – it’s a 170-foot monopole -- has U.S. Cellular at 170, Sprint at 160 and Cingular at 150. She stated that the next available rad center would be 140 feet for Nextel, and that location is Northeast of our proposed location so we’re having a similar issue that we had with the American Tower site in that it’s going to provide duplicate coverage to our Western Acres site, so then Page 3 and Page 4 of your package before and after with the Vertical Real Estate, again you see a significant dark area that won’t be covered by co-location on that Vertical Real Estate. She stated that we were notified, pursuant to your ordinance requirements, when that site went up and we did everything we could to try to go on that site and all it’s going to do is to provide duplicate coverage. She stated that when I approached the RF engineers they actually said we can’t even build the site because all it’s going to do is duplicate what we already have there, it’s not going to provide the coverage that they need. She stated that Nextel Communications is a wireless service provider that wants to provide the best communications possible for its customers – we have a lot of public safety clients, things like that. She stated that we have to ensure that we provide the best coverage and close these coverage gaps and our first way of doing that is co-location. She stated that we realize it’s the fastest way to get a site on-air, it’s clearly the cheapest way to get a site on-air and that would be always the first road we’d take, and I would say in Indiana about 80 percent of the sites that we do build are co-locations on existing towers. She stated that that is the path that we like to take, but we also have a commitment to the FCC, to our customers, to provide the quality service that Nextel has and in order to do that we are going to need to propose a new site here at the rad center. She stated that you see that the site we are going at is significantly higher than the available rad centers on the other two towers that are within the two-mile search area, so what this is going to do, going back to the green plots that you have, before and after, you can see how the proposed site at the Little League field is actually going to close that coverage gap in that area and is going to be able to handle the capacity area we’re having with the existing Wheeler site that was one of the sites that was noted on the Inspection Report. She stated that there are a couple of other just housekeeping issues that I wanted to

submit copies of documents for the record. She stated that we had an insurance requirement and a licensing requirement and what I wanted to do as part of the record – here’s a copy of Nextel’s FCC license to operate in this market; here’s a copy of our insurance certificate showing that Nextel has adequate liability insurance and once the site is built we can name the town or the landlord as specific insures. She stated that the ordinance is pretty non-specific as to the exact type of requirements. She stated that lastly we have a letter of intent signed by Nextel of our intent to notify the County not less than 60 days prior to any change in ownership of the facility or of the property in question – one of the ordinance requirements – and, again, a commitment letter from Nextel to file proof of adequate liability insurance. She stated that as you can see from our certificate, it expires every year and it is our commitment to renew that every year.

Doug Nelson, 705 Long Run Road, Valparaiso, stated that I’m here to speak in favor of the Nextel tower. He stated that the Nextel tower would provide us with the financial health that we really need. He stated that we survive year to year by registration and fund-raisers that get us by through the year, but what this would allow us to do, the moneys that would come in from the tower would allow us to buy the equipment for the players that would keep them safe. He stated that it would also provide us with new fencing that we desperately – I’ve got some photos of our fencing if you want to look at it – and just for the safety of the kids. He stated that the league has helped many kids –this is our 40th anniversary – throughout the 40 years that we’ve been an organization. He stated that I grew up there personally, played there, and the people that coached me and the people that were on the board through the years while I was there they motivated me. He stated that currently I’m a school teacher and I’ve coached at the high school level, both baseball and basketball, so it motivates me to be a positive person in our community and I’ve since joined the Board of Directors here…

Mr. Robertson stated that we appreciate the Little League; we think it’s a wonderful organization. He asked, how many of these people here are in favor of this tower with the Little League?

(A show of hands.)

Mr. Robertson stated, that’s fine. He stated that I think we understand how the rent from this will help the Little League.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, the tower on Route 6, how much duplication is there?

Ms. Fitzsimons asked, the Vertical Real Estate Tower that went up at the Fitness Barn?

Mr. Burns stated, yes.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that that is going to…

Mr. Bain stated that that I can’t really predict the percent of duplication. He stated that the concern that we have from an RF engineer perspective is if, you look at the existing Western Acres site on the plot with the VRE site, in the picture, it takes, it’s physically too close to this one and our sectors are oriented, they’re three of them, you can see the little triangles. He stated that the one that’s pointed directly at it from a frequency radio’s perspective and how we have to operate our network – we have to keep azimuths consistent throughout our network, it’s physically too close currently to this one and would take too much traffic away from it and also the Northeast sector, as well as the Northwest sector, you see the coverage area at the 140-foot rad center serves areas of undeveloped and probably not to be developed – I know North of there you got the creek that runs through there and there’s a lot of wetlands. He stated that we’ve got no available users to sell the service to. He stated that the only benefit from that one would be the South-facing sector, which would serve most of the South Haven area. He stated that it’s really difficult to say. He stated that the main issue is the 140-foot rad center and the physical proximity to the Western Acres site. He stated that it really doesn’t give us any benefit from a company perspective to spend those dollars at that location.

Mr. Burns stated, so, what you’re saying is, the co-locate doesn’t work.

Mr. Bain stated that this co-locate doesn’t work. He stated that it’s physically too close to the Western Acres site for us to feasibly make it work and sell units and solve existing customer issues in this area.

Mr. Burns stated, ‘cause normally we hear the opposite, they tell us that it’s too far away at two miles; now you’re telling us it’s too close, it won’t work.

Mr. Bain stated that just this morning I was at a meeting in Indianapolis at the Motor Speedway addressing this issue why we needed to move 1,000 feet to better serve the traffic and the users at the Motor Speedway, and we’re talking 1,000 feet to address capacity coverage issues.

Mr. Burns asked, different equipment won’t resolve this problem, more powerful equipment or frequency?

Mr. Bain stated no. He stated that the frequency won’t benefit it, the power I can only go so high. He stated that the equipment is manufactured by Motorola and has a maximum power output of 70 watts. He stated that that’s as high as I can go. He stated that I can’t get more bang out of the buck for it.

Mr. Burns asked, you can’t say this tower would provide 50 percent of the service you’re looking for or 10 percent or 40 or 60?

Mr. Bain stated that it’s a guess, my guess would be the only benefit from that location would be about a 10 percent advantage. He stated that if I go to the location we’re proposing I get 100 percent. He stated that there are so many advantages to this location.

Mr. Burns asked, you said it was the height?

Mr. Bain stated, I’m at 170-foot rad center, I think is what we’re proposing, 180. He stated that we’re proposing the overall height because of the lightning rod that goes on top. He stated that the 180-foot rad center that we have, I could spread it out more, because I’m physically higher, as well as all three sectors gain benefit. He stated that it helps me with my current capacity issues at the Wheeler site that we’re having right now; it solves the Northeast sector, it solves the South Haven coverage and the customer complaint problems, the South-facing sector. He stated that it solves the new South Haven, the Salt Creek Common area and in the Northwest sector helps solve a lot of the issues and customer complaints that are coming in from some of the new subdivisions that are built on the Southern edge of Portage.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that you’re absolutely right about sometimes they can be too close but also too far away because then if you look if Nextel were to co-locate onto that VRE tower then we’re too far away from that existing Wheeler site. She stated that you have that huge gap.

Mr. Burns stated that this is the first I’ve heard that I recall that it’s too close. He stated that I always heard that it’s too far away, but now, like you said, it’s too close.

Mr. Bain stated that the primary purpose for funding from the Nextel perspective, why we got funding for the site, was to address our quality concerns. He stated that this location addresses those quality concerns. He stated that a secondary benefit from it is allowing us in engineering to address our capacity concerns. He stated that we’re getting more and more subscribers on every year and the existing site are growing and growing and growing and they’re stacking with what they call the VR stack sizes as more and more users are there. He stated that I need, I get the double benefit by off-loading some capacity from the Wheeler tower, as well as the Portage tower on the South-facing sector by popping into this location is one of the reasons why. He stated that I don’t have capacity issues on the

Western Acres site. He stated that I do have them on Wheeler and Portage. He stated that if I went to the VRE tower, it would force us into asking for another tower somewhere else and spending potentially twice as much money to go through this.

Mr. Brickner stated that the reason we have ordinances…first, I just want to talk about the coverage.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you satisfied with his explanation of the coverage?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes. He stated that I’m satisfied with that.

Mr. Detert stated, I wasn’t here for the other meeting.

Mr. Brickner stated, I understand the coverage; I have some other questions.

Mr. Robertson stated, I wanted to take care of the coverage first.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is that there doesn’t seem to be very much of a benefit to having that tower there…

Mr. Robertson stated, you’re not looking at the yellow map, or the green map, rather. He stated, show him the other one too, Marv, the second copy that shows it before. He stated that this is without the tower…

Mr. Detert stated, I guess my concern now is are we going to be putting a tower here and here and here. He asked, are they going to be back in a month wanting additional towers? He stated that one of the reasons for our ordinance was to try to encourage co-location and cut down on these towers, you know, and I think we’ve accomplished that to some extent, but here we’re back at it again, sticking towers in here for lack of coverage.

Mr. Brickner stated, I couldn’t agree more. He stated that here we have, we’re looking at three towers within a mile of each other, right in a row, this coverage map does not explain coverage if they were to co-locate on either of those towers. He stated that it doesn’t show the type of coverage they would get from a co-location standpoint. He stated that it only shows the coverage without the tower, the new tower and with the new tower.

Mr. Robertson stated, wait a minute; I think that’s what the blue one shows.

Mr. Bain stated that these blue ones show the VRE tower and expected coverage from it.

Mr. Brickner stated, but that’s not the one behind the Fitness Barn.

Mr. Bain stated, yes, it is.

Mr. Robertson stated, if they co-locate on this one here, here’s 149 and 6, they still have this gap here right around, between their two.

Mr. Brickner stated that the thing that’s really hard to understand is how these signals only are good for a half a mile. He stated that that’s almost impossible to believe that you have a 190-foot…170-foot tower and you only get a half a mile radius from the tower where you say that you can get coverage, according to your maps, that’s a half a mile, and according to all the research that we did when we wrote the ordinance, we made a two-mile radius the maximum, because that’s the information we had on what kind of coverage we can get from a 170- 190-foot monopole tower, and you’re not showing that – you’re showing a half a mile.

Mr. Bain stated that I cannot locate at 170 feet on that tower.

Mr. Brickner stated that now we’re looking at three towers within two miles of the extreme ones, a mile apart, and our whole objective is to limit it to, limit the number of towers in Porter County. He stated that’s our objective. He stated that that’s the whole reason we have the ordinance is to keep from building monopole towers every mile in Porter County and we want to co-locate. He stated that the tower behind the Fitness Barn, when I checked, we only had two co-locators, Sprint and U.S. Cellular.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that U.S. Cingular has reserved 150 feet, they just haven’t installed yet. She stated that I confirmed with the tower owner two weeks ago that Cingular has reserved the 150-foot rad center.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, ‘cause their lock is not on the gate. He stated that the only locks on the gate are U.S. Cellular and Sprint and the gentleman that was there told me there were only two co-locators on that tower, so, evidently, they don’t know about the third one, but there’s still room for another person or another locator on that tower, and before we approve a new tower within a mile of that tower, I think you should exhaust every possibility of getting co-located on one of these other two towers, either the Wheeler tower or the Fitness Barn tower.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that we are on the Wheeler tower, sir.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s, that’s…

Mr. Robertson stated, you mean the South Portage tower.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, that’s the Fitness Barn tower.

Mr. Robertson asked, what do you call it, the American tower?

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s the Wheeler tower.

Mr. Robertson stated that we’re mixing up the Wheeler tower with the American tower.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that we have the same issues there. She stated that it would be pointless for us to locate on the American tower site because it is so close to our Wheeler site, that’s the problem with the way these networks are set up, and you have six licensed carriers who are operating in this County, so you’re going to have six carriers who are going to be here and as demand goes up and as wireless data becomes more prevalent and as the….the coverage areas today are shrinking versus what they were ten years ago because they have to re-use their frequency, as Mr. Bain was speaking of before, and so as you get additional subscribers, these coverage areas are going to be shrinking; they have to reduce the area to be able to handle the volume of calls, and you can tell if you’ve ever tried to dial on your cell phone and you get a fast busy signal or you can get no service, but you know that there’s a site right there; it just means that all the other subscribers have beaten you to that tower, so the coverage areas are going to be shrinking and more sites are going to go up, and that’s a direct result of the demand and the increase in subscribership. She stated that now instead of one phone for every five households, you’re looking at multiple phones per household and wireless data transfer and everything else that goes along with it. She stated that you’re going to have wireless internet and all the (inaudible) capacities that are coming in the future, so, unfortunately, I’ve been doing this for about seven years, and every county has the great idea…and it still is a great idea…you encourage co-locations, you make sure that the sites make sense, but you also plan for the future, and what this tower would be able to do is if you could see the problem that we’re having there are going to be other carriers that are having the same problems. She stated that you don’t have a lot of single-carrier towers. She stated that I went and looked at all four of those towers – there are multiple carriers on each of those towers – they’re being used, and these companies have to pay extraordinary amounts of money to buy the equipment to build the sites. She stated that they’re not going to do it just because they want to build a site. She stated that they need to build a site just to fulfill their licensing requirements and to provide service to their customers, so what we’re proposing here is a solution to you. She stated that this tower is in the middle of two existing towers, correct, but by putting a tower here you’re going to eliminate somebody coming in in the future asking for a tower just a half a mile away from Wheeler or half a mile away from VRE in another direction and we’ve made this tower available for co-location. She stated that

it’s going to be a 184-foot monopole and have a 100 by 100 fenced-in compound that’s going to be very easy for somebody to come in and co-locate on this tower site that’s going to work with them, and, like I said, you have six carriers now that are trying to provide service to this growing community and this isn’t the last application you’re going to see.

Mr. Robertson asked, why are some of these areas so much larger than others, why is this such a large area, whereas, like the new tower is a smaller area?

Mr. Bain stated, that big, green blob on your left there, that is the Valparaiso tower and it sits on high ground and it sits at over 200 feet on that tower. He stated that it’s one of the original sites that we did build when Nextel started building out this area and it used to serve my house in Salt Creek Commons.

Mr. Brickner stated, so what you’re saying is the two-mile radius that we’ve adopted in our ordinance is obsolete – we shouldn’t even be considering that as part of the restrictions.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, not at all. She stated that I think you’re absolutely correct in having an engineer come in and explain why. She stated that you shouldn’t just approve every tower application that comes in, but when you have an engineer that can come and explain you have a capacity site down to the Southwest of the tower, and you don’t have a capacity issue to the Northwest of the tower and we need this site here and we need everything else to meet that burden of proof. She stated that it’s still permitted in the ordinance. She stated that it’s just a burden of proof, to me.

Mr. Brickner stated, the problem is that every engineer we have come in here makes the same plea that you’re making: They need a tower where they need a tower, period. He stated that we haven’t approved all of them and there hasn’t been a problem. He stated that we don’t know if what you’re telling us is the absolute honest to God truth or not. He stated that we really don’t know that. He stated that all we know is we established an ordinance and we would like to stick by this ordinance and we would like to restrict the number of towers and this is really way out of bounds as far as the number of towers in this area is concerned and for the information that we have, other than what you’ve given us tonight, this tower is not necessary. He stated that if it’s still possible to co-locate on one of the other towers and cover some of this dead zone, then that’s what we should do, not build another tower in violation of what we consider to be our ordinances and that we want to adhere to, that’s to keep the number of towers in Porter County to a minimum. He stated that that’s what I have to say about that. He stated that I don’t want to get off that subject yet.

Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t know if it’s possible at all, but, these other towers that have co-location, you want to put up a tower

that will have room for more. He asked, how would that work out in terms of the others’ plans, in other words, does it get exponentially difficult to understand what’s going on. He stated that each one of them’s got a different map.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that a perfect example is the tower by the Fitness Barn. She stated that that was just recently approved and you already have three carriers on that tower. She stated that this is a very rapidly growing area. She stated that every site that I went to look at had multiple users on the site. She stated that that’s a good sign. She stated that that means there’s structure in place that there is a burden of proof to meet that if you need to go outside of that two-mile radius requirement. She stated that you do have to meet the criteria set forth in the ordinance. She stated that we’re here tonight showing why none of those sites work. She stated that when I got notification from Vertical Real Estate over a year ago that they were in zoning trying to get that site, I’ve been trying to get them to co-locate on the site, because it’s much easier than dragging this out for a year, it’s much less expensive, but it doesn’t work for them. She stated that they said they’d rather build nothing than build that site.

Mr. Bain stated that in layman’s terms in our engineering community we call it an ofer, meaning, if we built that site we’d get nothing from it.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, so they would rather take the capital designated for that site, put it towards another site that they could build in another community. She stated that they’re only allotted so many sites per year. She stated that I think we have about 40 sites in the Indiana market that we are budgeted to build this year. She stated that if this one is not one it will go to another community, another site will go there, because…

Mr. Brickner asked, what are you going to do about the coverage in this area?

Mr. Bain stated that we’re going to have to explain to our customers that call in and complain about the coverage in the area.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you wouldn’t even attempt to co-locate on that tower that’s available.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that it wouldn’t serve any benefit. She stated that it would provide duplicate coverage for Nextel.

Mr. Bain stated that I would have to go back to our vice president and explain why I spent this money for a site that’s not going to work.

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t know, guys; we’re going backwards. He stated that I agree with everything you said, Marv. He stated that

the original ordinance was there to try to keep the towers within two-mile radiuses of each other and now we’re having people come in here and say they have to be a half a mile. He asked, does that mean we’re going to double or triple all the towers we’ve got in the County?

Mr. Hudson stated, that’s a good point. He stated that everything changes. He stated that our ordinance is at least three years old, maybe four. He stated that they said that things have changed as the need or the…I have four cell phones in my house and I have some issues that I have to walk outside my house and I can’t use any of them unless I walk outside my house, but as the towers come in, I’m going to go wireless. He stated that maybe we need to do a couple of things and the thinking we put into this ordinance – and I’m not saying it’s a bad ordinance, but it has to be brought up to today’s time. He stated that it sounds like to me like this is going to be a big, big, big issue as this two-mile radius goes down to a half a mile radius, we need to make some changes in our ordinance to either have no cell towers at all, or try to work with what the needs are of the people that we’re up here representing. He stated that all the people want these towers and we’re trying to judge these towers by a set of standards we developed. He stated that maybe our standards are dated already. He stated, the technology – five years. He stated that that’s pretty sad when our company does new computers about every nine months to a year because the technology changes. He stated that I’m not saying what they are doing is wrong. He stated that I’m not saying that what they are doing is right. He stated that I have to believe these two people when they tell us something. He stated that I have to believe what they’re saying until we can prove them wrong. He stated that if we want to spend all our time proving that they’re wrong, then that’s another issue. He stated that I think we need to accept what they are telling us, learn from this one, make some revisions to our ordinance because it sounds like our ordinance needs some revision.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, first of all, you’re assuming that there has been no improvement in the technology from the cellular people. He stated that that’s not true.

Mr. Hudson stated that that’s something that we don’t know yet.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s exactly right, so that technology, the improvement in their technology to eliminate the number of towers should be just as stringent as our trying to revise our ordinance every few years to accommodate more towers, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go, either.

Mr. Hudson stated that maybe there needs to be something in our ordinance that mandates them to…you know, maybe we just don’t approve towers.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, if I could put in the record – there’s been a lot of talk about a half a mile. She stated that the Vertical Real Estate tower is 1.1 miles from our proposed site.

Mr. Brickner stated that I drove that two or three times, both of those towers. He stated that driving it is 1.7.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that as the crow flies it’s 1.1 miles.

Mr. Bain stated, keep in mind, too, that we have not added any additional towers in Porter County for a couple of years as Nextel. He stated that we have co-located on the tower right here in town in the last four years, but the big green blob that you referenced earlier, that’s our Valparaiso tower, the very first tower we located on in Porter County, followed by the Wheeler tower – we built that one – these towers have been there for almost nine years.

Mr. Brickner stated, but most of the towers aren’t built by the cellular companies. He stated that they’re built by Vertical Real Estate or they’re built by the tower companies, right?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that some are built by the tower companies. She stated, I think in the four that were noted in the Inspection Report, only one, I’m sorry, two, American Tower and Vertical Real Estate and then one is Verizon and one was originally built by Nextel and sold to Spectrasite.

Mr. Bain stated that my point is that our towers have been here for several years now. He stated that the capacity has grown and grown and grown on these things without us adding additional sites to mitigate capacity issues. He stated that the Valparaiso tower is at its limit right now. He stated that the downtown Valparaiso site is the newest of all of them for us. He stated that we recently, over the Christmas holidays, have done what we call a cell split to add more equipment inside and grow the capacity as high as we possibly can make it. He stated that the Wheeler site is undergoing that right now. He stated that we’re at a point now where we have to do something.

Mr. Brickner asked, this is a 184-foot tower?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that the monopole itself is 184.5 feet and with the antennas and other appurtenances, a lightning rod, we’re looking at 189.6, almost 190 feet.

Mr. Brickner asked, why don’t they build them 190 feet?

Mr. Bain stated that the FAA requirements are that at 200 and above they must be lit.

Mr. Brickner asked, so why don’t they built them 199 instead of 184.

Mr. Bain stated that it’s the lightning rod.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that we need the lightning rod because if the lightning rod breaks that 200-foot threshold then we have to light the tower, so you average 10-foot lightning rods. She stated that that’s just the way the tower sections are manufactured. She stated that I have the tower drawings here, if anybody’s interested in seeing them.

Mr. Robertson stated, let’s move on to the next part of this. He stated that we can come back to this, but I’d like to move on to the setback, the thing she talked about where the collapse would be within 40 feet, according to the engineer. He stated that our ordinance reads – how does our ordinance read?

Mr. Brickner stated, 40 feet plus the 10 percent of the tower height.

Mr. Robertson stated, so it’s beyond 40 feet.

Mr. Brickner stated, so their setback is okay, the one they presented here.

Mr. Robertson stated, I thought it was 40 feet plus 10 percent of the tower, that would be about 20 feet…

Mr. Robertson stated, so it would have to be about 60 feet.

Mr. Hudson stated, and they’re 60 feet away.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, that’s the only thing she brought up. He stated that I guess we’re back to where we were.

Mr. Brickner stated that I do have one other thing. He stated that none…you haven’t alluded specifically to any of the ordinances in your presentation. He stated that I assume you know what the ordinances are and that you plan to adhere to all of the ordinances from the 7-foot fence to the greening zones, none of which you mentioned in your presentation.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, absolutely. She stated that I’m happy to go through paragraph by paragraph, but it’s all in the drawing.

Mr. Brickner stated that I just want you to tell me that you know what the ordinances are.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, absolutely, I’ve gone through it many times.

Mr. Brickner stated that if you know what the ordinances are then you know that you need certified letters to all potential co-locators and proof of those letters to us.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, correct. She stated, I believe that was a condition of the grant. She stated that so if we are granted the Special Exception we will send out those letters.

Mr. Brickner stated, but this letter that you have, letter of intent, it doesn’t say who you sent it to.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that that’s just for you. She stated that that’s specific to paragraph…

Mr. Brickner stated, I know that. He asked, who did you send this to?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that that’s just to you. She stated that it doesn’t go to anybody else.

Mr. Brickner asked, had you sent letters to anybody who might want to co-locate on this tower?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that that is a condition of the grant of the Special Exception by the applicant shall be required to send written notice by certified mail to all commercial wireless communications service providers, so if we are granted the Special Exception then we absolutely will send out those letters letting them know that the Special Exception was granted…

Mr. Brickner stated, in the past we’ve always had confirmation of those having been sent out before we approved it; always.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, I’m sorry, I was just going by the letter of the ordinance. She stated that I didn’t realize that you wanted it before.

Mr. Brickner stated that because otherwise we have no guarantee that you’re going to do that. He stated that if we granted you the Special Exception and you decided not to have anybody co-locate, we have no control over it.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, well, as it reads, it’s a condition of the grant. She stated that we would have to fulfill all the conditions before we could get an Improvement Location permit.

Mr. Detert stated, you’re just arguing why they haven’t done it ahead of time. He stated that she is saying they’re not required to.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that we haven’t gotten the grant yet. She stated that we have nothing to notify them of. She stated that we could send them a notification that we filed an application, but we can’t notify them that we received the Special Exception if…

Mr. Hudson stated, so, if you filed a letter saying that…if you’d sent a letter saying that you filed an application you’d still have to turn around and file a second notice that you got the grant.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, right.

Ms. Tallian stated that that’s what the ordinance says. She stated that it says that once you get the Special Exception you then send the letter out. She stated that you have to send the letter out prior to getting the actual permit.

Mr. Hudson stated, so those come back to our office and then that permit is granted once they receive those?

Ms. Tallian stated that it says “applicant shall furnish proof of this notification prior to the location permit”.

Mr. Detert stated, I think what Marv’s saying is that some of them have come in here and they’ve been nice enough to send letters out…

Mr. Brickner stated, all of them, just about all of them.

Mr. Hudson stated, but they’ve still had to go back and do probably the other thing.

Mr. Detert stated, oh yeah. He stated that they went to the extra effort of sending those out.

Mr. Robertson stated that our staff can tell the applicant what we really expect next time. He stated, but I think we are stuck with what’s in the ordinance.

Mr. Brickner stated, but I would like to have seen something from them that says they are going to comply with each and every one of these conditions of the Special Exception, with the grant, which we’ve always required before we made any approval and we don’t have anything like that from them.

Mr. Hudson asked, is that a requirement in our ordinance?

Ms. Tallian stated, I’m not sure what it is that Marv’s asking for?

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I’m talking about the 7-foot fence, I’m talking about greening zones, the plantings, the way the equipment is sheltered, everything that’s listed in our tower ordinance.

Ms. Tallian stated, right, but don’t they have to put all that together and present that before they get their permit?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, well, before we approve it as an Exception, before we make our approval, that’s given to us.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that it’s all in the site plans. She stated that we put the screening, we put the fencing, we put the culvert that’s going to go in there and, as the ordinance reads, before we get an Improvement Location Permit we have to…one of the conditions of the Improvement Location Permit is to receive a Special Exception. She stated that the way the time line, the way I kind of perceive it, we are granted a Special Exception, we apply for an Improvement Location Permit, we show we’ve met all the conditions. She stated that we still have to go back in front of the Technical Advisory Committee, then we would be granted the Improvement Location Permit, and, under Paragraph D, Section C of the ordinance, the evidence of Special Exception is one of the requirements, along with the FCC and FAA approval and the notification of other providers, the compliance with design standards, the site plan review and all of those other items. She stated that what we could do is ask, should the Board be so inclined to approve the Special Exception, with the conditions that we meet all of the design criteria standards before we file for the Improvement Location Permit, pursuant to Paragraph D of the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Brickner stated that the tower ordinance was written so we knew that you were going to comply with these before we granted the Exception, that’s what the ordinance was written for. He stated that now I agree that the part of the ordinance, as a condition of the grant, which is the co-locator’s letters, that says as a condition of the grant, whether that’s before or after, I don’t know. He stated that I guess it’s after.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that we have complied with all those, and we submitted all of the ancillary documents from the first meeting and from the supplemental documents…

Mr. Brickner stated that we don’t have them. He stated that we’re the ones that are looking at…we don’t have that. He stated that we don’t have anything that says that you’re going to comply with all of the ordinances. He stated that we don’t have anything, other than what you’re going to tell us.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that at the last hearing a supplemental package was sent out in the mail prior to this hearing and then what was given here tonight.

Mr. Brickner stated that there’s nothing in my package that says you’re going to comply with all the conditions of the ordinance. He stated that I didn’t get anything like that.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that they were … the letters of intent, the site plans, the design fall zone letter – those were all of those items. She stated, I guess I don’t understand what you’re asking for.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m asking you to tell us whether you’re going to put the greening zone in that we request, whether you’re going to put a 7-foot fence around this facility…

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that the landscaping is shown on Sheet C-1 of the plan, the landscaping around the fenced area shows the evergreens. She stated that we have fence detail.

Mr. Brickner asked, does it say that you’re going to comply with the ordinance?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, I can write a letter saying…

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s what we want.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, great, I will do that.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s what we want.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, other applicants have kind of gone through the ordinance and given us, stating the ordinance and then saying what they’re going to do to comply. He stated that I guess you haven’t seen the other applications, but the other applications really were in better form than yours is.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated, I apologize. She stated that I came in on this at the last minute.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, we can dig it out of the maps and so forth. He stated that the others had done it in different format.

Mr. Detert stated that I didn’t even get my package till just two or three days ago. He stated that I wasn’t here last time so I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’ve got a real good concern here. He stated that I’d like to make sure that we as a BZA are not fighting a mentality among the cell phone operators that they just want their own tower because it gives them better control or whatever the reason is and I think that’s what we were fighting initially. He stated that I know where I live it’s not this area. He stated that I’ve got two towers within a mile of me and I haven’t heard that anybody’s located on them and they’ve been there a year or two. He stated that that feeling just keeps coming back that we’re getting pushed for towers because somebody wants a tower. He stated that our initial intent with that ordinance was to keep towers within a two-mile radius – that was our intent. He stated that that was what we said as a body is how many towers we wanted in Porter County.

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s the information we had when we made the ordinance.

Mr. Detert stated, maybe we need to look at it again, but it really bothers me that they’re saying that the technology is such now that they’re going to have to put them every half mile or whatever it is.

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to convey, that this business of putting towers .6 of a mile apart…

Mr. Detert stated that the kid next door to me has to get on his two-story roof to get reception and I asked him, what are you doing up there, and he said, it’s the only place I can get reception, and now you even hear commercials and jokes about it – the reception’s bad. He asked, what’s going on? He stated that maybe there’s something wrong with the technology that we’re not reaching people. He stated that my phone works fine in my subdivision. He stated that I go out of my subdivision it doesn’t work. He stated that I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m getting a little frustrated with the towers we’re putting up.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, we do have this petition before us tonight. He stated that we can either approve it or deny it. He stated that I think we’ve talked it pretty thoroughly through. He stated that I’d like to have a motion either to approve or deny.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 05-SE-2. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated before we vote on this, should the Board put this case on the back burner or continue the case and seek out professional advice, like we did the first time around to make sure something didn’t change. He stated, like Rich said, I mean Rich brought that up, maybe there is a change out there. He stated that I’m really surprised about that half-mile or mile, less than two miles radius. He stated that I’m surprised to hear that. He stated that you’re right, we said two miles, and we had professionals come in and tell us two miles was a good distance, if you remember. He stated that to be fair to Nextel and to the people in the Little League, maybe we should continue this case and seek out professional advice. He stated that I don’t know if we can do that this time because it’s in front of us. He stated that I guess we have to ask the attorney.

Mr. Detert stated, you know what we can do? He stated, put a moratorium on cell towers until we look at our ordinance and update it.

Ms. Byers stated that there is a request for a discussion before the Plan Commission to revise the tower ordinance. She stated that I believe that request comes from Mike Bucko, who works in Netnitco, and I believe that’s coming up at the next meeting.

Ms. Tallian stated that it’s on the agenda for the next meeting. She stated that it’s a request to do some revisions to the tower ordinance because of the statements that the ordinance may be out of date with technology. She stated that I also know that I’m sitting on the group that’s doing the Uniform Development Code, and that’s one of the big things that’s coming up next week (sic) is a discussion of the current tower ordinance, whether it’s still viable.

Mr. Hudson stated that I have to agree with Rick. He stated that that was where I was going with the statements that I made. He stated that the use goes up, the technology goes up, but the use goes up even more. He stated that I go all over the country looking for a hot spot so I can take my laptop and…I mean it drives me crazy when I can’t do that because I know it’s there.

Mr. Burns stated that I think we need to look at it. He stated that I was really confused and surprised to hear your comments, less than two miles, because I thought the industry was moving the other direction, with satellites and GPS I thought the distance was going to increase.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated capacity increases, distance decreases.

Mr. Burns stated, but I thought there was new technology coming on board.

Mr. Bain stated that the emerging technology is faster data speeds, more wireless applications of high-speed video. He stated that those are the emerging applications that exist in Europe today and Japan that eventually want to come into the United States.

Mr. Burns stated that we are going to have to address this issue. He stated that if we are going to have to need towers every half mile, I don’t think Porter County wants that, and we need to look at this.

Mr. Bain stated that the thing about towers getting closer together – they are getting shorter. He stated that no longer do you see 400, 500-foot towers that people are locating on. He stated that they are going away.

Mr. Robertson stated that we didn’t allow them since our ordinance.

Mr. Bain stated that that’s another thing I would ask as an engineering person, if you seek outside advise or counsel about what is the proper distance. He stated that they must find ways to (inaudible) average height as a carrier and, obviously, as a co-lo, whoever gets the top spot is king of the mountain and at 140 you’re struggling.

Mr. Burns stated that I felt that Bob was leaning that way. He stated that if you’re Johnny Come Lately, you lose, in a sense. He stated, for example, I don’t know if it happened to your company, but on Route 6 they put a new tower and the first co-locators benefit. He stated that Johnny Come Lately company didn’t benefit and now he wants to build a tower. He stated that I’m not saying that’s what happened, but I guess what’s going on here, with all these towers every mile or half mile, whatever the case may be, is it because it’s a commercial issue.

Mr. Hudson stated, but I thought he just said that the towers are starting to go down.

Mr. Burns stated, if they’re closer together.

Mr. Hudson asked, so, what are we looking at – building higher towers then? He stated that to keep the towers further apart we have to keep them higher, because you said…

Mr. Bain stated but the fundamental problem with a higher tower, using the Valparaiso tower as an example, it’s one of our highest in the area, it sits on high ground, it is one of those 400-foot monsters; we’re co-located about two-thirds of the way up. He stated that it serves a huge area. He stated that I could only put so much capacity in it.

Mr. Brickner asked, how tall is the tower?

Mr. Bain stated that the tower itself is 454 and I think we’re at 252.7.

Mr. Burns asked, more companies, more towers, right?

Mr. Bain stated, I guess.

Mr. Robertson asked, is it six companies?

Mr. Bain stated, currently six.

Mr. Robertson stated that we have six maps that have to overlay.

Mr. Burns stated that I can understand if that first company…if you build this tower and you get that frequency everybody’s after, it doesn’t help those other companies to co-locate.

Mr. Bain stated if I get the top spot, my company uses X-frequency band. He stated that Cingular uses theirs, AT&T uses theirs; everybody has their own spectrum.

Mr. Detert stated, but you can still put several antennas up on top.

Mr. Bain stated, but the problem is, you can’t put them all at the same height.

Mr. Brickner asked, how far apart can you put them?

Mr. Bain stated that we require 10 feet of separation and technically it’s not center of the antenna – it’s tip to tip, but we settle with 10 feet.

Mr. Burns asked, as the towers get shorter, less co-location. He asked, is that true?

Mr. Bain stated, yes and no, it’s not. He stated that there’s 80-foot flagpoles that have three carriers in them.

Mr. Brickner stated, actually, it’s more ideal to have fewer towers that are taller…

Mr. Burns stated, one last question. He stated that I was in the state of Pennsylvania and I was outside Pittsburgh. He stated that they use utility towers to put their satellites on there because…

Mr. Bain stated that NIPSCO won’t do that.

Mr. Burns stated, NIPSCO won’t do that – I understand that, but does it work, apparently, at that height?

Mr. Bain stated that it can work for us, again, it’s dependent on location and height of it, and honestly, I try to stay away from them. He stated that we use them as a last resort because from a maintenance perspective it’s very difficult. He stated that if I have antennas that get hit by lightning and I need to replace them, my service is degraded, it’s a two-week process for me to get a crew on there and change them out because I have to work with the power company to kill the power to the lines. He stated that some of them are in sub-stations where there’s a tower in the substation.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think our ordinance mentions using church steeples, water towers and electric…

Mr. Bain stated that in California they look like palm trees, they look more ridiculous than the real palm trees, but…I understand your ordinances and we’re asking for the Variance. He stated that I know the motion’s already out there to deny this, but it’s a win-win situation. He stated that Nextel wins. He stated that we get every benefit that we’ve asked for in trying to design and build our network and maintain our customers. He stated that it’s a win for the Little League, from their financial situation. He stated that I would just ask you to change your mind.

Mr. Robertson stated, Rick, I’m curious, and Rich… you suggested some outside technical help. He asked, what are you thinking about? He asked, who would provide that?

Mr. Burns stated, I’m trying to think. He asked, who did we bring in last time, Marv?

Mr. Brickner stated that we had engineers come in, microwave experts, when we wrote the ordinances originally. He stated that we had several people come in and actually they were all kind of…one was structural, the other one talked about the microwave, the antennas and then somebody talked about the equipment – so we had several people, so there are people that will do that.

Mr. Robertson asked, as it pertains to this case, would you be interested in…

Mr. Brickner stated, I’ll withdraw my motion to deny if you want to continue it.

Ms. Fitzsimon stated that that’s fine. She stated that I would like to point out for the record briefly that it seems that the people that you did consult when you did draft this ordinance did take this to mind because your ordinance does not outright prohibit towers within two miles. She stated that it says that you need to meet A, B, C or D, and so they are taking into consideration that that two mile, two miles, two mile isn’t always going to work.

Mr. Burns stated, no, but the issue is if we start with less than two miles, we are going to have everybody standing in line, and I think that’s coming.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s a good point.

Mr. Bain stated that I can almost assure you we will have letters of intent and additional co-locates on it. He stated that I can almost assure you that if I get funding for another site in Porter County, I’m going West. He stated that I’m not going to park on that American Tower site. He stated that as my capacity coverage needs grow and Portage grows further South, the way it is, I can almost bet that in two years I’ll be on that American Tower site.

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that in the City of Chicago we have a site almost on every city block in the downtown area, because of the capacity needs.

Mr. Brickner asked, not a tower, but a site?

Ms. Fitzsimons stated that there are some towers in the City of Chicago, some on buildings, some wherever you can do it, but as your capacity grows your sites are going to get closer and closer together

and your rad centers are going to get lower and lower, as he was saying.

Mr. Detert stated that I would agree with updating our ordinance, but I would say that in the meantime, we don’t grant something that we don’t think fits our ordinance till we know what we’re doing. He stated that we have to get away from remembering the mentality of everybody coming in here and wanting their own tower. He stated that I don’t want to get caught up in that. He stated that I don’t think people enjoy seeing these sticks up in the air. He stated that I want to make sure that when we put them up there, we need them.

Mr. Burns moved to table Case 05-SE-2. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 05-V-10. Petition of Michael Hemry & Gay Gorniak, 491 W. 400 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a mobile home to care for an elderly parent in ill health, to be located at 491 W. 400 N., in Union Township.

Ms. Gorniak stated that what we would like is to get permission to get a mobile home and place it on our property for Mike’s father, who is in ill health. She stated that the mobile home park where his trailer is right now is in Black Oak and is being closed down, so he has to move the trailer, and he’s got a medical condition where he needs someone to check on him daily, but not yet live with anybody, where he still wants his own privacy. She stated that the position of the trailer, I might add, will be behind the other buildings on the property so it’s not visible from the street; it won’t be an eyesore for anybody at all.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Sue Allason, 487 W. 400 N., stated that I’m right next door to them. She stated that I’m not really opposed to it; I just don’t understand. She stated that the home is empty, correct? She stated that there’s a house on there, and the house is empty – no one lives in the house, so, I was wondering why the father couldn’t live in the house that’s on the property that’s empty and exactly where – if this trailer comes on – exactly where this trailer is going to be located at.

Ms. Gorniak stated that the house is empty at this time, but there will be someone living in it and when Mike had the conversation with Harry, her husband, he explained where the trailer was going to be placed. She stated that it was going to be placed back behind the red barn where it’s not even visible from her property.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Burns asked who is going to live in the house.

Ms. Gorniak stated that the house is being rented out.

Mr. Detert stated, but you want your father…

Ms. Gorniak stated, I live in 495 W. and we own the two parcels next door to each other. She stated that I live at 495 W. and we also own 491 W.

Mr. Detert stated, so, you’re renting out that house.

Ms. Gorniak stated that the house in the front, the 3-bedroom house with two baths, yeah, for one person. She stated that the house is rented. She stated that they just haven’t moved in yet.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not sure if you got a rental house that you really got a hardship here because you can put your father…

Ms. Gorniak stated that the hardship is not for us. She stated that the hardship is for Mike’s dad.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, I understand. He stated that you’re presenting us with a hardship case, and you got a rental house. He stated that I think the first priority would be to put him in that.

Mr. Burns asked, if the Black Oak trailer park wasn’t closing down would he still be there?

Ms. Gorniak stated, no. She stated that if we don’t get this granted, he would probably be relocated to another trailer park where we would probably be paying his lot rent and eventually be paying for nursing assistance to be with him because he cannot be by himself all that long. She stated that it’s not an every hour of every day thing, but he does need someone to check on him.

Mr. Brickner asked, what’s his physical…what’s his problem?

Ms. Gorniak stated that he’s got a heart condition. She stated that he got out of the hospital with diverticulitis. She stated that he’s not actually not legally blind, but he’s not allowed to drive. She stated that he’s got a tumor that impairs his vision.

Mr. Brickner asked, does he have any income?

Frank James Hemry stated, no, I’ve got VA disability and Social Security.

Mr. Brickner asked, who are you renting the house to? He asked, do you have a renter?

Ms. Gorniak stated, not at this time.

Mr. Brickner asked, you don’t have a renter for the house yet? He asked, where do you live?

Ms. Gorniak stated, 495.

Mr. Brickner asked, on the drawing here, where is that, over here?

Ms. Gorniak stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, how far away is that from where you plan to put the trailer?

Ms. Gorniak stated, within walking distance.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have any other questions.

Mr. Robertson asked, why don’t you want to put the trailer on your property instead of on the property next door?

Ms. Gorniak stated, well, they’re both my property. She asked, are you asking why did we choose the placement where we chose it? She stated, because it’s not visible from any other property. She stated that I have a pasture back yard and then the land does a pretty drastic dropoff to the wetlands that are back there, where on the other property the flat part goes out further, and if it were in my back yard or the back yard of 495, it would be visible from more properties. She stated that we’re trying to accommodate not to make it look like, you know, not to be an eyesore for the area out there.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to have a septic?

Ms. Gorniak stated that yeah, we did the soil test and I talked with Mary from the Health Department or the sewer department (sic) and we had soil tested and we do need to put in a separate septic system. She stated that they will not approve us to tie into the existing system of the house. She stated that they will allow us to use the well from where it is located.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-10 for one year, 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 Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes

Case 05-V-12. Petition of Paul & Edithe Hahn, 432 Eastwood Ct., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,700 square foot pole barn to house personal items, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, and to permit construction of said barn to commence concurrent with the construction of the house, to be located at 393 S. 600 W., in Porter Township.

Ms. Hahn stated that we’re asking for a Variance to build a 2,700 square foot building, a pole barn, in order to house items that we have, personal belongings. She stated that the covenants of this property – this is 3 acres – and the covenants in this – I don’t know if you’d call this a subdivision because it’s out on 600 W. and it’s sectioned off in three and four, three-plus, four-plus acres, and the covenants state that we cannot keep anything outside, you know, motorcycles, campers, motor homes, boats, trailers, similar vehicles shall be kept (sic) on any lot except within a garage and out buildings. She stated, so, basically, we have enough that we would like to cover up and protect our belongings. She stated that we have a pole barn right now where we’re located that’s full, so, and it’s all personal belongings.

William Cain, 307 S. SR 2, stated that I am the developer of the minor sub which the Hahns are building a home in. He stated that I am for them to get this Variance. He stated that I did put restrictive covenants on the properties to protect neighboring and adjacent properties and the properties within the minor sub. He stated that I didn’t want people leaving boats, trailers and that type of thing outside. He stated that I did not put restrictions on the size of the building, whatever the County would allow. He stated that that’s really all I have.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Ms. Tallian stated that the report on this says larger than a 1,200 square foot in a subdivision.

Mr. Siminski stated that it’s in a subdivision and that’s why they’re coming for a Variance. He stated that I just noted that it was in an AG district.

Mr. Brickner asked, you don’t have a home yet? He asked, the home’s not built?

Ms. Hahn stated that we just bought the property in March of this year.

Mr. Brickner stated that you know you can’t build the pole barn before you build your house.

Ms. Hahn stated, right. She stated that what we’re trying to do is build them, pour the foundations at the same time.

Mr. Brickner asked, and the pole barn is going to be behind the house, right?

Ms. Hahn stated, that it’s almost going to be even with it. She stated that I had a picture.

Mr. Brickner stated, but the pole barn can’t be in front of your house.

Ms. Hahn stated, oh, no, I understand. She stated that here is a picture. She stated that this is 600 right here and you’re going to drive up – the barn will be here, the house will be here.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, just make sure the barn sits behind your house.

Ms. Hahn stated, well, at least even with the house, right?

Mr. Brickner asked, it can be even with the house?

Mr. Siminski stated that it cannot be in front.

Ms. Hahn stated that it’s structurally going to look like the home. She stated that it’s going to be wainscoting, I mean it’s not just going to be a pole barn, and it’s going to be within the tree clusters, also, so you’re really not going to be able to see much of it because it’s going to be surrounded by trees.

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

Mr. Hahn stated, I sell and maintain fire trucks, rescue vehicle equipment, Hoosier Fire Equipment in Washington Township.

Mr. Brickner asked, and this pole barn is not going to be in any way related to a business?

Mr. Hahn stated, no.

Ms. Hahn stated, that’s not his business. She stated that Hoosier Fire is not his business – he works for them.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, just as long as you’re not going to do any…

Ms. Hahn stated that absolutely no business to be run out of it. She stated that I’ve written a letter stating that there is no business.

Mr. Robertson stated, I like that they’ve made a drawing here. He stated that this is something we really encourage the staff to ask them to do. He stated that they made a drawing showing all the stuff they’ve got: an RV, and a Ford pickup to pull it; a tractor; a motorcycle, a trailer; another tractor; a utility trailer; and is that a pool table?

Ms. Hahn stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, and you’ve got a couple motorcycles, so it looks like you are filling up the space, and the fellow who plotted out your subdivision doesn’t seem to have any problem with it. He asked, are there any other comments?

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-V-12. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that we have a question from our attorney. He asked, what’s the size of your house, by the way?

Ms. Hahn stated that the house is going to be, I think, 2,200 square feet, not counting basements and garages.

Mr. Robertson stated that she’s mentioning that this is a pole barn larger than the house. He asked, is that allowed?

Ms. Tallian asked, having accessory buildings larger than the main structure?

Mr. Hudson stated, I can’t imagine that would be a problem.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that in the ordinance?

Ms. Tallian stated, yeah, I’m not sure that that’s…

Mr. Siminski asked, are you talking about a subdivision, or you talking about at all?

Ms. Tallian stated, I’m talking about in a subdivision, having an accessory building that’s larger than the principal residence.

Mr. Siminski stated, I’ve never seen that situation where it was questioned.

Ms. Tallian stated, but the rule is, 1,200 square feet, I mean that’s why…

Mr. Siminski stated, right. He stated, in a normal subdivision, any kind of subdivision, it’s a restriction of 1,200 square feet. He

stated that if you’re not in a subdivision, it can be any size at all. He stated that there are some accessory buildings that are much larger than the homes out there, barns and stuff like that.

Mr. Brickner asked, not in a subdivision?

Mr. Robertson stated, this isn’t just a regular pole barn. He stated that it’s got style to it there. He stated that it’s got one room that sticks out and looks like a bay window or something.

Mr. Siminski stated, I don’t know of any restrictions. He stated that that’s why there is a Variance for this.

Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t we go ahead. He stated, if you find that, let us know because we’d be giving a Variance anyway, right?

Ms. Tallian stated, well, but, right, but you’d be doing two of them.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, permit construction of a 2,700 square foot pole barn, so that would cover both of them.

Mr. Burns asked, in the motion, should we cover about…I know she said the pole barn would be built about the same time as the house. He stated that the house is not there now.

Mr. Brickner stated, good idea.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you want to restate your motion?

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-V-12 and that there be no business out of the pole barn, and that the house be constructed within two years of the pole barn. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that it says concurrent. He asked, are you going to move right in?

Mr. Brickner asked, are we sure about this pole barn being larger than the house? He stated that I can’t find anything right off the top.

Ms. Tallian stated, I can’t either. She stated that it’s in the definitions, but basically it says accessory buildings in any part of a recorded subdivision shall be no larger than -- it used to be 830 and now it was moved up to 1,200. She stated that if I can’t find it I can’t find it.

Mr. Robertson stated that it seems to be that by giving a Variance to 2,700 square feet we’d be covering that if it was in there.

Mr. Siminski stated, I will say this: I know in the past, last year, I remember a couple accessory buildings over 2,000 square feet and nobody ever questioned whether the house…so I don’t think that comes into play. He stated that I will check it out in the future, but I’ve never had anybody question that in the past, but I will find out for the future.

Mr. Robertson stated that he’s added to the motion that your house be finished within two years and you’ll enter into a recorded instrument that will promise you will do that on pain of having the pole barn torn down if you don’t.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-V-12 and that there be no business out of the pole barn, and that the house be constructed within two years of the pole barn, and that the petitioner enter a written commitment, to be recorded in the recorder’s office, to that effect, and that the pole barn will be torn down if the house is not done within two years; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 05-V-13. Petition of the Kankakee Valley Historical Society, 22 W. 1050 S., Kouts, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home for storage and office space and for the display of archaeological artifacts, to be located at 1101 S. Baum’s Bridge Road, in Pleasant Township.

John Hodson, 22 W. 1050 S., stated that I am president of the Kankakee Valley Historical Society. He stated that we’re looking for a Temporary Variance of three years. He stated that it’s sort of come time that we needed something until we get our building restored and it’s also to act as a construction trailer when we do begin restoration, but, for a number of reasons we need a spot out there for storage. He stated that I was in contact with Dr. Schurr that Notre Dame would loan us shelving and tables and other things. He stated that probably months will go by and we won’t use it at all, but then with the dig coming up we’d be using it every day for a short time for storage, multi-purpose unit.

Mary Hodson stated that I am secretary for the Kankakee Valley Historical Society and co-incorporator. She stated that I would like to speak in favor of this. She stated that as John has said, we have the extensive archaeological work going on under the supervision of Dr. Mark Schurr of Notre Dame and it’s expected to last a number of years and it posed a real difficulty last year for us to have to go back and forth to Notre Dame on the hours that I was off or whenever so we could sort and catalogue and do all the additional work that’s necessary for an archaeological site. She stated that if you aren’t cataloguing the work you may as well not do the work because it just

sets in a drawer and it does no good to anybody for education. She stated, in addition, we’re restoring, which was our original purpose, to restore the (indecipherable as she was laughing as she spoke) and while we’re doing that we’re finishing up our national register, we’re needing to be able to have a site where we can meet and continue our work.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-13 for one year, 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 Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes

Case 05-V-14. Petition of Joe Stevens, 2707 DeKalb St., Lake Station, IN, seeking a Variance to permit access for three lots of a proposed subdivision off a road not built to County specifications, to be located on the West side of CR 450 E., about ¼ mile North of SR 2, in Washington Township.

Mr. Stevens stated that actually I’m one of the parties involved in this. He stated that my friend, who’s also involved, is here, and, if it pleases the Board I request that he be given permission to speak with you also because he’s made up a diagram explaining what we would like to do.

Ed Laco, 2860 Dekater St., Lake Station, stated that my daughter, me and my wife, Joe’s been friends with my family since we got back from Vietnam together. He stated that it’s time for me to retire and Joe’s been a teacher at Washington Township and is presently a teacher at Portage High School and my daughter’s a dental hygienist and we have this dream of getting a piece of property and putting three homes on it. He stated that it’s basically a family affair. He stated that it’s not…we’re not contractors or anything else like that. He stated that we searched for about a year and we came across this piece of property, actually it was 20 acres and we discovered that on the bottom half of this 20 acres the County was…it’s a plotted road that may go through to another subdivision on the other side of this tree line here. He stated that we decided that we’d rather have the top half, so we made an offer on the 10 acres on the top half. He stated that I guess we’re here tonight to ask you to allow us to put a roadway not to County specs to service our three homes to go on the North side of this property back way before that tree line. He stated that that’s what we’re here for to ask. He stated that we want to have our three homes there and when I got here earlier this evening I spoke with some residents who are in the subdivision to the West of this tree line here. He stated that they told me they were under the

impression that we were going to run a road into their subdivision and that’s far from the truth. He stated that we just needed a drive to service three homes and that’s what we’re here to ask you.

Larry Kachor, 414 N. 450 E., stated that I adjoin this property. He stated, right here, this home’s mine. He stated that I have two or three things I don’t like, not particularly about this. He stated that the variances that the County is allowing, if your child and my child want to buy a home they have to buy 10 acres to build on. He stated that he’s allowed to buy 3 acres or 2 acres to build three homes. He stated that I don’t think making a Variance in every situation like this is a necessity for the County. He stated that if they want subdivisions, let them buy them, let them develop them, let them put in the roads, the streets, the curbs and the things like that. He stated that they want to cut this land out, put a road along my lane. He stated that there is already a County road proposed here for the last 100 years that is not completed. He stated that they want to put the County road in over here, but even then I’m still against putting this road in along my land. He stated that in the first place, there’s a large hill here. He stated that water runs down through this land like crazy. He stated that it has washed out the road, it has washed out the land. He stated that when they do this they are going to interfere with the natural drainage that’s already in there. He stated that there’s a lot of things that’s wrong with this whole thing for me. He stated that I’ve lived here 40 years and to me this land over here was originally 40 acres bought by Mr. Koontz. He stated that he built the house here and sold (inaudible) to me. He stated, now, legally, you’re not supposed to sell any less than 10 acres to build a home on. He asked, isn’t that right? He stated that I read it in the paper. He stated that my son tried to buy less acreage. He stated that I think you put too many Variances, allow too many things to go on with these subdivisions. He stated that they don’t want this a quarter-mile North of me, 7 or 8 or 10 years ago. He stated that it took them forever to finish it. He stated that the roads are there and it washes out the road. He stated that things weren’t taken into consideration then and they come through and paved our road two years ago and never refinished it. He stated that those are some things I have against this.

Steven Pappas, 403 Deep Draw Drive, stated that I don’t know how I intended to address the Board here, but originally I was one of the persons living in the neighborhood here that assumed that a road was going through this. He stated that in so doing I petitioned the neighborhood to sign a notice that we oppose the type of road construction to go through here. He stated that I don’t know if this is the appropriate time to address the Board. He stated that I live in the house that is right here where the road would be coming through if there was one to be developed there. He stated that personally I don’t see any problem wrong with this. He stated that I don’t know the experience that this gentleman does, as well. He stated that my

only concern was increased traffic coming through for the neighborhood. He stated that we wanted to address the council. He stated that what I did is I went house to house – and it’s not really opposing the specific letter; it’s opposing any road that comes through here.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, I understand, and you have how many petitions on that?

Mr. Pappas stated that there’s 29 houses inside the subdivision. He stated that I went to all 29 houses of which four people were not home or did not answer the door. He stated that out of the 24 (sic) people that I did go to, all 24 houses signed opposing any road coming through here.

Mr. Laco asked, did my explanation that we don’t want a drive into your subdivision, is that clearing the air for you, or are you still not wanting us to put a road for our three homes? He stated that I hope you understand that: It’s not a road going into your subdivision. He stated that it would be 3.33 acres for each home, and he said something about 10 acres and I think it’s 3.33 acres for each home on that 10-acre parcel.

Mr. Detert stated that I think there is a misunderstanding on the gentleman’s part. He stated that he’s going to have to go through subdivision control if he wants to cut these lots out, so there’s another step he has to make.

Mr. Robertson asked, have they been through subdivision control? He asked, don’t they usually go through that first?

Mr. Detert asked, how did you come to us first? He asked, did you…

Mr. Laco stated that we went to the Plan Commission and we were advised to ask for a Variance. He stated that the first thing they said is that you could put two homes on a property (sic) with no problem, however, to put three homes on there you would need to have a home built to County specs. He stated that that would be way over $100,000 to put a road in on that particular property to service three homes, so that’s the reason we came to ask for a Variance, instead of building a road to County specs. He stated that we want to build a road that’s going to service our three homes. He stated that if that’s approved, then we go back to the Plan Commission to separate that 10 acres for three homes. He stated that we were told that you need 2 acres, I believe, per home, in Porter County.

Mr. Detert stated that it depends on the septic. He stated that normally you would need about an acre, but if it’s bad soil, you might need two acres.

Mr. Laco stated that these are photos if you want to look a little closer. He stated that it’s a soybean field or alfalfa, I’m not sure.

Mr. Detert asked, you have not been to TAC or you have not presented your plans to anybody yet? He asked, you just went to the office?

Mr. Kachur stated, another thing. He stated that he says he wants to put a road in there. He stated that then that means I have to eat his dust every day. He stated that I have a swimming pool here and when they go up and down that road it would be dusty, so I would have to eat his dust, too. He stated that if they put that road in I think it should be paved or tarred or something. He stated, another thing – where they want to put this road in here, this is a 5, maybe a 6-foot drop. He stated that they are going to cut a big groove right up through this field. He stated that the water comes down this field here and pours through this field, pours through this area here, pours through my neighbors and another thing you gentleman might not know is that Larry Clark lives right over here. He stated that he’s not in the pig business right now, but for 30 years I had to put up with the smell, and if he goes back in the pig business, you will, too.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated, let me make sure I understand this. He stated that all they are asking for is to put a road in and there are specifications that they can put on later on that it be asphalted or paved, whatever you want to say. He stated that they just don’t want to put a 30-foot road to County standards; they want to put a driveway. He asked, is that what this is for?

Mr. Robertson stated, as I understand it, that’s all they’re asking for is a private drive, instead of making it to County standards since it’s only going to be for three homes.

Mr. Hudson stated, so restrictions on it, or conditions, can be put on by TAC, by the Plan Commission, that it be paved. He stated that this gentleman here, if they do go through with the subdivision, will be notified and will have an opportunity at the Plan Commission to voice his concerns about drainage. He stated that I’m very concerned about the drainage, but I’m not asked to deal with the drainage now. He stated that all I’m asked to do is decide whether he can go ahead and put in a road to something less than County standards.

Mr. Robertson stated, I agree with you, Rich. He stated that we can also, it seems to me, require that it be paved.

Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, we can do that.

Mr. Robertson stated, that it will have to go to TAC certainly.

Mr. Hudson stated, they may decide that it has to be 16 feet wide and be paved and have culverts and have drainage design done, and I’m sure they’re going to have to address all that at the subdivision level.

Mr. Detert stated that there’s been some consternation at Plan Commission – I haven’t been there for a couple months – but about these private roads and not being built to County specs. He stated that sooner or later somebody doesn’t take care of them and all of a sudden they’re on the County to take care of.

Mr. Hudson stated that the Plan Commission may decide they don’t it even with the Variance.

Mr. Detert stated, but I can appreciate the gentleman who’s talking about the dust. He stated that if he’s using his back yard and has a swimming pool back there, I don’t think he wants to be sitting out there on Sunday afternoon entertaining his family or friends and have dust all over every time a car goes by.

Mr. Laco stated that I have a friend who’s in the construction business who gave us a quote. He stated that he says he’s going to put in like 10 inches of heavy rock – I forget what they call it – and then some other rocks which doesn’t form dust. He stated that I don’t know if I can prove this to you, but this is it, and after all three homes are built, at some point in the future, the cost of this I think was $12,000 just to put this stone drive in that’s dustless, and at some point in the future when the three homes are built because I still have a few years to retire, but at some point in the future that road will be paved.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess there’s a little bit of concern, too, because when you do this and then whether these gentlemen own the property or somebody else does and at some future date somebody opens up some other land up there and now all of a sudden we’ve got a road that’s servicing umpteen homes. He stated that my last conversations at the Plan Commission on these not-to-spec homes was not favorable from a County standpoint because the Commissioners then get the calls and got to field them and tell people why they can’t come in and take care of them.

Ms. Tallian stated that I just have a concern about this because it looks like it’s premature. She stated that they are coming in and just asking for a real vague thing, which is, we don’t want to build our road to County specs, but the BZA really doesn’t have a plan in front of it that they are making an exception from, so we don’t know whether they want an exception just from the 30-foot right-of-way or from the paving or from anything.

Mr. Hudson asked, why are they here then? He asked, who told them to come here?

Mr. Detert stated, the office did and they’ve done these kind of things before because that’s the way we’ve been operating, whoever’s fault that is, but I think Karen is exactly right because we kind of got the cart before the horse. He stated that we could send it back to TAC and have it go to TAC and make them or ask them for some recommendations to this body relative to the road and see what they come up with.

Mr. Brickner stated, will you need to get emergency vehicles back there?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, there’s all kind of…garbage, emergency vehicles can’t get in. He stated that the emergency people don’t like them.

Mr. Brickner stated that there’s a lot of things we don’t know here. He stated that no school bus is going to go back there so the kids will have to walk to…

Mr. Laco stated that if you put one house back here and put a driveway, you’re still going to have the same thing.

Mr. Hudson stated, and it could be a stone driveway.

Mr. Laco stated, I’d rather have all of you say no now rather than us go forward, because I think what the Plan Commission is trying to do is save us $5,000 to hire a surveyor to plot three homes and put the soil borings in.

Mr. Detert stated that that’s probably why you got sent here first.

Mr. Brickner asked, how far from Larry’s property are you proposing to put this road, how far away from his property line into your property?

Mr. Laco stated that I would say it has to be a minimum of 25 foot from the property line. He stated, I mean, I don’t know.

Mr. Brickner stated, you could put it right down the middle if you wanted to. He stated that that would get it away from him or put it on the other lot line, is that South or East.

Mr. Robertson stated, there’d be no way to get to that, though.

Mr. Hudson asked, isn’t 450 on the East side? He asked, where’s 450 on there?

Mr. Laco stated, 450 is right here.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, if you put the road across your South property line, what’s..why’d you choose the North.

Mr. Laco stated, because I know there might be other homes going in here and we want to keep our homes further..on the North side of this property. He stated that actually I was looking forward to being his neighbor because they’re so quiet over there.

Mr. Robertson asked, what do you think about going to TAC?

Mr. Burns stated, as I recall, all Variances have to come before us.

Ms. Tallian stated, yes, but it seems like they need to come in front of you with a plan.

Mr. Robertson stated that we can either ask them to continue it and come back with a plan…

Mr. Burns stated, I would say, yeah, let’s continue. He stated that I’d hate to deny them without…

Mr. Robertson asked, well, what about sending them to TAC to hash out some of these things.

Mr. Detert stated that they can go to TAC with a conceptual plan, just asking for an information basis.

Mr. Burns asked, Rich, can we ask TAC to address drainage, too?

Mr. Hudson stated, I think if you start asking them for rec…you can go informally and present and get some opinions, but to rule, to give you standards, to judge drainage, I think you have to go through the full…I mean how can they address drainage if they don’t have a full topography. He stated that he’s telling us that he’d rather have us all vote no on this than have to spend the money. He stated that he can put two homes there, no problem – I believe he said that.

Mr. Laco stated that that came from the Plan Commission, Fred, I forget his first name. He stated that I believe he told us that if you have 160 feet of frontage on a County road that’s all you need to put a home on it. He stated that this is 330 some feet.

Mr. Hudson stated that he can put two homes on there.

Ms. Byers stated that you would still have to go through subdivision control. She stated that you can only have one home per parcel, no matter how large on the 10 acres. She stated that if you go under 10 acres, if you are dividing that, you still have to go through subdivision control.

Mr. Laco asked, even if we jus