 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting July 20, 2005 M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on July 20, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Rich Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Karen Tallian and Toni Byers. Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the June 15, 2005 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Pending Business: Case 81-V-20. Vicki Panozzo, 977 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 200 W., between County Road 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of her TCO. Mr. Robertson stated that this Case goes back to 1981 and I guess the mother’s been in it the whole time, so I guess it’s a hardship. Mr. Brickner stated that this mobile home is completely obscured from the road by pine trees. He stated that I don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 81-V-20 for 1 year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 84-V-5. David & Girthon Reid, 456 W. 450 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 N., between Sedley Road and the Nickel Plate Railroad, in Union Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO. Mr. Burns asked what the original request was for this TCO. Mr. Siminski stated that it said that the in-laws are in poor health and need care and financial help. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-5 for 1 year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 84-V-16. George Sosnowski, 3202 Vale Park Road, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on Vale Park Road, between CR 200 E. and CR 325 E., in Washington Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner’s physician requesting an extension of this TCO. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-16 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 99-V-42. Raymond Phillips, 342 N. 625 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 625 W., between CR 300 N. and CR 350 N., in Union Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting an extension of this TCO. Mr. Robertson asked, is Mr. Phillips in the trailer or is his son and daughter-in-law in the trailer? Mr. Siminski stated, I’m led to believe Mr. Phillips is in the trailer. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 99-V-42 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Brickner asked, the pictures that you…these cars are licensed? Mr. Siminski stated that there were some cars that were not licensed on the property. He stated, I was questioning…there’s a pole barn building to the back that actually faces away from the road…the doorway. He stated that it looks like they are trying to remodel this somehow. He stated that I’m not clear what they are trying to do. He stated that every time I went out there there was nobody home, so I don’t know if they are planning on using that for living quarters or not. He stated that that was a question I was hoping to ask if they were here. Mr. Brickner stated, if we were to approve it for one year I would like to add to your motion that Mr. Phillips be summoned to be at the meeting. Mr. Hudson stated, I’d agree to that. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 99-V-42 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 87-V-33. Jerome O’Day, 554 E. 1400 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 1400 S., between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township. (This Case was continued from the 6-15-05 meeting, with the petitioner to appear in person.) Mr. Siminski stated that this was a carryover from last month. He stated that we did get a phone call the day after our meeting. He stated that Mr. O’Day was in an accident and that’s why he did not appear last month. Robert O’Day. 554 E. 1400 S., stated that I would like an extension for one year on a Temporary Permit of Occupancy for my trailer. He stated that I’m the one who lives in the mobile home. Mr. Hudson asked, are you Jerome? Mr. O’Day stated, no, Jerome is my father. Mr. Hudson asked, and you live in the trailer? Mr. O’Day stated, yes. He stated that I live in the trailer to take care of things and to help my parents out. He stated that they’re in Florida right now and I take care of the place. Mr. Brickner asked, what was the original purpose of this mobile home? He stated that it seems to me that it was to live there while you built a house. Mr. O’Day stated that it was a hardship case. He stated that I have a handicapped brother and stuff. Mr. Brickner stated, but you asked for the Variance to live there while you built a house. Mr. O’Day stated, no, it was hardship for handicapped (sic) to take care of my brother. He stated that someday we planned on building, but my circumstances haven’t changed. He stated that that’s my home. Mr. Brickner stated that it says here in the last minutes that you were going to bring proof that you were making an effort to build a house or that the trailer would have to be removed. He asked, are you starting to build your house? He stated, evidently, we were under the impression that you were going to build a house there. Mr. O’Day stated that my circumstances haven’t changed. He stated that I can't afford to build a home. He stated that I’ve lived in the mobile home 19 years, so… Mr. Brickner stated, so you have no intention of building a house there. Mr. O’day stated, I don’t, no. He stated that I can’t afford to build. Mr. Brickner stated, then we probably should correct that. He stated that I was under the impression that there was supposed to be a house built there and that’s what our minutes say from the last time we approved this thing, was that the house was supposed to be started. He stated that Mr. Detert asked if the house would be started. Mr. Robertson stated that here’s the original request here dated back in 10-21-’88 (sic) and Jerome O’Day says he would like to get the children out of the house and on their own feet; son, daughter-in-law and grandson cannot afford rent elsewhere and it says that they…10 to 15 years approximate time structure to be inhabited, so I think that house business might have been something that came up in one of the renewals, but it isn’t part of the original application. Mr. Brickner stated, well, in the minutes it says Mr. Detert said that the petitioner would show up in person and show efforts to build the house or the trailer will be removed, and Mr. O’Day said, “I can't build at this time because of financial circumstances.” Mr. O’Day stated, and my financial circumstances… Mr. Brickner stated, evidently it’s changing from year to year here, from time to time. He stated that it started out as a hardship for someone else, his family, and now it’s…what did you say it was? He asked, who do you have living there now? Mr. O’Day stated, I do. He stated, I live in the mobile home. Mr. Brickner asked, well, what about…you said you have a handicapped brother. Mr. O’Day stated, I have a handicapped brother and to take care of my parents. He stated that that’s why we moved out of their house and moved next door. Mr. Brickner asked, where do they live? Mr. O’Day stated that they live in Florida. He stated that they reside in Florida right at the moment. He stated that they both have bad health and they’re not able to come back. Mr. Burns asked, your handicapped brother lives in a trailer? Mr. O’Day stated, no, my handicapped brother lives with my parents and he’s in Florida right at the moment. Mr. Brickner asked, do they live permanently in Florida or just part-time? Mr. O’Day stated that it was supposed to be just a winter thing and their health has gotten bad and that’s what I said, my mom’s going in for surgery again this Thursday. He stated that every time they go to come home they haven’t been able to make it back, so this will be their second year down there permanently. Mr. Burns asked, who lives in the house? Mr. O’Day stated, nobody. Mr. Burns stated, so you have a house empty and you got a trailer behind it. Mr. O’Day stated that the house is empty and I live in the mobile home, correct. Mr. Burns asked, why don’t you live in the house, I guess? Mr. O’Day stated that it’s my parents’ home. He stated that the mobile home is my home, the house is my parents’ home until they say otherwise, you know? Mr. Robertson stated that it sounds like the family is kind of in flux with the health problems and maybe they’re not ready to make any big moves until they see what’s going on. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for 1 year, with the petitioner and/or Mr. O’Day here to appear in person next year to update us on the status of his parents’ health. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-1 roll call vote, Mr. Brickner dissenting. Case 05-SE-5. Petition of Arjen Byvoets, 344 W. 400 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit operation of a boarding and riding stable, to be located at 344 W. 400 N., in Union Township. (This Case was continued from the 6-15-05 meeting with the public hearing closed.) Mr. Byvoets stated that he is handing out maps of the property. Mr. Robertson stated that I think we had your application last month for a riding stable and it was kind of incomplete. He asked, have you filled out some more details there? He stated that I know we spent a lot of time on the entrance, but I think we were concerned about the number of horses, how the road was going to be maintained, wastage and so forth. Mr. Byvoets stated, I think last time I wasn’t really…I didn’t realize that I had to go through that whole part about the waste, and that’s going to be handled the same way as before. He stated that most of it’s going to be shipped out in dumpsters. He stated, as far as the waste, the stalls will be cleaned every day and then once a week you strip them and most of it will be taken away in dumpsters. He stated that some of it will be used for fertilizer in the pastures. He stated that the reason for trying to get this other access off of 250 W. is because that way the barn would be in the middle of 100 acres and it would be away from everyone’s…the closest home would be my home where I live now and that’s going to be a half a mile away. He stated that there are several tree lines and there’s railroad tracks and they’re about 20 foot high, so there’s going to be a lot of natural borders there. He stated that you basically won’t even know the barn is there unless you were coming in looking at it from an airplane. He stated that it’s surrounded by woods. He stated that I’ve talked to a lot of the neighbors and they really don’t care, as far as I know. He stated that they’d probably rather have it back there. He stated that no one’s really said anything. He stated that Errol McLinn is sitting back there. He stated that he lives on the West side of the creek. He stated that we want to go for this proposed driveway that comes off of 250, but in case that deal falls through or if the Bypass ever goes through there, I wanted to see if I could get this alternate driveway approved and you guys had some concerns about that going by other people’s homes and the only home that it would go by would be Errol McLinn’s home. He stated that that’s in yellow on your sheet and the proposed driveway’s in red. He stated that as far as the horses go, we’re still probably going to start off with 40 horses, a 40-horse barn, but we’re going to be putting a lot of money into this. He stated that what I was trying to do was get approved for more later on if the business goes well. He stated that I have 100 acres of land, you know, with the runs and the individual paddocks that you let them out I felt that that was going to be a good number. He stated that there’s another barn up in Michigan City that has about the same amount of land and they have 120 horses there. He stated that we wouldn’t be starting out that big. He stated that when we went for the TAC approval, the TAC committee, I would have the parking lot and the drainage sized to handle as if it were that big of a facility, the 120 horses, so, you know, we’d start off with 40 and then if we added on the drainage and everything would be taken care of already. He stated that as far as the entrance off of 250 we would do whatever the TAC committee would want as far as the turn-in lanes. He stated that that would be written into the agreement as far as the easement. He stated that it’s all high ground there. He stated that it’s in the middle of a huge field. He stated that there’s a lot of sand back there and it would be good for drainage. Mr. Robertson asked, do you have any more map or design of your stable, the way the stable would be, what the stable would look like? Mr. Byvoets asked, you mean as far as the building itself? Mr. Robertson stated, yeah. Mr. Byvoets stated that it will probably be like an FBI building. He stated that it will be nice. He stated that it’s going to be a family atmosphere, like the 4-H kids we’re going to give reduced rates. He stated that it will be just a giant pole barn basically for a riding arena part and then you’d have your stalls. Mr. Robertson asked, would it probably be two buildings, or one building? Mr. Byvoets stated that we’ll probably have to separate the two buildings. He stated that I think the rule is 30 feet for fire codes because if the building is too big, you have to put sprinkler systems in, over 15,00 square foot, and then it’s another $80,000 for a sprinkler system, so it’s a building that has to be separated. Mr. Robertson asked, when you build the stable (sic) part for the horses, how many stables (sic) then would you build in the first? Mr. Byvoets stated, probably set it up for 40. He stated that we have a riding arena and you’d want to keep the buildings as close as you can together because in the wintertime you’d have to take the horses to the arena, and I think the rule is 30 feet, so 30 feet away then you’d have your stall barn. Mr. Robertson asked, what would be the size of the arena? Mr. Byvoets stated, we’d like to put 100 by 200. He stated that it depends on the financing. He stated that the minimum would be 60 wide by 140 would be about the minimum you could get away with. Mr. Robertson asked, and 40 horses, how long do you think it would be until you added another building for more horses? Mr. Byvoets stated, probably at least five years. He stated that I figured 40 horses, that would pay for the loan and the taxes on the building. Mr. Robertson asked, would you consider an approval for 40 horses now and coming back when you’re ready to enlarge them and we could see how that worked? Mr. Byvoets stated, well the reason…I’d consider anything, the reason I wanted to ask for more is for the future. He stated that if the area builds up and subdivisions go all around me, it might be real hard to add horses in 10 or 20 years and before I go putting a half a million dollars into this project I wanted to know what my limitations were. He stated that that’s why I’m asking for the approval of the 120 horses. Mr. Robertson stated, you’re talking five years, you know, maybe five years we could have maybe a little bit of years to see how it’s working out, to see how things are kept up, and then in five years, you know, you come back and ask for more. He stated that those are just my ideas. Mr. Byvoets asked, is there like a limit you guys would feel would be…you know I’m in the middle of 100 acres there. He stated that, understand, I’m not trying to argue with you guys, but I’d like to see what my limit would be before I go putting all this money into it. Mr. Brickner asked, the yellow road that you have, is that going underneath or over the railroad? Mr. Byvoets stated, I used, I’ve already had an engineer over by the railroad cost, it’s going to be $250,000 by the time it would be done to put the underpass under the railroad. He stated that that would be only if I can’t buy this, if something changes in the meantime, or if the Bypass ever goes through and I get cut off, you know, I’m going to have this barn back there. He stated that I’d like to have an alternate way, and right now I can’t afford to put the tunnel through. Mr. Brickner asked, do you live in this house? Mr. Byvoets stated, yeah. Mr. Brickner asked, when you come into your driveway off of 400, what do you have roped off on this West side? Mr. Byvoets stated that that’s for my wife’s pony. He stated that we don’t board any horses now, just our own personal horses. Mr. Brickner stated, you can’t see anything, coming out of your driveway, you know that. He stated that when you come out of your driveway, you have to drive onto 400 before you can see what’s coming because of the bushes, I mean, the trees and stuff along the road. He asked, that’s not going to be a driveway that you’d have people coming in and out of? He asked, that particular driveway’s not going to be used for your clients? Mr. Byvoets stated, no. He stated that as far as the barn is approved where you saw, I was told not to mess with that until they had a pre-inspection before construction. He stated that that’s why those bushes are still there along the road, because they told me not to do anything, not to remove any trees or anything until… Mr. Brickner stated, I understand. He stated that I was just wondering if that’s going to be the main access to your… Mr. Byvoets stated, no, this yellow auxiliary, it’s all the way down almost by Salt Creek. He stated that it’s a long, straight stretch there. He stated that that would be the auxiliary, and the other access that I’m trying to get approval for, the main one is coming off 250. Mr. Brickner asked, and that would be the main…that would be where the people that are going to board horses would be coming into your property, off of 250? Mr. Byvoets stated, right. He stated that there’s a NIPSCO substation there. He stated that actually it’s a cell tower entrance right now is what it’s used for, and I’m just going to buy…he’s going to sell me a 25-foot easement. Mr. Brickner stated, so up by your house, all of this property slopes right into Salt Creek drainage basin and that pond…there’s a pond there. He stated that your property all slopes in that direction. He stated that I didn’t go all the way back there, but I’d be really concerned about 120 horses and everything washing into the Salt Creek basin and that pond unless you have some really good plans to get rid of all the waste from these horses. Mr. Byvoets stated, well, this…we’re talking South of the railroad tracks, you know, we’d be over half a mile from 400 N. Mr. Brickner asked, so that’s where most of the horses are going to be? Mr. Byvoets stated, if we put the barn back here because, see, the railroad has a problem with people driving across the railroad tracks. Mr. Brickner stated, that’s what I was going to ask you. He asked, where your present barn and corral and everything is, you’re not going to have horses there? Mr. Byvoets stated, actually, if this thing gets approved, I plan on selling my home and 10 acres or 20 acres right there and building a new house back here by this barn and I’d build like a cheaper house and use some of that money to put towards the barn, so I’d keep like right down the middle of the pond I’d keep like 10 acres, and enough frontage, ‘cause I know I need road frontage to be able to build a house back there. Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to be riding horses here, too, or just boarding horses? Mr. Byvoets stated that my wife trains horses and she shows horses. Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to have riding trails? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, so people are going to come and ride their horses at your farm? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes. He stated that there are riding trails and some of them will be like show horses that never leave the barn, some will be in training. He stated that some of them will be for just breeding and then some will be boarders that just want to come and ride their horse for the day. Mr. Brickner asked, so on say like a normal weekend, for example, how many people would you expect to be coming back there if you had 100-plus horses back there? He asked, would you be expecting a lot of traffic coming back to your place on this half-mile-long road? Mr. Byvoets stated, I’d say it’s about a 50-50 as far as horses that are training and like show horses, then that’s usually how it seems to work. He stated that about 50 percent would be people that would board and then go riding. He stated that most people ride in the arena. He stated that there are some that will want to ride the trails, of course. He stated that I’d say during the week you wouldn’t get too much. He stated that it’s the weekends that’s going to get the…probably Saturday afternoon, Sunday afternoon would be your big days. He stated that if there were 100 horses back there you might get 40 people at once. Mr. Brickner asked, has Mr. Schelling approved…has anybody approved this road or access onto 250? Mr. Byvoets stated that I talked to Dave Schelling at the Highway Department several times. He stated that actually I went to two informal TAC meetings last year and might even have been the year before, and back then they were kind of back and forth on the 149 bypass and basically now they’ve taken it off, as far as I know. He stated that that’s why I’m asking for this alternate, in case it never does go through. Mr. Brickner stated, this is just a Use Variance, right? Ms. Tallian stated that it’s a Special Exception. Mr. Hudson asked, the driveway that you’re proposing, the one coming off of 250? He stated that there is an existing driveway that access both the NIPSCO site and the cell tower as you mentioned? Mr. Byvoets stated, no, NIPSCO property runs, this runs right alongside to the North side of the NIPSCO property. Mr. Hudson asked, but doesn’t…their driveway to NIPSCO does not run along that North property line? He asked, your driveway would be North further from the NIPSCO drive? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes. He stated that NIPSCO has their own driveway. He stated that this is on top. He stated that there is a cell tower there. He stated that this is actually a cell tower entrance. Mr. Hudson asked, so what you would be using is the cell tower entrance, or you would be putting in a new driveway? Mr. Byvoets stated that right now it’s about 50 foot wide. He stated that we have… Mr. Hudson asked, are you getting an easement over an existing driveway? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes, sir. Mr. Hudson stated, so you’re going to utilize what’s there. Mr. Byvoets stated, right, and if we need to make turning lanes and things like that, whatever TAC wants. Mr. Hudson asked, so you’re going to share this driveway with someone else? He asked, the someone else is the cell tower, or the someone else is NIPSCO or both? Mr. Byvoets stated that NIPSCO has their own driveway. He stated that this is just a basically, it’s a cell tower entrance. He stated that the guy who owns this, Vaughan Staub… Mr. Hudson asked, the distance between the NIPSCO driveway and the cell tower driveway is how much, in your estimation? Mr. Byvoets stated, I’d say about 200 feet, maybe. He stated that theirs is at the bottom of a hill and this is at the top of a hill. Mr. Hudson stated that you have better sight distance with yours probably. Mr. Byvoets stated, I believe so. Mr. Robertson asked, so what do you deduce from all that? Mr. Hudson stated, well, I was concerned that they would be competing with NIPSCO. He stated that NIPSCO would probably have more traffic going out. He stated that with a cell tower you’d be lucky to have somebody out there once a week, maybe even once a month, so I was looking at competition for the driveway. He stated that Marv kinda started out on that, asking if that was going to be a problem. Mr. Robertson asked, and what about sight lines for… Mr. Hudson stated that it seems like the driveway where the cell tower is has a better sight distance because the NIPSCO driveway is down… I mean, you can still see both ways on that, but it would be higher. He stated, I guess I had a question for Fred. He stated that my tongue is in my cheek when I ask this. He asked, could somebody come in here and put 100 head of cattle on here and not have to come to us? Mr. Siminski stated that that’s not zoned Agricultural. He stated that it’s zoned Rural Residential. He stated that I think it’s a force feed. He stated that I don’t have my book here. Mr. Hudson stated so that, if somebody were to put cattle on it, it would have to come to us as a Special Exception also then, is that what you’re saying? Mr. Siminski stated, yes, it’s not an AG use. Mr. Burns stated that I have several concerns. He stated that first is the traffic on 250. He asked, are you going to have trailers or horse trucks? He stated, I think we all know, 250 is congested and I am concerned about the sight lines. He stated that I think there would be a lot of traffic from this stable. He stated that I’m comparing the large stables in the area. He stated that I think there used to be a large stable in Hobart. He stated that I think it was Shiloh at one time and that’s off a major highway, I mean it’s right on a corner. He stated that you’re talking about putting a major, almost commercial, venture in the middle of open land with County roads, and I don’t know if it’s a good fit. He stated that I wouldn’t have a problem if it was 5, 10 horses, and plus the Bypass. He stated that we don’t know the future of the Bypass and what’s going to happen. He stated that I just don’t think this is good planning. Mr. Byvoets asked, well, if I took off this proposed driveway and at least get this alternate driveway, then I’d be coming off of 400 N. He stated that there’s hardly any homes. He asked, would that be better for you? Mr. Burns stated that you’re still going on a two-lane highway. He stated that you’re talking a lot of trailers, a lot of traffic. He stated that you’re talking 100 horses. He stated that you’re talking about training horses. He stated that you’re talking about a riding stable. He stated that it’s a major…it’s almost like a commercial operation. He stated that it is, in a sense. He stated that I don’t have a problem with the horses. He stated that if it was off a major highway at an intersection…I don’t think it’s the right location. Mr. Brickner stated, I kind of agree with that. He stated that I really don’t have an objection to horses, you know. He stated that it’s the traffic or the people that would be coming in or going out of this place with you say 40 probably, or that’s a possibility, anyways, with 100 horses or 120 horses. He stated that that is a pretty big volume of traffic going. He stated that Mr. Knoblock or Mr. Staub’s farm down that road, if it was off 400 it might be a little bit better, but I still think it’s a lot of traffic, a lot of people coming in and out with that many horses, so, it is a questionable fit in a Rural Residential area. Mr. Burns stated that I remember in Hobart there were horse shows or some type of events and cars were parked out on the highway years ago. Mr. Byvoets stated that you wouldn’t have to worry about anybody parking on the road. Mr. Burns stated, but the traffic would be higher. He stated that I don’t have a problem with the horses, it’s just the size, the volume. Mr. Byvoets asked, would you like me to… Mr. Robertson stated that I like horses, too, and I don’t know where you’re going to put horses, though, that’s not in a rural setting. He stated that if you’re going to have this many horses you couldn’t have them this close to a town. He stated that this is quite a ways out in a rural setting. Mr. Burns asked, why did we have the ordinance for 40 horses? He asked, why did we have a limitation for 40 horses? He asked, we don’t? Mr. Siminski stated, I just wanted to respond to Rich here. He stated that I looked up in the book, it says “farm” is allowed in an RR, and I imagine cattle would fall under farm. He stated, “confined feeding lot”, now, that might be for pigs or something that’s confined, that’s only allowed in an AG zone. Mr. Hudson stated, I was just…I wanted to understand that everything that’s going as far as the horses go that the traffic or anything…if we had a farm there with grazing cattle or pigs or whatever we’d be doing the same thing. He stated that it’s the additional traffic, I think that’s the issue. He stated, as far as the traffic on 400 N., I could see..I mean, I don’t know how the neighbors feel along 400 N. and if what you’re saying, um, about showtimes when there’d be additional traffic there, I guess from a traffic standpoint, the only additional traffic on 400 N. would be generated by the horse facility itself, whereas, it’s not like on 250 where they’re competing with the Bypass. He stated that it was thought that the 49 (sic) extension would alleviate all the traffic that is every day on 250, so I would rather see an entrance on 400, but it’s gonna have an impact on the people that live there, and we’re not going to have the traffic competition. He stated, I mean, it’s amazing, even on weekends, how busy 250 is. He stated, I don’t have a problem with horses, either. Mr. Brickner stated, actually, when you come from 130 to Mr. Byvoet’s farm there’s only one house on the corner there of 400 and what is that, 250 or…there’s only one house on the corner that you go by before you get to his driveway, and there aren’t any other homes…there wouldn’t be any other houses in that immediate area that you’d have to go by. Mr. Hudson stated that if you came across here you’d have all these homes in here. Mr. Brickner stated, up by 130. He stated that if you come down 400 and after you get to 275 there’s only one house there after you cross Salt Creek, and if you come over the tracks on 130 there may be a couple houses there, but there aren’t a lot of homes that you’d be going by, so it would be a lot better entrance, I think, except for the visibility right now. He stated that you certainly can’t live with that. Mr. Brickner stated, you’d indicated, I believe, last month, that you were going to pay a couple hundred thousand for the easement? Mr. Byvoets stated that he wants a $100,000-plus another $50,000 I’m going to have to put in for the stone. Mr. Hudson stated, so, if you did the entrance off of 400 then I think you said earlier it was going to be a quarter of a million to put the culvert under, the tunnel. He stated that it seems like 400 looks better if you can…I don’t know what the Highway Department or TAC is going to make you do when you come in and present a set of plans. He stated that as far as making improvements to 400 N., how far they’ll make you go. He stated that in a subdivision setting, you know, they can do different things as far as requiring certain improvements, but as far as your situation I’m not sure what they would require. Mr. Byvoets stated that I talked to the TAC committee a couple times and they didn’t have a problem with going under the railroad tracks. He stated, it’s just the cost, and they said hold off and see what the Bypass was doing, but if you guys feel that 250 is too busy, then, you know, at least I can see if I can get the one off 400. Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t think anyone here would tell you they don’t think 250 is a pretty well-traveled road. He stated that I don’t know what the statistics are on it as far as daily traffic, but it’s got to be pretty high. Mr. Burns stated that it’s like you said, it’s acting as a bypass, and it IS a bypass. Mr. Hudson stated that I’m sure the average of the traffic is higher than the quality of the road, although I’m not saying that the road is bad, but it’s a high-volume road. Mr. Brickner stated that you certainly have to keep in mind that if you use 400 as your access that that road has to be able to handle like an ambulance or some kind of emergency vehicles. He stated that if you’re going to put a tunnel under the railroad tracks it has to be able to handle fire or emergency vehicles. Mr. Byvoets stated that I already have a crossing over the top for emergency vehicles, but this was for a 16-foot tunnel. Mr. Brickner asked, you can get a fire engine down in that area? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes, well, I might have to change the grade a little bit, but I take semis across there now. Mr. Burns stated, if we take your suggestion about 400 as a main exit, do we have to re-advertise for the neighbors and have another public hearing? Mr. Byvoets stated, I put it in there. Mr. Hudson asked, Fred, what was the? Mr. Siminski asked, your entire property’s altogether as one, isn’t it? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes, sir. Mr. Siminski stated, he was approved already… Mr. Hudson stated, for something on the North side of the tracks, right? Mr. Siminski stated, well, on this property to have 40 stalls, he’s been approved. Mr. Hudson asked, South of the tracks, or just on the property? Mr. Siminski stated, on the property. Mr. Hudson asked, so what he was asking here now was additional? Mr. Siminski stated, what he was asking for was an additional or a change to the entrance and coming in from a different route, Number 1. Mr. Hudson stated, it’s okay then; maybe 400 is okay. Mr. Burns stated that he’s using it now. Mr. Hudson stated that he’s using something there now. He stated that it may not be in the same spot or location… Mr. Burns asked, how many horses do you have there now? Mr. Byvoets stated that we have eight. Mr. Hudson asked, he’s already approved for 40 now? Mr. Siminski stated that the motion that he was approved for back in 2002 is “Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 02-SE-1 subject to all the conditions that have been outlined by staff and subject to them maintaining the stables in a condition that would not be injurious to the neighboring properties and a limit of 40 stalls for business purposes, not to include their own personal horses”. Mr. Hudson stated, so, if those eight are his, he still has 40 more… Mr. Siminski stated, on top of his eight. Mr. Brickner stated, well, he could have 100 of his own. Mr. Burns stated, but he only has 40 stalls. Mr. Siminski stated, and that was approved 5-0 back in 2002. Mr. Brickner asked, what’s the least number that you can make some money on? He stated, you said 100 horses you could make some money? Mr. Byvoets stated that if we were going to put the barn out back, it’s putting a lot of money into it, I figured 40 was gonna be just to pay the loan and maybe part of the taxes. He stated that in the Chicago area you can get $750 a month to board a horse and train it, but here you get about $250. He stated that by the time you feed them and clean some stalls and pay somebody to help you, you know, you make about $100 a month on a stall. He stated that you got to pay the loan, you know, ‘cause we’re going to build a nice barn. He stated that it’s going to be nice, you know, insulated and be like an FBI building, if you’re familiar with those. Mr. Hudson stated, let me see if I understand this. He stated that right now the way it stands is what we’re here talking about is additional stalls. Mr. Robertson stated, additional stalls, and then he’s talking about this alternate. Mr. Hudson stated, but it seems like right now this, the alternate route has now become the main route; we’ve kind of talking about this proposed driveway going out to 250 going away. He stated that it seems like if we try to come to some sort of middle of the road. Mr. Robertson stated, the table here, the famous Table 19, says for a riding stable, first, B-5, which is 20,000 square feet plus 5,000 square feet per horse. Mr. Hudson stated, no, it can’t be 5,000. Mr. Robertson stated, it says 5,000 square feet per horse over 4 horses, so if you had 100 horses that would be over 500,000 square feet. Mr. Hudson stated, oh, that’s the size of the farm. Mr. Robertson stated, yeah. Mr. Hudson stated, oh, I see what you’re saying, so… Mr. Robertson stated, if we got 20,000 square feet to start off with and then 5,000 square feet per horse. Mr. Hudson stated, so, if they have 100 horses… Mr. Robertson stated, 520,000. Mr. Hudson stated that he’d only need 12 acres, and he’s got 100. Mr. Robertson stated, so, he’s got plenty of room there. He stated that I’m just going to go through these. He stated that you really should have gone through these yourself and had answers. He stated that this is kind of what we’re looking for. He stated, then we got C-10 is the minimum side yards. He stated that I don’t think there’s any trouble with that because it’s kind of in the middle of everything there. Mr. Byvoets stated that it’s about 1,000 feet from the West. Mr. Robertson stated that it’s got like 100 feet, 100 feet, 100 feet, and you’re 1,000. He stated that the next one is H-1, which is H is the maximum height of structure, it doesn’t have that. He stated that the next one is J-1, which is screen planting abutting R-1: 6-foot high, 6-foot width. Mr. Hudson asked, is this kind of wooded around? Mr. Byvoets stated that it’s completely surrounded. He stated that I have an aerial picture. Mr. Hudson asked if from the North of the tracks is anybody going to be able to see this property? Mr. Byvoets stated, no, there’s three tree lines and a 20-foot-high railroad tracks. He stated that this is the field here and this is 400 N. up here. Mr. Robertson stated that now we’re down to R-1, which is the maximum number of principal entrances and there’s one, from major thoroughfare, so that’s one, and then we got V, outdoor advertising signs and that’s as approved by the commission. He asked, are you going to have any signs? Mr. Byvoets stated, something little; whatever you guys would approve me for, something kind of like a park-type sign of wood, you know, like the state parks have. Mr. Robertson stated, then there’s W, disposal of liquid and other wastes shall meet the approval of the state Board of Health. Mr. Hudson stated, I think we can stipulate that he has to do that before he gets his… Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, the liquid. He stated, now the manure, that’s pretty easy to capture and remove, but the liquid, what do you do with that? Mr. Byvoets stated, well, you pick your stalls with hay, you completely strip them on the weekend, you know, you usually strip them or once a week, you just take them off and the bedding, you use sawdust bedding and that absorbs. Mr. Robertson stated, and you take that away in a dumpster. He asked, didn’t we have a fancy barn recently where the guy was even capturing the liquid in some kind of… Mr. Siminski stated that it was the horse stalls in Boone Township, the case that came up. Mr. Robertson stated, but that’s extra, but that would have to meet the approval of the state Board of Health, and then the last one we’ve got is Y, no parking in the front yard. Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t think we have to worry about that. Mr. Robertson stated, and then Karen says that you’d have to have a parking plan for building approval, the building permit approval. Mr. Hudson asked, is he not going to have to take this whole thing to TAC again with a plan for approval? Mr. Siminski stated that it’s a commercial…I believe he would have to go to TAC. Mr. Hudson stated, we built a parking lot and had to go to TAC for approval, so. Mr. Siminski stated that the height of the building is per what district it’s in. He stated that it’s in an RR district, so the height of the building will also be determined by what zone it’s in. Mr. Robertson stated, if he comes off 450 I’m thinking maybe…I’m sorry, 400 N. there, maybe give him 100 horses and see if that’s enough. He stated, if he comes back in 5 or 10 years and needs more then that could be looked at, but that would give him some room to grow in, wouldn’t tighten him up too much. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-SE-5 for 110 horses total, with the driveway to come out onto 400 N. only and the driveway entrance to be approved by both TAC and the Highway Department to comply with sight distance standards and any improvements that the Highway Department or TAC would deem necessary; that he comply with all state Health Department regulations concerning waste collection and removal; and to comply with Table 19; and consideration of a small sign, 3 by 6 or 4 by 8 on both sides. Discussion: Mr. Burns asked, don’t we have the cart before the horse? He asked, do we have a plan for the barn like we have the other stables? Mr. Hudson asked, but does that plan come before us or does it go to TAC? Mr. Burns stated, I thought in the past that we’ve seen them. Mr. Hudson stated, that’s fine. Mr. Burns asked, how many stables are we talking? Mr. Hudson stated, we’re talking stables to hold 100 horses. Mr. Burns asked, and we don’t want to see that plan at all? Mr. Brickner stated, he already has a stable for 40. Mr. Burns stated, but he hasn’t built it. Mr. Brickner stated, or 48. Mr. Burns asked, but you haven’t built this yet? Mr. Byvoets stated, no, but I’ve already been approved by TAC and we got the plan and everything. He stated that the riding arena part will probably be the same. Mr. Burns asked, are you going to change that plan? Mr. Byvoets stated, well, I’m going to have to go back to TAC for the drainage, ok, so the parking lot’s going to have to be made bigger, so I have to go to them for that, and then, you know, the water from the roof area and the parking lot is going to change the…I’m going to have to go back to the surveyor – Palm is the one I used, Bob Palm – so that’s going to have to get all changed again, so, yeah, that’s going to have to go back to TAC because you have to take the roof water, the parking lot water and then it’s got to go to like a holding pond and then the restroom will have to be made bigger, too. Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not approving a building – I don’t want to be judging a building and I don’t want to be judging a site plan, that’s what TAC is here, I guess it’s the Special Exception that we’re dealing with, which is whether he can have 110 horses. Mr. Burns stated, it’s just that in the past they brought sketches where the barn is, where the fence is, the parking… Mr. Hudson stated, I mean, he’s got a crude sketch, at least… Mr. Burns stated that it may bring up some more questions once you see the plan, for us. He stated, I don’t know. Mr. Robertson asked, would you be able to get a sketch together for 110 horses what you would do? Mr. Hudson stated, I would agree to that. He stated, I’m okay with that. He stated that that’s a good point. Mr. Byvoets asked, you mean like where the riding area would be? Mr. Robertson stated, yes, give us something to look at so we can see if it makes sense to us, you know. He stated, why don’t we continue it then and let him… Mr. Burns stated, I’m not sure if it was the last case or the one before that I remember seeing where the waste would be stored. He stated, I don’t know if you guys remember that, out by Route 20. Mr. Hudson stated, Rick, we’re not talking full design plans. He stated that we’re talking a kind of conceptual plan where things are going to be positioned, that type of thing. He stated, I’ll go with that. He stated, that’s good. He stated, I think that’s a good point. Mr. Byvoets stated, basically, the barn’s going to be sitting right in the middle of 100 acres. Mr. Hudson stated, I think what he’s asking for is something a little more elaborate than this that we can pin our approval to. He stated that right now you’ve said a lot of things that we don’t visually see on a piece of paper. He stated that it doesn’t need to be full design with all the calculations and everything like that, but a conceptual plan with more detail, but not full design, than what you have here. Mr. Byvoets stated, yeah, a full design costs about $12,000. Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not asking you to do that and I don’t think Rick wants you to do that. He stated that we just want something that’s a little more extensive than what’s here, a preliminary plan, a conceptual plan. Mr. Robertson asked, would you be willing to do that for us for next meeting? Mr. Byvoets stated, yes. He stated that I’m kind of confused about what kind of plan. He asked, do you just want it like size of buildings, maybe? He stated, I can do that, but it would be a little bit hard because when it goes to TAC, you know, they might say, okay, instead of being here you might have to move it higher on the hill because you know they get picky on the barn, where the runoff goes and everything, you know. He stated, and then the parking lot placement, you know, I might tell you guys the parking lot’s going to be on this side. He stated that that’s why I put it just in the middle, because TAC, they’re going to decide where…because there’s got to be a septic field. Mr. Hudson stated, Mr. Chairman, I want to withdraw my motion that I made. Mr. Robertson asked, do you think he understands what you want him to do? Mr. Burns stated, I’m not sure if he understands or not. Mr. Byvoets stated, I understand, but like what I give you guys, when it goes to TAC they might say, you know, the parking lot can’t be on this side; it’s going to have to be on the other side, and the septic field’s going to have to be… Mr. Burns asked, if he comes to the office, Fred, can you show him the other plans, the other stables that came in, what the other residents did? Mr. Siminski stated, I can show him other cases that were presented. Mr. Burns stated, gives him an idea. He stated, we don’t want you to go to a surveyor, pay $12,000, $15,000 right now, but we need some kind of a plan. Mr. Siminski stated, what we’re looking for is a tentative placement of the buildings, where the parking’s going to be… Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, and they could move 100 feet. Mr. Siminski stated, where your septic’s going to be, just a layout of the area and the parking of the cars and trailers, if there are going to be any trailers there. Mr. Byvoets stated, okay, and you said that you want to know where…that part, we just have the dumpster sitting there and then we clean them and dump them in. He stated that I could put a little area, have the parking lot and have a little area where the dumpster’s going to sit. Mr. Siminski stated, we want to know kind of a plan of what you’re going to do. Mr. Burns stated, yeah, how often you’re going to remove the waste, how you’re going to control flies, see we need to know all that, and like the liquids, how you’re going to control liquids. He stated that you need to explain that a little bit more. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-SE-5 to the 8-17-05 BZA meeting. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Public Hearings: At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for a public hearing. Case 05-V-18. Petition of Aberdeen Links LLC, c/o Brian J. Hurley, P.O. Box 209, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from the existing PUD ordinance for Lot L-32A of the Fourteenth Replat of Aberdeen, to be located on the South side of CR 100 N., about 1,325 feet West of CR 250 W., in Center Township. Attorney Brian J. Hurley stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that the facts of this case have already been reviewed without objection by the TAC committee under Case 05-6-33 and it has come before the Plan Commission as a replat under 05-M-2 wherein the Plan Commission made a recommendation that the replat be approved by the County Commissioners as an ordinance. He stated that we are before you this evening because there is some concern that because the proposal changes some lot dimensions that it, in fact, does run counter to the regulations regarding lots, and so, even though the lots as they are now are non-conforming to the existing ordinance, the fact that we are changing their dimensions it has been determined that this petition should come before the BZA at this time in order for the BZA to hopefully put its stamp of approval on these changes in lot dimensions. He stated that I did prepare proposed findings of fact for the Board. He stated that this is a development standards Variance under Section 9-18.5 and so we have proposed three findings for the Board to make. He stated, in a nutshell, this is the Westernmost portion of the Links. He stated that the Links continues Eastward and a little bit to the North, but this is the area that we’re talking about. He stated that Haywick Drive, and it is these lots L-32A, L-109A, L-108 and L-107. He stated that it is those lots that we are proposing to change dimensions, and we have, in fact, a plat – this is where we’re asking for the replat of those four lots. He stated that everything else around them is the same, nothing’s going to be different. He stated that surrounding the proposed change, the lots, nothing is going to be changed. He stated that no dimension changes, no right-of-way changes, no easement changes. He stated that the building lot lines will all stay the same, but what we are trying to do and what we need to do as a result of something that happened even before this particular developer purchased the Links, you may recall that the Links were owned by a previous developer who actually laid out and developed the Links, and then, as a result of some financial difficulties, went into bankruptcy. He stated that my client purchased out of the bankruptcy the entire development called the Links and there already had been a house built on lot L-107A, this bottom lot. He stated that L-107A, the buyers, or the owners of that particular lot, had a house built. He stated that L-108A, L-109A and L-32A are all non-built lots. He stated that L-107A, the construction contractor hired somebody to install the sprinkler, and it turns out some of the sprinkler, portions of the sprinkler facilities do, in fact, encroach on that lot line, so, in order to accommodate that encroachment, in order to stay in line with the title companies, stay in line with the mortgage companies that are going to be lending money on this existing lot as well as the other ones, hopefully, that will be sold soon as we want to re-design the lots, the dimensions and so, as you can see from my proposed findings of fact, we are, in effect, making L-107 (sic) larger, and the other lots are also being made larger, except for L-32A, which is becoming smaller. He stated, again, the length run of each lot is not changing. He stated that it is the width of these lots that are changing. He stated that we started out with a width of 107 of somewhere between 135 and 137 feet – it’s kind of at an angle – and the rest of these next two, as I’ve indicated, are going to be a little bit larger than what they had already been approved as, and then the final one is going to be smaller. He stated that the final lot, L-32A, if approved, is going to be 62 feet and some inches, instead of 80 feet. He stated that the folks that own this home obviously have no objection to this proposal. He stated that I have provided the Executive Secretary (sic) with a consent by the owners of this lot allowing me to represent them in addition to these other, the developer, who owns these other three lots. He stated that I received a call from the people who own L-33A and they have indicated that they don’t have any objection to what we’re proposing. He stated that other notices went out to the other individuals within the required distance, and I don’t believe any of them have appeared. He stated that they did not appear before the Plan Commission. He stated that if this is approved this evening we will then have to proceed to the Commissioners for the conclusion of our attempts at rezoning, I’m sorry, our attempts at replatting by amended plat these lots, and that will have to be done by ordinance under the zoning ordinances of the County. He stated, so we ask your approval this evening of our proposed petition for changing these lot dimensions and we’re ready to answer any questions you might have. He stated, thank you. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated that like Brian said, this came in front of the Plan Commission and there is no major concern about this whatsoever. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-18, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Case 05-V-19. Petition of Stephan J. Pluta, 1324 N. 450 E., Chesterton, seeking a Variance for 10-acre parcels without the required frontage on an approved County road, to be located North of CR 1300 N. and just East of the Kemper Ditch, in Pine Township. Attorney Bill Wagner of Hoeppner Wagner and Evans stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter and that he is accompanied by him and his daughter, who is a Realtor, and she is involved in selling parcels of real estate involved. He stated that I have posted over here, the parcel of ground that we’re involved with…the real estate sits right behind frontage developed along CR 1300 N. and also ownership along CR 450 E. He stated that it involves four 10-acre lots here, which have no outlet to a public right-of-way and one additional 10-acre tract here that does, in fact, have frontage on CR 450 E. He stated that we are talking about accessing through an existing 60-foot wide parcel of real estate that runs off of CR 1300 N. and comes in along the frontage of these lots. He stated that the portion of the ordinance that we’re involved with is in Section 16.08.010, which is the definition portion of the ordinance. He stated that the definition of the lot reads a lot means a parcel of land of sufficient size to meet the minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area and to provide such yard and other open spaces as are herein required. He stated that such lots shall have frontage on an improved public street, and then it goes on. He stated that that’s the portion of the ordinance we’re involved with here. He stated that these five lots, four of the five, would have no frontage on an improved public street. He stated that the ordinance definition section goes on to define Variance. He stated that Variance means a modification of specific requirements on this title granted by the BZA in accord with the terms of this title for the purposes of assuring that no property because of special circumstances applicable to it shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity or district. He stated that I point out this definition because of what has already developed in the area and I show you some photographs that were taken in the area that basically show that there is, in fact, substantial real estate development along this property, along this area, and East of this area and West of this area, that is all developed by what I would call frontage sell-offs or, under the old ordinance 5-acre (sic) lots, so that this vicinity, this district, has been developed heavily – not heavily – has been developed with a great number of frontage sell-offs and large lots. He stated that they, of course, could develop this land and on these parcels have a subdivision with 30 or more lots. He stated that we believe that there’s a market for the 10-acre lots and especially in this area where large lots have been developed it makes sense to come in and do a sell-off of 10 acres. He stated that fortunately, about six months ago, you had a very similar issue before you brought by Ron Loverich. He stated that Mr. Loverich was represented by our office and I’ve known Ron for a number of years, so I went back and looked at what was the concerns of the BZA at that time and what was done in that case. He stated that in that case it was found that conditions should be applied to the granting of his Variance and we believe that those are probably appropriate in this case, with the exception of one. He stated that in the Loverich case there was a substantial amount of traffic from the County road and the vision from the driveway was not as good as what we have here. He stated that what we have here is a driveway that will be coming out on a County road that is flat and straight. He stated that there will be a great deal of shared sight distance, so we don’t believe that one of the conditions that you imposed is particularly necessary here. He stated that however there are three or four others that we believe are appropriate, one dealing with the width of the driveway. He stated that in that case you required that the driveway be 20 feet wide for the first 50 feet off the North edge of the right-of-way. He stated that it just happens that ours also comes off the North edge of the driveway and we plan to build a driveway that will be 20 feet in width and frankly we’re going to run the 20 feet all the way back to let vehicles can pass each other on the driveway, so we would look favorably to the establishment of conditions of a 20-foot-wide driveway. He stated that we do have plenty of space to build it. He stated that a second condition that you imposed was that there be three signs: a stop sign, a no-outlet sign and a private road sign. He stated that that makes good sense. He stated that we believe that that signage would afford our purchasers the kind of privacy they’re looking for and also act as a safe item. He stated that Rule 5 will be adhered to as it pertains to the drainage and then the driveway dedication will be made. He stated that our plan is to establish a covenant that would run with the land that would require the five holders of the lots using this particular driveway to maintain that driveway and make decisions as to when and to what extent it needs to be improved and so there would be an easement and the easement would run to the five owners of the five parcels of real estate and a majority of those five would make decisions as to when and how much work is to be done on the roadway, to make arrangements for the snow removal and other maintenance items. He stated that the other item that was imposed upon Mr. Loverich dealt with making the, well, I’ll just read here: “that tapers be paved at the entrance so that school buses or delivery trucks could pull off the traveled portion of the County road”. He stated that we don’t believe that’s particularly necessary here, primarily because we have such a good view of…traffic has such a good view of the driveway. He stated that as you can see in the pictures that were circulated, the area is relatively flat and the County Road 1350 (sic) N. is straight and flat, so there’s very good vision. He stated that we believe that it makes very good sense to have this kind of development in a neighborhood that has already been developed along the same lines and we believe that the granting of this Variance will, in fact, comply with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance and give our people the privilege commonly enjoyed by other properties in this neighborhood. He stated that if there are any questions we are eager to answer them. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Betty Bruner, 401 E. 1300 N., stated that the reason I came was I was told that they were going to put a road next to my home, and that’s what I wanted to make sure didn’t happen. She stated that the only easement there is for REMC poles and their access to them and I just want to…can I look at this? Mr. Robertson stated, yes, go right ahead. Ms. Brunder stated, this is mine, and this is definitely where the road’s going to be? Mr. Wagner stated, yes. Ms. Brunder stated, that’s all I wanted to make sure of. She stated that that’s all I needed. Dennis Conklin, 419 E. 1300 N., stated that I own Lot B and C and the road will go immediately East of my property. He stated that I don’t necessarily object to the property being developed. He stated that I can understand why, but, of course, having property next door, I’m concerned as to what’s going to go in here and what type of road is going to go in here. He asked, is it going to be a gravel road; is it going to be a paved road? He asked, if it’s going to be a gravel road is it going to create dust and dirt that’s going to be blowing onto my property? He stated that I’m also very much concerned about the fact that this property here and most of Northern Porter County – and maybe all of it – I don’t know, has a high water table. He stated that this is presently farmland that’s going to be turned into a road, and I don’t know if the petition addresses this and this is all farmland that’s going to be turned into four or five 10-acre lots. He stated that since we’re dealing with a road, if this farmland is turned into a road and we all know we’re having an enormous drought this year, but that’s not the norm, where is the water during a heavy rainfall going to go? He stated that this is a residential road, and I don’t know if the Commission addresses it when this is developed into residential property. He stated, again, is there going to be a stop sign, dead-end and all that. Mr. Wagner stated that we propose three signs: One was a no-outlet, one was a stop sign and another was a private road sign. Mr. Conklin asked, are there any plans, then for a street light? Mr. Robertson stated, just to be real nit-picky, what we do is we like to have you ask all your questions first and then he’ll answer them in order. Mr. Conklin stated, and then another concern would be would there be a street light here to illuminate what is now dark and we would like it to be kept that way. He stated that I don’t know if the Commission addresses the rest of the property or not, but my concern is, in a nutshell, this is presently farmland and when it rains, this water now goes someplace and it has for decades. He asked, where is that water going to go when the property is developed? He asked, does the Commission, does the County ensure that when property is developed, whether it’s this road, or the 10-acre lots, that the developer must ensure proper drainage to prevent..does it rise here? He stated that water right about here flows this way. He stated that it’s never been a problem. He stated that water here flows Northbound to a low spot. He stated that I’m concerned that if this is built up to be developed that water’s all going to flow to the South. Martin & Laura Cleveland, 431 E. 1300 N., stated that this is Lot 1, according to this. He stated that Mrs. Burgess owned all this land along here. He stated that none of this is developed and it isn’t yet farmland. He stated that it was purchased because of the privacy that we have there. He stated that if you put a roadway in there and homes this property, this property..they’re all going to lose the privacy we have back here, which is all farmland, wildlife and whatever. He stated, also, my concern is water runoff. He asked, do they have any intentions of a retention pond or something like that? Dawn Duty, 691 E. 1065 N., Westville, stated, I’m actually the one that’s going to face 450 E. and I’ll actually have 16 acres of land, and the other people that are purchasing are having 10 acres of land, so we’re talking about 1 house on 10 acres of land, and maybe a pole barn or something, so, I think with water runoff there’s going to be still a lot of land there. She stated that we’re talking 40 acres there with four houses, and I have 16 acres, and there’s a river or a County ditch or whatever it’s called and a lot of the water will go there, so I really think that it will be okay, ‘cause we’re not talking about putting in a subdivision. Pat Janasiak, 8049 W. Applewood Drive, stated that I am the real estate agent that’s been developing these parcels and first of all, let me explain to you that we do have a licensed surveyor. She stated that his name is Gorski and he has already done a topography study on Lot 4, which is the farthest lot back and also, on Dawn Duty’s parcel on 450 E., so any issues of drainage should be addressed in the topo studies and permits for well and septic on all those issues are addressed in topo studies. She stated, in addition, as far as the privacy issue, again, like Dawn said, we’re not talking about a major subdivision. She stated that the property has been for sale for four years and most of the interest came from developers. She stated that it was my dad’s wish that the privacy be maintained as much as possible to keep…my dad lives there. She stated that he’s going to…if anybody’s going to be concerned about losing privacy he’s on 450, he’s right next to Dawn’s parcel, and what Dawn proposes to build there, as well as the other three people that are interested in building, far exceed the value of the properties that are already existing there. She stated, in essence, what we hope to be able to put there is going to increase the property values of people that already have existing homes. Mr. Wagner stated that we’re talking about 10-acre lots and people who are on these much smaller lots are concerned about drainage. He stated that the drainage is available in the Kemper Ditch, which is here and here. He stated, in fact, there is a need for drainage, but my suggestion is that the placing of a home and the sowing of grass seed and lawns will result in less runoff than you’d get from a farm field. He stated that I think that is a proven fact. He stated that the issue about do we hard surface or do we gravel. He stated that if we gravel the water will percolate. He stated that if we hard surface there will be some increased runoff. He stated that the area that we have available is 60 feet wide. He stated that we are suggesting 20 feet, which means there is going to be 20 more feet of absorption on either side of that 20-foot driveway. He stated that if the Board is concerned about dust maybe we should put in 50 feet of improved macadam or something in the first 50 feet of that driveway that would result in less stones being carried out on the highway and alleviate either of the neighbor (sic) that’s to the East or to the West. He stated that other than that I don’t believe there can be any damage whatsoever to the adjoining landowners. He stated that certainly we’re not going to have the kind of traffic problems and things they are going to have if, in fact, we did a subdivision back there. He stated that I believe that the issues that have been raised are fully addressed by what we propose to do, and I believe the petition should receive favorable consideration. He stated that I didn’t address lights. He stated that there is no plan to put a light there. He stated that this is a driveway that will serve five residences. He stated that this is a county road that has precious little traffic. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Robertson stated, our attorney has brought up that you do plan to go to the Plan Commission to get approval. He stated that this is a subdivision. Mr. Wagner stated, no. Ms. Tallian stated that that’s what I wanted to bring up. She stated that it says that subdivision means, in the definitions, and then it excludes parcels of land 10 acres or more, except when the parcel of land requires the creation of a public or a private street or road, and so if you are going to create a private road into here, then they have to go to subdivision control. Mr. Robertson stated, that’s on Page 192 there of the subdivision control, the pink one. Mr. Wagner stated that I guess we need to work on this. He stated that this is something that’s just been raised now, so let me take a look if I may. He stated that we’ll do either one of two things: We’ll either amend our petition orally at this time or we’ll find out what the exception is as it relates to definitions. Mr. Robertson stated that it’s Number 2 there on Page 192, in the right-hand column about half-way down. He stated that in any case we still could rule on the road whether or not it has to go to the Plan Commission could be determined later. Mr. Hudson stated, I guess this is a question for our attorney. He stated that it says “the creation of any public or private streets or roads”. He stated, if this is a driveway… Ms. Tallian stated that it sounds like a private road to me. Mr. Hudson asked, well, is a road a street, because it doesn’t say public or private road, it says street. Ms. Tallian stated, street or road. Mr. Hudson stated, oh, okay, public or private streets or roads. He stated, sorry. He asked, so you’re saying a driveway is a road? Ms. Tallian stated, well, if you’re cutting it back to five parcels I would call it a road. Mr. Robertson asked, how long was this road going to be? He stated that it’s about 1,000, 1,500 feet? Mr. Wagner asked, is it possible for us to orally amend our petition at this time to include a Variance from this wording. Mr. Robertson stated, I think you have to advertise. Mr. Wagner asked, what did our notice say? Mr. Robertson stated: “Notice is hereby given that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the petition of Stephen Pluta, seeking approval for a Variance for 10-acre parcels, without the required frontage on an improved County road, to be located on the following described property”. He stated, so it’s for approval seeking for a Variance on 10-acre parcels without the required frontage on an improved County road. Ms. Tallian stated, I think you’re asking not only for a Variance to not have required frontage, but you’re asking for a Variance to create a private road. She stated that private roads are normally not allowed, and I think you’ve got to go to subdivision control on that. She stated, of course, that’s my opinion and nobody has to listen to it. Mr. Burns stated, I agree. He stated, I agree 100 percent. Mr. Wagner asked, are you suggesting that we cannot vary that standard in the definitions? He asked, are you suggesting that we can’t get a Variance from the definition? Ms. Tallian stated that we don’t do Variances from definitions. She stated that we’ve had that issue before. She stated, I mean, you can ask for a Variance to do your private road, and then go back to the Plan Commission with the idea that okay, the BZA’s done this and granted, you know, this private road. Mr. Wagner asked, so you’re suggesting that we have to go through the entire subdivision procedures? Ms. Tallian stated, yes. Mr. Wagner stated, so we might as well do the 30 lots. Mr. Robertson stated, the way it looks in the book there… Mr. Brickner stated, well, it goes on to say “proposed use for 1300 private road and access via a private road, so it all says in here private road. He stated that I got to remind this Board that the fact that there’s 10-acre parcels back here does not limit the amount of houses to four. He stated that 10-acre parcels of 340 feet in frontage can be subdivided. He stated that there can be as many as 30 homes on this road. He stated that there could be as many as 30 lots sold on this road if somebody decides to go buy that 10 acres and subdivide it, so we’re not looking at four…a road to service four homes. He stated that we’re looking at a road that may service 30 or 40 homes; that’s a possibility, and building these private roads, to me, not to County specifications is a big mistake. He stated that you can’t get school buses, I mean, they’re not going to drive school buses back there, we don’t know about turnarounds for emergency vehicles, but building gravel roads to service a place with 40 acres and the possibility of a whole bunch of houses, to me is not a good idea. Mr. Wagner stated, well, Mr. Brickner, we faced that in the prior case, the Loverich case and their covenant, and we’re prepared to do that covenant. Mr. Brickner stated, to say that there’s only going to be four homes built on that five lots? Mr. Wagner stated, sure, that’s a covenant that we’re certainly willing to go with. He stated that I think that would take care of your concern on that. He stated that I don’t know what to do about your concern on the private road. Ms. Tallian stated that I don’t see why they don’t go back to the Plan Commission with the same plan. Mr. Wagner stated, okay. He stated, I don’t know. He stated that we’re prepared to make the commitment for one house on each of 10 acres. He stated, of course that would be five because there are five 10-acre lots. Mr. Burns stated, private drives, right now, are a major issue at the Plan Commission because they have so many complaints coming back after residents are in for several years, they complain about the private drives. He stated that they want the County to take them over. He stated that there’s a subdivision right now that’s been in the paper, one we approved 10 years ago. He stated that we don’t want that to turn into a public road (sic), but I just want the Board to be aware that there’s a lot of concern about private drives, especially this length, because there’s over 1,000 feet, 1,500? Mr. Brickner stated, if you want a good example the Northwest quadrant of Liberty Township is just honeycombed with private drives that go a mile, half a mile back that are not maintained anymore, and you can’t find anybody’s home back there. He stated that it’s really difficult to find your way around back there with all these private drives that have evolved over the years. He stated, I think it’s a bad practice. Mr. Burns stated that I guess I’d have to ask the petitioners to look at, could you make a public drive? Mr. Brickner stated, build it to specifications? Mr. Burns asked, could you make a public road, to County specs? Mr. Wagner stated, I don’t know that…it’s physically possible to do it, so I’m not sure.. I think it would be for another Variance concerning the length because there’s not connecting… Mr. Burns stated, right, it’s 1,000 feet. Mr. Wagner stated, but we are serving just four locations. Mr. Burns stated, and that’s the dilemma we get into. Mr. Wagner stated, I understand your problem. He stated, I also understand that this is what’s happened in this instance we are preparing a covenant for the maintenance that will involve all five parcels and (inaudible) three people. He stated that we think that speaks to the issue of whether or not it will be maintained or whether they will turn to the County for maintenance. He stated, so we think we’ve addressed that issue. He stated, I don’t know how to address yours. Mr. Robertson stated, I think we’ve got a real problem with that and I think you are going to have to go to the Plan Commission, the way I see it. He stated that the question is what do we do now? Mr. Burns stated, I think if he has to go back to the Plan Commission he should withdraw this case, wouldn’t that be the best way for him, or can we hold it pending, because he still has to come back here, right? Ms. Tallian stated that well, it depends, if they want to use this as the private road you have to get the Variance for that. She stated that the question is, knowing now that you have to go to the Plan Commission, is that what you want to do? She stated that if you’d like some time to think about that you might want to continue this now, think about what you want to do, but I think at any rate, I mean, normally, if he’s go to go to the Plan Commission to get this okayed, he could get this okayed if that’s what he wants to do, ask the BZA for the Variance, and then, when he goes to the Plan Commission, you’ve got that in your hand. Mr. Wagner stated, yeah, that seems to be… Mr. Hudson asked, what’s the Variance going to be for? Ms. Tallian stated that the Variance would be for what he’s shown here, to have a private drive for these four lots. Mr. Hudson stated that we’re essentially then amending what it is or at least going by the letter of what’s written here as proposed use for 1300 N. private road, and I think Marv pointed out that it talks about a private road in here, so, you’re asking for that in your request then. Mr. Wagner stated that our request tonight is to have five lots on a private drive; that’s our request tonight. Mr. Burns asked, and you’re willing to sign a commitment that you won’t subdivide those lots any further? Mr. Wagner stated that we’re prepared to make the commitment on not subdividing the lots and the signs and the other things that were asked. Mr. Burns stated that the other concern that I have, and I’m sure the Plan Commission would have, is further open land, is that correct, beyond those lots, what if they subdivide? Mr. Wagner stated, along CR 450… Mr. Burns asked, is this going to be developed later on? Mr. Wagner stated that this is open land and there is 450 E., but yes, it can be developed. Mr. Burns asked, if this is developed, it doesn’t tie into that private drive? Mr. Hudson stated that it looks like the private driveway is stopping at the South side of Parcel 4. Mr. Wagner stated, yes. Mr. Burns stated, but I think there should be a written commitment… Mr. Hudson stated, have the private drive end there and there would be no access… Mr. Wagner, yes, that its use would be limited to those five lots. Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, if he limits it to the use of those five lots. Mr. Brickner asked, where’s the fifth lot? He stated that I don’t… Mr. Wagner stated that it’s to the right. He stated that it also has frontage on 450. He stated that the 60-foot comes into that lot so it has to be included. Mr. Hudson asked, is the 60-foot strip as it exists now back to the South line of 1 and 5 a part of Parcel 5. Mr. Wagner stated that it is. Mr. Hudson stated, so you’re taking the easement over part of 5 to get to 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Wagner stated, right. Mr. Hudson stated, so, it was not included in the Pines minor, it was purposely left out. Mr. Wagner stated, yes. Mr. Robertson stated, I have two questions about the road. He stated that one would be the turnaround at the end, and the other is the problem of dust, which I don’t think has been addressed adequately with a 20-foot macadam surface from 1300 N. He asked, what about the dust farther back for people that are on Lot C and D, and then the turnaround. Mr. Wagner stated that if C and D get one person to agree with them they can be required to be blacktopped, because they are going to control, under what we propose to do, the owners of these five lots will control what is built in that easement. Mr. Robertson asked, C and D are lots that are already there, smaller lots in the frontage is what I was referring to? He stated that you were talking about making macadam for 20 feet to keep gravel from being carried out on County road, but I was worried past that 20 feet for the depth of those lots. Mr. Wagner stated that it was suggested to be 50 feet. Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, but it’s actually…what is it?…about 500 feet? He stated, yeah, 574 feet back that you’re going between Lots C and D. He stated that I’m just wondering if there’s a lot of dust there from those five lots, five new lots that you have. Mr. Wagner stated, once again, there’s not a lot of traffic, either. Mr. Robertson stated, well, if you had three cars, you know, three cars a day, four cars a day, five lots, 20 cars, and you get a couple teenagers, then you get a party Saturday night, you could have a lot of, a lot going up and down that road. Mr. Hudson asked, Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting that at least that first portion up to that South line of the parcels be paved possibly? Mr. Robertson stated, either be paved or something of dust thing. He stated that there are other things you can use, right, to do dust control that aren’t quite as expensive. He asked, what are those? He stated that there’s a certain kind of… Mr. Hudson stated that there’s a liquid that you can put down that inhibits the dust. Mr. Robertson asked, is it environmentally safe? Mr. Hudson asked, is asphalt environmentally safe? He stated, I don’t know. Mr. Robertson stated, the liquid you’d think would run off more than asphalt would. Mr. Hudson stated, well, the liquid would penetrate down into the…and it just captures the dust. Mr. Robertson asked, do you have any idea on costs of something like that? He asked, do you know anything about that, Mr. Wagner? He asked, do you know anything about those dust prevention things? Mr. Wagner stated, I’m sorry. He stated that I’m back from the days of environmentally unsafe things. Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to bring something up. He stated, I don’t know if this pertains to this or not, but normally, when we get private drives a lot of times in this situation, normally it’s ‘cause they’re landlocked. He stated that this is not landlocked. He stated that he has a lot on 450 E., correct, one of the lots? Mr. Brickner stated, yes, the fifth lot is on 450. Mr. Burns stated, he could come in on that one lot. He stated, I mean, he does have another avenue. Mr. Wagner stated, I will tell you why we are coming here, because this is where we have preserved a 60-foot of ownership from 1300, so what you’re saying is if we came from 450 it changes our situation. Mr. Burns stated, yeah, it doesn’t affect the neighbors and the dust control, but it’s going to affect one of your lots, too, I understand that. Mr. Brickner asked, who owns Lot D? He stated that that’s the only person who’s not here tonight is Lot D, which is right along the gravel road. Mr. Wagner stated, I’d have to check on it. Mr. Brickner stated, I’m surprised that that person isn’t concerned about this. Mr. Robertson asked, is it Mr. Conklin that owns C, is that right? Mr. Brickner stated, C and Lot 1. He stated that the people that own Lot 1 are here. He stated that it’s the owner of Lot D who has the road run right by his property that isn’t here or who hasn’t spoken. Mr. Robertson stated, well, I am concerned about the dust and also a turnaround at the end of it. He stated that I think you should have a big turnaround if a fire engine or whatever has to get in there and turn around. Mr. Wagner stated, at the end there will be one house and if a fire engine comes I suggest there will be plenty of room for the fire engine to turn around. He stated that I realize that he will have to put it in reverse to turn around, but most fire trucks have reverse and they can use it, so I don’t really see that as a substantial concern. Mr. Robertson stated, well, if it’s in winter, you don’t want to go off the road. He stated that a 20-foot wide road is pretty hard for a fire truck to turn around on. Mr. Wagner stated, well, no. He stated that I’m not suggesting that he turn around. He stated that if he comes to the house, I’m suggesting that there would be a place where the driveway goes where the cars turn around, I mean, there’s a turnaround in the drive, not down on the road, that’s all I’m suggesting. He stated that cars will turn around, trucks will turn around some place on that (inaudible). Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-19, subject to the petitioner taking this to the Plan Commission and TAC for subdivision control. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Hudson asked, if he does that, is he going to get in a Catch 22 where the Plan Commission is going to say, you need to go to BZA first? Ms. Tallian stated, sometimes, people go to BZA first. She stated, a lot of times when they do that the Plan Commission says, why didn’t you come here first? She stated that most of the time they say that. Mr. Hudson stated, but I’ve also heard them say, you need to go to the BZA first. Ms. Tallian stated that they may get the plan in place and say, okay, you’re now approved for this, but you have to go to BZA, it’s contingent upon BZA approving whatever. Mr. Hudson asked, and they’ve approved contingencies? He stated that the meetings I’ve been at, they’ve never approved a contingency. Ms. Tallian stated, well, they will approve it and say, all right, but you have to go to BZA and get this, but we get, you know, you get through the subdivision control process and probably all those questions about the length of the driveway and the, you know, the size of the width and the turnarounds and all of that stuff will be taken care of there and then when it gets back to here, it will be a more concise question. Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, I think there are so many open questions that it really has to go through subdivision control first. Ms. Byers asked, is the proper term continue or table? Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, table. Mr. Burns moved to table Case 05-V-19, subject to the petitioner taking this to the Plan Commission and TAC for subdivision control. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-1 voice vote, Mr. Hudson dissenting. Case 05-V-20. Petition of Dawn Duty, 691 E. 1065 N., Westville, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn for housing horses, prior to construction of the house, to be located on the West side of CR 450 E., just North of CR 1300 N., in Pine Township. Dawn Duty stated that she is the petitioner in this matter. She stated that I’m the one that doesn’t need the road, but I’m attached to it. She stated that I want to put my barn for my horses up first because it’s going to be behind the house. She stated that we’re building a pretty big house. She stated that it’s like 3,000 square feet and we can’t start the house until like October, and so I’d like to get the barn in and least get the pastures (inaudible) and then we can put the house in front of it, otherwise it will be hard to get around it, and it makes more sense for our septic field and I’ve had John McQuestion out there for the septic field and done all that stuff, so it would be easier for me to get the horse barn up first. She stated that we will build our house within the next year, but it would be much easier to get the horse barn up. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Martin Cleveland, 431 E. 1300 N., stated that the property she’s talking about is directly behind my property. He stated that she’s talking about putting in a horse barn. He stated that this is supposed to be a residential community now. He stated that they are putting in five different properties here. He stated that she’s going to have access from both proposed roads and she’s going to put horses there right behind my property, which we bought for the privacy, the serenity, not the smell of horses. Ms. Duty stated that I’m only going to have three horses and a pony, so I’m not going to have a ton of horses. She stated that I’m going to have 16 and a quarter acres, and I do not think that his property – Steve is going to be my neighbor on one side. She stated that there is absolutely nobody that is my neighbor, somebody who will buy one of the 10-acre lots behind me, and there is a person next to me who hasn’t even built, so he’s not right next to me. She stated that I’m having 16 acres. She stated that you can put 100 horses on 12 acres. She stated that I’m going to have three horses and a pony, so I think I have plenty of land for three horses and a pony. Mr. Cleveland stated that this is the vacant property you’re talking about on 1300. He stated that I’ll be looking out my back window into this barn, pole barn. He stated that this is supposed to be residential and we’re going to have horses. He stated that that’s not why I bought the property. Ms. Duty stated, I can rebut; it is Agriculture. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated, again, no plan. He stated that this is not just a pole barn – it’s a horse barn. He asked, shouldn’t we have some type of concept plan? Mr. Hudson asked, for her own private horses? Mr. Burns stated, private, oh, private, okay. He asked, you have three? Ms. Duty stated, I have three horses. Mr. Hudson stated, three horses and a pony. Ms. Duty stated that I want to get a pony. She stated that I have 13 grandkids. Mr. Burns asked, what is the size of your barn? Ms. Duty stated, okay. She stated, I do have a plan from Menard’s. She stated that the barn would be 40 by 48 with horse stalls, and then I wanted a 60 by 90 foot indoor arena, and it is just for my private use. She stated that I don’t want any boarders. She stated that my son is in 4-H and so he’s 8 and we just want to ride horses and enjoy them ourselves. Mr. Burns asked, she says 40 by 48? Ms. Duty stated, with a 60 by 90 indoor arena. Mr. Hudson asked, so there’s two buildings? Ms. Duty stated that it will be all connected. She stated that it won’t be like separate or anything. She stated that it’s only four horses. Mr. Burns stated, but you’re talking 100 by 138, all together, approximately. Mr. Robertson asked, what about waste? He asked, have you thought about waste? Ms. Duty stated, yeah. She stated that that we stable now in Chesterton at Hancock’s and they have 15 horses, and they have one of those dumpsters for waste, so I would do that; it makes sense. Mr. Hudson stated that the request here is to build the barn before the structure. He stated that if she was not going to do that, and she was going to build, say, everything at one time, is the horse thing an issue at all then? Ms. Tallian stated, I’m looking, because you do have to have a plan. She stated that there are setback requirements. Mr. Hudson stated, I’m just asking, if she was building everything all together, would the horse thing be an issue? Ms. Tallian stated that I’m looking. Mr. Hudson stated, I realize there’d be setbacks per the zoning. Ms. Tallian stated, well, and sizes, and can you put the accessory building, you know, there are rules about accessory buildings, they’re not supposed to be in front of the regular building, so you need to…I know what your question is and I’m looking. Mr. Hudson asked, would the horses be a problem if she was building the house in the front, the garage in the back, there’s no restriction on the size of the pole barn. Mr. Burns stated, that’s a good question. He stated that my concern is looking at a case without plans, and a lot of times plans can raise questions. Mr. Hudson stated, well, at least with the plans she would be able to tell us where the barn is going to be and that gentleman would know if, in fact, the barn was going to be straight out from his property or if it was going to be off to the side. Ms. Duty stated that we have staked it. She stated that it’s 90 feet over, and it’s about 100 feet in. Mr. Brickner asked, 90 feet from the property line? Ms. Duty stated, from the property line. Mr. Robertson asked, from that gentleman’s property line? Ms. Duty asked, is he the gentleman that’s right next to me? She asked, is that the gentleman that owns the property next to me? She stated, no, he is not next to me. She stated that I don’t know what he is talking about, but he does not… Mr. Hudson stated, if he’s on…are you Lot 1? Mr. Cleveland stated, yes. Mr. Hudson stated, if he’s Lot 1 he’s an adjoiner to your South line of what you got marked Parcel 5 there. He stated that he’s right here, so he is one of your South adjoiners, and I’m assuming your 16 acres must include this. Ms. Duty stated, yes, he is. She stated that he has 50 feet at the very back of this property. She stated that I can show you where the barn’s going to be. Mr. Hudson asked, can you tell us how far back off of 450 it’s going to be, distance-wise? Ms. Duty stated that the barn would be right here. Mr. Hudson stated, it doesn’t do us any good, the distance, I… Ms. Duty stated, I would say, I guess I’m guessing that this would be about 200 feet back, tops, and this is pasture back there. She stated that I will have horse pasture. Mr. Robertson asked, what’s going to that line? He asked, is that about 800 feet? Mr. Hudson stated, I’m trying to find a bigger plat that I can read. Ms. Duty stated that the plot is 1350 in length and because our house will be in front of the barn and then we’ll have a back yard and then the horse barn will be behind it. Mr. Robertson stated, so it’s 1,350 long, and you think it will be about 200… Ms. Duty stated, I would say about 200 feet back. She stated that you have to understand that the Kemper Ditch is there and so we have to be set far enough off and back a ways from that ditch to put a barn in. Mr. Hudson stated, if I’m reading this plat right, and if we come from the center of 450 E. along the South line of what’s designated as Parcel 5, and I believe you also own Parcel 2, and do you own this parcel here, also? Ms. Duty stated that, no, I own this parcel, this parcel and this parcel. Mr. Hudson stated, oh, that’s how you’re going to get 16 acres. He stated that from the centerline of 450 E. back to this gentleman’s Northeast corner is 932 feet. Mr. Robertson stated, if she’s doing 200 feet and if she doubles that to 400 feet she’s still not halfway, so I understand your problem, but it sounds like you’re pretty far away. Mr. Burns stated, just looking at that sketch, is she talking about Parcel 5? Mr. Hudson stated, yes. He stated that she owns Parcel 5… Mr. Burns asked, but where is she going to put the barn? Mr. Hudson stated, on Parcel 5. Mr. Burns stated, well, we just sent them back to subdivision control. He stated that he’s going to the Plan Commission and asked, isn’t Parcel 5 part of that? Ms. Duty stated, it doesn’t affect me because I’m coming off 450 E. Mr. Burns stated, we don’t know that. He asked, do we know that yet? He stated that she’s part of the prior case if that’s Parcel 5. Mr. Siminski stated that this is the same parcel that they talked about; Parcel 5 is hers. Ms. Duty stated that I have entrance on 450 E. She stated that I really don’t need that road. Ms. Tallian stated, if she’s going to be part of the subdivision… Mr. Hudson stated that she’s part of the subdivision because the road to the other four lots is on her property. Mr. Siminski stated, if it’s determined that this is a subdivision then the maximum accessory building you can put up is 1,200 square feet, unless you have a Variance, if it’s considered…and that’s the question, that’s why we’re sending them back to the Plan Commission. Mr. Robertson stated, I think we’re in a pickle. He stated, I don’t think we can approve this. Mr. Burns stated, we have to continue or table this. Mr. Robertson stated that it’s part of the other lot, which is going to be part of the subdivision. Ms. Duty stated that we can re-structure my lot so that it doesn’t go that far back and then I won’t be part of the subdivision. Mr. Robertson stated, well, that would have to be done, but, as of now, the road that would be needed as part of the subdivision is on your property, so you’re… Mr. Hudson asked, do you own all this property? Ms. Duty asked, the 16 acres? Mr. Hudson asked, do you have a deed for Parcel 5 and these other parcels that are in your name right now? Ms. Duty stated, no. She stated that we have the closing papers based on me getting a Variance to build my barn. Mr. Hudson stated, so Parcel 5 doesn’t exist right now. Mr. Brickner stated, yes, ma’am, would you like to say something? Ms. Janasiak stated, I guess my question is, I don’t understand how this lady’s request differs from anybody else trying to build a house that has frontage. She stated that she has the frontage that she needs to access her property, so if she is denied or continued or whatever it really does not apply to her. She asked, what’s the difference between her getting her request answered by you people today or other than someone who’s asking to build a house on a County road who has frontage? She stated that she has frontage. Mr. Brickner stated that the difference is that she is in a subdivision. He stated that if she is in a subdivision… Ms. Janasiak stated, but we haven’t even developed the issue of whether or not she is in a subdivision. Mr. Brickner stated, no, that’s exactly the point. Ms. Janasiak stated that we’re selling this lot first. Mr. Brickner stated that we don’t know whether she’s in a subdivision. Ms. Janasiak stated that we don’t have…any of those lots are not…the other lots on 1300 N. have not been approved tonight, so we don’t know if we even have a subdivision, so, therefore… Mr. Robertson stated, but it’s part of a larger parcel, isn’t that true? He stated, in other words, right now it exists as a large parcel and you’re selling her this part of it. Ms. Janasiak stated, right, we’re selling 10 acres which has frontage on a County road. She stated, forget the fact that the other lots are even for sale. She stated that this lady is buying 10 acres with frontage on a County road, and she is asking for a Variance to build her barn and her house within two months. She asked, what if those four lots are never approved and they’re never granted what needs to be done to get them developed? She stated, not only is my dad’s property then landlocked and essentially of no value, but you’re saying then 450 E., as well, is of no value, because you’re attaching it…first of all, I don’t see the difference to what you granted six months ago to the gentleman that the attorney cited. She stated that I don’t see the difference at all. She stated that it’s still the same issue, but you’ve already made the decision on that. She stated, as far as Dawn’s request, she has frontage and whether or not those parcels are still owned by my dad, those parcels on 1300 N., has nothing to do with the 10-acre parcel plus – actually 16-acre parcel – that has frontage on 450 that she is seeking to build her house on. Mr. Burns stated, see, that’s the confusion, because our attorney gave it to us that it is part of the plan. Ms. Janasiak stated, but when I first…first of all, I guess I’m a little insulted that before I even – this property has been for sale for years with different real estate agents. She stated that I chose not to approach my dad and let me make something happen for you (sic) because he’s 83 years old and I would like to see my dad enjoy the money is HIS lifetime, not in my family’s or my children’s – in HIS lifetime, so, in four years where no real estate agent had even managed to get an interest in it, I put a for sale sign there, and before I did that I called the Plan Commission, I called. She stated that I’ve been a real estate agent for 15 years. She stated that I called and asked the question, what do I need to do to develop my dad’s parcels, to make this happen for him, and I was told that the Plan Commission does not get involved unless…if it’s 10-acre parcels, it wouldn’t be an issue. She stated that he couldn’t sell the parcels to develop because it’s Michigan City schools, instead of Chesterton. She stated that I decided the only way I could make this happen for my father is divide it in 10-acre parcels, and, guess what? She stated that I have four people who have developed dream homes in excess if $300,000 apiece which will bring in revenue to the County and they’re going to be beautiful. She stated that they are going to increase the value of this section of Porter County. She stated that instead we’re looking at it as if, okay, now, even when I asked the question before I (inaudible), I come and I find out the Plan Commission IS involved. She stated that it’s 10-acre parcels. She stated that I guess I just don’t understand. She stated that as far as Dawn’s issue here, if the other four people have to be denied their dream, this woman here is probably putting a half a million dollars on that corner, and why should her dream not happen because you won’t let the other four people have their dream? She stated that she has the frontage. She stated that she doesn’t need to wait for a subdivision, whether it be a mini-subdivision or whatever strings we have to…hoops we have to jump through to get those four acre (sic) parcels improved. She stated that it doesn’t have anything to do with Dawn’s ability because she can access her house off of 450. She stated that if I had never got Jim Gorski to plat this out as a 5-acre parcel (sic) and included her because she buts up to it, she wouldn’t be having this problem. She stated that she would just be coming to you because she wants to buy a 16-acre parcel from my father and build a half a million dollar house and barn and increase the value of that property. Mr. Robertson stated that I can see how this one is separate because it does have the frontage, you know, it doesn’t need that other road. He stated that it’s just a question of it is included. He stated that it hasn’t been a subdivision now, yet… Mr. Hudson stated, I think what’s going to happen if she does this, she can probably take off the back 50.52 feet, which would be included with Lots 1 through 4 and still have over 10 acres if she develops on what’s left of Parcel 5, Parcel N and Parcel S. He asked, do you see what I’m saying? Ms. Tallian stated, that’s true, in cutting out that piece… Mr. Hudson stated, if you cut that piece out that is contiguous or is adjacent to Parcel 1, 2, 3 and 4, take that 50 feet off the back of hers, which gives her instead of 1504, gives her 1250. Ms. Janasiak asked, and what do I attach that to? Mr. Hudson stated, you attach it to Lots 1, 2, and 3, ‘cause that’s the 60-foot that comes up through there. Ms. Janasiak stated, but that’s on the opposite side of what we are asking to be the easement road. Mr. Hudson stated, no, no. He stated that you are taking it out and keeping that with the four parcels. He stated that that’s the only access you have then back to those four parcels. He stated that it would, in fact, be separate from hers then. He stated that it would not then be a part of hers and she would not… Ms. Janasiak stated, so, just take a little strip of property and separate it from what she wants to buy and then she doesn’t have a problem… Mr. Hudson stated, right, that’s what she can do and she doesn’t have a problem then. Ms. Janasiak asked, can I ask you a question? She asked, what’s the difference between this road being…because I can tell you, my dad, when he sold off the frontage, he went to the Plan Commission. She stated that he didn’t just come up with 60 feet because he got that as a magic number. She stated that he was told, save 60 feet, Steve, don’t sell it because that’s what you’re gonna need later on down the line when you sell that parcel. Mr. Hudson stated, right, but what you’re doing is selling that 60 feet to this lady right here, then those four parcels have no access. He stated that she has to be a part of the subdivision then. Ms. Janasiak stated, well, you just said to take off 50 feet. Mr. Hudson stated, no, no, no. He stated that I’m saying that what you have shown here – you have 10.79 acres shown here, which includes a 60-foot strip off of 1300. Ms. Janasiak asked, the 60-foot strip is separate? Mr. Hudson stated, no, it’s a part of the 10 acres. Ms. Janasiak stated, I’m saying the 60-foot easement, the reason why dad did that is because he was advised to by the Planning Commission… Mr. Hudson stated, I’m trying to help you if you’d just… Ms. Janasiak stated, no, I know, but I’m very confused as to why this is not considered…why it’s considered a County road (sic). Ms. Duty stated, quiet. Ms. Janasiak asked, what? Ms. Duty stated, quiet, because I think I can get what I need. Ms. Janasiak asked, why are we considering that a County road to access versus…why couldn’t it just be an easement? She asked, do you see what I’m saying? She stated that I don’t want Dawn to have to lose any property if she doesn’t have to, but if she has to, then, of course, we want to do whatever… Mr. Hudson stated, if you keep it with her property, she has to be a part of the subdivision, that’s what I’m saying. He stated, if you take it off, she’s only losing something less than an acre. Ms. Janasiak stated, okay, but see, do you see what I’m getting at? She stated, if we give it all to Dawn… Mr. Hudson stated, if you give it all to Dawn she has to be a part of the subdivision and it’s not going to get voted on tonight. Ms. Janasiak stated, okay, let me ask you this: Just so I understand… Mr. Hudson stated, wait a minute; let me ask her. He asked, am I wrong, Karen? He asked, am I right with what I’m saying? Ms. Tallian stated, I need to ask a question. She stated, this 60-feet there, all right, is this going with Dawn’s parcel? Ms. Janasiak stated, no. Ms. Tallian stated, okay, so this 60 feet… Mr. Hudson stated, wait a minute. He stated that acreage-wise it is. He stated that if you’re saying she’s buying Parcel 5 at 10.79 acres, it is going with her parcel, ‘cause it adds up to 10.79 acres. Ms. Janasiak stated, no, that 60-foot easement belongs to my father. Mr. Hudson stated, that’s not shown on here like that. Ms. Janasiak stated that Jim Gorski has a separate legal on it, he gave you a separate legal for that. Mr. Hudson stated, well, then that’s not depicted right on the drawing that you gave us. Mr. Burns stated, so, Rich, are you saying that’s not 10 acres? Mr. Hudson stated, I’m saying that Parcel 5, acreage-wise, includes the 60-foot strip. He stated that if the description is different then I need to know that. Ms. Duty stated (inaudible) Mr. Hudson stated, if I take the width of the property that she show on 450 of 334.18 feet and multiply it times the depth, which is approximately 1,304 feet, I come up with 10 acres. Mr. Brickner stated that it says on here, this description of the back of the 10-acre parcel butts up to the private road. Mr. Hudson stated, which is true, it butts up to the private road that they’re proposing there. Ms. Janasiak stated that it doesn’t include the road. Mr. Hudson asked, where’s the description, Fred, for the…He stated, I hate to tell you that it includes the 60-foot strip. He stated that what it did, over the 60-foot strip, it kept an easement. He stated that your Parcel 5 here goes around the 60-foot parcel that comes up on the South road, and then it says also subject to, and then it turns around and describes… Ms. Janasiak asked, isn’t that on every legal description? Mr. Hudson asked, the “subject to”? Ms. Janasiak stated, yeah because… Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t care about the subject to, I’m saying that in this description, which is the first part here, that 60-foot strip is included as a part of Parcel 5… Ms. Janasiak stated that it’s included on all the other parcels, as well, because…. Mr. Hudson stated, no, it’s included as an easement, maybe, on the other ones, but it’s not included…well, I don’t see them on any of them, but I don’t have 4 and 5. He stated that I only have 1, 7 and 6. He stated that I don’t know what 6 is. He stated, I guess maybe this is not all of it, but this description here that you call Parcel 5 includes the 60-foot strip, and over that 60-foot strip maybe it gives an easement right, but I’m saying that if you’re selling her Parcel 5, Parcel 5 does include that 60-foot strip. Ms. Janasiak stated, okay, so we have to amend the legal description then? Mr. Hudson stated, that’s what I was saying. He stated that that’s what I was trying to get at 10 minutes ago. Ms. Janasiak stated that the way it was explained to me when I went through it with the title company they told me that the easement road would have to be attached, the legal description of the easement would have to be attached to every one of the parcels so that they all have shared access. Mr. Hudson stated, what would happen is, her parcel would be subject to, their parcels would be along with, because they all have to be given the right to go over her property, so her property would be subject to the use of everyone else’s; their property would also include the use of that easement. Ms. Janasiak asked, okay, so what are you suggesting then? She asked, if we are able to sell Dawn what she needs, then what do we do as far as who owns the property, would my dad hold ownership? Mr. Hudson stated that your dad, you wouldn’t sell it. He stated that it would go with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. He stated that if you took off the 60-foot… Ms. Janasiak stated that you can see why Jim included it on 5, so that Dawn would have access from both sides. Mr. Hudson stated, right, but her deal now is saying she doesn’t want access off of that; she wants it off of this. Ms. Janasiak stated, right, so she can get approved tonight. She asked, you’re saying I need to have Jim take the road… Mr. Hudson stated that the easiest way would be to take that 60-foot strip and a portion of the back of her property off whatever’s needed to allow access back to these parcels. Ms. Janasiak asked, would it be okay just to widen that easement road, that 50 feet that you’re talking about. Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think so. He stated that just to widen the easement isn’t going to make any difference. Ms. Janasiak stated, no, I mean so it takes it off of her, how much do I need to take off of hers? Mr. Robertson stated that the whole thing is on the legal description right now, that’s part of Parcel 5. Mr. Hudson stated, you need to be careful because she’s saying she has 16 acres. He stated that if you’re going to build…you’ve got to be careful, because if you’re going to build on 16, once you build on 16 you can’t put another home on there, so you got to be careful because the… Ms. Duty stated, we’re going to be Agriculture… Mr. Hudson stated, that if you have 16 acres you need to take off about an acre and two tenths off of her 16, which then that would be included with those lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, and then she wouldn’t be subject to the subdivision. Ms. Janasiak stated, well, whatever do we have to do, because I sure want Dawn to walk out of here happy. Mr. Hudson stated, that’s what I was trying to get at. Mr. Robertson stated, well, okay, I think you’re right, Rich. He asked, do you understand that then? Ms. Janasiak stated that I guess I just don’t know where you’re telling me I have to attach that extra property on, because all the other parcels are on the other side of the easement. Mr. Hudson stated, why don’t you step down here and I’ll show you. He stated, I’m saying, if you take, right now, she has this, she has this. He stated that if you take this and draw this line straight back or maybe even just take this off of here so that she’s got 60 feet here so that she can have a continuous 60-foot strip back here and just remove…He stated maybe then you only need to take that little corner. He stated, what you need to take off is just this little piece right here and let her have this and then you’re only taking off like this 50 by 60 and then the rest of this 60-foot and then she’s not a part of the subdivision, right? He stated that now she’s a part of what’s proposed as a subdivisi |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
July 20, 2005