|
 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
August 17, 2005
M I N U T E S
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on August 17, 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, Robert Detert, 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 July 20, 2005 meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a voice vote.
Correspondence
Mr. Siminski stated that we have one piece of correspondence from an attorney, Gregory Babcock, requesting a minimum 30-day continuance for his client, Steven Pluta, whose petition was heard at the 7-20-05 BZA meeting and who was told he has to go through the subdivision process before coming back to the Board to seek a Variance. The letter is in the file. He stated that it’s not on tonight’s docket and it was tabled, but there was a correspondence. He stated, also, we received a request from Mr. Byvoets. He stated that this is a case that’s on our docket tonight for the horse addition (sic). He stated that he is asking to be continued (sic) because he does not have all his paperwork ready for tonight’s meeting. He stated that last month we continued it, so that case…he is requesting to table until he’s ready.
Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t we just do that right now, table that.
Mr. Hudson moved to table Case 05-SE-5. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
Case 99-V-46. Joseph Royko, 342 E. 1300 N., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home, on the South side of CR 1300 N., between Brummitt Road and CR 375 E., in Pine Township. (Petitioner must appear in person.)
Mr. Siminski stated that this is a TCO renewal request for a mobile home which began in 1999.
Mr. Robertson asked, what’s the status on it here? He asked, why did we ask him to come back, that’s what I’m wondering.
Mr. Hudson stated that the original motion back in 1999 was for approval stipulating that the petitioner be the only person to live in
the mobile home and that in his absence when he’s in Florida that no one else occupy the home and that at such time that this need is not there that the home be removed and that the appropriate temporary foundation be used finding that the…so, that was the conditions that were put on this. He stated, I’m not sure why last year when we approved it…
Mr. Robertson asked, how’s it standing now, Mr. Royko? He asked, are you there by yourself?
Mr. Royko stated, yeah.
Mr. Robertson stated, and you live there by yourself and the owner’s in Florida, is that it? He asked, who’s in Florida?
Mr. Brickner stated, I think he’s in Florida.
Mr. Detert asked, do you live there all year?
Mr. Royko stated, I live here most of the time.
Mr. Detert asked, where do you live otherwise?
Mr. Royko stated, I go to Florida to visit friends.
Mr. Brickner asked, who’s living in the trailer?
Mr. Royko stated, nobody but me.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 99-V-46 with the same stipulations as approved in 1999. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 99-V-47. Raymond & Sherry Carver, 561 N. Old SR 2, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home, on the East side of Old SR 2, between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township.
Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal on this TCO.
Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Siminski stated, no.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-V-47 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 01-V-22. Michael Ruggaber, 49 E. SR 8, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home, on the Northwest corner of SR 8 and Baum’s Bridge Road, in Pleasant Township.
Mr.Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. He stated that I also talked to Mr. Ruggaber. He stated that he came to the office and his is considering splitting his property and building a home in the future – that’s what he told me when he came to the office.
Mr. Brickner asked, do we know what the original approval for this trailer was intended? He asked, was it for his daughter and children?
Mr. Siminski stated that on the public notice it said to allow for a mobile home for an expectant daughter to live in.
Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 01-V-22 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person at that time. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 04-V-1. William Bewick, 6919 Ash Ave., Gary, whose 90-day extension of a previously granted Variance to complete a residence at 570 E. 950 N. expires 8-16-05.
Mr. Siminski stated that I seen (sic) him a week ago Friday. He stated that I passed some pictures down right on the front page. He stated that his house is almost done. He stated that I did check with the building inspectors. He stated that as of today, the final occupancy permit has not been called for, but when I visited the house, he told me that he had electrical work to do, some flooring and carpeting and that he was going to call to get the final. He stated that I guess there might have been a message on my answering machine this afternoon, but I was gone, so I’m not sure what he wanted. He stated that he knew about the meeting tonight and I don’t believe he’s here tonight.
Mr. Detert stated that I think the object here is to get a house on a lot and we have a pole barn and a house pretty much there. He stated that I would say just to be technically right we should grant it.
Mr. Robertson asked, for three months or something?
Mr. Detert stated, six months, so he doesn’t have to come back.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 04-V-1 for 6 months. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
Case 03-V-30. Superior Environmental Remediation, Inc., 1516 Main St., Mishawaka, for an update on a previously granted 2-year Variance permitting a reduction in the front-yard building setback from U.S. Hwy 30 from 60 feet to 40 feet for a temporary 20 by 20 equipment shed to house remediation equipment, at 526 W. U.S. Hwy 30, in Union Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)
Chris Schoo, 808 W. Front St., Buchanan, MI, stated that this is the response to a spill that happened in 1990. He stated that we have a groundwater remediation system (inaudible) extraction system at the Hop-N-Stop Mini Mart.
Mr. Brickner stated that originally you said 2 to 4 years.
Mr. Schoo stated, yes.
Mr. Brickner stated that it’s been two years. He asked, how much longer do you need?
Mr. Schoo stated that our system’s been operating since October of 2003. He stated that the groundwater is remediated. He stated that the only outstanding issues right now is that there is soil contamination and there is perched groundwater below the surface. He stated that the state may require us to do investigation offsite into the median on U.S. 30 to determine if it’s migrated and will affect any wells, but it’s continuing to operate right now.
Mr. Brickner asked, do you have any idea how long it’s going to take? He asked, another two years?
Mr. Schoo stated, it could be.
Mr. Detert stated that I think when he came in he said two to four years.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-V-30 for 2 years.
Discussion:
Mr. Brickner asked, the area around it, the equipment shed. He asked, whose responsibility is it to keep that cleaned up? He asked, is that yours?
Mr. Schoo stated, I believe it would be Don McAuliffe’s. He stated that it’s his property. He stated that we’re stewards of the state; we run it on behalf of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
Mr. Brickner stated, well, it’s a mess, the weeds and all the garbage and everything that’s around there. He stated that if you walk around that building, it’s a mess, and the only thing I’d like to do is have somebody clean that up.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-V-30 for 2 years with steps to be taken to clean up the area around the shed. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.
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. (This Case was continued from the 7-20-05 meeting with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Robertson stated that we ran into some problems with descriptions and so forth and I think Rich was trying to help you out as much as he was permitted last month. He asked, how did it work out?
Dawn Duty stated that I had my soil inspection by John McQuestion. She stated that I took that to the County Health Department and I have copies of that. She stated that the other thing we did is we changed…it was only 330 wide and I was attached to a piece of property that is in question for the subdivision, so we made the property 17 feet wider so it is 10 acres, and it is not attached to that road, and then I did get…they were told that I had to have the inside of the house, so that’s the house…the house is 3,000 square feet and so there’s a lot of technical stuff to be done with the house and all the plans for the house, so it’s easier to get the barn built first because then it only takes about a month. She stated that I do have…Don Bengel did my topography, so I have a copy of that for you and as you can see, the house is here, the barn is here, and all this back part of my property will just be pasture for my horses.
Mr. Robertson asked, and your driveway goes in how?
Ms. Duty stated that the driveway will come in here. She stated that this is my garage.
Mr. Robertson asked, and then back to the barn?
Ms. Duty stated, yes.
Mr. Robertson asked, Rich, can you look at this legal description, Gorski’s revised plat here and see if that’s the way it looks. He stated that we needed to have 10 acres.
Ms. Duty stated that I do have the interior of the barn and the whole plans for that if you want to look at that.
Mr. Robertson asked, this is for 3 horses, right?
Ms. Duty stated, 4 horses – 3 horses and a pony.
Mr. Brickner asked, where’s the stalls?
Ms. Duty stated that there will be four stalls and then a tack room and that’s a riding arena.
Mr. Robertson asked, do you know what the overall square footage of all that is?
Ms. Duty stated that this is 60 feet by 90 feet and this is only 40 by 48.
Mr. Hudson stated that the description, just doing the math, appears to be 10 acres. He stated that there was another question about a gentleman being…facing this garage last time. He stated that this is actually facing the property that I believe you are purchasing. He asked, aren’t you purchasing another piece of property here?
Ms. Duty stated, yes, there’s another part and the river kind of winds through it, but we’re not building anything on that property.
Mr. Hudson asked, so it actually does not back up to that other gentleman?
Mr. Robertson stated, he was way in the back.
Mr. Hudson stated that she’s way in the front now. He stated that she’s about…to the back of her building, she’s about 500 feet, I think.
Mr. Robertson stated, and they’ve also removed the easement that went through her property. He stated that that’s been taken off her property now so it’s attached to those other four.
Mr. Hudson stated, correct.
Mr. Robertson stated, so that’s not a problem, the subdivision, she doesn’t get entangled in that. He stated, well, it looks like she’s done it very completely, as far as I can see.
Mr. Burns asked, is there an intersection here? He stated that your address is on 450 E. He asked, is that an intersection, or is there another piece of parcel North?
Ms. Duty stated, I’m not on 1300 N. She stated that I’m right on 450 E.
Mr. Hudson stated that her South property line is actually about 574 North of 1300.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-20 as presented here tonight. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Robertson asked, what about a timeline? He stated that it is for prior to construction of a house…
Mr. Brickner asked, how long will it take you to get your house…
Ms. Duty stated that it will take about eight months. She stated that it’s a pretty big house to build and what we’re planning to do is build the barn now and then start our house in October or November, where they do the footing, and then they can work on the inside of the house over the winter, and then it will take about 8 months.
Mr. Brickner stated, so, two years, if..can you have your house…?
Ms. Duty stated, oh, absolutely.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-20 as presented here tonight, with the house to be completed within two years, with the petitioner to record a written commitment to that effect, incorporating findings of fact as amended by the Board’s attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Public Hearings:
At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for public hearings.
Case 05-UV-5. Petition of Teresa Lake, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a day spa and café and to allow a sign no larger than 32 square feet in connection with said business, to be located at 451 W. U.S. Hwy 30, in Union Township.
Attorney Todd A. Leeth stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter and her husband. He stated that prior to the commencement of tonight’s hearing I placed at each of your places an aerial map and some drawings of the home that is there today at the property that is subject to the petition tonight. He stated that their proposal, if you will, is to renovate it and utilize this home for the business of a day spa salon and a small café to go along with that, and I’ll kind of explain a little bit as we go through tonight what that means. He stated that the last drawing in there is the proposed sign, and I’ll visit with you about that at the end, as well. He stated that Teresa is 24 years a hair stylist in Indiana. He stated that she knows her business. He stated that she’s been doing that for a long period of time. He stated that she comes to you not only as an experienced hair stylist, but also a business owner. He stated that for the last 15 years or nearly so she’s owned her own business in Lake County. He stated that business provides for massage therapy, as well as hair styling services over there. He stated that she’s a member of the Merrillville and Winfield chambers of commerce. He stated that her desire is to relocate her business to primarily Union Township, and that’s where we’re talking about. He stated that this home is on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30 and it’s in Union Township. He stated that this is probably a good fit for her because a significant number of her customers and
clientele of her business are Porter County residents, as well. He stated that this is kind of a middle spot, if you will and more centrally located to her clientele and important for her business. He state that what she’d like to do is to establish a day spa. He stated that a day spa is a little bit more than she has in her current business over in Lake County. He stated that a day spa provides the ability for her to offer to her customers kind of an experience, a destination, if you will, to come and have primarily ladies, their hair done, a massage, facials, manicure, pedicure, makeup, kind of the whole nine yards, and the ladies make a day of it, if you will. He stated that they can select one or more of those services and that’s the operation of a day spa and salon. He stated that because of that, because ladies may come with their daughters or mothers and spend the day there’s often the need for them to have lunch, if you will, a meal in the middle of that day – a salad, a sandwich, soup – nothing heavy, no deep fryers, not a full-service kitchen, and that’s the purpose of the café portion of this petition before you, is to have a small café so that the customers can, if you will, spend the day, enjoy themselves, and have a leisurely day at the spa and salon. He stated that we are sensitive – we’ve heard from staff and apparently there have been some concerns either from the public or raised by staff – about massage and massage therapy, and we certainly don’t want to appear before you in any sense to suggest to you that this is going to be a massage parlor or that there’s going to be any illegal activity. He stated that unfortunately I can’t tell you that all of the therapists, massage therapists, that will be employed here will be licensed by the state of Indiana because there is no such licensing procedure. He stated that in 2001 there was a bill introduced in the General Assembly but it never passed, so there is no state licensing like there is frankly for hair stylists or cosmetologists, but what we can tell you and offer to you as a condition for your approval tonight, if you see fit to do so, is to condition the massage therapists that they be formally trained at an accredited institution or school that offers that specialized training. He stated that that’s what Teresa does with her current business and her current massage therapists are certified by accredited institutions; they have some formal training. He stated that again we offer that as a condition to assure the neighborhood, as well as the County, that that’s exactly what’s going to happen. He stated that lastly let’s talk a little bit about the location. He stated that the drawings that I provided to you – the first one is an aerial photograph. He stated that you can see Highway 30 is the Southern road there and I’ve tried to place a red dot where I think the home is located within the trees. He stated that it’s a rather wooded and secluded property, which frankly is one of the reasons why Mr. and Mrs. Lake find it so attractive to have their setting for this business because it is somewhat of a respite from the daily grind, if you will, to go to the day spa and spend the day and have the services that they offer. He stated that the setting is rather nice. He stated that it’s on U.S. 30, a well-traveled thoroughfare in Porter County, certainly. He stated that the Department of Transportation says that there’s over 26,000 trips per day in this particular area of Highway 30, but again we have somewhat of a wooded and secluded site. He stated that if you
visited the site you can easily pass right by it and not even see this home, which sits frankly near the road. He stated that we know that the Department of Transportation is going to require a minor commercial road cut. He stated that we’ve been in touch with them about that being that that’s something that they’ll have to work out if you are willing to approve the Variances we’ve requested. He stated, let’s also talk about some of the surrounding properties. He stated, obviously Highway 30 is on the South side. He stated that to the West is vacant property all the way to Sedley Road, where you find the Speedway gas station at the Northeast corner of Sedley and 30. He stated that as you go back to the subject property there’s property owned by Speedway, as well as a larger probably 10 or 12-acre parcel owned by a private individual. He stated that both of those properties are vacant. He stated that to the East of the property in question is a small strip that is actually the entrance road that leads North to the sand mine. He stated that you can see in the aerial photograph the sand mine well to the North of the subject home. He stated, so, to the East is an entrance road with my guess is some truck traffic that heads back to the sand mine. He stated that of course to the North is the retained parcel, a parcel that the seller of this parcel continues to own and then the sand mine to the North of that. He stated that we’re surrounded and secluded by virtually undeveloped or industrial or mining operations around it and we don’t think that certainly a commercial activity on a state highway in what I consider to be a commercial corridor would be harmful or have a negative impact on the property values or the neighboring properties’ use and enjoyment of their land. He stated that the last portion of our request tonight is one for a developmental standards variance to allow for a sign so that they can properly be found by their customers. He stated that the last page of the handout that I’ve given you is a drawing that shows a small sign – I think our petition said no greater than 32 square feet. He stated that the proposed sign that we have is less than 20 square feet. He stated that it’s essentially a headboard from a twin bed, and they wish to decorate it or paint it similar to, if not identical to what they have, place it on a pedestal with some landscaping and so forth and call that their sign, which will be placed in front of their business to properly denote it as their location for their customers who can find it then off of Highway 30. He stated that that’s our petition. He stated that as I indicated, Teresa and I are ready to answer any questions you might have with regard to the particulars of our petition. 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. Detert asked, is the current business in Winfield?
Mr. Leeth stated, no, it’s in Merrillville.
Mr. Detert stated that you said she belongs to the Winfield Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Leeth stated that she does belong to both, but her business is actually located in Merrillville. He stated that her business is called Hair Systems.
Mr. Brickner asked, do you know how many customers she anticipates like on a daily basis, the hours of operation for the café and the spa, what they would be?
Mr. Leeth stated that the café is only going to operate for the lunch hours, 10 to 2, or something along those lines. He stated that it’s not going to be offered for any other meals, no breakfast, no dinner. He stated that the salon, I don’t know. He stated that we can call Teresa to specifically provide in the hours, but primarily the lion’s share of her business is Friday and Saturday, so that’s when we would anticipate the largest number of visitors to the salon and spa.
Mr. Brickner stated, I’ve looked…this property is…the job they did with the house is incredible. He stated that it’s a beautiful home, and I’ve walked this property a couple times, and it is really a nice piece of property, and the thing that differs about this and a rural setting is that it’s surrounded by a big sand pit mine, a mining operation, which is really a busy industrial operation and, of course, the gas station is really busy, too, so it’s not like it’s out of character, in my opinion, for this particular location. He stated that anywhere else, you know, on the 30 corridor it’s always been to keep it in a residential setting (sic). He stated that I’ve also talked to the neighbors to the East, the Burges, and they didn’t come tonight. He stated that they have no objection at all to this. He stated that they are the closest neighbors that you would have on this particular place, so I really think it would make a nice addition to that particular area, because it’s not much good for anything else.
He stated that I don’t think it would be a very good residential area because of all the heavy mining activity and the gas station.
Mr. Hudson stated, I would agree with Marv’s comment and just have a couple questions. He asked, there won’t be anybody living in here, it would just be a business, right?
Mr. Leeth stated, it’s just a business, correct.
Mr. Hudson stated, I’m assuming that septic issues with the Health Department, well size and all that have been looked at. He stated that the issue, if you need to deal with INDOT, that’s something that will have to be done also. He stated that the construction of the parking lot, um, are there any plans relative to the increase in surface area relative to drainage, the runoff that could possibly be expected, I assume there’s still issues that you will take on, possibly to site review to TAC?
Mr. Leeth stated that there’s no question that because this is a commercial enterprise it would have to, before a building permit would be issued, be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. He stated that the parking is proposed in two separate pods, if you will, one to the East and one to the North of that. He stated that on the Northern portion of the home, one to the East of it and one to the North is where that is proposed. He stated that the septic field has been addressed. He stated that that is located on the West side of the home.
Mr. Hudson asked, the Health Department feels that it’s adequate to allow this?
Mr. Leeth stated that I’m not sure that things have been tested to that degree, but we know where it’s at. He stated that we know it’s a good system, but because it’s a salon and day spa there’s going to be quite a bit of water usage, so that’s a particular issue and I’m not sure that they’ve approached the Health Department with regard to that, but we certainly know that. He stated that it’s a contingency in the contract to purchase, certainly.
Mr. Burns asked, what is this zoned now? He asked, is it zoned residential?
Mr. Leeth stated that it’s R-1.
Mr. Burns asked, so you’re asking for a temporary Use Variance, not permanent?
Mr. Leeth stated that that’s correct.
Mr. Burns asked, and across the street on the South side, were those property owners contacted?
Mr. Leeth stated that four or five of them were, as well as the property owners’ association that owns the strip that comes out.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-UV-5.
Discussion:
Mr. Robertson stated, I’ve got a question or two before we jump into that. He stated that first we have to work over the sign. He asked, do they own the property or are they renting it?
Mr. Leeth stated that they have a contingent agreement to purchase.
Mr. Robertson asked, contingent to purchase upon approval by the BZA?
Mr. Leeth stated, that’s correct, as well as other contingencies.
Mr. Robertson asked, what are the other contingencies?
Mr. Leeth stated, investigation of the property, environmental, septic, building issues – we want to make sure that they can do what we are asking you to approve.
Mr. Robertson stated, what I want to make sure of is that it will end up in their hands, that they’re going to owning it and running it, that they won’t be renting it from somebody and running it.
Mr. L eeth stated that there is no intention to lease, if that’s what you mean, either from someone or to someone. He stated that they are going to own and operate the business on the property. He stated that that’s their intent.
Ms. Tallian stated that the other issue we want to make sure of – the reason we wanted to ask that question – is that a Use Variance is going to these people. She stated that it’s not going with that property, so if the Use Variance is granted here tonight and if, for whatever reason, they don’t buy it, that Use Variance disappears. She stated that it doesn’t go with the property to the next buyer.
Mr. Siminski stated, Number 1, I just want to make the Board understand that there’s a U.S. 30 overlay zone, so they’re going to have to comply for the signage on that. He stated, also, in terms of the proposed parking, that’s going to have to be part of the motion because a temporary Use Variance is…
Mr. Detert stated, my motion was stopped partway through.
Mr. Brickner stated, the sign is incorporated with this Variance, or is it going to be a separate issue, because I wanted to talk about the sign myself.
Mr. Detert stated, if you want to talk about the sign separately I can keep it out of the motion.
Mr. Robertson stated, let’s do it without the sign and then come back to it.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-UV-5 for 3 years with all of the stipulations enumerated here tonight by the attorney, Mr. Leeth, that the hours of operation do not exceed 8 p.m. and do not start before 8 a.m.; that there be no café operations, except from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.; all other commitments for INDOT, the overlay plan, the parking, all must be approved; that the massage therapists working there must be formally trained by an accredited institution; and that the Use Variance is limited to these people.
Discussion:
Mr. Leeth stated, if I might, we would request the full 5 years because they’re making quite an investment in equipment and real estate. He stated that they need as much as they can. He stated that they didn’t ask for a Permanent Variance, but we’d like to have the
temporary for the full 5 years so that they can certainly recover any of their investment should their Variance be denied (sic).
Mr. Detert stated that what we have done in the past where there’s a new business starting up we very often do not give it the full five years to see how it’s going to take off.
Mr. Leeth stated, again, with all due respect you’re dealing with a business woman who’s been in business for 15 years operating her own business and we know her track record. He stated, again, we would ask that you grant the Variance for the full five years.
Mr. Robertson stated, can I just poll the Board how the other members think: Rich, 3 or 5?
Mr. Hudson stated, 5 is fine for me.
Mr. Brickner asked, are these the people that remodeled this house?
Mr. Leeth stated, no.
Mr. Brickner asked, they bought this it was already remodeled?
Mr. Leeth stated that it was remodeled as it was on the market, as I understand it, and while Mr. Lake is in the business of remodeling, he kind of came to this property in its improved condition.
Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have any problem with 5 years.
Mr. Detert stated that there’s no objection to 5 years so I’ll change it from 3 years to 5.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-UV-5 for 5 years with all of the stipulations enumerated here tonight by the attorney, Mr. Leeth: that the hours of operation do not exceed 8 p.m. and do not start before 8 a.m.; that there be no café operations, except from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.; all other commitments for INDOT, the overlay plan, the parking, all must be approved; that the massage therapists working there must be formally trained by an accredited institution; and that the Use Variance is limited to these people. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Burns asked, should we be concerned about lighting, how large this parking area will be, will there be no lighting, sodium lights or anything like that? He stated that it’s just like a country setting.
Mr. Leeth stated, I don’t think you should be concerned about the lighting. He stated that because of its wooded nature I don’t think there’s going to be any spillover lighting. He stated that if there were I don’t know that frankly they’ve thought that far down the road.
He stated that sometimes it’s important for businesses to have lighting for security and safety reasons. He stated that with the hours of operation terminating at 8 p.m. we can certainly say that the lights will be terminated no later than 1 hour after closing, if it were lit.
Mr. Robertson asked, do you accept that in the motion, just add that to the motion?
Mr. Detert stated, okay.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-UV-5 for 5 years with all of the stipulations enumerated here tonight by the attorney, Mr. Leeth: that the hours of operation do not exceed 8 p.m. and do not start before 8 a.m.; that there be no café operations, except from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.; all other commitments for INDOT, the overlay plan, the parking, all must be approved; that the massage therapists working there must be formally trained by an accredited institution and be licensed when such licensing becomes available; and that the Use Variance is limited to these people; and that the lighting be extinguished one hour after closing; and that the INDOT and overlay and parking have to go through TAC; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the attorney for the petitioners. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Mr. Robertson stated, now, turning to the sign. He asked, who would like to start?
Mr. Brickner stated that that’s tough because unless you put a sign out in front of that gate nobody is ever going to see it going by this place, but then you’d have to put it out on the easement, on the highway. He stated that for anybody to ever really see a sign…where do they plan to put the sign?
Mr. Leeth stated, as you know, it’s a wooded site and I don’t know where the right-of-way ends and the property line begins.
Mr. Brickner stated that it’s right where the gate is. He stated that the gate is right at the end of the right-of-way, is that right, Teresa? He stated that you probably know that.
Mr. Leeth stated that we want to put the sign, obviously, where it’s visible but doesn’t obstruct traffic for somebody entering or exiting the site, but that’s the goal. He stated that I don’t know that a specific site on the site plan has been selected. He stated that my recommendation to you is to refer that back to the Technical Advisory Committee. He stated that as you know, David Schelling from the Highway Department serves on that. He stated that while this isn’t a County road – it’s a state highway – he certainly would have
thoughts and concerns with regard to the traveling safety to the public.
Mr. Brickner stated, if they had a sign in the yard, in front of the house, it’s going to absolutely be of no value because nobody’s going to see it ever. He stated that that house is so secluded and that is so overgrown. He stated that I certainly don’t want to see them put a sign out on the right-of-way, I mean, that’s not going to work. He stated that I’d really like to know where the sign is going to be and the size is 20 square feet, you said?
Mr. Leeth stated that it’s under 20.
Mr. Brickner stated that I guess the main question is, are we going to allow a sign, any kind of a sign in R-1.
Mr. Robertson stated that we’re fighting signs all along 30. He stated that that’s what we’re doing is fighting signs along there.
Mr. Burns asked, how many of her customers are repetitive in this type of business?
Mr. Leeth stated, the majority of them.
Mr. Burns stated, so a sign is really not that important once they know the location.
Mr. Leeth stated that once the customer knows the location, it’s not critical for their repeat customers. He stated that because the structure is so secluded, as Mr. Brickner indicates, if I live in Schererville and I travel to this location, I’d want to know where that is with a sign, even if I was a repeat customer. He stated that signs serve multiple purposes: They bring in new customers, but they also help us when we’re traveling 55, hopefully, we can maintain our speed and reduce our speed in a safe manner and make the exit off of 30, so it’s important to have that warning that we’re approaching our exit or our turnoff so that we can reduce our speed in a safe manner and make a safe turn, so I guess I….yes, we want the sign, we want to attract new customers, we want our old and existing customers to find us and I think, frankly, this is a tasteful sign that we’ll place where best we can, outside of the right-of-way, because the Department of Transportation simply won’t allow us to do that, so we’ll have to find a spot for that to happen.
Mr. Burns stated that the issue like our Chairman said is that we have a lot of issues with signs along U.S. 30 right now.
Mr. Leeth stated that I know it’s an issue, but I think we’ve kind of discussed the fact that this is probably a well-suited business for its location and, forgive me, but I think every business should have a sign. He stated that that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should have a neon sign or a flashing sign or anything like that, and that’s not what we’re proposing. He stated that we’re
proposing a small – it’s a headboard. He stated that the structure itself is an old headboard, so it’s not very large, and, I think, tastefully done.
Mr. Burns stated that if you put it right on the other side of the fence it wouldn’t be visible from 30 until you got right up to it.
Mr. Leeth stated that I think that’s correct.
Mr. Burns stated that it won’t be visible from far away, of course.
Mr. Robertson asked, is it actually a headboard?
Mr. Leeth stated that that’s exactly what it is. He stated that my understanding is that they’ve purchased a headboard for this very purpose.
Mr. Detert stated, I don’t know, you know. He stated that we’re kind of going overboard where we’re allowing a business in a residential neighborhood. He stated that putting a sign out there is kind of like rubbing salt in a wound. He stated that it’s been a big issue with us. He stated that we’re going to open up a lot of people to signs if we start allowing them with the businesses. He stated that I think with a highly repetitive business of this nature that you can probably get away with maybe like a mailbox sign and once those people know where it is, they’re not going to miss it the next time.
Mr. Brickner stated, I agree about the signs, but I know exactly where that place is, and I went by it twice before I was able to find where the turnoff was and it is really difficult to see, but a mailbox sign I think would be appropriate, but I sure don’t want any other kind of sign.
Mr. Robertson stated, when people come there do they call in advance to make a reservation?
Mr. Leeth stated that there are appointments, yes.
Mr. Robertson stated, so, there’s the gas station down there as a pointer that it’s just past the gas station and eighth of a mile or a quarter of a mile.
Mr. Brickner stated, tenth of a mile.
Mr. Robertson stated, and with the mailbox maybe…
Mr. Detert stated, I usually find places I’m looking for by the addresses, and if you put the address out there in big enough numbers, I don’t have any trouble finding things.
Mr. Robertson stated, you can put a name on a mailbox, you can put a pretty big name, too.
Mr. Burns stated, we’re not talking a sign, just a name on a mailbox, because a sign’s still a sign even if it’s on a mailbox. He asked, we’re not saying that, are we?
Mr. Brickner stated, no.
Mr. Burns stated because you’d have all kinds of signs up and down 30.
Mr. Robertson stated, a fellow did that, ROM Computer, remember. He stated that he had a big thing on his mailbox.
Mr. Leeth stated, I really think, gentlemen, that we need to have some kind of larger sign than simply a flag on our mailbox that says, we’re here. He stated that this is an existing business, yes, but it’s a new location, and that’s for an experienced business person or a neophyte, that’s a scary thing to relocate your business. He stated that I think we need something. He stated that we’ve scaled back from 32 to 20, but I’d like to see something at least a little larger to give them a little bit more of a visibility there for the traveling public.
Mr. Burns stated, again, like Mr. Detert said, it is zoned residential. He stated that it’s not commercial zoning.
Mr. Leeth stated, and I agree with you. He stated that what we’ll probably disagree with is I think it’s a commercial corridor. He stated that I mentioned that in my initial comments. He stated that I think this is a commercial corridor. He stated that I think this property is commercial.
Mr. Brickner stated that I think that’s why we approved the spa because I agree with you on that, but the sign…I’m afraid the sand pit mining operation will want a sign or…
Mr. Detert stated that we open up a whole can or worms on signs. He stated that if we give it to one person – and I understand the seclusion of this area – but if we start opening it up, the other guy comes along and he’s not secluded and he wants a sign, how do we deal with that?
Mr. Brickner asked, you are allowed a directional sign, right? He asked, I mean, we do allow a directional sign, what was it a 2 foot by 4 foot directional sign?
Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t think so, no. He stated that I think it would be like for real estate. He stated that I don’t think in a residential district – it’s entirely up to the Board – there’s nothing really allowed in residential.
Mr. Leeth stated, as a point of compromise, if we do not have the ability to have a directional sign, that’s at least what I think we need as a minimum, and I would suggest 6 square feet for a directional sign. He stated that that is the size of the subdivision plats we routinely see here, 36 by 24 inches.
Mr. Detert asked, what would you have on there?
Mr. Leeth stated that we would have the name of the business…
Mr. Detert asked, are you going to put an arrow on it, a name?
Mr. Leeth stated, we would have the name of the business or an arrow and the address and the arrow. He stated probably the name of the business and the arrow. He stated, I don’t know. He stated that we’re kind of talking on the fly here. He stated that the mailbox would have the address.
Mr. Burns stated that I feel if we approve that we open a can of worms on U.S. 30.
Mr. Robertson stated that it says here, under signs, in addition, “advertising signs may be permitted by the Board not more than 500 feet from the right-of-way”, “when permitted” – it’s all “when permitted”. He stated that it’s not saying anything has to be done. He stated, “when permitted may contain not more than one poster panel”, uh, it’s 300 square feet. He stated that it’s not mandated that we have to give it.
Mr. Burns moved to deny the request for a sign in connection with Case 05-UV-5. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not sure – where were you reading?
Mr. Robertson stated, on Page 312.
Mr. Hudson stated that I was over on Miscellaneous Sign permitted in any district, A. each permitted for required parking area, now this is the driveway going up to the parking area, I guess I could say, “that has the capacity of more than five cars shall be permitted one sign not more than 2 square feet in area designated each entrance or exit from the parking area, one sign not more than 9 square feet identifying or designating a condition of use of such parking for each 25 spaces,” so, I’m not sure if that applies here, but it certainly allows, and I think this is directional…”signs described below shall be permitted in any district and may be erected without securing improvement location permit.”
Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t know if that would apply or not because it’s really just for parking. He stated that it doesn’t say anything about the business itself.
Mr. Hudson stated that usually a parking lot is for something, and usually a parking lot is not for residential use, it’s for commercial use.
Mr. Siminski stated, and our ordinances apply in this chapter normal businesses or whatever, we’re also dealing with the overlay, which is a little more restrictive. He stated that I think it’s like 600 feet, rather than 500.
Mr. Hudson asked, they have to be 600 feet off the road?
Mr. Siminski stated, the center of the road. He stated that I believe that’s true. He stated that I don’t have it here, though.
Mr. Robertson stated, “directional signs, Board approval required not withstanding other provisions. The Board may authorize directional signs but not more than 12 square feet when in the opinion of the Board the sign shall be compatible with the zoning district and will not be so placed as to constitute a traffic hazard”. He stated, and then there’s this one here…
Mr. Hudson asked, what page are you on?
Mr. Robertson stated that it’s 314, on directional signs, and also under F on the same page, this is kind of interesting: “Directional and informational signs not exceeding 6 square feet erected and maintained in any district by civic organizations, churches schools and eleemosynary…”
Mr. Detert stated that I’m not exactly sure what we’re trying to do here, find a way to give him a sign? He stated that the motion was for no sign.
Mr. Hudson stated, I’m sorry. He stated that I asked a question.
Mr. Burns moved to deny the request for a sign in connection with Case 05-UV-5. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Hudson - No Robertson - Yes
At this time, Mr. Hudson left the meeting.
Case 05-V-23. Petition of Wheeler High School and Union Township Middle School, 599 W. 300 N. Ste. A, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to reduce the required front building line setback from 40 feet to 38 feet to allow for an expansion of the parking lot, to be located at 599 W. 300 N., in Union Township.
Ms. Tallian stated that I talked to Bob Thompson about this. She stated that it’s not completely clear under the ordinance whether they really need this. She stated that the Variance (sic) talks about
structures. She stated that Bob and I have a little bit of a disagreement about what’s a structure and is a parking lot a structure, so we decided that rather than fight about it it had already been here, it had already been noticed and so, but I just want to point that out to you. She stated that it’s not clear whether a parking lot’s a structure.
Fred Halterman stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that what we’re in front of you for is a Variance from Ordinance 17.20.030.D-1 regarding the 40-foot frontage in front of the school, and what we want to do is actually encroach into that area by 2 feet for their parking lot expansion for a project. He stated that that’s why we’re here tonight to present our case.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
No one spoke against this petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Burns asked, this is not on an easement or anything like that?
Mr. Halterman stated, no.
Mr. Detert stated, I don’t see any problem granting them 2 feet. He stated that I just want to make sure he’s got a good surveyor so he doesn’t go 4 feet.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-23, incorporating the findings of fact as amended by counsel. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Robertson - Yes
Case 05-V-24. Petition of Deep River Bowmen, Inc., P.O. Box 817, Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum required side-yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet and an increase in the size of the building from what was originally granted in a Special Exception approval from 4,400 square feet to 4,752 square feet to permit construction of a clubhouse, to be located at 590 N. SR 149, in Union Township.
Mitchell Peters stated that he is the president of the Deep River Bowmen and that he is handing out drawings to the Board. He stated that Deep River Bowmen has been located there for 26 years. He stated that they came before you, unbeknownst to me until very recently, back in 1989 and they got a Variance of one type or another wherein they designated the size of the building that they intended to build. He stated, unfortunately, you didn’t put a two-year restriction on it, and now we’re back here in 2005 when we’re ready to build, and the
proposal that we presented to the TAC was about 352 feet larger than they had anticipated when they came before you in 1989. He stated that what we’re proposing is a 132-foot pole barn-style building, just a basic plain Jane pole barn, brown with dark brown trim, and the way that we came up with the dimensions of that is the first 24 feet is intended to be a clubhouse. He stated that we currently have our clubhouse in a little pole barn-type garage-size building out there, so the first 24 feet would be a clubhouse walled off from the actual indoor archery range. He stated that the 36 feet in width converts to about 16 or 17 lanes. He stated that when you’re shooting archery on a lane you shoot the top line and the bottom line. He stated that it allows us to shoot, if we have 16 lanes, 32 people at a time. He stated that the club, we exist there now as an outdoor range. He stated that we rent a range annually to do our indoor leagues every year. He stated that we have about 10 to 20 members. He stated that generally it starts out about 20, 25, and then it decreases as the year goes on. He stated that we believe that it’s not going to significantly change the use of the property and that the size is really kind of what fits and what fits in the future. He stated that as far as the location on the lot, here’s how, and quite frankly, I picked the location, I thought it would be a 20-foot setback. He stated that here’s how we decided the location though. He stated that right here, at the North end of the location, is where the (inaudible) line begins. He stated that this whole area, basically, from here over is an open field. He stated that that’s the open field end of the property and you all have those before you. He stated, so the wood starts – and it’s fairly old and dense woods – and it feeds down as you can see, into this creek that runs through it, so I want to keep the building as far away from the creek area as I could, out of the woods, because these are old oaks, and by this location all we had to cut was two branches off of a large oak tree that were overhanging the building site, so we wanted to avoid that. He stated that additionally, although it’s not real clear, this easement – and I don’t know if that’s the exact angle or not – but the highline easement runs right through behind where we put the building, so nothing can be built between our building and the other side of the highline easement, which is 130 feet wide. He stated that the South property, when we bought this 10 acres back in ’86-ish, the South 30 acres was also available to us, because there was none of this we didn’t realize the property value was going to skyrocket in the next 20 to 20 years, we didn’t buy, but another club member did, so the South property is actually owned by one of the older club members who is still an active member in the club. He stated that when we came before you in ’89 Mrs. Rhoda, who, at the time, was up here, was the only person who complained, and that complaint was about a dispute that we settled and she became good friends of the club until her death some years ago. He stated that we’re really in kind of an isolated spot and we want to keep our property the way it is. He stated that we don’t want to tear down a bunch of trees. He stated that we use it to shoot archery targets. He stated that we want to provide an indoor range. He stated that we made our club available to the Boys and Girls Club and (inaudible) and I put a sample in this
little packet of the one that went out to the Boy Scouts. He stated that all of these went out in 2000. He stated that we try to make the range available to the kids, promoting safety. He stated that I show a couple of articles. He stated that we have an annual Riley Children benefit shoot. He stated that we had a benefit shoot for a local girl who had spina bifida last year where we raised several thousand dollars for the family. He stated that we look at ourselves as a positive force in the community that provides activities for the kids and for the archers in our community. He stated that we feel we need a bathroom. He stated that we’ve already had soil tests done. He stated that we’re awaiting state approval of that. He stated that the state’s already approved the building permit and we’re in the process now of getting the County approval. He stated that I don’t think anybody’s objected. He stated that I’ve attached these minutes and they’re my copies with different things on there, but those were attached just to show that I’m the duly elected president of Deep River Bowmen. He stated, so those are the two Variances that we come before you with. He stated that the one is to make it a 20-foot setback and keep us out of the trees, allow us to use the open area all around the area for the building, and the second is to increase the size, which is basically, I believe, 132 by 36, as I recall. He stated that this other part of the diagram is just the septic design that we’re in the process of having approved by the state then we’ll bring it before the local health department.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
No one spoke against this petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Burns stated that I have no problems with it.
Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have any problems with it. He stated that I just have a question. He stated that the 20-foot Variance that you’re asking for encroaches on the Indiana Michigan Electric easement?
Mr. Peters stated, no. He stated that that runs right behind the building, so nothing can be built 130 feet past that.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-24, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Attorney Laura Frost to address issues concerning Aberdeen billboard on U.S. Hwy 30.
Earl Hites stated that I’m one of Laura Frost’s partners and I’m familiar with Benchmark and represent them. He stated that Barb Young intended to be here tonight, but because of some medical reasons she’s not able to be here, so I’m prepared to proceed, if you’d like to go ahead with this. He stated that if you think she’s necessary and want to continue it, that’s fine also.
Mr. Robertson stated, well, if you’re satisfied that you can adequately represent Benchmark and Barb Young, we’re glad to accept that.
Mr. Hites stated that I think one of the issues is what occurred back in ’97 when the sign was given a temporary permit, and I’ve got copies of the minutes of that meeting, and perhaps I can pass those out, so we’re all working off the same playbook here. He stated that as I read those minutes, Barb Young appeared before this Board and indicated that this sign would be a temporary and would come down when the lots were sold. He stated that a Variance was granted on that basis. He stated that unfortunately there was no time stipulation set forth. He stated that as all of you know, Aberdeen is a pretty significant planned residential development with about 400 lots. He stated that at the current time there are 33 existing lots which have not been sold. He stated that Aberdeen is going to be before you shortly with Phase I, which will have 27 lots, which will complete the subdivision, therefore, there are about 60 lots which remain unsold. He stated that we’re not unmindful of your desire to get some finality here and put an end date. He stated that because we have lots that remain unsold we would propose that an end date be established two years from now to give us time to sell the inventory. He stated that hopefully it will sell by that time. He stated that as you know it’s been a long time and they have not all sold.
Mr. Detert stated that when we did this, of course, it was a little more out in the country and the country has dissipated farther South. He stated that I don’t think anybody thought that this sign would be there as long as it has. He stated that I made the motion, and I never expected it to be there as long as it is. He stated that everybody knows where Aberdeen is now. He stated that it’s not as far removed as it was. He stated that there was a legitimate reason for the sign when it started up, but I don’t see any reason for a sign any longer. He stated that I’d like to see the thing taken down.
Mr. Burns stated, I feel the same way. He stated that I guess we didn’t anticipate Aberdeen expanding. He stated that when we approved the sign it was for a certain size of sign. He stated, so you keep adding lots on and expanding the subdivision. He asked, what was the number of lots originally, when we approved Aberdeen?
Mr. Hites stated, well, we’re in Phase I now, so it was probably 300 and now we’re at 400, I would say.
Mr. Burns stated that I would say probably 300 lots are sold, I would think, so the original intent of the sign is probably fulfilled.
Mr. Detert stated, I feel the same way.
Mr. Hudson stated, I agree.
Mr. Brickner stated that I agree with what Rick was saying. He stated that originally there weren’t that many lots and they just keep adding phases and so the sign…there may be another phase coming up after what they say is the last phase, and, you know….
Mr. Hites stated, well, that’s why I think…I’m not opposed to setting something.
Mr. Robertson stated that it’s like the fellow that doesn’t want all the land in the world, just wants what is next to his. He stated that I think we did set a time when we approved this in that it was temporary, and the way the Board has always defined temporary in Use Variances and everything else is 5 years. He stated that I think a temporary Use Variance in the statute is no more than 5 years; we’re not allowed to do it for more than 5 years. He stated that we can do it again for 5 years and I think by when we talked about temporary that 5 years would have been implicitly understood in this, and Ms. Young did stipulate that we could set a time limit. He stated that I think we did when we said temporary.
Mr. Detert stated that I think the time limit was when lots were sold and the lots that we believed were in that subdivision at the time that motion was made, that number of lots, at least, has been sold, so, to me, the sign needs to come down. He stated that I didn’t know anybody and I don’t think they did it on purpose, but I don’t think anybody thought that the sign was going to hang there by Aberdeen expanding, but we were looking at what we had at the time.
Mr. Robertson stated, well, it sounds like we’re all – except for Mr. Hites – thinking that it should come down. He stated that I don’t know if we have to have a motion or what.
Mr. Burns stated that I’d like to be reasonable, I mean. He stated that let’s get through the summer and the building season, and maybe give them six months.
Mr. Detert stated, I would go along with that.
Mr. Hites stated that there’s probably a lease on it and I don’t have that in front of me, but I’m certain that…
Mr. Hudson stated that I think 6 months…that’s a good…
Mr. Detert moved to…
Mr. Robertson stated, that we don’t really have a case.
Mr. Detert stated, 6 months.
Mr. Siminski stated that the actual original case was 97-V-25.
Mr. Robertson asked, how do we get into this?
Mr. Burns asked, is that reasonable? He asked, do we have to have a case number?
Ms. Tallian stated, well, we have a case number.
Mr. Robertson asked, can we just enter into the case? He stated that the case was approved back in ’97.
Ms. Tallian stated that the case was approved in ’97. She stated that I’m a little bit uncomfortable with this because I think they were asked to come to the BZA to discuss this and I think that probably it should have been put on the agenda as a motion to revoke the previous sign permit, so…
Mr. Hudson asked, they should come back next month, then?
Ms. Tallian stated, probably. She stated that I’d put it on the agenda a as a motion to revoke.
Mr. Hudson moved to put Case 97-V-25 on the agenda for the 9-21-05 BZA meeting as a motion to revoke the previous sign permit.
Discussion:
Mr. Hites stated, perhaps in the interim if we reach an agreement on this we could just send a stipulation to Ms. Tallian saving you all a lot of time, so it’s of record.
Mr. Detert stated that it IS on the agenda under additional business so we have a representative here…
Mr. Robertson stated that the only person that would be affected is the representative, and he’s not objecting.
Mr. Detert stated that that’s what I was getting at.
Ms. Tallian stated, I mean, if you’re willing to waive any notices on that, then I don’t have a problem with it.
Mr. Robertson stated, let’s just move an addendum to Case 97-V-25 that it be revoked in 6 months, or that the Board determines that the temporary use is up in 6 months.
Mr. Hudson asked, we have two motions on the floor, don’t we?
Mr. Hudson moved to withdraw his motion to put Case 97-V-25 on the 9-21-05 BZA agenda.
Mr. Detert stated, what we need now is a motion to assign a case number to the agenda; Karen, is that going to satisfy you?
Ms. Tallian stated, yeah, move it to the agenda.
Mr. Detert stated, okay, and show that the representative was here and agreed to 6 months and…
Ms. Tallian stated, no, wait. She stated, show that the representative…first you have to move it to the agenda.
Mr. Detert moved Case 97-V-25 to the agenda.
Discussion:
Ms. Tallian stated, and show that Mr. Hites has no objection and has been notified.
Mr. Detert asked, I have to have two motions, one to move it to the agenda and…
Ms. Tallian stated, yes.
Mr. Detert moved to move Case 97-V-25 to the agenda. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried by a 5-0 voice vote.
Mr. Detert moved that the existing Aberdeen sign be dismantled in 6 months and removed, noting that the Benchmark representative is here and agrees to this. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes
Discussion:
Mr. Robertson asked, is it in the right-of-way, Mr. Hites?
Mr. Hites stated, no, it’s on private ground.
Mr. Hudson stated that I think it’s behind all the fences.
Mr. Hites stated that there are horses there every time I go by, so if it’s on the right-of-way the horses are on the right-of-way.
Edward Helper III: Discussion and potential action regarding contract between previous landowner Jerry Jensen concerning a pole barn to be built prior to construction of a home on the property now owned by Mr. Helper.
Mr. Siminski stated that this was the case…the original owner of the parcel of property is named Jerry W. Jensen. He stated that he came before the BZA. He stated that he wanted to build a pole barn, accessory building, prior to construction of his house. He stated that he did write a written commitment, which I did send in your staff report. He stated that it expired September 18, 2005 (sic), although the actual motion, I think, was different than the actual contract that he submitted back at that time. He stated that I think it expired last year, but, whatever. He stated that in the meantime what has happened is Mr. Jensen no longer owns the property and I met Mr. Helper out there and he explained to me that he had purchased the property. He stated that he also has the residence in front, right off of 50 N., and so he purchased the back property, so he does have both parcels. He stated that I did explain previously though, and Karen mentioned that this written commitment does go with the property and stays with the property. He stated that Mr. Helper was asked to come today and discuss this issue that we have.
Mr. Burns asked, is the pole barn built?
Mr. Siminski stated, yes, it is.
Mr. Hudson asked, and he owns the house also that’s connected…the two properties are together?
Mr. Siminski stated that he owns the house in front, but the parcels are not combined, as yet.
Mr. Helper stated that they are not combined, but I also purchased the property next door.
Craig Hanson stated that Mr. Helper approached me and asked me to assist him in this matter. He stated that I’m an attorney in Merrillville. He stated that my office is at 7444 Broadway in Merrillville. He stated that I’ve only recently become somewhat familiar with this and Mr. Helper’s property. He stated that I do have some surveys that Mr. Helper did have prepared for the Board and that were prepared by Don Bengel of Bengel Engineering that might make this a little clearer in terms of what the present ownership of the property is. He stated that I have three copies for the Board, so perhaps we can share copies. He stated that Mr. Helper purchased the home which…for purposes of clarifying this, parcel A is the home that he purchased originally and he did that approximately in May of 2004. He stated that parcel B is the primary parcel, I think, that we’re concerned with where the pole barn is erected by Mr. Jensen and he purchased that from Mr. Jensen in 2004. He stated that the home consists of, I believe it’s approximately 1 acre, Parcel A, Parcel B being about 4 acres and then in this year, July of this year, Mr. Helper purchased Parcel C and D, which consists of 5 acres.
Mr. Burns asked, what’s on C?
Mr. Hanson stated that C is a single-family residence and D is vacant land. He stated that there is a pole building located at the back of Parcel C and if I’m looking at Mr. Bengel’s drawing correctly…
Mr. Robertson asked, is that on C or D?
Mr. Hanson stated, that’s what I’m saying, when I said vacant land on D, as it’s drawn, it might be part of D, I’m not sure.
Mr. Helper stated that the only reason it’s showing up this way is I’m in the process of trying to sell the home, and if I can’t sell it, (inaudible) C. He stated that I bought it because I want the land in the future I’d like to be able to possibly give this front land to my son and build my own home on the back. He stated that by combining these two parcels, I’m under the understanding, the impression, that that’s going to eliminate that chance and I’m going to have nothing but a big back yard.
Mr. Hanson stated that Mr. Helper relocated from Hammond. He stated that he moved out there with his 10-year-old son who lives there with him. He stated, as he stated, his hope and dream was to build a home on Parcel B. He stated that unfortunately he’s now become aware that this restriction – it was only tonight that I became aware that, well, at least I believe it expired September 18th and maybe that’s incorrect now, I don’t know.
Mr. Robertson asked, what kind of time frame are you looking at, Mr. Helper?
Mr. Helper stated, many years.
Mr. Robertson asked, many years – 10 years, 15 years, 20 years?
Mr. Hanson stated that he doesn’t have a specific time frame. He stated that it’s when he can afford – he’s made an investment in all these parcels now.
Mr. Robertson asked, what are on the side here, what if we go, what is it just to the East, or to the West, excuse me?
Mr. Hanson stated that to the East is another single-family residence.
Mr. Helper stated that you guys are probably familiar with Robert Farenbaum (?). He stated that he had a 10-acre parcel and he divided it into 3, 3 and 4. He stated that he’s been (inaudible) easement in the past for his NIPSCO for his subdivide. He stated that I don’t intend to subdivide, but they are very close to me. He stated that they’ll agree to whatever I ask them.
Mr. Brickner asked, when you bought this property, were you aware of this?
Mr. Helper stated, no, sir, and it’s probably my own mistake.
Mr. Brickner asked, Mr. Jensen didn’t tell you about this.
Mr. Hanson stated, I don’t believe – I can’t speak for him, obviously, but I don’t think – he totally ignored this Board’s limitations, but he did go through a rather nasty divorce and that led to his financial downfall, which prohibited him from completing this, and that resulted in Mr. Helper buying this.
Mr. Robertson asked, the pole barn’s on B, is that correct?
Mr. Hanson stated that the pole barn is on B. He stated that it’s located…
Mr. Robertson asked, do you know where it is on B?
Mr. Hanson stated, I believe it’s…if you note, there’s a B circled beyond a lightly – a small B – and I believe it’s located approximately just East of that.
Mr. Helper stated, very close to the neighbor’s land.
Mr. Hanson stated that it is a building that’s 36 by 28 with a concrete floor. He stated that it’s not a ramshackle place. He stated that it has a shingled roof.
Mr. Robertson asked, and how does the entrance to that…where does it come from?
Mr. Helper stated that it comes through the easement. He stated that it’s on the East side of A. He stated that this was originally the 35-foot easement for Jerry Jensen when I owned the property on the front acres. He stated that he was allowed to come through here and then this basically wiggles a little bit but stays almost entirely to the East side of the land. He stated that the barn sits somewhere in the middle there, (inaudible) facing out this way and kind of wraps around. He stated that it’s not anywhere in the middle of the land.
Mr. Burns asked, why can’t he join both properties?
Mr. Robertson asked, why can’t he join A and B?
Mr. Burns stated, make it one parcel.
Mr. Helper stated that the only concern I have on A and B, if you folks can guarantee me that I will have no problem building in the future I’d be more than glad to join them for you.
Mr. Brickner stated that you would have two residences on one piece of property then.
Mr. Robertson stated, that would be the problem.
Mr. Hanson stated that’s what his concern is if the parcels were to be consolidated.
Mr. Robertson asked, what’s the terrain like there, is it flat, open?
Mr. Helper stated that it was a lot of woods I’ve cleared, trees. He stated that I’ve made it a lot nicer than what it was.
Mr. Robertson stated that it looks like it’s back 150 feet or so.
Mr. Helper stated that in the very back, when it goes down, I’d say maybe the back three-quarters of an acre to an acre, there’s a substantial drop and that’s all wood. He stated that where the pole barn is at – I think that’s what you’re asking me – it’s cleared with some nice grass. He stated that I cut it with my John Deere.
Mr. Robertson asked, how visible is that from up in front of your house?
Mr. Helper stated that you can’t see it from the street.
Mr. Robertson stated that that’s what I was wondering.
Mr. Detert asked, are you a contractor?
Mr. Helper stated, no, sir, I’m an elevator constructor by trade. He stated that I work on elevators 40 hours a week and raise my son.
Mr. Detert asked, but you are going to build at some future time on B?
Mr. Helper stated that I hope for my son.
Mr. Detert asked, for yourself or for somebody else?
Mr. Helper stated that I’m 99 percent sure it would be for my son.
Mr. Detert asked, you don’t intend to try to sell B again with a pole barn on it?
Mr. Helper stated, unless I ran into substantial financial difficulties down there. He stated that my plan is to live here until you put me in a nursing home or I die.
Mr. Detert asked, so, what are you really asking us to – forgo you tearing that down for 10 years or some long period of time?
Mr. Helper stated, yes, sir.
Mr. Detert stated that I wouldn’t be too uncomfortable if he…to leave it up there if he would agree that that Parcel B would never be sold separately unless it was a house to be built on, as long as it was for his personal use and he was going to use that pole barn, then I wouldn’t be opposed to letting him have it.
Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with him turning this into one parcel and a commitment that you could build a house later on because if this Mr. Jensen were to follow through he would have had a house on this parcel anyway.
Mr. Robertson stated, but then you’d have two houses.
Mr. Burns stated, he’d have to separate it.
Mr. Robertson asked, separate it again after that?
Ms. Tallian stated that he’d have to go through subdivision.
Mr. Detert stated, or, if he would agree to something that said he would not sell the parcel unless there was a house to be built on it within a given time frame.
Mr. Helper stated, either to myself or somebody else.
Mr. Detert stated that the idea is that we don’t want a bunch of pole barns sitting around the county with no houses on them. He stated, so that’s what we’re trying to do is to preserve that property in its present state if you want to hold onto it. He stated, but if you want to get rid of it and sell it in the future, that person you sell it to has to build a house. He asked, you said you didn’t know about this when you bought the property, that didn’t show up in the title search?
Mr. Helper stated, it’s probably my own fault. He stated that it shows…I realize today that it shows up, referred to…
Mr. Hanson stated that it showed up as an affidavit only, but it didn’t state that it was any kind of restriction.
Mr. Helper stated that I was so anxious to get this property. He stated, see, what happened when I bought my home I expected…there was a divorce, too. He stated that I expected to get the 4 acres from the judge because the divorce (inaudible), nobody was going to win, the judge was going to have to sell the land off and split the money up. He stated that I 99 percent thought I was going to get it that way. He stated that I’m (inaudible) trying to buy his property from under him living behind me, probably hating me and me (inaudible) for my son and I to enjoy. He stated, I mean, I really thought I was getting this land or I wouldn’t have bought the house and 1 acre. He stated that he wasn’t telling me about it, that’s for sure.
Mr. Detert asked, it did show up in the title search?
Mr. Hanson stated that it showed up as an affidavit.
Mr. Detert stated, okay, but it did show up in the title search.
Mr. Hanson stated, as an affidavit, but it didn’t specifically state that it was a restriction of any type on the use of the property.
Mr. Detert stated, he’s like a lot of people: They don’t read these things, but you really need to read them. He stated that you need to know what you’re buying.
Mr. Hanson stated, it wasn’t his fault – it was mine.
Mr. Detert stated that I’m just saying that you need to look at it.
Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t really have a problem with him leaving the pole barn there but I do think that if he does sell that piece of property that there has to be a home built there. He stated, like Mr. Detert said, if he eventually sells A and B parcels off there should be a restriction that people have to build a house there.
Mr. Helper stated that I have no problem with that, sir.
Mr. Hanson asked, is that if he splits it? He asked, if he were to sell the whole thing together to one person would that Variance thing continue under those circumstances?
Mr. Brickner stated, if he combines the two pieces of property then you don’t have a problem.
Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t think he wants to combine them.
Mr. Brickner stated, you can’t have two residences on one piece of property.
Mr. Robertson stated that he doesn’t want to combine them. He stated that he wants to live on A now and then sometime in the future build a house on B and move to B and then probably either sell A to somebody else or rent it to somebody else, is that right?
Mr. Hanson stated, or probably have his son live there.
Mr. Robertson stated, so they’d still be separated and you’d have two houses on two properties.
Mr. Burns asked, what happens if he needs to sell B at a later date?
Mr. Robertson stated, and that’s what we were discussing. He stated, if we could perhaps put a stipulation that if he sells B a house has to be built before he can sell B or with the sale or something?
Mr. Helper stated, I don’t think I’ll ever sell, but let’s just say in the worst-case scenario if I ran into financial difficulties and I had to sell, would the people have a certain amount of time to build their house?
Mr. Burns asked, can we require that of somebody who might buy the property in the future?
Mr. Hanson stated that I believe they could come in front of the Board with another petition, couldn’t they?
Mr. Robertson stated that we could put in our motion this Board’s opinion that they be granted a reasonable amount of time to build a house, but then they would have to appear before whatever Board is here at the time using our recommendations as a guide and then approve it, would that be all right?
Mr. Detert stated, I think we’re really…
Ms. Tallian stated, I’m trying to write a motion that will do what you’re…
Mr. Detert stated, I think what we really need is for the petitioner to come here with some agreement that he’s willing to sign indicating what we have just spoken about. He asked, I don’t know – are we out of order addressing this under other business now, or do we have to put it on the agenda?
Ms. Tallian stated that I liked the part where you add it to the agenda, I think that’s legitimate.
Mr. Robertson asked, but can we add this one to the agenda without a public hearing?
Mr. Detert stated, we don’t have a…well, we do have a case number. He stated that I kind of would feel more comfortable if you came back and the minutes will be available and you’re an attorney and you can discuss this with our attorney and come up with some agreement that would be acceptable to this Board.
Mr. Robertson stated, and probably we’d have a public hearing and anybody around you would have a chance to weigh in with their thoughts on what we’re doing, his neighbors, or whatever?
Mr. Helper asked, would we have to have that now or 10 years down the road?
Mr. Robertson stated, no, you’d have to put it on the agenda within a month or two and then we would consider it at that time and resolve it, hopefully, along the lines of what we’ve discussed here. He stated that I imagine that would be the resolution, the way we’ve been discussing it here.
Mr. Burns asked, are we going to say in this letter of commitment that he cannot subdivide this?
Mr. Detert stated, that’s what we’ll have to say.
Mr. Burns stated, I’m just wondering if he sells it, if somebody subdivides that into four lots, how do you cover that? He asked, are we going to say that he can’t subdivide it, so he understands the restrictions?
Mr. Helper asked, I’m actually subdividing it from my own home, right?
Mr. Robertson stated, no, we’re talking about B, taking B by itself and subdividing that, instead of one piece cutting out two or three. He stated that I don’t think that’s worth talking about. He stated that even if they did that they’d still have a barn on it and a barn would have to have a house on it.
Mr. Burns stated, let’s say he sells it, for whatever reason in the future, and somebody wants to subdivide it.
Ms. Tallian stated, they’d have to go to subdivision.
Mr. Burns asked, so this commitment is for this one parcel?
Ms. Tallian stated, I think that what needs to happen is that you notice up this for a public hearing. She stated that right now it’s on discussion and you probably are right, we should have a public hearing on the issue to be allowed to do this, so you get it on the agenda, you send out your cards, whatever, and I think that what you need to come in and request, and you need to set this up, and, if you want to, we can talk about it, you need a commitment that as long as he owns both parcels, A and B, then he’s allowed that temporary Variance from standards to allow him to have a pole barn without a house on the separate piece, but that if he’s going to ever sell that piece off, it has to be with the restriction that a house be built on it, whether by him before he sells it or by the new owner.
Mr. Burns stated, so it stays as one parcel.
Ms. Tallian stated, yeah.
Mr. Hanson asked, and when you say temporary Variance, is that a 5-year Variance?
Mr. Robertson stated, we can say indefinite.
Ms. Tallian stated, as long as this commitment shows up in the Recorder’s Office.
Mr. Detert stated, I think you said that in what you said that it would be indefinite until you sell the parcel.
Mr. Robertson stated, we’re not saying temporary.
Mr. Hanson asked, but if he sells it, the parcel must have a house within a reasonable period of time or a specific period of time?
Ms. Tallian stated, you draft it and send it over – we’ll look at it.
Mr. Robertson stated, okay, well, I don’t think we need anything – this is just a discussion.
Mr. Brickner asked, so Mr. Jensen’s off the hook then, right?
Mr. Robertson stated, yeah.
Attorney Patrick Lyp representing Frank Jury in the matter of a sign for his legal office on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30.
Mr. Siminski stated that we got a fax from Mr. Jury’s attorney asking for a continuance of this matter to the September agenda.
The matter concerning discussion regarding a sign for the legal office of Frank Jury on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30 was continued to the September 21, 2005 BZA meeting on a 5-0 voice vote.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
S\ James Robertson, Chairman
Attest:\ Fred M. Siminski, Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector
|
