 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting October 19, 2005 M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on October 19, 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. Brickner moved to waive reading of the minutes for the September 21, 2005 meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote. Correspondence: Mr. Siminski stated that we have three findings of fact from last month. He stated that Case 05-UV-27 should be 05-V-27. He stated that there is also Case 05-V-31 and Case 05-UV-6. Mr. Burns moved to approve the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Old Business: Case 90-UV-7. Oakley & Marcella Clark, 436 W. 700 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Use Variance permitting a craft shop at 436 W. 700 N., in Portage Township. Mr. Siminski stated that we tried contacting these people before the staff report and could not reach them. He stated that I left a note on their door and I did receive something in the mail stating that she wishes to withdraw her case and all future renewals. He stated that I did visit the location and there is no signage and there doesn’t seem to be any activity. Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t think we have to do anything on this because it just expires. Case 83-V-33. Joseph Butrym, 1089 N. 200 W., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to allow a mobile home on 200 W., between CR 1050 N. and Old Porter Road, in Liberty Township. Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner asking for an extension of this TCO. Mr. Burns asked what the original purpose of this TCO was. He asked if it was for health reasons. Mr. Siminski stated that the parents were retired and wanted to place a mobile home on the property so they could live near their son. Mr. Robertson stated that it was pretty much what it is. He stated that the son already owned the property and the parents wanted to set a mobile home and they’ve been there ever since. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 83-V-33 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Case 90-V-29. J. Thomas Frank, 6744 Creek Ridge Trail, Indianapolis, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 S., between SR 2 and County Line Road, in Porter Township. Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints. Mr. Siminski stated that there have not been. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 90-V-29 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Case 05-V-29. Petition of Matthew & Jennifer Estill, 67 E. Estill Lane, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage on a lot without a primary structure, to be located 5 lots South of 67 E. Estill Lane, in Liberty Township. (This case was continued from the 9-21-05 meeting with the petitioners to look at alternatives to a Variance.) Patrick Lyp stated that he is an attorney representing and accompanied by Mr. Estill. He stated that the issue was putting a garage on a lot without the primary structure there. He stated that since the last meeting I’ve done some research as to what’s taken place since 1991. He stated that I brought all the documents to your attorney. He stated that briefly the issue concerned a road going East-West dividing a couple of those lots there. He stated that back in 1991 the petitioners’ parents filed a petition with the Porter County Plan Commission to vacate that road. He stated that that was denied by the Plan Commission as well as by the Commissioners. He stated that the basis for denial was because a property owner to the West filed an objection to that. He stated that in 1994, as the map I brought you last time indicated, there was a road going North-South. He stated that that one was vacated and, in fact, is vacated. He stated that the concern that we have is if we go through what you guys…what this Board suggested, doing the vacating of that, the same problem from back in 1991 will reappear. He stated that the property owner to the West will object the vacating of that road and we will be back in the same boat we were in 1991. He stated that at the last meeting we made the presentation to you that if the concern was building on those other lots the petitioners will agree to sign any commitment or provide any representation tonight and record it that no further construction will take place on those lots. He stated that it’s my opinion, based upon the history of this matter that going down that route will simply result in the same result that happened back in 1991. Ms. Tallian stated that I have now the minutes from the hearing in 1991 and basically it describes exactly what he said, that the property owners own 33 acres to the West and they were opposed to this because it does provide them with another entrance to their property. He stated that basically what we told them to do last time had been done 14 years ago and denied. Mr. Robertson stated that it’s the same property owner over there. He stated, well, if you do put it over there, the septic line would run across the proposed road. Mr. Lyp stated that right now if not in front of you the home right now is on Lots 59 and 58. He stated that the septic field does cross that road on 56 and 55 and the garage would be way to the South on Lot 52. Mr. Robertson asked, so, what do you recommend, Counselor? Ms. Tallian stated that actually what I told Mr. Lyp was that I thought his best move was to come in here with some proposed commitments that they would not develop those intermediate parcels. Mr. Robertson stated, and those would be recorded with the property. Ms. Tallian stated that that would be Lots 53, 54, 55 and 56. Mr. Robertson asked, Rich, do you think that’s the best way to go? Mr. Hudson stated, yes, I do. Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-V-29, with the conditions that Attorney Lyp present the conditions that were spoken about to our attorney for approval and that those be recorded against the Lots 53, 54, 55 and 56, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes New Business: At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for a public hearing. Case 05-V-32. Petition of Michael & Geraldine Corbett, 112 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in front of the house, to be located at 112 W. U.S. Hwy 6, in Liberty Township. Mr. Corbett stated that I’d like to have a garage built in the front of my house. He stated that it’s not an attached garage. He stated that I don’t have any room in the back…well, I have room, but the way the land is it’s not…my driveway would have to go right alongside of my house, so, I’d rather have it in the front. He stated, plus, the neighbor’s garage is right in front of his house, which is about 100 feet away and you can’t see the house from the highway because of the trees. He stated that I have some pictures here of the neighborhood if you’d like to see them. He stated that it’s not going to detract. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Brickner stated that you’re on the South side of 6. He asked, does your driveway come in from Route 6? Mr. Corbett stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, and the reason you can’t put the garage behind your house or adjacent to your house is strictly because you don’t have any room? He asked, it’s not because.. Mr. Corbett stated that there’s room, but the way the land is sloped… Mr. Brickner asked, it’s too low? Mr. Corbett stated, well, I’d have to go too close to my house, my drive would have to go right alongside of the house. Mr. Brickner stated that according to this drawing, your garage is sitting almost directly in front of your house. He asked, it can’t be moved back or to the side? Mr. Corbett stated, no, because of the way the land is. He stated that it’s not flat. Mr. Brickner stated, your septic field is up front, right? Mr. Corbett stated that it’s up front. Mr. Brickner asked, and the garage is 26 by 32? Mr. Corbett stated, yes. Mr. Brickner stated, you’d have to change the driveway, then. He asked, you’re still going to come in on the same driveway? Mr. Corbett stated, same driveway. Mr. Brickner asked, but you’re going to have to make a left-hand turn. Mr. Robertson asked, is there just this one sheet that shows your property? Mr. Corbett stated, yes. Mr. Robertson stated, and these others are the other properties around you. Mr. Brickner asked, can you show us on these pictures where your garage is going to be built. Mr. Hudson stated, I think where the stakes are. Mr. Detert stated that in your request you said the garage is being used for cars and workshop. He asked, is that just storage? He asked, you’re not working on cars? Mr. Corbett stated that I have a couple antique cars that I want to store in there. Mr. Burns asked, it’s not going to be used for a business? Mr. Corbett stated, no. Mr. Robertson asked, why can’t you turn the garage the other way and put it right beside the house? Mr. Corbett stated, because of the way…the property slopes down right after it gets about 10 feet away from the house, it slopes right down. He stated that you’d have to look at it to understand what it really is like. Mr. Brickner asked, are these trailers on your property or on the neighbor’s property? Mr. Corbett stated, no, like I said, the house next door has a garage in front. He stated that if there was a spot I would move it; I wouldn’t put it in front, but there’s no spot to put it. He stated that I’d have to do a lot of fill. Mr. Brickner stated that the slope doesn’t look that severe. He asked, you couldn’t put some fill in there? Mr. Corbett stated, no, because that’s a natural drainage for the property behind. Mr. Brickner asked, how far from Route 6 is your house? Mr. Corbett stated, probably about 300 feet. Mr. Hudson stated about 276 feet. Mr. Corbett stated that you can’t even see the house because of the trees. Mr. Siminski stated that your house is real long and it has like two front doors. He asked, is it a single-family house? Mr. Corbett stated that it is. Mr. Siminski asked, so nobody else lives…because on our maps we’re showing R-1 somewhere in that area, and I’m trying to figure out which one it is, but I didn’t think it was yours. Mr. Corbett stated, no. Mr. Detert stated, just looking at your sketch, it looks like on the left side you’ve got quite a bit of room, so you could get around that side to get to a garage in the back, so why can’t you, because of the slope? Mr. Corbett stated that the slope is steep there on that one side. Mr. Burns asked, are you in a hurry? He asked, are you going to start construction this fall? Mr. Corbett stated, I was going to. Mr. Burns stated, I just think we should continue this and look at this piece of property. Mr. Detert stated that I just don’t like looking at a garage in front of the house if there’s some way around it. He asked, is there room in the back of your house to put a garage? Mr. Corbett stated that I couldn’t do it. Mr. Detert stated that there’s the possibility of fill to put a driveway in there. Mr. Corbett stated that there’s a natural flow of rainwater that comes down through there. Mr. Brickner stated that we should take a look at it. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-32 to the 11-16-05 meeting and to visit the property. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote. Case 05-V-33. Petition of James & Lauri Wertz, 250 W. 375 S., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in front of the house, to be located at 250 W. 375 S., in Porter Township. Mr. Wertz stated that the proposal here is to put a detached garage, barn, to the side and to the front of the house. He stated that there is an easement on one side of the house to get to the back property. He stated that the septic is behind. He stated that there is a low area, so the logical place then, which is the original design, was to put it to the side of the house and the front. He stated that we’re a quarter mile off the road and we’re back into the trees and nothing’s even seen from the road. He stated that if they were even to actually extend 250 W. through it would actually change everything on the house, so the West side would become the front of the house with the design and everything. He stated that we could put it farther to the East, but it would be so far away from the house that it defeats the purpose of having a garage to put your car close to the house. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, how far would the barn be if you put it over here? Mr. Wertz stated, probably 150, 200 feet, though I haven’t really measured it. Mr. Burns asked, what’s the acreage here? Mr. Wertz stated that it’s 10 acres. He stated that it’s 330 feet deep and a quarter mile wide. Mr. Brickner asked, what’s the most you could move it back before you’re affected by the wet area. He stated that it looks like, according to your drawing, like you could get back there behind, or even with your house pretty much before you ran into the wet area. Mr. Wertz stated that the wet area is actually close enough to the sides that we’re looking at doing that it would not fit in by any stretch of the imagination. He stated that we’re looking at roughly 45 foot deep and about 60 foot frontage. He stated that it’s going to be a old loft style barn, two-car garage, little workshop, no businesses or anything out of it. Mr. Burns stated that it’s unusual for 10 acres to have this problem. Mr. Wertz stated that when we originally designed it we didn’t know about not being able to put it off to the side like we had intended. He stated that it was our mistake, otherwise we probably could have switched things around a touch, but the easements are in, the house is in, the septic’s in. Mr. Brickner stated that in this case they’re a quarter-mile off the road, off what would be considered their front, 375. He stated that the driveway actually comes in from the West, rather than from 375 directly in, but your house faces 375. Mr. Wertz stated, yes. Mr. Brickner stated, so, it’s technically in the front yard. Mr. Wertz stated that it technically is. He stated that we’re going to be probably 30 feet to the East of the house. Mr. Brickner asked, where’s your septic field? Mr. Wertz stated that it’s directly behind the house. Mr. Brickner stated, so the only thing prohibiting you from moving it back is it’s a low spot – you can’t fill that in? Mr. Wertz stated that it’s a low, wet area. He stated that we’ve already disturbed the ground a little bit. He stated that it could be some of the ground there to back fill and the low, wet area. Mr. Brickner stated that you don’t need to move it back that much further to be at least even with the front of your house, I mean, what are you talking about, 30 feet? Mr. Wertz stated that with the design we’re looking at, with the 60 foot front, a two-car garage, to shift the whole thing back, it would be directly over the low area, the disturbed area, so you wouldn’t have the virgin ground. He stated that part of our fear with doing that, too, is down the road, in case the ground would settle underneath, we would lose…create a cavity or something underneath and concrete would break. Mr. Brickner stated, well, here’s another one maybe we should look at. Mr. Burns stated, I agree, to be fair to the other petitioner, I think we should look at it. Mr. Siminski stated, I just want to ask a couple questions. He asked, how large is that little shed in front of your house? Mr. Wertz stated that what I’ve got there right now is just a temporary 10 by 10 shelter that we have the lawnmower in. Mr. Siminski stated, because technically it shouldn’t be sitting in front of the house. Mr. Wertz stated that it’s not a permanent structure. He stated that it’s actually 8 by 9, 8 by 10 or something. He stated that it’s not a permanent structure. He stated that it’s just a little metal… Mr. Siminski stated that it’s a metal building. He asked, is that going to come down when the garage goes up? Mr. Wertz stated, yes. Mr. Siminski stated that I didn’t catch it the first time I was out there, but I went back and then with anything over 80 square feet, you really need to have a permit for that. Mr. Wertz stated that it’s not even bolted down or anything, no permanent foundation to it. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-V-33 to the 11-16-05 meeting for the Board members to inspect the property. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote. Case 05-V-34. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership, c/o Benchmark Ltd., LLC, 57 S. Franklin, Suite 207, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance for Aberdeen Phase I to permit construction of a private road in a major subdivision and to reduce the required right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet and the minimum pavement width from 30 feet to 28 feet, to be located at the extension of Larwick Circle between Prairie Parkway and Hawick Drive, in Union and Center Townships. Attorney Laura Frost stated that she and Robert Palm are representing and accompanied by one of the principals in this matter. Barb Young. She stated that as mentioned we are here on a request for a Variance for developmental standards in relation to the Aberdeen Phase I subdivision. She stated that this is a 27-lot, single-family home subdivision. She stated that it’s zoned R-1. She stated that it’s in compliance with all R-1 requirements except for the road Variance that we’re requesting tonight. She stated that this is part of the Aberdeen development, which is a PRD, part of it is, but this particular piece of it, this phase of it, Phase I, is just a straight subdivision. She stated that it is a piece which will complete the Aberdeen development, joining up the Links to the North and East, I guess, with the Prairies and the Fairways neighborhoods to the South, and so make a cohesive unit within Aberdeen. She stated that the petition received primary plat approval of subdivision at the September 28th meeting of the Porter county Plan Commission, subject to receipt of approval of the Variances we’re requesting tonight. She stated that three Variances from developmental standards are being requested with respect to Larwick Circle, which is the road that goes through the plat, and I believe everybody should have gotten a copy of the plat drawing with their application packet. She stated that those are as follows: First, we are requesting a private roadway. She stated that currently Section 16-32.28 of the Porter County code requires that all streets in platted subdivisions be public roads. She stated that we are requesting a private road, and I will explain why momentarily, in a moment. She stated that, additionally, we are requesting a Variance for a 50-foot right-of-way. She stated that currently Section 16.32.20(f) specifies a 60-foot right-of-way for roads. She stated, additionally, we are requesting a 28-foot pavement width, whereas Ordinance 90-3 currently specifies 30-foot pavement width. She stated that the reason that we are requesting these Variances – and I’ll just walk over to our plat for a moment – as I mentioned, this development is connecting up the existing Links development up here and the existing Prairies and Fairways neighborhoods down here. She stated that it’s an extension of Larwick Circle, which already exists on both ends. She stated that this is the proposed Larwick Circle for Aberdeen Phase I right here. She stated that this is an existing road, Larwick Circle, at the bottom here and also at the top up here. She stated that right now these existing roads are both private roads. She stated that they both already have 50-foot right-of-ways and 28-foot pavement widths, so the reason that we’re requesting a private road for Larwick Circle here for Phase I is to make it compatible with the existing roads on either end to which it will connect. She stated that to require a public road with the wider right-of-way and pavement widths would just be impractical for this development. She stated that it would just create access issues for the County. She stated that as far as maintaining the roadway – because there’s really no way to way to get there except to go over those other private roads that are already there. She stated that additionally, you’d have a situation where you’d have a wider road and all of a sudden you’d have to jog the pavement in two feet on either end to connect it up and that would create construction and safety difficulties. She stated that it just makes more sense to let this be a private road compatible with the right-of-way and pavement widths of the existing roads to which it will connect. She stated that additionally the road will be maintained as a private road through the Aberdeen Property Owners’ Association consistent with the other private roads in Aberdeen and in accordance with the proposed covenants for Phase I, which we filed with the subdivision application. She stated, in other words, it will require the POA to maintain this private road. She stated that we submitted proposed findings in accordance with the statutory requirements as to why this request is granted. She stated that I’ll just summarize those and not repeat them briefly. She stated that the Variances we’ve requested will not injure the public health, safety, morals and general welfare because again it will make the roadways consistent with what’s already there, which promotes safety so you don’t have the weird jogs and it provides for continuity in maintenance of the private road instead of creating difficulties as to how the county would access it and maintain it. She stated, additionally, it will not affect the use and value of the adjacent areas in a substantially adverse manner. She stated, to the contrary, development of Phase I will complete Aberdeen, will promote the property values of adjacent properties. She stated that the housing styles that are proposed there are consistent and compatible with the kinds of homes that are in the Links neighborhood and it will just be a benefit to all the surrounding properties. She stated, as mentioned before, strict application of the ordinance requirements would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property in this case because, again, the roads on either end which will connect our private roads with narrower right-of-ways and narrower pavement widths, so it will be impractical to make the piece in the middle different. She stated that for the foregoing reasons we request you approve the application. No one spoke in favor of this petition. John Hunter, Union Township School Corporation superintendent, 599 W. 300 N., stated that I hadn’t heard about this. He stated that this isn’t why I’m here really tonight, but I would like to express our concern that if we’re narrowing road widths and making only private entrances in here, how are we going to get school buses through here? He stated that that would be my concern. He stated that we typically find in subdivisions it is already difficult to get school buses, especially where we have to turn around in cul-de-sacs and I know that..I’m guessing that this is part of Union Township School Corporation. He stated that I don’t know that, but just from what I’m hearing, and our concern would be how are we going to get in to get these kids without having to necessarily drive through the rest of Aberdeen to have that access, so those would be our concerns from the school corporation. Mr. Palm stated that this portion would be in Union Township and access would be through the main Aberdeen development and Phase G through the same width roads. He stated that there would be no cul-de-sacs that they have to go through for turning buses around. He stated that there should be no problem maneuvering through here. He stated that this meets all the alignment requirements of the County for road widths. Barb Young, president of Benchmark, the developers of Aberdeen, 79 Braemar, stated that the school buses already negotiate through Aberdeen. She stated that also the Prairie is in Union Township, so the Union Township school buses already have access to…if there are children in that neighborhood, and the Valparaiso Community Schools pick up regularly. She stated that I follow them in and out on a regular basis, so the school buses have no difficulty picking up kids in Aberdeen. Mr. Robertson asked, Mr. Hunter, would you like to respond? Mr. Hunter stated, no, I have not seen the property, so I cannot, other than voicing what our concern would be, have not seen them, so I do not know if it’s really going to be an issue or not. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Burns asked, where these buses travel in the existing Aberdeen, how many cul-de-sacs? Mr. Palm stated, not any to get to here. Ms. Young stated, in fact, I will tell you that the Valparaiso Community Schools is in favor of this because right now their school bus comes down through the Fairways and because this road is not in they have to go back through all of Aberdeen to get out, whereas this will allow them to come through and come out on 100 S., so at the Plan Commission we submitted a letter where we had a response from the Valparaiso Community Schools indicating that they’re very much in favor of this because this is kind of the missing link to connect so they can get out easier than having to turn around and backtrack through the development. Mr. Burns stated that it makes sense. He stated that he’s just concerned about the buses and the cul-de-sacs. He asked, how about parking on side streets? Ms. Young stated that there is parking on the streets. She stated that as far as I know it has not caused the buses any problems. She stated that the only road – Aberdeen Drive – which is a County road, there is parking on one side of the street only, as part of the agreement with the County, but throughout the development it’s like any other residential area; people park on the street. Mr. Burns stated, but they’re narrow streets. Ms. Young stated, umm, 28 feet of pavement is not THAT narrow. She stated that you could even get through if there was a car parked on both sides. She stated that you would have to go very slow if you were a school bus, but that doesn’t happen very often. Mr. Burns stated, my concern is when the kids get off the bus. Mr. Detert stated, I think when you have parking on the street, it could be difficult for a school bus to get through, but this is consistent with what’s already there, so I don’t see a problem, but I’m glad the superintendent came and I think we do have some problems in the County when we develop these subdivisions from scratch in making road wide enough and cul-de-sacs big enough for large buses and fire trucks to get in and out. Mr. Brickner asked, why do you need the 10-foot reduction in the right-of-way. He stated that I know the pavement’s only 28 feet from 30, but what’s the 60 to 50 on the right-of-way. He asked, what’s the reason on that? Mr. Palm stated, consistency with both ends, continuation of sidewalks, utilities, everything, it’s just…. Mr. Brickner stated, so there isn’t any physical reason for that, as far as moving the houses forward? Ms. Young stated that it would impact the utilities, because all of the utilities go in so many feet back, for instance REMC goes in 10 feet outside of that, so if you had an even wider road it would offset the utilities and where they’re going to connect on both sides, so in this case, consistency is the main reason is to tie up our utilities as well. Mr. Brickner stated, I was just wondering if you were doing it for reasons of moving houses or getting more room. Ms. Young stated that the setback requirements are identical in Phase I as they are in the other neighborhoods and they are also consistent with R-1 standards. Mr. Hudson stated that all the questions were asked that I would have asked. Mr. Robertson stated that my question is why it was done at 28 feet and then at 50 feet in the first place. Ms. Young stated, to slow traffic down. She stated that the reason we did private streets in the first development is because we did want traffic to travel at a much slower rate. She stated, just like when you go through Heritage Valley, people drive very fast because that’s a very wide pavement, and we want to slow the traffic down to make it a more friendly neighborhood. Mr. Robertson stated, of course, that had to go through the Plan Commission, and they accepted it at the time. He stated that I don’t think we have a choice now; it has to match each end, so I don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-34 for the three Variances, incorporating the petitioners’ proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Case 05-UV-7. Petition of David & Phyllis Biedron, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit a facility for dog obedience training and agility, to be located at 771 W. 350 S., in Porter Township. Attorney Bill Ferngren stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioners in this matter. He stated that I’ve got a copy of the plat map here and I’ve identified where the property is to give everyone orientated in the right location. He stated that the property is approximately almost 15 acres, 14.9 acres in size. He stated that it’s on the North side of CR 350 S., zoned RR under your ordinance. He stated that the current use is a residential use, and the adjoining parcels are residential use, and there is a commercial greenhouse actually located West of this particular piece of property. He stated that Phyllis has a great passion for training dogs and she’s been doing this for over 16 years. He stated that her accolades are long and many, including over 85 awards for her dogs being titled as trained animals, voted best agility instructor by the Chicagoland Trails. He stated that she’s a Canine Good Citizen evaluator for the American Kennel Club. He stated that she also has worked onsite for commercials and television programs to keep the dogs at those locations in good behavior while the filming is occurring, so her knowledge is vast, her experience is tremendous and her passion is truly training the animals like she’s proposing for you tonight. He stated that the Variance is a temporary Use Variance for obedience and agility training. He stated that I have a couple other things I’d like to hand out to you. He stated that this is the type of thing you probably see on television or if you go to the local fair you’ll see that this type of activity at these locations. He stated, agility training, just like you see the small obstacle courses with the dogs channel their way through. He stated that Phyllis trains these dogs to be able to do this and obviously quite well. He stated that she also trains the dogs, primarily puppies, to be obedient and well-behaved, using a positive type of training mechanism. He stated, again, her passion for the dogs is very clear. He stated that as you can see, her agility training program is much like you’d see on the television. He stated that this is not a location for event, however it’s simply to say here’s where they’d be trained in order to accomplish these skills. He stated that the Variance would also permit the dogs being trained appropriate social skills, so when the animals are out in the public area they behave appropriately. He stated that classes are generally held in the evening a couple of times a week, very small classes. He stated that part of what she tries to do is really focus on providing attention to the animals, and the classes would be limited to 8 dogs or fewer during any one class. He stated that the dogs at any one time are well-trained and under her control and guidance. He stated that if you look at the property – and, hopefully, everyone had a chance to get out there, it is zoned RR, which is Rural Residential under your zoning classification, and part of the intent and purpose of RR is to provide a transition between the city to the rural residential and then on out to the agricultural pursuits. He stated that permitted within RR are agricultural pursuits, so, for instance, on this piece of property, which is almost 15 acres in size, she could have a herd of cattle. He stated that she could have horses, like across the street. He stated that she could have greenhouse type activities, chickens, hogs, all those sorts of things, but your ordinance doesn’t permit training of very few dogs at any one given period of time. He stated that that’s what she hopes to do for you tonight. He stated that it would be a limited amount of traffic that would be generated. He stated that the classes are 8 dogs or fewer, so there are not many cars at all that go to this property. He stated that additionally the property is almost 15 acres in size and I was out there today, and it’s 700 feet down their driveway before you get to the open area where the parcel starts to open up, which is a wide open space that is open and a place where this type of agility training – at least outdoors – would occur. He stated that when you’re back at this particular piece of property, if you stood there and looked around, you simply could not see other buildings out there. He stated that you may catch the top of the commercial greenhouse located to the West, but from where I stood on this property I couldn’t see another residence, nor did I hear any activity anywhere. He stated that it’s a very isolated piece of property, certainly one that is an ideal setting for this type of an environment and this type of a use. He stated that it will not be noticeable from any other parcel. He stated that there won’t be any noticeable difference in traffic. He stated that you wont notice this from the street. He stated that you simply won’t be able to see it. He stated that it’s consistent, also, with the surrounding area. He stated that there are horses across the street. He stated that there is a commercial greenhouse. He stated, rural residential purposes to allow animals to be located in these areas. He stated that its’ a clean use. He stated that there’s no pollutants. He stated that it’s simply what you see on this brochure with the little hurdles and jumping through the hoop and running through the tunnel. He stated that that’s the extent of what would be out there, and nothing which would be able to be seen from adjoining parcels. He stated that we would ask for your approval. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Monique Greenfield, 765 W. 350 S., stated that I live adjacent to the property. She stated that my back yard is adjacent to a clearing that she owns, part of, I believe it’s 4 acres, and then you have the 10 acres that’s nice and blocked. She stated that I’m glad to hear that it’s a temporary permit. She stated that I do have horses, right next to there. She stated that I only have an electric tape fence that keeps the property separate. She stated that she does have a section where she does have it all fenced in, so that’s great, but she does have like 4 acres that is all open area and right next to where my horses are. She stated that I’m glad it’s dog obedience. She stated that I love dogs – I have dogs, I have cats, I have horses. She stated that I just want to make sure that they are under control, not aggressive and can’t hurt my horses. Mr. Ferngren stated that I think Phyllis would be the first to tell you that the whole purpose of this is to create an atmosphere where these dogs are obedient and that’s exactly what she does. He stated that I think her credentials simply speak for themselves for the ability to go onsite, take a dog at a movie production studio and keep that animal under control, I think she’s certainly capable of doing the same here. Ms. Greenfield asked, are they going to be in the fenced-in area or are you going to have them out in that open area where it’s right there. Mr. Ferngren stated in that open area where we were today. Ms Biedron stated what you’re talking about is that field right next to where your fence is. She stated that probably where I would do my class is right on the other side of that long strip of trees, and usually beginner dogs are always on leash, at least until they can … Ms. Greenfield stated that I have a horse that doesn’t like dogs. She stated that I have another horse that has no problem…. Jim Shabowski, 746 W. 310 S., stated that I’m to the North of her property. He stated that some of my questions – because my rear end has been a target twice for the neighbor dogs, unfortunately, in my 30 years out there. He stated that we talked about 8 dogs. He stated that that’s not a bad number. He stated, I need to know what kind of dogs. He asked, are they being secured while they’re there? He asked, are they going to be boarded overnight? He asked, how will the noise be controlled from the dogs? He asked, are they being trained strictly for agility or are these guard dogs, attack dogs, what are we training here? He stated that I need answers to these questions, please. Mr. Ferngren stated that as she stated, initially these dogs will all begin on the leash, and this is a very large parcel, so the adjoining homes are a long distance away, but they will be on leash. He stated that there will be no boarding overnight. He stated that this is a facility where people bring their dog to this location, have the training class and go home. He stated, no training for guard dogs, attack dogs, things like that, and then to the kinds of dogs, you can speak to that. Ms. Biedron stated, hopefully, a variety of breeds, because we try to encourage people and educate people to take obedience class to have dogs behave, listen and be able to respond to cues or commands. She stated that in obedience, the more they have, the better agility dogs they’ll be, so, again, we usually try to start out with puppies and get those dogs moving on to adolescent classes and then to the agility classes, so the dogs would, hopefully, wouldn’t create any problem. She stated that they’re only there for about an hour and we would have anything in just that one general area. She stated that they would either be on leash; they would not be allowed to go over and run by the horses or anything like that. Mr. Ferngren stated, the other thing, too, if I may, we talked earlier, is that she does have an assistant to be there or maybe even up to two people is what we talked about possibly helping, so it’s not just here. He stated that it would be Phyllis and the owners of the animals, as well as some assistants, on occasion. Mr. Robertson stated that they asked what type of dogs they might be. Ms. Biedron stated that the classes that I do in Chicago now, I have cocker spaniels, usually the herding dogs, border collies, Australian shepherds, shelties, German shepherds – I have shepherds and border collies myself. Mr. Robertson stated, and just to nail it home, you won’t be doing any attack dog training or any of that sort of thing? Ms. Biedron stated, that is not my interest, no. Mr. Burns stated that I think the neighbors are concerned about aggressive type dogs, are you going to be training any aggressive type dogs. He asked, can you make that commitment? He stated that since it is a residential area, there are some dogs that if they got loose, people, horses and other animals, it would present a problem. Ms. Biedron stated, no, we try to encourage any breed from people because I really..it’s my belief and I don’t want to get on the subject, but I feel like it’s not the breed, it’s the person who is raising the dog. She stated that if they take some time any breed can be an enjoyable, well-trained dog. Mr. Burns stated that you know a lot of people disagree with that. Mr. Biedron stated, because I think they see a particular breed that they feel afraid of and people misuse (sic) or what they’ve been bred for, so without training, yes, you can have some problems with certain breeds. Mr. Ferngren stated that if I could comment on that, these are the types of people that are taking the time to spend good quality time with their animals and taking the time to pay good money to bring them, to, you know, teach my dog to do this. He stated that that’s a different situation where I’m comfortable and confident they can do these types of things and these are owners that want their animals to be (inaudible). Ms. Biedron stated, actually, we insist that their dogs are under control for class and if they’re….I would do a private or something if I thought the dog wasn’t doing well in a class situation, I would try to encourage the person to maybe do some extra private lessons so that we could get their obedience. Mr. Burns stated because it’s an open area, it’s not fenced in. Ms. Biedron stated, at this time, no, it’s not. Mr. Robertson asked, Mr. Shabowski, do you have any further thing? Mr. Shabowski stated, well, unfortunately, I’m not real crazy about German shepherds. He stated that the two times I’ve been bitten have been by my neighbor’s shepherds, and my concern is if the dogs get loose will this lady be responsible for them, because my property is directly across and I’m out in my field doing different things and should Rover get away and bound over and bite me will I know that responsibility will be taken for that? At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Detert stated that this is a unique piece of property. He stated that many years ago they approved a large equipment..primarily I think he repaired engines back there, but it was done because the guy had been there many years and he got caught up and had to come before us and we gave him a Use Variance to do that. He stated that I guess my concern would be this…I appreciate what you said about it being rural in nature, but when you take that long driveway back there you’re not that far away from houses. He stated that there’s a whole series of houses along there from 725 all the way down to County Line Road. He stated that a couple of them are trailers that have been there on permanent mountings, and the Fayette greenhouse is there and has been there and is grandfathered in for a long time. He stated, I guess when you talk about dogs I get concerned about the incessant barking and, of course, the security of those dogs, but one thing that popped in my mind, that long driveway in there is gravel and I don’t know how much traffic you’re going to have in and out of there or how much dust is going to be raised, and I think that would be a concern of the neighbors if you have a lot of traffic in and out. He stated that it is a long driveway and it does sit way back in. He stated that if you look at this property alone it’s pretty rural, pretty well set back in there, so those would be my concerns. Mr. Ferngren stated that it certainly is a long driveway and it is a gravel driveway. He stated that I drove down it today and didn’t notice an inordinate amount of dust. He stated that the car was still clean – in fact, I just had it washed, but I think I probably would have noticed it. He stated, barking, again the dogs are going to be on a leash – that’s where they start. He stated, the barking, that’s part of her training. Ms. Biedron stated, usually, some of the dogs get excited when they’re doing the agility off-leash. She stated that it’s fun for them and it’s very exciting to watch, but barking is not usually what we encourage. She stated that we actually encourage them to be quiet so that they can work better and concentrate because if they’re barking a lot they’re not concentrating and it creates some problems with agility skills. She stated that usually when we do a class it’s for an hour and we probably do them twice a week, so I don’t think there will be that much traffic. Mr. Ferngren stated, the other thing, the distance…and I do, there are houses along that road. He stated that I said I drove out there today, but when I went back there – and I’m so glad I did – and I spoke to the Biedrons about that today, I turned around and looked and I just couldn’t see anything. Mr. Detert stated, yeah, I know, you’re pretty far back there once you get in there, but getting to it you’re going to go past these residences. Mr. Ferngren stated that the training will occur really removed and isolated from anybody. Mr. Detert stated that I would like to have some commitment that if the rising of the dust along that driveway becomes a problem for the neighbors she will commit to taking care of it in some manner. Mr. Ferngren stated, certainly. Mr. Robertson asked, can I ask our attorney, just assuming the worst case that a dog got loose and stampeded a horse and ran over the neighbor here, the County isn’t responsible for that, but she’s always responsible in any way for anything that happened, right? Ms. Tallian stated that the county is not responsible. She stated, don’t ask me the answer to that question. Mr. Robertson stated that he asked us that. He stated that he was concerned, he was wondering who would be responsible if he got bit by a German shepherd. Mr. Detert stated, they’d have to carry some kind of insurance. Ms. Biedron stated, I have insurance. Mr. Brickner stated, and it’s really hard to get now, too. He stated that when you train aggressive dogs insurance is… Mr. Detert stated that I still have a couple more questions about signage – what are you looking at? He asked, are you asking this Board for any kind of signs? Ms. Biedron stated, I haven’t even thought about that. Mr. Detert stated, I don’t want anyone knowing you’re back there until you have people that are customers. Mr. Ferngren stated, it’s not a drive-by and, oh, there’s a dog training facility. Mr. Detert stated, I wouldn’t want to see any signs up there. He asked, how do you dispose of the droppings? Mr. Ferngren stated that there’s 15 acres of property out there. He stated, like I said, there could be a field full of cows. Ms. Biedron stated that I would expect it to be picked up and double-bagged. Mr. Detert stated, and I don’t know – I think you’ll need a state health permit. Mr. Siminski stated that normally when you have a Special Exception for a kennel you have to go through the Health Department first for a commercial septic or commercial permit on that. He stated that this is not a Special Exception. He stated that this is a temporary Use Variance, however… Ms. Tallian stated that the other thing is that, it doesn’t really qualify as a kennel because a kennel is where you’re boarding dogs, so you don’t really have that. She stated that this is a use that is not described. Mr. Detert asked, how many dogs do you have of your own? Ms. Biedron stated, 4. Mr. Detert stated, you can’t have more than 3, you know, without getting approved. Mr. Brickner asked, if you have more than 3 dogs you have to have a kennel, right? Mr. Detert stated, yeah, you have to have a kennel license. Mr. Siminski asked, do you have four of your own animals? Ms. Biedron stated, yes. Mr. Siminski stated, well, the County allows you three. He stated that any more than that is considered a kennel. Mr. Hudson asked, is there anything about that that talks about inside and outside dogs, like, if they’re all inside, does it…? Ms. Tallian stated, no, we’ve been to court on this. Mr. Burns stated, I wouldn’t mind trying it for a year, with some restrictions. He stated that I’m just concerned about the use of aggressive type animals. Mr. Brickner stated that those were the questions I had: how many dogs did you own. He asked, what kind of dogs do you have, Phyllis? Ms. Biedron stated that I have shepherds and a border collie. Mr. Brickner asked, do you have two of each? Ms. Biedron stated that I have four German shepherds and one border collie. Mr. Brickner stated, you have five dogs. Ms. Biedron stated, three German shepherds. Mr. Brickner stated that my big concern was aggressive dogs. He stated that that’s getting to be a problem, I mean, everybody with pit bulls, Dobermans. He stated that it’s getting to be a problem with insurance and problem with the neighbors, and hopefully you have a way to handle that, and if you can assure us that it’s not going to be a problem with… Mr. Ferngren stated that she has insurance. He stated that that’s the nature of what she’s doing here, is making these dogs behave. Mr. Brickner stated, I understand that, but people bring dogs to trainers for a reason, you know. He stated that either they can’t train them themselves or don’t have time, but a lot of times you take a dog to a trainer because you can’t handle them and you want somebody else to train them and they’re aggressive, so I’m concerned with the same topic that if one of those dogs would get loose somehow and cause a problem. Ms. Biedron stated, well, a couple of things. She stated that I usually do not take in aggressive dogs for training. She stated that I would refer them out to a couple of other people that I know that are behaviorists and work with aggression. She stated that I mostly do puppies, adolescents, puppies, and beginner agility dogs, so that might help you a little bit about that concern. She stated that my dogs all have obedience titles from the states and Canada. Mr. Brickner asked, when you’re done with them. Ms. Biedron stated, and they’re just our pets. She stated that they’re inside, they sleep with us, so they’re not out causing any problems for the neighbors. Mr. Brickner stated that this is a Use Variance and we can do it for a year and see how it works out. He stated that I don’t have a problem with trying it for a year and seeing how it works out and she can come back in a year, reapply in a year, and if there’s no complaints… Mr. Detert stated that if we have problems we can work them out then. He stated that if the problems are serious you might not get your renewal. Mr. Burns stated, I cannot understand why she cannot make a commitment for aggressive type dogs, not to train those because it’s an open area. He stated that if it were fenced or whatever, but it’s not, it’s open. Ms. Biedron stated, we could put up snow fencing around, like 100 by 100, as sort of a ring-size agility field, if that would make you feel better. Mr. Ferngren stated, I guess I don’t know necessarily what aggressive dogs are. Mr. Robertson stated, if she’s willing to put a snow fence around I think that would… Mr. Burns asked, would that satisfy the neighbors? Mr. Shabowski stated, I think that’s a great alternative. Ms. Biedron stated, because we do do that for shows. She stated that that seems to work very well to keep the dogs in a confined area, and actually, so that wouldn’t bother anybody I could probably wind it up. She stated, I mean it doesn’t have to be out all the time; it could be just before a class. Mr. Detert stated, I guess I’m a little concerned here about the kennel aspect of it; they have four dogs. Mr. Robertson stated, that’s separate. Mr. Detert stated, but if we okay this, we’re not okaying four dogs, right? Ms. Tallian stated, they didn’t apply for that. Mr. Detert stated, yeah, I understand that. He stated, I just want to make sure we don’t get entrapped here. Mr. Siminski stated, I’ll just read the definition of a kennel right out of the book. He stated, it says: “any lot or premises, other than a veterinary hospital or a pet shop, in which four or more dogs, or other similar small fur-bearing animals at least four months of age, are kept or for sale, breeding, boarding, training or treatment purposes.” He stated that when you look at the table, it’s allowed by Special Exception, which we’re going to have one tonight, in an Ag zone. He stated that it’s automatically allowed in a C-4, I-1 or I-2. He stated that all the other districts it’s really not allowed. He stated that this is a Use Variance type thing. He stated that since she’s requesting for the agility end of it, but, you know, it’s infringing upon that rule of four or more dogs. He asked, are you planning on building any structures on that parcel? Ms. Biedron stated, no. Mr. Siminski stated that once you get a Use Variance you can’t build any other structures pertaining to that business on the parcel. He stated that we’re not talking about the fence here; we’re talking about a building of some type. He stated that you bought the property and Mr. Carlson, as Bob said, has a Use Variance currently existing, so that one once you purchase it, or if you have purchased the property, his Use Variance will then cease, since it was a Use Variance. He stated that when I went out to do the inspection about a week or so, week and a half ago, his equipment was still on the property. He stated that I understand that it takes time to make the moves in and out of there. He asked, do you have any idea when his equipment will be out of there? Ms. Biedron stated, I know he’s working on it, and I know he’s got a lot of things and he’s doing a great job of moving it. She stated that every day he’s moving some things, and we haven’t moved out there yet, either. Mr. Siminski stated, then, again, if you’re not building any structures out there, but then, again, there’s the issue of the four dogs. Mr. Robertson stated, that isn’t our issue tonight, so we won’t be pulled into that by this thing. Mr. Detert stated that there’s a kennel and there’s other things happening here, and I don’t want to see us approving this and then somebody coming back and saying, well, you approved it for four dogs. He stated that I don’t want to get ourselves in a bind. Mr. Ferngren stated that we’re here to get the agility training and dog obedience Variance. Mr. Burns asked, hours of operation. Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s usually in the evening, the classes would be 50-minute classes, two classes a night, 6 to 8 or 6:30 to 8:30. Mr. Detert stated that I wouldn’t want traffic going in and out of there later than 8 or 9 o’clock. Mr. Brickner asked, 6 to 8:30? Ms. Biedron stated, probably 9, at the latest. Mr. Robertson asked, 6 to 9? He stated that I think we’re more concerned with the late than the early. Ms. Biedron stated that I’m just starting, so, if I had a second class that would be very exciting. She stated that if I get one class going. Mr. Burns asked, can we make it 8:30? He stated that we want to watch those late hours. Mr. Robertson asked, and what are the days on that? Mr. Brickner stated that in the wintertime it’s going to be dark at that time. Ms. Biedron stated, you can use floodlights. Mr. Brickner asked, 6 to 8:30? Mr. Robertson stated, I think we kind of agreed on that. Mr. Ferngren stated, I think we would say no later than 8:30. Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, no later than 8:30 p.m. Mr. Detert asked, what days? Mr. Robertson stated that she said two days, but I don’t think we got any particular days. Ms. Biedron stated that I already do one Monday and Wednesday in Chicago, so it would probably be like a Tuesday/Thursday, because I show on the weekends. Mr. Detert stated that I don’t think I’d want to see Sunday hours. Ms. Biedron stated, no, I show on the weekends, so I wouldn’t have a Sunday. Mr. Burns asked, should we say Tuesday and Thursday? Mr. Robertson asked, Saturday? He asked, are you going to use Saturday or not? Mr. Ferngren stated that I guess that I would rather not identify what day of the week it is, but she’ll be done at 8:30 and a couple nights a week is when it would be. Mr. Robertson stated, can we say not Sunday? Mr. Detert stated, not Sunday. He stated that she said weekdays is all she’s going to do. Mr. Ferngren stated, I guess I’d rather not get bogged down… Mr. Robertson stated, well, we’d like to allow everything but Sunday; would that be a problem? Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s fine. Mr. Burns stated, but only two times a week, two days. Mr. Detert asked, Rick, were you asking earlier, you wanted her to fence the area where the training is taking place? Mr. Burns stated, well, a temporary fence, because what I’m hearing from the neighbors, they got bit a couple, one of them got bit twice and the other has animals. Mr. Detert stated that I think when you come back for renewal, if we grant this, we might want you to make that fencing permanent at that time, but I think temporary is adequate now because we’re not talking a very long period of time. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-UV-7 for 1 year, subject to two days a week (any weekday and Saturday – not Sunday); temporary fencing will be installed during training periods; times to be from 6 to no later than 8:30 p.m.; if there is a dust issue on the driveway that will be corrected; only 8 animals maximum in any one class; morning start time, 8 a.m. is the earliest they can start; no boarding or kenneling; no signs; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the petitioner’s attorney, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Case 05-UV-8. Petition of A.B.B.C. LLC, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit recycling of “clean waste” such as asphalt, brick, block and concrete, to be located on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 475 W. and CR 375 W., in Union Township. Mr. Ferngren stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter, Dave Reinhard, from A.B.B.C. LLC, which stands for asphalt, block, brick and concrete LLC. He stated that the case before you is 05-UV-8, a temporary Use Variance, to permit the recycling of clean waste, and we’re calling clean waste asphalt, block, brick and concrete. He stated that all notices were given. He stated that those were pre-filed today with your staff. He stated that the property is commonly known as the Shar Sand Pit and it’s located on the North side of U.S. 30 across from the Shorewood Forest area. He stated that A.B.B.C. – the petitioner would probably be easier for me to say – the petitioner has leased this area – this 33.5 acres, to operate this clean waste recycling facility, which, incidentally, has been operating since May of this year, unbeknownst to the petitioner that there was a requirement to come before you and get approval for this type of use. He stated that I’ll explain a little bit about the clean waste, the use that they’re talking about, again, it’s asphalt, block, brick and concrete. He stated that since May they haven’t received any complaints about what they’ve been doing. He stated that what they have is a crusher out there out at these products. He stated that the only one that they haven’t crushed – at least to my knowledge yet – is the asphalt because it’s still too warm right now to do that, but once the asphalt actually freezes that can be broken down into smaller pieces, but the block, the brick and the concrete are all sufficiently hard year-round to be crushed. He stated that the crusher Mr. Reinhard purchased is a jaw crusher, rather than an impact crusher, so it’s not this pounding down type of action. He stated that it’s more of a grinding crushing like a jaw would crush, so the sound from this type of equipment is nothing like what you might imagine when you’re thinking of something crushing concrete. He stated that it’s more of a grinding type of a process, so it’s a very low impact system because there isn’t any crushing impact; it’s the grinding. He stated that there is some dust that’s created by this particular process, as you can imagine, grinding and crushing any type of aggregates like we’re talking about here, however, all of this dust simply falls off the machine and settles to the ground, and even on a windy day, such as today, the dust may carry 50 feet, 75 feet, in the direction that the wind’s blowing. He stated that it’s really a fall-off of this type of equipment type of dust, it’s not emitted into the air to be blown any further than the distances that I’ve told you about tonight. He stated that as I mentioned this has been operating since May of 2005 at the same location as the sand pit, so this is something that we don’t think has been noticeable. He stated that certainly no one’s brought it, no adjoining property owners have commented to Mr. Reinhard, saying, what is going on over here, I noticed all of a sudden that you’re doing this. He stated that they’ve been operating the sand mine extraction of minerals for a number of years. He stated that the same types of trucks go in and out of the clean waste as they do with the sand, and, in fact, there’s some overlap, because there are some trucks that come with the clean waste that leave with the sand, and the purpose of this recycling is simply stated, it’s a recycling type of process, so what you have, instead of somebody ripping out their concrete driveway or ripping out an asphalt situation, or tearing down a house and taking all of that waste and depositing it in a landfill along with your typical solid waste that should be in a landfill, you’re filling it with these things that are not hazardous and can be reused, and that’s what happens here, so when this process is completed the aggregate can be ground all the way down to a very, very small particulate type or it can be used and commonly is used for road base, sidewalk base, those types of things. He stated that again, there’s a common access road, the same exact access road that’s accessing the sand pit at this time with the same types of vehicles right out onto Highway 30, so there really will not be additional traffic generated by this process. He stated that this is an excellent opportunity to serve the community through this recycling, again, as opposed to taking all of these items and depositing them in our precious landfill space, reuse them, and that’s what they’re trying to do here. He stated that this property, this use, to our knowledge, hasn’t been detectable at all outside of being there and taking the things to where Mr. Reinhard is actually operating the crusher. He stated that it blends in with the existing operation, and, as I said, nobody has come to us to say, boy, things have changed in a big hurry here since he started operating whatever that thing is that you’re doing. He stated that it’s surrounded by dense trees. He stated that it’s not noticeable, and we feel that it’s an appropriate use, and, with that, we ask for your approval. No one spoke in favor of this petition. John Hollis, 417 W. U.S. Hwy 30, stated that I live adjacent to the sand pit, as we call it there. He stated that I’ve lived there all my life, 63 years, and adjacent…the property line is our family farm that we bought in the late 30’s and been there ever since. He stated that I do have a couple questions and I think you’ve answered one of them. He stated that this recycling, well, first of all, what I’d like to say is that I don’t think that we really need another recycling landfill. He stated that I think we…if you look and check your records…the sand pit over on what we call the old sand road, which is West of 475, has a permit to recycle this type of material. He stated that I really don’t think, if somebody wants to recycle material, they could get it done in that particular area, so, across the street, really, from that sand pit. He stated that the concern that I have right now, you know, our family’s been pretty quiet on this whole sand pit/landfill thing. He stated that everybody is entitled to make a living. He stated that we didn’t have any problem with the guy digging the sand out. He stated that I took a walk back there the other day and I can see a number of things and the questions that I have right now. He stated, first of all, they admit that he’s running this crushing operation without a permit. He stated that when I walk through there, in my opinion, there’s not a reasonable amount of land between our property line left and his sand pit, matter of fact, it’s caving in, and, in a short period of time, it will be going past our property line. He stated that the other thing I notice is that there’s numerous semi trucks that have been sitting on his property now for years. He stated that Lord only knows what’s in those trucks, and I’m not talking about one or two or 10. He stated that there’s numerous there. He stated, the other thing that I’ve noticed is the trucks going in and coming out of that driveway he refers to, there is no sleeper lanes coming in from either way, and as a matter of fact, the trucks have even crossed U.S. Hwy 30 and they made their own driveway to get into that pit row. He stated that they drive right through the grass. He stated that without the sleeper lanes, as the trucks come from the West and East and have to turn around because there’s no driveway going in there, they can’t make that turn so they run off the road, they go in the grass, and you can see that, so, when I look at this, I don’t see where there is going to be any additional employment involved here because they said they are doing it with the existing people, but I do see that eventually we’re going to have to have someone put some sleeper lanes in there. He stated that if you folks would go out there you would see that there’s nothing but skid marks where these trucks are turning. He stated that I went by there tonight – it’s almost all black, so there is a safety concern, and, again, we’re not here to try to keep somebody from doing their job or having a job, but I think that this fellow has abused many things. He stated that I think he’s stockpiling whatever there is in these vans, he’s crushing material without a permit – now he’s trying to get a permit – and again, we have a crushing area across the street from the sand pit, right West of 475, so, from my standpoint, I guess I’d just like to go on record, I don’t think we need to allow this permit. He stated that on this thing that was sent out we talked about clean waste – asphalt, brick, block and concrete. He asked, is that all that’s going to be in there? He asked, is there something in writing that says that’s all we’re going to have in there? He stated that I’d like to know that. He stated that it says “such as”. He stated that that’s not very descriptive. He asked, I mean, are we going to change it that it could be something else, are we going to stick to asphalt, brick, block and concrete? He stated that those are questions we’ve got to ask ourselves. Charles Kloese, 429 W. U.S. 30, stated that I have pretty much the same concerns that John brought up. He stated that they mentioned here that they’ve been doing this since May and no one has done any complaining. He stated that we have definitely noticed higher truck traffic going in and out of there this year. He stated that again, as John said, trucks coming from the West have to make a U-turn on Highway 30 to get back over to the entrance to this, and they run off the side of the road there. He stated that we do mow the grass in that area and we have to watch it when those trucks come through there cause some of them act like they’re going to run right into you. He stated that the road back into this thing is sand itself. He stated, again, there is numerous stuff stored there and I was under the impression that this was brought up a number of years ago. He stated that I thought that everything was going to be cleaned out of there, but it doesn’t look like any effort has been made. He stated that we want to go online as being against it; that’s all. Pam Fish, 441 Wessex Rd., stated that our school corporation is very concerned about this facility. She stated that we are within about a half a mile of it and we haven’t heard a lot of noise, so we’re not concerned with the noise right now. She stated that we are concerned if that should ever change, if they plan on doing different types of grinding. She stated that we don’t want that to become an issue. She stated that also we are concerned with the fact that this material that they’re bringing in is laying in the sand pit. She stated that there’s no clay liner and this material, any leachate from it will go directly into the water table there and we all know that asphalt does contain toxic material and if the material is stored onsite for awhile and there’s rain, we are concerned with the leachate going into the water table. She stated that there is material on that property right now that’s been there for a long time and no one’s quite sure what it is and we are concerned about that. She stated, also, our school buses travel the same roads that these trucks travel and we are very concerned about some type of accident happening with our school buses and these vehicles and we would like that addressed. She stated that if there is no turning lane, and we have school buses going down the road and we have students that are running maybe a little late for class and rushing down the road, we would certainly hate to see the school buses or the students colliding with these trucks trying to turn around to get to the facility, but I have to say our major concern is the type of material that will go on site. She stated that concrete in itself is not a toxic material, but if it’s concrete from an industrial site – a factory or a manufacturing facility – and solvents have been spilled on this concrete or oil or acid etc, how can we be guaranteed that the concrete coming into this place doesn’t have toxic material in it. She stated that these sand pits are not located in an industrial area in Union Township. She stated that they are located smack dab in the middle of our community, within a half a mile of three of our schools. She stated that we are very, very concerned. She stated that we don’t oppose grinding concrete or asphalt or block, but we truly believe that there has to be a more conducive site in Porter County than within a half a mile of a school district. Josh Lambert, 563 W. 300 N., Valparaiso, stated that I am the manager of Duneland Sand Inc. He stated that I would first like to remind everybody of the three or four years ago that Duneland Sand tried to receive permission to have a recycling area with Eagle Container, transfer station/recycling of wood and concrete. He stated that that was denied, and for obvious reasons that there’s dust and everything that comes about. He stated that the only way we heard about this, and as well as the occupant at 277 N. 475 W., he did not receive a letter and his property butts right up against Shar Sand Pit. He stated that we didn’t receive a letter and it’s within 300 feet. He stated that he had purchased some property North of 300 N. 74.95 acres. He stated that that is 90 feet from our property – no letter to us, no letter to the tenants in either house on 550 W. He stated that they started in May. He stated that I sent a letter with their price sheet on June 17, 2005 to a Bob Thompson. He stated that this is when I started my investigation of it because I could hear it in my loader as I was right by 475 and 300 pushing over clay to fill in some holes that were dug underneath the poles by our previous management. He stated that I have made eight phone calls – part of them returned by Fred and Bob Thompson – from the beginning of June all the way through to just the other day that I talked to you, as well as I faxed on 9-16 the same information that I faxed to Bob Thompson to Fred. He stated that my questions are this: I have the same concerns as some of the neighborhood. He stated that some of the people have spoken about the trucks making U-turns. He stated that that has been addressed to us by – and I do not have the information on that – I can get you the paperwork – by an attorney from ABATE, which is the motorcycle society. He stated that their lawyer sent us a letter stating that just East of 475 there was sand on the road and the motorcyclists were complaining of it. He stated that I addressed them and brought them to Dave Reinhard’s number to address it with them because the roads coming out of there heading towards 475 – right before 475 – make a U-turn, fully loaded. He stated that if you go by any requirements, you need to know how long it takes a semi fully loaded with 21 tons of sand to get out, as well as if they’re doing work in Lake County and they’re heading East, right at Shorewood Forest’s entrance, they also have to make a U-turn. He stated that not only myself has had to slam on my brakes, so has other people. He stated that if they’re coming from Lake County and they’re going to their pit and they’re making that U-turn, everybody knows that no trucks are exactly legal on weight at all times. He stated that we got DOT all over the place. He stated that I’ve talked to DOT, I’ve talked to the state police, nobody wants to do anything about the U-turns there. He stated, now, if there’s a U-turn and a piece of concrete falls out, it’s not this big. He stated that concrete is this big before it’s crushed. He stated that from the sound barrier, the reason why people can’t hear is because they have a pile of sand that is just to the West of their crusher to where nobody on this side can see it and they’ve placed it in that exact area so nobody can see it. He stated that when they first came out, Bob Thompson first came out, he said, I see nothing but a sand screener, something that screens sand, which, by the way, makes more dust. He stated that I don’t know if that’s approved, as well. He stated that they didn’t see it, so I had to literally go down myself, find out where it is, found out where it is, told Bob, then I got pictures of them crushing. He stated that this was in probably late June. He stated that the other thing is they’re doing a variety of materials, which is not just crushed concrete. He stated that crushed concrete gives you a certain amount of dust. He stated that crushed concrete is about this big – rip-rap – maybe a little bit smaller than this. He stated that then you’re getting into 53’s and 73’s. He stated that with the 53’s and 73’s any time you dig at it and you load it in a truck, now you’ve got more dust. He stated, you got dust from the road, dust from the crusher, dust from the screener, as well as dust from the normal maintenance, the normal material that’s removed from that property. He stated that there is numerous, numerous amounts of semis back there. He stated that there is hazardous material back there, such as semis parked, trailers that have been there for years upon years upon years and we’ve addressed it with IDEM. He stated that they’ve seen it and nobody wants to do anything about that, as well as a U-turn. He stated, I would like to know if they can present any names and addresses of the property owners within the 300 feet that they have notified. He stated that I have seen one. He stated that the property is less than a mile from the school zone. He stated that they have jaw crushers that have water that can be tapped to them; that’s fine. He stated, but now it’s contaminating into the ground. He stated that those are some of the questions that I have, as well as Duneland sand and I’d like the issues of this, if it’s denied, we would like to ask of you that it be removed as soon as possible, because they’ve been doing it since May and they will continue doing it, even if they’re told not to, and for a man to have four different sand pits and be in the business and not know you need a permit, I don’t really believe that. He stated that that’s it – you know, the U-turns and the screener and the crusher, something’s got to happen. John Hunter, superintendent of Union Township Schools, 599 W. 300 N., stated that obviously we’re here today because we’re opposed to this because of the health and safety of our students and their parents and our community, not only because of what’s happening at this location, but as the gentleman before me alluded to, in 2002 Earth II Resources asked for approval for a transfer station which included cement crushing, and, fortunately, that was denied. He stated that our concern here is that if, indeed, we were to pass this and allow this to happen, that does set precedence, which then does allow Duneland Sand, which has already told me that they would be here next time to seek a Variance to do the very same thing. He stated that now we’re even closer to the school, which impacts us even greater, so we are definitely opposed to his practice because of the implications that it has for us for health and safety of the kids. Sam DiMaio, 144 Gilford Circle, stated that I’m president of the Union Township School Corporation president of the Board. He stated, almost exactly three years ago – October 17, 2001 (sic) – I sent a letter here to the Board in regards to an application at the time and my concerns are the same now as they were then, and I thank you for, at the time, turning down the application. He stated that it’s the proximity to the school, it’s just way too close. He stated that we have a number of buses, we have a number of new drivers just getting their license come through there, a lot of parents taking their kids to school that will be driving around there having to contend with a lot of these trucks. He stated that the noise situation, any potential pollution, groundwater contamination, are all concerns of ours as they were three years ago. He stated that there is also – and I would ask you to investigate this – Senate Bill 461, passed by House of Representatives Ayres from our area stating that the solid waste boundary – the landfill – cannot be located within one mile of a public school classroom, so please investigate that, if you would. He stated that I can give you copies of this – I didn’t bring extra copies because, frankly, I didn’t intend to be here tonight. He stated that I got a call about this this morning. He stated that, including articles that were published about your last vote and referred to emitting odors, noise pollution, increase in dust particulate from concrete crushing and negatively impact the pH of the adjacent wetlands. He stated that I’ll be happy to leave any of this with you or make copies if you give me a copy machine. Mr. Robertson stated, just give us anything you’d like and anything you want to keep, go ahead and keep. Mr. Ferngren stated that first it’s important to note that this isn’t a landfill. He stated that I’m not sure what Senate Bill 461 includes, but again, this is not a landfill at all. He stated that this is a place where the materials would be crushed and sent on their way. He stated that I don’t believe it’s a slippery slope either, because you know this is a case by case basis. He stated that every petition is different than the rest. He asked, is Duneland Sand different from this one? He stated, absolutely, and is that one that should be approved? He stated, I don’t know, but if it’s closer to the school, that’s a different factor from what we have before you tonight. He stated that I found it very interesting how much Mr…. how much Duneland Sand knew about my client’s operations and about the property. He stated that apparently he’s spent an awful lot of time out there that nobody knew about. He stated that I also found it very interesting that he, on a loader, could hear this happening, yet nobody complained about noise. He stated that the lady from the school district said noise is not an issue right now. He stated that nobody said anything about, boy, we’ve heard this and since May it’s been a lot different out there; it’s loud and we can hear this happening, but this gentleman on a loader could hear something that nobody else could hear, including the people living right next door walking around, who’s lived there on the family farm since 1930 and never complained about noise. He stated that I think it’s fantastic that this crusher’s concealed from view. He stated that I would think that that’s how you would want it, as well. He stated that the gentleman stood right here and said you can’t see it, and that’s great, because I don’t think anyone would really want to see it, and you can’t hear it because of the big sand hill in front of it, either. He stated, so I think both of those are compelling and actually facts that do work in our favor. He stated that noise is not the issue. He stated, trucks going in and out of this particular property. He stated that these are the same trucks that go in and out of this property on a daily basis. He stated that my client has said that there might be five, maybe six trucks a day. He stated, he’s informed you that…the gentleman back here said there’s a lot more trucks coming in and out of here this year, and he said the sand business has just been a lot better, but with respect to this crushing operation, there’s only been five to six trucks on any particular day and on their busiest days. He stated that the distance again with the dust – 50 to 75 feet from the crusher is all the further that this would travel and Mr. Reinhard has informed me that the crusher has been located no closer to the property line than those distances. He stated, in fact, it’s in excess of 100 feet. He stated that there’s opportunity to wet the dust – that was an issue – if dust truly did become an issue. He stated that the opportunity for the recycling here is great. He stated that these are the same trucks – if they were not coming here – to have this material recycled, they would be driving down the same road to the landfill to deposit this material in a landfill, so these trucks are going to exist whether they are going to a landfill or going to this particular location. He stated that they are simply going to be there. He stated that my client has also advised me, if they’re asking, has anyone contacted you about the condition of your entrance? He stated that I’ve heard the discussion about, the road is black, that sort of thing. He stated that no one’s talked to me. He stated that no one from the state of Indiana has contacted them and said that you need to address your entrance; we think it’s unsafe. He stated that they simply have not done that. He stated that I think there are some sour grapes with respect to the Duneland Sand Corporation. He stated that we’re not asking for a transfer station. He stated that we’re asking to crush those materials that we’ve identified for you and limit exactly to those materials that we’ve identified for you, those being asphalt, concrete block and brick. He stated that we will commit to those being the only particular items. He stated, again, this is not a landfill that several people have alluded to. Mr. Hollis stated that I think what you folks have to look at is that this guy is trying to beat the system. He stated that that’s hard, cold facts. He stated that he started an operation without telling anybody. He stated that it’s hidden back there. He stated that that pit is 50 feet down from the level of the original ground. He asked, why would a guy start an operation who’s been in the business probably most of his life without coming to the Board and getting an okay. He stated that I can’t see how you folks, when…what else is he going to do? He stated, who knows? He stated that he says he’s going to stay to this four types of product. He stated that we don’t know that. He stated that we didn’t come for a permit to crush it. He asked, why do you think he’s going to stay with asphalt, concrete block and brick? He stated that my opinion is that he’s not. He stated, I think you gotta use some judgment here. Mr. Kloese stated that he sort of glossed over this stuff that he crushes up on its way. He stated, as far as I know it’s not on its way. He stated that it’s sitting there on the property. He stated that it’s not gone anyplace. He stated that as far as noise: I’ve been out in the fields out there. He stated that I can hear the noise from the thing. He stated, complaints about it? He asked, who do you complain to? He stated that it’s not done any good over all these years. He stated that as far as cleaning the property up – he’s promised to do that years and years and years, and nothing’s ever happened. He stated that things just are not right. Mr. Lambert stated, in regards to hearing the crusher, I understand that I’m up a little ways and that I can pretty much see it as well as hear it. He stated, the dust – 50 to 75 feet – I do not believe that’s accurate. He stated that it may be accurate for a crusher, but it’s not accurate for loading the trucks. He stated that that dust goes for miles, it literally goes for miles, because I’ve been to stone quarries. He stated that I don’t know if he’s had a chance to go in the pit to see how much dust, but if you can see, I’ve been in the pit today and there’s been nothing but sand taken out of it. He stated, I’ve been loading trucks. He stated that I am dirty. He stated that now as to crushing concrete, and as we’re talking about four to five trucks, I can get you a list of 10 different companies that have been going in there that own more than just five trucks each, and every time they go into a job, they use all those trucks, if not more that are leased out, and there’s no way it’s only four or five trucks that go in there and I can get you the list. Mr. Hollis stated that in regards to the number of trucks, I had the occasion to mow the acreage right next to the fence there that’s adjacent to his property a couple of months ago and I would say that there’s probably, you know, within an hour period maybe 10 or 15, maybe even 20 trucks that come out of that place an hour. He stated that it’s not four or five, and for him, or anybody else to say there’s only four or five, I would challenge you folks to go out there tomorrow and just sit at that entrance and see how many trucks go in. He stated that those trucks are stacked on U.S. Hwy 30, no sleeper lanes, waiting to get in there, when it’s dark yet. He stated that it’s 6:00 in the morning. The public hearing was then closed. At this time, Mr. Siminski read a letter from the Shorewood Forest Property Owners’ Association with concerns about this petition. The letter is in the file. Mr. Robertson stated that I’d like to go over with our attorney what we have here in regards to notification. He stated that we’ve had allegations that people weren’t properly notified. He stated that there were eight letters sent out, six of them were returned. Mr. Siminski stated that the ones that were not returned were David Reinhard and Edgewood LLC. He stated that that’s the new subdivision that’s coming up South of U.S. 30, right next to Shorewood Forest. Mr. Robertson stated, and the question, of course, is are there other people who should have been notified who weren’t. He asked, what do we have to do about that? Ms. Tallian stated, well, I can’t tell you, sitting here, whether…because I don’t know. She stated that I don’t have a thing showing all the adjacent property owners. She stated, I mean, that should have been done between the Plan Commission and here. Mr. Siminski stated, well, it’s their responsibility, the petitioner, to give us the names of all those people within the designated amount of area around their land, which is 300 feet in this case. Ms. Tallian asked, is that 300 feet all the way around? Mr. Siminski stated, all the way around. Mr. Ferngren stated, I guess we believe that we’ve done that – and my paralegal searched for Todd – that this property owners list, and this was the list that she identified based on the current records at the Auditor’s Office. Mr. Siminski stated, I’ll just say that as of 4:30 this afternoon I haven’t received any calls from anybody saying that they were not notified, so, I don’t know. Mr. Robertson asked, if we were to approve it and there were people that were not notified, then we would have to have another public hearing, is that correct? Ms. Tallian stated, umm-hmm. Mr. Robertson stated, if we were to deny it and people were not notified, would it have an effect? Mr. Detert stated, I don’t think so. Ms. Tallian stated, I think that would be less likely to be a problem, so I think, in that case, we should proceed as if everyone were notified and then if it turns out that people were not, then we would appropriate it, depending on what our action is, is that right? Mr. Detert stated, a lot of times we get complaints about people not being notified, but we don’t notify everybody forevermore around the property. He stated that there are limitations on that and the gentleman that did speak and said he wasn’t notified, but his presence here indicates that he was aware of it and he did show up and that’s satisfactory to us that he came. He stated that I travel that road occasionally, not a lot, but I have noticed that there is substantially more traffic around that entrance to those pits than I have noticed in past summers. He stated that I didn’t make a study of it. He stated that I can’t really say that that’s more sand trucks or more of his trucks, but there’s a lot of traffic there, and I am concerned about adding another industry in that area. He stated that I’m concerned about the traffic there and the ability to handle it. He stated that I don’t think the road was set up to handle it. He stated that we have some other concerns like the overlay zone and whether or not you’re 600 feet back from 30. He stated that I’m concerned about the question of fill. He stated that you say there is none, but other people say that this stuff was sitting there for long periods of time. He stated that I have another concern about if you got semis and other equipment sitting there for long periods of time, why haven’t they been cleared out of there? He stated that one of the pictures showed a crane there and it didn’t look like it had been used very recently, and the property – other pictures show debris and other stuff around the property, which, you know, I’m not wanting to create another landfill of junk. He stated that it looked like junk, from what I can see. He stated that concerning about the expansion and the concern that Shorewood had on that, Attorney Fitzgerald indicated, should he expand that business, it might impact that. He stated that I have heard nothing to identify how dust control would be handled. He stated that I think your testimony was that there was none and the noise was incidental, but yet we have testimony here that the noise can be heard. Mr. Burns stated that my concern is, does this really fit the area? He stated that it’s a sand basin, of course, and you have a recycle process here and who knows what is being penetrated through the sand. He stated that this could go straight through the sand to water supply. He stated that I would not think that this would be a good place to have it. He stated that you’re talking concrete asphalt; what’s on the concrete and the asphalt when it comes in. He stated that I have a real concern with that and, of course, the runoff is another concern. He stated that the dust, as he stated, travels up to 75 feet from the grinder and the trucks, of course, we have additional trucks, additional dust contamination. He stated that that’s going to feather over the sand base again and will penetrate through the sand with the rains. He stated that traffic is another concern, of course, and the noise, of course, is a concern with the grinder. Mr. Hudson stated that in the packet that was presented to us tonight, it talks about the temporary Variance for use request and it talks about recycling clean waste. He stated that the lady from the school corporation back there talked about the contaminants that come in on the material that they’re going to be crushing. He stated that I’m assuming that this is their request, it says “clean waste such as asphalt, brick, block and concrete”. He stated that “such as” to me means it could be more than just asphalt, brick, block and concrete. He asked, what are those other things? He stated that the other big issue to me…I would think with the depth of the existing sand mining operation being 50 feet down in the hole that the dust and the noise hopefully are not as critical, at least in my thinking, but I have been out on 30 when I have seen trucks cross that dirt median, either going in or going out, and I’ve not had to stop for them, but I have seen them do it; I’ve been in the area when it’s happened, so how that existing business exists without a full-blown entrance like Shorewood has at two different areas. He stated that the turn lanes at 475 at the Quick Stop there, I’m not sure how this business exists and the state highway has not…that’s mind-boggling to me that they have not…I trust what Mr. Ferngren says, that they’ve had no complaints and maybe we need to jump on the state and find out why they’re not…if they have no problem with it I’d like to hear from them that they think that that entrance is a viable entrance for that business on 30. He stated that the distance to the school is an issue that is never going to go away because they have a sand mining operation right absolutely next to them now. He stated that I don’t know how to address that other than to say that this is a little bit further away, but not a great distance. Mr. Detert stated that I’d like to bring up the contamination. He stated that I haven’t heard the petitioner address that. Mr. Hudson asked, contaminants from the stuff that’s stored out there right now? He stated that I saw a picture of tires. Mr. Detert stated, absolutely, and there’s a whole bunch of tires stored out there. He stated that that’s a good point, Rich, getting some input from the state Highway because that is a dangerous entrance for the number of trucks that are going in and out. Mr. Brickner stated that our opposition to a crushing operation in this area is well-documented, and I don’t think this is any different. He stated that it might be smaller, but my big concern is the school district and even if there were the slightest possibility of groundwater contamination, we have to consider that as a negative, and I think that there is a possibility of that with the pictures and all the testimony that we’ve heard. He stated that that possibility does exist. He stated that I’ve been back there and the place is not in good condition or well-kept. He stated that there is a lot of truck beds or semis and nobody knows what’s stored in those, but I think that’s not really part of this. He stated that it’s mostly the crushing operation that we’re most concerned about and I think this is a bad fit right here, this close to the school. He stated that I’m certainly not in favor of it. Mr. Detert stated that the question that I don’t feel was adequately answered is whether or not that admit that the material being stored out there, if I understood the attorney right, Mr. Ferngren, there was no storage. Mr. Reinhard asked, as far as the recycled concrete? Mr. Detert stated, as far as anything. He asked, is there any storage? Mr. Reinhard stated that there is asphalt there for the time being until it gets cold enough for crushing, but the concrete goes out as fast as we get it in. He stated that we crush it and it’s gone; there’s no stockpiling of the concrete there. He stated that it’s a finished product. He stated that it’s all sold and gone. Mr. Brickner asked, but before it’s crushed? He asked, do you stockpile it before it’s crushed? Mr. Reinhard stated, just long enough to get it crushed. Mr. Brickner asked, well, how long is it, weeks or months or...? Mr. Reinhard stated, no, there’s not even about a one-day supply there to feed the crusher with. Mr. Brickner asked, but you’re going to start the asphalt operation soon, right? Mr. Reinhard stated, when it gets cold. Mr. Brickner asked, and there will be some storage of asphalt there, before it’s crushed. Mr. Reinhard stated, that we have some storage there now, waiting for the weather to be right to be able to crush it. Mr. Robertson stated that we have photographs that show tires being stored there. He asked, are you storing tires there? Mr. Reinhard stated that we’ve got an accumulation of them there. He stated that we’re not accepting tires. Mr. Robertson stated, but you have some there. He asked, how long have they been there? Mr. Reinhard stated that most of them have been there quite a little while. Mr. Robertson asked, how many trucks would it take, do you think, to fill up all the tires that you’ve got stored there? Mr. Reinhard stated, probably four. Mr. Robertson asked, what else do you have stored there besides concrete and asphalt. He asked, what other things besides tires and concrete and asphalt might be stored there? Mr. Reinhard stated, that’s it. Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 05-UV-8, with the attorney to prepare the findings of fact. He stated that I feel there has been inadequate expert testimony on so many issues and therefore I move that it be denied. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Discussion: Mr. Burns stated that on this last case the petitioner has inventories on the ground, so does he process those inventories? He asked, do we give him time to process those, or does he transport all the inventories offsite? He stated, should we stop new inventories coming in to the site immediately? He asked, what do they do with the tires? He stated that we need to spell that out. Mr. Detert moved to give the petitioner 30 days to cease operation and clean up the property, after which time he would be illegal. Discussion: Mr. Robertson stated, well, he’s illegal right now and he doesn’t have a permit. Mr. Burns stated, but, he has inventory and like his attorney was saying, asphalt, he can’t do anything with it because it’s not cold enough yet; it’s too soft. He asked, can we say concrete, whatever’s on the ground now, let him process and that might take him a day or two. Mr. Detert stated, I want to be fair and I want to get the stuff out of there. He stated that I don’t want to say stop, right now. Mr. Ferngren stated that the asphalt plants typically close sometime in November. He stated that I would guess that that’s the time that it would probably…where it’s getting too cold to put it down, that would mean that it’s probably cold enough. He stated that I don’t know exactly when that is, but all I can tell you is I’ll call Mr. Reinhard as soon as… Mr. Detert asked, when do the asphalt plants close? Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s weather-related, but typically it’s toward the middle or the end of November. Mr. Brickner stated that the asphalt can be removed without processing it. He stated that the concrete he can process, but the asphalt he can’t, but he can remove it. Mr. Detert stated that I’m a little concerned about the guy walking away and leaving everything sitting there. He stated that I’d like to give him the opportunity to process it and sell it out and get rid of it and I would say 30 days will take him till the middle of November. Mr. Robertson stated, but that would be not bringing in any more material. Mr. Detert stated, and not bringing in any more material. Mr. Robertson stated, just the material that’s on the ground. He stated that there’s not much concrete, but there might be a little asphalt, is what we’re saying, and to clean up, including the tires. Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 05-UV-8, with the attorney to prepare the findings of fact. He stated that I feel there has been inadequate expert testimony on so many issues and therefore I move that it be denied. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote: Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes Mr. Burns moved that no new material be brought in, that any material there be processed within 30 days and if it’s not processed within 30 days that it be removed without processing and all material to be cleaned up including the tires. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Burns stated that there’s just another issue, the statements from some of the residents that there may be hazardous materials in those trailer trucks. He asked, is that part of this? Mr. Robertson stated that we can direct Mr. Thompson to investigate that, I think. He stated that I think we should. He stated that I don’t think we have to make a motion, just make a note that Mr. Thompson should investigate what’s in those trailers. Mr. Detert moved to include in his motion to deny Case 05-UV-8 that Mr. Thompson investigate what is stored in the trailers onsite. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote. Case 05-PUV-2. Petition of Scot Shears, 6400 Mulberry Ave., Portage, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit a concrete business, to be located at 973 N. SR 149, in Liberty Township. Mr. Ferngren stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter and that he is accompanied by Scott Civanich from the Duneland Group. He stated that this is the location of the property. He stated that all of this should have come to you from the Plan Commission in some fashion or another. He stated that what we are looking for tonight is a Permanent Use Variance to allow a contractor’s office with storage indoors. He stated that legally all notices have been given, publication in the paper, all those have been provided to the staff. He stated that the property is located on the East side of SR 149. He stated that the North boundary is the B&O Railroad, the South boundary is the Indiana Toll Road, approximately 1.797 acres, 1.78 acres, if you want to call it that. He stated that it’s a triangular shaped piece, not very low-sitting property that’s currently zoned C-1. He stated that I probably need to back up a little bit and explain what I said to the Plan Commission. He stated that initially Mr. Shears came to the Technical Advisory Committee with a plan drawn by the Duneland Group for TAC to review. He stated that he purchased the property under the assumption that it could be used for the intended purposes, the contractor’s office with storage, etc. He stated that Mr. Shears is in the concrete business, flatwork – sidewalks, driveways, that sort of thing. He stated, so he hired the Duneland Group; they bring in their drawing to TAC. He stated that when they get to TAC he discovers that what his intended use is is a general contractor’s office with storage, and they say, hold on – you need to go and get a zone change. He stated, so, Mr. Shears files a petition to get a zone change and they initially ask for I-2 zoning with a full flurry of I-2 permitted uses taken out through the form of written commitments, and the purpose of the I-2 is because it allowed his contractor’s office with a warehouse for storage indoors and outdoors, the intent being to have the sand and the gravel and that sorts of things that he’s going to use in his everyday business. He stated that the first Plan Commission meeting we retracted the I-2 request. He stated that they asked us to come back in a month and, in the meantime, speak with all the neighbors and see what you guys can get worked out, and there were a few neighbors, not many, but there were a few, and so we talked to them in that period of time, came back to the next meeting and said we dropped the I-2, we just want the C-4, because that’s really what he needs and that’s the contractor’s office with storage, again providing written commitments saying that we know there’s a lot of things in C-4 we can do, but we don’t really want to do all those things; we really want to be able to do this. He stated that Mr. Detert, Mr. Burns and your attorney were at all of these meetings and they kind of directed us here, saying, we have concerns, even though there’s commitments and we understand that they’re recorded and all that, that they may open the door for something else to happen here, and so they said we’d be a lot more comfortable if we came here and actually got a Use Variance, as opposed to an actual zone change, so that’s kind of the long way to get to why we are here and why I hope that the plans for the project have been provided to you, other than what I’ve given you through the Plan Commission, and you have some familiarity with that. He stated that Mr. Shears is in the concrete flatwork business and he simply is outgrowing his existing location. He stated that he also wants to follow the American dream of owning his own building, work out of his own place, instead of renting from somebody else. He stated that it’s not a big company – 5 to 6 employees – and obviously the concrete is going to be poured at jobsites, specific places, not at this location. He stated that this is simply the place where he’s going to have his phone, have his computer, he’s going to store his equipment and those sorts of things inside the building. He stated that the development of the parcel, the proposal is a 4,700 square foot commercial – approximately a 4,700 square foot building. He stated that as you can see in this drawing here, if you look at – does everybody have this picture with the second page of that would show you what the building would look like, so it’s a traditional pole-barn type of building. He stated that the developed parcel will have one entrance located at the Northern end of the parcel, which, incidentally, the Highway Department has, in fact, issued a permit. He stated that Scot has that here tonight. He stated that according to the plan that you have before you, they have issued a permit for that particular entrance. He stated that the front setback is 60 feet, so the building is set a considerable distance back from the state right-of-way. He stated that the landscape plan that’s on the smaller version for you here – as blown up on this particular drawing – shows a series of blue spruce, arborvitaes, things of that nature, to provide this type of a look and the buffer from the road and from the adjoining parcels. He stated that the biggest issue, I would say, is how is the storm water going to be handled on this site, because across the street there is a large – I don’t know if it’s technically a lake or I don’t know what it is – but some of the neighbors – and quite frankly the Plan Commission had concerns – how are you going to handle the storm water, is it going to be too much, what’s going to happen? He stated, so what we’ve done, we’ve increased the size of this pond that we’re proposing in the Southern location here – and it’s not a detention pond; it’s a retention pond, which means that all the water that’s on this site is going to stay on this site. He stated that there’s a pipe that currently goes under 149 that is not going to be used; all the water will stay here, and we’ve identified – Scot’s worked with helping to calculate that and certainly we need to go through the Technical Advisory Committee with respect to that, as well, but it changed to retention, meaning no water leaves the site, in fact, we’re going to be taking on a lot of water. He stated that one of the characteristics of this property is that it’s very low. He stated that it’s 6 to 8 feet below the railroad track that runs diagonally to the North. He stated that the Toll Road runs along the Southern boundary line and it’s between 30 and 40 feet higher than this piece of property and SR 149 is also higher, so this is generally a low piece of property. He stated that with respect to the Toll Road it’s a tree line barrier there that there is a great number of trees in and along that right of way that would obstruct any type of visibility to this parcel, in addition to the fact that people driving down the road have to..are traveling at great speeds. He stated that my paralegal did take some pictures – those were all provided to the Plan Commission – asked her how did you get these pictures and she said she actually drove down the Toll Road and that she couldn’t see the property, so she stopped her car and got out and took the pictures from the Toll Road, which I quickly said, that’s probably not the thing we should be doing in the future, so, nevertheless, it’s a difficult piece to see, and again, an odd shape. He stated that one of the things that’s important to know is this property is zoned currently C-1. He stated that this was rezoned to this classification a number of years ago, specifically for the purpose of locating mini-warehouses on this property. He stated that the plans that were shown to the Plan Commission and the County Commissioners changing the zoning showed three mini-warehouses, no landscaping and there was nothing really to be provided there. He stated that that was the intended use of the property, to be mini-warehouses. He stated, now, within C-1 there are a number of other uses as well, but certainly looking up and down the list of C-1, most people would probably say that a mini-warehouse is not necessarily the one that they would like to see there. He stated that this is a low traffic-generating site. He stated that a contractor’s office – and he’s not building here, he’s not forming sidewalks, driveways and pouring basement floors at this location. He stated that those are all happening in other spots. He stated that he’s got five to six employees and, on a daily basis, they’ll be in and out of this location. He stated that the Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates that for this type of use that’s approximately 3.4 trips per employee to this type of a location, so I think you see that three – or even if you take four times six, maybe 24 trips in a day for Scot’s type of use, if he has a similar use, which I am anticipating on the other end of the building, it would be the same. He stated that if he would go in today, as matter of right, and build the mini-warehouses that the County approved to be there some time ago, the traffic engineers’ study demonstrates that there would be at least 68 cars a day from this site. He stated that that doesn’t include the fact that in C-1 a gas station could go there, so we could put a convenience store here. He stated that the calculation on that would be 10 times what the mini-warehouses would be, so it’s not a traffic issue, and, as I stated earlier, INDOT has approved the location of the entranceway to this property. He stated that all of the improvements will be located well out of sight: As you’re traveling up and down SR 149 this building absolutely will not obstruct any of your view. He stated that coming from the South you won’t see it at all because you’re going to be coming right underneath the Indiana Toll Road. He stated that coming from the North you’ll see the top because the railroad track is sitting up higher. He stated that this proposed use won’t alter the area. He stated that as I mentioned it’s zoned C-1, so a commercial use is already permitted in this location. He stated that I spoke to Portage and Chesterton about this and what were their impressions on this and not since we filed the BZA petition, but through the Plan Commission rezoning petitioner and neither of them had any objection to the rezoning for this particular use, so I would assume that the same would apply to this proceeding today. He stated that it’s a compatible use. He stated that there’s property across the street which is residential, but there’s also industrial and commercial property located in the near area. He stated that there’s some I-2 property that’s less than a mile away. He stated that there’s commercial property located in the area, as well as the existing residential sites. He stated that I don’t want to speak for the adjoining property owners, but it’s my understanding – and I’ll ask him to speak for himself – but we’ve talked to him on numerous occasions, but I don’t believe that the issue is for them Scot’s use, a commercial contractor’s office with indoor storage. He stated that their concern has always been the number of uses under the I-2 or the C-4, and here we’re saying, we only want one and we’ll keep what we have in C-1. He stated that the other issue was the storm water drainage, which, I believe, we’ve addressed and we spoke to the gentlemen a few minutes ago over here, and that again he raised as his question. He stated that he was unclear that we had created a retention pond with the water staying on the site at that time. He stated, naturally, he’s free to speak. He stated that I’m comfortable that we’ve made the concessions and we’ve visited with the landowners to make them happy, provide the landscaping buffers, we’ve worked very hard to hear what all the Plan Commission’s concerns were, that Mr. Burns and Mr. Detert raised and worked very hard to make a good project in a location on a piece of property that is nearly undevelopable, and I think it’s obvious given that it’s been rezoned to commercial 10 years ago and it’s still sitting there idle today. He stated that with that I would ask that you approve the project, the Permanent Use Variance before you this evening. Max Kitchel, 966 N. SR 149, stated that I’m in close proximity to an adjacent property owner. He stated that my family owns that property under Kitchel LLC, the pond that Bill had referenced, and, for the sake of brevity, I’ll be as short as I can. He stated that our primary concern was the water runoff. He stated that all water that enters that property does come down a tile and around our pond. He stated that we use our pond recreationally for fishing and swimming etc. He stated that that was our primary concern and it appears like they might have addressed – or at least pursued addressing that as a retention pond. He stated that that was our primary concern. He stated that I realize that progression is progression and we can’t stop that. He stated that I’d like to see it stay residential, but my concerns are that if there is a facility to be constructed there if they’re going to retain the water over there, I guess I would have no problems with that. |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
October 19, 2005