|
 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
November 16, 2005
M I N U T E S
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on November 16, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.
Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Karen Tallian and Toni Byers.
Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the October 19, 2005 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Correspondence:
Mr. Siminski stated that in front of each member is a 2006 calendar with deadlines and meeting dates that the Board needs to consider.
Mr. Burns moved to approve the 2006 BZA calendar as presented. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.
Pending Business:
Case 95-UV-23. Fred Bamesberger, 3223 Heavilin Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting an architectural design office on Heavilin Road, between SR 2 and Division Road, in Center Township. (This is the last renewal permitted on this Use Variance.)
Bill Ferngren stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that Mr. Bamesberger could not be here. He stated that he received Mr. Siminski’s notice that the Use Variance needed to be renewed and asked that he come tonight and ask that the renewal be granted.
Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Siminski stated that there have been none.
Mr. Burns asked if the business has not changed.
Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s the same as it’s been.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 95-UV-23 for 5 years with the same stipulations as originally approved. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
Case 00-UV-11. David & Joan Pszonka, 93 S. 695 W., Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting the manufacture and sale of English toffee, on the North side of CR 100 S., between CR 675 W. and CR 725 W., in Porter Township.
Mr. Pszonka stated that we are manufacturing English toffee and we’ve been there 25 years. He stated that they did an article on us in the paper and the Board of Health came and we had to put a commercial kitchen in and then a year later, here comes the Planning Commission and we had to go through your process and were approved. He stated that it’s basically seasonal. He stated that we make it through October, November and December, but we are open all year round. He stated that sales are not good all the time. He stated that most of our business is mail order. He stated that we do have probably five or six big commercial accounts that we make candy for that pick it up at our house. He stated that there is not that much traffic.
Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Siminski stated that there have been no complaints.
Mr. Burns asked if there has been approval for a sign.
Mr. Detert stated that I have some questions. He stated that we had an issue with the signs and I think Fred missed some of them. He stated that there is a sign as you go Westbound and a sign as you go Eastbound and there is a mailbox sign and when we first approved this there was a truck pulled out in front – I think it was the holidays – with a big banner about 3 by 5 on it, so I think you need to address the issue of signs because he must feel he needs one because he violated the agreement for the last 5 years, whatever it’s been, so either we need to make him legal or he needs to take down the signs.
Mr. Burns asked, does he have three signs?
Mr. Detert stated, yeah, one on the mailbox, one Westbound and one Eastbound.
Mr. Burns asked, if most of your business is mail order, why do you need three signs?
Mr. Pszonka stated well, we do, we do have some people that call us up and we do have some traffic, so, to me, the mailbox, I didn’t know that that was a problem.
Mr. Detert stated that we had a big discussion on that, so don’t tell me it wasn’t a problem, because it was at the time.
Mr. Pszonka stated that I did have a larger sign there.
Mr. Detert stated that I’m just saying we need to resolve it. He stated that if you feel you need a sign, then you need permission, not violate the agreement that we made. He stated, you know, when we allow a business in a home we’re really doing a benefit to that person because they’re saving a lot of rent from a commercial building and I know this Board has not felt very good about signs. He stated that I have not seen any traffic problems or seen anybody pulling out or any cause of concern; it’s just that it’s an issue we need to resolve. He stated that we need to be legal.
Mr. Pszonka asked, what would you like me to do – take those signs down?
Mr. Detert stated, I think you need to tell this Board what kind of a sign you need and how many you need and then they need to vote on whether they will allow it or not.
Mr. Pszonka stated that what I had in the past was a core blast sign, about 1.5 foot by 2 feet tall, and what I do is…like now it says “toffee’s ready” and at Valentine’s Day I put a toffee sign up there with a heart on it, Valentine’s toffee, and at Easter I’ll put an Easter bunny up.
Mr. Brickner asked, this is on your mailbox?
Mr. Pszonka stated, no, sir, I put it on a post. He stated that the post is the NIPSCO pole, actually.
Mr. Burns stated that the problem is that we don’t want multiple signs all over the County. He stated that we have several small businesses – which we encourage – but we have to control the signs, otherwise the County would be littered with signs, you know. He asked, can you live with the sign on the mailbox?
Mr. Pszonka stated, sure, if that’s what I have to do.
Mr. Burns asked, will that hurt your business?
Mr. Pszonka stated, well, it probably will. He stated that it’s not a very large business.
Mr. Burns stated, you have a sign on the side of your house, too, by your door.
Mr. Detert stated that the one on the house you can’t read and you’d never see it.
Mr. Burns stated that I’d feel comfortable if you could just keep your mailbox, the sign on there, and take the rest of the signs down.
Mr. Detert stated that I think the reason the Board took the position that it did the last time is that you testified that 95 percent of your business was mail order and is that still true?
Mr. Pszonka stated, yes.
Mr. Detert stated that the Board doesn’t really like a lot of signs because if you put up three and then the next guy puts up three you’re going to get a lot of signs.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 00-UV-11 with the understanding that the two free-standing signs be removed and the mailbox sign can stay and the sign on the house can stay. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
Case 02-UV-11. Ray Theaker, 780 W. 199 N., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting removal of fill from a site where a pond is to be constructed to another property, located on the South side of PR 199 N., between CR 750 W. and Porter-Lake County Line Road, in Union Township.
Mr. Theaker stated that nothing has changed. He stated that we just haven’t happened to have any occasion or opportunity or taken the opportunity to dig any more ponds. He stated that obviously since we went through the whole process in the first place to seek the approval we just want to make sure that we maintained it so that if, down the road, we want to continue with that plan we wouldn’t be in violation.
Mr. Detert stated, I don’t remember clearly, but I think we agreed to one pond and the staff saw two. He asked, did you see two down there, Fred?
Mr. Theaker stated that there was three agreed to.
Mr. Siminski stated that there’s a big pond and then there’s a little one just West and I think they’re attached somehow.
Mr. Theaker stated, yes, by culverts and actually the small one will be filled in and that way we can take some other material for another pond, so we’re not moving it off-site.
Mr. Detert asked, is that one going to be filled in?
Mr. Theaker stated, the little one, yes. He stated that I believe that’s the way we will go. He stated, again, it’s not a high priority. He stated that it’s not something we’re going to be out there next week to do it. He stated that we just want to make sure that we’re in compliance.
Mr. Detert asked, where are you putting the fill? He asked, where are you taking the excess dirt to?
Mr. Theaker stated that the only time that fill’s been taken out…Marshall Excavation had a big project at St. Mary’s Hospital – they were filling a pond – so they were able to dig our pond and use that material to fill that pond. He stated that it just worked out, and that’s why we’re not in any big hurry to do it because we’d rather
do that where there’s actually a use for that material and then that way the excavator can take the material and take it away.
Mr. Detert asked, and you have no use for any material at this point right now?
Mr. Theaker stated, right, exactly.
Mr. Detert asked, are you going to start digging in the spring?
Mr. Theaker stated that again, we have no immediate plan to…hey, we’ve got a project and we’re going to use that as the project…we almost had one this year, but then they didn’t get the bid for it, so it didn’t work out.
Mr. Detert stated that we had a little concern with the sand pit down there. He stated that there’s a lot more traffic and the road is getting dirtier and it’s not a good situation. He stated that I’m a little reluctant to start okaying more digs on 30.
Ms. Tallian stated that I know you got a Use Variance and it’s been a while ago, but now, even if you get this Use Variance, before you can start digging, you’ll have to get a permit for erosion control, so, this Board granting a Use Variance does not mean shovel in the ground. She stated that you still have to go to the Plan Commission and do the erosion control.
Mr. Theaker stated, so noted.
Mr. Siminski stated that I have a copy that he can take with him of that.
Mr. Burns asked, what are your additional plans after these ponds are dug? He asked, do you have more?
Mr. Theaker stated, no, this is…I live there. He stated that these are simply aesthetic ponds and so it’s not like I have this grandiose plan of digging a whole bunch.
Mr. Brickner asked, are you limiting yourself to the six trucks a day that.. I mean…there have been no complaints that you know of?
Mr. Siminski stated, no.
Mr. Brickner asked, and how about the dust control that you asked about the first time, did you control the dust situation? He stated, as far as I know that’s been done because we don’t have any complaints, but those provisions would apply to any extension.
Mr. Theaker stated, just to clarify the six trucks is that there would be no more than six trucks making rounds is the way that that
was set up, not that there’s only six truckloads a day. He stated that what Dave was seeking to do was not have 60 trucks, you know, running in and out of there so it’s not a nuisance to the neighborhood.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 02-UV-11 with the same stipulations as before.
Discussion:
Mr. Detert stated, I’d just like to add that he notify the office when he starts digging.
Mr. Burns stated, but it only pertains to the two additional ponds left – or one? He asked, how many ponds are you going to dig?
Mr. Theaker stated that there might be two again, a total of 3. He stated that really what this is is not for the digging of the ponds, but removing of the material. He stated that that was the whole issue. He stated that digging a pond, as long as it was less than 3 acres or something – that’s not an issue. He stated that it’s if I can’t release the material out on site and I need to remove the fill – that’s what this whole Variance was all about.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 02-UV-11 with the same stipulations as before, with the petitioner to notify the Plan Commission office before he starts the removing process. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
Case 96-V-37. Gerald Scott, 539 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the East side of CR 300 E., between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township. (Petitioner must appear in person.)
Mr. Scott stated that I moved my mother and father onto my property about eight years ago. He stated that they live a quarter-mile off the road. He stated that the house is impossible to see from the road. He stated that I have about 16 acres. He stated that my father passed away in March and my mother is still there. He stated that there is only one neighbor that would see the mobile home other than myself. He stated that she’s legally blind. He stated that she needs somebody to care for her and that’s my job and that’s why we put the mobile home on the property to begin with.
Mr. Burns asked, was that the original intent?
Mr. Brickner stated, yes.
Mr. Burns asked, and no complaints, I take it?
Mr. Siminski stated, no.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 96-V-37 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
Case 98-V-50. Robert L. Grant, 306 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a mobile home to live in while constructing a house, to be located on the South side of CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 350 E., in Jackson Township. (Mobile home was to be removed by this date. Petitioner is to appear in person.)
Mr. Grant was not present.
Mr. Siminski stated that I did visit the site today. He stated that I visited it twice within a week. He stated that the mobile home has been disconnected from the utilities and there was two parts to this – there was the main mobile home and an attachment to it. He stated that the main mobile home is moved, but it still is within the subdivision. He stated that it just moved down the block and then the other partial part is sitting where the mobile home used to be, so it does look like it’s dissembled. He stated that I think he’s got a couple more days, however they are still sitting there, today.
Mr. Burns stated that we gave him extra time. He asked, do you think he asked for 30 days, if I recall?
Mr. Brickner stated, yes, we did. He stated that on top of this trailer he has additional office trailer?
Mr. Siminski stated, when I went out there like last Thursday there was another little trailer sitting there and it’s parked very close, right by his house. He stated, today when we went out, that office trailer is sitting on a construction site that’s inside. He stated that that subdivision is building those log cabin homes and it’s sitting right next to it.
Mr. Burns asked, do they have approval for that office trailer?
Mr. Siminski stated, no.
Mr. Detert stated that there are two semi trailers, too.
Mr. Siminski stated that there are two semi trailers sitting right by his house, which he’s going to be sending letters as to why those things are sitting on the ground. He stated that there’s a picture right there of the trailers as of last week. He stated that he heard them banging and he figured they were dissembling it, but the pink part has been moved about a half a block to the South, and then the back part of it is in pieces kind of, but it’s still sitting there.
Mr. Burns asked if he received a letter to attend this meeting.
Mr. Detert asked, is it still on his property? He stated, you said a half a block.
Mr. Siminski stated that it’s on the roadway.
Mr. Brickner stated that it’s parked in the cul-de-sac or turnaround with a big “for sale” sign in front of it.
Mr. Detert stated that we can give him more time as long as there is some indication that it’s being moved.
Mr. Siminski stated that he was here last month and I think you indicated and I thought he said he would have it out at this time.
Mr. Burns stated, I don’t support any more time.
Ms. Tallian stated that this was actually September 21st or something and he was given 60 days.
Mr. Siminski stated that I think he was trying to sell this thing, but nobody…he had a couple people that looked at it, but with that back end attached to that he was expecting them to move it and I don’t know how you could move it with an attachment like that.
Mr. Burns stated, so now it’s sitting there with a “for sale” sign on it.
Mr. Detert stated, he said he was going to demolish it, right?
Mr. Siminski stated, yeah. He stated that he said he was either going to sell it and get it off there.
Mr. Burns asked, Counsel, can we…what can we do here?
Ms. Tallian stated, well, you’ve already given him 60 days and the previous extension was not removed except for 60 days, so he’s expired as of 60 days from the last meeting.
Mr. Brickner stated, the letter says September 15th, but I don’t think that’s…
Ms. Tallian stated, I don’t remember the date of the last…this meeting, this says September 21st, so actually, he may have a couple more days. She stated, but you know, he’s not here. She stated, you would think that that means he must not need it anymore.
Mr. Burns asked, should we send him a letter saying that he has to meet the deadline; is that proper? He stated that what concerns me is the trailer is sitting there with a “for sale” sign. He stated that it may be sitting there for a period of time.
Ms. Tallian stated, well, if you would like me to write a letter, I could write a letter saying you were given 60 days; this was on the agenda for this meeting; you weren’t here and your time is up – it needs to be removed immediately.
Mr. Burns stated, I think we should do that, especially after the deadline.
Mr. Detert moved for the attorney to send Mr. Grant a letter stating that his time is up and he needs to remove the trailers immediately. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Burns asked, the other trailers sitting on the property – should we address that at this time or not?
Ms. Tallian stated that one thing that is available – and I don’t know what this other trailer is being used for – but there is a provision for a temporary construction trailer at construction sites, so I think before we can say anything more about that I think we probably need more information. She asked, is it at a construction site, Fred?
Mr. Siminski stated that his home was the construction site.
Ms. Tallian stated, well, you said something…there is a subdivision.
Mr. Siminski stated that it is the first house of the subdivision. He stated that he had these things sitting there while he was building his home. He stated that his home is now occupied, so actually construction is over with.
Mr. Detert stated, I think our letter should contain not only should this trailer be removed, but the two semi-trailers, too.
Mr. Burns asked, now, is he selling additional properties?
Mr. Siminski stated, it’s only during construction, I believe.
Ms. Tallian stated, right, well, that’s my question. She asked, is it his subdivision and has he got this as a construction trailer at a different site?
Mr. Siminski stated, to me, it’s on his property.
Mr. Detert asked, do the semis appear to be on his property?
Mr. Siminski stated, yes, because it’s within the parking range and everything and the break and everything.
Ms. Tallian stated that it says a contractor’s office and equipment shed – a temporary use permit may be issued for a contractor’s temporary structure incidental to a construction project. She stated, now, if he wants to use it as a construction trailer, if he’s building another project, I think he needs to come in and get a temporary use permit.
Mr. Burns stated, also, if he’s using it for a sales office he needs to get approval, too, because a lot of times what the developers would do, they would finish construction and leave the trailer there as a sales office and, in the past, we gave permits for that.
Mr. Brickner stated that these two semi trailers were not construction trailers. He stated that they were just semi trailers and there were no doors, windows…they’re just parked there, and I don’t believe that’s what he was using them for. He stated that the other part of this that bothers me is that he’s moved his trailer down the street and parked it on the turnaround or cul-de-sac and he’s got a for sale sign in it. He stated that he’s pretty sure that trailer will sit there until it’s sold, and I don’t know if that’s on his property or not.
Mr. Detert asked, is it on the pavement?
Mr. Brickner stated, it’s on pavement, yes.
Mr. Detert stated, the Sheriff ought to be concerned about that, I would think.
Mr. Brickner stated, I’m certain he has no intent of demolishing his trailer and removing it. He stated that I think he was going to sell it and I don’t know how long that would take.
Mr. Siminski stated, I was hoping Mr. Grant was going to be here tonight to answer these questions that we have. He stated that the “for sale” sign has always been in the window, so he might be getting ready to haul it out of there somewhere. He stated, I don’t know.
Mr. Detert stated, it wouldn’t hurt to send him a letter, just to give him a little prod.
Mr. Burns asked, is the letter just going to address the first trailer.
Mr. Detert stated that there should be a motion not to approve any extension but to send him a letter and tell him it expired on September 21st(sic).
Mr. Brickner asked, should we tell him to appear at the next meeting?
Mr. Detert stated that he can do what he wants, but it better be gone by the next meeting.
Ms. Tallian stated that if he doesn’t comply with things now, it goes to enforcement.
Mr. Detert moved to let stand the expiration date of September 21st(sic) and direct the attorney to write a letter that all other trailers on his property must be removed.
Discussion:
Ms. Tallian stated that it’s 60 days from September 21st.
Mr. Detert moved to let stand the expiration date of September 21st(sic) and direct the attorney to write a letter that all other trailers on his property must be removed. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
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. (This case was continued from the 10-19-05 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Corbett stated that I think Rick (Burns) was supposed to be out there after that last meeting, the following week, and I never heard from him.
Mr. Burns stated, I did call you. He stated that I was out there today. He stated that I was there. He stated that I tried calling this morning.
Mr. Brickner stated, and I was there.
Mr. Corbett stated, I was hoping I could be there when you were there.
Mr. Burns stated, well, I called you twice and there was no answer.
Mr. Detert stated, point of order. He stated, being the BZA, I’m not sure we should be on the premises with somebody which might lead to trying to convince you they need it, the petition they have. He stated that I think we’re getting on a little dangerous zone there. He stated that you understand this is a quasi-judicial system and it’s like talking to a judge. He stated that you don’t do that, and we could get ourselves in trouble by meeting someone like that. He stated that they could try to convince us of their cause.
Mr. Brickner stated, I agree, but the reason we continued this was so that we could look at it without talking to anybody.
Mr. Detert stated, I’m defending his drive-by. He stated, I think we have to be a little careful.
Mr. Corbett stated that we were trying to figure why we couldn’t put in on the side. He stated that that’s what I wanted to show you, why I couldn’t. He stated that there’s a watershed there.
Mr. Burns asked, how much property do you own to the West? He asked, where does your property line end?
Mr. Corbett stated, 8 or 10 feet.
Mr. Burns asked, and behind your house, your septic is on the West side in the back?
Mr. Corbett stated, no, in the front.
Mr. Burns asked, way in front, or where the mound system is.
Mr. Corbett stated that where I want to put the garage is down farther.
Mr. Brickner asked, where the boat is parked on the West, that’s not your property?
Mr. Corbett stated that that’s not my property.
Mr. Brickner stated that your existing garage is in the middle. He stated that you have two portions of the house – one on the East, one on the West – and the garage in between the two portions of your house, so, in order to get from one part of your house, you got to go through your garage, as it exists now?
Mr. Corbett stated, if you want to, yes.
Mr. Brickner asked, did you buy the house like that or did you build it? He asked, you built it?
Mr. Detert stated, I felt before and I still feel that there’s room there so the garage wouldn’t have to be built in the front.
Mr. Burns stated that he had a large back yard.
Mr. Corbett stated, yeah, but I can’t have it back there. He stated that the ground slopes back there and every time we get a heavy rain water comes along the side of the house where it terraces off, I can’t go any farther than that. He stated that there are two drainage tiles out there.
Mr. Burns asked, what type of business are you in?
Mr. Corbett stated that I’m retired.
Mr. Burns stated, I see a lot of piping there.
Mr. Corbett stated that that’s the drain for the garage.
Mr. Brickner stated that we really don’t like to see garages in the front yard. He stated that it would be detrimental to you to build that garage where you want to build it. He stated that to have a garage in your front yard like that…
Mr. Corbett stated that I feel it would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Brickner stated, I mean, I know you’d really like to have a garage, but on the East side of your house there’s a possibility that…you got 70 feet on the East side of your house? He stated, I know it’s low there – you’d have to fill it in, but you’ve already filled it in in the front so you could build a garage, so….
Mr. Corbett stated that the water comes from the back. He stated that that’s what I’m trying to tell you.
Mr. Burns stated that you could build your building up a little bit and then have the drainage alongside of it, because you’re still low in front. He stated that you’re high in back, so you still should be able to make it work. He stated that there’s a lot of homes built like that because your land slopes upward.
Mr. Corbett stated that if you were out there in the springtime you would see what I’m talking about.
Mr. Burns stated that it shouldn’t flood because you’re higher.
Mr. Brickner stated that if I have any resolve about this it’s because of where you live and you do sit back off the road.
Mr. Corbett stated that you can’t see most of the house anyways.
Mr. Burns asked, is the left side of the garage a different residence? He asked, is someone else living in that?
Mr. Corbett stated that my daughter is staying there.
Mr. Burns stated, okay, it’s an addition.
Mr. Brickner asked, what are you going to put in this?
Mr. Corbett stated that I’ve got two cars and then I’ve got two antique cars.
Mr. Burns stated, see, normally we approve putting garages in front of the house when there is no other option, but you have the option to put it in your back yard. He stated that that’s the way I see it.
Mr. Corbett stated that there’s no way I can terrace it without filling in the back yard.
Mr. Burns stated, I think if you talked to the surveyor, you can.
Mr. Detert stated that we have two other Board members that were in on this. He asked, should we think about continuing it to make sure…
Mr. Burns stated, probably so. He stated that I don’t think you want us to vote on it tonight.
Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-V-32 to the 12-21-05 meeting for when we have a full quorum. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Detert stated, in the meantime, I would suggest you take a better look at it and see if you can’t place that garage a little bit different.
Mr. Corbett stated that I’ve been out there for 50 years. He stated that I know how the water comes on the property.
Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-V-32 to the 12-21-05 meeting for when we have a full quorum. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call 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. (This case was continued from the 10-19-05 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Wertz stated that we got our property in a 10-acre rectangle, 330 feet wide and it’s 1,320 feet long. He stated that when we put the driveway in we had a variance to put it in on the West side with easements to get in there. He stated that we looked at the property as a rectangle. He stated that we looked at it as a deep property rather than a wide property. He stated that when you come in from the driveway you come in from the West and come to the house first and then you’ll come to the driveway. He stated that the way the house is designed and the lot is the problem we have, we did not realize that we’re a quarter mile off the road and we’re in the woods. He stated that you do not see anything from the road, and so, technically, we are in front of the road (sic) between the house and the road. He stated that the way the driveway was put in you’re actually coming in and hitting the house first and then the garage. He stated that with regards to other spots that we could put it in we’ve got an easement on the one side getting back to the other property. He stated that the septic’s behind the house. He stated that we’ve got a low spot that we’ve already done some digging trying to correct the low spot
over there so it’s not virgin ground. He stated that with the way that place settles it could take a long time to get it packed in and settled in. He stated that we could set it farther to the East, but there would be a price tag on it. He stated that there are a lot of trees that would have to come down, and we don’t really want to chop them down. He stated that it would also be inconvenient to have it that far away from the house. He stated that the original design for the property was to put it there and the driveway comes in from the West – you have the house first and then you hit the garage, was the intent.
Mr. Burns stated, see, that was my question: Why couldn’t you build it to the East? He stated that you have land there to build to the East. He stated that you might have to take some trees down, but you do have room.
Mr. Wertz stated that it would be a rather large price tag to chop down those trees and put the driveway extension in to make it that far back and we would also like the garage somewhat close to the house.
Mr. Burns stated that you have an awful nice house. He stated that I would think twice about putting it in front of your house, personally.
Mr. Wertz stated that it’s going to be off to the side. He stated that the driveway comes in from the West and the house would be on the right and as you go down the driveway right there..
Mr. Burns stated, but your house still faces 375.
Mr. Wertz stated, yes, it does. He stated that we looked at the property as a long, narrow piece of property.
Mr. Detert stated that I hate to see a garage in front. He stated that there is a lot of property there. He stated that there is an area that looks low. He stated that I got mixed emotions.
Mr. Brickner stated, that low area to the East of your house, how much room – your proposed garage – how much room do you have to go back, go back further towards your house with that garage? He asked, can you get it back further so it sets almost even with your house, instead of being set so far forward?
Mr. Wertz stated that there is such a cost to get it to the other side. He stated that we’ve already done some digging at the low spot, trying to work with the drainage there. He stated that the cost to get it back there, on the other side, would add quite a bit to the cost. He stated that we’ve already got a partial site clear. He stated that we’ve stopped, to cut down any more trees…
Mr. Brickner stated, of course, the Board knows that you’re .3 of a mile from your house to the road. He stated that it sits back in a grove of trees there, but I really would like to see if you could move it back further and get it more in line with the front of your house.
He stated that he explained that his house actually faces South. He stated that the access road, though, runs North and South, the gravel road. He stated that it doesn’t face that road, so that normally that would be considered…
Mr. Burns stated that that’s his driveway.
Mr. Brickner stated, a quarter-mile long gravel road. He stated that you normally would think that would be the front of the house, but it’s not – it’s the side of the house. He stated that if there’s ever a place to put a garage in the front yard, this might be the only place that I’d ever….but I would like to see you try to move it back further, move it back towards the house – can you do that?
Mr. Wertz stated, we can set it back farther, but the cost, like I said, to move it back around to the side of the house, and the distance and the house and everything. He stated that I don’t know what the exact dollar figure is. He stated that I’d have to chop down trees.
Mr. Brickner stated, otherwise, I don’t really have a problem with this being this much in front in that location.
Mr. Burns stated that it’s a difficult one, because he does have 10 acres, but you do have a lot of room.
Mr. Wertz stated that cost is a big issue. He stated that we put a lot of money into that house. He stated that with our salaries, it’s kind of stretching things.
Mr. Detert stated that I think there is probably a hardship in view of the fact that it’s a strange configuration and there’s that wet area, so reluctantly…
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-V-33.
Discussion:
Mr. Burns stated that I guess the only other concern would be if this is why we’re concerned about this, if that other property, your surrounding property is developed, how is all this going to fit in? He stated that it might be 10 years from now, but that property will be developed.
Mr. Wertz stated that it’s all family-owned around us, but the question would be at that point in time, if they put the road in as 250 W., now our garage is behind the house.
Mr. Burns stated, but then your house is facing the wrong direction.
Mr. Wertz stated that it depends on where they decide to put the road in, the possibility of down the road.
Mr. Burns stated that there’s a reason why we don’t want garages in front of houses.
Mr. Wertz stated that it’s all family farmground around it and there is no intent in the near future to sell anything.
Mr. Brickner stated that I would like to continue this, but I would like you to take a look at relocating it and we continue this for a month and you come back next month, if the Board decides to do that. He stated that we would like you to take a look at relocating that garage more in line with your house, trying to get it in a better location than it is right now. He stated that it’s too far forward, as far as we’re concerned.
Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-V-33, with Mr. Wertz to return to the meeting next month with the possibility of locating the garage more in line with the house. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
Discussion:
Mr. Wertz stated that I have one question. He stated that I understand the purposes of laws and ordinances is to protect people. He asked, what is the actual purpose of this ordinance if it doesn’t intrude on any property line or anything like that where it’s causing problems for anybody else, what is the purpose of having this ordinance, besides, aesthetics, you don’t like the way it looks?
Mr. Detert stated, it’s the law.
Mr. Brickner stated, that’s the reason, primarily. He stated that if people were allowed to build garages in their front yard, you could understand what kind of problems that would….
Mr. Detert stated, I don’t think we’re here to debate the issue. He stated, let’s continue it.
Mr. Wertz stated that I’m just trying to understand what the purpose of it is.
New Business:
At this time, Mr. Brickner read the rules of order for a public hearing.
Case 05-V-35. Petition of Michael & Connie Jacko, 994 N. 250 E., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a barn to house their two horses and a pony, prior to construction of the house, to be located at 756 N. 625 E., in Jackson Township.
Mr. Jacko stated that we recently sold our house where we had a nice barn and horses. He stated that we can’t afford to board, and, with the weather turning bad, we’re looking to try to get at least the horses into their future home as soon as possible on the 30 acres we recently bought here and closed on about two weeks ago. He stated that at the same time we’re working on this barn, we’re also working on house plans and we have two or three builders bidding on the project right now, but with the weather turning bad, we probably won’t get the foundation in until spring at this point. He stated that we might be able to, might not be able to. He stated that with the barn we, at least, could get the animals transported to our new property. He stated that we only live about a mile away from there. He stated that we’d be able to go back and forth to take care of them. He stated that what we are asking for, basically, is to be able to build the barn before we build the house. He stated that if you look at the handouts that I gave you, it will show kind of a preliminary layout of the barn, a floor plan. He stated that I also have an overhead view of the property we recently bought, which is the 30 acres, which is about 360 feet wide by ¾ of a mile long – a very large parcel. He stated that it’s hilly in the front and where our house and where the barn will go will be pretty much invisible to all the properties and people around it. He stated that you won’t even see it. He stated that the house you won’t even see in the end, either. He stated that we were undecided in the beginning whether we were going to put the barn towards the front or the back, although we are going to end up putting it towards the front. He stated that we pre-staked it out ourselves and it’s behind the house where we have it right now, but if you look at that large piece of paper that we got in front of you, that shows where the barn and house are going to be located as of now. He stated that I already have G.E. Marshall lined up to put in the driveway and we just got to go get the driveway permit to get that lined up. He stated that I have a couple of people working on bids, which I should have next week, but getting that barn with the weather going bad is the main emphasis here.
No one spoke in favor of this petition.
Tim Walsworth, 709 N. 625 E., stated that our only question is the drainage. He stated that if they are going to put it on the front, that slopes down onto our property. He stated that we’re at least 10 feet lower, maybe more. He stated that all that hill would drain down into our area. He stated that we’re just concerned as far as manure and what’s going to be there. He stated that we’re not against it, but we would like to have some answer as to that aspect.
Don Bloom, 722 N. 625 E., stated that I’m directly South of them. He stated that my question was on buildings, how close can he go to my property line? He asked, is there a distance that it needs to be away
from for building a barn? He asked, how soon did they feel that they were going to put a home on the property? He stated, the other thing is, in driving around I did visit with Connie one day and I have no problem with them building, either. He stated that I’m glad to have them in the community. He stated that my other question is, if I see the stakes right, if the stakes are, the second stakes are right there where they are thinking about building, there’s kind of a ravine that runs through there directly onto my property, so I didn’t know if they were planning on filling that ravine in or what you were gonna do there, but where they maybe staked out for a barn – I’m just guessing, second set of stakes, there is a gully right there and it was quite close to the property line, so I was just wondering exactly because I raise cattle and I do have a perimeter fence there on my side, but again I’m not against them building a barn and their home there. He stated that I support that; I just had those questions.
Mr. Jacko stated that where we had the barn staked out right now is about 40-42 feet from the fence line there. He stated that I think the County is what – 15 feet? 25 feet?
Mr. Siminski stated that it’s 3 feet provided that it’s not used for commercial use.
Mr. Jacko stated that we picked that because basically what we got is we’re on the top of a hill. He stated that we do have stakes there where we think we’re going to put the house and in back of the house where we think we’re going to put the barn, and what we want is to have a nice walkout basement with a down-sloping thing. He stated that it is a large hill, and, basically, to the first question, on the property on the other side of the road, no, there’s not going to be running down the hill because it’s on the opposite side of the hill to the road. He stated that the house is going to be over 600 feet from the road and the barn over 200 feet from the house, for the most part. He stated that we were toying with where this barn should go, should it go over closer to the house or a little bit farther away and what I was going to do, I was going to do a walk-through with the Marshall people when we do the road here, in a couple weeks here, hopefully, and I was going to get his opinion, their expertise and for him to actually plan out the land for where the barn goes, so it may change 50, 60, to 100 feet. He stated that the barn is not set in stone, but we think it’s kind of at a good spot, even though there is a gully there. He stated that the gully would be made to actually go water around the barn. He stated that the barn, itself, ain’t (sic) gonna create any water as long as you have a swale in the right way. He stated that if we run it up a little bit more we would probably be covering where the swale would be, and we would be wanting the swale to go to the next-door property, so we’re kind of on a downward slope, but I think we’re doing the best that we can.
Ms. Jacko stated that we were just looking for a higher spot for the barn, at that point.
Mr. Bloom stated that I understand what they’re trying to do there, and it’s kind of like the other gentleman said – in the spring the water does run across there. He stated that I know they’re probably not aware of how much water moves off of Jackson Farms our way from that property, but there is a lot of water that comes off there – just so they’re aware of it, and I will be absorbing all the runoff.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Detert stated that we’ve got this letter from Brian Hurley, and, apparently, there are some problems. He asked, Number 1, you don’t have a road directly to this barn?
Mr. Jacko stated that we just bought this property and we haven’t put anything in.
Mr. Detert stated that the other issue is that we don’t uphold covenants necessarily, but we have some issues here with covenants. He asked if this is Lot 7. He stated that this letter is talking about Lot 7.
Mr. Jacko stated that I think we’re talking about somebody that’s looking at some wrong property.
Mr. Brickner asked, so it’s not in Sunnybrooke subdivision?
Mr. Jacko stated, no, how did that get in there?
Mr. Detert stated, I couldn’t quite figure out what he was talking about.
Mr. Jacko stated that that’s the house we sold.
Mr. Detert asked, and you were the developer of that area?
Mr. Jacko stated, yeah.
Mr. Detert asked, and you left there and you left some issues behind you, trees to be removed?
Mr. Jacko stated that the only trees to be removed was, if that’s what they were complaining about, was talked about because I was in control of that subdivision for three or four years and I asked the homeowners whether they wanted to start a homeowners’ association and they basically said they don’t want to and left everything up to me and that was in the letter about six months ago.
Ms. Jacko stated that I’m a little confused about where that comes into play.
Mr. Detert stated that he did send a letter, Brian Hurley, representing some property owners in the subdivision.
Mr. Jacko stated that Sunnybrooke subdivision homeowners’ association was created last night, so you guys should be doing something about that.
Mr. Detert stated that I wasn’t sure what he was talking about.
Ms. Jacko stated that it’s a completely separate issue.
Mr. Detert stated that we don’t have anything to do with covenants anyway.
Mr. Burns stated, I’m confused: Why is this letter attached?
Ms. Byers stated that Bob (Thompson) had some reasons for attaching it.
Mr. Burns stated that I’m trying to understand why. He stated that there must be.
Ms. Tallian asked, where is this in relation to Sunnybrooke?
Mr. Jacko stated that it’s about two miles away.
Ms. Tallian stated, and this petition to build this horse barn has nothing to do with access through Lot 7 in Sunnybrooke?
Ms. Jacko stated, no, they are two separate issues.
Mr. Jacko stated that we got 30 acres we just purchased. He stated that the other stuff we sold.
Ms. Jacko stated that we don’t even own Lot 7 at Sunnybrooke.
Mr. Burns stated, these are two separate properties and that’s why I’m asking the question. He stated that Bob Thompson is our Executive Secretary and he must have some reason…
Mr. Siminski stated that I wasn’t briefed on it.
Mr. Burns stated, I mean, this makes no sense why it was attached.
Mr. Jacko stated that this is just 30 acres by itself.
Ms. J acko stated that we sold it with the Realtor, the house was sold, and we have nothing else to do with the subdivision at this point.
Mr. Jacko stated that there’s a woman in the subdivision…
Mr. Burns stated that it doesn’t pertain to this property. He stated, I’m confused.
Ms. Tallian stated, I have no idea, either. She stated that if this is what they say and this is a subdivision two miles away then I don’t really see that whatever is going on here has anything to do with the petition in front of us.
Mr. Detert stated that it doesn’t, from what they told me. He stated that it said here that staff was trying to contact the petitioner to correct the site location of this proposal. He stated that two different addresses were given by petitioner – 756 N. 625 E. and 760 N. 625 E.
Ms. Jacko stated that there is no exact mailing address. She stated that that was an estimate on the house and I talked with someone from Porter County and I had discussed exactly where the location was and we were clear on that.
Mr. Burns asked, is this new property subdivided?
Ms. Jacko stated, no, it won’t be.
Mr. Burns asked, is it a parcel by itself, the 30 acres?
Mr. Siminski stated that where I got confused when I went out there, there was like two or three for sale signs and I wasn’t sure, I thought they were two separate parcels that were for sale.
Mr. Jacko stated that there is. He stated that where the white house is at, that’s another 40 acres.
Ms. Jacko stated, with the house and 40 acres.
Mr. Siminski asked, so the property to the North is a separate piece of property?
Mr. Jacko stated, yes.
Mr. Siminski stated that I wasn’t originally very sure which parcel of land we were talking about.
Mr. Brickner asked, how soon will you build a house?
Mr. Jacko stated that I’d like to start building it in a month or two, if everything goes all right. He stated that if the weather stays like this and we can get the hole dug and the foundation in and so on and so on…the last house we built it took us eight months because we had a bad winter. He stated that it could take four months if we have a good winter.
Mr. Brickner stated, so, if we gave you 24 months to build…when we allow a structure like this before the house we always put a time limitation on when you have to have your house built, and it’s usually 24 months, so that would be acceptable?
Mr. Burns asked, have you had a surveyor look at this for the site location of the barn and the house.
Mr. Jacko stated that Davies-Rensberger was out there. He stated that we have an elevation drawing of everything specific because it is such a large parcel. He stated that the soil scientist was out there. He stated that all the soil is good.
Mr. Burns stated that I’m more concerned about the drainage – the proper location. He asked, will you commit to that – have a surveyor…
Ms. Tallian stated that we just passed the storm water ordinance. She stated that they are going to have to do it anyway.
Mr. Detert asked, they’re going to have to go to TAC, right?
Ms. Byers stated, no.
Ms. Tallian stated that they are going to have to present, as part of the building permit now, a storm water drainage plan.
Mr. Burns stated that I just want to make sure that the adjacent neighbor doesn’t get flooded or any more issues and across the street, but you say you are lower than the neighbor across the street.
Mr. Jacko stated, but there’s a rise before it gets to the road.
Mr. Burns stated, once the surveyor looks at it – I just want to make sure. He stated, you understand, if you don’t build it within 24 months that you’d have to tear it down?
Mr. Detert stated, you understand that you have to fill out legal papers indicating that will start (sic) the house within 24 months, or your barn could be, you could be forced…
Mr. Burns asked, if this your house where the jog in the driveway is, this will be your house?
Mr. Jacko stated, yes.
Mr. Burns asked, what is this? He asked, is that a detached garage on the side?
Mr. Jacko stated, no, it’s an attached garage with a breezeway.
Mr. Burns asked, and you’re going to have it 40-some feet off the property line?
Mr. Jacko stated, that’s where it’s sitting right now.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-35, subject to the house being built within 24 months and a letter committing to that and, if it’s not built within 24 months, you have to remove the barn,
incorporating the petitioner’s 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
Case 05-UV-9. Petition of Dave Klemp, 858 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit a landscaping business, to be located at 688 S. 225 W., in Boone Township.
Mr. Klemp stated that I currently own Variety landscaping, and we’re basically a landscape service company. He stated that I’m not interested in having a retail service. He stated that we’ve been in Porter County now for 10 years, and I’m looking to buy 10 acres in Boone Township to move my business there along with my house. He stated that I’d like to build a house and pole barn to run my business. He stated that I currently have four employees and I have no intention of growing more than four employees. He stated that we have tried in the past; the quality goes down, so basically I’m looking to buy this piece of property to put my pole barn and my house and run my small business to get away from renting the piece of property where I am right now.
Francis Thatcher, 688 S. 225 W., stated that I lived there most all my life and been involved with the community and I feel that I never had this property under a Realtor or anything like that. He stated that I want to see the people that live there involved in and so it’s a good area, a good community area and since I live there right there I wanted to have somebody in there who would comply with the area and do things that other people (inaudible), so I’m really in favor of it, and since you live in an area…I like to meet the people. He stated that if I do it with a Realtor a Realtor would sell it and who knows and I really wouldn’t know what I was going to get into. He stated that it would change the area. He stated that I plan on living there. He stated that I built my house in ’62 and the time is well spent going out and doing things.
Nobody spoke against this petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Burns asked what size the pole barn will be.
Mr. Klemp stated that it will be 40 by 80 and tuck it back in the woods where it’s not noticeable. He stated that the property is very wooded.
Mr. Burns asked if there are four employees.
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Burns asked what the hours of operation will be.
Mr. Klemp stated, 8 to 5.
Mr. Burns asked, how many days a week?
Mr. Klemp stated, 6, except for wintertime. He stated that we do snow-plowing so there would be night activity of leaving just to go do our commercial accounts.
Mr. Burns asked if the property owner is aware of that, the snowplowing.
Mr. Klemp stated, okay.
Mr. Burns stated, I take it he’s your adjacent property owner, too.
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Detert stated, if he keeps it hidden…there’s a guy with a radiator business not too far from here.
Mr. Klemp stated that I believe that’s farther South.
Mr. Burns stated, yes, Hebron Radiator.
Mr. Detert stated that I’m just saying there’s a business in the general area.
Mr. Burns asked, where is your business now?
Mr. Klemp stated that I rent a company called Stor-4-less. He stated that they have storage buildings and back in 1999 he built a little bit larger storage building and I rent that from him.
Mr. Burns stated, so you’re moving from a commercial area to an AG area.
Mr. Klemp stated, actually, it’s zoned Light Industrial.
Mr. Burns asked, too expensive?
Mr. Klemp stated, and, typically, I have my office, because most of our work is referral is done by phone, getting jobs and bidding jobs mostly over the phone and I usually do that out of the house. he stated that running back and forth gets to be costly
Mr. Burns asked, are you going to have storage on your property?
Mr. Klemp stated, minimal, and when I say minimal, we’re talking just mulch and some black dirt only, because typically we’re a service company. He stated that I go to Reed’s Nursery and get it as we go to the job site. He stated that that the supplies that I would need for
the landscaping I would go to Reed’s Nursery or there are other suppliers in the area, I’d get it from there instead of stockpiling it.
Mr. Burns stated, outside storage. He stated that I know there’s grass-cutting or full landscaping business or…
Mr. Klemp stated, landscaping, yes, lawn maintenance and the landscaping service.
Ms. Tallian asked, are you asking for a business, or are you asking for a house and a business?
Mr. Burns asked, both?
Mr. Siminski asked, can I explain something? He stated that when I talked to Mr. Klemp about this, he was going to go for two separate Variances and it’s really not in his best interests to go for two, to pay for two different Use Variances, or a Variance and a Use Variance if the first one would be shot down, so we discussed this – I talked about this with Bob – what he should probably do…he’s asking right now for the business end of it if it will be approved, because if it’s not approved, he may not buy the property. He stated that there’s another issue now – and he wasn’t sure at the time whether he was going to build a house at the same time as the pole barn and that’s still a consideration, I guess, he has. He stated that he may do it.
Mr. Klemp stated, yeah, we’ll probably build at the same time, but it is looking more like spring, because of the weather. He stated that by the time I get things together…I would like to build a house and a pole barn at the same time.
Mr. Siminski stated, because, if you don’t, you’d have to come back for another Variance to build prior to…
Ms. Tallian stated, what I was trying to figure out, how many things we have going here.
Mr. Detert stated that right now all he is asking for is the business.
Ms. Tallian asked, but he’d be putting up the pole barn to do the business?
Mr. Detert stated that if he starts the house next spring and puts the pole barn up at the same time, he’s not got a problem.
Mr. Klemp stated that I plan on putting the pole barn up beforehand.
Mr. Detert asked, what are you going to do with the property this winter?
Mr. Klemp stated, clean it up.
Mr. Detert asked, you aren’t going to put any landscaping materials there?
Mr. Klemp stated, no, I’m going to stay where I’m at right now until it’s time to make that move.
Ms. Tallian asked, what are you doing at this location? She asked, are you going to be storing things inside or do you have outside storage of materials?
Mr. Klemp stated, yeah, outside would be dirt and mulch; inside is my equipment, my trucks, my tractors, my lawnmowers, my trailers. He stated that it’s not retail. He stated that it’s a landscape service and we need to have a place that we’re based out of, where we store equipment and some of our materials.
Mr. Brickner stated, you understand, this is just a Use Variance now. He stated that this is something you have to have renewed.
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Brickner stated, and, depending on what the Board feels is an appropriate length of time it could be 1 to 5 years, you know, and you have to come back here.
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Siminski stated that if there is a motion tonight to approve this, in the motion – normally when there’s a Use Variance, not a Permanent one, but just a regular Use Variance, there’s no other buildings or things that can be built after the approval. He stated that in this case it’s going to be reversed. He stated that there is nothing there now. He stated that we would be saying that you’re allowing him to build the pole barn for use as a business.
Mr. Detert stated that the part that’s been bothering me, we’ve got the cart before the horse here. He stated that it sounds like we ought to be doing this in the spring when he gets ready to build. He stated that he’s going to start his Use Variance now and he’s going to lose six or seven months on it before he even gets going.
Mr. Siminski stated that he said if he didn’t get this Use Variance he may not buy the property.
Mr. Burns stated, yeah, that’s the way I took it, Bob. He stated that he has this arrangement, a contingency, and that’s why he’s here – otherwise he’s not going to buy.
Mr. Klemp stated that the reason I would like to have this Use Variance, too – a pole barn is not cheap, either, nor is the driveway
to put to the pole barn. He stated that I would like to feel comfortable that I’m going to be allowed to run my business out of this before I spent that money.
Mr. Detert asked, where do you live now?
Mr. Klemp stated, I live in Liberty Township.
Mr. Detert asked, so you have a house to sell?
Mr. Klemp stated, yes. He stated that I have that sold on a contingency, too, so…
Mr. Detert asked, you already have it sold on a contingency?
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Detert asked, on getting the property?
Mr. Klemp stated, with them selling their house. He stated that it gets to be confusing.
Mr. Burns stated, see, I don’t have a problem, Bob, just so he understands that you’re losing time, but that’s really your issue.
Mr. Klemp stated that I’d rather lose time than spend the money.
Mr. Burns stated that I understand that. He stated that that’s probably a smart thing to do. He stated that my concern is this outside storage. He asked, how much of it and your activity. He stated that you are going to have to have equipment to move materials around.
Mr. Klemp stated that I currently have two smaller tractors, one skidster and that’s what we use to load it into my trucks. He stated that typically right now we store dirt and mulch where we are and three months out of the year I have trucks deliver my material and I store it and then I use it. He stated that it’s not a continuous, day after day, hauling dirt, hauling it in, hauling it out. He stated that it’s just enough for me to use on my jobs.
Mr. Burns asked, how many trips per day, would you say? He asked, how many would you say…
Mr. Klemp stated that it would be one to two per month.
Mr. Burns asked, going out or going in?
Mr. Klemp stated, going in.
Mr. Burns asked, how about going out?
Mr. Klemp stated that it would be my trucks leaving daily to go to the job site.
Mr. Burns asked, once in the morning and then when they leave the job site?
Mr. Detert asked, how many trucks would be leaving each day when you get this into operation?
Mr. Klemp stated, the same as I do now. He stated that I only have two pickups and two small dumps.
Mr. Detert asked, so you have four trucks?
Mr. Klemp stated, correct.
Mr. Detert asked, and what time do you start in the morning?
Mr. Klemp stated, typically, between 7 and 8.
Mr. Detert asked, what time do you quit a night?
Mr. Klemp stated, usually about 5 – the latest, 6.
Mr. Detert asked, when it stays light late, you don’t work late?
Mr. Klemp stated, occasionally. He stated that I don’t like paying overtime.
Mr. Burns asked, your equipment would be parked inside at night?
Mr. Klemp stated, as much as we possibly can. He stated, that’s why I chose this property, being that it’s so wooded that there’s enough room that I don’t think it would be a hindrance to anybody.
Mr. Brickner asked, would it be a problem if we told you that you needed to store your equipment inside?
Mr. Klemp stated that the only problem I could foresee would be that it would make me have to spend more money for a larger building.
Mr. Brickner stated, it’s a 3,200 square foot building, a pretty big building.
Mr. Burns stated that it’s AG, too.
Mr. Klemp stated that I believe that does allow outside storage.
Mr. Detert asked, are you going to store four trucks inside? He asked, you don’t have any other equipment besides the trucks?
Mr. Klemp stated, just the tractors and skidster and the trailers. He stated that it would probably be tough to have the trailers in at all times, but they would be parked back there in the woods and it’s an AG zone.
Mr. Detert stated that I don’t have any problem, but I don’t want to see a lot of stuff there outside.
Mr. Klemp stated that I intend to try to keep it look like a residential setting.
Mr. Burns stated that that’s exactly what we want.
Mr. Klemp stated that that’s what I want, too.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-UV-9 for 3 years, subject to hours being from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; no more than 4 employees; 6 days a week.
Discussion:
Mr. Detert stated, his business doesn’t start till spring? He stated that I guess I’m a little concerned about the stuff being kept out there.
Mr. Burns asked, until the pole barn’s built, is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Klemp stated that you’re saying to run the business from 7 to 6. He stated that you have to take into consideration that I am doing the snowplowing, so sometimes we do leave in the middle of the night.
Mr. Burns stated that that he’s talking about the landscaping side.
Mr. Klemp stated that with the snowplowing it’s undetermined.
Mr. Burns stated that that’s why I only made it for 3 years. He stated that if there are any concerns for three years about the snowplowing…but the 7 to 6 hours does not pertain to snowplowing. He stated, of course you can’t. He stated that that’s unscheduled. He asked, the pole barn is going to be 40 by 80, is that correct?
Mr. Klemp stated, yes.
Mr. Burns asked, and you are going to make every effort to park all the equipment inside when possible?
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-UV-9 for 3 years, subject to hours being from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., as pertains to the landscaping business; no more than 4 employees; 6 days a week; outside storage will be only mulch and dirt; the pole barn and the residence will be
built at the same time in the spring, and they will sign a written commitment to that effect; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Brickner - Yes
Case 05-PUV-3. Petition of Metal Recyclers of Valparaiso, 2056 Joliet Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit outside storage for a recycling business located at 2056 Joliet Road, in Center Township.
Joseph Spencer, 620 N. 70 E., stated that he is the petitioner in this matter.
There being no one else present, the public hearing was then closed.
Mr. Brickner asked, does he have an existing Use Variance for this property?
Mr. Spencer stated, yeah, I’ve had it for 13 years and it was renewed twice.
Mr. Siminski stated that that’s the reason he’s going through this process, because it’s now over. He stated that he got it approved as a Use Variance and he had two renewals and that’s all he can have, so now he’s again asking for a Permanent Use Variance.
Mr. Spencer stated that the reason I’m asking for a permanent one is it would take a lot of stress off me, knowing that I’ve not put a lot of years in for something I’m going to lose at the end. He stated that I’ve been getting along real well with everybody. He stated that I haven’t had any complaints, no citations for any environmental problems. He stated that I’m currently under a satellite picture system where they can watch us. He stated that they did all of the neighbors in the area. He stated that the City of Valparaiso did it for County property that borders City property for the government for some kind of grant money and so we can be totally watched from the satellite. He stated that we don’t handle anything hazardous – just clean metals. He stated that we don’t do cars or anything like that. He stated that I’m just asking for the permanent one to get it final.
Mr. Burns stated that when you first started 13 years ago it was a much smaller business. He stated that your business has been expanding, the volume, since you started from Day One, and that’s a concern because you’re not in a commercial area.
Mr. Spencer stated that I’m zoned Light Industry.
Mr. Burns asked, was that from Day One?
Mr. Spencer stated, when I started the business, I was okayed, then I had a dispute with one neighbor which created all this, and he’s no longer there. He stated that the four that were in the original suit thing – they’re all gone. He stated that I got all new neighbors.
Mr. Siminski stated that I think the big issue here is outside storage. He stated that I-2 allows outside storage. He stated that I-1 doesn’t and he’s in an I-1 zone.
Mr. Detert stated that I guess my concern is making this a Permanent Use Variance because it’s going to be what you see in the pictures forevermore. He stated that I don’t mind letting him continue to operate there as long as we have some control over it.
Mr. Brickner stated that you can’t expand any more. He stated that that place is so packed full right now that it’s really almost difficult to get in there and turn around and get out of it.
Mr. Spencer stated that the reason for that is we’re waiting for markets to come up. He stated that we took two loads out last week and we got a load going out Friday and then the week after Thanksgiving we got another load out. He stated that that’s how we make our money – with markets. He stated that in summertime the markets are down – in the winter they go up.
Mr. Brickner stated that I’m not familiar with the metal markets, but it’s kind of like playing the futures. He stated that I’m really concerned about the congestion in that, and, unless you get rid of some of the stuff, everybody that saw it…
Mr. Spencer stated that I bought the city’s recycling equipment from them. He stated that I bought all their equipment and one big piece of that’s going there. He stated that they were supposed to pick it up last week. He stated that they were supposed to pick it up this week and I already paid them for it, then that will be gone. He stated that all of the hopper equipment will be gone.
Mr. Brickner stated that what I liked about the Use Variance was that we could keep tabs on how much stuff you have and whether or not you can continue to put stuff in there without taking it out.
Mr. Spencer stated that we’ve got to take it out because I’m buying every day. He stated that since I’ve been running on this temporary, everybody else in the neighborhood has done the same thing and never been cited for anything. He stated that I got one next door to me right now and it’s advertising outside storage and he’s got the place full of boats. He stated, Nightingale, he passed away, and his son, I get along real well with him. He stated that it’s called Captain’s Orders. He stated that it’s on the side of the property.
Mr. Burns stated that the concern is this business from Day One it was a small business and it expanded and it received outside storage…
Mr. Detert stated that I don’t have a problem with him continuing what he was doing.
Mr. Spencer stated that I could scale the business down. He stated that I could shut down a few days a week, but the public needs a place to put this stuff. He stated that if they don’t put it in my place, it’s going to be in your ditches because there’s a lot of stuff that I do take that they don’t got (sic) nowhere to take. He stated that Able Disposal won’t take metals. He stated that I have one guy that came down, he had tires and propane tanks. He stated that I told him I wouldn’t take them and they ended up in one of my dumpsters over at USA Muffler. He stated that another fellow came down – he had tires – and I told him I wouldn’t take them, and he said, ‘I’ll find a county road to dump them on’ – and guess where they ended up at – 600 N. He stated that I seen (sic) them on my way home. He stated that he threw them in a ditch.
Mr. Brickner stated that our concern is the congestion that you have, the material that you have stored outside now and the congestion that you have there and the fact that you’re waiting for markets to improve before you move that stuff and if the markets improve will that congestion that you have there improve? He stated that it’s a big mess.
Mr. Spencer stated that I’m down behind that house. He stated that everybody else is up on the road front. He stated that I’ve got people that’s drove by there for years that’s came to us and said they drove by and never ever seen (sic) us. He stated that next door we got where Captain’s Orders is, we got an open landfill that was shut down over there. He stated that it was full of toxics. He stated that that one’s been wrote up. He stated that Nightingale’s been wrote (sic) up for environmental problems, S&B auto. He stated that I’ve got one of the clean pieces of property down there.
Mr. Detert stated that you’re kind of telling us what you do and we have to be concerned that if we give you a Permanent Use Variance that someday you’re going to retire and you’re going to sell this and someday there’s going to be another guy in there and what’s he going to do and we have to look at the long range, not just what you’re doing, and I don’t mind letting you continue some of this business you’re doing, but I do feel we need some way of controlling it. He stated that you can tell us you’re the best guy in the world and we believe you, but how about the next guy?
Mr. Spencer stated that I’ve run for 13 years under your temporary.
Mr. Detert stated, well, that’s not the point. He stated that my point is, what happens long-range…
Mr. Spencer stated that okay, here’s another question I got for you. He stated that down the street, G.E. Marshall’s got 50 acres. He asked, if he running out of there on a temporary?
Mr. Detert stated, would you please not interrupt? He stated that we’re trying to discuss this thing. He stated that I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about this, but that’s the way I feel about it.
Mr. Brickner asked, that this be given out as a Use Variance…?
Mr. Detert stated that he’s asking for a Permanent Use Variance and he’d have to agree…
Mr. Brickner stated that he’d have to agree to take a temporary Use Variance, if the Board feels that a Permanent Use Variance…what happens after you leave that business is what we’re concerned about, not what you’re doing right now so much, but what happens after you leave the business, because a Permanent Use Variance goes with the property, and we don’t want somebody else coming in there and really making a mess out of that property.
Mr. Spencer stated that there’s another question I got. He stated that you say I’ve got such a congested mess down there? He asked, did you drive in from the East side and go by G.E. Marshall’s?
Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, I went by Mr. Marshall’s place, but that’s not my concern.
Mr. Burns stated that I agree with Bob. He stated that we should keep it as a Use Variance, not a Permanent. He stated that I’d like to go back to the beginning, when this was first granted: What did we say about outside storage?
Mr. Siminski stated that the motion was – this was back in ’92, approved as a use Variance for 3 years subject to fence requirements as indicated in the Inspection Committee Report, with a time limit of 6 months to complete the fence. He stated that it passed 3-2 back in 1992. He stated that in 1995 it was approved as a Use Variance for 5 years.
Mr. Burns stated, just under I zoning there’s no outside storage?
Mr. Siminski stated, I-1, and that’s the reason he had to come before this Board.
Mr. Brickner stated that if you’d make the motion we could make this a Use Variance. He asked, would you accept a Use Variance for 5 years or whatever the Board feels…?
Mr. Spencer stated, I don’t want no 5 year or I’m going to close down the place. He stated that I’m not putting any more of my time
in. He stated that I’ve got 16 years in it already and I’m not going to put no more (sic) time in; I’m going into trucking. He stated that I’m going to close it down and that will be it. He stated that I’m not going to continue with it, not for something that can be taken away from me later.
Mr. Detert stated, well, that’s the way you started it.
Mr. Spencer stated, I know, but like I said, Marshall’s got 50 acres down there.
Mr. Detert stated, I don’t care what Marshall does. He stated that that’s another problem. He stated that we’re here on your petition.
Mr. Spencer stated that if I have to work on another temporary I’m out of business – I’m quitting. He stated that I’m not putting no more (sic) time in it because I got to go through this all the time. He stated that it’s stressful on me. He stated that I had to send letters to all the neighbors again.
Mr. Brickner stated, then, it looks like you’re going to be out of business because we’re probably going to make this a temporary Use Variance, if you will accept it, or we’ll deny it.
Mr. Detert stated that he doesn’t want to accept it.
Mr. Brickner stated, that’s up to you, of course. He stated that we’re not going to make it a Permanent.
Mr. Spencer stated that I’m going to get the state of Indiana and the Department of Justice involved. He stated that the Department of Justice was down about it when you let Metro do that out there.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-PUV-3 as a Use Variance for 5 years. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Detert stated that he doesn’t want a Use Variance. He stated that we can’t vote on a Use Variance.
Mr. Brickner stated that we can vote on it. He stated that if he doesn’t want it he doesn’t have to take it.
Ms. Tallian stated, how about this? She stated, how about if I suggest that you continue this to the next meeting to let me do some research?
Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-PUV-3 to the 12-21-05 meeting, with Board counsel to do some research. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.
At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that we got a letter from Arjen Byvoets withdrawing his petition, which had been tabled, for a stable.
At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that the findings of fact concerning the ABBC case, which had been denied at last month’s meeting, need to be approved.
Mr. Detert moved to approve the findings of fact for the ABBC case. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
S\ Marvin Brickner, Vice-Chairman
Attest:S\ Fred M. Siminski, Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector
|
