BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
December 21, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on December 21, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the November 16, 2005 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Old Business:

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 and 11-16-05 meetings, with the public hearing closed and to await action when a full complement of the Board is present.)

Mr. Corbett stated that this is his picture of what the garage will look like with the house up. He stated that if the garage was already up this is how much of the house you could see.

Mr. Brickner stated that the problem is that a garage is not allowed in front of the house in this zoning district and the Variance is to permit a garage to be built in front of the house and I think everybody has looked at this piece of property.

Mr. Burns stated that I have mixed feelings about it at the last meeting and I drove past there again this past week and there is a house next to it that has a garage in front, although I think he could build it back (inaudible) towards the house and I still think it’s buildable. He stated that the house sits far back from Route 6 and the neighbor has one so I really don’t have an issue.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-32. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated that the only thing I would like to say is if the homeowner could move it the furthest East he can because you have that high spot.



Ms. Tallian stated that the last time there was a commitment to maintain the tree-brush screen. She stated that I just wanted to remind everybody.

Mr. Burns stated that the attorney reminded me that there is a commitment about greenery, bushes, trees.

Mr. Brickner asked, screening in front, or along the garage, in front of the garage?

Mr. Burns stated, in front of the garage.

Ms. Tallian stated that it said that the property had heavy amounts of brush and trees along there already, and it was discussed at the last meeting that he would make a commitment to maintain that tree and brush line along 6.

Mr. Brickner asked, so that will not be removed then?

Ms. Tallian stated, right.

Mr. Corbett stated that in the summertime you cannot even see the house unless you look down the driveway.

Ms. Tallian stated that the idea was that you were supposed to make a commitment to keep that there.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-32, subject to the petitioner moving the garage as far East as possible, and the screening of brush and trees to be maintained, with a written commitment to that effect; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

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 and 11-16-05 meetings, with the public hearing closed and the petitioner to attempt to move the proposed garage back more in line with the house.)

Mr. Wertz stated that after the last meeting I think there might have been some misunderstanding on my behalf about what direction you guys were talking about moving the barn. He stated that I’ve redrawn this to scale and put some measurements on how far it’s going to be away from the house and I also got some prices on if we were to put it actually behind the front line of the house. He stated that to clear the trees we are looking at $3,200, to bring in dirt and gravel we are looking at $4,500 instead of $150. He stated that right there we are at $8,450. He stated that that doesn’t count the labor to have the



dirt and gravel spread out and compacted. He stated that already we are at $8,500 before we actually get anything spread out or even have a foundation. He stated that we pushed a little bit farther East and we are going to be, from corner to corner of the barn and the house is going to be 45 feet and it’s going to be off to the side. He stated that I have a diagram here that I am going to pass around. He stated that it won’t be in front of the house or anything. He stated that it’s to the side but still, technically, by the way the ordinance is written, I guess I would agree that it’s in front of the house, but it’s to the side.

Mr. Burns asked, do you have 10 acres?

Mr. Wertz stated, yes, it’s 330 foot deep and then 1,320 feet wide, which is the East-West direction, so, behind the house it only goes back about 150 feet right behind the house.

Mr. Burns asked, so, behind the house you have 150 feet?

Mr. Wertz stated, roughly, yeah. He stated that like I said, it’s a septic area and right next to the house.

Mr. Burns stated, so, really what we are talking about is financial, it’s not a hardship or a land issue – it’s a money issue.

Mr. Wertz stated, the 10 grand to put it off to the side, yeah. He stated that we’ve already cut back the size of the barn from the original.

Mr. Burns asked, it’s a brand-new house?

Mr. Wertz stated, correct. He stated that it was built a year ago.

Mr. Brickner stated that for those that weren’t here last meeting we talked about moving this garage from right in front of the house to over here. He stated that this is a main road here. He stated that this is the lane back to the house here, but this is the County highway that runs out here, so this is the front of the house, and it’s a quarter of a mile back, so it was right here and he moved it over here.

Mr. Hudson stated that I have no problem with it.

Mr. Burns stated, well, he moved it East like we asked him to. He stated that I guess the only issue I have is he has 10 acres, and, normally, if it’s a hardship or like the gentleman before us, he had a limited spot he could put it. He stated that this here, he has 10 acres, but he has a financial issue.

Mr. Hudson stated, and I guess that’s a hardship.





Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think it’s a lot better there. He stated that I think that’s going to be a much better place for it than right directly in front.

Mr. Burns stated, and he is a quarter mile off the road.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-33, subject to moving it where he has it drawn; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney.

Discussion

Ms. Tallian stated that the only thing that I had from last time is there was some question about how big this was going to be.

Mr. Wertz stated that right now I’m looking at 45 feet deep and 50 feet wide.

Mr. Burns asked, it’s not going to be used for a business or anything?

Mr. Wertz stated, no. He stated that it will be a two-car garage with a little wood shop on the side.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-33, subject to moving it where he has it drawn; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - 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. (This Case was continued from the 11-16-05 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Joseph Spencer, 620 N. 70 E. Valparaiso, stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that I needed to get the Permanent Use Variance because I want to invest some more money in the business and I want to make sure that I’m secure before investing that money. He stated that I want to get a power rig so I can run some bigger motors and to be able to process some metal so it takes less space to store it, but I got to get three-phase power put in. He stated that I purchased the recycling equipment from the City of Valparaiso and I sold it at a loss to get it out of the yard to clean up a little bit. He stated that I brought pictures of our improvements, of what it is today. He stated that we reduced our hours to slow the business down. He stated that we took one day out of our work week, 8 hours out of our work week. He stated that we put



up a new gate. He stated that this is the front side of the gate. He stated that you can’t see anything that we have, the back side, you can’t see anything from our side and the only way you can see anything is from an airplane.

Mr. Burns stated that the concern was not so much the operation, but that this is turning into a junk yard with outside storage.

Mr. Brickner stated that the question was a Permanent Use Variance, which would go with the property, if it were ever sold and he’s asking for a Permanent Use Variance, and we were willing to give him a temporary to continue his temporary Variance, but not a Permanent Variance, that was our…that’s what we had tried to…but Mr. Spencer didn’t want that. He stated that he didn’t want any part of a Use Variance. He stated that he wants a Permanent Use Variance, and, of course, in that case, we lose any kind of control of the property in the future, and that was the point.

Ms. Tallian stated that I did a little research on this particular situation, and it’s my opinion that what he really has here is a junk yard, as it’s defined, which is a place where you can store outside, use salvage and do this kind of operation. She stated that I think that what could possibly be done here to accommodate both the BZA’s desire to have some control and Mr. Spencer’s desire to have some sort of permanency is to convert this to a request for a Special Exception and if he can meet these other things, which I think he does, then I think he could have a Special Exception. She stated that it would be for this business and the BZA would still be able to maintain control if he went outside the parameters of that.

Mr. Detert stated that we can stipulate that if it remained the type of business he has and not turn into a place where we would recycle autos, crush them, those kind of things.

Ms. Tallian stated, right, I think that you can stipulate the parameters of the business and set it up as a Special Exception as applying to this business. She stated that it would give him permanency with his financing, but it would still keep control.

Mr. Detert stated, see, we don’t want to create a junk yard where they come in and burn stuff, crush cars and that kind of thing.

Mr. Brickner stated that we would like to keep it a recycling business.

Mr. Detert stated that what we’d like to do is confine it to what he’s doing.

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, recycling business.

Mr. Detert stated, as a Special Exception. He asked, now, would you agree with…you’re the petitioner. He stated that you have to agree to allow us to do that.


Mr. Spencer stated, well, I have to be able to pass it down to my family members.

Mr. Detert stated, well, that would not be a problem, as long as they do the same thing that you’re doing.

Mr. Spencer stated, as long as it stays the same.

Mr. Detert stated, a metal recycling operation.

Mr. Spencer stated, no transfer stations or nothing like that. He stated that if I can get that to where it’s permanent…we got another company moving in on us, and I’m concerned about that. He stated that I don’t want to lose what I put all my time in. He stated, matter of fact, we got two different companies moving in. he stated that Metro moved in on us years ago and took a lot of business away from us.

Mr. Brickner stated that our only concern is that we maintain some kind of control over this, and you still have the ability to invest and to continue your business the way it is now, and the Permanent Use Variance is not something that we would consider doing because if you sold it it would go with the business (sic) and then we’d lose control, so the Special Exception..can we do that, can we just change this to one, or does he have to refile?

Mr. Detert stated that he would have to allow us to do that.

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, he would have to say it’s okay right here.

Ms. Tallian stated that I think you’ve already noticed it for public hearing and I don’t think there have been any remonstrators, right? She stated that I think that you can convert…I think that what you should do is do a motion to convert this from a petition for Permanent Use Variance to a petition for a Special Exception, vote on that motion and you get the petitioner’s consent to do that and then you discuss it as a petition for Special Exception, ask if there is any comment from the audience, and I think you’re all right.

Mr. Brickner asked, we’re not going to have any problems with the City of Valparaiso across the street with a Special Exception for a junk yard within 200 feet of a residential area? He asked, I mean, that isn’t going to be a…

Ms. Tallian stated, let me ask this. She asked, was this…properly speaking this should have been noticed as notice for public hearing. She asked, has that happened?

Mr. Spencer stated that I sent to three different offices of the City.





Mr. Brickner stated, yes, we did, because I remember that we talked about this at the last meeting.

Ms. Tallian stated, I don’t remember if it was noticed for a public hearing so the people across the street and all those people were given notice that they could be here.

Mr. Spencer stated, yes.

Ms. Tallian stated, well, then, I think you’ve sent your notice.

Mr. Detert asked, what about the criteria he has to meet?

Ms. Tallian stated, well, first you have to do the motion to convert this to a petition for Special Exception.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t want to do that and then have it get caught in a quagmire where we can’t pass the other one.

Mr. Burns stated, I do have some questions and I guess a concern I have…I’m not saying you’re going to do this…but if we give a Special Exception to have a recycling business, can he expand that into grinding, shredding metals, burning metals? He stated, I mean we talk about recycling – it could turn into a major recycling business. He stated that I’m not saying that’s what you have in mind, but you know what I’m talking about.

Mr. Brickner stated that he hasn’t got enough room to do that.

Mr. Spencer stated that I only have an acre.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t understand if he’s going to buy a shredding machine or grinding machine. He stated that that’s the items we could get into.

Mr. Detert stated that my comments were that he continue to do exactly what he is doing now.

Ms. Tallian stated, well, I think as part of the conditions for granting a Special Exception, you can come to an agreement about the limitation of his operation.

Mr. Spencer stated that that would be about the outside storage only, because I have my recycling business there since 1976.

Mr. Brickner stated, we know. He stated that what he’s saying is that we don’t want you to expand into a junk yard business where you would actually be burning anything or be grinding any concrete or be pulverizing any concrete with the grinding machine or that type of business.




Mr. Burns stated, but you’re still 200 feet from a residence, approximately.

Mr. Spencer stated that I’m going to operate the same as I’ve been doing for the last 13 years. He stated, I mean, we’ve got more work than we can handle now; there’s no way we can get any bigger.

Mr. Siminski stated, your question was….I just want to make sure, you said something about 200 feet.

Mr. Burns stated, well, I think residences are within 200 feet, but I’m concerned about purchasing new equipment, grinders, shredders – it gets pretty noisy.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, then, we first need a motion to change this to a Special Exception.

Mr. Burns moved to change this to a Special Exception. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert asked, do you agree?

Mr. Burns moved to change this to a Special Exception. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Mr. Brickner stated, then the Special Exception, we want to attach restrictions to the Special Exception. He stated that that makes this now a junk yard instead of what it was listed as as a recycling business.

Ms. Tallian stated, well, the junk yard definition in the ordinance talks about recycling, salvage or re-use or resale.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, it’s in there already.

Mr. Burns asked, but we’re not going to call it a junk yard, are we?

Ms. Tallian stated, by definition, but I think what you need to do is write it up with the limitations. She stated, what I’ve got on here is no pulverizing of concrete, no crushing of metals, no burning or grinding of material.

Mr. Spencer stated, I’ve got a question. He stated that I’ve got a can grinding machine.

Mr. Detert asked, you’ve got a grinding machine?

Ms. Tallian stated, all right, no shredding.

Mr. Burns asked, you crush now, right?

Mr. Spencer stated that we bale and the can machine (inaudible)…no shredding, no grinders. He stated that the can machine is the noisiest machine we’ve got.

Ms. Tallian stated, all right, just going through the requirements for the Special Exception: There’s fencing.

Mr. Brickner stated, which he has.

Ms. Tallian stated, one entrance to a major…and then there’s no disposal of liquid waste and no parking in the front yard.

Mr. Hudson asked, you park behind the fence, right?

Mr. Spencer stated, yeah, but I got parking in the front. He stated that I got a rental house up there.

Mr. Detert stated, no, no, that’s something else.

Ms. Tallian stated that no parking of like machines, trucks, no parking area for machines or trucks in the front yard.

Mr. Spencer stated that business equipment won’t be in the front yard. He stated that it will be behind the fence.

Mr. Brickner stated, fencing requirements…he already has a fence around this place and gated, so I suppose we meet those requirements.

Mr. Detert asked, you have a sign out there now, don’t you?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, he has a sign.

Ms. Tallian asked, and the sign is approved as it is?

Mr. Detert stated, yes, we want to leave it as it is, the metal recycling sign.

Mr. Siminski stated that I believe it’s on the gate.

Mr. Brickner stated, no, there’s one up above, too.

Mr. Spencer stated that that was issued to me by Elizabeth Marshall back when I first started with no permit.

Mr. Burns asked, how about outside storage?

Ms. Tallian stated, well, the junk yard portion of this, as a Special Exception, allows for that outside storage, other than organic matter.

Mr. Brickner stated that he already has outside storage.

Mr. Burns stated, you better put some controls. He asked, how high can he stack – 20 feet high?

Mr. Brickner stated that he already has stacked 20 feet high. He asked, how about if we just say the outside storage not to exceed the present…

Mr. Burns asked, the height of the fence?

Mr. Brickner stated, whatever is the present height.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-SE-9, subject to no pulverizing of concrete; no shredding of metals; no burning or grinding operations; no significant expansion of the current use; no liquid waste; and to approve the current sign. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated that I still feel regarding outside storage we should look at how high they can stack things. He asked, what is it now?

Mr. Detert asked, what’s your height now?

Mr. Spencer stated it’s a little bit above the fence, so my guess is 6 and a half, 7 foot.

Mr. Detert stated, you want to put a number on it; I’ll put a number on it.

Mr. Burns stated, I think we should. He stated that here is where I’m coming from. He stated that some of the junk yards in the City go twice as high as the fence, but let’s say you sell the business…

Mr. Detert asked, how high do you go over the fence now?

Mr. Spencer stated, 2 foot, maybe. He stated, three bales of siding.

Mr. Detert stated, not to exceed 3 feet. He stated that I’m going to say in the motion that stacking of materials shall not exceed 3 feet above the top of the fence.

Mr. Hudson stated, that’s fine.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-SE-9, subject to no pulverizing of concrete; no shredding of metals; no burning or grinding operations; no significant expansion of the current use; no liquid waste; and to approve the current sign; with stacking of materials not to exceed 3 feet above the top of the fence. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:




Mr. Burns asked, any greenery? He asked, would you consider putting some bushes or trees, greenery?

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t think that’s going to help.

Mr. Spencer stated that I got my rental house in front.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think you can plant anything. He stated that you come right off the road right into his driveway.

Mr. Spencer stated that I’ve got two great big pine trees in the front yard already to cover the whole property.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-SE-9, subject to no pulverizing of concrete; no shredding of metals; no burning or grinding operations; no significant expansion of the current use; no liquid waste; and to approve the current sign; with stacking of materials not to exceed 3 feet above the top of the fence; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board attorney. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

New Business:

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

Case 05-V-36. Petition of John & Theresa Balas, 148 N. 575 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum required front-yard building setback from 60 feet from the centerline of the road to 48 feet to allow for the construction of a family room addition, to be located at 148 N. 575 E., in Washington Township.

Mr. Balas stated that he is handing out materials. He stated that my wife and I gave quite a bit of consideration when we moved to Washington Township about three years ago, very happy with the area. He stated that I think we have a great area, older homes, but with some remodeling and stuff I think they are absolutely beautiful. He stated that we’ve made a decision to stay in the area. He stated that we really like it, but one of the things we’re wanting to do, we’re having a grandchild and stuff and the house is rather small and we wanted to have a nice family room added on, you know, just for down the road for the kids and grandkids and my kids are actually grown and out of the house, but we want to put an addition on. He stated that just recently I had a new septic put in so it kind of kills the idea of going backwards in the back of the house and we just did that this year. He stated that looking on the North side of the house – there’s an aerial view of the house, looking at the East and West and North and South road there we wanted to go on the right-hand side of the house. He stated that we were talking about going out about 24 feet



and I didn’t really know the building codes or nothing (sic), so I came up here and they told me I had to be within 60 feet of the center of 150. he stated that I have 72 feet now and if we go with a 24-foot addition on the side of the house I would request about a 12-foot Variance, if at all possible. He stated that I brought pictures of the front of the house. He stated that our intentions are obviously if we do this we want to do it in a timely fashion. He stated that I wouldn’t start the ground-breaking until I knew I could get everything in order and do it in a timely fashion. He stated that our goals are to remove the siding of the house and put cedar around the house and it would be just an extension of the existing house. he stated that it wouldn’t be higher or lower on the roof. He stated that we would just extend the roofline out and re-roof the house to keep it looking nice and everything. He stated that another thing you see the aerial view. He stated that I have a blown-up picture here. He stated that most of my house is surrounded by either the back line, which would be the West end of the property. He stated that there are arborvitaes, but I have pine trees grown on the complete line of 150, so pretty much it would all be secluded anyways except for the front of the house. He stated that I’m not sure if any of the Board members had a chance…my wife mentioned that some of you might have drove (sic) by and took a look at it. He stated that I think with proper landscaping and doing a nice addition I think it would be very beautiful and would increase the value not only of my house, but the entire neighborhood. He stated that, of course, for my family, it would be very beneficial.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated, not a problem. He stated that I think it’s going to fit very well, especially with the screening along the road there. He stated that it’s like it was made for being on that side.

Mr. Burns stated, I feel the same way.

Mr. Brickner stated that I know we have a letter from the….

Mr. Detert stated, he has some concerns.

Mr. Brickner stated that I looked at this. He stated that the intersection…there was some problems with not being able to see at the intersection of 150, but the view is obstructed because of the pine trees, not because of any addition that you would put on the side of your house. He stated that my only request would be maybe some of those pine trees, at least up to the building line, could be removed so you could see. He stated that you really have to drive out into 150 to see if there is anything coming because the pine trees are so



close to the road, and they are beautiful pine trees and normally situated it wouldn’t be a problem, but in this case there is a problem with seeing anything coming from the West when you are at that intersection. He stated that you folks know that better than anybody because that’s where you come out and I might recommend that some of those pine trees, at least up to the building line, could be removed so you could see down that road. He stated that I think that’s what Mr. Schelling had in mind when he wrote the letter commenting about the lack of visibility at that intersection.

Mr. Balas stated that I think going to the house line is rather excessive. He stated that I agree on some of it. He stated that it is actually quite a bit of a windbreaker coming from the North side with the snow and everything, which would blanket not only mine, but the neighbors. He stated that I can agree with possibly removing some of it, but it’s excessive, if you look at the picture, if you took it all the way to the house line. He stated that if you made a proper stop at the stop sign…I’m willing to work with him, but to go all the way back I think is quite excessive.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m not in a position to say how many you need to remove, but I just know that those that are on the East end of that East-West line are the ones that restrict the vision, and if you remove enough pine trees, you may not have to go all the way back to the building line, but at least go back far enough so that when you come to that intersection you can see something, you know, anything, coming from the West because right now you can’t.

Mr. Detert asked, would you agree to work with the Highway Department on this?

Mr. Balas stated that I don’t see no (sic) problem with that.

Mr. Detert, and getting visibility improved at that corner?

Mr. Balas stated, that would be fine. He stated that I can understand for the safety reasons and especially if they do grow quite a bit bigger then they would definitely be a problem.

Mr. Brickner stated that as far as the 12-foot setback is concerned, I don’t think that’s a problem at all. He stated that we’re allowing him 12 additional feet.

Mr. Hudson asked, who came up with the idea of moving the pine trees back to the building line? He asked, was that in Dave’s letter?

Mr. Brickner stated, no. He stated that that was just…having driven out there and looked down that road, I understand what Mr. Schelling is talking about.

Mr. Burns stated that he has a valid safety concern and I’m like Bob – if you agree to what Dave Schelling recommends, then I will approve it.

Mr. Detert stated that here’s a copy of his letter and his phone number is on there.

Mr. Burns stated that he may say 10 feet or 15 feet.

Mr. Hudson stated that there is, in the ordinance, for subdivisions, there is a way to determine where that visual cutoff is, and I think he could apply that to this here, because he’s set back 135 from 575; I would think it wouldn’t take a whole lot of tree removal to get him in compliance with what, at least, for a subdivision would be required.

Mr. Detert stated, well, I think we have to consider public safety. He stated that I know we got a guy out my way that’s got a pine tree that’s blocking everybody’s view and somebody is going to get killed there one day, but he will not cooperate.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-36, with the understanding that he will sit down with Dave Schelling, the Highway engineer, and whatever he recommends the petitioner will comply with. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Balas stated that looking at that survey – I’ve never been involved in anything like this, and I’m assuming that survey is very accurate. He stated that it was done by…approved by you guys. He asked, am I allowed to go 24 foot off the house, or is that just going to be…am I going to have to get another survey and come off the road, come to the 48 feet. He stated that it’s going from a 60 foot down to a 48 foot.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, you’re asking for a 12-foot setback.

Mr. Detert stated that he’s asking for 12 more feet off the right-of-way; is that what you want?

Mr. Balas stated that if I extend 24 foot off my house it’s not going to be like I’m going to be 6 inches in violation one way or the other, that’s all I’m concerned about. He stated that if I was going to build a 24-foot addition I wanted to just make sure I was accurate.

Mr. Burns stated that what you do is you have a surveyor come out.

Mr. Detert stated that you better have a surveyor come out because we’re going to grant you 12 feet, and if you go 14 you’re going to be in violation. He stated that if it was me, I’d get a surveyor out there and have him stake it for you.

Mr. Hudson stated that there’s not enough dimensions on this plan to say whether that 72 is a legitimate number; it scales close. He stated, and then if you need 14 instead of 12…



Mr. Detert stated, I guess he’ll have to come back.

Mr. Hudson asked, who put the 72 in there?

Mr. Balas stated that actually it was in there…there’s two copies, to make it easier to read.

Mr. Hudson stated, oh, I’m sorry. He stated, yeah, I would say that he’s pretty safe. He stated that I didn’t see that on there.

Mr. Detert stated, unless you want to make it a couple more feet just to keep it…

Mr. Hudson asked, no more than 14?

Mr. Detert stated, no more than 14.

Mr. Burns stated, keep it 12.

Mr. Detert stated that the motion maker wants to keep it 12.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-36 for a 12-foot reduction in the required setback, with the understanding that he will sit down with Dave Schelling, the Highway engineer, and whatever he recommends the petitioner will comply with; 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 Hudson - Yes
Brickner - Yes

Case 05-UV-10. Petition of Andrew & Debra Rasala, 1130 S. 500 E., Kouts, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a baseball and softball school in an existing pole barn, located at 1130 S. 500 E., in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Rasala stated that I am assistant junior varsity and varsity coach, also middle school coach at Kouts. He stated that we put up a pole barn this past summer for my own personal use at my place. He stated that my boys play travel baseball, also play with Kouts baseball team. He stated that after we got it put up I hung a couple nets and said everybody come over. He stated that we’re working with them and I’m working with the Kouts team and a guy gave me an idea, why don’t you run some lessons out of there and make a couple of dollars. He stated that I’m retiring at the end of the month, so I figured I’d do this for a hobby and make a couple of dollars on the side. He stated that first thing I had to do I guess was get a Variance to see if I could open a business there, and that’s what I’m trying to do.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.



No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, what’s the hole in the ground?

Mr. Rasala stated that that’s the farmer; that’s not on my property.

Mr. Detert asked, what would be your hours of operation?

Mr. Rasala stated that the hours would be afternoon to early evening, 4 to 8 in the evening, and then weekends, probably all day, Saturday and Sunday. He stated that my sons go to a pro in Highland, IN, and they’ve been going there for 7 years and the weekends are the busy days ‘cause all the kids are free on the weekends. He stated that also the other reason was with Kouts, when we got there, I saw that the kids needed a lot of fundamental work and the springtime with the varsity, junior varsity limited on practice because of weather, this way if we got a rainout, okay, everybody to the barn and we’ll practice inside. He stated that at least we could do some hitting, our pitchers could pitch, our catchers could catch and they could get some work, even if there was a rainout.

Mrs. Rasala stated that everybody seems excited about it, all the kids out there.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mrs. Rasala stated that they’ve all been contacted. She stated that there were three.

Mr. Burns asked, any signs?

Mr. Rasala stated, no, I mean if I were okayed to do a sign it would be a small sign just on my mailbox. He stated that I don’t want it to get to where I’m in the building eight hours a day. He stated, you know, three, four hours during the week and maybe 5 or 6 on the weekends – that’s fine with me.

Mr. Brickner asked, will you have any employees?

Mr. Rasala stated that I have two former pros that are on line if we do this, that are interested in hopping on board. He stated that one is Dave Griffin himself who would help me on Sunday, and another former pro, Rich Stole, pitcher for the Montreal Expos, who is currently the Baptist minister in Kouts, is willing to help out on Thursday evenings. He stated that Dave Griffin played 8 years with the Atlanta Braves organization and Rich was with the Montreal Expos, Number 1 pick in ’83, starting pitcher.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you have restroom facilities available?




Mr. Rasala stated that currently they would use the house. He stated that I would like to put one in there. He stated that if I have to, I have to.

Mr. Brickner asked, would you hook it up to your septic?

Mr. Rasala stated that I would have to put a separate septic in because this is like 300 feet from the house.

Mrs. Rasala stated that we would like to put a bathroom in there.

Mr. Burns asked, what type of sign would sit on the mailbox?

Mr. Detert stated that he said just a little one.

Mr. Rasala stated I don’t want a billboard. He stated that in the summertime it’s a beautiful piece of property and I don’t want to ugly it up. He stated that also there would be landscaping around the building itself.

Mr. Burns asked, can you get a mailbox shaped like a baseball?

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-UV-10 for 3 years, subject to the hours beginning no early than 8 a.m. and close no later than 9 p.m.; the instruction would be limited to the owner, plus two employees maximum; and the sign would be limited to the mailbox; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 05-SE-8. Petition of Kankakee Valley REMC, c/o Brian J. Hurley, 14 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a utility substation, to be located at the Southeast corner of CR 150 S. and CR 100 W., in Morgan Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that this Case had a problem in that the notifications weren’t done in time, so this Case really needs to be continued.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-SE-8 to the 1-18-06 meeting, with the public hearing open. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Case 05-SE-4. Petition of Brent and Dianne Cutler, 372 E. 1325 N., Chesterton, seeking a Special Exception to permit a riding stable, to be located at 1327 N. 375 E., in Pine Township.






Attorney Bill Ferngren stated that he is representing and accompanied by two of the petitioners in this matter, Tim Feitshans and Linda Cutler. He stated that I just handed out to you a map from Ticor Title, a plat book, to give you a general idea of where this property is located if you haven’t had the opportunity to go out there. He stated, a little history on this particular Special Exception. He stated that Case 05-SE-4 was first heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 15th of this year. He stated that essentially the Board had determined at that time that there really was not enough information to make any real decision with respect to what was happening out there, the plans were not sufficient, etc., so I spoke with Ms. Tallian and Bob Thompson and Fred Siminski as well, and we went to the Technical Advisory Committee with revised drawings, or enhanced drawings, if you will, on some additional information after meeting with Tim and the others to answer what I kind of gleaned were the issues based on the minutes from the meeting in June. He stated that we went to TAC on August 19th and sat down and went through the plans for about a half an hour and we just kind of walked through what the issues raised in the findings of fact and the minutes of the previous meeting. He stated, again, this is a Special Exception for a horse boarding and riding stable. He stated, if I can just jump to the property, if you will, this is a 20-acre, a little bit over 20 acres, 20.06 acre parcel zoned RR, Rural Residential in the County. He stated that that map that I gave you will give you an idea generally of where it’s located, but specifically, it’s this kind of U-shaped parcel here that surrounds what’s known as Pine Minor Subdivision, which was platted some time in around 2000, so it’s this 20-acre parcel here. He stated that this is CR 375 E. and right in this area is CR 325 N. to the Westerly direction. He stated that the property is zoned RR, which is the Rural Residential classification under your zoning ordinance and I think it’s important to note that first of all, this is a Special Exception and to identify what the intent of the RR zone district is and that is to provide relatively large lots to accommodate certain agricultural uses, such as breeding or raising of animals. He stated that a riding stable isn’t breeding or raising of animals; I think it’s actually a less intensive use than either of those. He stated that the RR district would provide that you could raise horses, you could raise cattle, you could raise hogs, you could have a chicken ranch on this particular property and have 20 acres of the uses without any process at all other than a farming operation beginning to commence on this particular parcel of land. He stated that the proposed use, again, is a Special Exception for a riding stable to have four separate buildings, 36 feet by 72 feet is the proposed size. He stated that the phasing of these buildings would happen as the demand is met. He stated that they believe there’s an initial demand for the first building to be located. He stated that you should have all received this map. He stated that the intent is to phase in the most Southerly building first, and each building would have a maximum of 12 horses. He stated that the ordinance provides that in order to determine how many horses you could have for a riding stable, you need 20,000 square feet of land, we’re talking, plus 5,000 square feet for every horse over 4 horses.


He stated that this parcel, as I mentioned, is 20.06 acres, so I simply multiplied 20 times 43,560, which gave me 871,500 square feet. He stated that the ordinance regarding size – how much land do you need for how many horses, that’s kind of how you figure out what’s the appropriate number, again we have 871,500 square feet, and if you were to calculate the number of horses as to how many square feet would we need to have, it’s 180,000 square feet, so we’re at 20 percent of what the capacity is, so roughly 36 times 5, you could have around 150 or some odd horses on this particular piece of property and we’re proposing 36, which is clearly far less than what could occur. He stated that all structures are proposed to be located more than 100 feet from any property line, and the traffic and parking, there will be a single entrance to the site, which is the Southernmost out of the two shown on the drawing and the parking will not be in the front yard; in fact, it will be in the side yard. He stated that the proposed drive is a traditional gravel drive and Mr. Feitshans has indicated to me that periodically he would either water that gravel to minimize dust, if any, or possibly even use some kind of an oil-based product to minimize any opportunity for dust to be kicked up in this area. He stated that animal waste was another topic of discussion. He stated that the bedding in these are cleaned regularly. He stated that I’m sure if any of you are familiar with what owners of horses are like there are many of them I think you would find their horses’ stables are actually in better condition than many of their homes. He stated that people love their horses and they treat them even better than many of their family members. He stated that the waste would then be deposited, the beds would be cleaned and put in a covered dumpster to be located on the property more than 100 feet from the property line. He stated that there would also be a concrete slab poured with a retaining block wall around that, three sides, to contain any of the waste that wasn’t located in the dumpster. He stated that these items will all be picked up on a regular basis through a regular commercial contractor for waste disposal, Abel Disposal, and this type of animal waste is the type of waste that they pick up. He stated that I also did a lot of research to find out what are the requirements from IDEM, the state Board of Health, and they basically kept saying that it’s the local rule, is what they said. He stated that there is no state rule as to how we would handle this for an operation of this size. He stated that I indicated to them that we are looking at 36 horses, and they said that’s just simply not something that they’re involved in reviewing. He stated that this is a small, small operation. He stated that I guess again it’s important for me to point out, it’s kind of a paradox because this is a 20-acre parcel of property that you could use for a much more intense farming operation, and the simple fact that you’re driving to this location to ride a horse versus drive to this location to unload horses, pick up horses, breed horses or cattle, chickens, whatever that may be for regulating a far less intense use, but nevertheless we’re here demonstrating that we are satisfying the conditions. He stated that again, a single entrance from CR 375 E. He stated that at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting Dave Schelling indicated to us that he would like a 20-foot wide entrance, and we agreed to do that.


He stated, in fact, he indicated that he would participate in providing some of the fill to make sure that that occurred. He stated, signage, a single sign is all that we’re looking for and really don’t have a specific design for that, other than that it would be a very small sign that I think that you would find customary with a horse farm or a ranch, maybe an archway over the entrance road like you would see at many farm and rural locations. He stated that drainage was another item that was discussed. He stated that this property is located close to the Kemper Ditch. He stated that Bill Rensberger subdivided this property, or designed the subdivision for the Cutlers several years ago, and I spoke with Bill and said, Bill, here’s what we’re looking at doing, four buildings, faxed him this drawing that you all have and we discussed what, if anything, needed to be done and he’s provided me a letter indicating that this will not have any impact on the adjoining properties to the South. He stated that with the installation of a 1-foot deep swale along the South property line, which we agreed to do. He stated that what this swale will do, it will not allow the water to run to the South across to the property to the South, but, rather, if any even gets there it will direct the water to the Kemper Drain, which is a regulated drain and designed exactly for handling storm water drainage and for which the Cutlers pay assessment for maintenance. He stated that the RR district contemplates agricultural use, and this is a version, a form of an agricultural pursuit. He stated that, again, we’re regulating a less intensive use. He stated that it seems very important to me that the farming operations that could occur out here are nothing close to what this riding stable would allow to happen, and again, we’re at 20 percent of the capacity of what your ordinance provides would be an appropriate number of horses. He stated that we’re at 36 horses, versus 36 times 5, which, in my opinion, is rather significant. He stated that allowing this would foster and continue the agricultural pursuits that have been so important in Porter County and allow this to continue to grow.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Michael Bey, 395 E. 1300 N., stated that there are three pieces of property between my property and the proposed area that they are asking for the riding stables. He stated that we own two horses and we have a 2-acre site. He stated that our concern is that we moved to this area seven years ago and it’s zoned Rural Residential. He stated that this is a business that they want to operate. He stated that we have a problem with that. He stated that the other problem is we’ve had some problems with some activities that went on at that site. He stated that at the last meeting it was mentioned about the airplane flying. He stated that we’ve had the police called three times. He stated that I have nothing against these people, but we have a fear that the problems we’ve had with the use of the private property now, with the airplanes and stuff going on that there is a fear operating that business at large on that lot. He stated that we have horses and there are some health problems we’ve got, I mean, horses, there are transmittable diseases. He stated that there’s insurance, liability, responsibility, something called a CCC confinement – I forget exactly


what it stands for to make sure the horses are confined to that area. He stated that the only fence lines between my property and the proposed stable is my fence line. He stated that the rest of it is open, all the way to the property there. He stated that my wife, unfortunately, couldn’t be here – she’s working midnights tonight – and she’s a horse person. He stated that she’s been into horses for 40 years. He stated that she’s worked at a number of major stables in the area, and we’ve got a lot of concerns about running a riding stable. He stated that we have no problem with having private horses there – that’s okay – we’ve got them and that’s part of when we moved out there, being a rural residential area, that’s what we’re looking for, but we’re really opposed to having a business there.

Bill Ong, 1323 N. 375 E., stated that I’m the neighbor to the South of this proposed horse ranch or whatever it is. He stated that this is the third plan that I’ve seen for this and each time it’s grown in size, but not including a residence. He stated that I don’t believe that they intend to build a residence. He stated that the last time that it was brought before the Board, Mrs. Cutler stated that they had no plans to build a house, that they already had a house. He stated that what they now own is not adjoining the proposed business and can’t be disposed of without affecting the business. He asked, will this business be manned 24 hours a day? He asked, will there be someone living in the one building that they have? He asked, how many horses? He stated that they are saying 36 horses—that’s a lot of mess. He stated that there could be trailers, 35 trailers, out there. He stated that the nearest riding area is three miles away, across busy county roads. He stated that they can’t really ride to the national park where the riding trails are. He stated that I see them riding up and down the roads near our place. He stated that we’ve already had one woman killed, her horse bolted and she fell off the horse on the road and got killed. He stated that this construction and operation will greatly devalue our property. He stated that it will create much traffic, congestion, noise, objectionable odors, for sure; dust and dirt, pollution, littering. He stated that they say they are going to put a ditch between our properties. He stated that I certainly hope they do that, because their property does drain onto mine. He stated that we will lose the privacy of our back yard, the rear of our property, and we will lose the recreational use of the rear of our property, as well. He stated that I don’t believe we could get out there and trap shoot. He stated that there are a lot of noisy motorcycles around. He stated that it would put quite a dent in our lives.

Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s never been indicated by anyone here that these people don’t intend to run a quality organization, but everyone is assuming that they’re not. He stated that I’m not sure what that the police were called out to this location has to do with whether this is a proper use for this particular piece of property. He stated that I’m not sure whether operation of remote-controlled airplanes is a bad use for this particular property either. He stated that it’s 20 acres of property. He stated that horse diseases, again, these people are committed to running a quality organization. He



stated that they understand how to keep the bedding areas clean, how to run a proper stable. He stated that Linda, this is what she does, so she’s aware of those things. He stated that just as Mr. Bey is worried about his horses getting disease, I’m sure that they would be worried about getting diseases in his horses. He stated that there is separation indicated. He stated that there is a fence. He stated that this is not an area where these horses are going to be roaming free at all times. He stated that the intent is to put up a fence where these animals will be boarded. He stated that there could be riding outside of that, but certainly this isn’t the place where somebody will leave their animal unattended and it will roam freely across 20 acres of property. He stated that this property, again, is zoned RR, which, again, is an agricultural type of use. He stated that it’s zoned Rural Residential. He stated that agricultural overtones permeate this development, and that is what we’re trying to do. He stated that it’s an agricultural type of pursuit. He stated that this is going to be managed by Mr. Feitshans and Ms. Cutler. He stated, again, Ms. Cutler is familiar with this type of business; this is what she does and this is where she would be. He stated that this is not an over-burdening of this property. He stated, as I indicated, 36 horses, versus 36 times 5, so that certainly is not an overburden by 36. He stated that there will be no trailers onsite other than their own. He stated that these people when they come, they will come and drop off their horses at that time and they will leave for the day. He stated that their trailers will be gone. He stated that this is not going to be a storage building for trailers. He stated that I guess I struggle a little bit with Mr. Ong’s comments about it’s awful nice that he can use his property for all what these people may consider to be nuisances – shooting guns, riding noisy vehicles around. He stated that the fact that they want to have a horse out on their property, which would, undoubtedly, be much less noisy and less obtrusive seems a little shocking to me that that could actually be a claim that Mr. Ong could state today. He stated that I think this is an appropriate location. He stated that they’ve demonstrated that it’s a far less intense use than what the Special Exception contemplated for Rural Residential property includes, and I believe it’s appropriate.

Mr. Brickner asked, have you addressed the gentleman’s question about hours of operation and the exact number of horses. He stated that he asked about hours of operation.

Mr. Ferngren stated that 36 horses would be the maximum. He stated that the first building would include 12 and once that building is full they would then increase that.

Mr. Feitshans stated that our intended hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m., nothing beyond that. He stated, certainly, I don’t want to light up the field for people to be out riding their horses. He stated that that would create a safety concern if I allowed them to come on my property and ride around in the dark. He stated that that’s not our intention. He stated that 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. would be sufficient.

Mr. Bey stated that the comment was made about the use of the airplane flying on the 20 acres. He stated that that would have been fine. He stated that the reason that the police got involved is that they were flying over other people’s property, which is considered trespassing, and, like I said, the police have been called, and I’ve got letters from the organization (inaudible) that states right in, they sent an email to them telling them to stop and they still haven’t stopped. He stated that I’ve got an hour and a half of videotape and my concern is as irresponsible as they’ve been, they injured my horse. He stated that I’ve got a picture of my horse that got injured and was spooked in the barn when the airplane went over my property. He stated that it’s got a big gash in it. He stated that I’ve just got a fear that this is not going to be…this is 36 horses is a lot of horses. He stated that that’s a lot of horses for 20 acres and it scares me.

Mr. Ong stated that I just had a rebuttal for some of the remarks he made. He stated that he mentioned about the noise of motorcycles and guns. He stated that all we listened to all summer was the fireworks they were setting off back there. He stated that they put fireworks off all summer and we shoot very little back there anymore because of all the houses. He stated, the airplanes that were flying over my property, flying over my property, I told them not to. He stated that I was out there cutting my lawn, grass, and an airplane with a 6-foot wingspan landed about the width of this building behind me. He stated that I still got the wings from it on my porch. He stated that they never came and got it. He stated that it just missed me. He stated that I feel lucky to be here. He stated that these kids here are going to be employees, not owners, I don’t believe, so we don’t really have the owners here to speak.

Mr. Ferngren stated that the remote control airplanes, that’s not going to occur once the riding stable is in this location. He stated that Mr. Feitshans indicated to me just a minute ago that the police have been out there, found no wrongdoing. He stated that I personally visited Mr. Ong’s home and I’m not sure what he’s talking about. He stated that I can tell you that Mr. Feitshans said that the police were there and found no wrongdoing whatsoever. He stated that more of what I’m hearing from Mr. Bey and Mr. Ong is a concern that it just sounds like they just don’t like these people. He stated that they’re not addressing what are legitimate concerns with the appropriate use of this property. He stated that they’re talking about remote controlled airplanes and they’re assuming that these people are going to be out there and not take care of their animals. He stated that it sounds to me like they just don’t like them. He stated that I don’t know anything about firecrackers and that sort of thing. He stated that I think the focus is on is this an appropriate use of the property. He stated that 36 horses on 20 acres is not a lot.

Mr. Brickner asked, would you address his question about who owns this property?





Mr. Ferngren stated that Brent and Dianne Cutler own the property and Linda Cutler is the daughter and Tim is the fiancé and they are here as agents of the owners.

Mr. Ong stated that they made a petition in the beginning to build one barn. He stated that I said nothing about it here, then they come back and they want a petition to have a business back there. He stated that it’s the business that I am against. He stated that I don’t care if they build a barn.

Linda Cutler stated that we’re starting with just the one barn with the capacity for 12 horses. She stated that we could only have 12 horses out there for two or three years. She stated that we don’t plan on putting up four barns right away and have 36 horses out there immediately. She stated that we are going to have one barn of 12 and then the next structure that we would put up would be a building just for storage of hay and stuff like that.

The public hearing was then closed.

At this time, Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee Report. The report is in the file. He stated that some of the things Bill has already touched on.

Mr. Ferngren asked, can I address one of them real quick? He stated that I think we can eliminate that. He stated that we talked earlier in your office about the occupancy of the trailer, and that was the first I heard of it today and I saw Tim tonight when I got here and I asked him about it and he insisted that nobody is living in the trailer and the cord that you saw was only to keep the trickle charge on the battery.

Mr. Feitshans stated that the batteries will go bad if they don’t have a constant charge.

Mr. Ferngren stated, so there’s no occupancy.

Mr. Hudson stated that the issue, and looking back, and I know there were comments made at prior meetings about no new home being built on this site, but I think I’ve seen a couple of plans, one plan that shows a barn for horses and you see here labeled on this, Bill, and I’m not sure if this was something that was generated by you.

Mr. Ferngren stated that actually Tim did that.

Mr. Hudson stated, so it does show a house on this one, and then the one that you handed out also shows I think an area that says future house on it. He stated that that still seems to be an issue with not having anybody living there. He stated that I believe one the gentlemen talking about there not being someone there to operate this 24 hours a day or be available onsite.





Mr. Ferngren stated that there is a location shown for the future residence. He stated that the proximity of the address that they’ve been talking about, 372 E. 1325 N., is right across the street. He stated that it’s close. He stated that literally those property corners, if not for that intersection, would touch; it’s that close.

Mr. Hudson asked, so they’re on the West…the home…

Mr. Ferngren stated that they’re on the Southwest corner of the intersection of 375 and 1325. He stated that the residence is on the Southwest corner and this property is on the North.

Mr. Hudson asked, so, did they actually touch then?

Mr. Ferngren stated, yes, I suppose if the right-of-way hasn’t been dedicated, true.

Mr. Burns stated, to start off with, it is an awful big operation. He stated that I’d prefer to see a Use Variance for 12 horses and 1 barn.

Mr. Brickner asked, instead of a Special Exception you’d like to make it a Use Variance so we could put a time limitation of a certain number of years to see how it progresses?

Mr. Burns stated that there are some concerns of the neighbors and we could see how it progresses.

Mr. Hudson asked, the building of a barn before a principal structure, I mean, do we have issues?

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

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, that’s the other issue; when’s this house going to be built?

Mr. Hudson stated that we’re not asking for building a barn before the principal structure here, which, I think, maybe is a part of this, too, and I guess I like your idea of a Use Variance to give it some time to see how…being good neighbors and conduct a business that they can be proud of and the neighbors can accept as part of the neighborhood, I think that at some point in the future it could turn into…

Mr. Detert stated, if they run a good business, they could possibly get as much as 15 years.

Mr. Hudson stated, and if they show that they’re…I don’t doubt that they’re honorable and what they want to do is what they say.

Mr. Burns stated, well, I agree with you, we should have a commitment about the home, when will the new residence be built.


Mr. Hudson stated, well, I think that’s an issue because you’re building a barn before…

Mr. Ferngren stated, and that’s one of the things that I took from this…I guess the lawyer in me looking at things technically, what does this really mean. He stated that they have a Variance to have a pole barn before a residence, to have a riding stable, Special Exception, there’s no requirement that you ever have a house, so you could actually…they could never put up a house and have a riding stable, but if this was going to be their principal dwelling then they would, they have to get the Variance to put up the pole barn first, the accessory use to the home, but a home is never a requirement on this property.

Mr. Hudson stated, tell me again what the original Variance was for.

Mr. Ferngren stated, to allow a pole barn…the accessory before the principal dwelling on the lot.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, there was, with that Variance, they were planning on building a house, it was they were building the barn, the accessory building first.

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s correct, and there was no time limitation placed on when that had to happen.

Mr. Hudson stated, but the fact is there was going to be one at some point.

Mr. Ferngren stated, there was attached to that particular Variance, yes, and I guess what I’m saying is you could have a riding stable operation on this property and never be required to have a house. He stated, I guess I’m just explaining that I think there’s that distinction between the two, and Tim has committed to having a home there within the next 5 years.

Mr. Detert asked, did we put a commitment on the construction of the house?

Mr. Siminski stated, no, we did not.

Mr. Brickner stated that we almost always do.

Ms. Tallian stated that there was never a time.

Mr. Detert stated that that would be kind of tough, frankly, from a practical kind of standpoint to have 36 horses there unattended with no house there, don’t you believe?

Mr. Ferngren stated, I think I can honestly say, depending on how this operation is run, which they believe is going to be a good


operation, plus, they’re close. He stated that they are literally across the street. He stated that it’s that close, but the commitment, again, is that they will have a home there within 5 years. He stated that there is a significant investment here, too, as far as how much money. He stated that each one of these buildings, by the time they’re done, it’s like a $55,000 to $65,000 expense, so to limit this to say you can only do this for two years and we’ll see how it goes, that may not be enough time and it’s a lot of money. He stated that naturally if they’re out there and it’s a nuisance issues and those sorts of things and they’re violating what the ordinance requires for the operation of a riding stable, that jeopardizes their ability to operate. He stated that just like any other permitted use of zoning classification, so, I’m a little concerned about…because of the large expenditure of placing such a time frame on it.

Mr. Detert stated, I can understand it.

Mr. Burns stated, but, she says she wasn’t going to build all four buildings at a time. He stated that she said that she was going to build the first one, and then I think I heard her say it would be two or three years before they built the next, so, really, the Use Variance wouldn’t hurt you.

Mr. Ferngren stated, I guess I disagree because I think it’s still…their intent is to build the first one right away and that’s for 12 horses and they feel like that’s going to get filled up pretty quickly, and the demand will dictate to get to the 36 in the construction. He stated that it could very well be that next summer all three of them are there, because of the demand. He stated that she works in this industry and she feels that the demand is there. He stated that they are expecting that it takes a couple of years to get it filled out, but it could happen pretty quickly. He stated that they are here to comply with all of the zoning requirements that are in place.

Mr. Detert stated that this trailer bothers me a little bit because I could see that becoming (inaudible) and then we’d be in violation of the ordinance because they wouldn’t have a certificate of occupancy. He stated that I expect that there’s probably somebody occupying it occasionally probably getting warm at one time or another.

Mr. Ferngren stated that I would imagine that at some point somebody does in fact go in there just like if you had a garage in your back yard or some kind of Feitshans has indicated that nobody’s living there, and the cord that Mr. Siminski referred to earlier is simply the trickle charge to keep that battery intact and they will commit: No one is going to live in that trailer. He stated that that’s not the purpose of the trailer. He stated that that’s not at all what it’s ever been used for.

Mr. Siminski stated, well, I’ll just pop this in there. He stated that even though we did look at this and we seen (sic) this, there was a complaint lodged against the petition, so, again, I


didn’t see it for myself, but, that’s the only reason we checked on it because there was a complaint that was lodged.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and I think that’s fair and today was the first time that I learned of it and I guess after you told me I asked him what’s the story, and the story is nobody lives there.

Mr. Brickner stated that there was a truck parked there today right next to the trailer.

Mr. Feitshans stated that the reason that vehicle was there today, that vehicle just got broken into not too long ago and we do not have enough garage space to house that vehicle, so it has been tucked back in along the horse pasture to seclude it from visibility from the road.

Mr. Brickner stated that some of the major concerns that I have are Number 1, it almost goes without saying, you cannot fly model airplanes in that field next to your horse corral with horses. He stated that that isn’t going to work, and right now that model airplane field is still intact and obviously the wind sock is there and all the other stuff is there for the model airplane field, and if you have horses and flying model airplanes around that would be a recipe for a serious problem, a serious accident.

Mr. Feitshans stated, completely understood. He stated that we aren’t the ones that fly the planes. He stated that it is the neighbor to the North and the owner of the land, however, the owner of the property has given permission to state here on the record that if the business is approved the model airplanes are gone, because they cannot coincide on the same piece of property.

Mr. Brickner stated that the other concern I have is the upkeep of the residence on the corner, the permanent residence now. He stated that if that’s any indication of the way that the place is going to be kept, there will be some problems because the present residence the upkeep is not good. He stated that I was out there and it’s, it could use a lot of cleanup, and I would be concerned that if we okay a riding stable and it’s kept in the same manner as the residence is kept it’s going to be an unsightly place, because it’s less than desirable, and of course, the road that goes back there, I drove back there on that road and it has to be widened and the approach on, I think it’s 375, is way too narrow. He stated that it has to be widened.

Mr. Ferngren stated that that was one of the items Dave Schelling addressed at TAC, and he said he wanted a 20-foot-wide entrance off the County road. He stated that Dave indicated that he may even participate in helping them design that, and they are committed to doing that, as well as a commitment to operating a quality establishment.




Mr. Detert stated that we will recognize Mr. Ong very briefly, and if you are going to bring something else up that’s not germane we are going to cut you off.

Mr. Ong stated that he keeps speaking that they are going to build a house. He stated that during that last meeting Mrs. Cutler stated that ‘I have a house across the street, so why should I build another one? I can extend my property without having to build a house’. He stated that here’s a copy of it. He stated that it says it’s inaudible, but that is what she says if you’d like to see it, and she does not intend to build a house.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and she doesn’t. He stated that they do.

Mr. Detert stated that the attorney is contending that they don’t need to build a house.

Mr. Ferngren stated, no, I just made that distinction, but they are committing that they will build a home within 5 years. He stated that certainly she doesn’t need to build a home right across the street from her existing home.

Mr. Hudson asked, so that’s not Dianne?

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s Linda.

Mr. Hudson asked, so that’s Dianne is the one that stated that?

Mr. Ferngren stated, correct.

Mr. Brickner asked, and, if you plan to build a house, is that going to be within the next two or three or four years?

Mr. Feitshans stated that I can commit to a residence in five years. He stated that the reason I asked for five years is that the residence that we would like to build we would like to be big. He stated that we would like to be able to have a family out there, several children. He stated that I would like to be able to build it once, build it right and not have to build a house and have three or four additions throughout a 10-year period just to meet the needs of the size of the family I might acquire. He stated that I want to build a nice home.

Mr. Hudson stated, well, I like Rick’s idea of a Use Variance. He stated that I understand the financial commitment.

Mr. Detert asked, are you saying that you would not agree to anything like that?

Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s difficult to make that financial commitment and have that expire automatically, because that can happen with a Use Variance. He stated that I know we can come back here in



three years, as Fred indicated in an earlier case and it’s kind of a formality, but that’s still part of the process, and we’re facing this expiration. He asked, what does that do financially? He stated that if they go to the bank and they say well, we can build a $60,000 building and we’ll go ahead…but there’s an opportunity we’re not going to have that.

Mr. Detert stated that you have to look at the other side of the coin which gives us a little control.

Mr. Ferngren stated that I think you have control because the fact that you grant a Special Exception does not change your other provisions in the ordinance. He stated that you’re not complying with the ordinance. He stated that it doesn’t affect any of those things, so Fred, the zoning inspector, is going to be out there. He stated that that doesn’t change that. He stated that Bob Thompson is going to be out there. He stated that he’s going to find those things. He stated that we’re willing to make these commitments, and if they violate these commitments that’s their fault, and if they’ve made a financial commitment and all the expense of building and they goof it up, that’s their fault, but it’s a tremendous burden to ask them to do that, and, quite frankly, I don’t know that a bank would loan the money to allow that to happen.

Mr. Detert stated that I think you have to understand as an attorney our side of it. He stated that it takes a long time when somebody violates to get it processed through hoops and to get a judge to say yeah.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’d like to recognize our attorney.

Ms. Tallian stated that this is an alternative suggestion. She stated that they’ve asked for a Special Exception for two or three buildings and up to 36 horses. She stated that you might consider, if you’re looking for a way to kind of ease into this to do a Special Exception for one building and 12 horses and if and when they decide that they want to expand, they can come back.

Mr. Hudson stated that that gives them a guarantee for at least one building and 12 horses and if they screw up, then coming back for a Special Exception for another 12 horses and a building isn’t going to happen because these people are going to be there.

Mr. Burns stated that and as long as she commits to a residence within 5 years.

Mr. Detert asked, Mr. Ferngren, would you commit to a residence in 5 years if we put that condition on this?

Mr. Feitshans stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated that we would just use this Special Exception here and just limit it to one building and 12 horses to start.

Mr. Burns asked, now, if we do that, can he come back in 6 months and ask for a second Special Exception.

Mr. Detert stated that you can put a condition on it as to time.

Mr. Hudson stated, well, 6 months, they might not have the building up in 6 months.

Mr. Burns stated, but if they should come back in 6 months and ask for a Special Exception for a second barn…

Mr. Brickner stated that they could do that, but we may not grant it.

Mr. Ferngren stated, kind of following Karen’s suggestion, it sounded like approval of phasing in the buildings, saying put up the first one and if there’s nothing wrong and it’s operating and there’s no code violations then we could move on and do the rest of the project, if that’s what I’m understanding.

Mr. Brickner stated that you’d have to come back for another Special Exception.

Ms. Tallian stated that if you want to do an expansion you would have to come back.

Mr. Ferngren stated that Tim is saying that the one building doesn’t support all of this happening. He stated that I guess I’m comfortable that we could do a phasing in, but if we say, okay, we have some many years to get the first building put up and it’s operational and then if there are not problems, no codes violated, there’s no infractions there, then they can just do the rest of it and assume that that’s appropriate at that time, rather than just saying they have to come back and get another Special Exception to have additional uses. He stated that what we are asking for is this, being the ultimate use, but if a trial run is what you’re looking for he could commit to doing that, but to come back and keep asking for additional Special Exceptions to expand it is different to me.

Mr. Detert stated that I think they have to come back and say they want to change the Special Exception.

Mr. Ferngren stated, but what I’m saying is that we could, we’ll say this is what we want to do and we’re willing to say we’ll put up the first building, we’ll get some horses in there, we’ll run this thing and if there are no violations, then they can do the other buildings.

Mr. Detert stated that you want us to grant that approval now, that’s’ what you’re asking for.

Mr. Ferngren stated that I think that’s kind of a maybe a little bit of a hybrid of what Karen had proposed because we’re here….the one



building doesn’t make it work, the 12 horses, financially does not, from what he’s indicated to me, make this happened, but he’s willing to say, okay, I understand there’s concerns, hearing these people back here, knowing that Fred’s going to be here and he’s going to be driving down the road, making sure things are going okay, he’s willing to say, hey, I’ll take that chance and I’m confident I’m going to do it right and I’m not going to violate your ordinance, and if he’s not he should be able to do the rest.

Mr. Brickner asked, without appearing before the Board again, is that what you’re saying, without coming here and without us going out and taking a look?

Mr. Ferngren stated that I think what I would say is what we could do is we could, obviously, before the next building we’d have to get a permit and we’d come in and we’d say, Fred, we’re here applying for our permit, and Fred looks and there’s no code violations and here’s your permit.

Mr. Detert stated that I think what you’re suggesting is not in tune with what this Board would like to see, which is some control over the business.

Mr. Ferngren stated, I think you have that because the first building, before we can get to the second one, we’re going to be, and your representative here…

Mr. Detert stated that people have a tendency not to complain until there’s a public hearing, and so a lot of times we don’t hear any complaints until we have a public hearing.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I see the code violations maybe being different than these people having concerns, and I agree with you, we don’t hear a lot of those concerns. He stated that the code violations are things that he looks for, so unless they call in and make him check to see if there is something, then we don’t..

Mr. Brickner stated, if they’re still flying airplanes or if they’re not keeping the road dust-free and that sort of thing.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t agree with the phasing in. He stated that they could do that now if that’s their plan. He stated that if we approve the Special Exception I don’t think they are going to go out there and build four barns at one time. He stated that they are going to build one barn and then six months later a second one and so on and so on. He stated that I don’t think it give us enough time to see how the business is really going to operate, in lieu of having just one barn and 12 horses, no matter if it’s a special Exception – I don’t have a problem with that, as long as there’s a time frame where they can’t start the second barn and another 12 horses for a period of three years or whatever that time frame is going to be. He stated that I think we owe that to the neighbors.



Mr. Brickner asked, and we can set a time frame with a Special Exception and say in three years they come back…

Mr. Detert stated, you can do pretty much what you want to.

Mr. Hudson stated that this whole thing…and this is kind of a side note…this has to go, I mean, they have to develop plans and this goes back to site review for approval.

Mr. Siminski stated, I wanted to mention that. He stated that whatever is agreed to tonight, they’re still going to have to come for site review, a formal site review for those barns and the property. He stated that I’m not exactly sure if they are going to have to come back every time for a site review to add on or not.

Mr. Hudson stated, if they have an overall plan, if the thing that they take to site review is the full development, then they just phase it, you know Phase I may be building one, and Phase II may be the house and the office or storage building, I think she said, you know, they could do it like that. He stated that they could come up and have the whole plans so that they could do it in phases, just like they’re going to be given, if three years is the test…

Mr. Detert stated that the bottom line is, he doesn’t want to have his hands tied, or his client doesn’t want to have his hands tied. He stated that when they are ready to build the next barn they want to be able to do it. He stated that the other side of the coin is that this Board wants to have some control over that road, so we got to hit some kind of a happy medium here. He stated that it’s what you want to do. He stated that you could put whatever criteria you want to on this stuff.

Mr. Hudson stated that I like the three years.

Mr. Detert asked, that they can’t build the second barn until three years?

Mr. Hudson stated, yeah.

Mr. Detert asked, and they have to commit to the house in 5? He stated that you could do whatever you wanted along those lines. He stated, I’m thinking maybe we want to continue this until you sit down with your client and you can work out…you understand where the Board is coming from?

Mr. Ferngren stated, yeah, I do, and I guess what I wanted to hear was what the last kind of…what were you talking about?

Mr. Hudson stated that we were talking about three years…and Bob was saying that you need to have the full use at some date of having three buildings, the extra barn, and the house, making that commitment now. He stated that we’re talking about a phasing in and I keep



hearing three years for a building, that no second building can be started any sooner than three years and that within five years the house gets built, so that after the three years have a second building without the house, but then, within another two years the house would be built and that you would have a complete plan so that you could set out and get approved by the County TAC and phase then the project, a building at a time, so that you wouldn’t have to go back to TAC…

Mr. Ferngren stated, I’m tracking you on the phasing component, but the limitation thing, you can definitely only have one for three years because what…I guess what my point was going to be is what if it’s up, the horses are there and everything is great, these people in the back are actually not disrupted by it and it’s 18 months later and we say well, we can’t have the second one for another year…

Mr. Hudson stated, then I guess you have to come back here then…

Mr. Ferngren stated, as long as it’s being operated properly I guess the time limit is what I’m struggling on. He stated that if it’s great, why couldn’t it be done in a year? He stated that he’s committing, obviously, to the five years on the house.

Mr. Detert stated that the problem is, as I stated before, is that we don’t hear the complaints until we have a public hearing, so even the three year or limitations we put on that way we still…we’re not going to hear the complaints. He stated that TAC is not an advertised public hearing.

Mr. Ferngren stated, I think we’d be willing, from what I can understand, we’d be willing to come back here. He stated that one of the things, and I think it’s a valid point that Mr. Feitshans raised is the fee, if that was going to be part of the motion that we can’t be expected to pay the fees every time. He stated that that’s a substantial undertaking.

Mr. Detert asked, would you like us to take a 5 or 10 minute break for you to confer with your clients?

Mr. Ferngren stated, sure.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, we’ll take a recess for 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. Detert stated, apparently, they have not reached a consensus and would like a little more time.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-SE-4 to the 1-18-06 BZA meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that I will not be at the next meeting.

Motion to continue Case 05-SE-4 to the 1-18-06 meeting carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that I have one piece of housekeeping. He stated that there was a case, 04-V-1, it was Mr. William Bewick. He stated that he was having a house built and he finally moved in in the house, so I would like to just to clean this up, to go ahead and close it out or deny any extension for Case 04-V-1.

Mr. Hudson moved to deny any extensions for Case 05-SE-4. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Hudson stated that regarding the acupuncturist, there is still a for sale sign on the building up by Flint Lake School.

Mr. Siminski stated that she’s not doing it.

Mr. Brickner asked, how about the trailer out there…

Mr. Siminski stated that I was just going to mention…

Ms. Tallian asked, Mr. Grant? She stated that that was my fault. She stated that I was supposed to write him a letter and tell him to be here at this meeting and I forgot, but the letter is now out, so he’ll be here in January.

Mr. Siminski stated that as of 12-8 the trailer is still in the park.

Mr. Brickner stated that he just moved it to the cul-de-sac is what he did.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS


S\ Marvin Brickner, Vice-Chairman

Attest:S\ Fred M. Siminski, Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector