BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
April 19, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 19. 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Robert Detert, Richard Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Kenneth Elwood and Toni Byers.

Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the March 15, 2006 BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:
Case 01-UV-4. Fort Tassinong Muzzleloaders, 1573 177th Place, Hammond, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting use of an accessory building for club meetings, located at 176 W. 1000 S., in Pleasant Township.
Bert Elfwist (?), 2626 Cleveland St., Hammond, stated that we are just here to comply with the letter that we received in the mail. He stated that the money was sent in, $20 a year for 5 years, $100, that was sent in about two weeks ago.
Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Siminski stated that there have been no current complaints. He stated that there were some originally, but that was way back in the ‘90s or something like that.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 01-UV-4 for 5 years. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Brickner stated that he has one question. He stated that we asked you to secure the property with the fence and gate to keep trespassers out. He asked, has that been done?
Mr. Elfwist stated that it has. He stated that the property is also posted all the way around the perimeter of our property lines.
Motion to approve Case 01-UV-4 for 5 years carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.


Case 79-V-6. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 950 S., between Baum’s Bridge Road and CR 150 W., in Pleasant Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)
Mr. Brickner asked, is the trailer gone?
Mr. Drazer stated that I think it’s still there.
Mr. Brickner stated that I thought that had been moved.
Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Drazer had two different locations of trailers. He stated that this is the one that’s on 950 S. just west of Baum’s Bridge Road. He stated that there is like a trailer that sits on that property and it’s still sitting there as of last week. He stated that the only other thing though is that I believe last year there was mention of some cars on the property, any unlicensed vehicles needed to be moved off the property.
Mr. Drazer stated that they may have been moved. He stated that I don’t know.
Mr. Siminski stated that there were still cars sitting there when I went by last week.
Mr. Drazer stated that they’re not supposed to be there.
Mr. Brickner asked, are they licensed or unlicensed?
Mr. Siminski stated that they are sitting way in the back. He stated that there are three in the front, and then there’s another vehicle behind the barn, so that’s like four vehicles back there.
Mr. Hudson stated that in the staff report there’s also…you’re talking about, there’s a new brown structure, mobile home, sits behind Mr. Drazer’s residence. He asked, that’s not his barn here?
Mr. Siminski stated, no, that’s not his barn. He stated that I don’t want to get anything confused here. He stated that what we’re talking about this moment is the fact that there’s one on 950 – that’s what we’re talking about now. He stated that the other location that we had talked about and Mr. Drazer did have was on 700 S. on his farm. He stated that that mobile home has been completely taken off the premises, but I was trying to figure out why there’s a brown building sitting on the property behind your house. He asked, does somebody live in this brown structure that sits behind your house?
Mr. Drazer stated that I don’t know for sure. He stated that it’s probably somebody working for me, some hired help.
Ed Drazer stated that I’m Mr. Drazer’s cousin and co-trustee of his trust, so maybe I can help clarify some of these questions.
Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Drazer had two parcels here and we’re talking about the 950 first, but on his residence there is a structure of some sort and there was a permit taken out in 2004 for the structure, I believe, and it was for storage only, but when you look at it it looks like a residential unit, like a trailer or something because it’s very narrow, and there’s always a car parked next to this structure. He asked, what is in this brown building?
Ed Drazer asked, are you talking about at his residence where he lives?
Mr. Siminski stated, right behind his residence.
Ed Drazer stated, okay, there is a what was a mobile home, but there’s nobody living in it.
Mr. Detert asked, what’s it used for?
Ed Drazer stated, like I said, storage.
Mr. Siminski asked, is that something I can come out and inspect, would that be okay to come out and inspect on that?
Ed Drazer stated, oh, I think so.
Mr. Siminski stated, again, the permit was issued for a storage unit, that was true, if that’s what this is, but, again, it sure looks like a residential use and there was some confusion there about where it came from and how it got there.
Mr. Robertson stated, going back to what we’re here for, the mobile home, that’s still there, right?
Ed Drazer asked, on 950 S.? He stated, yes, that mobile home is still there.
Mr. Robertson stated, there was a mobile home that we asked last year to be removed and that has been removed?
Ed Drazer stated that there were two at his residence at 439 E. 700 S. He stated that the one that you asked to be removed is off the premises.
Mr. Robertson stated, so going back to this one that’s at 950 S. it’s been there since ’79. He asked, does anybody want to take it on?
Mr. Brickner stated, this case tonight is just for the one on 700?
Mr. Robertson stated, no, 950.
Mr. Detert stated that what we’re concerned about is that the mobile home has been there a long time and there has been some

problems with not very good looking appearances around there. He stated that we don’t mind letting him have some farm help there, but we want it kept up and we want it to appear nice.
Ed Drazer stated that I think you were referring to some unlicensed vehicles and I don’t think…I can’t say for sure, but I don’t believe that those are a part of that mobile home unit. He stated that there is another small house to the East of that. He stated that it’s like a two-bedroom home, and I think some of the abandoned vehicles that were over by the barn, I think that those, I believe, belong to the occupant of the permanent home, rather than the mobile home. He stated that I’m 90 percent sure of that.
Mr. Robertson stated that the permanent home isn’t on his property.
Ed Drazer stated, yes it is on his property. He stated that on 950 there’s a permanent home, a two-bedroom home, and then there’s the mobile home that you’re referring to.
Mr. Siminski stated that there’s two residential units.
Ed Drazer stated, yeah.
Mr. Siminski asked, Mr. Drazer owns both of them?
Ed Drazer stated, yes.
Mr. Siminski asked, and the property behind by the barn is not Mr. Drazer’s?
Ed Drazer stated that it’s all his. He stated that there’s a small barn back there and that’s all his. He stated that he has like 40 acres of property there.
Mr. Siminski asked, so those cars that are sitting there are on his property?
Ed Drazer stated that they’re still on his property, but I don’t think they belong to the occupant of the mobile home. He stated that I think it’s more likely the occupant of the permanent home.
Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Drazer is the one that’s getting the TCO for this, and he’s the owner of the property. He stated that last year they were to look into that situation, and if the cars were not licensed, not operable, they were supposed to be replaced, or, taken away. He stated that at the time I went out there there was nobody home. He stated that I don’t like going on parcels by myself. He stated that you can get shot doing stuff like that.
Mr. Brickner stated that maybe we should continue this until we get a chance to investigate, Number One, if there’s anybody living in

this trailer, and Number Two, who these cars belong to and if they should be removed because if there’s someone living…it’s supposed to be a storage trailer, but there maybe be someone…
Mr. Siminski stated, not the one on 950.
Mr. Robertson stated that that’s the one on 700.
Mr. Detert stated that unlicensed cars are against the County code, and if he owns the property, ultimately I would think he would be responsible for not removing those, and without us going through a whole bunch of court maneuvers to get them removed, we’d like your cooperation in removing them.
Ed Drazer stated that within the last six months I’ve become like a co-trustee of the trust now and power of attorney, so maybe I can kind of help work with you.
Mr. Robertson stated that that would be fine, and maybe we can just continue this for a month and kind of look into this.
Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 79-V-6 to the 5-17-0 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ed Drazer asked if there is any way that we can possibly have two months.
Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 79-V-6 to the 6-21-06 meeting. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Case 95-V-8. Jose & Phyllis Rael, 413 W. 750 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 750 N., between McCool Road and CR 450 W., in Portage Township.
Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension on this TCO.
Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.
Mr. Siminski stated that there have been none.
Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 95-V-8 for 1 year. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-15. Emmanuel & Eleni Manos, 798 N. 500 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the Southwest corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 500 E., in Jackson Township.


Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner asked if there has been any opposition.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have been no complaints.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 99-V-15 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 05-V-10. Michael Hemry & Gay Gorniak, 491 W. 400 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 491 W. 400 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO.

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated, no.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 05-V-10 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 05-V-13. Kankakee Valley Historical Society, 22 W. 1050 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 1101 S. Baum’s Bridge Road, in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Brickner stated that this was given to them while they restored the original building, is that right? He stated, I mean, that was the original intent. He stated that maybe if we approve this for an additional year we should have them come back here and tell us where they are on their restoration of the building so we know how much longer this is going to be in effect.

Mr. Robertson stated that in the minutes here they talked about three years and it’s been one year.

Mr. Brickner stated, just give them their time.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-V-13 for 1 year and asked that the petitioners appear in person at that time to give a progress report. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.




Case 06-EDD-1. Appeal by University Club Group, LLC, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, of the Plan Commission’s Executive Director’s decision to deny them an Improvement Location Permit for apartments to be located at the Northwest corner of CR 275 S. and CR 725 W., in Porter Township.

William Ferngren, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, stated that I am here tonight on behalf of the University Club Group LLC. He stated that I may be expecting another person, Ron Fitzpatrick, a member of the LLC who’s traveling and may have run into some traffic. He stated that the case before you tonight is Case 06-EDD-1 and this is an appeal of the Executive Director’s denial of an Improvement Location Permit to the University Club Group LLC. He stated that Mr. Thompson, the Executive Director, through the Plan Commission and BZA attorney, then acting Karen Tallian, issued correspondence denying my clients an Improvement Location Permit on December 19, 2005. He stated that all statutory notice for this hearing has been given. He stated that I was at the site today and the sign was posted at the intersection, as required. He stated that just to kind of bring into focus here what we’re here tonight to talk about, and I see this as a very narrow issue, although the project proposed under the Improvement Location Permit is for an apartment complex, that isn’t entirely the issue. He stated that the issue is really is this property zoned for the petitioners’ intended use as an apartment complex, so we’re not here to talk about drainage, traffic, sewer, all of those sorts of issues. He stated that we’re simply here to talk tonight about issues germane to whether this parcel is zoned for the petitioners’ intended use and no others. He stated that those simply aren’t germane to what we’re here to talk about tonight. He stated that if I could show you the property in question, it’s located here at the intersection of CRs…at the Northwest corner of CR 725 W. and CR 275 S. and, as you can see, it’s shown as Trading Post Tract H and this is a copy of the plat of the subdivision for Lakes of the Four Seasons recorded in File 13-A-6 on July 16 of 1968, Unit 8 of that particular subdivision. He stated that this is Sheet 2 that shows you the parcels that we are talking about, and, again, this area that’s shown on this plat is Trading Post Tract H. He stated that I’ve handed out to you our proposed findings of fact. He stated that we have filed along with our appeal a very detailed synopsis of our position, including a number of exhibits listed from A through U. He stated that Mr. Elwood has received those, and it’s my understanding that those are all entered into and made a part of the record before you. He stated that this parcel is Tract H, shown as a trading post on the plat. He stated that we believe that this property is zoned for our intended use as an apartment complex. He stated, a little history on the University Club petition I think is appropriate.

Mr. Detert stated, point of order here. He stated that I think you are representing this as Tract H, but when it was petitioned it was represented as Tract H and J and even K, at various times.

Mr. Ferngren stated that I’m only familiar with K, and we are acknowledging that K is not…

Mr. Detert stated that there is one piece of paper that shows three tracts were included and one piece of paper shows that two tracts were included. He stated that I just wanted to make that clear, because you’re talking only about one tract.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and that’s correct. He stated that we’re here tonight to confirm that we’re looking at Tract H. He stated, again, a little history about our petition. He stated that sometime before in the early spring of last year, before the end of April, my clients…in the late spring of 2005 my clients had an informal meeting with the Executive Director of the Plan Commission identifying this parcel and saying we think this is zoned for apartments, actually, condominiums, and the discussion turns to, yes, they are zoned for that, and they are also zoned for apartment units. He stated that subsequent to that conversation, on April 29th of 2005, University Club had an informal meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee, then known as the Technical Advisory Committee, to look at preliminarily the University Club plans, and this included a rather detailed review of the proposal for the property. He stated that subsequently, in the fall, October 12 of 2005, University Club filed a formal application for Improvement Location Permit, based on the conversations prior to the informal TAC meeting and then based on the communications made at the TAC meeting, as well. He stated that on October 28 of 2005, the University Club appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee as part of the formal review process. He stated that there was a great deal of discussion. He stated that you have the minutes of all of those meetings, including the informal meetings, are included within the packet I have provided as part of our appeal. He stated that what happened is that Kevin Breitzke, the surveyor, made a motion to continue the hearing based on some different things – drainage and those sorts of things – and a very detailed review of a proposal was had. He stated, so, we meet before the beginning of April of ’05, informally meet with TAC in this room to discuss the project at length, file an application for an Improvement Location Permit, formally conduct the Technical Advisory Committee meeting, including a very detailed review of the plans, then subsequently on December 19th of 2005 we finally received a letter from the Plan Commission/BZA attorney indicating that we’re not sure what this property is zoned, except for Parcel K, which we’re certain is zoned for a park, although all of the other evidence indicates that our parcel is zoned for the intended use and we’re (inaudible). He stated that Mr. Thompson could not make a decision on that. He stated that he was absolutely certain that the Tract K Mr. Detert referred to was zoned for open space. He stated that we believe that’s an inconsistent position to be so certain about a zoning classification on one that’s shown only a couple of feet away from another is an inconsistent position. He stated, in addition, we didn’t learn of any zoning classification issues for eight months from the time we initially communicated with the Executive Director. He stated that eight months of time passed, including communications with the Executive Director, informal TAC meetings, filing on an Improvement Location Permit, a formal TAC hearing, and then, finally, we hear that this property may not be zoned for what we’re proposing. He stated



that we believe that we were entitled to know what issues were entailed from the get-go or at the first reasonable opportunity, and, in addition to the fact that we believe this property is zoned for this use, we believe that the County is also estopped from now saying that it is not. He stated that the petitioner relied, to its detriment, on the comments and actions of the County, purchased the property, engineered the site, incurred legal fees – all of those things before we were ever notified that there may be an issue with the zoning. He stated that included in the packet that I’ve provided – and this is summarized in the findings of fact that we’ve also provided – exhibit C, which is this drawing here before you – in your packet, shows Tract H as the Trading Post and Tract K as the park tract. He stated that backing up to how did we get to this particular drawing, in 1966, Hoosier Marine filed a petition before the Plan Commission for Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated that they filed their development plan proposal. He stated that the master plan for that proposal is included within your packet as Exhibit F. He stated that one of the items specifically requested is the Trading Post shown before you for C2S uses, and if you look in the packet that we’ve provided as our evidence for you today, the C2S uses include…District C2 and C2S have been established to provide the same types of uses in the C1 district, but at roadside locations, (inaudible) type hazards of highway traffics indicate that the greater setback is required. He stated that C2 is another district designated to permit filling station, service station in the district, in addition to the permitted uses in the C2 district. He stated that looking at the zoning ordinance in place at that time, the C2 district also specifically established that dwelling unit, multi-family is permitted in the C2 zoning classification. He stated that we believe, then, that this property is zoned appropriate for that. He stated that following up on how is the master plan approved, Exhibit I in your packet is the April 27th 1966 Plan Commission meeting minutes. He stated that at that time, the Plan Commission issued its report to the BZA and specifically stated that the plan was recommended for approval, including the trading post classification, as we alluded to just a few moments ago, which is the C2S, that has dwelling unit, multi-family as a permitted use. He stated that subsequently, on April 30th of 1966, the BZA approved the Lakes of the Four Seasons proposal that the Plan Commission had forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated, again, a trading post, or C2S uses, is specifically enumerated as one of the items that’s approved, and that April 30, 1966 meeting minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals clearly indicates under Case 66-S-5, sub-section 1, “a trading post for use is now permitted in the C2S districts, again, multi-family dwelling units are expressly permitted in the C2S zoning classification. He stated that we next moved onto the Plan Commission action, where they approved the final plat for the Lakes of the Four Seasons on July 26 of 1967. He stated, again, the same exact language incorporating the uses of the trading post, or C2S multi-family dwelling units approved as part of the final plat by the Plan Commission. He stated, next, as part of the process, we move on to the County Commissioners, who, in October 16 of 1967 further approved the part of the plat for Lakes of the Four Seasons to



include the trading post, Tract H, to be zoned C2S to provide for permitted use of multi-family dwelling units. He stated that Exhibit O in the packet that I’ve provided is a letter from Mr. Paul Fischer, who was the Executive Director of the Plan Commission at that time and the letter specifically provides that the development plan submitted and approved by the Commission designated Tract H, as trading post, in which all uses now permitted in the C2S neighborhood business, roadside district would be permitted, including single- and multi-family dwellings. He stated that this is Tract H, the trading post, that parcel, the parcel that’s the subject of our petition. He stated that Paul Fischer, the Executive Director of the Plan Commission, issued that letter clarifying any confusion about what might be permitted on this property. He stated that moving to a little more recent history, in 1987, Case 87-Z-4, the then-current owner of the property petitioned to have this parcel rezoned from C2 to C4. He stated that there were a series of Plan Commission meetings that were had, and there was a lot of discussion about whether this parcel even needed to be zoned from C2 to C4, and the reason for the rezoning request was for the property owner to construct mini-warehouses on the parcel. He stated, a lot of discussion about how C4 was not an appropriate classification because of all the other potential uses that are more noxious than what would be permitted in a C2 classification. He stated that as a result, the zoning case was dropped, and the parcel was left zoned as C2, as discussed by the Plan Commission, throughout a series of meeting minutes, which are all provided as part of your packet. He stated, again, our position is that this is a narrow issue, whether this property is zoned C2 for the multi-family dwelling units, which, we believe, are permitted. He stated, moving back to the current petition, we were here at an informal meeting with the Executive Director, advised that the zoning was appropriate; had an informal meeting. He stated that no one raised zoning. He stated that the discussion centered around drainage, parking, those sorts of things – site review types of issues. He stated that we then filed a formal application. He stated, again, nobody raised zoning. He stated, had a formal Technical Advisory Committee meeting. He stated, again, no question about zoning. He stated, drainage, sewers, traffic, those types of issues, until finally, eight months later, we hear, for the very first time, that there may be a zoning issue, and the issue before you tonight is whether Mr. Thompson failed, quite honestly, to make a decision, and is leaving it up to your discretion to determine what, exactly, is the zoning of the property. He stated that we believe the property is zoned C2, which permits the multi-family that we’re looking for, and we, respectfully, ask that you find this property be zoned accordingly.

Ted Fitzgerald, 107 N. Main, Hebron, stated that I’m an attorney representing the Lakes of the Four Seasons Property Owners’ Association, a community of some 8,000 people on 4 square miles, immediately adjoining this property to the Northwest. He stated that I hate to admit this. He stated that I probably have a better handle on this than anybody else, because 40 years ago, I was here. He stated that I was practicing law. He stated that I’ve been at almost every



one of these hearings that’s listed in here. He stated that I’m going to make my comments brief. He stated that there are probably 20 to 25 parcels around Lakes of the Four Seasons on both sides – Lake and Porter – that the developer had no idea what to do with. He stated that it didn’t fit into the scheme. He stated that they weren’t serviceable by sewer and this one had a huge wetlands in the middle of it, so they just left them out and said, we’ll decide later what we are going to do with them. He stated that Paul Fischer, your first Executive Secretary, who was at that time, said, you can’t do that; you have to put something down. He stated, so they sat down and they wrote things in, one of them being a former law partner here, I believe. He stated that they wrote down trading post. He stated that I don’t know what that is. He stated that one envisions voyagers paddling up in the spring to sell their furs. He stated that I know they didn’t intend apartments, and I know they didn’t intend condos, because there were areas on tracts within Four Seasons – Tract 104, 105, Tract M, the Sandy Beach condos – I don’t remember the numbers – that were labeled on the plat as multi-family, condos, etc. He stated that this was for a little service thing. He stated that if you look back in ’84, there was a gentleman by the name of William Welter. He stated that I was here then, too. He stated that he was the owner of First National Bank, the president of the bank, and he did, in fact, come in here and ask to develop that. He stated that you see there’s a road that runs through the middle of it that somehow disappears off the plan. He stated that that’s for the benefit of the residents of Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated that Mr. Welter’s plan, in addition to apartments, which would be part of the Four Seasons and subject to their covenants, was a mini-post office and a branch bank. He stated that that was back in 1984. He stated that the most important thing here is that it really doesn’t matter what the zoning is because your ordinance, in effect at that time – let’s look at your PUD ordinance – okay, not the zoning, okay. He stated, Planned Unit Development – apartments were never planned there. He stated that they are not a part of the Lakes of the Four Seasons unit, and they are not a part of our development. He stated that this is something that nobody ever heard of until just very recently. He stated, let me read to you from your ordinance: “A Planned Residential Development (sic), which is clearly what this is, 4 square miles, may contain commercial, industrial, professional or special uses as an integral part of a residential development, an integral part of a residential development, which is Four Seasons.” He stated that nobody denies – if you look at the legal description, this is Tract H of Lakes of the Four Seasons, and counsel admits, as part of the original PUD – that’s where it came from – but, such uses shall be planned and gauged primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the planned development.

Mr. Detert stated, amen.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, amen. He stated that this is three miles by car from the main gate of Four Seasons. He stated that it isn’t


attached. He stated that it isn’t a part. He stated that it doesn’t – isn’t – subject to the covenants, and, very frankly, if you issue this permit, you will violate your own ordinance. He stated, thank you.

(Audience applause)

(Mr. Robertson raps the gavel.)

Robert W. Thompson Jr., Executive Director, Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, stated that I want to present a findings of facts. He stated that I guess mainly in this, what you are going to see, is reiterating what Mr. Fitzgerald just stated, and it is within the Planned Residential Development section of the code. He stated, yes, I don’t dispute anything that as far as timelines and the C2S, what it’s talking about, but on Page 23 of the 1964 master plan, under conditions, Number 5, a “planned residential development can contain commercial and industrial, professional or special uses as an integral part of a residential development, but such uses shall be planned and gauged primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the planned development, except that when such a development will interfere with the general pattern of commercial and industrial, professional and special use zoning, such uses shall not be permitted.” He stated that that is the reason I did not issue the permit for it.

Mr. Elwood stated that in the short time I’ve been on this Board, serving as its attorney, I have noted that it prides itself on the expansive input from the public that it allows. He stated, but I do agree with Mr. Ferngren in that this is a fairly narrow issue of what the zoning is as it exists today. He stated that it’s truly not a hearing to decide whether apartments are appropriate there or not. He stated that that has, or has not, been decided, depending on who you listen to. He stated that my comments are not trying to limit the public input, but I do want to make the record for that for possible future hearings.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you understand what he’s saying: That we’re here to decide proper zoning. He stated that there are lots of other issues, which, depending on how this procedure comes out, can be brought up at later times, but they’re not appropriate for this particular hearing. He stated that this hearing is merely to decide the zoning.

Jack Reese, 246 S. 725 W., stated that I would be the second house immediately North of this planned development. He stated that I’ve been living out there about 15 years, moved out there to be rural. He stated that we have built it quite a bit in the years I’ve been there, but never, ever did we conceive of apartments. He stated that I believe if you put apartments in there, you are basically going to devalue the land and the property for the rest of us. He stated that most of the homes out there are on large lots and of a little higher value. He stated that apartments do not fit the nature or the personality of our community.

Pam Swiss, 747 W. 310 S., stated that I was present back in the ‘80s when Mr. Fitzgerald was referring to that specific corner when Mr. John DeMorray came before this Board for permission and his parcels were just North of these parcels and this same zoning Board told him that he could not build apartments on his property, and then Mr. DeMorray consented to putting U-Locks at that time. She stated that I think Mr. Detert was present at that time. She stated that I’m not sure about the rest of you, but they were zoned exactly the same as this corner lot and it was determined at that time that it was not intended for apartment use, so I think you’re opening a big door.

Mr. Detert stated that the only one I remember that was there at that time was this Pam and maybe you were there, too, but, later on, when I make my remarks, I want to get back to her, because she might remember as well as I remember what happened at those meetings.

Larry A. Schmidt, 1922 Loganberry Lane, asked, this has nothing to do with drainage as far as a topic of discussion at this time?

Mr. Robertson stated, right. He stated, zoning, that’s the question. He stated that what this is is an appeal of Mr. Thompson’s decision that zoning was not appropriate for them to proceed, and Mr. Thompson has said they don’t get a hearing (sic) because the zoning is inappropriate, and he’s appealing that decision, so we are trying to decide whether he will proceed under the proper zoning, or he will not proceed because he doesn’t have the proper zoning, and that’s what we are here for.

Mr. Schmidt stated that I guess my question is, if this was to be approved then he could build without any other special…

Mr. Robertson stated, no, then it would go to the next step.

Mr. Detert stated, just for clarification, if it gets…if he gets approval tonight, it would then go back to the Plan Commission and then everybody would be renotified and all those issues that you’re talking about would be appropriate at that time.

Mr. Ferngren stated that Mr. Fitzgerald is right: I wasn’t here, but I’ll take his word for it that he was. He stated that he indicated that the intent was not for apartments to be located in this…on this particular tract. He stated that the intent, as evidenced by the zoning that was applied to the particular parcel, which is C2S zoning. He stated that at that time, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Plan Commission and the County Commissioners all ratified the fact that this was zoned C2S. He stated that as part of C2S, that includes multi-family dwellings, so the intent, to me, is clear that it was intended to include multi-family, could include a service station, could include all those other particular uses under the C2S zoning classification that are allowed. He stated that that is why that parcel was zoned C2S. He stated that what is permitted on that particular property, you look to the zoning of the property. He stated that we also believe that this was an integral part of the



development. He stated that this is a large development. He stated that Mr. Fitzgerald referenced the number of homes. He stated that we believe it was an integral part, and still is, since it was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, Plan Commission, and, subsequently, the County Commissioners through a number of different public hearings in classifying this property zoned C2S. He stated that Mr. Thompson has prepared some findings of fact. He stated that I, unfortunately, haven’t had the opportunity to review these for very long, but he also indicates the integral nature and, again, the property went through an exhaustive number of hearings that everyone had the opportunity to participate in, and it was ultimately determined by all those involved that C2S is the appropriate zoning classification and, again, multi-family dwelling units are a part of what is permitted under the C2S zoning classification. He stated that we believe that the evidence speaks for itself: the history of the minutes, the plats that are recorded, the designations on the plats referring back to the development plan that was approved by the BZA, the Plan Commission and the County Commissioners back in 1966, ’67 and ’68, and believe this property is appropriately zoned for our intended use as apartments.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you saying you didn’t get enough time to go over this? He asked, would you like to continue it?

Mr. Ferngren stated, I just got this a few moments ago.

Mr. Robertson asked, would you like to continue it to look at it some more?

Mr. Ferngren stated, if you give me just a second here. He stated that I suppose since we’re here that it would be appropriate to…a continuance may be appropriate, but I would like to at least hear what the members of the BZA have to say tonight with respect to this findings of fact by Mr. Thompson and what their other comments may include, as well.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, if you are going to respond to that, that might have a bearing on what we would say because…

Mr. Detert stated that we can go ahead with the meeting and if he needs some time, he can look at that later.

Mr. Elwood stated, well, I think we ought to give him an opportunity to review it now. He stated that if he decides that he’d like some additional time after that, then that’s appropriate.

Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t we take a 10-minute break here, and we’ll come back here at about 25 to 8, okay?

Mr. Ferngren stated that two things are important to note, that Mr. Thompson admits that Tract H was approved as a trading post for C2S uses, and Table A, the table of uses in the Porter County plan, C2S expressly permits dwelling, multi-family, so in Mr. Thompson’s



facts that he has provided to you, he has indicated that this parcel is zoned C2S. He stated that if you look at the table of listed uses, multi-family dwellings are expressly permitted. He stated that he also discusses this case, the Welter case that Mr. Fitzgerald referred to that, and looking at the minutes from that meeting, August 22, 1984, Attorney Lyons stated that whatever was approved ought to remain approved unless the change was done in a formality that would be required in a change of zoning general. He stated that that has never happened, and, as Mr. Thompson indicated, the property was zoned C2S back when this plan was originally approved, and, in 1984, the then-attorney for the Plan Commission indicated that whatever was approved ought to remain approved unless the change occurred. He stated, again, the change never occurred. He stated that at a subsequent meeting on the same case, again, dealing with multi-family, Plan Commission member Mr. Biggs moved that this petition should not have been before the Plan Commission as the petitioner is entitled to have his permits for the multi-family units, he proposed. He stated that Mr. Sanders, Plan Commission member, seconded the motion. Discussion. He stated that Mr. Sheets asked Attorney Lyons if it was his legal opinion that this issue should not have come before the Board and Attorney Lyons stated that that is his opinion, so, in Case 84-Z-4, the Plan Commission attorney in 1984 found, again, that this property was zoned for multi-family use, exactly what we are proposing before you tonight, and finally, with respect to Mr. Thompson’s point #12, he still has not made a determination, at least as far as I can tell, about what he believes this property to be zoned. He stated that he indicates that it’s a gray area in his opinion, however, I think if you look at his previously cited facts, and specifically his facts #3,4 and 5 referencing that this property is zoned C2S and you look at Table A, list of uses, multi-family dwelling is permitted. He stated, again, following up with Case 84-Z-4, referring that apartments are expressly permitted on this property, the previous counsel for the Plan Commission indicated there was no need for them to even come here; they could be issued permits as a matter of right, and, with that, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add at this time.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that I was here in 1984 and what counsel says is true, but he doesn’t tell you everything. He stated that this piece was being developed as a part of Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated that there was going to be a gate across here. He stated that this road was developed. He stated that there was going to be a postal sub-station in here for the benefit of the people in Four Seasons. He stated that there was going to be what they used to call an unmanned bank back in those days, which is an ATM. He stated that this was going to be part of Four Seasons, and that was what the 84 case was, and it never went ahead because the residents didn’t want the traffic, but this wasn’t’ being developed as a stand-alone apartment complex with no tie-up. He stated that those apartments were going to be subject to the Four Seasons covenants.




Kathryn Denormandie, 279 S. 725 W., stated that from what I’m hearing, it’s kind of like he said, it’s a gray area whether this was zoned whatever. She asked, is there a reason why it can’t be rezoned and reinvestigated now, and like Pam Swiss said, if it was denied back in the ‘80s, is there not a record of his denial? She asked, if DeMorray was denied back in the ‘80s, wouldn’t there be a record of that on file with you guys stating that he was denied for that?

Mr. Robertson stated that we’ll answer those questions when we close the public hearing.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m the only one here tonight that was here at that time and sitting on the Board, so I guess I should comment. He stated that I guess what bothers me a little bit, Mr. Ferngren doesn’t tell the whole story. He stated that he only tells part of it, and you heard the other attorney here tell us, Mr. Fitzgerald, and read out of the law – that was the law – the ordinance at that time, that said it will cover the items in 2CS (sic), but it has to serve the people of Four Seasons, and that’s what we’re talking about. He stated that I think the other thing is is that when your clients applied for this, they applied not only for this tract, but they also applied for either K or J. He stated that there’s two different – and I don’t have the papers with me tonight, but there’s two different references, and I think the original application -- tell me if I’m wrong or not – but I thought it was H and K. He asked, was that the original application? He stated that on the very basis of K being appropriately zoned for what you wanted to do, that would be turned down. He asked, did you err when you did that? He stated, I don’t know. He stated, and I’ve never figured out quite what you were talking about with J, why somebody, I think it was the real estate, Sturgill, that referred to J in some of the minutes. He stated that I think you have to look at this from what was the law at the time. He stated that the law at the time said that you could have a trading post, which would cover 2CS businesses, providing they provided some benefit to the people within the subdivision. He stated that, on that basis, when the previous apartments came in – and there was much discussion on that issue – and we had a bigger crowd than we’ve got tonight, they were out in the hallways at the A&P office that we had at that time, you know, it was thoroughly discussed that it was not appropriate, and I don’t think it was, and I don’t think it is. He stated that they did feel, later on, that the mini-warehouses were appropriate because they could service the Four Seasons, and the last number I heard, and I think it was when the guy that currently owns those mini-warehouses was looking for some new ones, I believe he quoted the number as 70 percent rented by Four Seasons. He stated, well, you can’t deny that they’re serving the people of Four Seasons if 70 percent of the people are renting them (sic). He stated that there is no way that an apartment building can serve the people of Four Seasons, and I think the law is very clear. He stated that I don’t think there’s any issues. He stated that the law says, and




again, I repeat, it has to provide some benefits to the people of Four Seasons, and it does not, in my opinion. He stated that I think, Mr. Ferngren, and I don’t mean to be nasty, but I think you’ve got to tell the whole story. He stated that you’ve got to tell what the law was at that time, and that’s what the law was at that time. He stated that I think the director acted appropriately. He stated that I’m sorry that you guys had to wait eight months. He stated that I’m sorry that there were a lot of things going on at the time, but there was also nobody you were talking to at that time that was present and knew all of this background. He stated that I know I was never talked to, and I knew the background. He stated that I think it’s clear. He stated that, to me, the issue is clear.

Mr. Brickner stated that, Mr. Ferngren, you never did refer to what Mr. Thompson referred to as the reason for his denial, and that was on Page 23 of his packet, Item 5, where it says a planned residential development may contain industrial, professional and such uses, except when such a development will interfere with the general pattern of the development in that area, which is all Rural Residential. He stated that that was his reason for denying the petition for the apartments in the first place, and that’s exactly what Mr. Detert is talking about. He stated that it’s a pretty general phrase, but that’s what this is about – it doesn’t fit. He stated that it’s not so much that the zoning – that’s a gray area – but it doesn’t fit. He stated that it doesn’t integrate itself with the rest of this area, which is all Rural Residential, R-1 and RR properties, on all sides. He stated that you didn’t refer to that when you were giving your rebuttal, and you didn’t even refer to that, and that’s the reason Mr. Thompson denied it. He stated that if you would like to say something about that, I’d be glad to hear it.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I’m a little confused. He stated that I don’t disagree with what Bob said, but I guess the issue, if I’m understanding what Mr. Ferngren is saying, then there’s a very narrow..and I guess our attorney agrees with this…there’s a very narrow consideration here tonight. He stated that in my opinion, this property is zoned the C whatever it is S. He stated, now, if that’s what we’re here to determine, then I guess it’s pretty clear. He stated that I don’t disagree with what Mr. Detert says and what Mr. Fitzgerald states about to the benefit or…it has to be…I’m stumbling here, and I apologize….

Mr. Detert stated that that affects the zoning. He stated that the fact that the zoning only applied to 2CS providing it provided some benefit to the people of Four Seasons, so, therefore, it’s not appropriately zoned.

Mr. Hudson asked, you’re saying that’s the only way the zoning becomes….




Mr. Detert stated that that’s the only way that 2CS is going to apply. He stated that if he wants to come with something that services those people, then he’s got a different story. He stated that my other point was that their application was inappropriate in that they were asking for more than H. He stated that they were asking for some land that was already zoned parkland.

Mr. Elwood stated that first of all, I’ll just say simply that I agree with what Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Detert are saying. He stated that it is C2S zoning, and Mr. Thompson acknowledges that in the submitted findings. He stated, but we have to look to the PRD ordinance in effect at the time that this PRD of Lakes of the Four Seasons was approved, which included Tract H, and we must then look to the language of Page 23, which we’ve heard numerous times. He stated that I guess I would consider it a blanket over the CS2 (sic) zoning. He stated that if the CS2 zoning is allowed, if it also complies with this additional requirement set forth in the PRD ordinance.

Mr. Hudson stated, so that blanket is the only questionable…

Mr. Elwood stated, if I could add a couple of things. He stated that I’d like to clarify a little bit about this eight months. He stated that Mr. Thompson is kind of being thrown under the bus here. He stated that I consider it two months. He stated that October 12, 2005 is when a formal petition was filed. He stated that a letter from your attorney at the time was issued December 19, 2005, approximately two months. He stated that clearly there is discussion between the petitioner, the Executive Director Mr. Thompson, and the attorney at that time, so I think a fairly prompt response was made and given to the petitioner. He stated that I also take exception to the statement that Mr. Thompson or the previous attorney did not make a decision. He stated that clearly a decision was made; that’s why we’re here, and that decision was that they therefore must deny the request on the basis that Mr. Thompson finds insufficient evidence to make the determination that Parcel H is properly zoned for apartments. He stated that he absolutely made a decision. He stated that they enforced that decision (inaudible). He stated that as to the question of rezoning, because there’s a petition filed before the Board, we could move to rezone it, but it would have no effect on this petition, because he has filed, on October 12, 2005, a formal application.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 06-EDD-1 as filed by the petitioner and uphold the decision of our Director, Mr. Thompson; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by the Board counsel. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that I’d like to ask Mr. Ferngren if he’d like to respond to Mr. Brickner’s question about, particularly on Page 23, how he views that.





Mr. Ferngren stated, well, I think as I stated earlier that this whole project, Lakes of the Four Seasons, was part of a number of public hearings that included three separate governmental bodies of this County: the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Plan Commission and the County Commissioners, all of whom agreed that this property is zoned C2S, and the table of listed uses permits multi-family and they then determined that it was appropriate to use this parcel for any of those permitted uses under the C2S classification, ranging from a service filling station, on down and including multi-family.

Mr. Detert asked, who are you saying they are?

Mr. Ferngren stated, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Plan Commission and the County Commissioners when they approved…

Mr. Detert stated, when they approved in ’67.

Mr. Ferngren stated, when they approved this and zoned this property C2S, that’s correct.

Mr. Detert asked, what’s your response to the fact that, as our attorney said, there was a blanket over that that said it had to provide benefits to the people of Four Seasons? He stated that you keep ignoring that.

Mr. Ferngren stated that I think that without allowing us to build the apartments, how can we possibly serve anybody? He stated, I mean, as a vacant parcel of land it’s not going to serve anyone. He stated that should we be permitted to build the apartments, we then could serve residents of Lakes of the Four Seasons, just like you indicated earlier, that was one of the items that Mr. Welter stated he was going to do, serve 70 percent is what you referenced as the occupancy. He stated that until we’re allowed to build it, we can’t service anything…

Mr. Detert stated that the 70 percent I was referring to was the mini-warehouses and they were, at the time that he applied for three additional warehouses, he quoted something to the effect that the mini-warehouses were rented by 70 percent of the people of Four Seasons (sic).

Mr. Ferngren stated that my response is that without allowing us to build our structures, it’s impossible for us to serve anybody, and my response is that with these apartments we will be able to serve those people.

Mr. Detert stated that this was all thoroughly discussed back when the original petition for apartments went in on the other tract, so, the precedent there was it was not appropriate by everybody that discussed it at those meetings, from my memory, and from what I see in the minutes and stuff – they aren’t as good as I’d like, but they seem to uphold that, and the people that were there will also attest that


my memory on that is correct. He stated that this was all thoroughly discussed back then.

Mr. Robertson stated that just wading into this kind of cold, it looks like it is, perhaps, C2S, but there is this blanket over it and it does have to fit in with the…be an integral part of the residential development, and I don’t think this would fit the general pattern, so that’s my feelings.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but being presented with 100 pages roughly of information about this case five minutes before the case starts, it’s really kind of untimely. He stated that I would appreciate it in the future if, on behalf of both our Board president and any attorneys that are present that you get us some information before, at least time enough to go through it before the meeting, an appropriate time before the meeting, because you sit here with 100 pages and try to make a good decision. He stated that it’s untimely.

Mr. Detert stated that I’ve been commenting on that for 20 years.

Mr. Robertson asked, would you like to wait? He asked, have you had adequate time to review this?

Mr. Brickner stated, I think so.

Mr. Detert stated that I would also recommend that we hold up on the findings of facts until we’ve all had a good chance to understand them and we hold those off until the next meeting.

Mr. Elwood stated that I’ll draft them before the next meeting.

Motion to deny Case 06-EDD-1, carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes

Case 06-V-4. Petition of Ken & Laura Roof, 564 N. 175 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of an agricultural building to house horses and to store hay and farm machinery, prior to construction of the house, and to permit construction of said building in front of the proposed house, to be located at 380 E. Private Road 678 N., in Jackson Township.

Ken Roof stated that I have 11 acres and we plan on building a house later this year. He stated that the bottom line is horses were boarded right behind him where he presently lives. He stated that they sold their house in a week and a half and I had to move my horses and have to board them somewhere else. He stated that it’s costing me a whole lot more than what it did. He stated that we’ve been working with trying to get a barn built, house built, but my job at the present…through the years it got shifted, sold out, bankruptcy and all



that kind of stuff, and now my job is really stable, so now we’ve decided that….and due to the fact that our horses had to be moved in such a short period of time, to build the barn and put the horses on our own property. He stated that that’s why we filed for the Variance, to put the horse barn up before..in front of the house, because where we want to put the house is in a wooded area and then we would have an open field where the horse barn would be, which is considered, the way the house is going to set, is going to be in our front yard, kind of.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that we’ve got two Variances here then, don’t we? He stated, one to build the barn ahead of the house, and one to build the barn in the front yard.

Mr. Roof stated that I talked to Bob Thompson. He stated that this is an agricultural building and he said I had to file a Variance to build it in front of the house, but I didn’t have to file a Variance to build it before the house. He stated that that’s what I was told.

Mr. Robertson stated that this isn’t a subdivision, so there is no question about the size of the barn, it’s just where it goes.

Mr. Roof stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, or if it’s built before the primary residence.

Mr. Robertson stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, and that’s what I’m saying.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it is built before the primary residence and then, as a condition, I guess, where the siting of it is. He stated that I think it’s all one. He stated that you can split it up.

Mr. Hudson asked, it’s not all together, the way it is here.

Mr. Elwood stated that it’s all together. He stated that I think what the petitioner is saying is that Mr. Thompson advised him that because it’s an agricultural building, he would not need a Variance to build it prior to the home.

Mr. Robertson stated, oh, so he doesn’t even need that.

Mr. Elwood stated, correct.

Mr. Robertson stated that the only thing he needs then is the front yard.

Mr. Elwood stated that he’s planning the house in the future, so he’s coming up to get the site located, so the Variance is only to set it in front of the house.

Mr. Robertson stated that I drove by there. He stated that it’s the second wood line where your house is going to go, right?

Mr. Roof stated, right.

Mr. Robertson stated, and there’s a wood line out a couple hundred feet, and then there’s a second wood line much farther back.

Mr. Roof stated that it’s 1,300 feet to the first tree row that runs North and South, and that’s the beginning of my property, and then you take the field…and the wooded area that’s back there, our house will be back in the woods.

Mr. Robertson asked, how many feet off the road is it to where your house will be?

Mr. Detert stated, it’s quite a ways.

Mr. Robertson stated, it’s quite a ways, and I can understand why you’d want to put your house in the woods there to make it a nice thing.

Mr. Roof stated that that overlooks….there’s a ravine back there, and that’s basically where I want to build the house.

Mr. Robertson stated, and since the wood line is in the back of the property in relation to the road, even though it’s half a mile back, the field in front where the horses would go has to be in front, so there’s really no other place to put it, the way the property is laid out, and your hardship would be the way it’s laid out there, so I have no problem at all, being as it’s so far away.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t have a problem.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-4. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated that I just…do you have any idea when you are going to build the house?

Mr. Roof stated, later this year. He stated that presently we are doing a little bit of fixing up on the existing house and we’re going to be putting in on the market here probably in a month.




Mr. Robertson stated, and, again, since this is an agricultural building he really doesn’t even need our approval for that at all.

Motion to approve Case 06-V-4, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file, carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes

Case 06-V-5. Petition of David & Line Tutwiler, 1618 N. Derby, Beverly Shores, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 475 square foot addition to the front of an existing pole barn and an addition of 140 square feet to the side of the barn, putting the total square footage of the barn at 1,623 square feet, more than what is allowed in a subdivision. Petitioners are also asking that the Variance allow the front addition to the barn to extend beyond the front face of the house, to be located at 1618 N. Derby, in Pine Township.

David Tutwiler stated that that we’re petitioning for a Variance for an extension on our pole barn, an extension on the front, 25 feet additional, to enclose our utility trailer and vehicles. He stated that it would extend in front of the house by about 10 feet in front of the line of the house, but it would still be approximately within 50 to 55 feet from the road at that point.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

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

Mr. Robertson stated that I see there is a letter from a neighbor here who approves.

Mr. Tutwiler stated that that’s our neighbor next street over.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, Mr. Ruge wrote a letter. At this time, Mr. Robertson read the letter from Mr. Ruge in favor of this petition. The letter is in the file. Mr. Robertson stated that the picture he shows here looks like it’s well-drawn.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-5, 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 Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes


Case 06-PUV-1. Petition of Pat Chitwood, 61 S. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit operation of a pet hotel/boarding facility to accommodate between 10 and 18 animals, to be located at 61 S. 200 W., in Porter Township.

Ms. Chitwood stated that she and her husband, Michael, are the petitioners in this matter. She stated that I would like to start a boarding facility. She stated that I would rather call it a pet motel. She stated that I’m here with several supporters, if not in person, in letters. She stated that we’ve lived there for 10 years. She stated that when we first bought our property it was a mess. She stated that we’ve worked for 10 years to make it better and it’s a very nice house now to us. She stated that it’s our home. She stated that I would like to board between 18 and 20 animals. She stated that I’ve already gotten estimates for soundproofing. She stated that we’re kind of off by ourselves. She stated that the closest neighbor, I believe, is an acre away, which I have a letter from him. She stated that I also know there’s another neighbor here. She stated that he boards horses. She stated that across the street it’s just farm. She stated that I have pictures to show you and I have plans. She stated that this is what the barn would be. She stated that this is my home.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we might have gotten these in our packet.

Ms. Chitwood stated, I don’t know. She stated that this is the plans for the building, and this is our property. She stated that these are some pictures that you might want to pass around. She stated that these are of all directions. She stated that this is my home and this is the barn and this is a neighbor that’s probably 2 or 3 acres away. She stated that the neighbor that’s here with the horse barn…I can’t even see his house from my house, but I know I’ve taken some animals home, past him, and it was a very long walk, so it’s probably about 4 acres. She stated that this is my closest neighbor here. She stated that I have a letter from him. She stated that that’s just pictures of the house; I’ll let you look at them and pass them around.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that a cemetery there across the street?

Ms. Chitwood stated, yes. She stated that it’s 500 feet from my home. She stated that I would like to read you the letters from my neighbors. She stated that they’re small letters. At this time, Ms. Chitwood read letters in support of her petition. The letters are in the file. She stated that there is a big need for someone to love and care for the animals. She stated that the animals would probably bark a lot, but if you have someone there, which I’m planning on having three or four people to start with to help me with that, so that someone will always be with the animals, they’re not going to bark or make a lot of noise. She stated that I hear noises from the neighbor’s horses. She stated that I hear noises from the cows across the street, but that’s their livelihood, and that’s all I’m asking. She stated that I have a gift with animals. She stated that I love



them. She stated that I know there’s a big need for good care in animals. She stated that there’s a lot of kennels, but there’s not good enough care for my animals, so that’s what I would like to do with my life is just to have 10 to 12 years to watch the animals. She stated that I’ve gotten estimates of soundproofing. She stated that that’s going to be about $2,000. She stated that I’ve talked to the man in Indianapolis about the sewage. She stated that he said that I might be able to tie into our septic. She stated, if not, we’re going to put a septic in. She stated, whatever it takes, this is my gift, this is my lifelong dream. She stated that I was one of the first houses out there before any of the neighbors, before any of the neighborhoods, and this is the purpose of moving to the country, so that I could start my lifelong dream. She stated that all I ask is a chance to do that. She stated that if there is any problems, I will do anything in my power to make it right. She stated that it will be kept up. She stated that like I said when we first moved into our house, it was terrible. She stated that it was really bad. She stated that we’ve worked for 10 years. She stated that we’ve put our heart and soul into our house, and we’ve made it nice, you know, and that’s what this will be. She stated that it will be nice. She stated that it will be kept clean. She stated that it will be a nice place. She stated that if any of you have animals that you really love, you’ll need me. She stated that I sent out all the letters. She stated that the only one that didn’t return was the cemetery. She stated that that came back.

Elizabeth Gingerich, 702 Indiana, Valparaiso, stated that I am Pat’s sister-in-law. She stated that I am also an attorney in this area and I also teach business law at the School of Business in Valparaiso University. She stated that as a character witness for Pat, I can say that her sensitivity, not just for caring for animals, but for her neighbors, and she’s come to me with concerns to make sure that the sensitivities are there for the neighborhood, for noise, for containment, for security. She stated that she’s very, very concerned about making sure that all the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted. She stated that she’s been consulting with and looking up all the legal requirements to make sure that any canine animals coming in have the proper kennel cough vaccinations and that they’re up to date with their rabies, and that she’s never at a position where neither the premises nor the staff are overwhelmed by the number of animals. She stated, again, the care and concern and the detail in this woman’s plans for the last decade to have this type of animal retreat has been prevalent, and I have full faith and belief that she will provide a service to the community for all of us, and I’ll be customer Number 1 with my dog, Clifford. She stated, but also know that this particular area of our county, and it is marked with horses and cows and dogs. She stated, in fact, I do know that one of the neighbors here present tonight does board horses, so I would ask you to give full consideration to her application. She stated that I think she’s provided very good details and pictures with respect to what she envisions.




Phil Kellar, 119 S. 200 W., stated that I’m just downwind from the petitioner. He stated that I definitely am against the petition of a permanent business site. He stated that we live in a rural agricultural area. He stated that we are not wishing to have a business, permanent business, approved for a site that may or may not be the same industry today as it might be down 10 years from today. He stated that perhaps this is all personal. He stated that it may be selfish. He stated that I spent many, many years and many, many dollars locating the site that I’m in. He stated that I do not wish…I left the city, I left the businesses, I left the traffic, I left the subdivisions to be out in the country. He stated that I do not want a business located in my area, my living area. He stated that if you grant this as a permanent business, if this business should disappear, fold, be sold out, change hands, this could be an ABC salvage yard, a storage area. He stated that as a business it could be whatever the restrictions are. He stated that I also ask, is there any health issues? He asked, what does the state require? He asked, are all the state requirements met? He asked, is the noise pollution going to be guaranteed to be controlled? He stated, I truly, truly do not wish this to be a permanent business designated area. He stated that this could very well be construted (sic) as spot zoning. He stated that there is no other business, other than on Route 2, which is approximately a mile and a quarter.

John Devine, 178 W. 75 S., stated that we’re about one-tenth of a mile from this proposed site change and zoning change to a business. He stated that for all the reasons that the doctor spoke to, I live closer to this than he does, and I’m four times more adamant that this change should not be allowed or should stand (sic). He stated that I hate to crush people’s dreams. He stated that I think if you want to have a pet business I would suggest you possibly consider going to a site that’s already zoned for business that you could get into and go from there. He stated that I have dogs. He stated that I have a dog. He stated that I question the ability for sound. He stated that I also question the ability for waste-handling as far as sewage systems and everything else. He stated that I know just proposing…when we built our particular property and I had a slight area where water ran off I had to put in almost another complete curtain drain in through there, which is almost like two complete septic systems, and I imagine for a business, they don’t have any idea what this is going to cost when you start talking about running curtain drains around a property sitting on the side of a hill. He stated that I wanted to come here and speak on the record that I’m against it. He stated that I don’t think it should be allowed. He stated that I think it changes the potential property values of all the surrounding property holders. He stated that the ones I’ve talked to are against it, and that’s all I’m going to say.

Greg Ames, 95 S. 200 W., stated that they’ve pretty much said everything. He stated that I don’t have anything to add.




Brandon Kerr, 122 S. 200 W., stated that I, too, bought the house I’m in now. He stated that it’s an old farmhouse that I spent thousands of dollars rebuilding it, trying to make it nice and thanks to the help of the Board here, I’ve subdivided, did a couple of houses there in what I feel is good taste. He stated that I’m also from the city. He stated that I moved out this way for quiet and solitude. He stated that I expected when I moved out here horses, cows, maybe an occasional coyote. He stated that I’ve been around a lot of dog kennels. He stated that I do know that it’s very difficult keeping them quiet, and I’ve also been around construction long enough to know that sound protection is only good for so much, not really enough for such a rural area to keep it quiet enough to really keep all the neighbors appeased. He stated that I have no doubt that you are really nice people. He stated that I just want to state that I’m strongly against having anything of a commercial property in the area. He stated that personally I’m very much opposed to the dog kennel, but also as to future developments if you guys decide in a year that you don’t want this, it’s permanently commercial grade property and who knows what’s going to come there next. He stated that I’ve spent thousands of dollars building this house. He stated that I want a nice turnover on it. He stated that I wanted to do this as a hobby, and now I’m really afraid that I’m going to lose my interest, that my property taxes are going to go up, and I’m just afraid of what the future holds.

Henry Millian, 2954 Thornhill Dr., stated that my wife and I own the 44 acres behind these people. He stated that one of the issues that I have is that I bought that property for one of two reasons. He stated that I bought the property to build a residence on. He stated that I look at it as a gentleman’s farm. He stated that the other extreme might be, because my wife, maybe, changes her mind, would be to parcel four pieces of that property into 11, 12 acres, pieces. He stated that I believe that might be permittable. He stated that that’s not my intention for the property. He stated that it’s a residential area. He stated that at best I would describe this area as a gentleman’s farm area. He stated that most of the acreage there is 15 acres, 10 acre parcels, some 20. He stated that I have a little over 44 acres. He stated that about eight years ago I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for this property. He stated that I could guarantee you a horse (sic) kennel is not going to appreciate that property; it’s going to distract from that property. He stated that there is a dog kennel called Cox about a mile and a half to two miles from Aberdeen. He stated that if anyone’s a golfer here, if you’re on hole 4 you constantly – hole 4, hole 5 – you constantly hear dogs barking. He stated that I have a couple of coworkers that live in Aberdeen, and I asked them about the Cox kennel, and he said there’s evenings that they can’t leave their windows open because of the noise pollution. He stated that it’s very annoying. He stated that they wish they would have known that ahead of time. He stated that if this dog kennel was constructed prior to me seeking property of this size, I guarantee you I wouldn’t have considered purchasing this 44 acres. He stated that I consider myself a reasonable person and I would expect any other person looking to spend hundreds of


thousands of dollars on a parcel, 44 acres, to look at it the way I look at it, so she might have a kind heart for dogs, for cats, and I appreciate that. He stated that I also own a dog. I own a Vizla, and I love it. He stated that we love our dog, okay, but I don’t think a residence is a place for a business. He stated that I would be very concerned about pollution, noise pollution, and I would be very concerned about waste, because my property is adjacent to this property. He stated that I’m also a CPA and I used to service a lot of businesses, and I think many, many, many clients fall short of the expectation of what things cost to have it done right. He stated that I just believe maybe she’s not there, as far as what it’s going to actually cost her, and I object to this. He stated that I object to this. He stated that that’s all I have to say.

Mike Michalski, 75 S. 200 W., stated that I would just like to state for the record that I am also opposed to the kennel. He stated that I have nothing more to add. He stated that these gentlemen spoke eloquently and I just want to state for the record that I’m opposed to it.

Ms. Chitwood stated that the Cox kennels is an outside only kennel. She stated that the dogs are kept outside. She stated that there is no inside shelter for Cox kennels. She stated that I’ve been to a lot of kennels and I don’t see the problem with containing and keeping the animals quiet. She stated that if they’re happy they are not going to be barking. She stated that if they’re stuck in a cage for 24 hours a day for two weeks, they are going to bark. She stated that if you have people there to take the animals out of the cages, it’s not going to be just in the cages all the time. She stated that if you have someone there that’s taking the animals out constantly, it’s not going to be…they’re not going to be barking. She stated that I’m going to have outside runs. She stated that they won’t be out there after like 6 o’clock at night, so they will be contained in the building most of the time, except for the daytime. She stated that I hear horses. She stated that I hear cows. She stated that I hear dogs barking and, as far as being out in the country, in the quiet country, that’s what we thought we were getting. She stated that the man said that the business would cause traffic. She stated that we have traffic constantly up and down our road. She stated that in the middle of the night I have been woken up by motorcycles that must have been going 150 miles an hour. She stated, I mean, you’re going to be able to control noise, traffic. She stated that when we first moved out there there was one car every half hour. She stated that now there is a car every 30 seconds, so it’s not a quiet place. She stated that as far as doing it right, I am a woman that does things the right way. She stated that I do not believe in half doing anything. She stated that I talked to the man in Indianapolis and he said that I might have to have a complete sewer system. She stated that no matter what it costs I am going to do it. She stated that I am going to do it right. She stated that it’s not going to be…you know, if not a permanent variance, give me a 5-year variance. She stated, you know, let me try it, let me show everyone that it’s not going to hurt anything, and when I retire in 12 years, it will be gone. She asked, why not give me my dream? She stated that this gentleman here bought



44 acres and he told our neighbor that he would never subdivide it, that it would be the same. She stated, you know, that’s his dream. She stated that this is my dream. She stated that I waited for this dream for all of my life. She stated that I’ve waited to do this and that’s why we bought in the country. She stated that as you can see our house, it isn’t a quarter of million dollar house, but it’s a nice home for us, and this is my dream, and I just can’t understand why I cant’ do it.

Michael Chitwood stated that I put $80,000 in (inaudible) in that house. He stated that it’s not like they’re talking like we’re going to move off and it’s just going to be. He stated that this is our home. He stated that we’re always going to live there.

Ms. Chitwood stated, until we retire, and then there will be no business.

Mr. Kellar stated that I would like to see some definite – not just I promise you or I have got quotes – there is nothing in writing that says this is the structure that will be built, this is what is going to be approved. He stated that this is just a concept, a generous idea, a wonderful idea. He stated that, as you said, this is your dream. He stated, believe me, I’m significantly older and my dream was much longer than yours, to find a solitude area, not next to a business.

Mr. Devine stated that this use change constitutes the implementation and the importation into the area of a nuisance. He stated that I want to make sure I’m on the record clearly to everybody on this Board, and approving the change here zoning-wise is constituting bringing in a nuisance business and an awful lot of change here, so a lot of pressure rests with you gentlemen for what you think could happen in this area. He stated that I know some of you probably know where this area is.

Mr. Millian stated that my only comment, and I might be a little redundant is yes, this is your residence, it’s your residence. He stated that it’s not your place of business. He asked, why don’t you take your dream in an approved area that’s zoned for business, and I’m telling you why I believe you’re not doing that. He stated that it’s, Number 1, convenience, for you, not for your neighbors. He stated that Number 2, you’re doing it because it’s a cost issue. He stated that you get to use your existing residence as a residence and as a business. He stated that it’s a residence, it’s a residence, okay. He stated that I tell you what: I love dogs, okay, and I take care of my dog. He stated that that’s not the issue. He stated that we’re not questioning whether or not you’d be a loving careperson, caretaker, for these dogs. He stated that that’s not the issue. He stated that the issue here is I believe you’re infringing on your neighbors’ rights. He stated that it doesn’t matter whether you’ve been there 12 years, six years, or if this gentleman’s been there 30


years. He stated that that’s not the issue. He stated that the issue is that it’s a residential area, and you’re trying to change that, and we object to that because that is either going to be deemed our residential area or it’s an existing residence for existing (inaudible).

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Detert stated that it always gets tough when you want to put a business like this in and that’s what it is, you know, it’s a business. He stated that I’ve got mixed emotions on it. He stated that I don’t doubt the intention of the petitioner that she means well and she’ll work hard at it, but when we do something like this we have to consider the fact that somebody else might take over that business, and I guess the best thing she’s got going for her is that it is a Use Variance and we can limit the time on it.

Mr. Brickner stated that it’s a Permanent Use Variance.

Mr. Elwood stated that she’s seeking a Permanent Use Variance, but you can put limits on it.

Mr. Detert stated, so, if it was a Use Variance we could give her a chance to try, but the caveat of that is that if she had to put a lot of money into a sewer system, a septic system, and it wasn’t granted by the next time it was due she’d be out that money, so I’m against it as a Permanent Use Variance.

Mr. Robertson stated that our attorney indicated that it is a Permanent Use Variance, but, as we learned at the last meeting, which we weren’t aware of previously, we can put all kinds of limitations on it.

Mr. Detert stated that I was thinking that a Use Variance might make it work.

Mr. Robertson stated that we can also put limitations. He stated that we can limit it to only one person. He stated that I don’t know if we can limit it timewise.

Mr. Elwood stated that you can limit it timewise, you can limit it to one person, you can limit the number of animals. He stated that it’s really wide open. He stated that one of the things I’d like to clarify is that this is not a rezone. He stated that this is not spot zoning. He stated that this is a Use Variance for this particular use only.

Mr. Detert stated, but it does have the effect.

Mr. Elwood stated, no question.

Mr. Detert stated that it does have the same effect.





Mr. Robertson stated that we can put all kinds of limitations on it if we find we would like to.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is pretty ambitious. He stated that first of all, you keep referring this to an animal. He asked, is this a dog kennel, or is it going to be for dogs and cats, or just dogs?

Ms. Chitwood stated, just dogs.

Mr. Brickner stated, and you have 20 cages on your plot, but you’re talking about 18 dogs.

Ms. Chitwood stated that this isn’t made in stone.

Mr. Brickner stated that I just noticed that you have 20 cages and four runs and…

Ms. Chitwood stated that this could be changed. She stated that it could be bigger so that the animals make sure that they have plenty of room to be there. She stated that you can limit me to 12 animals, whatever you want to do. She stated that you can limit it to five years. She stated, just give me a chance to live out my dream because I’ve waited a long time for this, and I don’t want to go against any of my neighbors. She stated that I don’t want to hurt anybody. She stated that like Art said, I’m a caring person. She stated that if an animal keeps barking, I won’t watch it anymore, and I will muzzle it, if I have to, to keep it quiet, but you have to understand that I hear things, too, you know, but I’m a good person. She stated that I don’t let anything bother me, you know, like in the middle of the night being woke up by horses. She stated that I know the man behind me boards horses and I know horses are different than dogs, but I hear that, but I know that that’s his livelihood, that’s his dream. She stated that I met this man years ago, one of the men that are here. She stated that I was a waitress and, at that time, I told him, we’ll talk about my house. She stated that it’s a beautiful area, but he’s boarding horses.

Mr. Robertson stated, but horses can’t bark.

Ms. Chitwood stated, but they do make noise. She stated that they really do make noise.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is a large business. He stated that the traffic, with 18 dogs, if it turns out to be 18 dogs, would be a lot of people coming and going in this area. He stated that this is a 200 by 200 feet lot. He stated that it’s not 20 acres or 44 acres, where you have a lot of insulation, and I just think that, with all the neighbors that are here tonight complaining about it, that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of this particular area.




Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I have to agree with the comments made by Mr. Detert and Mr. Brickner. He stated that I would like to see everybody be able to find their dream and do it, but it is a residential area, and there’s other people to consider. He stated that I guess something inside me wants to see some sort of try, but I think it’s pretty, with the people that have stated, been here, showed up and spoke against it, I think they have to be considered also.

Mr. Robertson stated that I feel the same way. He stated that I feel for you, Pat. He stated that I’m conflicted, because I know you’d do a wonderful job, but some of these neighbors are very close. He stated that one is at 53 and you’re at 61. He stated that that’s like .8 of a mile, or less, and some of these are very close, and I just know that dogs, even if you try to keep them quiet, they’re going to bark. He stated that perhaps you can find some place offsite, like Mr. Millian suggested, where you could do this, but I really think that it doesn’t fit this area.

Ms. Chitwood asked, is there any place that I can do it?

Mr. Robertson stated that we’re really just looking at this one place. He stated that that’s all we can do right now.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 06-PUV-1, with the findings of fact to be drawn up by counsel. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes

Case 06-SE-4. Petition of Michael Johnson, 813 N. 625 E., Westville, seeking a Special Exception to permit operation of a therapeutic riding center and boarding stable, to be located at 813 N. 625 E., in Jackson Township.

Karen Laczkowski, 813 N. 625 E., stated that Mike Johnson is my fiancé. She stated that we, too, have a dream and the biggest portion of our dream is to build these buildings to help our community. She stated that this will help Porter County, which does not have a therapeutic riding program, to my knowledge, and it will help LaPorte County, because we’re on the neighboring borders of LaPorte County also, and they also don’t have a therapeutic riding center either. She stated that therapeutic riding centers can help immensely handicapped and physically handicapped (inaudible), cerebral palsy, mental retardation, muscular dystrophy, learning disabilities, developmental (inaudible), autism. She stated that I know of a therapist who actually heard a child speak after he hasn’t spoken in three years. She stated, of course, he spoke to the horse, but he actually spoke. She stated that I decided I wanted to do this when I was in nursing school when one of my clinicals was at the (inaudible) farm in Crown Point and that was the first time I ever went to one of these facilities. She stated, and I tell you, gentleman, the look on


the faces that can’t speak is just something that I’ll take with me and some of these folks are able to walk in six weeks. She stated that I want that one child. She stated that if I can get one, my life is complete. She stated that another aspect of what we’d like to do, I actually do this right now, as a Jackson School mom I was Santa’s helper and a little girl there, while everyone else was asking for X boxes, she asked for her daddy to come home safe from the war, and at that moment I realized that we need to do something for these kids that are sitting back, so she rides for free until her daddy comes home safe and we do that right now with our personal horses and we want to continue to do that with this. She stated that I spoke with Child Protective Services and I would love to have a foster kids horse day care. She stated that I was a child in foster care, and when there’s not a lot to look forward to I thought it would be really, really neat just to run a week program in the summer where they could come for three hours, learn about horses, take a book home with them, take pictures. She stated that I’d like to give a gift certificate with the judge in their case to give to the child when they get permanent placement they can come back and take riding lessons because we’re really unsure if the state will allow with the liabilities for them to actually get on the horse.

Mr. Robertson stated that I see a list of your programs here, and they’re wonderful. He stated that we have read those. He asked, could you go on and tell us about the facility?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, the stall barn, we’d like to put up a 60 by 130, and the riding arena, 75 by 132. She stated that I’m looking for that large of an arena to make sure there’s adequate space in between horse and riders for safety issues. She stated that I also spoke to Chief Lain and offered buildings for the sheriff’s posse to do their drills when the weather is bad. She stated that with that large of a space they could do real good with that. she stated that the stall barn will be separated with a fire wall from the indoor riding arena. She stated that there will be approximately 36 stalls in the barn. She stated that I have nine of my own personal horses. She stated that we have plenty of pasture. She stated that where that parcel of property is there is 10 acres. She stated that we do (inaudible) horses inside and we do let them out. She stated that we have to cut the pastures down because that grass grows so well. She stated, parking, we’re going to put 10 handicapped spaces in at this point. She stated that if we need to put more, then we put more. She stated that the buildings are pretty much secluded from our neighbors. She stated that there is a block of trees from the road so you wouldn’t even be able to see towards the back of the buildings. She stated that I think my neighbors behind me might be able to see a portion of it. She stated that I’ve never looked from their aspect. She stated that I do have some letters of support to post. (At this time, Ms. Laczkowski read portions of those letters. The letters are in the file.) She stated that as far as the manure, I do have in my plans we’re spreading it over a farmer’s fields so that it’s utilized. She stated that I also spread it in my own garden. She stated that we’d like to offer it to the public free of charge, and we will have



Paul’s Auto Yard – they will dispose of the manure for us if we ever run into a Catch-22. She stated that we will evaluate it every week, but I’d rather see it do something good for the community at this time.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

John Tidwell Sr., 823 N. 625 E., stated that I’m opposed to it. He stated that their 10 acres comes up to the back of my property and it takes up about half of my property line. He stated that the lots out there that we have are about 110 feet wide and 330 feet long. He stated that we’ve been there since ’88 and we put a lot of money into the property and we fixed an area up in the back intentionally to get it away from the houses on either side of us because there is nothing back there and if we have the grandkids over we have a nice greenhouse out there and a place for a campfire to do hot dogs and all that stuff. He stated that I just see problems. He stated that it’s one thing to have a few horses back there grazing, but if you end up with people out there riding you’re stirring up all this dust. He stated that I’m still concerned about the waste from the animals. He stated that there are numerous dogs out there now and there is two of them that come down my property and they just run loose in the neighborhood. He stated that there are two that are chained up on the property somewhere. He stated that one of them is in a doghouse up by the blue barn, just chained there and they bark constantly. He stated that they hardly ever shut up, and the one out by the barn doesn’t have any shade. He stated that I guess that’s about it, other than the traffic and I know there’s nobody here tonight, but there’s other people in the neighborhood that came to my house that are unhappy with it, but I think they are just afraid that they might hurt somebody’s feelings and they have to live in the neighborhood with them and don’t want to do that, but, like the other gentleman said earlier, we set this place up. He stated that I’m getting ready to retire. He stated that my wife is going to retire shortly after me and we want some quiet and peace. He stated that we just had a guy next door to us that had two Great Danes that barked for four and five hours at a time. He stated that the woman finally left and took the dogs. He stated that the sheriff’s department was out there seven times, and I only called once, so there were six times that the other neighbors called on them. He stated that the conservation officer has been out there on them. He stated, I just…like the dogs barking now, I just don’t want the aggravation. He stated that I’m against it. He stated that I have nothing against these people, but I just want to voice my opinion that I’m against it.

Pat Fengya, 641 E. U.S. Hwy 6, stated that my property is down from you to the Southeast just a little bit. She stated that I built my home by myself in 1990 and sunk significant money into that facility. She stated that from what I hear, I’m neutral right now because I don’t have enough information to say that I agree or I’m opposed. She stated that I’ve got 3 acres and they’ve got 10 acres. She stated that they are pointing out two significantly allocated



areas to build a business basically. She stated that I’ve got this in the mail, and you probably have it also. She stated that we have six programs identified here which are very altruistic and ambitious and we have one program here, the boarding, which is going to be the livelihood to sustain these facilities. She stated that I would like to see a plan as far as what are the buildings that are going to be going up. She stated that I work in construction, so if you are working and paving the handicapped areas, you’ve now got some drainage issues, you’ve got runoff from the horses that I’m concerned about. She stated that we’ve got four horses behind me. She stated that it’s rural and you accept it, but there’s not that many of them, but when you are talking 36 horses and indoor riding stalls (sic) and all of these programs to support, it’s honorable but ambitious. She asked, what’s the staffing plan? She asked, how are you going to get this up to speed and then support it, so it can actually function? She stated that I would like to see if you don’t deny it or approve it tonight, to see some further information so we can evaluate it objectively. She stated that I don’t see enough here, from my experience in construction and design, enough here to evaluate and say yea or nay.

Eldora Tidwell, 823 N. 625 E., stated that the only thing he didn’t mention that I might mention is that I’m not sure how much traffic this would create, and it is residential all through there. She stated that I’m not sure what their program is, either, so I can’t really comment on that, because I’m not sure what they’re planning on and how they’re planning on doing it, but the traffic is one thing we were concerned about, too. She stated, then, the different types of people, which goes with their planning. She asked, how many people are they going to have helping them take care of these people while they are there with the horses, not necessarily taking care of the horses, but the people that are riding them. She stated that I would rather see it stay residential as to be zoned business, because I don’t really feel it’s a business area there.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that as far as traffic, we are five houses from Route 6. She stated that that traffic wouldn’t even touch their house, because their house is North of 6. She stated, the riders, there is one leading horse, two stabilizers on each horse. She stated that we work volunteers on this. She stated that we may start out with five children riding. She stated that the maximum would be 10 children riding on one given day. She stated that that is the use of that building. She stated that your average horse person, I was boarding three horses – usually it’s two – because you always buy one, then you gotta have another one for your boyfriend and daughter. She stated that as far as horse out, grazing pastures, for English horses that would be in this barn – that’s my specialty – part pleasure, English pleasure horses don’t spend a lot of time outside. She stated that they could get injured. She stated that they spend a lot of time exercising in indoor riding arenas. She stated that the dogs in the back barn both have shelters. She stated that I don’t know that the dogs bark all the time. She stated that I know that I have problems


with my beagle dog barking all the time, because my other dog comes up too close. She stated that I moved the dog, and I don’t seem to have too much of a problem with the dogs barking. She stated that I’m not here to discuss dogs barking; I’m here to discuss doing something for our community, and I don’t think it’s going to create a lot of noise. She stated that you really can’t see from the neighbors. She stated that there’s not really a lot of angles that you can look and actually see where the back barn is at this point, let alone the new barn, but we’d be happy to construct any trees or fence or something so Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell will not have to look t the barn. She stated that it’s approximately 321 feet from the back corner of the barn to their property, and I believe that’s the only neighbor that would be able to visibly see. She stated that the only thing that we had to do is we need to remove the tree at the drive, and we plan on doing that anyway.

Mr. Tidwell stated that about the traffic, I assume that all the traffic is going to come from South of Route 6. He stated that that road that’s used now is a thoroughfare to get to 900 to get to County Line Road. He stated that it’s got a lot of traffic on it now. He stated that as far as seeing the barn, I don’t have a problem with looking at the barn. He stated that I’ve been looking at the barn since it went up. He stated that that’s not the problem. He stated that my concern is all these strange people that are going to be there, looking at everything I’ve got on my property from the back, and, it’s one thing if somebody buys a house or a piece of property and puts a house on it and you end up with a neighbor and you build a rapport with the neighbor and you don’t worry about those things, but with a lot of strange people being back there now, am I going to have to worry about what I got back there and what’s going to happen to it.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

At this time, Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee report. The report is in the file.

Mr. Detert stated that I like the program, I like the idea that it’s going to be used for horses, but I always got to consider the aspect that if this were turned over to somebody else what would happen. He stated that I guess our attorney would say that we could put enough controls on it that we could cover that. He stated that it’s a Special Exception, and that lasts forever, so I got a little bit of mixed emotions about opening it up that much.

Mr. Elwood stated that you can also put a time limit on a Special Exception.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many horses are we going to have at one time?

Ms,. Laczkowski stated that the maximum number of horses that we would be able to house in this building is 36.




Mr. Brickner stated that there is only 30 stalls, unless you are using some of these for something else, but it looks like there is only 30 stalls in there, in your drawing.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I counted 36.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you actually considering having 36 horses at one time?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, well, I have nine of my own.

Mr. Brickner stated, personal horses, you have nine stalls for personal, 10 for handicapped, and on your list you got 11 for clients’ horses. He asked, who are the clients’ horses? He asked, are they just people who want to board horses there?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many horses would you have outside that your neighbors would be worried about at one time? He asked, would you have 36 horses out there?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, no there is not going to be 36 horses out there. She stated that they share pasture time. She stated that some can go out from morning time till noontime, then come in, and then the other ones go out. She stated that there are several (inaudible) that don’t go out for pasture turnout at all.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many employees are you going to need?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we are using, for actual employees, the Opportunity Work program. She stated that for stall cleaning, my young brother is 13 and he’s going to be cleaning stalls, so we’ll only need one or two stall cleaners. She stated that on the days when I will have programs going, those are half-hour sessions, so we’ll need two people – stabilizers, one person riding – the most like I said would be 10 people per session.

Mr. Brickner asked, that includes the people that are riding?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that there would be the person on the horse, and we would need one on each side of the horse, and then there will be one walking.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you need 10 employees, is that what you’re saying, 10 people there besides the…

Ms. Laczkowski stated that the stabilizers, a lot of times, are their parents.

Mr. Johnson stated, you would have 10 kids there riding, say, but you would only have two people walking and one in front of the horse.


He stated that it’s not 10 employees. He stated that it would be 10 kids with more or less three people.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you only going to have one kid riding at a time?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that the most – and I would really have to check into this – the most I would ever have would be 10 people in the arena at one time.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you saying 10 horses or 10 people?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, no, 10 people.

Mr. Robertson stated, and there’s three per horse, so you’re saying three horses, and an extra person there.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right.

Mr. Brickner asked, what I really just want to know is how many people you’re going to employ.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that you don’t employ these people. She stated that they are all on a volunteer basis. She stated that the only people that are going to be employed are from the Opportunity Work Center program people that we are going to use for stall cleaners and hot walkers.

Mr. Brickner asked, this is all indoors? He asked, you’re not going to be riding outdoors? He asked, this is all inside, and nobody’s going to be riding outside?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that no handicapped…

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t mean handicapped. He asked, nobody is going to be riding outside?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I ride outside.

Mr. Brickner asked, how about all these clients?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah, the clients can ride outside.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you could have 11 people out there riding horses in a 10-acre area?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yes, you could.

Mr. Brickner asked, how are you going to get rid of the manure?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I do have a (inaudible) and the personal waste shall be removed by Able Disposal and shall be used as fertilizer. She stated that the farmer that adjoins my property likes



us to spread manure on his 100 acres.

Mr. Brickner asked, you said Able is going to remove the manure?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that that’s the dumpster, that’s for our garbage, just garbage. She stated that we’d like to offer it to the public if they’d like to use it for their gardens.

Mr. Johnson stated that we have a container there and we can call them anytime and they said they would pick it up.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I would just like to see it used for something good, other than just in the dumpster.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess it just seems awful small to be riding this area. He stated that I know we had a riding stable and I think it was boarding down South and it seemed like they had either 16 or 20 acres. He stated that I’m not a horse person. He stated that I think it’s admirable for you to be proposing this equestrian center for the kids. He stated that I just don’t understand enough about how much room is needed for a horse. He stated that it just seems like there is not enough room to do everything on this 10 acres that you’ve got proposed.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that on 6 there is Jackson Farms, which is a boarding center. She stated that they have about 30 stalls in there and they have just a little tiny block of land, it may be an acre.

Mr. Hudson asked, do they ride there?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that pretty much everybody that has an indoor riding arena spends all their time in the indoor riding arena. She stated that we’re talking people that show horses. She stated that it’s kind of dangerous for me to be out riding my horses in an outdoor arena. She stated that I don’t like it, and I prefer to be inside where it’s safer for me and the horse, and that’s why I say for boarders I’m trying to get the English people, because the English people like to be inside. She stated that that’s why people go to boarding centers with indoor riding arenas. She stated that I have a friend who is renting a stall at Jackson Farms. She stated that she has a property just like mine – a house and a barn – but she doesn’t have an indoor riding arena so can’t work her horse appropriately, so she rents a stall. She stated that I have a couple horses out in training for the specific reason that I don’t have a place to ride inside, so the majority of people that board horses that are English, we don’t want to be outside, and that’s why we target them because we want our horses inside where we’re safe. She stated that there is not a lot of traffic with horse barns.

Mr. Hudson asked, the stalls that you have marked handicapped horses, are those horses to be used for the people that are..that you are providing this service to?



Ms. Laczkowski stated, right. She stated that those horses will be under my name. She stated that we will be using those horses for the therapeutic riding program. She stated that those horses will be deemed safe so we’ll be using each and every one of those horses. She stated that these mostly are retired horses that people are donating, instead of sending them to slaughterhouses, so as to give them a final purpose in their final days of life. She stated that most of these horses are over 20 years old.

Mr. Brickner asked, how about your hours of operation and your days? He asked, what are you going to..how long and how often are you going to be open?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we’re thinking that 10 a.m. is the earliest that anyone would show up at the barns till 7 p.m. in the winter hours and 9 p.m. in the summer hours.

Mr. Brickner asked, so, what time do you start in the morning? He asked, what time are you going to open up?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, 10 a.m.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to have any outdoor lighting?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we don’t have any plans for outdoor lighting at this time.

Mr. Brickner asked, is that seven days a week?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think it’s too ambitious. He stated that I mean, a Special Exception, we can limit the number of horses?

Mr. Detert stated that the attorney says we can do pretty much what we want.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m worried about the neighbors, the dust.

Mr. Robertson stated that I wonder if we could limit how many horses could be outside at a time, maybe just three horses riding outside at a time, something like that, and then I worry about adequate screening for Mr. Tidwell. He stated, and I mean really good screening.

Mr. Hudson stated, not only that side, but we’ve got the South side, too, which appears to be…I think those are homes…yeah, it looks like homes along 6, also, although that’s more wooded than some of these areas.

Mr. Robertson stated, and quite a bit larger there, looks like.



Mr. Detert stated that I have a question on handicapped horses. He asked, do you pick really very gentle horses and assign them to that task?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that they have one foot in the grave. She stated that their days are done. She stated that these are horses that are foundered, they’re lame. She stated that I do rescue horses. She stated that I have a cause. She stated that I know it’s ambitious, but I am a cause.

Mr. Detert stated that having done considerable riding I know that horses sometimes have a mind of their own and I’ve been thrown a few times because I wasn’t paying attention.

Ms Laczkowski stated, hence the indoor riding arena.

Mr. Robertson stated, going back to screening, what could you do with screening along the West side, the Northwest edge, is that where Mr. Tidwell is? He asked, are you on the Northwest?

Ms. Tidwell answered, but too far away from a mike (inaudible).

Mr. Robertson asked, all the way around? He stated that we’re just trying to see where the screening would go. He asked, all the way around the property?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I think there’s just this little spot right by your house. She stated that you can’t see anything from my direct neighbor’s house.

Mr. Detert stated that I kind of feel like it’s kind of ambitious for the space and the number of horses and stuff, and I don’t disagree. He stated that I’m almost of the opinion that I’d like to visit and review the minutes and come back.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that the number of horses, according to the rule, is 20,000 square feet plus 5,000 square feet for each horse over four, which equals 80 horses.

Mr. Robertson stated that we had that on another case, and we were staggered at how many horses were realistically allowed, but we’re not bound by that. He stated that we can limit it if we want to. He stated that Mr. Detert’s asked if we can continue this so he could review the minutes.

Mr. Detert stated that that’s my feeling. He stated that if you guys feel confident…

Mr. Brickner stated that I looked for this place and I couldn’t find it. He stated that I don’t know if I was looking – I thought it was like Old Sumac Road over there someplace. He stated that I never did find the place, so, I didn’t get a chance to look at it. He stated


that I’d like to continue it because I’d like to look into it myself. He stated that I think that’s a lot of horses, a lot of riders and I’m really worried about the neighbors.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m worried about how that operation is going to run. He stated that we don’t really have a firm plan in front of us. He stated that she said a lot of things, but I’d like to think about it.

Mr. Hudson asked, when we talk about the traffic, yes, if the personal horses, and the handicapped horses are yours – and I counted 10 – how many personal horses do you have?

Mr. Brickner stated, 9. He stated that something’s not adding up to 36 here.

Mr. Hudson stated that it seems like your horses are going to stay there, the handicapped horses are going to stay there, so the traffic is going to be generated by the client horses, is that correct?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right.

Mr. Robertson asked, well, all the people coming to use the handicapped horses.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess I’m talking trailers and trucks. He stated that when you talk about the traffic, um, these trailers get stored onsite?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, absolutely not. She stated that the only trailer on that property is mine. She stated that that’s the only one that’s going to be there.

Mr. Hudson asked, so the client horses would be brought in for a period of time and they would contract with you for the next month or the next two months or six months or a year.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right. She stated that the only time the horses would leave the property is if they were going to a show, to the vet. She stated that it’s not like we’re going to have an operation where we have handicapped kids coming from 9 to 9:30, 10 to 10:30, 12 to 12:30, 6 to 6:30. She stated that it’s not going to be going all day long and never stopping. She stated, we’re talking, like we’d have it Tuesdays or Saturdays or Sundays, Mondays, but it’s not going to be that I wake up in the morning and start a handicapped program and not be able to stop till 9:00 at night. She stated that that’s not what we’re speaking about.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think we all like the handicapped idea, I think that’s great, but….

Mr. Detert stated that we have dust control to think about, parking to think about.

Mr. Brickner stated that the riding the horses outside where it affects the neighbors, the dust in a 10-acre pasture.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t understand. He stated that I don’t know what horses do to the ground. He stated that I’m referring back to this case we had that was either earlier this year or late last year, we got into discussions of what the horses do to the turf…

Mr. Robertson stated that they just tear it up.

Mr. Detert stated that they’re tough on turf.

Mr. Hudson stated that I hear the driveway was a lot of sand and I just…I guess I just don’t understand enough about it.

Mr. Detert stated that I didn’t get out to the place either and I would like to look more thoroughly.

Mr. Robertson stated, the arena inside, if most of them are in the inside arena, I think that’s another….that’s great. He stated that if they’re riding outside it might be a problem.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that for the outdoor riding arena we’re more than happy to put shredded tires in there.

Mr. Robertson stated, so you’d have just a regular place, not that they would ride all over, but that they would ride in a…

Ms. Laczkowski stated that my daughter rides all over the property, but they go through the forest, that little patch of trees.

Mr. Hudson stated, so now you’re saying that the riding outside is going to be confined to an arena?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, well, yeah.

Mr. Detert stated that she said that she was going to ride her own horses outside.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that my daughter rides all over the property.

Mr. Hudson asked, but the clients that would be coming in there, they would be riding either indoor or outdoor arena, not all over the…

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yes. She stated that these are people that are getting ready for a show. She stated that they don’t trail ride their horses. She stated that if they want to trail ride they open up the back gate and go through the farmer’s field and go over the railroad tracks and go trail riding there. She stated, I mean, it’s not a whole lot of fun.




Mr. Robertson asked, your outdoor arena, what would the surface of that…how big and what is it? He asked, is it sand?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that right now it’s sand, but if the dust from the sand is an issue, which it’s never been before, we would be more than happy to put the shredded tires down.

Mr. Robertson asked, you could put shredded tires on the outdoor arena and there wouldn’t be any dust from that.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, absolutely.

Mr. Robertson asked, what would be the size of that outdoor arena?

Mr. Johnson stated that I want