BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
May 17, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on May 17, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Robert Detert, Rich Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure and Toni Byers.

Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the April 19, 2006 BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 03-UV-7. Barry & Theresa Olsen, 134 Martin Ct., Kouts, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a landscaping business at 134 Martin Court, in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Olsen stated that he is seeking a renewal of this Use Variance. He stated that we just want to extend that for another three years to store equipment in the building on our property.

Mr. Hudson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have been none.

Mr. Burns asked what stipulations were placed on this.

Mr. Robertson stated that we approved it for three years instead of five years because we wanted to look it over.

Mr. Burns asked, outside storage?

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, there was supposed to be no outside storage. He stated that the idea was to get all the equipment moved into a building.

Mr. Brickner asked, six employees? He asked, you don’t have more than six, right?

Mr. Olsen stated, no. He asked, that also was a stipulation with vehicles, wasn’t it?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes. He asked, no fuel stored on the premises?

Mr. Olsen stated, no.


Mr. Detert stated that the pictures he took show outside storage. He asked, is that temporary, or what? He stated that there’s a tractor, a truck or a trailer. He stated, a tractor, trailer and a truck. He stated that if there was no outside storage, why do the pictures show that?

Mr. Hudson stated, I think it says all equipment has to be stored inside of the building after 5 p.m.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, that’s what I’m asking. He asked, was that during the day, or what?

Mr. Siminski stated that these pictures were taken on a Friday evening. He stated that I did knock on the door and nobody was home, but they were taken approximately around 5:00, but at that time, nobody answered the door.

Mr. Detert asked, don’t you put it in after 5 p.m.? he asked, do you normally put your equipment in at night?

Mr. Olsen stated, yeah.

Mr. Robertson stated that the day that Mr. Siminski was out there he took some pictures where they are outside. He asked, is that a normal thing, or do you know what happened?

Mr. Olsen stated that if it’s raining and we have mowers on the trailers we back the trailers into the shed so they won’t get rained on.

Mr. Brickner asked, you move them in if it’s raining, but if it’s not raining they stay outside?

Mr. Olsen stated, well, we leave them on the trailer. He stated that we back the trailer in and leave them hooked up.

Mr. Robertson stated, I think what we’re trying to get at is how come these are outside? He stated that the idea is that these were supposed to be inside.

Mr. Olsen stated, well, also, the building was cut down in size from what we wanted initially, too, and we get everything we can inside.

Mr. Detert asked, but you still have outside storage?

Mr. Olsen stated, a couple things, yeah.

Mr. Brickner asked, what do you have to do to get it inside? He stated that we want that stuff inside.

Mr. Olsen asked, what would we have to do? He stated, probably make the building a little bit bigger.

Mr. Brickner stated that when we made the stipulation you didn’t have a problem with that, that was agreeable to you. He stated that you had the same building then that you have now, right?

Mr. Olsen stated, right?

Mr. Brickner stated, and you said then that you would store inside, but you’re not.

Mr. Olsen stated, just about everything. He stated that there’s probably 80 to 90 percent that goes inside.

Mr. Burns asked, did you expand your business?

Mr. Olsen stated, yeah.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, yeah, that’s what I figured. He stated, I mean, you have more equipment than you had three years ago.

Mr. Olsen stated, a little. He stated that it’s not a great deal.

Mr. Brickner stated that you also said you would pave your driveway. He asked, is it paved?

Mr. Olsen stated, no, because we put the door around behind so nobody would see them and the driveway is pretty long and we ran out of money. He stated that we are going to do that this summer. He stated that we thought it was more important to put the doors around behind so nobody could see the doors at any time and screen it all so everything behind couldn’t be seen.

Mr. Robertson stated, so these vehicles that are outside are behind the building from the road, is that what you are saying?

Mr. Olsen stated, yes. He stated that those cannot be seen from the road.

Mr. Brickner stated that if we approve this Variance for another three years we’re going to make the stipulation that you pave your driveway, that you get this equipment stored inside, and then if you don’t do it after that time, you won’t get it again.

Mr. Robertson stated, I just wonder where he’s going to put it if he doesn’t have room.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m not going to worry about that. he stated that if he says he’s going to put it inside, he has to put it inside.

Mr. Burns asked, if your business is growing are you going to want to expand more? He asked, are you going to have more equipment outside, or, is that your plans?



Mr. Olsen stated, no.

Mr. Burns asked, have you outgrown the area?

Mr. Olsen stated that I’m not going to do very much more. He stated that I’m not going to get more equipment, no.

Mr. Burns stated that I have concerns. He stated that that was the stipulation. He asked, how many employees do you have?

Mr. Olsen stated, four.

Mr. Robertson stated that it’s very nicely done. He stated that it’s certainly well landscaped, and it’s a nice-looking building. He stated that it’s just a matter of trying to jam all that stuff in there.

Mr. Burns stated that my thought is to extend it for one year instead of three, if we can do that, and see how things work.

Mr. Detert asked, can you work out a way to get all your equipment inside? He stated that that’s what we want.

Mr. Olsen stated, I can try to do that.

Mr. Detert stated that you have to.

Mr. Brickner stated, make it for one year and have him come back in one year and see what he’s got.

Mr. Burns stated that the driveway will get paved and the equipment is stored inside after 5:00 and all the other stipulations from the original case.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-UV-7 for 1 year with the driveway to get paved and all equipment to be stored inside after 5 p.m. and all the original stipulations to apply. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 96-V-18. Keith & Janice Meyers, 318 E. 1050 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 350 E., in Jackson Township.

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

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have not been.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 96-V-18 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 97-V-22. Mary Carey, 356 E. 1500 N., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of CR 1500 N., between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E., in Pine Township.

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

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 97-V-22 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-24. Daniel Herma, 1083 S. Baums Bridge Road, Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a manufactured residence located on the property in a temporary fashion, to care for in-laws, on the East side of Baum’s Bridge Road, between CR 1050 S. and the Kankakee River, in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. He stated that there is a picture in the booklet of that home. He stated that it almost looks like it’s a full-fixtured home, rather than a normal TCO. He stated that their parents live there and they are requesting one more year.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think when we put this up that we had a big discussion about manufactured versus mobile homes, and I think Bob Thompson explained that this is a mobile home per our ordinance and it can be removed and they agreed to remove it when it was no longer necessary.

Mr. Detert stated that the picture shows a foundation under it. He asked, how easily is that moved?

Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t know.

Mr. Hudson stated that typically on a manufactured home you would have a foundation. He stated that that would not be a modular.

Mr. Detert stated, it makes it a permanent home.

Mr. Robertson stated that Bob Thompson seemed to think that it would be no problem removing it.

Mr. Burns stated that I think they agreed to it.

Mr. Robertson stated, and they agreed to remove it.

Mr. Burns asked, it had a foundation, also, didn’t it?

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, the foundation was just because of the way it was, but it still is…we would treat it as a mobile home because, in fact, it will be moved.

Mr. Burns stated that Bob was right: It’s a gray area.


Mr. Detert stated, yeah, it’s a pretty gray area.

Mr. Burns stated that they did agree to it.

Mr. Robertson stated, but they did agree to move it, which is what we are concerned with, I think.

Mr. Detert stated that the other problem we had with this is they appear to be running a business out of there.

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s an additional problem. He asked, are we trying to address that now?

Mr. Detert stated that I think we ought to have him come in. He stated that I think we ought to continue this case and have him come in next meeting in person.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 99-V-24 to the 6-21-06 BZA meeting, with the petitioner to appear in person. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

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. (This Case was continued from the 4-19-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Karen Laczkowski stated that she and Mr. Johnson are the petitioners in this matter. Ms. Laczkowski handed out new documents and pictures to the members.

Mr. Siminski stated that there were a number of letters that came in after the public hearing closed and they are attached to the file.

Mr. Burns asked, how does that work? He stated that I guess we have to ask counsel. He stated that if those letters came in after the public hearing, can they be read into the minutes since the public hearing is closed?

Mr. Detert stated, but there’s additional information, right?

Mr. McClure stated that I think the question of whether or not they can be read into the record officially, I would say no, because the public meeting is closed, however, since they ran as part of the normal staff report whether or not complaints have come in are always part of the Board’s decision-making process, as far as complaints and the issues that are being brought up by neighbors, just like all the other cases that we just heard.

Mr. Robertson stated, so, we don’t have to read them into the record, but just kind of take note of them?

Mr. McClure stated that that is correct. He stated, give them the weight that you choose to.

Mr. Burns stated that that makes sense, because at other meetings even though the public hearing is closed we will recognize somebody.

Mr. Robertson stated, if we have additional information which helps us make the decision. He stated that she lists a couple impacts here: dust, she’s worried about dust; increased traffic; back to adjacent well and septic systems, volume of manure produced; and if there’s any nighttime riding, those are some of her questions. He stated, another one here, Keith Johnson. He stated that he’s not really protesting, but again kind of wants to know what’s going on, I guess. He stated, worrying about the manure; feed and supplies need to be delivered weekly; customers and patrons; traffic would be out of proportion to the surrounding neighbors. He stated that he worries about trespassers: “More people at this site can only expand the problems that I have to keep trespassers off my land. The request to operate a commercial business is not compatible” and asks that it be denied. He stated that here’s one that it asks that it not be read into the minutes and remain anonymous. He stated that we can’t remain anonymous so I just ignore that. He stated, so that’s that, I guess. He asked, do the members have some questions?

Mr. Brickner asked, how many horses total are we talking about, 14?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, no. She stated that it’s a 36-stall barn, four stalls will remain open for rescue, so those stalls will only be utilized if there are rescue horses in need of care.

Mr. Brickner asked, how many horses are you going to have?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we’re talking 32 horses, four horse stalls will remain open, so it’s a 36-stall barn. She stated that the rescue horses would only come in, be made better and then be sent back out to their adoptive homes. She stated that they would not be a permanent fixture. She stated that I’ve kind of outlined the horses. She stated that 12 stalls I need to pay for everything. She stated that these are targeted English show horses. She stated that these are horses that do not spend their days outside in pasture. She stated that they have weighted, padded show shoes on and remain in the barns. She stated that the most that they go out is into a round pen. She stated that it’s really dangerous to be turning these types of horses out where they could injure themselves. She stated that personally, most people don’t like their $30,000, $40,000 horse out in 10 acres of land running around. She stated that it’s just the way it is and I can kind of point out just a little research on a few barns that will be like this stable. She stated that Wind Chase Farms is in Valparaiso. She stated that they board 22 English show horses. She stated that they have 4 acres of land. She stated that their horses are only allowed out for two hours a day, if you pay an extra $50, which most people do not. She stated that they don’t want their horses running around the pasture. She stated that Arabian Nights Farm, which is where I have to send my horses up for training because I don’t have an indoor arena at this point, has 60 horses. She stated



that they have no pasture whatsoever. She stated that they are allowed out twice a week into a sandlot. She stated that Cedar Point Horse Park has 45 horses, 7 acres of pasture. She stated that about 20 of their horses are non-show horses and go out. She stated that Panazzo’s has 15 horses, 2 acres, and they have no turnout whatsoever unless those horse are turned out physically by the owner. She stated that they are only allowed to be out in their little paddock for a little time, then have to bring them back in. She stated that Jackson Farms, which is kind of across the street from my house and diagonal across 6 has 20 horses and they have, I hear, approximately 1 acre. She stated that someone told me there was another 1 acre pasture in the back lot. She stated that those horses only go out some of the time, and that’s if the owner is there turning them out, monitoring them. She stated that I have almost 11 acres of land to turn these horses out on. She stated, like I said, the English show horses, the ones that we’re targeting to actually make the money to pay for all this, they don’t go out anyway. She stated that I did block off the time for the horses that will be utilized for the therapeutic riding program, when they are going to go out. She stated that I have 10 of my own horses. She stated that only four horses and a pony will be going out. She stated that I have three separate pastures. She stated that they are going to be using them at different times during the day. She stated that I also have some pictures. She stated that starting with what you can see of the property, that’s the drive that goes down to the back barn. She stated that that’s what the neighbors will be able to see. She stated that this is my closest neighbor. She stated that this is me standing in what is our combined driveway. She stated that these pictures were taken last week. She stated that I have very, very green pasture. She stated that I have 10 horses right now and I have to cut the pastures down. She stated that I would have already cut them down by now but the rains have stopped me. She stated that this is to show how tall the grass is. She stated that this is a 12-inch bucket, and this is 10 horses eating on these pastures right now, so. She stated that this is what you can see, the one neighbor that has problems with the building, and this is from the back of the barn. She stated that this is what you can see of their property. She stated that all of my neighbors are pretty much covered by trees and won’t see a whole lot. She stated that the neighbor that has the problem, if you notice, the grass is very overrun by their property. She stated that there is a reason for it. She stated that my horses do not – they can’t – but they do not go over by their property. She stated that that same bucket is sitting over by their property. She stated that I don’t know what it is. She stated that I know they don’t do anything to my horses. She stated that they are really nice and we ride our horses up to their fence and try to talk to them and they’re sitting around. She stated that I think it’s just that they hear dogs and they have Arabian show horses and they don’t like all this, and this is what you can see of my property from their house. She stated that this is the place that’s kind of across the street on 6. She stated that that’s all of their land and they have 20 horses, so I definitely have plenty of room for the horses to be out in pastures. She stated that I want more



to be eating in pastures, so I put into play…they’re going out on schedules so that you can see that the riding program horses, the therapeutic riding program horses, and those are the same horses that are going to be doing the not for profit programs for the low-income children. She stated that certain days of the week they’re not even going to be going outside because they’re going to be doing their jobs. She stated that they’re going to be working, so the first Sunday of the month they’re not going to go out at all. She stated that the other three Sundays they can use the Southwest pasture from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. She stated that on Mondays they can use the Southeast pasture from 11 .m. to 4 p.m. She stated that on the second and fourth Wednesdays they can use the North pasture, which is my largest pasture, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Friday they can use the North pasture. She stated that my personal horses or my show horses will not be turned out because they’re coming into show season and they have their shoes on. She stated that five horses and a pony will be turned out on the first Sunday of the month and they will be going into the North pasture, and all the times are 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. She stated that Mondays are the North pasture, Tuesdays are the North pasture, and the first and third Wednesdays on the Southwest pasture. She stated that Thursdays are Southeast and Fridays on the Southwest pasture. She stated, and then Saturdays Southwest pasture. She stated that the therapeutic riding program, the blocks of time are going to be one hour. She stated that two riders, maybe three, but two riders is what we’re looking for at this time. She stated that the program will be held three days a week. She stated that the hours of operation will be from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. one day a week, and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. two days a week. She stated that the (inaudible) three volunteers already live on the site, so there is not going to be an additional…for one horse, three of us already live there, so we don’t need any extra people for that. She stated that we need three volunteers per rider and one trainer in the center. She stated that the development of this program will be with an occupational therapist, either onsite or at the place of their business. She stated that they may stop by. She stated that so for two riders, we will need the extra help of four people; three riders we will need the extra help of seven. She stated that it’s only going to be three days a week, and it’s going to be those blocks of time and that’s it. She stated that children whose parents are serving in Iraq, the rides are only going to be once a month. She stated that the rides will be for one hour. She stated that my daughter and I will oversee the ride so there’s no trainer needed for this program. She stated that the hours of operation will be the first Sunday of the month from 12 to 5 p.m. She stated that the low-income riding program, lessons will be given in one-hour blocks of time, the first and third Wednesday of every month. She stated that the hours of operation of that program is 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. She stated that lessons will be given by Nina, my daughter. She stated that she lives on the property with my assistance. She stated, therefore, no additional trainer will be needed for this program. She stated that the first Wednesday will be given for private lessons. She stated that there will be only one rider in the arena at a time and during the not-for-profit programs,



the barn is basically closed, the arenas are closed – that’s it. She stated that on the second Wednesday of the month, we’ll allow for group lessons, which is a maximum of two riders in the arena at one time, and group lessons will not be given until riders have confidence and skill to control their own horse, which will take at least five lessons, so I have it blocked off for the first Wednesday of the month, 4 p.m. one rider, 5 p.m. one rider, 6 p.m. one rider, and 7 p.m. one rider and then it’s done for that Wednesday. She stated that once the riders get more confident with their horse, we can have up to two and blocks of time are 4 and 5 and 6 and 7. She stated that the foster care day camp, we’re really not thinking it’s going to happen with the state liability of…the state is liable for those children, so it’s going to be too hard to be able to do that, so what we’re going to be able to do in lieu of that is when they get their permanent placement we can give them a gift certificate and they can come and take a riding lesson, and those blocks of time will be used for low-income family riders, so it’s not going to add on any extra days. She stated, public boarding for the 12 stalls, the daily operation is going to be 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., which enables those who work days, midnights, three to 11 shifts the opportunity to see their horses. She stated that the average person owns two horses, sometimes three. She stated that the average person visits their horse one time a week. She stated that the average person’s length of stay is an hour and a half. She stated that the average person boarding horses must work for a living, therefore will leave the daily care to the boarding center, and the average person puts in at least a 40-hour work week, therefore, with kids, household duties, extracurricular activities, they have enough time in their schedules to visit their horses once a week. She stated that that is why they usually board their horses, instead of keeping their horse at home, and I’m just as guilty because I boarded my horses for years and I lived across the street from the boarding center, and you were lucky to see me just once a month paying my board. She stated that I had to work to pay for all of it, so that’s pretty much typical. She stated that you have a few people that do come out two, three times a week to see their horses, but with as much as they’re working to pay for the upkeep of the horses, they come for the riding lessons, basically is what they do. She stated, therefore, with 12 stalls, the average amount of visitors, of owners visiting their horses will be about 6, because your average person owns about two horses. She stated that sometimes they own three. She stated that 80 percent of the traffic will be coming from Highway 6. She stated that that’s just a given. She stated that we live a fourth of a block, half of a block, from Highway 6. She stated that it only makes sense that they are going to be coming from Highway 6 as it is. She stated that we are five houses from 6. She stated that to my knowledge, at this point, no neighbors from our house to 6 have any problem with traffic. She stated that the one neighbor that has complained has a very limited view of the property. She stated that her view will be the back of the indoor riding arena as I showed in the pictures. She stated that dust is not an issue. She stated that the indoor riding arena is up, made of sand and shredded tires. She stated that the current arena is made of sand, and we have no problem


with dust at this time, and we can add shredded tires to that arena. She stated that the drive is to the barn and dust has still not been an issue. She stated that the drive is too far away from anything to be a harm. She stated that we can add shredded tires or gravel, but we’d probably have to put a fence up so that the horses are not going into the drive, which, we don’t have a problem with doing that, either. She stated that the barn is approximately 650 feet from the road, therefore it really won’t affect any neighbors. She stated that as you can see from the pictures, you really can’t see a whole lot of houses from the back of the property or the front of the property. She stated that it’s pretty all enclosed anyway. She stated that there are already two businesses on this road. She stated that this is not just a rural road that there’s nothing on. She stated that there are two existing businesses on this road. She stated that Dr. Blum is a veterinarian – she’s on this road – and a few houses down is a dog training center. She stated that the average horses to use the pasture. She stated that the boarded horses will be kept inside the barns. She stated that they will be English show horses, and they will have padded shoes with weights on their feet and that would be a danger to themselves if they were turned out. She stated that we will add a round pen so that they can be let out for one hour two times a week, which is what standardly is done with English show horses. She stated that all the programs will be run inside the indoor riding arena. She stated that I’m not going to be putting any lighting in – none of that. She stated that it’s all inside. She stated that I need all these kids, for safety’s sake, I need them inside, the horses focused on nothing else but a wall and some dirt on the ground.

Mr. Burns asked, to summarize everything, how many people at one time? He asked, are they going to have different schedules, overlapping schedules?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I have nothing overlapping. She stated that everything is all blocked off. She stated that we are looking for the maximum for the therapeutic riding program, which is the three days a week: If we have two riders, we will need four extra people; if we have three riders…

Mr. Burns asked, so that’s six people for two riders?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we’ll need four extra people, because we already have three, within ourselves, so we already have three – we’ll need four.

Mr. Burns asked, what if the riders increase? He asked, so your people would have to increase?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that this is a handicapped riding program. She stated that you can’t just put a dozen people in there. She stated that it’s too dangerous. She stated that there’s too much going on. She stated that you need to…if you have an autistic child that child would probably be the only child in the arena.



Mr. Burns stated, so you would limit it.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, exactly. She stated that we definitely do not want an autistic child having an episode or getting confused or emotional. She stated that you want to keep everything downtuned for safety. She stated that I’m a nurse, and I always err on the side of caution in everything in my life, so, I’m not so sure that I’m real comfortable with three riders in the arena at this time. She stated that I’m like see how it goes, but two is where my comfort level is, and, like I said, if you get an autistic child it’s going to be just that one.

Mr. Burns asked, there’d be no riding outside?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I personally ride outside only because I don’t have an indoor arena and English show horses really don’t ride outside.

Mr. Burns stated, but you’d also have public. He stated that you have 12 stalls for horses. He stated that they could come at the same time.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I’m only allowing English show horses. She stated that to charge the board that I am charging, the trainer that I have on staff, this is what we do. She stated that this is the type of barn that we are.

Mr. Burns stated that I understand that, but I’m trying to understand the volume of people and the traffic. He stated that if you’re having the handicapped day, we have say, 6 people, and if the public people come in…

Ms. Laczkowski stated that the barn is closed. She stated that I don’t need a bunch of people. She stated that these kids need to focus on what they’re doing.

Mr. Burns stated, so the maximum amount of people at one time, right now, is 6 people?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah.

Mr. Burns asked, at any given time of the day, at any day of the week?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah, pretty much, because you can look at my (inaudible) extra people with three riders the most that I would need on the property would be seven extra people if I went up to three. She stated that right now I’m looking at two riders.

Mr. Burns stated, plus, family or sightseers.





Ms. Laczkowski stated, right. She stated that it could be carpooling. She stated that it could be mom and dad and grandma and grandpa. She stated that it could be.

Mr. Burns stated that it could be.

Mr. Brickner asked, it could be how many?

Mr. Burns stated that it could be seven plus family or friends – like 10, 12? He stated that I would assume family would come.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I would hope. She stated that I really would hope, and usually they always come in one car, maybe two – grandma and grandpa. She stated that it would be good for the child if grandma and grandpa could come. She stated that we live right off of Highway 6. She stated that my street is a very busy road. She stated that it’s up and down there all day long. She stated that it’s not like it’s this rural – it’s a dead-end – it’s not that. She stated that it’s growing.

Mr. Burns stated, personally, I don’t have problems with the horses or the land for that. He stated that I do have a concern about the volume of people and the traffic – dust, waste, issues like that.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that waste was addressed at the last meeting and I don’t know if you have the letter from the last meeting. She stated that we do have Paul’s Auto Yard is going to be removing all manure every single week, so the manure is not going to be a problem.

Mr. Burns stated that part of removal is also maintaining it during the week. He asked, is it going to be cleaned up from the stalls?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that my barns are cleaner than my house.

Mr. Robertson asked, you’ve got 10 horses there now, right?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right.

Mr. Robertson asked, and how long have you had them there?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we’ve been living there for almost two years. She stated that the people that lived there prior to us, I believe, had 12 horses. She stated that it is a horse place. She stated that that’s what we had bought property for, to do these programs for these people that really – we don’t have a therapeutic riding program in Porter County. She stated that it’s sad that all of our Porter County needs people are driving to Hobart and they’re driving to Crown Point. She stated that they should have a place where they can do it here.




Mr. Robertson stated that the dust, Rich, I think she pretty well covered the dust with the rubber shredded tires and it’s a sand…there is an outdoor arena, but it’s sand; it doesn’t really create dust.

Mr. Burns stated that I just want to make sure that – don’t take me out of context – but I don’t want it to turn into a pony mill, because the neighborhood is residential around you, and I don’t have a problem with horses grazing or someone riding, but I’m just concerned about the volume of that sort of thing.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that like I said, I had to send my horse up to train at Arabian Nights Farm, and they have 60 horses and 25 of those horses are in training, so their owners are supposed to get their one lesson a week; I was lucky to get up there for two two times a month I was doing good, and any time I’d get there the maximum number of cars I would see is four to five. She stated that we work for a living. She stated that we can’t have all these great things if we can’t work for a living. She stated that it’s a hobby.

Mr. Burns asked, how many employees onsite, three?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah.

Mr. Robertson asked, just three employees?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that Mike, myself and my daughter pretty much take care of everything right now, and my daughter has been working as a trainer for a really long time and she’s had the responsibility since 9 of cleaning a 45-stall barn, so, it’s not unattainable.

Mr. Robertson stated, that’s a lot of mucking.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, well, I thought that if she wanted this she had to work for it, and she wanted it and she worked free for a lot of years, but she was getting something. She stated that she was getting her lessons for free and she got a little bit off of her board and this is what she wants to do with her life. She stated that she wants to be a trainer. She stated that she wants to work with these kids. She stated that I want to work with these kids. She stated that we want to make a difference. She stated that we have this great piece of land. She stated that we want to do something for people that don’t have what we have or can’t walk around the way we walk around. She stated that they deserve something out there, and I’m willing to put my time in to give it to them.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m just curious. He asked, how many people are here tonight concerning this petition?

(A show of hands)





Mr. Detert stated that I’d be more than willing to let you look at the information she passed out, but it strictly pertains to the cost and the profit on the horses that will be there. He stated that there’s really nothing new as to what she wants to do, but if you want to look at this, you’re welcome to look at it. He stated that I guess, you know, I got mixed emotions on it. He stated that I think what she’s trying to do is commendable, but I’m just concerned about it getting out of hand and going beyond, although our attorney did, last time, advise us that we could limit a Special Exception to them, and it would expire when they went out of the business, and we could put as many reservations on it as we wanted to, which, in my opinion, would be all of them that she has testified to, so I’ll pass onto Marv. He stated that he’s got some questions.

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s what I was going to – the Special Exception part was what concerned me, because then we lose control, but I think that was explained to us, that we can control it, and we can have them come back in five years or so and see how things are going?

Mr. McClure stated that that’s correct.

Mr. Brickner stated, so that it doesn’t get out of hand and we can review it again.

Mr. McClure stated that one of the points of a Special Exception having to come here is so that any additional requirements that the Board feels they need to add to protect the surrounding property owners, etc., can be added then this is the time to do that.

Mr. Brickner stated that that makes me feel a lot more comfortable about this. He stated that I did have some questions. He stated that you stated that there would be no lighting, no additional lighting outside. He asked, you’re not going to put up any lights.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that we’re not putting up any outdoor lighting on the property so that there’s going to be any floodlights into any neighbors or anything like that.

Mr. Brickner asked, but you are going to install some additional lighting? He asked, are your intentions to have some additional lighting?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, for the roadway so you can see where you are going, yeah.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to pave the road? He stated that I think it would be really a benefit if that road were paved to keep the dust and…

Mr. Johnson stated that we could do it partway back as long as we didn’t go into the back pasture, because then you won’t have horses…


Mr. Brickner stated, as long as the dust was kept under control.

Mr. Johnson stated that it’s gravel most of the way, well, actually, about half of the way back there now, and in the front, I want to take and recut out the grade and take out the big tree on the corner.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you can see better; that’s a good idea.

Mr. Johnson stated, yeah, we checked it with a laser, and we can actually raise the driveway up 2.5 feet, so that will give you better visibility.

Mr. Brickner asked, you’re going to build another building. He asked, are you going to increase the size of the building that you have now?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, no. She stated that this is the buildings that we’re trying to put up to do all this.

Mr. Brickner asked, this is what you planned on?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, right.

Mr. Brickner asked, signage? He asked, you’re not going to have to…you’re not going to be able to put up any…other than a directional sign, basically, any signage. He asked, do you have any plans for signs?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, well, we had hoped to put, you know, Shooting Star Equestrian Center out front. She stated that it said that we had to re-petition you, I guess, in order to do that?

Mr. Brickner stated, no, that’s not allowed. He stated that signage is not allowed.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I just thought because the other two businesses on the street have signs up that we could…

Mr. McClure stated that she could request for a Use Variance and come back.

Mr. Brickner stated, she’d have to get a Variance for the sign.

Mr. McClure stated that that’s correct. He stated that if the Special Exception were granted then you could come back to us with a Variance for a sign.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that I think Fred said that I could put a sign up, but just a picture of a horse or something like that and then if…as far as a sign, and it honestly slipped my mind when I was filing all this stuff about a sign.




Mr. Brickner asked, how about parking? He asked, do you have…are you going to make more parking room for…

Mr. Johnson stated that back by the back barn we have a spot where we’re going to put parking and I believe it’s on the drawing.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah, it’s on the drawing.

Mr. Brickner asked, so there’d be plenty of room to turn around?

Mr. Johnson stated, yeah.

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yeah, we have to have something for the handicapped people, five handicapped spaces for parking.

Mr. Johnson stated that we would have a concrete pad where they can pull up and get them out. He stated that the rest of it’s going to be…it’s all sand driveway now because of the horses.

Mr. Brickner stated that those were the questions that I had. He stated that I really think it’s commendable except that I think that we have to control the size of it and the traffic in the area and if we can do that…

Mr. Detert stated that that’s what concerns me, is how do we control it?

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess the way we control is to ask them to come back, you know, over a period of time to see how things go, but I think if we do anything, this needs to be made a part of the motion and with anything else that we’ve added: the fact that there is no outdoor lighting. He stated that I don’t see anything mentioned in here about lighting, and the driveway issue that was brought up I think needs to be included in this, also. He stated that Fred just said this needs to go to the Development Advisory Committee and would have to go on to the Plan Commission for another public hearing.

Mr. Siminski stated, and, if it’s approved that’s the next step. He stated that it will go to the Development Advisory Committee for the plans for the building for approval and review.

Mr. Hudson asked, does the site layout and drainage and everything like that, that will be considered along then also?

Mr. Siminski stated that it should be. He stated that they look at everything.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think it’s a commendable enterprise. He stated that I think it’s just wonderful that somebody’s willing to do all this.




Mr. Siminski stated that there was one caution that we put in the staff report before is that right on the corner, the entrance coming in, you have a big hill and a tree.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think that’s what he just said, that he was going to take it down.

Mr. Siminski stated, okay, I missed it, because there was some visibility problems coming out of there.

Mr. Johnson stated that I wanted to take that down, and actually, I could raise the drive about 2.5 feet. He stated that I can raise it up without changing any of the way the drainage is going to go, because it will still run down the drive, same as it does now, and it won’t affect the neighbors that way.

Mr. Robertson stated that Jackson Farms is right across the street, isn’t it?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that it’s kind of, you go out 6 and then you just go down about an eighth of a mile and it’s right there.

Mr. Robertson asked, you’re a nurse?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson asked, where?

Ms. Laczkowski stated that right now I’m off a little bit. She stated that I’m going to have shoulder surgery, but I’m a hospice nurse now and a long-term care nurse.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that was presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property; that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; that the tree be removed at the entrance of the driveway and that the skirt on the driveway be widened to allow better ingress and egress.

Discussion:

Mr. Johnson stated that that was something I was going to ask you. He stated that when you come up towards that tree, if I actually moved the drive, just widened it and moved it over that way, you could actually see a lot better. He asked, would that be a better thing to do?

Mr. Robertson stated, whatever’s the best thing to do.





Mr. Johnson stated that it gives you more sight the more South you can get.

Mr. Brickner stated, move the driveway just…

Mr. Johnson stated, probably like 10 or 15 foot.

Mr. Brickner stated, all right. He stated that I’ll agree to that.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that were presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property; that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; and to move the driveway so the tree isn’t a problem.

Discussion:

Mr. Johnson stated that the tree has to come out still and that hill has got to be cut out, but what I’m saying is that where it’s at it comes out, you can’t cut anything out of the neighbors, so, if I go towards that tree, you get more visibility.

Mr. Brickner stated that I have no problem as long as the visibility is adequate.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that were presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property; that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; and to move the driveway so the tree isn’t a problem to improve the visibility.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated that she made a statement, and I wrote it down, that said all programs would be inside the riding arena.

Mr. Robertson stated that that’s not the private programs, I think.

Ms. Laczkowski stated that it’s the not for profit programs.

Mr. Robertson stated, why don’t you add that to the motion.




Ms. Laczkowski stated that it is on this, all programs will be….

Mr. Robertson asked, so it’s already in there?

Ms. Laczkowski stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson stated, so, okay, good. He asked, now what about a time frame?

Mr. Brickner stated, three years.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t know; just so it’s got a time limit so we can follow up on it. He stated that I’d say three years.

Mr. Brickner stated, make it three years.

Mr. Hudson stated, and then they come back.

Mr. Robertson stated, come back for review.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 for 3 years, with the petitioner to come back before the Board at the end of that time for review; with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that was presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property; that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; and to move the driveway so the tree isn’t a problem and to cut down the tree; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by counsel, said findings being in the file Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Ms. Laczkowski asked, now, I can still have my four rescue stalls, correct?

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah. He stated, why don’t you say that, Marv, that you can have 32 horses with the addition of a possible four rescue horses.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 for 3 years, with the petitioner to come back before the Board at the end of that time for review; with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that were presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32, with the possible addition of four rescue horses at any one time; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property;



that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; and to move the driveway so the tree isn’t a problem and to cut down the tree; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated, just for clarification, too, that this is limited to them only.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 06-SE-4 for 3 years, with the petitioner to come back before the Board at the end of that time for review; with added to the motion all of the information that was presented by the petitioner, all of the restrictions that were presented by the petitioner, plus that we limit the number of horses to 32, with the possible addition of four rescue horses at any one time; that the driveway be paved at least halfway back from the road to the riding area; that there be no additional lighting other than the driveway that would illuminate any of the neighbors’ property; that there be no signs posted at this time; that the employees be six persons plus family; and to move the driveway so the tree isn’t a problem and to cut down the tree; with this Special Exception to be limited to these petitioners only; incorporating findings of fact as prepared by legal counsel, said findings to be in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

New Business:

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

Mr. Detert moved that we hear all of the next four cases at one time and vote on them separately. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. McClure stated, point of clarification, the (inaudible) made will be for each individual case in of itself, along with the individual vote. He stated that it will be one presentation and that presentation will be the record for individual case.

Mr. Robertson stated, right.

Case 06-SE-5. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located at 176 W. U.S. Hwy 30, in Center Township.

And

Case 06-SE-6. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located at 151 W. U.S. Hwy 30, in Center Township.

And

Case 06-SE-7. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located on a 1.26-acre parcel adjacent to and surrounded by property at 389 E. U.S. Hwy 30 (TNT), in Washington Township.

And

Case 06-SE-8. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located at 389 E. U.S. Hwy 30, in Washington Township.

Attorney Todd Etzler stated that I represent View Outdoor Advertising LLC. He stated that with me this evening is Peter Schroeder and Matt Felder from View Outdoor Advertising. He stated that we also have Ted Bratsos from All Steel Fabrication (sic), the contractor constructing these signs, and Jeff Vale from Milo-Vale Associates Freezers. He stated that as was indicated there are four petitions before you this evening. He stated that just so you get a little bit of orientation. He stated that the first one is on the West end of town. He stated that this is U.S. Hwy 30 and Hayes-Leonard Road. He stated that this is Hayes-Leonard School right here so that you can orient yourselves to that. He stated that the second property is a little bit further East at the corner of Highway 2 and U.S. 30, right here on Washington Street, that’s on the Southeast corner. He stated that there is a Speedway store or a gas station at that corner and an automobile lot. He stated that signs 3 and 4 are located further East. He stated that there is a TNT shop – it’s called TNT – at that location. He stated that they are much further East from the developed area of Valpo, the City of Valparaiso itself. He stated that each of these signs is located within the open – I’m sorry – the overlay zone of Highway 30. He stated that that’s the reason we’re here this evening. He stated that billboards are permitted in that area if we show several things. He stated that it says you need to come in for a Special Exception. He stated that this is not a Variance. He stated that this is something where the Commissioners, through adopting the ordinance, have indicated that these signs are appropriate in this area, under certain circumstances. He stated that under your ordinance those circumstances are that the Special Exception for the sign is in the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance; will not substantially and permanently injure the


appropriate use of neighboring property; and it serves the public convenience and welfare of the public. He stated that starting with the sign at 176 W. U.S. 30 – we’ll go from the West to the East on this – this sign is located on the Southwest – ‘er, Southeast corner of the intersection of Hayes-Leonard Road and U.S. 30. He stated that there are no other signs within 600 feet of this. He stated that that is one of the requirements of the ordinance. He stated that the other requirements are that you must comply with the various setbacks, and when we come in for our building permits the building commissioner (sic) will verify that we do qualify (sic) within all the setbacks that are necessary. He stated that this sign is not impeded by sight lines, meaning that coming out of any intersections or coming up over hills you are not going to have your vision as you are driving obscured by this sign. He stated that there is plenty of room to locate this sign within the setbacks and the traffic will not be affected by having the sign at this location. He stated that the next sign is at 151 E. U.S. 30, and that’s near the Speedway store. He stated that it also will comply with all of your setback requirements. He stated that it does not have any visibility problems for any traffic flowing past. He stated that the staff report indicated that there might be some issues about this is not the most visible sign, but my clients have looked at all those angles and have determined that it’s worthwhile to place a sign at this location, notwithstanding the fact that there might be other things in the area that may gather someone else’s view. He stated that the next sign is at 389 E. U.S. 30, and the next two signs really are very much of the same situation. He stated that if you recall this area there’s…there are about five or six buildings, commercial buildings, in this area, on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30. He stated that the sign is on two parcels that just happen to be owned by the same owner, but they also are not obstructing traffic or causing any traffic issues at this location. He stated that we have this evening several people I’d like to have discuss these signs, and what you will hear this evening is from Peter Schroeder, a representative of View Outdoor Advertising. He stated that he will tell you about the history of View Outdoor, what kind of signage they place on these signs (sic) and their history in this market and the users of these signs in this market. He stated that second, you will have Ted Bratsos of Steel Fabrication (sic). He stated that they are the company that creates, engineers and constructs these signs, and he will talk about the safety of these signs and there were some comments in the staff reports of what was called in the staff report a fail safe area, meaning, if the sign were to fall down, what would it fall down on, and after you hear Mr. Bratsos you will understand that these signs just…they don’t fall down. He stated that they are built to the same types of codes as the buildings that we’re talking about here. He stated, further, with the setbacks that are set forth with them falling down, if the wind is pushing this sign down you’ve got bigger problems in the area than just a sign falling down because a tornado is coming through and hitting at this exact spot. He stated that then, lastly, we will have Jeff Vale of Milo-Vale and Associates who has looked at various properties and done some research in Porter County and in Lake County, Northwest Indiana, regarding the valuation and the effect that these


signs are having on the properties that they are located on and adjacent properties. He stated, so first I would like to ask Peter Schroeder to come up and discuss View Outdoor Advertising.

Peter Schroeder, 396 S. 200 W., Valparaiso, stated, to give you a little bit of background on View Outdoor Advertising, View’s been operating for just a little over two years. He stated that it is primarily owned by Mr. Dean White, who some of you may or may not know is in the billboard business for a number of years, actually got started in the late 1930’s. He stated that he sold this company several years ago and has entered back into the business within the last couple of years. He stated that presently we have 26 outdoor advertising places in Northwest Indiana. He stated that every one that we have that is generating revenue they’re all sold to local advertisers. He stated that those are the type of people we target. He stated that primarily and really in our case all of our potential advertisers for these sites would be local businesses within this area. He stated that I might also add that Mr. White’s got a policy since the 1930’s that he will not allow adult-oriented businesses or any off-color type businesses to advertise on his billboards. He stated that that philosophy is certainly not going to change with View Outdoor Advertising, so, rest assured that these signs would be marketed to local businesses, sold to local businesses and used by local businesses.

Mr. Etzler stated that as you can see, the advertisers on these signs are local businesses, so they do serve a very good purpose for our local advertisers, but not only for the advertisers, but for the people seeking the services of those people within Porter County, so they are providing this public convenience in enumerating what types of businesses are here and addressing and assisting in the economic development of Porter County. He stated that next I would like to ask Ted Bratsos – he’s with All Steel Fabrication (sic) – to discuss the engineering and construction of these sites.

Ted Bratsos, 16301 Vincennes, South Holland, IL, stated that I am the owner and president of All Steel Structures. He stated that I started the company in 1987. He stated that I’ve worked in the business since 1980. He stated that my goal here is to try to address any questions that you might have about the structural integrity of the signs. He stated that I brought some blueprints, some structural blueprints, and pictures that will show the typical construction that’s planned for these signs. He stated that as was mentioned earlier, all the signs are designed, fabricated and erected in accordance with the appropriate ordinances and codes to meet the design criteria for your area. He stated that it also was mentioned, well, whether you adopt IBC code or BOCA code or whatever, it’s the same code that you’re using to ensure that your buildings are built appropriately to withstand the environment, the snow loads, the wind loads and things that are involved in the area that you are going. He stated that as I mentioned, I started this company in 1987 and we’ve built thousands of signs. He stated that I think it’s over 40 states that we have constructed signs in. He stated that that would include


of most recent notoriety the Hurricane Katrina area, in which we built several structures, none of which sustained any structural damage after the hurricane. He stated, again, built because it was designed to the codes of the area. He stated that All Steel Structures’ history is that we have never had a structural failure of any of the structures that we have built and we attribute that to the workmanship of our men and they do have the experience and knowledge to do the work in an appropriate manor for billboard construction.

Mr. Etzler stated that next I’m going to ask Jeff Vale to come up and talk about the evaluation and effect of these signs on adjacent properties. He stated that in your packet that was originally filed with you I included a survey done in the Tampa area, done by some educators down there who looked at the economic effect on adjacent…on properties that have billboards on them and generally they were favorable for having a billboard that did not detract on the values of those, so I’ve asked Mr. Vale to look at that, and also to look at local properties here to see if he sees any adverse effect on any of these properties.

Jeff Vale, 516 E. 86th Ave., Merrillville, stated that when considering the effect of (sic) value that a billboard would have on adjacent properties, right off the top of my head I was able to think of instances in other counties where there were billboard signs and properties that sold, and there was clearly no effect on value. He stated that I took a look around in Porter County, off U.S. 30, U.S. 6, Highway 49, to look at where some signs were and what our new commercial and industrial properties had sold (sic). He stated that there were a few examples, in particular, that I was able to find. He stated that however many signs, but in many cases, no properties that sold recently, so I wouldn’t have any basis on which to say whether or not the sign had any effect on value, one or the other. He stated that I did find a few that I thought were somewhat striking. He stated that there was one along 49, right in front of the Nissan dealership in Chesterton. He stated that there is a sign between the frontage road and the highway and the reason I say that it’s striking is because when that particular Nissan dealership sold a few years ago, its price per square foot of building is often how we compare these properties was one of the highest of any dealerships of any of the dealerships in this whole Northwest Indiana (sic). He stated that aside from that, on U.S. 30, I came across some properties that weren’t necessarily adjacent, but were fairly close, to some signs. He stated that one is where there is that new Nate’s car wash in Valparaiso, and right next to that is a First National Bank of Valparaiso bank branch. He stated that on the other side of U.S. 30 there is a sign there, and I don’t believe when either of those people developed those properties – both of the buildings are relatively recent – I don’t see that the billboard sign that was across the street had any detrimental effect on those plans. He stated that closer to where two of the signs that are part of this petitions – they’re going East on U.S. 30 near CR 400 – there is a sign East of 400, kind of between 400 and 450 – that isn’t necessarily adjacent to anything that sold, but there has been a building at 401 E. U.S. 30


that sold a couple of years ago and in terms of whether that value was affected by that billboard, I’ve used that particular sale of the property as a comparable sale of other appraisals I’ve done of similar properties, and that always seemed to fit in line with other comparable sales. He stated that based on those examples, and there are others I know of in other counties, I don’t believe these billboard signs would have any detrimental effect on adjacent properties, particularly in commercial or industrial zones. He stated that I’m the president of the Valparaiso group formerly known as Milo-Vale and company. He stated that I am licensed as a certified general appraiser in the state of Indiana, and also hold the MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute – which, to the general public, that may not mean a lot, but for bankers it’s a big deal in terms of proving the level of qualification for appraising that I have.

Mr. Etzler stated that looking through the staff reports, the last question that seemed to come out was the height of these signs, and the ordinance permits in each of these areas – the two furthest to the East are in C-4, I’m sorry – the two further to the West are in C-4 designations; the two further to the East are in Industrial designations. He stated that those ordinances we’re required to comply with the underlying zoning ordinance within the overlay zone, and they provide that for every foot that you set the structure back from the setback line you get an additional two feet of height, so when we come in for our building permit, and we have located the exact location of the sign, it will comply with those requirements. He stated that at this time, I will stop talking.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we should do these one at a time in terms of the public hearing so we don’t get confused and then open and close each one as we go. He stated that the first one will be Case 06-SE-6 (sic) and that’s at 151 W. U.S. Hwy 30. He asked if there is anyone who would like to speak against this petition or has any questions. He stated, wait a minute. He stated that I made a big mistake here. He stated that we need to do this in order. He stated that Case 06-SE-5 is the first one we’re going to do, and that’s going to be at 176 W. U.S. Hwy 30.

Richard Anderson, 9211 Broadway, Merrillville, stated that I am an attorney and I represent Lake County Trust 4989 and 4989 is the property owner directly to the East of this property. He stated that Lake County Trust is associated with Grand Corporation. He stated that we are in the preliminary stages. He stated that we bought this property a year and a half ago, and we are in the preliminary stages of developing approximately 9 acres in the area that this sign, or near where this sign is proposed to be located. He stated that I read the staff report, and, for the record, we were not notified of the public hearing. He stated that we’re here.

Mr. Robertson stated, and we’re glad to have you here.

Mr. Burns asked, why wasn’t he notified?




Mr. Robertson stated that that’s a good question.

Mr. Burns asked, how many feet?

Mr. McClure asked, are you an adjacent property owner?

Mr. Robertson stated that they are not.

Mr. Siminski stated that the rule is either two property owners away from a property, or 500 feet, whichever is less, so, it doesn’t show it on here.

Mr. Robertson asked, do you fall within that criteria?

Mr. Anderson stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, how long have you owned this property?

Mr. Anderson stated, about a year. He stated that my client has owned it about a year and a half. He stated that I think we’re past the March 1st of this year, I think it was after March 1st of last year, but it should have been reflected on the records of the County by now. He stated that it’s not something that was done in the last three months.

Mr. Siminski asked, who was the owner originally before you bought it?

Mr. Anderson stated, Mr. Kazlauski, who owns the property to the rear of this property. He stated that he’s now deceased.

Mr. Robertson stated, oh, there he is.

Mr. Anderson stated that he is deceased, but his wife is still living.

Mr. Etzler stated that we did send notice.

Mr. Burns asked, what address do you have for him?

Mr. Siminski stated that it says 1358 Hayes-Leonard Road. He stated that sometimes they can only go by what’s…I’m not saying that’s the case, but sometimes they can only go by what the Auditor’s…is in the Auditor’s book at the time, at the time frame, I’m not sure. He stated that I’m not making excuses, but I understand.

Mr. Anderson stated that I think basically the only thing I would request is that the public hearing stay open if, in fact…because I have not had time to obtain an appraisal, but I think I have enough information tonight to go forward with a remonstrance. He stated that basically what we want to point out is basically we’re looking at an upscale development on that corner and we have done some preliminary


survey work in purchasing that property. He stated that what I did is I had Krull today shrink down to just…area…to just the area where…when you look at this, basically, the property in question that’s owned by the petitioner’s owner is the property in the box, okay? He stated that the property that we own, which is not the entire 9 acres, but this is the first parcel, which is the L which goes around them not only to the South, but also to the East. He stated, now, in the presentation we’re talking about the fact that we’re going to be 10 feet from the property line. He stated that I want to point out to begin with that, if you look here, this is the building of the carpet store, so we’re 5.7 feet from the property line, according to Krull, in the front, we’re 5.6 in the back, so there’s really no room for a sign here. He stated that the property, now look from the street, the property…the building, is 69.7 from the East corner and 71.7 feet from the West corner. He stated that I guess the thing about it is that in the staff report they mentioned the fact – and if you look at the pictures that are presented with regard to this – they’re showing the sign going on the East side of the property, and there’s no room on the East side of the property for this sign, and, especially if we’re talking about a 10 by 30 sign and a V-shaped sign, so I guess when they’re talking about whether they can move it back in the setback, then it’s going to be in the middle of the building, or it’s going to be on our property. He stated that we’re basically saying that it does have an adverse effect on us, because you’re either going to put it right on the property line, which says that you’re not going to have a 10-foot setback and you’re not going to have a 65-foot setback, so that…we just don’t think this is appropriate in a C-4…one thing I will mention that Jeff Vale brought up, you know the Nissan car dealer, and we’ve read about it those of us who live in Porter County about that project that was proposed over there, that’s an industrial zone, that’s zoned industrial. He stated that this is zoned C-4, and I also want you to think about the fact that as you come up the hill on Highway 30 coming into Valpo, this is like the gateway, and we’re trying to do something nice here and to put up a billboard sign, even on the other side of this building, which I don’t think would be appropriate either, you know, I really don’t feel it’s a good location.

Mr. Etzler stated that as for the setbacks, we will comply with whatever setbacks and height requirements are necessary in that area, but I would like to have a chance – you want to look at the survey up here? He stated that while he’s looking at that, we aren’t looking at a Use Variance (sic). He stated that we are not looking at the location of the sign at this time. He stated that this is actually not a Use Variance – it’s a Special Exception for the property. He stated that that is to look at the property and determine whether this would be appropriate for this area, and they need to show those things that are asked for in your ordinance, and the information we provided indicates that. He stated that when we come in for a building permit, there’s no doubt that we have to comply with the setbacks and height requirements that are necessary. He stated that if it requires us to do something differently, whether it be the size of the sign, making


it smaller, or locating it at a different location on the property, that will be determined at the time the building permit is issued.

Matt Felder, 1000 E. 80th Place, Merrillville, stated that I’m with View Outdoor and I’m a real estate representative. He stated that when we originally went out to these locations, Todd brought to our attention that he wanted to see whereabouts the sign was going, so we went out and gave kind of a general…put a stake in the ground and had a general proximity of where the location is, knowing fully that, as Todd said, we will have to comply with every side-yard and front-yard setback, as well as height restrictions and everything else. He stated, so, when we did put the stakes in the ground and no way were they intended to be taken as gospel and to be located on a plat of survey, because we will have a surveyor, a registered surveyor, out and do this for us for the building department to inspect and make sure we comply prior to any building.

Mr. Etzler stated that as for the valuation issue, Mr. Vale supplied testimony and the information that we provided to you under the Tampa study indicates that this does not have an adverse effect on property values.

Mr. Anderson stated that the sign, I think the picture that you’ve got of the proposed sign is showing it on the East side of the building, so if we’re going to say that it’s not going to go on the East side of the building because there is no room on the East side of the building, now where it’s going is on the West side of the building in the parking lot of the floor place, and that’s the entrance to the floor place. He stated that I really don’t believe it’s appropriate to approve a Special Exception for a piece of property in which the area in which the sign could possibly go doesn’t work. He stated that this site is a small site on the corner. He stated that we’re talking about 9 acres and I respect Jeff Vale, I know Jeff Vale, I use Jeff Vale, but if you listen to his presentation, other than the Nissan dealer, he doesn’t have anything to tie exactly to what the values are. He stated that as I told you earlier, if you truly believe that a sign should go in this area where we’re going to put an upscale development, then I would strongly request, based on the fact that I had no notice of this meeting, that I be permitted to get an appraiser – and we leave the public hearing open.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’m going to close the public hearing on this case.

Mr. Hudson stated that he just asked that it be left open.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, you’re right. He stated, thank you, thank you. He stated that we’re going to leave the public hearing open then for now.

Mr. Etzler asked, may I respond to that?

Mr. Robertson stated, certainly.

Mr. Etzler stated that he’s asking to leave the public hearing open because he said he did not receive notice, which is not accurate. He stated that as was indicated by Mr. Siminski, notice was provided. He stated that our requirement is to provide notice as provided in the Auditor’s Office. He stated that it’s the adjacent land owner’s responsibility to go to the Auditor’s Office and make sure that their address is correct. He stated that we can only send notice to those people that we have…know who they are, so the fact that it went to the prior owner does not mean that they did not receive notice. He stated that they received all the notice that they are entitled to.

Mr. Anderson asked, may I respond to that in that the prior owner still owns land within 500 feet?

Mr. Robertson stated, no, hold on a second.

Mr. McClure stated that I think at this point in time, just for a point of clarification, I don’t think the final decision has been made as to whether they’re going to leave the public hearing open. He stated that I think at this point they’re wanting to have some conversations among themselves without having the public hearing closed, and I think at that point, maybe it would be a little more appropriate to have this argument over whether the public hearing will remain open or closed. He stated that I’m not sure it’s even an issue at this point. He stated that once it becomes an issue, then let’s have this discussion and argument.

Mr. Robertson stated, so, the public hearing is not closed, but let’s…the Board members’ questions and comments.

Mr. Detert stated that the comment about it being sent to the previous owners, I had a situation when I was doing real estate and in Four Seasons you have a right of refusal on right and left of the property, and we sent the refusal notice to the owner of record. He stated that we lost a case in court because it was not the owner at the time, so that isn’t quite right. He stated that I don’t know what the case number was anymore, but we lost it. He stated that the judge said that you have to send it to the property owner that’s there at the time.

Mr. McClure stated, well, I can tell you that…I’ll chime in at this point and say that by being here, they have notice, also.

Mr. Detert stated that that was the other point I was going to make, is that we’ve always taken the stand that if he shows up, then he has notice.

Mr. McClure stated that I would direct the Board to take it as a separate request, basically, to table…I think the real request here is to table the motion with…or table this particular case pending another hearing time to allow him to produce and present additional evidence. He stated that I don’t necessarily think that in the context of whether or not notice was given is quite the only reason why he’s requesting that. He stated, so, in other words, do I believe that


they have received notice? He stated, yes. He stated that they are here, they’ve received notice. He stated, can the Board take his request as far as being able to table this leaving the public hearing open for another time, the Board can do as they please with that request.

Mr. Brickner asked, so we should make a motion to table this?

Mr. Detert stated that we’ve never done this in the past. He stated that I don’t know what the problem is. He stated that if he came here, he should have had time to prepare, and, to me….if he’s extremely busy and couldn’t get to it, I’m not quite sure what the problem is.

Mr. Anderson stated that we had two days’ notice, so we wouldn’t have an appraisal. He stated that if you want to vote tonight, I think we have sufficient evidence of what we showed you anyway as far as looking at this site and its appropriateness for a Special Exception for a sign anywhere on this site, and especially with the fact that you have admitted – you know this is a C-4 zone and this is commercial zoning and we have done preliminary work. He stated that I can tell you that. He stated that I’ve made contact with the City of Valpo.

Mr. Brickner stated, let’s go ahead and discuss this case. He stated that I think we should.

Mr. Robertson stated that we should at least discuss it. He stated that we can always close the public hearing and take a vote if we want. He stated, so let’s discuss it for right now.

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

Mr. Brickner stated that we’ve heard a lot of requests for billboards on 30 and actually we’ve gone through a great deal of trouble to even get a billboard removed form Route 30. He stated that we keep going back to the same paragraph in the overlay zone, and Mr. Anderson I thought commented very well on that, and that’s the overlay zone is designed to preserve the aesthetic qualities of bordering properties, and I think that’s the one factor that nobody else has addressed except Mr. Anderson, and I think that’s a factor that this Board has considered in a lot of requests for billboards. He stated that outside the fact that this billboard seems to be ambiguous about its location, its height. He stated that everything about it seems to be out of spec and nobody has come forward to say that it’s going to be in spec, so I just don’t think we can approve something like this at this time.

Mr. Burns stated that I had the same comments. He stated that I feel it’s out of character for the area and I feel it will affect the adjacent properties.




Mr. Detert stated that you sent us a pretty good sheaf of paper and somewhere it in I read, you told us a lot about why it doesn’t impact traffic and why it doesn’t impact property values, but then you made a statement that it was necessary because the existing billboard operators – and I may not be phrasing this exactly right – have a monopoly and charge a lot more money because they have that monopoly. He asked, is that kind of in context of what you put in here?

Mr. Etzler stated, well, when you limit the number of billboards to the extent that this County has limited them, those that have existing billboards can charge whatever they want to charge. He stated that that causes the businesses within Porter County to pay much higher rates – competition.

Mr. Detert stated that the point I was going to make is, you went to great testimony here on this paperwork that it wasn’t going to impact property values, and that it wasn’t going to impact traffic, but you make that statement, and I don’t see anything to back that statement up. He stated that it’s your statement and what do you have to back it up? He asked, that there’s a shortage of billboards? He stated that I don’t know that anybody would agree with that, just off the top of their head, and that your putting this billboard in would lower billboard costs for everybody? He asked, is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Etzler stated, that’s the way the market works, yes.

Mr. Detert stated, but, I don’t see any proof of that in here. He stated that there’s no testimony by anybody of stature.

Mr. Etzler stated that this gentleman can testify as to the marketability of these billboards.

Mr. Schroeder stated that I’ve been in the billboard business for just over 25 years. He stated that primarily most of that time has been spent in the sales area. He stated that (inaudible) testify that what drives the market price, as far as billboards, are a couple of things. He stated that obviously location, and the second thing is options advertisers have for billboards in the same area. He stated that if you’ve got a limited number of billboards in a certain area, it’s pretty simple. He stated that you’ve got more people that want to advertise on that billboard and therefore the billboard operator can drive that price up. He stated that as I mentioned earlier, we’ve got 26 spaces currently up in Northwest Indiana, and the comments I’ve received, and the fortune we’ve had, as fortunate as we’ve been with marketing those billboard, the comments we’ve received is that it’s good to have an alternative out there for some advertisers, to have some options for some advertisers.

Mr. Detert asked, how is this particular billboard going to affect prices? He stated that I understand what you’re saying, and I understand the economics: somebody’s got the power, they’re going to


raise the price. He stated, but I don’t know what one of four more billboards is going to have any effect on that at all.

Mr. Schroeder stated that it provides advertisers along U.S. 30, downtown Valparaiso, other parts of Valparaiso, another option to advertise their services and their business on U.S. 30 an option that they might not have today. He stated that if we’re fortunate enough to be able to construct this billboard, it’s another opportunity for an advertiser to have another option to direct that traffic that may be passing through Valparaiso, that may be passing through Porter County and going further East or going further West the other way to get people off the highway to advertise their business to get more people and generally more revenue and income from that particular business owner.

Mr. Anderson stated that I think number 1 is that I don’t think economics enter into Special Exceptions. He stated that I do a lot of this work and I’ve never had economics enter into whether a Special Exception should be permitted or not, that’s Number 1. He stated that number 2 is I want you to know that we have a billboard on part of the property that we have. He stated that it’s on a month to month basis. He stated that it was canceled at the time we bought the property and it’s sitting there until such time as we develop it, so you’re going to have one less. He stated that we don’t want a billboard in this area because we know, with an upscale development, it’s not going to look nice to have an upscale development with a billboard in front of it. He stated that thirdly is, this is the wrong piece of property for it. He stated that if you look at the survey and try to figure out where the heck they can put it, I guess they can put it in the paved parking lot of the floor place and people can run into it, but I don’t really think there’s an appropriate spot on this property.

Mr. Robertson stated that our attorney said the same thing, really. He stated that this economic sidebar doesn’t really have a effect on it.

Mr. Burns asked, Ideal Floor Company – is that still in the County at that intersection – the carpet store? He asked, what restrictions were placed on that property for signage? He stated that there should have been some restrictions when that business was approved, I would think? He asked, is that appropriate to bring up? He stated that what I’m trying to say is, if there were restrictions on that property when that business went in, now here comes another request for a sign. He asked, are there restrictions on that property already?

Mr. Brickner stated that if it’s zoned commercial they’re allowed a sign of some sort, but I don’t know…

Mr. Burns stated that it could have been restricted.

Mr. McClure stated that and it could have been in there, even if you look to see if it was restricted, by coming in now at this point,


requesting a Special Exception, this would be requesting this particular sign even if it went above and beyond those original restrictions.

Mr. Burns stated, so that would not play any part in this?

Mr. McClure stated, not in the sense that it would bar them requesting a Special Exception at this point. He stated that what I think what I said was, the economic part doesn’t play a part, and obviously property, the values of adjacent property owners in the area obviously was appropriate, etc., and the question was asked…and I think that’s why the petitioner added the information concerning the economics of the sign industry in Porter County, but the truth of the matter is, it’s under our Special Exception ordinance it’s not one of the reasons why we approve or deny.

Mr. Hudson stated that everything that I heard on the value, or the non-effect on the value of the adjacent property, there were no numbers. He stated that it was just a statement that was made that it doesn’t have an effect on the property. He stated that Mr. Anderson seems to indicate that he’s taken a sign away, and think that that sign is going to have a detrimental effect on what his development is going to be. He stated that I’m not sure what an upscale development is. He stated that I assume that means something commercial, since the property is zoned commercial, so, it seems to me that there would be some advertising that would be needed for that, so there’s just some conflicting things here between one less sign or a sign going away and another sign coming in. He stated that the issue of where it sets on the property – they’re going to have to deal with that when they get their building permit, so I have to agree with Todd – that’s immaterial. He stated that if it means it’s going to be in the middle of the building, I guess they’ve got the decision to make to move the building or put it in the parking lot and put ballards around it so somebody doesn’t run into it, but I don’t think I’ve seen anybody show me numbers that say it’s not going to have a detrimental effect on adjoining property.

Mr. Etzler stated that I have a comment on taking the sign away over at that area. He stated that we are required to provide you with evidence, and that sign over there is a non-conforming sign, I believe, anyways, that they have at that point. He stated that they could not build that sign up to what they needed to do and Pete Schroeder has some knowledge about that location.

Mr. Schroeder stated that just briefly, I received a call which – we’ve gone through a few of these – I’ve gone through a few of these in my lifetime – and I received a call – I don’t know if it was from you or from someone in your office that wanted to go out there and look at the property where we were building the signs and I think you were going out there at the end of the week and I called Todd, I think, we might have spoken to somebody in the office and they said, well, we just want a general idea of where the sign’s going to go. He stated that that’s normally how we do things. He stated that we


totally survey our signs to meet all requirements and all building codes. He stated that that’s the way Mr. White’s done business for 60 years and he’s not going to stop tomorrow. He stated that when we went out there and staked them, or example, Pat Boniface is very flexible where we put that sign, to meet the local requirements of Porter County. He stated that if it’s in the parking lot, I’m sure Pat Boniface would not have a problem with that, but we just want to give a general idea of where we thought this was going to go at the last minute, but we always survey every one of our locations and X marks the spot, especially when you’ve got a company like All Steel coming in with a steel structure, we want to make sure that we’re 100 percent accurate.

Mr. Hudson stated that Todd submitted this and I’m not sure when it came, but it was quite some time ago, it could have been three weeks to a month ago, and this talks specifically about values, advertising market and its impact on the Tampa property values. He stated, well, Tampa’s a little hop, skip and a jump from here. He stated that it’s a different type setting from Valparaiso. He stated that I guess this is what I expected or, if we’re going to talk about if it affects property values, something…I don’t know if we can compare this, 19 hours away or whatever it is, to Porter County or adjacent Valparaiso, and that’s all I’m saying. He stated that the issues of the building, where it’s going to be built, I agree. He stated that the guy agreed to have a sign on there. He stated that if it’s going to be in his parking lot, that can work. He stated that I’ve seen this done before where signs wind up being in parking lots and you exclude a parking space, so, to me, that’s not the issue. He stated that the issue is how the market value or how the advertising market and its impact on the property values here, these show tables in here where they have comparisons between property values for commercial parcels in Tampa or where they have parcels without billboards and parcels with billboards and they show parcel counts and they give property values and they give the property value at a per square foot cost and you can see that with billboards they bring a little bit more value. He stated that I’m not sure that this is good, and if there was something for Northwest Indiana..

Mr. Robertson stated that it would be real good if we were down in Florida.

Mr. Hudson stated that I like this. He stated that it’s good, but you’re right. He stated that I’m not badgering anybody by saying it’s from Florida and here, it’s just not here. He stated that I’m not saying that I’m against it. He stated that I just haven’t heard those numbers.

Mr. Detert stated, well, it’s kind of hard to tell at this point whether it’s going to have an impact on adjoining property when we don’t know what’s going on the adjoining property, but then I don’t know, in light of the testimony he’s given us, I’m not sure that that’s a factor, because we’ve still got the right to locate it. He stated that we don’t have to put it right next to his property.

Mr. Robertson asked, counsel, can we limit,…can we say that we don’t want it in the parking lot?

Mr. McClure stated that I think on the Special Exception you’d have broader powers as to obviously they’re mandated they were going to follow the codes and the specs as far as the setbacks, but I think you can have some impact as to if you feel it’s going to be inappropriate at a given location on the piece of property due to specific reasons, I think you can have that moved into a location that you think alleviates those…whatever issue it is that is bothering the Board.

Mr. Detert asked, we can say West side of the building instead of East side?

Mr. McClure stated, if the Board lays out its reasoning for why that is.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess we can also say that we don’t want it to impact parking where it would be a hazard.

Mr. Brickner stated that I got to go back to the reason that the overlay zone was implemented. He stated that it wasn’t for economics, it wasn’t for any reason except it says in the overlay zone to preserve the aesthetic value of route 30. He stated that there are 101 signs on Highway 94 and 80 between the Lake County Line and the LaPorte County Line in Porter county. He stated that if anybody drives down 80/94, which we all do, thinks that that enhances the beauty of the countryside or that it’s aesthetically pleasing, I’d like to know that, because, to me, it isn’t, and I can tell you what these signs say. He stated that I can tell you that there’s four of them that are strip clubs. He stated that there are six of them that are fireworks signs. He stated that there are 40 some that are car dealers and truck stops. He stated that I don’t know what we want to do on Route 30, if we want to approve signs for economic reasons or for any other reasons, fine, but I still think that the overlay zone was made to preserve the aesthetic value of 30, and anybody that drives down 30 knows that there aren’t any signs. He stated that there are maybe there or four in the whole of Porter County, and I think it’s great. He stated that I think it looks good, so, for that reason, I think that – for me, that’s enough.

Mr. Detert stated, but the overlay zone did allow for a Special Exception sign. He stated that they did allow for a sign to go up there.

Mr. Brickner stated, and we’ve turned down how many?

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not arguing for or against it. He stated that I’m just…I don’t know if…

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 06-SE-5. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.




Discussion:

Mr. McClure stated that part of the motion would be to close the public hearing.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, part of the motion would be to close the public hearing.

Mr. Brickner moved to close the public hearing and to deny Case 06-SE-5, incorporating the findings of fact as drawn up by counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - yes
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes

Case 06-SE-6. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located at 151 W. U.S. Hwy 30, in Center Township.

Mr. Robertson stated, we’ve already had the presentation, but we’re going to look specifically now at 151 W. U.S. Hwy 30.

Eugene Clifford, 51 S. Valparaiso St., Valparaiso, stated that I live directly North of where this sign is proposed to be established. He stated that some time in the last 10 years or so, whenever Centier Bank remodeled the old gas station at the Northeast corner of South Washington Street and U.S. 30, Whiteco had a (inaudible) sign on the property and Centier wanted it moved off the property that they were leasing. He stated that it was to be moved some 200 and some feet East to the East line of my property, directly East of the site that Centier was leasing and across from where this proposed sign would be at 151 W. U.S. 30. He stated that Mrs. Nancy Pekarek – for wont of her exact title I’d call her administrative assistant to the former mayor, Mr. Butterfield – spoke strongly against having that sign moved, having Whiteco move that sign to my property in order to beautify those entrances to the City of Valparaiso. He stated that the city planning commission, or the city BZA, sided with the city beautification plans and denied allowing the sign to be moved to my property. He stated that the County Plan Commission personnel today informed me that where this sign is being requested to be located there has been twice denied for that location previously. He stated that after speaking with the assistant city planner for the city of Valparaiso, Mr. Tyler Kent, he stated that this proposed sign, mounted on a pole, will fall under the overlay district standards of the City of Valparaiso Ordinance Number 29, in reference to pole signs versus monument signs. He stated that I am strongly opposed to another sign, as I feel another planning commission, the city of Valparaiso, has set a very desirable precedent. He stated that the key phrases to


remember, are “city entrance, beautification” and the precedent has been set.

Bert Langer, 56 City View Drive, stated that I live directly – about 400 feet – behind where this proposed sign is supposed to be. He stated, a couple of things that I wanted to mention to you. He stated, first, one of the reasons for having this group of signs is that this other company has the ability to buy signs and control price and so on. He stated that I don’t think these fellows really should get involved into monopolistic practices. He stated that I think that’s more of a government problem than it is yours, so I think that’s a completely invalid reason. He stated that I won’t get into beautifying Highway 30 because I agree with beautifying Highway 30. He stated that as far as the property behind there, I live there and we have 22 acres and we have signs all over the place – 50 feet high Esso (sic) signs and everything else, but I just think we have enough signs going along through this area and I don’t think we need any more.

Mr. Etzler stated that this sign is in the County and that’s why we’re in front of you. He stated that the City of Valparaiso plan commission and their assistant planner don’t have jurisdiction over this property. He stated that the fact that there’s enough signs, I think we’ve had testimony this evening saying that there’s not enough billboard signs. He stated that as for the aesthetic virtues of signs, you’ve seen the picture of the sign that we have here. He stated that this Board, I believe, cannot give a blanket statement that all outdoor billboard advertising signs is (sic) ugly, and, therefore, will not approve one. He stated that if you want to look at a – your ordinance says that they are permitted in this area, and the aesthetic view of each of those signs is not an issue. He stated that it is simply not permitted (sic).

Mr. Langer stated that I have one last comment. He stated that I don’t see what you’re going to do is going to help our community. He asked, what are all these signs going to do to help our community? He stated that I don’t quite understand that.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee Report. The report is in the file.

Mr. Detert stated, well, we’ve been through this particular site before and we’ve always come to the conclusion that it’s a bad one, a lot of congestion.

Mr. McClure stated that I would point out that while there may have been other requests for Special Exceptions there is no precedent here. He stated that this petition will need to stand on its own.

Mr. Detert stated that my only point is that it’s always been considered a bad location.




Mr. Brickner stated, one thing, Mr. Langer and Mr. Clifford both made their points about the aesthetic effect on their property and I agree. He stated that I think that this is not a good place for a sign.

Mr. McClure stated that on these, while I believe that this petition falls within the overlay district, then obviously the preamble deals with the aesthetic value – I don’t have the exact language sitting in front of me at this exact second. He stated that obviously I think, however, the Use Variance, excuse me, the Special Exception itself requirements, we need to delve a little bit farther than just the aesthetic value all by itself. He stated that that would be to grant it or deny it.

Mr. Burns stated that I feel it will affect adjacent property values. He stated, also, the sign is 45 feet high, the request, versus 35 feet.

Mr. Detert stated that I think this could be considered a dangerous location because of all the activity in the immediate area. He stated that it’s one thing to have a billboard out in the open. He stated that it’s another thing to have it fall right in a heavily used area. He stated that I think there’s some danger involved in putting one in there.

Mr. Brickner stated that the Inspection Committee Report stated pretty well that there’s really not enough time in some approaches to the sign to read it and it isn’t very visible in other approaches, so the value of the sign, I don’t think, would be….

Mr. Detert stated, that’s right at the junction of 2 and 30, and that’s a heavily traveled junction, and I could see that it could be an impediment at that point to traffic moving if someone’s looking up at a sign and not watching traffic turning left or right or whatever.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-SE-6, incorporating the findings of facts as drawn up by counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 06-SE-7. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located on a 1.26-acre parcel adjacent to and surrounded by property at 389 E. U.S. Hwy 30 (TNT), in Washington Township.




Ernie Strankosky, 393 E. U.S. 30, stated that I am a business owner here, Buck’s Power Sports. He stated that I don’t disagree with Mr. Schroeder. He stated that I’ve known Dean White since 1966 and I’ve never seen a problem with the kind of signs that he puts up. He stated that I have no problem with that. He stated that what I do have a problem with is the businesses along that side of Route 30 all have signage that are about the same. He stated that when I built my building there in ’96 and went to the man and he said you can have it this big. He stated that I said, okay, and how far and everything else and that’s the way the businesses have run there. He stated that it’s at least a quarter of a mile previous to that if you’re headed West if there is any larger signs. He stated that if there’s larger signs, uh, I think it will be detrimental to our businesses because right now we have a line of sight. He stated that the signs are the same height. He stated that we have a big sign there, we have that there and then you go by and you don’t see anything else. He stated that I can’t afford a big sign. He stated that I can afford the sign that’s there. He stated, the same way with the other businesses. He stated that if their sign is too small for their business, they have the right to put it up to the size that the County says yes on. He stated that a sign there will stick out just like they want it to – like a sore thumb. He stated that it will stick out. He stated that it definitely will. He stated that I’d like to have Buck’s Power Sports on it – can’t do it. He stated that it doesn’t go with the lay of the land. He stated that we’re the entrance to Valparaiso from the East. He asked, is that what we want to show, or do we want to show a nice, even business coming into town.

Pam Strankosky, 393 E. U.S. 30, stated that I guess I have a question. She stated that I haven’t seen a picture of the sign. She asked, is this on the North side or the South side of 30? She stated that that kind of determined whether or not I agree or disagreed with it, because if it’s on the property of 389 E….

Mr. Robertson stated that it’s on the North side.

Ms. Strankosky stated that well, then I have to agree with my husband. She stated that I don’t see how there’s enough room, unless you’re putting it right on the property, because we’ve got the 30 and then the strip of land, a fence, and then a strip of land and then a frontage road and then the actual property and I can’t see how that would be very good, because, hopefully, 30’s going to grow East. She stated that on the opposite side of 30 – on the South side – is the railroad tracks. She stated that that’s where there are billboards, and I don’t have an objection with those, but on the property itself, we have our sign that we were allowed to put up a certain height, and TNT has their sign, and then the next business has theirs, and Tony’s Saddle’s shop – we all have a very nice view going down there, and, hopefully, that will grow out there someday and Valparaiso will go that way.

Mr. Etzler stated that on the location of signs, we have a requirement in your ordinance that the signs be at least 600 feet away from each other, and Mr. Strankosky, his objection is that they are


too far away from each other and that the closest one is a quarter-mile away. He stated that I guess you could enact an ordinance saying that 601 feet is exactly what it has to be from every other sign, but that has to be a limit, and I think the aesthetic value is how close these things are, and you have set that limit – they cannot be more than 600 feet, and the ordinance does not give what a maximum amount is. He stated that as for the line of sight issues, Matt is the person who works with constructing these and he would like to testify as to that.

Matt Felder, 1000 E. 80th Place, Merrillville, stated that in addressing the line of sight issues, depending on the height of their on-premise sign, on-premise advertising sign, generally they’re 15 to maybe 22, maybe 25 feet high. He stated that the proposed signs, even at the 35-foot height, have an under sign clearance of approximately – so it’s roughly 13 foot down from the overall height of the sign. He stated that you also have to look at it at the angle, the view. He stated that when you’re driving down the road, you’re looking up at an angle towards all the signs, which would increase the view other than just at a 25-foot bar, so the line of sight wouldn’t impede their on-premise signs. He stated that I’d like to mention that it’s far enough away from the B&E, the dealership…I’m sorry, Buck’s Power Sports. He stated that it’s far enough away based on the angle and the way people are driving that it’s not going to block it at all.

Mr. Etzler stated, also, this property is very much further away from the urbanized area of Valparaiso, so, in terms of aesthetic views, I would expect that unless you take the view that no billboard should be on any highway, or if the view is that it should be in an area that is urbanized, then this is much further out, and there’s a much less congestion in this area, less people driving past.

Mr. Siminski stated, just for clarity here, there’s two billboards that we are going to be talking about, but the one that we’re about right now is near the Machinists Hall, the farther one to the West. He stated that there’s also one by TNT.

Mr. Robertson stated that the one we’re looking at now is TNT, isn’t that right?

Mr. Siminski stated, no. He stated that this is one…this is the West one.

Mr. Robertson asked, is this SE-7?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated that 7 says TNT.

Mr. Siminski stated, well, Number 8 is 389, that’s TNT. He stated that this is adjacent to the surrounding property at 389. He stated that there was no address. He stated that it’s a vacant field.


He stated that there’s really no address to it. He stated that that was the way it was drawn up. He stated that I just wanted to clarify.

He stated that this is the one to the West. He stated that the last one will be at TNT.

Mr. Strankosky stated that when I was talking about the quarter of a mile, I was talking about a visual effect. He stated that I didn’t step it off or anything else. He stated that I was just saying, as you’re driving West into the city there aren’t any large signs and so forth for at least a quarter of a mile and then you get to our area there. He stated that I’d rather have a driver looking at a sign that’s 12 foot high than 35 foot high – he ain’t watching the road. He stated that that happens. He stated that it happens. He stated that it don’t (sic) happen out there because the signs are down. He stated that they know where we’re at.

Mr. Etzler stated that I only have one copy of this and it is a study that came out just in the last 30 days by the Virginia Technical Institute and I will give you the summary of documents on this. He stated that it was a study that was performed over a long period of time with a lot of drivers looking at why car accidents happen. He stated that what they found – and when you look through here you will find – that obviously visual obstructions – I’m sorry, a page back – they looked at the types of things that cause accidents, and, obviously, inattentiveness is one thing that causes accidents and they looked at that and they found out that, not surprisingly, dialing your cell phones is probably the worse part, but in their study, they looked at the crash frequency and they looked at the near-crash frequency – that means almost an accident happened – of looking at roadway infrastructure, such as buildings, billboard signs and (inaudible) and they found no crashes occurred and .4 percent of the time there was a near-crash situation from these things. He stated that I didn’t break out billboards from the rest because they said, or they felt, at least in this study, that billboards were the same as buildings and commercial signs and everything else out there. He stated, so, distraction by sitting there and reading a sign as you’re going past is not as bad, causes as many crashes as trees, crops and vegetation – looking at people’s trees as you go by; sunlight glare on your windshield. He stated, no obstruction at all is by far the highest crash – 88 percent of the time – they just crashed because they weren’t paying attention. He stated that the only other things that were close to it were….that there was a curve in the hill or a headlight glare, and both of those have no crashes at the same time. He stated, but this is a summary of this --- the report is actually a 1,000 pages long, so I didn’t print that out for you, but that will show that the signage, the billboard signs that you have out here, have no more distractive effect than any other building that’s approved by the building commissioner (sic) in the county.

Ann Fleming Sweeny, 371 N. 325 E., stated that we’re not here to debate whether there’s accidents, pro or con, regarding signs. She stated that we’re concerned, as a concerned citizen, about the

aesthetic values in our community, how it’s going to decrease, detract property values, the consistency of the signs amongst other businesses in the area, so I’m opposed to having such a sign, signage of any more billboards than we already have because we want to be consistent with what we already have in the community.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that this business area has a series of signs that are all the same relative size and height and I think a billboard of this magnitude – they’re talking about a 55-foot high billboard, if I’m not mistaken.

Mr. Robertson stated, 45.

Mr. Brickner stated that this definitely would be out of character for this area as far as the rest of the signage is concerned, so, for that reason, I don’t think it would be a benefit for the health, safety, welfare and general well-being of the citizens of Porter County. He stated that I think it would be the wrong place.

Mr. Burns stated that I feel the same way.

Mr. Detert stated, I’m still thinking.

Mr. Siminski read the Inspection Committee report. The report is in the file.

Mr. Burns stated that the concerns are the same as before, distance between the signs and of course height.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-SE-7, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 06-SE-8. Petition of View Outdoor Advertising, LLC, c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St. #203, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit a billboard in the U.S. 30 overlay zone, to be located at 389 E. U.S. Hwy 30, in Washington Township.

Todd Etzler stated that we would stipulate that all of their objections are the same as the old ones and all of our (inaudible) are the same for this one.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated, for the same reason as was stated by remonstrators that these signs are out of character for the rest of


the business signs in the area and would not be of any benefit to the citizens of Porter County.

Mr. Robertson asked, is that a motion?

Mr. Burns stated, we should add to that that the distance between the signs is…

Mr. Brickner stated, 596 feet.

Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t know that the distance would make a difference since we denied the one, right?

Mr. Hudson stated that again, I’d have to agree with the attorney. He stated that I’m not sure that that’s an issue here, but the fact is they have to proof that there wasn’t…

Mr. Robertson stated, to get a permit.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 06-SE-8.

Mr. Robertson passed the gavel.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 06-SE-8, with the findings of fact as prepared by counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - No
Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes

Case 06-V-6. Petition of Kelly Radinsky, 313 W. 340 S., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,520 square foot pole barn to store hobby cars and trucks, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located at 313 W. 340 S., in Porter Township.

Kelly Radinsky stated that she and her husband, Jeff, are the petitioners in this matter.

Jeff Radinski stated that I have a couple of pictures and I’m looking to build a pole barn bigger than what’s accepted in a minor sub. He stated that I’ll give you the pictures first. He stated that the pictures are just of my neighbors and their pole barns. He stated that the first two are in my minor sub, but they’re smaller. He stated that the size is allowed. He stated that I also have pictures of everything that I see from my back yard and side yard, about 900 foot East, two properties away from me. He stated that I had to