BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
June 21, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on June 21, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the May 17, 2006 meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 80-V-13. Darrell L. Qualkenbush, P.O. Box 109, Wheeler, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home lying North of the North end of Third and Fourth Streets in Wheeler, Union Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner stating that she would like a renewal of this TCO and that she is attending the meeting.

Mr. Robertson asked if she is asking that it just be…this is a renewal, and we understand from the letter that you’re taking care of your mom, who has dementia, and asking that we renew it for another month.

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have not.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 80-V-13 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 87-V-33. Jerome O’Day, 554 E. 1400 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 1400 S., between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Ed O’Day stated that my dad was unable to be able to attend the meeting. He stated that my mom just passed away in Florida and my dad still has health problems. He stated that my situation hasn’t changed any since last year. He stated that I’ve been off of work for the whole of last year due to an injury last year at this time, workman’s comp. He stated that I would like to seek an extension for one more year.

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have not been.

Mr. Burns asked what the original purpose of this was.

Mr. Siminski stated that this started back in 1987.

Mr. O’Day stated, yes, I’ve been there 18 years. He stated that it started out as a hardship case. He stated that I have a handicapped brother that lives with my mom and dad and they wanted to be next to them. He stated, still, the same thing. He stated that I’ve lived in the mobile home for 18 years.

Mr. Burns asked, is your brother still with you?

Mr. O’Day stated, no. He stated that my brother is right now in Florida with my dad. He stated that they were planning on coming home this year, but, like I said, dad’s health problems…my little brother’s got to go to a neurologist the 19th of next month, so they can’t travel until next month. He stated that if something happens to my dad now I will be having my younger brother, so that’s the situation I have. He stated that nothing’s changed. He stated that we still need to be there.

Mr. Burns asked, but this is next to your dad’s house?

Mr. O’Day stated, right, correct.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that I’d like to ask, if your father stays down there in Florida, will you be able to move in the house then?

Mr. O’Day stated, well, um, yes, we’re planning on it. He stated that right now, seeing as how mom passed away it’s kind of all up in the air right at the moment, but, yes, I’m supposed to inherit the house eventually. He stated that I’m supposed to move into the house.

Mr. Robertson asked, then you wouldn’t need the trailer?

Mr. O’Day stated, then we wouldn’t need the trailer, but as of right now it’s still their home and the trailer’s still my home.

Mr. Detert stated that I’d like to add that someone appears next year in person to give us an update.

Mr. Burns stated, I agree.




Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for one year, with the petitioner to appear in person. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 89-V-24. Lillian Roman/Sylvia Moore, 19 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of U.S. Hwy 6, between Meridian Road and CR 75 W., in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 89-V-24 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 95-V-17. James & Ruth Allison, 1226 N. County Line Road, Westville, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of Porter-LaPorte County Line Road, between CR 1275 N. and Burdick Road, in Pine Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners requesting an extension of this TCO. He stated that I did visit the property. He stated that there’s a young couple that lives in the trailer. He stated that it’s a kind of a farm-type situation and they do kind of do maintenance on the property. He stated that there was a note in there about a second trailer. He stated that I talked to the lady there. He stated that they’ve been trying to get rid of that trailer and they’re hoping to have it done by the end of June. He stated that they’re talking to the fire department about it to possibly have them use it for practice, to burn it down or something, but they’ve been trying to get rid of that trailer, which was used for storage purposes.

Mr. Detert stated that it looks like there could be a little cleaning up there.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t have a problem with the request of a trailer. He stated that I do have a problem. He asked, why couldn’t they remove that second trailer over a year period? He stated that I thought they committed to remove that trailer a year ago. He asked, am I mistaken?

Mr. Siminski stated that we told them that they needed to get the trailer out of there.

Mr. Burns stated, but one year.

Mr. Siminski stated, I know, but they said they’ve been trying.

Mr. Burns stated, well, I don’t think we should approve it until the trailer is moved. He stated that we could extend it for another 30 days or 60 days…




Mr. Detert stated, let’s give them 60 days and Fred goes out and inspects it.

Mr. Robertson asked, should we table it then or continue it?

Mr. Burns stated that we have to extend it so it’s legal, so they have a place to live.

Mr. McClure stated, 60 days and then put them back on the agenda.

Mr. Burns stated, put them back on the agenda, but with a note or a phone call that that old trailer has to be removed.

Mr. Detert stated that Fred can write them a letter telling them they have 60 days.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 95-V-17 for 60 days and for staff to write a letter requesting that the trailer be moved in that time and that they appear in person at that time if the trailer is not gone. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-31. H. Glenn Wiles, 920 N. 100 W., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 100 W., between CRs 900 N. and 1000 N., in Liberty Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Robertson noted that no one is here in person.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 99-V-31 to the 7-19-06 meeting, with staff to send a certified letter asking them to appear in person. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 05-V-27. Petition of James & Jodylynn Stuppy, 163 E. 900 S., Kouts, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit them to live in a pole barn or a recreational vehicle for 6 to 9 months while constructing a house on the property, to be located at 137 W. 200 S., in Porter Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Siminski stated that he made a visit out there. He stated that he was told by Mr. Stuppy that they were going to try to get a final occupancy for the house before the meeting tonight. He stated that he was going to try to find out today, but it got away from him, so he doesn’t know if the final was ever done, but the house is sitting right next to the barn.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-V-27 for 30 days, with the petitioners to appear in person at that time. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.






Case 79-V-6. Jerome Drazer, 439 E. 700 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 950 S., between Baum’s Bridge Road and CR 150 W., in Pleasant Township. (This Case was continued from the 4-19-06 meeting, with the petitioner to appear in person.)

Mr. Siminski stated that he met with Ed Drazer a week ago and they went to both properties. He stated that one property that resembled a trailer actually was a cottage. He stated that it has no wheels on it and that’s the one on 700. He stated that the one that they were trying to approve was the mobile home that’s on 900 or 950 S. and Mr. Drazer…I counted four vehicles on that property. He stated that I have a picture, four vehicles that have improper plating and things like that. He stated that I called Mr. Drazer today and he said that he had talked to the tenants on the property about this matter. He stated that they were supposed to contact me and, as of today, they hadn’t yet contacted me, so, I have a feeling that the vehicles are probably still there. He stated that Mr. Ed Drazer promised that he would try to resolve this problem. He stated, but, again, I kind of doubt that these vehicles have been removed at this time.

Mr. Robertson stated that there was a pink mobile home, and that’s been removed.

Mr. Siminski stated that that one has been removed.

Mr. Detert stated that it says tenants. He asked, does that mean he’s renting it? He stated that it kind of sounds like he’s renting it.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original purpose of the mobile home?

Mr. Siminski stated that that’s his farm area down there. He stated that I think it was probably understood that that’s where the farm workers were to live. He stated that whether or not those tenants are the farm workers or not, I did leave a message for the tenants to give me a call, please, and when I talk to them I will try to find out if they are actually farm workers on that farm.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 79-V-6 to the 7-19-06 meeting and for staff to write them a certified letter telling them to appear in person at that meeting and that they need to clear up the junked vehicles on the property by next meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 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. (This Case was continued from the 5-17-06 meeting.)

Mr. Herma stated that he is the petitioner in this matter.

Mr. Robertson stated that he thinks there’s been a question if there’s been a painting business being operated from an accessory building.

Mr. Herma stated, out of a temporary? He stated, no, it isn’t.

Mr. Robertson stated that the staff was out there looking at the building, and they saw all this painting stuff. He asked, is that just for storage, or what?

Mr. Herma stated, just for storage. He stated that I used to have a painting business and when I got this letter I got rid of it.


Mr. Robertson asked, you did have a business?

Mr. Herma stated, since 1989 – 17 years. He stated that I don’t do any work there. He stated, telephone calls, come do an estimate, go to the store, go get the paint, if I get the job, and go to work. He stated that that’s all I’ve done. He stated that there’s no painting goes on out there. He stated, but this was ways before this temporary thing was in effect. He stated that I had a shop in Valparaiso. He stated that I closed it down in approximately 1999. He stated, no more workers. He stated that I have no employees coming out there. He stated, nothing – just me and my wife. He stated that I contacted my people today and said I no longer could service them. He stated that I got myself a job two weeks ago, so I just closed my business. He stated that I didn’t want anything to interfere with my in-laws not being able to live there, so that’s what I did. He stated, so, it’s over.

Mr. Burns asked, how about all the vehicles and paint buckets?

Mr. Robertson stated, well, that was at the time.

Mr. Herma stated that they’re going in the dumpster. He stated, my old drop cloths, they’re going in the dumpster. He stated that I only get a certain size dumpster. He stated that it gets dumped once a week. He stated that they’re supposed to come and get my ton and a half (inaudible) van; they’re supposed to get that ’47 Dodge. He stated that the other two vehicles are my brother’s and I’ll see that he gets them out of there.





Mr. Burns stated that you’ve got paint buckets, you got horses, your got propane tanks, you got compressors. He stated that you’ve got several vehicles. He stated that it looks like a business to me. He stated that I can’t approve it if it’s a business.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 99-V-24 to the 7-19-06 meeting to see that the property is cleaned up and the vehicles removed from the premises. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-V-8. Petition of DBL Development, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the minimum curve radius for a residential street from 200 to 100 feet on three curves, to be located in Augustine subdivision, between CR 325 E. and 400 E., South of CR 400 N., in Washington Township. (This Case was continued from the 5-17-06 meeting with the public hearing closed.)

Mr. Robertson stated that this Case has been withdrawn.

New Business:

At this time, Mr. Robertson read the rules of order for public hearings.

Case 06-V-9. Petition of Captain’s Orders Inc., 2058 Joliet Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required side-yard setback in an Industrial zone from 6 feet to 0 feet to allow for a wholly attached and covered fenced-in area, to be located at 2058 Joliet Road, in Center Township.

Aras & Sandy Urba stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Urba stated that one correction. He stated that you had said we want to have that reduced to a zero setback, when, in fact, it is closer to 18 or 24 inches, almost a 2-foot setback, as we submitted a survey, I believe it was, from Krull and Sons that was done several years ago that shows that the neighbor’s fence, which we don’t have any intentions of removing, is sitting on our property line, I’m sorry, inside our property line. He stated that we have a pole barn that is 50 feet in depth and it is next to the metal recyclers on Joliet Road. He stated that the metal recycler has a tin fence. He stated that it was constructed from some of his scrap tin and nailed to 4 by 4’s that are planted in the ground and actually his fence is deteriorating. He stated that a lot of it, tin corners, are falling in, falling off or rusting out and the fence is leaning into our property. He stated that we propose to make that a much more attractive and less dangerous area by constructing a cedar shadow box fence along his existing fence line, but, in addition to that, and I think where the biggest reason for this Variance was that we wanted to put a roof over the top of that area connecting to the pole barn out to the fence posts in order to have a cleaner grounds.




James Hootnick, 453 Marian Drive, stated that I agree with him. He stated that I’ve been over there and been by the business and I think it will make the area look a lot better and, indeed, that fence is deteriorating, so, a new fence would look much nicer. He stated that I don’t see any problem with what he wants to do.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated, so I can understand this, really, you’re extending your pole barn. He stated that if you put a roof over it you’re extending your pole barn, is that correct?

Mr. Urba stated, yes. He stated that it’s a lean-to.

Mr. Robertson asked, let me understand, though: You’re not having a foundation or what are you putting on the ground?

Mr. Urba stated that the fence posts are constructed of 6 by 6 treated timbers that are sitting on top of 12-inch diameter concrete footings, 4 feet in the ground.

Mr. Robertson stated that that’s the fence posts, but then what are you going to have on the ground?

Mr. Urba stated, gravel.

Mr. Robertson stated, in other words, I can see where it looks like an extension, but it’s more like a lean-to, I would say, like a carport kind of thing.

Mr. Burns stated that a lean-to is an extension, but you have 4 by 4’s and a pole barn also. He asked, in your pole barn, do you have 4 by 4’s or 6 by 6?

Mr. Urba stated, 6 by 6.

Mr. Burns stated that I’m not saying I’m for or against it. He stated, I guess my question is, is the request for a Variance correct because he’s saying a fence, but really he’s extending the pole barn. He asked, so, is his request correct?

Mr. McClure stated, but he’s still asking for the side-yard setback change.

Mr. Burns asked, and do we want a building to go all the way to the property line.

Mr. Robertson stated that another question that comes to my mind is if the neighbor’s deteriorating fence is on his property, why don’t you just tear that down and put your fence – since you’re putting up a fence anyway, on the property line.




Mr. Urba stated that I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers with the neighbor if I could help it. He stated that we have done a tremendous amount on that property since we purchased it five years ago by cleaning up the front, the back. He stated that we’ve removed from that property probably a dozen or more deteriorating, rotting vehicles. He stated that we have the largest size dumpster from Paul’s come out where we collected old tires in the back. He stated, I mean, we just have done a tremendous amount.

Mr. Robertson stated, but, still, would he object? He stated that what you’re going to put up is a nicer fence than what’s there, right? He stated, than the steel.

Mr. Urba stated that I really don’t want to get involved in moving anything inside his fence because it is a metal recycler. He stated that it is, essentially, a junk yard, and he has piles of metal that are up against the sides of his fence in his yard. He stated that that would probably be a pretty good task in order to move all of that material that’s inside his property.

Ms. Urba stated that this is a section of that fence that the entire fence is actually 100 feet, and we’re talking about this section…

Mr. Robertson stated, so you’re not doing the fence all the way along, just in this one section where you want to do the lean-to.

Ms. Urba stated that I also wanted to mention, too, that one of the issues that we have addressed in there was that our plan, our proposal, was also to put a gutter on there so that the runoff would be going directly into our property.

Mr. Detert asked, what makes you think this guy isn’t going to pile his crap against that fence until it protrudes over against your new fence.

Mr. Urba stated that his is still going to be there.

Mr. Detert asked, but you said there’s stuff sticking out of it?

Mr. Urba stated that it leans up against the top of it that if you can picture he’s got a 7- or 8-foot high fence and he’s got 12-foot long pieces of tubing leaning up against it, so, yes, they are inside. He stated that by constructing what we’ve proposed that would eliminate it from protruding into – would it be leaning on our gutter or roof line? He stated, probably. He asked, would I be objecting to that? He stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess it sounds to me like you’re just looking for additional storage space. He stated that I think the fence is kind of a secondary thing, but I could see what a fence right


up against his fence and he’s going to be poking through that wire fence and making your fence look bad.

Ms. Urba stated that his fence isn’t wire, though. She stated that it’s pieces of sharp metal. She stated that they’re like 4 by 8 sheets of metal with sharp corners. She stated that that scenario that it is now, if somebody was wandering onto our property, if you happen to touch that fence, you can cut yourself on it.

Mr. Detert asked, how much additional storage is this going to give you? He asked, if you are storing boats, how many boats are going to go in there?

Mr. Urba stated, four, maybe, because it’s kind of a wedge-shaped area.

Ms. Urba stated that we’re also trying to do that as well to make mention that it gives us a spot in the event of inclement weather for us to show underneath something to show these boats, as well.

Mr. Burns stated that I’d don’t have a problem with the fence. He stated that I do have a problem extending the building to the property line. He stated that that’s not good planning. He asked, is this mobile home on your property?

Mr. Urba stated, yes that’s a separate structure.

Mr. burns asked, someone else lives there?

Mr. Urba stated, right.

Mr. Burns asked, who lives in the frame house?

Mr. Urba stated that it’s a dealership, it’s a showroom.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not too happy with going right up against the property line.

Mr. Robertson stated that he’s saying 18 inches there. He stated that he said zero, but now he’s amending that to 18 inches. He stated that we don’t like to do things, I mean, there’s a reason why you have the room there, but to have it right up against it is pretty tight.

Mr. Burns stated that all those businesses are very tight anyway in that area. He stated that you’re just making a bad situation worse.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, I think it’s a good business. He stated that I think they’re doing a good job there.

Mr. Burns stated, oh, yeah. He stated that there’s nothing wrong with the business. He stated that that’s not the reason. He asked, do we want to have planning with buildings right on the property line?



He asked, do we want to start doing that in Porter County? He stated that that’s the issue. He stated that I have no problem with the business. He stated that I think you run a good business, but I’m not too sure this is good planning.

Mr. Urba stated that our original intent was just to put a roof over it. He stated that we had no intention of closing in the sides, no intention of making that an addition to that pole barn.

Mr. Robertson stated, you probably could have done that and nobody would have known.

Mr. Burns stated, except the building inspector. He stated that I don’t have a problem with the fence. He stated that I have a problem with the building. He stated that that’s where I stand – I’m sorry. He stated that I don’t have any problem with your business. He stated that I just don’t think it’s a good practice.

Mr. Robertson stated, but we only have three members here. He stated that if you like, we can continue this to next month when we’ll have more members.

Mr. Burns stated, let’s make a motion. He stated that it probably won’t go anywhere.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-9. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which failed on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Robertson - No

Case 06-V-9 was continued to the 7-19-06 meeting.

Case 06-V-10. Petition of Richard Reynolds, 456 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn and a self-contained wood-burning furnace (less than 8 by 10 feet) in front of the house, to be located at 456 W. 100 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Reynolds stated that I have some diagrams here that show the property. He stated that I also have a couple pictures. He stated that the first picture shows the property from the road from the field across the road. He stated that, as you can see, the property is fully wooded, covered with woods. He stated that the house is situated 212 feet off the road, so the house is set back quite a ways off the road, and the rear of the house is the only large opening as far as the yard. He stated that the yard is totally landscaped rather nicely – probably $40,000 to $50,000 worth of landscaping across the back yard. He stated that in my opinion the best place to put the pole barn is partway down the driveway in the turnaround. He stated that there’s a turnaround to the right side. He stated that the second picture shows the patch of woods from partway down the driveway. He stated that there’s the double row of pine trees, hemlock trees, that have grown up the West side that I have planted


across the North side that will help to hide the pole barn during the winter. He stated that to go around either side of the house trying to get to the back of the property presents a lot of problems. He stated that trying to go around the East side you have an area of wetlands to contend with and it’s also a deer corridor where the deer travel. He stated that from Shorewood Forest they travel down along that field line and cut across the road and go right down between the entrance to Taltree and my house. He stated that to go down the West side is a narrow area that goes across my septic field. He stated, also, the added expense for my driveway and the fact that the entire aesthetics of the house and the property is designed to…the back yard area of the house and to put the pole barn back there would take away from that. He stated that being 213 feet off the road allows me a lot of area in the front of the house where the pole barn could be situated and still not be obtrusive from the road because it’s fully wooded and the fact that I put evergreen trees up the West side and across the North side. He stated, as far as the wood-burning furnace, that is also for convenience. He stated that I’ve been heating with wood in the furnaces right now in my garage, and I take the wood from the woodpile and stack it in the garage, so I’ve been heating since ’84 with wood, but to put the wood-burning furnace out in that area where the turnaround is makes it a lot easier access and keeps the mess out of the garage.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s the reason you can’t put it next to the pine trees where it ends here?

Mr. Reynolds stated that the pine trees were actually planted on my father’s property.

Mr. Burns asked, so this is not your property?

Mr. Reynolds stated, no, not where the pine trees were.

Mr. Burns asked, where’s your property end?

Mr. Reynolds stated, the property runs just behind the…which was the old (inaudible).

Mr. Burns asked, so these are kennels here?

Mr. Reynolds stated that it was, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, why can’t you put it right by the kennels.

Mr. Reynolds stated, because that is all landscaped and the septic field is in that area.

Mr. Burns asked where’s the septic?

Mr. Reynolds stated, the whole West side, up and down.

Mr. Burns asked, how far will the pole barn be from 100 N.?

Mr. Reynolds stated, approximately 80 to 85 feet off the centerline of the road.

Mr. Robertson asked, how do you get the heat from the furnace into the house?

Mr. Reynolds stated that it’s an underground pipe. He stated that two lines are encased in a black pipe that’s about that big that’s surrounded by foam insulation and it’s buried about a foot and a half to two feet underground. He stated that I also have a catalog with the type of furnace that we’re talking about, if you’re interested.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think the question would be about the barn in front of the house. He asked, what are you going to put into the barn?

Mr. Reynolds stated, all the things that are in my garage. He stated, all my tools. He stated that I have a table saw, band saw, woodworking tools – I’m a carpenter, by trade.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you going to do any work out of there?

Mr. Reynolds stated, no.

Mr. Robertson asked, you don’t do any of your carpentry work out of there?

Mr. Reynolds stated, no, I don’t.

Mr. Robertson asked, where do you do your carpentry work?

Mr. Reynolds stated, out of the union hall.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, I think the BZA exists to grant Variances and I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Detert stated that the two sketches I got differ. He stated that I’m not quite sure why they differ.

Mr. Reynolds stated that I sketched this up quickly to hand in with the Variance.

Mr. Detert asked, so where is your parking at, right here?

Mr. Reynolds stated, yeah.

Mr. Detert asked, but you have trees on your property?



Mr. Reynolds stated, yes. He stated that I have the trees across here. He stated that I planted all these trees down between my property and my father’s property. He stated that my father lives right to the West.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not too crazy about putting a pole barn that far forward of the house. He stated that he’s got quite a bit of property there.

Mr. Burns asked, how much property do you have, how many acres?

Mr. Reynolds stated, 2.7 acres.

Mr. Robertson stated, he’s packed it pretty full of stuff – woods and flower beds and landscaping, you know. He stated that I kind of respect a man’s right to make his castle work the way he wants it. He stated that we got some kind of idea that it always has to be in front; sometimes it just doesn’t seem to me that it makes much sense. He stated that in this case, I don’t think it makes much sense. He stated that his house is way back and it will be pretty well hidden from the road.

Mr. Detert stated that we had one similar to this sometime back – two or three or four years ago, but I think it was on 50 N. and it was up closer to County Line Road, so it was in the 700 (inaudible), and I can’t remember what we did with it.

Mr. Robertson asked, was that the one that was up on a hill a little bit?

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t remember a hill.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it will be hidden from the road. He stated that his house is way back. He stated that it looks like he really doesn’t have any other place to easily put it without destroying a lot of woods or landscaping that he’s already put in. He stated that he can’t put it on his septic field.

Mr. Detert asked, how about that furnace you are going to put in? He asked, what’s that, a wood-burning furnace or what?

Mr. Reynolds stated, yes. He stated that I already have a wood-burning furnace, as I stated. He stated that I’ve been heating since ’84 when the house was built. He stated that I buy wood and I just want to move it and update and buy a newer, more efficient furnace and move it from the garage out right next to the woodpile.

Mr. Detert asked, how do you get the heat? He asked, is that hot water or something?

Mr. Reynolds stated that it’s hot water, baseboard hot water.




Mr. Detert stated that there’s been a lot of talk about those wood-burning outside fireplaces polluting, causing a lot of pollution.

Mr. Burns stated that you can’t see it from the road. He stated that my only concern is that he does have the property to put it most any place he wants except where the septic system is. He stated that that’s my only concern. He stated that if he was restricted to that only spot, then I would say, yeah, you have a hardship, but you really don’t have a hardship, but, again, you can’t see it from the road. He stated, on this side of your property, that’s all yours. He stated that it’s woods, but you could put it in there, too, correct? He asked, or am I missing something?

Mr. Reynolds stated that that’s woods and the whole upper corner is wetlands…

Mr. Burns stated that that is woods. He stated that your wetland’s here, but down here…

Mr. Reynolds stated that that’s a corridor for the deer.

Mr. Burns asked, do you have a lot of open space here?

Mr. Reynolds stated that there is open space as far as woodland. He stated that I would have to knock down a lot of trees in order to do that.

Mr. Burns asked, how large is your yard? He asked, are your trees here?

Mr. Reynolds stated that, no, there are no trees right there. He stated that there is no way of getting back to these because of all the landscaping and then there is a 20 by 25-feet heart-shaped pond.

Mr. Burns asked, which way does your house face, the front of the house.

Mr. Reynolds stated that it faces North.

Mr. Detert stated that I just think it could be located better.

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, normally, we look at these when it’s a hardship, you know, you’re restricted and if that was the only spot you could put it, in front of the house, we’d take a look at that. He stated that you have a lot of other opportunities. He stated that I know you have your personal reasons why you don’t want to.

At this time, Mr. Robertson passed the gavel.







Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 06-V-10, with no business to be run on the property, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which failed on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - No Robertson - Yes

Case 06-V-10 was thus continued to the July 19th meeting.

Case 06-V-11. Petition of Bill McLaughlin, P.O. Box 11638, Merrillville, seeking a Variance to permit a change from a previously approved Mobile Home Park designation to that of Mobile Home Park Subdivision for Golf Creek on the Greens, to allow for property ownership by the residents, located at 751 W. SR 130, in Portage Township.

Dave Tiemens stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter, Bill McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the piece of property in question is right along (inaudible) Road, near Duck Creek golf course. He stated that it sits on the West side of it, right along freeway (sic) 14. He stated that it started out a few years ago as a mobile home park and all the people around the area really didn’t like it. He stated that the lots were designed for a mobile home park and got approved, but it never went. He stated that the land was too expensive. He stated that I became involved in this in January of this year and wanted to see if I could do anything with the property, to see if it could be turned into a modular home park. He stated that a modular is the same thing a stickbuilt house (inaudible).

Mr. Robertson asked, could you turn the mike more your way?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that my intention there is to go in there and to put a modular home in there, which is the same as a stick-built home today. He stated that we put them on regular foundations and/or a slab. He stated that at least the homes would be on a crawl space. He stated that my homes…I’m a distributor for Heart Homes, South of Elkhart, IN. He stated that in order to do this, the original plat in the lots, for example, we need 6 inches more to put the type of home in I need. He stated that I’ll need a Variance to get a larger home in there. He stated that there…

Mr. Tiemens stated that as he stated, we had a mobile home park that was approved in 2001 for 40 units on it with an office model as an additional lot. He stated that it went under construction and three of the units were constructed. He stated that we came in in 2002 for a slight change to add carports and an open porch in the front and that type of thing. He stated that really what happened is that the financing…one of the biggest manufacturers, financiers, went belly up and that resulted in declining sales, foreclosures and then single-family housing interest rates became more attractive, so it kind of went away from that and that financier/supplier just went out


of business. He stated that financing, then, went along with that. He stated, so, really, mobile home parks are somewhat difficult to construct at this time. He stated that what we are asking for is two things: One, a Variance from the mobile home subdivision to the mobile home park development standards (sic), because the subdivision was already built to the development standards of the mobile home park. He stated that we were going to ask, considering your approval, of course, the Plan Commission to approve a mobile home subdivision. He stated that in order to do that we need a Variance to the standards of mobile home park. He stated that in addition to that, we would need a 6-inch rear-yard setback Variance and that could be moved. He stated that that doesn’t necessarily have to be in the back. He stated that it could be a front-yard Variance, but, either way, because of the modular homes that are available, we cannot fit the same size units on these lots that is available in modular units, so, therefore, we need to ask for a 6-inch Variance for the building itself to fit in the footprint of the existing lot that’s there. He stated that to give you a little bit of background on what’s there, there’s a road that goes through the middle of the property and this is served by a gray water sewer system, which means that in between each two buildings is a septic tank, so, at this time…so, right now, this is basically what’s approved, with the exception of being a mobile home subdivision. He stated that this is approved as it is – it may be hard to see from there, but there’s a few shaded ones in there – those are the existing units that are in, but there’s an approval for 40 of these similar-type units that we have here. He stated that what’s in right now is the street, of course; storm water to handle the runoff from the street; and then there’s, as I stated, the sewer system is a gray water system, which has septic tanks placed every other lot to accommodate the sewer service from each building. He stated that in the front there’s a small detention pond and, in the back, there’s a smaller detention pond and then a larger detention pond that everything ultimately drains through. He stated that all the infrastructure is currently in and given the fact that there’s septic tanks placed every other lot, it’s somewhat difficult without relocating them to accommodate a different configuration than what we have shown here. He stated, so, basically, we have a 40-foot building before and the smallest sized building we can get on there right now is a 48-foot, and that would fit within the building frame area, with the exception of we’re about 6 inches off on that, so that’s one of the Variances that we’ll be asking for as part of this is a 6-inch Variance, and I just kind of placed it in the rear-yard. He stated that it could also be placed in the front. He stated that either way we would need a 6-inch Variance to that rear or front-yard setback. He stated that as stated these units are a lot more attractive than what would be placed there in a mobile home park. He stated that I can give you a similar building that Mr. McLaughlin has constructed on a different area.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that those were built on 61st and Connecticut Street in Merrillville on the South entrance with 61st. He stated that there is a landscaping company right there. As you drive in on the West side of Connecticut I built seven houses right there



with different elevations, different roof lines, but it’s the same home.

Mr. Tiemens stated that since it would still be what is considered a mobile home subdivision, if that’s what is approved, because it will still have the frame for the building itself underneath, so it will constitute the definition for a mobile home. He stated that it’s just that we would build it to a standard of what would be a modular home, which, the difference really is just that it conforms to the…all the local codes that are in place for a manufactured home.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that what the difference is between the manufactured, which is out there now, and my homes here, a manufactured home is 2 by 8 floor joists, and it has steel frames underneath it which stay there, and the axles usually stay there so you can pick them up and take them out of there, if you wanted. He stated that my home is built exactly like we do onsite. He stated that you got 2 by 10 floor joists. He stated that you box it in, you build it, you lay your joists, your beam, down the middle to support it and hold it down to the block. He stated that in my case, I’m going to use poured walls, poured foundation walls, so it’s actually a custom-built home, just like a stick built, except we build it in a factory.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we feel it would be something that would be obviously attractive, not only to our clients, but also to the neighbors due to the fact that this would be not a land-leased community anymore; this would be a…they would own the home, as well as the lot, and there would be a POA set up as in any other subdivision for maintenance of the open areas, as well as any infrastructure, so we think that would help to create an appreciative area, as opposed to a mobile home park area, that is more or less a depreciative area.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that the homes that are next to the property on the East side of the golf course, yeah, those homes in there are beautiful homes. He stated that they run at least $200,00 to $300,000. He stated that they’re right next to this piece of property. He stated that these homes here will be roughly in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $160,000. He stated that we’re going to upgrade the property. He stated, retired fellows who like to golf – that’s who we’re going after.

John Hack, 753 W. Hwy 130, Hobart, stated that I have some information that I’d like to give to the Board, if I could. He stated that I’d like to call your attention to the following pages, the top page, to begin with. He stated that this really is a recap of what we all went through in 2002. He stated, beginning with the drawings, the first drawing is what was agreed to in 2000. He stated that the second drawing is what was denied by the Board in 2002. He stated that if you’ll notice the size of the units that they wanted to put on the property. He stated that the third drawing is the



drawing I just got here a few weeks ago that is being proposed and this new request tonight, if you’ll notice, they’re roughly the same size. He stated that I think probably you’re trying to put larger units on the same lots and, if you don’t mind, I’d like to read what I’ve written up for you folks. He stated that my home is located West of the trailer park where I’ve resided for 27 of my 38 years in Porter County. He stated that as some of you may know, this property has been problematic to those living in the area. He stated that the original agreements and commitments made to the Plan Commission, BZA and neighbors were blatantly disregarded by the previous developer. He stated that after 5 years, minor cosmetic improvements have been made to the property, none of which can correct the negative impact to the value of our homes. He stated that the original Variance approved in August 2000 allowed for a standard maximum 25 percent lot coverage. He stated that in January and February of 2002, the BZA was petitioned with additional Variances to increase lot coverage to 39 percent, in order to place larger trailers on the lots. He stated that the request was denied for reasons of limited access of safety vehicles and negative impact on the surrounding neighbors’ properties. He stated that the comment “trying to put 10 pounds in a 5-pound bag” was made by the Board. He stated that tonight the Board is being asked for yet another Variance to change from a classification of MHP to MHS. He stated that also being requested, based on the drawing submitted with the proposed Variance, an increase in trailer size from the present 1,040 square feet to 1,280 square feet, not including the carport. He stated that this represents the same increase of lot coverage and additional safety concerns that were denied by the Board on February 20, 2002. He stated that I respectfully ask the Board to deny this request in view of its previous decision and the continued safety concerns and negative impact on our properties.

Paul Gaynor, 755 Pintail Lane, Hobart, stated that I am in one of the $200,000 to $300,000 homes. He stated that I would ask the Board to deny this request for the Variance simply, in fact, even though they’re asking for an increase in lot size, my concern would be more of…if he wants to install or build a modular-style home that the Variance should be to install a frame-style home, rather than a modular. He asked, what’s to prevent them from going ahead and putting in trailers, even though he’s supposed to put in a new and improved modular. He stated that I would ask that it be denied.

Art Richa, 621 Merganser Drive, Hobart, stated that I share the same concerns that many of these other people do, and I sat and I listened to this gentleman, and I still don’t understand. He asked, are you going to put trailers in there? He stated that that’s my question. He stated that I would also request that the Board deny this motion.

Jim Lucas, 754 Cinnamon Teal Ct., Hobart, stated that I don’t understand what a mobile home park designation is and what a mobile home park subdivision is. He asked, what is the difference and what are we talking about here? He stated that I’m going to be very frank,



if I may be. He stated that when I moved into that home that I have now and this place was developed, I thought it was a bit of a fiasco at the time, personally, for what was being done in there and the prices that were being asked for the places’ rent, whatever it was at that time. He stated, now, as the gentleman said earlier, they tried to get Variances three or four different times and it doesn’t seem to me like they quite have their act together. He stated that he tells us that those models, and I don’t know how many models there are that they’re going to develop, whether one model, two models or four models of homes. He stated that I would like to know that, if I could. He stated that of all the homes in Duck Creek Estates there is not one that is similar, and they’re all different values. He stated that I appreciate the fact that he’s in business and wants to make a profit, however, I don’t know what the lots are going to be reduced or not. He asked, are they going to be reduced or not, or are they going to be increased or not? He stated that he said something about a 6-inch Variance. He stated that I’m not quite sure. He stated that my home…he wants to make a project by doing this, and that’s fine. He stated that I have no problem with that, however, I bought my home in Duck Creek, put a lot of money into it in many different ways – thousands of dollars, increased the valuation. He stated that to have a mobile home park when it came in here earlier in the years – four, five, six years ago, I was not very happy with it, and I don’t think it’s going to help my property increase. He stated that in fact, I think it’s going to decrease it. He stated that I rather question the amount that he says those homes are worth, or will be worth. He stated that I suspect that my and the other people’s homes who live in Duck Creek Estates – our valuation will probably, possibly, go down, and I’m not happy about that. He stated that I would like you to vote no.

Kathy Bertram, 726 Cinnamon Teal Ct., Hobart, stated that I just don’t like that the houses are on top of each other, Number 1. She stated that Number 2, is that they’re putting two houses per septic, and we’re not allowed to do that. She stated that we have a whole lot more property. She stated that we’re on three-quarters of an acre and we have to have our own grinders. She stated that I just think it’s going to decrease the property value, and I think it’s going to look trashy.

Kathy Stewarts, 727 Pintail Lane, Hobart, stated that I am totally against this. She stated that we had just moved into the area about 10 weeks ago from another county to invest into Porter County to watch our property go up in value. She stated that I also moved my business from another county to this county, too, and, of course, to reside closer to the business, too. She stated that I am totally against this, because I want our property value to go up, not down.

George Janarak, 729 Cinnamon Teal Ct., stated that I pretty much echo what everybody else in the subdivision has said. He stated that my main concern is the density, that it’s going to look like a parking



lot for mobile homes with everything so close together, and the street is narrow as it is. He stated that I urge you to vote against it.

Jeff Menard, 720 Pintail Lane, Hobart, stated, from what the picture is showing here and what you want to build to what the three homes that are on there now, I mean, they already look horrible. He stated that if it’s a carport, I mean, you got blue tarps hanging up trying to cover the door. He stated that it already looks trashy, so I just think, I mean, if you’re going to put 400 (sic) of these, or 40 of these in there, and you got three of one kind already, it doesn’t make sense. He stated that it will look like trash. He stated that I agree with everybody else. He stated that we built our homes in here, or we bought and paid the price for our homes in here to make a profit and to keep our value high, not to run it down right next door.

Ken Stewarts, 727 Pintail Lane, stated that I have the same concerns as everyone else, but also, it’s bad enough at that intersection now, the way 130 comes this way. He stated that I’m not sure what road that is coming out of Hobart, but it’s 10th Street coming across the tracks. He stated that if you got all that number of homes, I’m just thinking the increase in traffic there. He stated that it’s hard enough now making the turns and getting through there now, and, with the additional traffic just from this I think, I would really think that whatever commission would want to take a look, seriously, something would have to change or there would have to be a cost associated to the County, as far as safety right there at that intersection, because there’s just too much traffic. He stated that the flow would be increased too much, and also, if, you know, God forbid that this did go forward, but I understand that he’s entitled to make a profit, but I think he’s making a profit off the residents of Duck Creek Estates, because I’ve seen the homes at 61st, and I don’t think that you would want those homes across the street from you in Shorewood. He stated that if this does go through, I think the people in Duck Creek should be entitled to make a profit off of his venture, as well.

Iqbal Michel, 730 Pintail, stated that like the gentleman just said, the house value would be $150,000. He stated that I’m also in the business and I understand where you’re coming from, but look at the value. He stated that the thing was $50,000. He stated that today it’s $100,000 because everything has gone up. He stated that you can’t fool us that I’m putting a $150,000 modular home that’s not going to increase our property value. He stated that the property value will keep up if you build over there $300,000 homes. He stated that instead of building 100 homes, build 5. He stated that that’s a failure in the Porter County development and in the community of the Duck Creek as well.

Karen Pendleton, 606 Merganser, Hobart, stated that the only thing I have to say about it, I look upon that mess behind the blue tarp. She stated that it is terrible to look at every day. She stated that I live in a beautiful home. She stated that if this


happens to go through, I am going to request that we have a new tree line because half of mine was taken away, or a fence that would totally divide us so that we, personally, do not have to look upon home after home, but it’s a terrible sight. She stated that it’s a terrible thing to spend your money and to look out at something like that on an everyday basis.

Jerry Davis, 750 Pintail Lane, stated that I have a couple of questions about the tree line. He stated that I’ve been in Duck Creek seven years, and there used to be a tree line that totally covered the area here from the golf course. He stated that it’s my understanding that the golf course, they can’t even just go in and tear down walls and trees without some special kind of permission, but a few years back, a lot of the trees between the two developments were just leveled. He stated that there was a berm behind the home that the Romeros had now that was opened up to make it appear that as you enter this street you can enter Duck Creek also. He stated that the one gentleman who had the petition earlier talked about putting up cedar trees or whatever to block something on his property from others’ views, and that was a consideration. He stated that I don’t know if Mr. McLaughlin is the one who did what was done before, but it was done. He asked, how many more trees are going to be torn down now, if this is allowed to go on and allowed to continue? He asked, are they going to go the whole 15th fairway, the West side, and tear down all the trees, so the people that they want to sell to can believe what they have is golf course property? He stated that I don’t understand how the trees were leveled and how many more will be.

Luke Dawe, 610 Merganser, stated that I just moved here four months ago. He stated, certainly, if I knew that all this was going on that would have given me pause because I moved there for the neighborhood, the aesthetic value of living on the golf course and a nice place to raise my family. He stated, and I’m no, no against this.

Mr. Tiemens stated that I’m not really 100 percent sure of what he’s referring to with regard to the tree line. He stated that the property was not wooded. He stated that there were trees along the property lines, but our property wasn’t wooded at the time it was built. He stated that I really am not privy to anything else that transpired with regard to the trees. He stated that I know the..and I’ll ask him to speak to that if he has anything to say, that I know the (inaudible) did have some involvement with certain issues that were deficient since the inception of the project. He stated that I’ll let him speak to the issue of the cost and that type of thing, but as far as not building a mobile home park, this is already zoned a mobile home park, and we could, theoretically, just continue what has already been installed. He stated that we don’t want to do that and, actually, it’s financially not feasible, as well as building available, but that’s not even feasible, either. He stated that as far as how the existing mobile homes look, I’m sure that Mr. McLaughlin has already indicated that he’s willing to upgrade those existing homes to look similar to the ones that he has proposed, so he will be making changes to existing ones, if that be the case. He


stated, as far as the density goes, the same issue goes. He stated that we already have the approval for the units as shown there, so we’re not asking for any difference in density or use or anything of that nature at all. He stated that really, bottom line, and what we want to do is just change the designation from park to subdivision. He stated that this essentially just means the ability to sell the lot with the home. He stated that right now the lot is just rented and the home is bought as personal property, so that’s really the bottom line difference. He stated, yes, they’re still under the classification as a mobile home. He stated that we’re calling them modular only because we are…they’re stick-built, but they’re still manufactured and brought on-site and put on a foundation, and they still have the steel perimeter so that that still conforms with the zoning ordinance. He stated that it’s still – if you want to call it a mobile home – but it’s more of a manufactured home. He stated, so that’s kind of the difference there. He stated, with regard to the property values, if what was continued, I’m sure the property values would decline if what is there right now was continued, and that’s why we’re here, to try to bring something better than just the typical mobile home park that you would see. He stated that as far as the sewer system goes, there is no septic. He stated that I was referring to the gray water system, which is still the sewer system. He stated that it just means they have the septic tanks there on-site and that was just per the approval we had with the White Oak conservancy District that we had at the time. He stated, so it is a sewer system. He stated that it’s just a little unconventional. He stated that there was one comment made with regard to what the difference is between a mobile home park and a subdivision. He stated that I indicated that basically you sell the lot with the home, as opposed to renting the lot. He stated that with regard to the deficiencies that were made after the inception of the initial approvals, I believe those have been remedied, and I can’t speak for the people that review those and check those to make sure those are done. He stated that it’s my understanding that those have been resolved.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I understand how the people feel in Duck Creek. He stated that they moved out there thinking they were going to have something beautiful, but there’s a piece of property next to you folks that if you wanted a trailer park, your property value will go down. He stated that I think you all know that. He stated that it’s going to fall apart with renters, I can tell you that right now. He stated that if you want to have 2 million kids on the golf course, that’s what’s going to happen. He stated that you know it and I know it. He stated that now you’re talking about the density. He stated that I could come in and ask for a zero lot line and maybe I’d get it. He stated, now you’d really have some density. He stated that I’m going to put some nice homes in there. He stated that whether you like them or not, they’re nice. He stated that they’re respectable as the homes you’d build with a contractor. He stated that these are built better than what you do in a subdivision. He stated that if I do not get this approval, I’m going to walk away from it and you people can live with it and it’ll stay or it will get worse. He stated that I guarantee it. He stated that I don’t know


what else to say, other than I can make it a nice subdivision. He stated that it’s ready to go. He stated that if it’s approved, where
I can go ahead and get that extra 6 inches on my homes, I can go in there and I can build them and sell them and have a nice subdivision. He stated that like I said before, I’m going after the middle class person, semi-retired, fellows that want to come in there and play golf. He stated that I don’t want to have a bunch of kids in there. He stated that they’ll destroy it.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we’ve had this review already for the 40 units with all the traffic issues through INDOT, through the highway engineer. He stated that we’ve had the Plan Commission approve 40 units, so, really, we’re not asking for anything other than the Variance to the standards of a mobile home park so that we can ask for a mobile home subdivision and a 6-inch rear-yard Variance. He stated that those are really the two essential things that we’re asking for. He stated that everything else is already in place. He stated that it’s already zoned for a mobile home park. He stated that it’s already zoned and approved for the 40 units that are already approved for that area, so that’s really what it boils down to.

Danielle Gaynor, 755 Pintail Lane, Hobart, there is a difference between mobile home, manufactured home and modular home and they’ve used all three terms kind of loosely. She stated that I would like to know exactly which style they’re talking about.

Mr. Gaynor stated that in our subdivision we have covenants and restrictions. He stated that if he’s willing to put up a subdivision, we’d like to see his covenants and restrictions to prevent him from letting trailers move in. He stated, also, just a quick comment, you boast about a frame building. He stated that it’s not. He stated, again, if he wants to make a profit, that’s great, but do it with a frame building.

Mr. Davis stated that I would just like to point out that the plan that was…whatever the plan was that was hatched so many years back, it obviously failed. He stated that we have a street with the infrastructure, you have three units. He stated that whether they’re inhabited or not, we don’t really know. He stated, but the plan was a bad one in terms of marketing and what have you. He stated that they’re asking for the same…they actually want to continue that plan that obviously did not take off and it did not work. He stated that we’re already stuck with the street. He stated that maybe we can convert it to a park or something. He stated that he’s asking, just really, to put more homes on it. He stated that there can be a debate about the size and what have you. He stated that if they don’t sell you’re just going to be stuck with more vacant units, and that will surely make the value go down even more.

Ms. Bertram stated that I just have a question. She asked, is he asking to put the lot size for a mobile home to put a modular home on it?




Jim Lucas, 734 Cinnamon Teal Ct., Hobart, stated that I asked a question of how many models there was going to be on there – one, two, three, four, five different models. He stated that I’m concerned about the fact that I don’t want the same thing in any division. He stated, as I stated, all the homes in our subdivision are different. He stated that there isn’t one that’s alike. He stated that I was interested in the square footage of the homes, which would help determine the amount of the price of the homes, and I would also like to say that…take the ball and run, okay?

Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Lucas needed to step outside.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that I think they need to answer, are all the houses going to look alike?

Mr. Burns asked, can the chairman explain: The property’s already rezoned, so it’s going to be a trailer park regardless, the way the zoning is right now. He stated that I want to make sure everyone understands that. He stated that there may be an opportunity – there may – where we can improve the situation if the developer agrees, like fencing that was removed. He stated that I’m aware of that. He stated that the trees were removed years ago. He stated that we could, like we said, if the developer agrees, improve the fencing, green fencing, pine trees, commitments, what type of home he’s going to build, what style. He stated that that could be done. He stated that we could improve it. He stated that I think it’s going to be there, regardless, and what’s happening, the market’s changing. He stated that interest rates are going up, prices of homes are going up, so you’re going to see this type of product expanding. He stated that that’s probably why a developer is trying to buy the property, because there is a market for it.

Mr. Detert stated that all I can say is, old problems never die. He stated that they come back and haunt us again. He stated that I was the guy that said we’re trying to put 10 pounds in a 5-pound bag several years back. He stated that I think we’re trying to do the same thing here. He stated that I’m not real crazy about putting up this kind of a park in there, although it might be better than what they might end up with.

Mr. Robertson stated that it might be better. He stated that I wouldn’t want to put any more room. He stated that I think we got kind of snookered as it was in making it bigger than it had to be. He stated that it’s a lot jammed in there. He stated that the houses couldn’t be any bigger. He asked, is Martinez still involved with this, too, or have you bought it from him or are you in the process?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that it’s Centier Bank who owns it. He stated that I’m buying it on the contingency that I can develop the property.



Mr. Robertson stated that I remember along the West side there was a house there and trees and they went in and took all those trees completely down and we were upset about that, and we made an agreement that they would plant all kinds of trees to cover that. He stated that he put little tiny things in, you know, that maybe in 50 years would have done what they took out. He stated that there was a large berm along the East side. He asked, is the berm not there anymore?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that it’s there. He stated that right now it looks junky. He stated that it will be cleaned up. He stated that the berm is there and there are trees on it, except for the first maybe six or eight lots in there, up against Duck Creek, their subdivision. He stated that I can see that lady that’s living there doesn’t want to look out her back door and see tarps. He stated that there are things we’re going to do to clean that all up.

Mr. Robertson stated that the question is whether it’s going to get better or worse. He stated that it might be, if we don’t approve it, that they’ll be forced to cut down the density to make it go. He stated that maybe nobody wants to live in like that.

Mr. Burns stated that if we don’t do anything, somebody could purchase it and continue the project, is that correct?

Mr. Robertson stated, well, they could, but so far it hasn’t been economical.

Mr. Burns stated that it may be shortly here. He stated that it may be with what’s happened with the interest rates. He asked, are you willing to make commitments, I mean, serious commitments?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, oh, yeah. He stated, yes. He stated that as far as making the lots larger, economically, I cannot do it. He stated that I’m already at the maximum for what I have to pay for that property. He stated that we’re right there.

Mr. Robertson stated, we would also not want any enlargement of the house, coverage of the property.

Mr. Burns asked, what is he talking – six inches?

Mr. Robertson stated, he’s going from a 40 foot to a 48-foot. He stated that he’s increasing the footprint.

Mr. Burns stated that he’s talking that they’d have a permanent home, rather than a temporary home. He stated that that’s a big difference in itself, okay? He stated, but still, it’s smaller than the neighbors, and I understand that. He stated, but I think, it’s better, what I’m hearing, it could be better, depending on where you purchase these homes from, because there are some homes built like stick-built, I know that. He stated that it depends where you buy



them from and how much you pay for it. He asked, are these all 2 by 4 construction?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that they are 2 by 6 walls, 2 by 10 floor joists.

Mr. Burns asked, what centers. He asked, 16-inch centers?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that 16 inch.

Mr. Burns asked, are you still going to have carports? He asked are you going to have garages?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, yes what?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, carports. He stated that we would like, if we can, on the carports, if we can do it, I’d like to take and put in an 8-foot garage door, instead of having it wide open.

Mr. Burns asked, why not garages, do away with the carports?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I guess it was okayed as carports, but, if we can do garages, I’d love to do garages. He stated that all it is is just putting a garage door up.

Mr. Detert stated that an example you gave us, I assume that’s a two-car garage.

Mr. McLaughlin stated, yes. He stated that we’d only be able to put a one-car on.

Mr. Tiemens stated that it’s only 14 feet wide, so they’d need one car.

Mr. Detert stated that you say you can’t enlarge the lots and make fewer lots because of some existing septic systems?

Mr. Tiemens stated, yeah, the whole sewer system is based on septic tanks every other lot, so, to move the lot lines, then you come into a situation where the tanks aren’t going to be in the right spot; they’re going to be in the middle of a house now. He stated that we’re kind of stuck with the lot lines.

Mr. Detert stated that it would be a lot more desirable if you would look more at the number of lots in there and make a double car garage out of every house, and they’d look a little better, a lot better and be more in keeping with what’s there. He stated that I don’t know what you’d have to do to adjust the sewers, but I’m sure that could be accomplished.





Mr. Tiemens stated that everything could be done. He stated that it’s just a matter of economics and making it happen.

Mr. Detert stated, I understand.

Mr. Tiemens stated that, basically, to leave everything as it is, you’re almost losing half the lots to reduce the number of lots you’re moving a bunch of tanks to make that happen.

Mr. Detert stated that I’d really like to see improvement with this property, but I’d want a lot more detail. He stated that I don’t think a one-car garage or carport would be conducive to the surrounding area. He stated that I think you need a house that has a two-car garage, something, at least, like that.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we’re showing the one 14-foot carport right now, on the plan, so, anything else really, you’d need a larger lot.

Mr. Detert stated, and that’s what I’m saying. He stated that I think the lots need to be made larger, and fewer lots. He stated, otherwise, I don’t think it’s going to be in keeping with what’s around there, residentially.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that the cost is astronomical to tear it our and rebuild it. He stated that I won’t do it. He stated that I can’t; it’s too expensive.

Mr. Detert stated that people put a lot of houses in on a lot bigger lots adjacent to you and they spent a lot of money doing that.

Mr. Tiemens stated, well, understandably, but, again, this is already zoned mobile home park.

Mr. Detert stated, I understand that.

Mr. Burns stated, see, the way I’m looking at it, hopefully, he can make this like villas, is that where you’re heading, villas, like small ranches, villas? He asked, like a retirement community, villas?

Mr. Tiemens stated, a patio home.

Mr. Burns stated, same thing, a patio home. He asked, is this a garage or a carport in the picture?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, a garage. He stated that that garage right there, that’s a 16-foot door, that’s 20-foot wide right there.

Mr. Burns asked, will this fit on…once you got the Variance, this would fit?





Mr. Tiemens stated that then it also comes into, you can’t really fit that size on there, because then it comes into a fire hazard, an issue of space between buildings, so, really, we’re limited to the 14 foot without making the lots bigger.

Mr. Burns asked, but if you made the lots larger, it still won’t fit, is that what you’re saying, with the garage?

Mr. Tiemens stated, yeah, if the lots are larger, sure.

Mr. Burns asked, if the lots were larger, but if we gave you the Variance, this would still not fit, with the garage?

Mr. Tiemens stated, that wouldn’t fit with the Variance, right. He stated that we’re showing 7 feet right now from the 14-foot garage to the common property line between garages, and I believe we need 6 in order to accommodate fire code.

Mr. Burns stated that I’m just trying to figure out a way to improve it, because, somebody could develop it as it’s going right now. He stated that you could walk away and somebody else purchase it and continue with the development.

Mr. Tiemens stated to answer your question, I guess we could since there would be…there’d still be 10 feet between the two garages, so it would still meet the fire code with that, so we could put a 16-foot garage on there.

Mr. McLaughlin asked, we could put a 16-foot on there?

Mr. Tiemens stated, yeah.

Mr. McLaughlin stated, then we could put a 13-foot door on it.

Mr. Tiemens stated, yeah.

Mr. Burns stated that I’m like Bob. He stated that I’d like to see a plan. He stated that if you come back with some type of commitments, what type of homes, but I think we’re looking for like patio homes with fencing.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-V-11 to the 7-19-06 meeting, with the developer to come back with some thoughts of making the lots a little larger and getting two-car garages on there.

Discussion:

Mr. McLaughlin stated, can’t do it, sir.

Mr. Detert stated, then I’ll change my motion to deny, if you want. He stated that if we can’t get a decent looking home in there –



and I hate to think what it might end up being – but I think we need to try to get a better-looking home in there than a single garage and a carport, frankly.

Mr. Burns stated that I agree with you. He stated that my only concern is that it’s zoned already. He stated that you’re not going to change the zoning, unless somebody comes in and changes the zoning.

Mr. Detert stated, he said he can’t do it, so….we have two choices – approve it or deny it.

Mr. Burns stated that I was hoping he’d come back with some type of commitments, that was my thought.

Mr. Tiemens stated, well, we love your idea of making the garage bigger, and that was left off due to the fact that we didn’t want to ask for everything. He stated that obviously, that increases the lot coverage and everything else, so that is one item that we just kind of decided, well, we should leave it off because we didn’t want to ask for everything. He stated that at this point we felt it would be easier to go with what was already there and ask for the two small Variances, so I’m sure they would love to put that on there.

Mr. Burns asked, the three homes that are there now, what’s going to happen? He asked, if you got this approval, what would happen to the three existing homes, with tarps.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I’m going to straighten them out. He stated that I don’t like the looks of them, either. He stated that first of all, I’m going to see if I can drop them down to where they belong instead of sitting up on (inaudible).

Mr. Burns asked, can they be removed? He stated that they’re leased units, rentals?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, you know what? He stated that I never thought about that. He stated that it’s possible, or I drop them down to where they should be with just a block, block and a half showing, like a standard house would be on a crawl space.

Mr. Burns stated that I’d like to see them removed. He stated that if these neighbors are looking at these houses they got tarps.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that what they’re talking about is there are tarps over the carports.

Mr. Burns stated, I know.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that that’s what they’re looking at. He stated that that’s why I’d rather have a garage door.

Mr. Burns stated, I guess, I have to ask you, are you willing to come up with some type of other plan, patio homes or something?


Mr. McLaughlin stated that we already did.

Mr. McClure stated that I’m not sure you were understanding what he’s saying. He stated that I think he was talking about fencing, trees….

Mr. Burns stated, a permanent garage, a permanent home.

Mr. Tiemens stated that I think we can work something out, give you something in written detail that would explain, and revise the drawing that would show a garage.

Mr. Burns stated, and with the understanding that it would be an improvement over what’s there now, and in your plan, covenants and what you are going to do with those three homes that are there now, or three trailers. He stated that I’d like to see them removed, if they are rental units or converted or whatever.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-V-11 to the 7-19-06 meeting, with the developer and engineer to get together and try to work something out and to try to meet with a small segment of the property owners to see if they can accommodate them in some small way. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that I think what we’re trying to do is make something better. He stated that if we don’t allow anything to become better you’re going to end up with a junky old trailer park. He stated that you have to consider that. He stated that we’re going to try to give him 30 days to work something out, and come back with a more detailed plan, a landscaping plan, a plan hopefully that you can fit garages on there, etc. He stated that you’ve heard the conversation tonight, so we’ll give you 30 days to work on it; come back.

Case 06-V-12. Petition of David Sahy, 490 Ashford Lane, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit an addition to an attached garage to extend 10 feet over the front building line, said garage having been previously granted a Variance to extend over that building line, located at 490 Ashford Lane, in Union Township.

Mr. Sahy stated that we had a previous Variance when the house was first built. He stated that it’s already 10 feet over the building line. He stated that the garage is. He stated that the house is set back from the garage, attached though. He stated that what we want to do is change our driveway. He stated that our driveway would be coming down and you have to turn in the side of the garage and we would like to take the driveway, move it over to the front of the garage, move the garage door to the front. He stated that our garage is asymmetrical and with the front entrance it would look better if it was symmetrical the whole way across, so we need to


extend out 40 inches towards the side. He stated, not encroaching any further forward on the building line, but just off to the side. He stated that I have a sketch of the front view of the property. He stated that it shows the existing roofline and this side is up higher than that. He stated that we just want to extend it out so the rooflines match up.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated, so you want to pull this wall out this way, correct?

Mr. Sahy stated, yes, about 40 inches, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mr. Sahy stated that I believe it was 14, two lots in each direction. He stated that I also have a letter from one neighbor in support of my plan and before I even knew I had to have a Variance, I submitted the building permits through Shorewood Forest and I have an approved permit through them and I have an approved permit from the County to cut into the County road.

Mr. Burns stated, so 14 neighbors were contacted and apparently it was not an issue, because no neighbor is here.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-V-12, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Robertson - Yes

Case 06-V-13. Petition of Lamar Advertising Company, 1770 W. 41st Ave., Gary, seeking a Variance to permit modification and relocation of a non-conforming sign at 383 U.S. W. 0Hwy 6, in Portage Township.

Shawn Pettit stated that he and Jim Perry represent the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Pettit stated that I am the Indiana real estate representative for LaMar Advertising, with offices at 1770 W. 41st Ave., Gary. He stated that tonight we are before you to request a Variance to allow the movement of a non-conforming outdoor advertising sign on the North side of U.S. 6 in Portage Township, more specifically East of McCool Road in South Haven, on the North side at the Subway location. He stated that the purpose for this movement is primarily twofold. He stated that Number 1, it’s a safety issue for people reading the board as they’re driving through. He stated that it is blocked by the Subway sign and the hardship as you see in the findings of facts is that the state of Indiana has acquired right-of-



way to widen U.S. 6, therefore the Subway sign had to be moved, and when he moved the Subway sign it’s in front of our structure now, and we would like to move it to the location you see on the third page of the survey zoning packet I’ve provided you, and it’s also on the other side of our board up there. He stated that we’ll actually be moving North of the existing sign.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Marty Rogness stated that I own property located at 381 W. U.S. Hwy 6. He stated that I’m opposed to this sign movement. He stated that what’s occurring right now is not exactly what’s been portrayed to this panel. He stated that they have an existing sign that is not well maintained. He stated that the pole is leaning and the sign itself has four signs on one pole. He stated that this structure is completely, totally different. He stated that it is a free-standing structure. He stated that it’s a billboard sign that sticks way up out of the ground. He stated that the problems I have with it are the ones I mentioned. He stated that it is a non-conforming sign and it’s within 500 feet. He stated that they already have a sign, the same sign company has one less than 500 feet from there. He stated that I don’t see the purpose of that. He stated that I’ve never been opposed to anything or anybody doing anything in my whole life, but I just have some questions about this. He stated that when South Haven…it’s its own little city. He stated that when you’re driving down the street there, every business has its own little sign. He stated that these big billboard signs that come in like this, these are ones for along expressways, so on and so forth. He stated, being our own little city, we should have our own little signs there and it should be for the business owners in that area. He stated, to me, this Board right here, you’re our mayor and councilmen, and, if you go to some other cities, such as Portage on Route 6, as a matter of fact, you don’t see these big signs doing that. He stated that they’re (inaudible) businesses themselves, and I’m just totally opposed to that and they have an existing sign there, without (sic) reiterating.

Mr. Pettit stated that he’s absolutely right. He stated that there is a four-panel, and each panel is 6 by 12, that we would be replacing, as you see on the drawing. He stated that that’s basically the purpose of the Variance, is to replace this, to upgrade it. He stated that instead of four panels we’ll have two. He stated that they will be larger. He stated that they will be similar to the sign that’s 475 feet to the East. He stated that right now, if we choose from a marketing standpoint, we can leave the sign up. He stated that the sign is non-conforming. He stated that it can stay up until the end of time, quite frankly. He stated that we’d like to do what we consider to be an upgrade, improve the sign, the maintenance and the structure, and move it so the line of sight is more readable. He stated that right now people trying to read it may slow down, could cause a traffic problem, and again, we were perfectly within our rights until the state took the property or purchased the property through right-of-way acquisition from all the businesses along U.S. 6



to widen it. He stated that really our hardship was created – we wouldn’t be here before you if the road wasn’t going to be widened, quite frankly, gentlemen. He stated that we would probably go in and maintain the sign. He stated that we have over 2,000 signs, so it’s a matter of time when we get to them and maintain them. He stated that we would maintain the sign. He stated that it would be a brand-new structure.

Mr. Rogness stated that in reference to the maintenance of this sign, I’ve been there at the location for 15 years, across the street for three years, total of about 19 years. He stated that it’s, to my knowledge, it’s never been maintained. He stated that they just change the board, and, at this point, it’s leaning. He stated that I just don’t appreciate the idle threat that, well, we’ll just leave it there, because it’s okay now. He stated, that being the case, it should be condemned, the way it stands, and not using the state as a crutch to exist (sic) a sign like this that is non-conforming, it says that in your literature, and it’s within 500 feet. He stated that I would be totally against it if it was another thousand feet down the road. He stated, keep in mind, this is our little city.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, is all four signs approved?

Mr. Robertson stated that each one is a 6 by 12 and there’s…back to back, so I guess the whole thing is 12 by 12.

Mr. Burns stated, I mean, was it approved like that?

Mr. Pettit stated that, in essence it would be 12 by 12, yes, back to back.

Mr. Burns asked, but four different signs. He asked, how did that happen, I guess?

Mr. Robertson stated, I have no idea. He stated that the only sign I remember along there was about 10 years ago. He stated that they talked about putting a sign over by Pepe’s and we turned it down, and that’s the only sign I ever remember along there.

Mr. Pettit stated that I can tell you gentlemen, that sign was approved by INDOT in 1993. He stated that we have our state permit and it was Whiteco advertising. He stated that we’ve gone through some changes in ownership. He stated that when it was Whiteco outdoor advertising the lease was started with the current owner, Mr. Shideler, in September of ’96.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m sure it was approved, but how was it approved? He asked, was it approved for four signs or one sign?

Mr. Robertson asked, I wonder why it wasn’t approved by Porter County. He asked, it was approved by IDOT (sic)?

Mr. Burns asked, so Porter County does not have to approve this sign?

Mr. McClure stated, well, if they got a Porter County building permit, they would have to.

Mr. Burns stated, they would have to, yeah.

Mr. Perry stated, well, when you get a state permit you typically need to provide the building permit with it, so, they wouldn’t’ issue a state permit…

Mr. Pettit stated, unfortunately we don’t have the…we got the state permit.

Mr. Burns asked, do we have records of this, of how that was approved originally?

Mr. Siminski stated that it is in an industrial zone, so, I mean, signs are allowed in an industrial zones and commercial zones.

Mr. Burns stated that the question is four signs.

Mr. Robertson stated, even then, only signs are allowed for the industry that’s there, not outside signs.

Mr. Siminski stated that billboards are allowed in I-1.

Mr. Robertson asked, if it’s approved, right?

Mr. Siminski stated, no, it doesn’t have to come. He stated that not all signs have to come before the BZA. He stated that we have some signs on 130 that are going up that didn’t come to the BZA. He stated that there is a U.S. 6 overlay zone, too. He stated that I’m not sure when that overlay zone was put into effect. He stated that I don’t have that here.

Mr. Pettit stated that I don’t believe, in looking at your ordinance when we filed, I don’t believe there’s a square footage requirement on advertising signs right now. He stated that I think your new, proposed, in talking with Mr. Thompson, I think you’re proposing square footage requirements, but I don’t think your current ordinance has square footage. He stated that it gets back to how can that be allowed. He stated that you’ve got 72 square feet times 4. He stated that you’re over 300 square feet of space. He stated that typically you’ll see square footage on advertising signs, minimum square footage or maximum square footage allowed. He stated that most communities go 400 square feet, depending on where you’re at.

Mr. Burns stated, ‘cause Route 6 is being cluttered with signs. He stated that I understand businesses have to have signs, but it’s getting cluttered.




Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-V-13 to the 7-19-06 meeting so staff could do some research on what was approved from the original case. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that this says it’s an existing sign.

Mr. Perry stated that it might have been a modification. He stated that that’s why I wasn’t sure what was actually approved. He stated that I was trying to look through the file to see.

Mr. McClure stated that we’ve had testimony that it’s been there for 18 years.

Ms. Byers stated that if the sign was approved in ’93 we are not going to have anything on it.

Mr. McClure stated that I think from our public testimony, it said we’ve been looking at this sign for 18 years, correct?

Mr. Rogness stated that I’ve been there for 18 years. He stated that I don’t know exactly when…

Mr. McClure asked, it’s been there the whole time you’ve been there?

Mr. Rogness stated, correct.

Mr. McClure stated that they’re not going to have those records.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m back to my point. He stated that if it was out of compliance, if there was only supposed to be one sign versus four signs. He stated that I don’t want to approve something when it’s supposed to be just one sign.

Mr. Detert stated that he said he was going to go to two now, back to back.

Mr. Perry stated that it’s single panels, back to back.

Mr. Burns asked, but how many signs on each side?

Mr. Perry stated, one sign.

Mr. Detert asked, instead of the four now?

Mr. Perry stated, correct.

Mr. Burns asked, but the same size?

Mr. Perry stated, no. He stated, these will be 12 by 24.



Mr. Siminski stated that could be wrong, but I think a billboard can be 300 square feet on each side.

Mr. Pettit stated that it’s 144 on each side is what it would work out to be.

Mr. Burns stated that I understand that. He stated that it’s just a question: Is it one sign or four signs, accumulative?

Mr. Pettit stated, well, I guess it’s how you want to look at it. He stated that in our industry we call them panels. He stated that we have four panels. He stated that we have one sign. He stated that the structure is one sign because it’s one monopole, as you can see from that. He stated that it’s going to be one sign with two panels, back to back, 12 by 24’s. He stated that right now we have one sign out there, four panels, 6 by 12’s, so it depends on how you want to break the sign itself down. He stated that I mean it is one free-standing sign and the business Mr. Shideler has and on-premise Subway advertising, you know, for the business there.

Mr. Burns stated that to me, one sign is you’re advertising one business. He stated that if you’ve got more than one business, it’s more than one sign. He stated that if you advertise more than one business it’s multiple signs. He stated that that’s just how I’m looking at it.

Mr. Robertson stated that it says that maximum area of each panel shall be 300 feet, one poster panel per facing.

Mr. Burns stated, there you go.

Mr. Robertson stated, maximum area of such panel 300 feet, free-standing, located not less than 600 feet from other signs.

Mr. Perry stated that that, to me, says it’s 300 feet per face.

Mr. McClure stated that it specifically says one panel.

Mr. Burns stated that it said one panel. He stated that that’s where I’m coming from. He asked, what’s one panel?

Mr. Perry stated that you got single-faced signs instead of double-faced signs.

Mr. Robertson stated, no, no, no. He stated that you’ve got two. He stated that you’ve got like this. He stated that you can just have one per face. He stated that it says per facing. He stated, one poster panel per facing, so you’ve got two facings, this way and this way. He stated, but you’ve got two per facing.




Mr. Pettit stated, currently, but what we’re proposing is to do exactly what you said, one and one. He stated, one 12 by 24 and the other 12 by 24.

Mr. Robertson stated, just curious how that got in there.

Mr. Pettit stated, I don’t know. He stated that Jim and I work with the company and we’ve gone through some reiteration (sic) of ownership. He stated that I did see in the file that there was another sign company, not only Whiteco but Olegard. He stated that there is some Olegard documentation in here, and, unfortunately, what we’ve run into with other signs in other communities is that company did not maintain things. He stated that they may not have gotten a building permit from you folks back in the ‘90s. He stated that we may find that out.

Mr. Robertson stated that it also says on the IDOT application, it says “existing sign”. He stated, so it wasn’t a new sign when they went to IDOT.

Mr. Pettit stated that it was already there, but Olegard may have put this up in the ‘80s or ‘90s. He stated that the gentleman may be right. He stated that it may have been there 18 years under Olegard, and then when Whiteco came in we bought several smaller sign companies – Olegard, Ace, Bick, some of these out here. He stated that they went and they upgraded the sign permit – and they may have added a panel in doing that.

Case 06-UV-5. Petition of Iris and Cheryl Pratt, 665 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit leased office space for a home builder or general contractor (with no outside storage) in an existing house, to be located 1808 Georgia St., in Center Township.

Cheryl Pratt stated that she and her husband and mother are the petitioners in this matter. She stated that we bought the house, my mom and I, and it’s kind of like a full circle. She stated that I started out in Burlington Beach store, and now we wanted a house in the area or maybe my mom later and for me later, but the main reason was all the garages. She stated that there’s like a 20-car garage on the property. She stated that it’s huge. She stated, so, I wanted the storage. She stated that I talked my husband into let’s go ahead and get it, and then he has a business that he is just down the road. She stated that he has a couple office spaces just right down the road, and I thought, you know, my mom can help her income a little bit, supplement it, and this would be perfect. She stated that we don’t have people that come in and buy things from us. She stated that we’re just offices, so, I mean, we have like displays that people can look at to make an appointment for someone to come in and talk to us. She stated that three or four times a week people come in and talk to us and show them things, but, we don’t have anything for sale, so it’s not like it’s a walk-in traffic type business, and I just thought my husband could save money. She stated that I could get my mom a little bit more a little supplement to her income, instead of him renting from somebody else, why not rent from my mom?

Thomas Nevitt, 665 N. 300 E., stated that I’m the proposed tenant for this property. He stated that I’m a general contractor, home builder and remodeler. He stated that currently we have offices at 3907 Calumet Avenue. He stated that my lease has run out. He stated that I guess I elected not to renew my lease at this time. He stated that I’ve been 5 years in the showroom business and I’ve had enough. He stated that I’m going back to what I do, which is remodeling and building. He stated that I need an office space as a professional and this opportunity came up and I decided that if we could get a Variance for the use, it would be a good fit for our company. He stated that as a business we depend on the goodwill of the community. He stated that I’ve operated this business in Porter County for the last 30 years. He stated that the use as an office space. He stated that it is not going to be as a showroom that clients come in. He stated that I think there is a similar property up the street, the Keldon Company, general contractor North of 500. He stated that it’s a good location for us. He stated that it’s close. He stated that it’s a good fit. He stated that it’s close to my home. He stated that I think we would be an asset to the neighborhood as good neighbors. He stated that I’ve done work for some people in that neighborhood over the years, and we’d like the opportunity to rent this place. He stated that the alternative was the use for that at this point would be as a rental to single family, a family who wanted to move in there or students or whatever. He stated that the image that we need to project as business, we need to keep that place clean, keep the place operating in a friendly manner, and we’re very cognizant of the fact that there is a school right across the street and there are kids that go into that school during the school year and there are kids in that neighborhood that you have to be aware of and respect of those families that live in that neighborhood. He stated that we have no plans at this point to alter any of the footprint of the property. He stated that the existing property will stay pretty much as is. He stated that my wife has grand visions of remodeling the outside of that, improving the look on the outside. He stated that I think eventually just the general trend of this area is that these properties are going commercial. He stated that there are probably more commercial properties up and down this strip right now than there are residential. He stated that we talked about maybe going in there and asking for a zoning change, but I guess my feeling was that we wanted to get the neighbors to get to know us and understand what we’re about and then maybe at some point down the line if our situation (inaudible) we would come back at that time in front of the board. He stated that this is for a Variance on the usage as it is. He stated that I’m 55 years old. He stated that I’m not going to be there forever. He stated that I know that, but we want the opportunity to run a business out of there for the next 5 or 10 years. He stated that maybe at that point in time it probably will become commercial. He stated that you probably know better than I about that. He stated that we have a shop down the street at 618 N. Calumet Ave., a 2,000 square foot warehouse and shop. He stated that we will not be using this area for any outside storage. He stated that there is some inside storage in those garages. He stated that other than that I think we would be an asset, as opposed to (inaudible) that community in that area.

Susan Gustafson, 1802 Georgia St., stated that I am one of his former customers that he mentioned. She stated that he remodeled half my house. She stated that he and his employees are very professional and our concern was mostly traffic because there are a lot of children, but since I have learned that it’s just going to be an office space, we’re not going to have people coming in and out, like we have heard about in some other proposals, I don’t see any problem with this. She stated that I have seen his showroom. She stated that it’s exquisite. She stated that it’s too bad you’re not going to have it anymore, but I believe it will, indeed, be an asset to the neighborhood.

Zethoe Field, 4201 N. Calumet, stated that I am against this spot zoning, which you’ve heard before. She stated that they’re not taking care of the roads out there or the edge of the roads. She stated that they are a real mess and with the trucks coming in, no.

Ms. Pratt stated that I’m not sure what she meant about the streets being messed up. She stated that we haven’t been there long enough to mess up any streets. She stated that I’m not sure what she means.

Mr. Nevitt stated that we’re not going to be in the business of taking any deliveries there other than UPS or whoever might deliver in a small…

Ms. Pratt stated, like in residential.

Mr. Nevitt stated, like in a residential neighborhood. He stated that we’re not going to have semis pulling in in there or large trucks going in and out of that. He stated that it’s not an easy place – actually, it would be pretty much impossible place to get in and have a large truck in that area. He stated that as far as deterioration of the road, it didn’t seem bad to me. He stated, of course, I live out further in the County where you get even less attention to the roads.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that we had this come before us once before and I guess we turned it down (sic).

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we agreed to it.

Mr. Detert stated that I remember one of our concerns was having enough parking space there. He stated, you said people will be coming in and out?

Mr. Nevitt stated that we would have clients come in by appointment.

Ms. Pratt stated, by appointment only.




Mr. Robertson stated that I think we okayed that. He stated that it was a woman that was going to do acupuncture. He stated, we okayed that, but she didn’t follow through.

Mr. Burns stated, that previous case, I was concerned, like the neighbors, spot zoning because that whole street is residential. He stated that that was my concern, and if I remember, I voted against it because it was spot zoning was my concern. He stated that the only way I would approve this if it’s a temporary situation, not a permanent Use Variance.

Mr. Detert stated that it’s a Use Variance, so you can put whatever restrictions on it that you want.

Mr. Burns stated, but I do think one of these days it will be commercial, eventually, but right now, that whole street is all residential.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, Georgia Street, running West is, but the highway that it’s on is all…that’s the problem.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s the problem. He stated that the issue that I had last time is where does it stop, where does the commercial stop? He asked, does it go down the street and affect the rest of the neighbors? He stated, I don’t know. He stated that it would be low traffic.

Mr. Detert stated that we could put a Use Variance and limit it to a couple years. He stated that if it didn’t work out then we might not want to renew it after a couple of years. He stated that that usually puts somebody on their toes to be a good neighbor.

Mr. Robertson asked, what kind of traffic would you have in there?

Mr. Nevitt stated that I would be going there every day. He stated that I have an office staff of one.

Ms. Pratt stated, two.

Mr. Nevitt stated that I have one outside salesperson who probably checks in once a day, so that there would generally there would be three cars there. He stated that we would have from time to time people coming in and out, so there would be some other traffic.

Mr. Robertson asked, what would be the maximum you would expect on the worst day?

Ms. Pratt stated, three cars sitting in the driveway and one a day, because we could also tell the guys that they are not allowed to come there.

Mr. Nevitt asked, are you saying at any given time?



Mr. Robertson stated, well, just in a day, how many trips in and out, you know, how much traffic in there?

Mr. Nevitt stated that I would go in and out of there probably three times a day, personally.

Mr. Robertson asked, and then everybody else, what else would there be?

Mr. Nevitt stated that well, when the office manager comes in in the morning, she may go out for lunch, but, other than that, she’s there all day. He stated that the salesperson comes in once and then leaves. He stated that he’s in and out of there one time. He stated that I would say probably maybe two or three other people during a day may come in and out of there on any given day.

Mr. Robertson asked, you’re saying that the workers, you could have them go somewhere else?

Ms. Pratt stated that they very seldom actually come to the shop, anyway.

Mr. Nevitt stated that we do have an office space and shop space at 1619 N. calumet.

Mr. Robertson asked, that you’re going to maintain?

Mr. Nevitt stated that we’ve rented that for the last six years, seven years. He stated that as long as we can maintain it at a reasonable rent, we would maintain it. He stated that if we cannot for whatever reason, we would have to find someplace else equivalent.

Mr. Burns asked, how many employees do you have?

Mr. Nevitt stated that right now we have got myself, a salesperson and an office person and four out in the field – eight.

Mr. Burns asked, will you need a sign? He asked, are you going to put a sign on this property?

Mr. Nevitt stated, well, that’s something I would like to do, but if it’s not in the books, obviously I would not do it, but I’m sure every business person would like to put a sign up to let people know where they operate.

Mr. Burns stated, see, the problem is it’s residential. He stated that you’d have to get a Variance.

Mr. Robertson stated that I could accept it with limitations like you’re talking about, like, say five years.

Mr. Burns stated that I was thinking more like two years and no signs.

Mr. Robertson stated, workers come to other locations, just the office manager and occasional salesperson.

Mr. Burns stated, no outside storage, no deliveries.

Mr. Nevitt asked, can I have UPS?

Mr. Robertson stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m talking like semi trucks.

Mr. Detert stated, I’m just wondering when your clients come in you go over plans or stuff with them and what do they stay? He asked, maybe an hour?

Mr. Nevitt stated, hopefully. He stated that some of them are in and out of there in half an hour or 45 minutes. He stated that we’ve had people stay three or four hours. He stated that some people talk more than others.

Mr. Burns stated that it appears that it’s going to be low traffic, I think. He stated that I really don’t have a problem if we have some controls on it., at least for a couple years, because, eventually, it will be commercial. He stated that it might be 5 years, it might be whatever.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-UV-5 for 2 years with no outside storage; no semi deliveries; hours of operation to be 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the week, with an occasional Saturday; employees only allowed to come in from time to time, but not on a regular daily basis; and no signage; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Robertson - Yes

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that he’s been in contact with Mr. Phelps from a couple of months ago. He stated that he was the one who wanted a TCO for a mobile home to put up a friend. He stated that in the meantime, his friend is now living in the house. He stated that he did visit the property and you can take a look at the pictures. He stated that he has cleaned it up quite a bit and he is still in the process of cleaning it up. He stated that he called Mr. Phelps yesterday and he was trying to find somebody who could haul the tractor semi out of there. He stated that he needs to know from the Board whether he can pull this off the table for next month’s meeting.

Mr. Burns asked if we should wait until it’s all cleaned up.

Mr. Robertson stated that we could see what’s done by next month.






Mr. Detert moved to pull the Phelps case off the table and to put it on the agenda for the 7-19-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.



PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

S\ James Robertson, Chairman


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