Porter County Government

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
July 19, 2006

M I N U T E S

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

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Rich Hudson and James Robertson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Kenneth Elwood and Toni Byers.

Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the June 21, 2006 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

Old Business:

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. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Dave Tiemens stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter. He stated, as stated, we were here last month. He stated that we are asking for a Variance to mobile home park standards to be able to plat this as a mobile home subdivision and we need the development standards for a mobile home park in order to obtain that. He stated that there was (sic) a few items that you asked for and I can pass out…this is just a revised site plan. He stated that I will pass out some brochures here. He stated that the first photograph here, the arborvitaes that are in the forefront are a digital image overlay of what we are proposing to install to hinder the view from Duck Creek to Golf Creek, so we would install those just about up to Lot 4 where the golf course already starts their natural wood line along the property line. He stated that as we’ve indicated before, we are not going to remove any additional trees along the golf course. He stated that there is already a screening that’s along the golf course, so the primary issue with regard to the screening is basically from Lot 4 all the way to the South, which is what the picture you are looking at right now shows. He stated that it is our understanding that any items that were under review previously by the Plan Commission has been addressed and I’m referring to the West side of the property, which arborvitaes, as shown in this picture, were also installed previously. He stated that I have just a couple of these to pass out. He stated that you

can kind of look to see what construction elements are being implemented in here. He stated that the first item was landscaping and the screening, and I’ve addressed that. He stated that the second item was the addition of a garage in lieu of the carport that was previously installed on Lots 1, 3 4, and 40 and that we proposed during the last meeting to install on the rest of these. He stated that it was requested that a garage would be more visually appealing and go along with the theory of land ownership a little better than a carport would. He stated, so we’ve added a 16 by 24 car 2-car garage to all the lots. He stated that the previously mentioned 1, 3, 4 and 40 are existing manufactured units that will remain. He stated that what we are going to do with those however is convert the carports to garages, because basically there’s three sides to them right now, so the garage door on the front would make that a garage. He stated that in addition to that we are planning on doing additional landscaping to the outside of those existing units, and lastly, those units will be lowered and one concrete block will be exposed, as opposed to just the concrete slab, so it will look more like a crawl space versus a home on a slab. He stated that the rest of the units are going to be installed more of a modular style so there will be that same thing, so you will see in those pictures in there that there is just the one block exposed with a crawl space.

Mr. Burns stated that there is one house there with no garage. He stated that the foundation is there and there is not a garage. He stated that they had a walkway built, like a zigzag walkway, but they never built a garage.

Mr. Tiemens stated that a garage will be installed. He stated that all the units will have either the one-car or the two-car garage and primarily the one-car is for the existing units there because they already have everything in place for the 14-foot one-car garage.

Mr. Burns asked, these are all rental units, these three?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that (inaudible).

Mr. Burns stated, but they are rentals now.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that they are. He stated that they have to fix them up some.

Mr. Tiemens stated that I believe that those were the main three items that you wanted clarification and addition or revisions to from the last meeting that we had.

Mr. Burns stated that let’s talk about the green fencing. He stated that when I was out there, there’s two mounds it looks like with pine trees. He asked, are those part of this subdivision?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that the mounds that are out there belong to the golf course, but we are going to utilize them and clean them up

ourselves so that it looks like the people that are living there have the use of that land, which they do. He stated that we are going to clean all that up in there and make grass out of it. He stated that we are going to do that so it’s not a piece of junk out there. He stated that the golf course said go ahead and clean it up.

Mr. Burns stated that I think you need more green fencing.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that it’s solid trees there.

Mr. Burns stated, not completely. He stated that there are some openings.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that we are proposing going from the trees that are already….

Mr. Tiemens stated, from the trees that are on the golf course all the way to SR 130, those arborvitaes will be installed.

Mr. Burns stated that you said from Lot 4 South. He asked, did I misunderstand you?

Mr. Tiemens stated that that’s where the golf course starts.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that we are going all the way to the golf course and then we got the mound. He stated that we are going all the way to that mound and then install trees from there on.

Mr. Burns asked, can you draw the mound on here? He asked, do you have a sketch of it, where the mound is at?

Mr. Tiemens stated that you can see in that picture where the arborvitaes end, there’s the mound.

Mr. Burns stated that I can’t tell on here where it’s at.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we believe it’s in this area right here. He stated that everything all the way that way will be these digital arborvitaes here.

Mr. Burns asked, where’s the opening? He stated that there’s two sets here.

Mr. Tiemens stated that these are existing. He stated that these are on this lot here.

Mr. Burns stated that there’s spots between existing trees that are open.

Mr. Tiemens stated that anything that’s larger than one of these we can add to fill in that gap between the trees.

Mr. Burns stated that I think that’s what the neighbors want. He stated that the neighbors want the green fencing. He stated that there are some existing trees already, but there are some openings. He stated that this house has a carport. He stated that one has a double open carport.

Mr. Tiemens stated, right. He stated that that will be closed off in the back and a garage door added in the front.

Mr. Robertson stated, Rich, when you were out there on the other side, the West side, there were just some little tiny arborvitae that the last fellow that planted…

Mr. Burns stated that’s the issue. He stated that what I see the issue is the neighbors.

Mr. Robertson stated, on that side, but when I was out there a year or so ago the neighbor to the West was also upset because they cut everything down.

Mr. Burns stated, you’re right. He stated that this is where he cut the trees.

Mr. Robertson stated, really, it’s up to the front, up by the road, I think, because there’s a house up there and that guy was real ticked off.

Mr. Tiemens stated that that’s on the West side. He stated that those have been reinstalled to the County’s acceptance.

Mr. Robertson stated, I haven’t seen them. He asked, were they big enough? He stated that what I saw was just like 2-foot tall. He stated that originally there was a complete fence there and then they cut it all down and then they put these little tiny things there.

Mr. Detert stated that that’s what I was going to bring up, if they are going to put evergreens in there I want to know how tall they’re going to be, how big, because they’re going to have to be bigger than a couple of feet.

Mr. Tiemens stated that I don’t have a problem with the houses because it’s better than what’s there now and hopefully the neighbors understand that because you could buy this property and continue installing what’s out there now because you already have approval for that. He stated, but it looks like residential homes are going to be an improvement. He stated that my concern is the screening and I think that’s what you hear from other members, too, is the screening. He stated that I think we’d like to see a commitment, a plan, of what sizes, what trees.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that we’d get your 5-, 6-foot trees and then plant them about every 5 feet apart and they’re going to grow.

Mr. Detert asked, how many cars garage…how many homes are going to have two-car garages and how many are going to have one-car?

Mr. Tiemens stated that with the exception of the four that are existing, all the rest will be 2-car.

Mr. Hudson stated, if the layout that’s depicted on here, and I’m assuming that this modular home is what you’re talking about in the detail down here, this 16 feet will be a two-car garage?

Mr. Tiemens stated, yes. He stated that that’s as large as we can get on there and because this is a gray water system with septic tanks between the lot line there, we only have roughly that 10 feet. He stated that we can’t go any less than that to accommodate that tank that’s there.

Mr. Brickner stated that I read the minutes from last month and you asked about the lot sizes. He stated, if you’re going to make this a subdivision, I thought the lot size minimum was 60 by 100.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we’re asking for a mobile home subdivision.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you wanted a subdivision, but a mobile home subdivision.

Mr. Tiemens stated, yes, there’s a classification for a mobile home park, a mobile home subdivision under RMH zoning. He stated that we’re asking for the…

Mr. Brickner stated, 54 by 77, so that’s the Variance.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we’re asking for the standards of the mobile home park.

Mr. Brickner asked, did we discuss the emergency vehicle access and egress in this subdivision?

Mr. Robertson stated, I think when it was first put through we did.

Mr. Brickner stated that we discussed that and it was one of the problems that we had was emergency vehicles.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, parking on the street. He stated that we thought parking on the street first was going to…which would have made it difficult, but now they’re going to be putting these garages in and it shouldn’t be as much a problem.

Mr. Tiemens stated that this was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee back in 2001 when this was first installed, and we have the driveway and the garage which would accommodate the car in the driveway.

Mr. Hudson asked, there’s no parking on the street?

Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t think they said there was no parking on the street, but by having a garage it’s supposed to pull them in there and off the street.

Mr. Tiemens stated, and then, in addition to the driveway, there’s enough room there so that every car’s not on the street.

Mr. Hudson stated that you can’t park on both sides. He stated that it’s going to have to be…26 feet wide to back of curb.

Mr. Brickner stated that if you had cars parked on both sides you couldn’t get an emergency vehicle through.

Mr. Hudson stated that emergency vehicles couldn’t get through. He stated that you’ve only got 26 feet and 3, 4, to 6 inches of that curb is taken up with the back of it, so you’ve essentially got 25 feet.

Mr. Detert stated that even when you put no parking on one side people still abuse it and park there anyway.

Mr. Hudson stated that that’s a problem.

Mr. Robertson stated that they’re also asking for a Variance, right, to make the footprint of the buildings larger than what they had, right?

Mr. Tiemens stated, well, that’s not a Variance, I believe, but we’re asking from the original approval that we had for a larger building, correct. He stated that basically they’ll be 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Robertson stated that if we approve this Variance the footprint of that building will become bigger, so, how much farther toward the back.

Mr. Tiemens stated that it will be 48 by 26 feet 8 inches is the total that we have on that detail. He stated that the original four buildings were installed a little over that front building line. He stated that the rest of them, then, were all going to be set back to the right area, and we’re asking for that Variance of a half a foot then in the back.

Mr. Robertson asked, were 3 and 4 built over the building line?

Mr. Tiemens stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated that the detail shows a 10-foot rear-yard NIPSCO easement. He asked, are you going to plant that arborvitae in the NIPSCO easement?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, no, right on the property line itself.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I don’t understand how you’re going to plant that and not hit that…the NIPSCO easement goes right up to the property line, at least the way I see this, you’re going to be planting that full 10 feet and maybe 4.5 feet of the rear setback depending on how close you get to those buildings, and you’re going to be filling that with…

Mr. Tiemens stated that first of all, it depends on where they install the line, but since they have kind of built in a little 5-foot stub on the property line there, so I can’t say where they installed the line, but I would imagine that they would stay as far away from the property line as possible and within the easement and they would have the right then to go through there with trees in there.

Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t know how the rest of the members feel, but I felt that when we originally okayed this we jammed too much stuff in too little space, and this is jamming even a little bit more, it’s making it bigger. He stated that I just wouldn’t feel right about approving it, that’s just the way I feel about it.

Mr. Tiemens stated that the density of the area hasn’t changed. He stated that the footprint…

Mr. Robertson stated that there’s no space around them. He stated that they’re so close together. He stated that we had fire people say that it’s probably going to be all right, that they’re close enough that there won’t be a problem, but I just…

Mr. Brickner asked, what are our options? He asked, can we either approve it as the improvements are made here, or leave it the way it is, which is really, really bad, I think.

Mr. Robertson stated, but that hasn’t gone anywhere, because, evidently, that’s not economic either.

Mr. Brickner stated, I see what you’re saying. He stated that it really hasn’t taken off.

Mr. Burns stated that I made a comment last meeting that if prices and interest rates keep going up, this will be feasible. He stated that that’s why the gentleman is buying it now, I’m sure, because the market is changing.

Mr. Brickner asked, and some of these you’ll own, and some of these you’ll sell? He asked, are you going to lease some of them and sell some of them as private lots?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I’ll probably end up keeping some for myself and just rent them out.

Mr. Brickner asked, and just rent some of them out and then sell?

Mr. McLaughlin stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, what percentage do you plan to sell, do you know?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that probably about 5 or 6 percent of them.

Mr. Detert asked, 5 or 6 percent you are going to sell?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that no, I’m going to keep. He stated that I’d like to keep probably about 6 to 7 of them.

Mr. Brickner asked, can we impose parking restrictions, can we impose our own…

Mr. Detert stated that we can put a contingency on it.

Mr. Robertson stated that I don’t know if anyone would pay any attention to it, though, is the problem, because, like I said, it’s a private road.

Mr. Burns stated that they could put signs up, no parking on this side of the street.

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, but, what good would it do. He stated, like Jim said, it’s a matter of enforcement.

Mr. Detert stated, at the last meeting I thought that the way we left it is we were going to look at 2-car garages and larger lots. He stated that now we’ve got garages, but the lots aren’t larger.

Mr. Tiemens stated that we can make the driveway bigger to accommodate two cars, if that would help.

Mr. Detert stated, I understand, but, you know what, I can remember when I had my kids all driving and I had five cars in front of my house, so it looked like a used car lot, so that could happen.

Mr. Burns asked, what size is the driveway now?

Mr. Tiemens stated that I have on there a 10, but that just hasn’t changed from the previous plan. He stated that the garage itself is 16, so we really can’t make anything bigger than that. he stated, well, we could, but it really wouldn’t serve the garage.

Mr. Burns stated, but you could make it 16 wide.

Mr. Tiemens stated, correct. He stated that you could still put two cars on the driveway.

Mr. Burns asked, are you willing to do that, because that would help the parking.

Mr. Tiemens stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, on all the houses?

Mr. Tiemens stated, on all the houses.

Mr. Burns asked, how about the three?

Mr. Tiemens stated, even the existing homes.

Mr. Brickner stated, if we insist on bigger lots here, he has to go back and replat it, I mean if we deny it because the lots are too small or we don’t want like…he has to go back and replat if he wants to…or he continues with what he’s doing. He stated that he has to either go back and get a replat or continue the way we’ve already approved it.

Mr. Burns stated that it’s my guess that if we deny this case it’s going to stay the way it is now, because of the utilities are in, they’re between the lots, and it’s not feasible to enlarge the lots. He stated that they’re kind of locked in.

Mr. Robertson stated that there’s a tank in every other lot.

Mr. Burns stated that they share that, I guess, so they’re kind of fixed on the lots.

Mr. Detert asked, Mr. McLaughlin, did you meet with the people as we suggested?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I dropped off material to an appraiser that lives out there.

Mr. Brickner asked, but you didn’t meet with the people then or drop something off?

Mr. McLaughlin stated that, no, I did not meet with the people. He stated that she wanted me to drop the stuff off at her house in the mailbox, which I did.

Mr. Detert stated that we got a petition that indicates that you did not do that.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that I didn’t meet with all the people. He stated that she wanted me to drop off all the stuff in her mailbox, which I did. He stated that she was going to talk to the people.

Mr. Tiemens stated that she offered, at the last meeting, to, as a neighbor, as well as an appraiser, to better relate than the developer.

Mr. Robertson stated that I still wasn’t sure. He asked, were 1, 3 and 4 built over the building line? He asked, how did that happen?

Mr. Tiemens stated that they added a porch on that and enclosed part of that porch. He stated that they didn’t need approval for the porch because a porch itself can set four feet over the building line.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m still not happy with the plan they’ve brought before us.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 06-V-11, incorporating the findings of fact as drawn up by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated that just to make sure that everyone understands, if this is denied, it goes back to the original plan and they’ve got three of these homes. He stated that they can put 30 some more homes, but the value. I was just trying to help the neighbors with the value of their homes, because they have some nice homes next to this subdivision. He stated that there are some $300,000 plus homes out there, and I was just trying to help the value, that’s all.

Mr. Hudson stated that it seems like the lesser of two evils would be to approve this.

Mr. Burns stated, exactly.

Mr. Hudson stated that it’s not a good situation.

Mr. Burns stated that it’s not good. He stated that for the neighborhood I just think it’s really best for me to work it out. He stated that I’m not saying I agree with everything. He stated that I’d like to see more screening. He stated that I’m afraid if we deny this we’re not helping anybody.

Motion to deny Case 06-V-11 carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 81-V-20. Vicki Panozzo, 977 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 200 W., between County Road 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Robertson asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have not been.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 81-V-20 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-5. David & Girthon Reid, 456 W. 450 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 N., between Sedley Road and the Nickel Plate Railroad, in Union Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that they have paid the annual fee and they are requesting a renewal.

Mr. Brickner asked what it was for.

Mr. Siminski stated that it was a TCO for Mrs. Reid, the grandmother, whose income is insufficient to support herself.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 84-V-5 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-16. George Sosnowski, 3202 Vale Park Road, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on Vale Park Road, between CR 200 E. and CR 325 E., in Washington Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. Sosnowski stopped by the office recently and explained that he does not need this TCO any longer. He stated that I did visit the site and the mobile home is now gone.

Mr. Hudson moved to deny Case 84-V-16. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-42. Raymond Phillips, 342 N. 625 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 625 W., between CR 300 N. and CR 350 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Phillips stated that I really don’t want a full year extension. He stated that I plan on taking it off of there, so I would like to have at least 6 months to get it off of there.

Mr. Brickner asked, is 6 months sufficient?

Mr. Phillips stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 99-V-42 for 6 months and at the end of that time the trailer must be removed. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-V-3. Petition of Roe & Norma Phelps, 426 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit placement of a mobile home on the property in order to care for a friend in ill health, to be located at 426 N. 400 E., in Washington Township. (This Case was tabled at the 3-15-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed, subject to staff inspection and satisfaction that the property has been cleaned up. It was taken off the table at the 6-21-06 meeting)

Mr. Robertson stated that I understand that you’ve done a pretty good job out there.

Roe Phelps stated that I did the best I could. He stated that I got everything out that they required, except the trailers. He stated that I use them for storage for hay. He stated that they were there when I purchased the property in ’82.

Mr. Siminski stated that there is a thing where you can use storage bins like that for agricultural use. He stated that I was out there today and Mr. Phelps has really cleaned up the property. He stated that he had a semi there that he got rid of yesterday. He stated that it took him two weeks to get someone out there to get it out of there. He stated that it’s very much improved from what it was originally when I showed you the pictures. He stated that the trailers are not even that visible from the road, but they are…I opened one of them and it had hay. He stated that the other one had a partial thing of hay. He stated that I believe that it has been sufficiently cleaned up.

Mr. Brickner stated that I saw it also. He stated that I just had one question: Where are you going to put the trailer?

Mr. Phelps stated, at the back of my property. He stated that it would probably be 900 feet or so from the road.

Mr. Brickner asked, is it going to be directly behind your house so that the people who live…

Mr. Phelps stated that it will be about 400 feet behind my house.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m concerned about the people whose back yard butts up against your house in that subdivision. He asked, will they be able to see…

Mr. Phelps stated that they won’t be able to see it. He stated that there’s a housing project, but, between the trees and all that there’s no way you can see the buildings. He stated that there are three places behind me.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m familiar with that. He stated that I just wanted to know how far away from their lots this trailer is going to be.

Mr. Phelps stated that I would say 400, maybe 500, feet.

Mr. Brickner stated, so it would be maybe more to the North side of your property?

Mr. Phelps stated that it would be Northwest.

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s okay with me. He stated that I don’t have any objection to that because that would be pretty well out of sight from the subdivision that’s there.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-3 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person at that time, incorporating the findings of fact as submitted by the petitioner, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 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. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the petitioner to appear in person.)

Mr. Robertson asked, this goes from ’99. He asked, what was the purpose of this?

Mr. Wiles stated that we have a disabled person that lives there, George Musgrave, and he’s had a lot of illness and a lot of problems and we need help to take care of him. He stated that his son lives in the mobile home with his family to help take care of him.

Mr. Brickner stated that there is three residences there. He stated that the one is a flower shop, there’s the trailer and who lives in the other residence?

Mr. Wiles stated that I live in the other residence, in the house.

Mr. Brickner stated that I was there and the property is much better than it was originally.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think that was your instigation to clean that up.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t have a problem with it for another year.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 99-V-31 for 1 year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 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. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the petitioners to appear in person.)

Mr. Siminski stated that they’re not here tonight. He stated that I did visit the location and I went inside the pole barn and I also went inside the house. He stated that they are living inside the house. He stated that he sent this letter back after I was there saying that as of June 30, 2006 they are officially living in their new home. He stated that he does not need…

Mr. Robertson asked, should we give him a month or two to get it off?

Mr. Siminski stated that it’s a pole barn.

Mr. Detert asked, inside the pole barn were there division of rooms?

Mr. Siminski stated that it’s a pretty good-sized pole barn. He stated that the main room is for equipment and like his stuff that he has. He stated that there are two little rooms. He stated that they slept and everything in one room, which is probably about a fourth of this room. He stated that it was just the one room. He stated that there was a sink in there, the bed was in there. He stated that there was also a bathroom, but pretty much there was the bathroom, there was that one room, and there was the garage type.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess my only concern would be that somebody doesn’t start renting out space out there.

Mr. Brickner stated, I agree.

Mr. Siminski stated that I did mention that to him. He stated that he says he has no interest in renting that out; it’s just for his stuff. He stated that he made one good point. He stated that he says it’s not air-conditioned and he says he’s sure glad he’s out of there now.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 05-V-27, with the building never to be used as living quarters. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 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 and the 6-21-06 meetings, with the petitioner to appear in person and the vehicle situation to be cleared up.)

Ed Drazer, 859 S. 300 E., Kouts, stated that Mr. Siminski and I have been working on this.

Mr. Siminski stated that I made a visit Monday. He stated that the man is living in the one house over there and the cars belong to him, but there are still four cars on the property that are either

non-plated…there are non-plated. He stated that one is a 2004 plates. He stated that the man was supposed to get hold of me. He stated that he called once when I wasn’t there and he never did call back, as far as I know, but I have been trying to work with Mr. Drazer on this.

Mr. Robertson stated that there was some stuff that was cleared up, right? He stated, the stuff that was under Mr. Drazer’s control was cleared up as I understand it.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s the purpose of the trailer?

Mr. Siminski stated that this is a farm that’s way down on 950 S. in Pleasant Township. He stated that I did talk to the man that lives in the trailer. He stated that his farm is like 35 acres. He stated that there’s like a little house that sits there. He stated that the cars belong to the guy in the house that’s on this parcel. He stated that the trailer sits a little bit West of this and he says he’s an occasional worker that helps Mr. Drazer out on the farm.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original purpose? He stated that I thought it was for full-time farm help. He asked, it’s been there since 1979?

Mr. Drazer stated that I would assume so. He stated that I haven’t really been involved directly until more recently so I couldn’t say for sure.

Mr. Siminski stated, hired man for farm is what it said on the application.

Mr. Burns stated that it appears that it’s not being used any more for full-time farming, is that right?

Mr. Robertson stated that I wonder when that change would have taken place.

Mr. Brickner asked, why are we dealing with the guy that lives…the guy who owns the property is responsible for this, not the man who lives in the trailer. He stated that Fred says he’s talking to the guy who lives in the trailer getting him to try and remove these vehicles and in my opinion it’s the guy who owns the property who’s responsible for this and Fred shouldn’t have to be trying to find somebody else to try to get these cars removed.

Mr. Drazer stated that the gentleman who has the cars lives in the permanent residence. He stated that there’s a permanent residence and a mobile home, as Fred attested to, side by side, so to speak. He stated that the man who has the abandoned cars lives in the permanent residence and you’re questioning the mobile home, so…

Mr. Brickner stated, but he doesn’t own any of the property there.

Mr. Drazer stated, no.

Mr. Brickner asked, he’s renting it?

Mr. Drazer stated that both of them are rented, the mobile home and the permanent home.

Mr. Brickner stated, so he’s renting the mobile home where the cars are?

Mr. Robertson stated, no, the permanent home is renting also. He stated that they are both renting, the permanent home and the trailer are both renting and the cars are with the home, with the permanent home.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 79-V-6 with the petitioner to have 30 days to have the cars cleaned up and vacate the trailer, and if the 30 days come up and the property is not cleaned up and the trailer is not vacated they will get a letter that the County is going to court against them. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-24. Daniel Herma, 1083 S. Baums Bridge Road, Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit a manufactured residence located on the property in a temporary fashion, to care for in-laws, on the East side of Baum’s Bridge Road, between CR 1050 S. and the Kankakee River, in Pleasant Township. (This Case was continued from the 5-17-06 and 6-21-06 meetings, with the petitioner to appear in person, the property to be cleaned up and the business removed.)

Mr. Herma stated that he is handing out pictures of the property.

Mr. Siminski stated that I was out there yesterday. He asked if the big truck has been picked up yet.

Mr. Herma stated that, today. He stated that they got out there today.

Mr. Siminski stated that yesterday when I was visiting the site it was just the two vehicles that were still there. He stated that I did look inside of the big truck and it was empty. He stated that it had like a cable on it. He stated that Mr. Herma was waiting for someone to pick it up.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, it’s gone now.

Mr. Siminski stated that the other vehicles both were taken away yesterday.

Mr. Robertson asked, what about the white vehicle now?

Mr. Herma stated that we use that to plow the driveway.

Mr. Burns asked, this is a paint business, is that true?

Mr. Siminski stated that I didn’t see anything on his property, in terms of that.

Mr. Herma stated I threw my stuff in a dumpster.

Mr. Brickner asked if the Board is satisfied that everything is cleaned up. He stated that I didn’t look at the property, so I don’t know.

Mr. Robertson asked, are you satisfied, Fred?

Mr. Siminski stated that I’m satisfied that the property is cleaned up. He stated that he sits behind other homes in the front. He stated that sometimes you’re not sure where your property runs. He stated that his property was cleaned up from what I’d seen originally.

Mr. Burns asked, where is your business now?

Mr. Herma stated that I don’t have it anymore.

Mr. Siminski stated that he let it go.

Mr. Detert stated that you need to check this later on and make sure the business doesn’t reappear.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 99-V-24 for 1 year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

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. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Sandy Urba stated that she and her husband, Aras, are the petitioners in this matter. She stated that Captain’s Orders is a Mercury Marine and Starcraft boat dealership, as well as a marine repair facility, and our property is very visible entering Joliet Road because it’s at the immediate intersection of Coolwood and Joliet road. She stated that to the East and West of our property are two junkyards. She stated that to the North of us are railroads and railroad tracks, and to the South of us is a very nice neighborhood, which is also located just behind the WiseWay on Route 30. She stated that two of our customers happen to live in that neighborhood and stand behind our proposal and spoke on our behalf at the last meeting. She stated that since we have moved to this property we have made significant changes in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area, and we would like to have the ability to stand anywhere on our property and completely block out the view of either junkyard. She stated that we have achieved this on the West side of

the building by building a 6-foot cedar shadow box fence for the first 100 feet since that is very visible from the street, and, for the balance, we used slats in our chain link fence. She stated that this was not an option on the East side, the side that we’re talking about, because, as discussed at the June 21st meeting there is an unconventional fence existing on our property constructed of scrap and sheet metal. She stated that the section we are talking about is around 50 feet, although the entire fence line is around 300 feet. She stated that we chose not to dispose of the neighbor’s fence as was suggested at the last meeting, due to the demolition and disposal expense versus the expense of our intended structure. She stated that our Variance request is multi-functional because it will fulfill our goal to hide the unsightly piles of scrap metal, as well as to create an area for us to showcase our Starcraft boats in a covered area. She stated that the structure had many interpretations at the last meeting, but an actual description or definition was never clarified. She stated that I would like to shed some light on this point. She stated that we have no intention of completely enclosing the area and creating an addition. She stated that it’s my impression that if that were the case this would be a separate Variance request. She stated that our intent is to simply create a carport. She stated that we feel that we have submitted a well-thought-out plan that would solve any concerns to effects to those around us, including all neighbors. She stated that it was our understanding that submitting a Variance request was, in essence, asking for the one-time exception to the rule, so we respectfully ask that our Variance request be granted. She stated that I’ve taken some pictures that I’d like to show you in reference to some of the issues we discussed at the last meeting and the fence that is there existing on our property has sharp edges, and this portion of the fence is able to be reached by the public. She stated that this is the West of the fence and you can see where our intended structure is, but these are like all sharp scrap metal edges.

Mr. Detert asked, these posts are yours?

Ms. Urba stated, yes, those are ours.

Mr. Detert asked, so that guy’s fence is at zero?

Mr. Urba stated, no, it’s not and I’d like to make that correction. He stated that that was something that was touched on at last month’s meeting, and this is actually it’s not a zero setback. He stated that it’s 16 inches from the property line. He stated that the highlighted orange line is where the fence is on the pictures that were just passed around. He stated that the blue line is actually our property line.

Mr. Robertson asked, so his fence is not actually on the property line. He stated that it’s on his property 16 inches.

Mr. Urba stated that that’s correct.

Mr. Detert asked, how much space between – 16 inches?

Mr. Robertson stated, yes, 16 inches.

Mr. Urba stated that his fence is on our property.

Ms. Urba stated, our property, not the other way around.

Mr. Urba stated that his fence is depicted by the orange line. He stated that our property line is the blue line, and this is a picture that shows our property line staked with a string along those posts. He stated that this is our property line. He stated that this is standing at the South end of our property looking North. He stated that this is where the fence posts are and this tape here is showing that his fence is actually 16 inches inside of our property line.

Mr. Detert asked, so your fence posts are going to be 32 inches from the property line?

Mr. Urba stated that they are going to be 16.

Mr. Detert stated that you’re saying that he’s 16 inches on your property.

Mr. Urba stated that that’s correct, and we’re going to go right to his fence.

Mr. Brickner asked, and the enclosure, what you want to make, is like open on all sides?

Mr. Urba stated, this is correct.

Mr. Brickner asked, just a covering? He asked, what are you going to put in there?

Mr. Urba stated that we were going to have like gravel or mulch as the ground cover. He stated that right now it’s dirt with a fiberglass panel roof over the top of it and under that roof we would showcase our new boats. He stated that we could probably put three aluminum fishing boats under that roofed area.

Mr. Detert asked, it’s going to be a carport?

Ms. Urba stated that I kind of brought pictures of what would be the (inaudible). She stated that this would be the spot for, rather than these being outside, so that if there was inclement weather but we did have people that were interested in looking at boats we’d have a place to work underneath, because that’s a gravel parking lot so it gets kind of messy out there, too, so…

Mr. Detert stated that you’re not going to need all that extra room because I saw a big ad in the papers that said you were selling out all your Starcraft boats.

Mr. Robertson stated that we were trying to go over what might happen with his fence being on your property.

Mr. Elwood stated that it could be a dispute between the property owners that’s called adverse possession. He stated that if the person has had the fence located in an open, notorious and obvious manner for a period of 10 years or more he could make a claim that it’s actually on his property. He stated that that’s more of a property dispute between the two owners unless he has a court order determining that (inaudible) to assume that it’s your property as of today.

Ms. Urba asked, would that include stacking…even if it was on our side, if it was junk that was being maintained there, that’s included, too?

Mr. Elwood stated that the point is if somebody’s placing things on your property or a permanent structure or fencing you need to not allow them to do that for too long a period of time or it becomes their property.

Mr. Urba stated that we’ve owned the property for five years now and we had it staked by Krull and Sons and until this Variance came to fruition we really didn’t realize it.

Mr. Elwood stated that you might want to send them a letter.

Mr. Robertson stated, just to get it on file that it’s on your property; it’s your property, not his property.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-9 as indicated, that he will be 16 inches from the property line. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t know if you’ve got some problem with some kid getting in there and getting scratched by the other guy’s ragged fence.

Mr. Urba stated, oh, we do. He stated that we’re very concerned about that.

Mr. Detert stated, that 16 inches…you probably need to get that somehow resolved.

Mr. Urba stated that we’re trying.

Mr. Detert stated, my suggestion is that you do.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-9 as indicated, that he will be 16 inches from the property line, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 06-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. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Mr. Reynolds stated that I brought pictures that were requested. He stated that on the back of the pictures is what they are pictures of. He stated that the property is not drawn exactly to scale. He stated that as I said last month, my property…my house is built approximately 215 feet off the road. He stated that it was built in 1984 and, at the time, it was my understanding that there wasn’t a rule at that time that no structure be built in front of the house. He stated that the reason the house was built so far off the road is because at the back of the property there’s a natural open space that I took advantage of and designed the house and laid it out to take advantage of that open space as a sanctuary. He stated that the whole back of the house is designed and flower beds laid out to utilize that open space. He stated that it was all designed. He stated that there’s approximately $50,000 worth of landscaping around the back yard and a pond off to the side, as you’ll see when you go through the pictures there. He stated that the West side of the yard that is open is where the septic field is. He stated that the proposed building will be more than 64 feet off the road. He stated that it will be in the center of the woods. He stated that the double row of hemlock trees planted along the West side and across the North side of the property.

Mr. Robertson stated, I think Rick, you were concerned that you find some way to fit it into the back.

Mr. Burns stated that there’s a lot of money invested into the landscaping.

Mr. Brickner asked, why do you have to put it in the front yard? He stated, put it in the back yard.

Mr. Reynolds asked, where in the back yard?

Mr. Brickner stated that it looks to me like you have plenty of room in the back yard to build this building. He stated that I’m sure the Board discussed this, but I don’t understand why you can’t put it in the back yard. He stated that on the West side it looks to me…is this your septic field here?

Mr. Reynolds stated, yes, it runs the whole length of that West side.

Mr. Brickner asked, could you at least move it back to the front of your garage so it doesn’t sit in front of your house.

Mr. Reynolds stated, no, because the septic goes all the way up and covers that whole West side of the property.

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, I’m looking at what you have drawn in here. He stated that it looks like it’s just a small part. He stated, I mean, it looks like it’s away from your house. He stated, you just don’t want to put it in your back yard.

Mr. Reynolds stated, that the septic is not drawn there. He stated that there is actually no room to put it in the back yard with all the flower beds all the way around.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I know, you’ve got flower beds, but that doesn’t prohibit you from putting a building back there. He stated, I mean, you might have to lose a flower bed, but I don’t understand why you have to put it in the front. He stated that it looks like you have plenty of room in the back and, certainly towards the East corner of the back. He asked, am I missing something here?

Mr. Robertson stated, I think he’s got his property laid out the way he laid it out and he’s kind of built all his landscaping in the last 10 years or so around the way it is and if he rips all that up to put that,…

Mr. Brickner asked, how big is this building?

Mr. Reynolds stated that the pole barn is 30 by 40.

Mr. Brickner stated that I’m not in favor of it.

Mr. Burns stated that I think what he’s saying, Mr. Chairman, is a hardship because of landscaping.

Mr. Brickner stated, because of the flower beds. He asked, flower beds make it a hardship?

Mr. Burns asked, is that true?

Mr. Reynolds stated that that is part of it. He stated that there’s over $50,000 worth of landscaping.

Mr. Burns stated that he’s talking just about the area where you would put the building. He asked, how much is there? He asked, how much would it cost you to relocate it?

Mr. Reynolds asked, to relocate it into the back yard?

Mr. Burns stated, yes.

Mr. Reynolds stated that I don’t see how you can do that without ripping out a lot of the flower beds and putting an extra driveway that goes all the way around the property and tearing up the woods to

put in an additional driveway, and then, if you put it on the right side, how do you connect it into the septic field if you want to put a bathroom in there? He stated that I’m 215 feet off the road. He stated that where it’s going to go it’s not going to be seen from the road. He stated that it’s well hidden, and I’m going to the extent of putting the trees in there to make sure of that, even during the winter. He stated that I just don’t see…I looked at it, as Mr. Detert suggested. He stated that I’ve taken the pictures to show that, you know, the amount…

Mr. Brickner stated that the zoning ordinance does not permit a building in your front yard. He stated that that’s what the zoning ordinance doesn’t permit. He stated that you need a Variance to do that and it’s not a good idea to put buildings in your front yard for a whole number of reasons, but if there’s a hardship here where you absolutely can’t put it anywhere else I could understand, but if it’s just a matter of relocating a flower garden, then I think the zoning ordinance should apply and you don’t put a building like this in the front yard. He stated that I’m sorry, I don’t understand the…

Mr. Reynolds stated that I respectfully disagree with you.

Mr. Brickner stated, I’m sure you do. He stated that that’s okay.

Mr. Robertson stated that I kind of disagree with you, too, Marv. He stated that I think that if he’s building a new house and he’s got time to plan it out, maybe he could have fit it in there, but he’s already got this house quite some time, and he’s got very mature landscaping, and he’s got a lot of trees, too, not only flower beds. He stated that he’s got a lot of trees along that East side that would either have to be moved or swung around. He stated that it would be a long driveway around to the back, whereas they’ve already got a driveway that goes right up the front. He stated that it would be much more expensive to put it in the back, and that would be part of a hardship.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, this isn’t a garage. He stated that this is a wood-burning building….

Mr. Robertson stated, he’s got two things. He stated that he’s going to have a garage in front of that wood-burning thing, and then he’s going to have a small wood-burning shed which connects with some kind of an underground pipe into his house, so it’s really two things. He stated that the garage, you know, to drive his car all the way to the back.

Mr. Burns asked, are you going to live in this building?

Mr. Reynolds stated, no.

Mr. Burns stated, because you mentioned a bathroom.

Mr. Reynolds stated that it’s basically going to be my personal workshop to get my gardening tools and my woodworking tools and my things out of my garage so I can use my garage, and, if I’m out there working, being right there by the septic field, I could put a bathroom in there so I don’t have to traipse in through the house and dirty up the house. He stated that it would only be a toilet and a sink and that would be the only purpose for it.

Mr. Brickner asked, this self-contained wood-burning, is this a separate building besides the pole barn?

Mr. Reynolds stated that it’s a unit that sits on a slab that’s smaller than 8 by 10.

Mr. Brickner asked, but it’s outside the pole barn?

Mr. Reynolds stated, correct.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, you’re asking for two buildings here, a pole barn and an 8 by 10 wood-burning shed or whatever you want to call it, is that what you’re asking for?

Mr. Reynolds stated, well, a wood-burning unit is a building.

Mr. Brickner asked, where’s that going to sit? He asked, is that going to sit right next to the pole barn?

Mr. Reynolds stated, no, just off to the corner, at the end of the existing gravel driveway that’s right there in front of the proposed building. He stated that I’ve heated with wood for 20-some years and it’s just that the old furnace that’s in the garage is worn out, and I want to move that from the garage so I don’t have the mess and the smell of bringing the wood in and stacking it in the garage.

Mr. Detert stated that that building for wood-burning is a self-contained unit delivered to you and ….

Mr. Reynolds stated, yeah.

Mr. Brickner stated that they’re very popular, especially out West I see a lot of them.

Mr. Detert stated that there’s some question about air pollution on them, though.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-10, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel.

Mr. Robertson passed the gavel.

Mr. Robertson seconded the motion to approve Case 06-V-10, which failed on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 06-V-10 was then denied per the rules of procedure.

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. Hwy 6, in Portage Township. (This Case was continued from the 6-21-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Sean Petit stated that he is the real estate representative representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that this is a replacement of a double-stack 6 by 12 four-panel structure. He stated that we would like to move it and upgrade it. He stated that as you’ll recall from last month, this is a request due to, and the hardship is provided by, the Indiana Department of Transportation. He stated that they have acquired road right-of-way for the widening of U.S. 6 in through this area. He stated that that forced our client to relocate his Subway sign, putting it in front of our existing billboard structure, so we have approached our client. He stated that he has agreed to, if you will permit him to, where we will move the sign 10 feet North, closer to the Subway building structure, and then we would upgrade the sign to a double-sided 10 by 22 structure. He stated that basically it would run approximately the same square footage, a little larger, than what’s currently out there now. He stated that currently out there now you have 144 square feet per side, for a total of 288 square feet. He stated that these two 10 by 22’s obviously would be 440 square feet, so, it’s a little bit more than double – a little less than double, and I think that’s it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Detert stated that I think part of the problem last time was there was some concern about putting two different advertisements on each side, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, well, that was what was there presently, and I wasn’t sure. He asked, was that what you intended last time, to recreate, in other words, four panels, two on each side?

Mr. Petit stated, no. He stated that it will be similar…and I guess really the Variance in talking with Fred and Mr. Thompson is we’re altering a legal non-conforming sign. He stated, I mean, the sign can stay there right now, as it is, if we didn’t touch it. He stated that it's the actual physically removing the sign, trying to replace it with a 10 by 22, which is similar to what’s further East of this and I believe we don’t have the separation, is that correct, Fred, according to ordinance? He stated that we don’t have the

separation in between the signs right now. He stated that that’s why the Subway is a legal non-conforming sign now.

Mr. Siminski stated that there’s like 430-something…

Mr. Petit stated that it’s on your survey that you gentlemen got last time, I believe. He stated that I can give you that dimension here in a second. He stated that it’s 475 feet, the other 10 by 22 sign is 475 feet East of this location on the same side of the road.

Mr. Robertson stated, and the ordinance calls for 600.

Mr. Brickner asked, how tall is this sign?

Mr. Petit stated that it would go according to your ordinance, I believe, 30 feet high, more than 30 feet high. He stated that it would be exactly what’s out there to the East.

Mr. Brickner asked, it’s the same way on 6 as it is on 30, right?

Mr. Siminski stated that it goes by what zoning district it’s in. He stated that that’s an industrial district. He stated that I think it might be 35.

Mr. Petit stated that we’ll, obviously, stay within the zoning requirement, but probably go to the limit for the exposure. He stated, again, you’re going to have a 10-foot high panel and so the column that the sign will rest on is probably going to be whatever we need to meet the height requirement.

Mr. Brickner asked, this is just a lighted sign? He asked, there’s no script reading or any kind of…

Mr. Petit stated, no, it’s a stagnant board, two panels, what we call a 30-sheet poster in the industry, so it is actually poster paper that we use on it, and, again, it’s identical to the one that’s directly East of this.

Mr. Robertson asked, did we ever find out how this got approved in the first place?

Mr. Siminski stated that I looked very hard. He stated that the only information I got, I called INDOT, and INDOT had the year of 1992, approximately 1992, and that’s the best guess that they had when those went up there. He stated that in 1993 the U.S. 6 overlay zone went through, so, at that time, they would have been required to use the requirements of the overlay zone, but that seems to be after the fact. He stated that the sign to the East is a taller sign. He stated that it sits back approximately 30 to 33 feet further North than what the old one is now, so, there’s you go like 33 feet and you’ll see the sign to the East near the Paul’s whatever that thing is, Paul’s Tires or something like that.

Mr. Burns asked, the square feet of that sign, how many square feet is Paul’s tires?

Mr. Siminski stated that that’s a big one.

Mr. Petit stated that it’s exactly the same size. He stated that it’s a 10 by 22. He stated that it’s a 30-sheet poster. He stated that now what we’ve done at Lamar is I guess maybe to answer the Board’s question on the building permit, unfortunately, I don’t want to speak ill of the competition, but what has happened is Lamar has acquired a lot of these smaller sign companies and what we have found in acquiring these leases from these smaller sign companies that they didn’t pull local building permits. He stated that all they felt like they had to do was notify INDOT on the state routes. He stated that they probably would have done something if it had been in Valparaiso on Washington or on Lincolnway, they might have pulled a local permit there, but, in unincorporated counties, both in Porter and LaPorte, if it’s on an INDOT route they just got the INDOT permit. He stated that they didn’t bother to go to the County building department unfortunately. He stated that we’ve acquired – Lamar’s acquired, several of these smaller companies – Odegard, Ace…there’s a number of these that run around Gary like this. He stated, unfortunately, you guys are trying to backtrack. He stated that fortunately for you, you’re dealing with the third largest billboard company in America in dealing with Lamar. He stated that you’ve got our commitment to maintain the sign. He stated that we’ll try and right what’s been wrong. He stated that we fully intend to pull a building permit, and, as the one gentleman asked about the height, we fully intend to adhere to the zoning ordinance if we’re granted the Variance to adjust the non-conforming sign. He stated that we want to clean that sign up and get that area so that when the widening goes through, that area looks nice.

Mr. Robertson stated that no matter what you do, you can’t make it fit the ordinance. He stated that it's supposed to be 600 feet from the other sign. He stated that this is 475 feet from the other sign. He stated that it’s a non-conforming sign that the County never approved. He stated that if we approve it now we’ll be approving it closer than our ordinance allows. He stated that I don’t see any reason to make that approval, myself.

Mr. Brickner stated that I understand this is replacing a sign that’s…

Mr. Robertson stated, yeah, since they’re going to be widening that road there, the sign that’s on the commercial property has got to move back, and, when it moves back, it’s in the way of this non-conforming sign, so he wants to move the non-conforming sign back and make it bigger.

Mr. Burns stated that if he makes it larger he needs 600 feet in between. He stated that if you make the sign larger, the sizes of the sign determines that it has to be 600 feet.

Mr. Robertson stated that this will only be 475 feet.

Mr. Burns stated, but, if he makes the sign smaller then he will conform, is that true?

Mr. Petit stated, no. He stated that it doesn’t matter the size of the sign. He stated, as Mr. Robertson pointed out, it’s the space in between that’s non-conforming. He stated that we’re altering a non-conforming sign. He stated, so you can look at it one of two ways. He stated that you’re either asking for a Variance for a non-conforming sign, or you’re asking for a spacing Variance. He stated that I didn’t know how we wanted to write that, Fred, so we put it…

Mr. Elwood stated, just so I understand, it’s currently a non-conforming sign, correct?

Mr. Petit stated, correct.

Mr. Elwood stated, so, if this is denied, the sign can remain.

Mr. Detert stated that I think (inaudible—too many people talking at once) that it can’t be seen.

Mr. Petit stated that the visibility is an issue. He stated that one side can be seen. He stated that the other side is blocked by Subway, the way our client ended up relocating the business sign again because the state took the right-of-way from him for the widening project.

Mr. Robertson stated that the fellow that was here last month to complain about it pointed out that if this was in a town he wouldn’t be able to put this sign in, but because it’s in an unincorporated area it could go in, but it really is a South Haven kind of area and he said he depends upon us to be their town board, as it were, and try and protect him from these kind of things. He stated that we turned down a sign at Pepe’s, I believe, about 10 years ago the same sort of thing. He stated that I think this is a chance to clean up a non-conforming sign. He stated that I don’t see any reason to put another one in there that would be non-conforming.

Mr. Hudson stated that the existing sign is going to stay.

Mr. Robertson stated that it’s going to stay. He stated, well, it’s useless to them because it’s being blocked by another sign. He stated, maybe they’ll pull it out – who knows?

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

Mr. Robertson stated that if we approve it we’re again making a non-conforming sign out of it because it will be 475 feet instead of 600 feet and I don’t think we really want to encourage billboards along there anyway.

Mr. Brickner moved to deny Case 06-V-13, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

New Business:

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

Case 06-V-14. Petition of Rodger Burnett, 205 Spectacle Dr., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit two residences on one parcel of land in order to care for two adult developmentally disabled sons, to be located at 205 Spectacle Drive, in Center Township.

Marjorie Burnett stated that she and her husband, Rodger, are the petitioners in this matter. She stated that we are requesting permission to built a small structure on our property because we have two adult developmentally disabled boys, and, presently, they live at Brookshire apartments and they have supported living. She stated that we would like them to live close to us so that we could help support them.

Larry Gough, 3304 Tree Dr., Valparaiso, stated that I’m a real estate consultant and a friend of the Burnetts, and I’ve been working with them on trying to design something that would be suitable for a home for their two developmentally disabled children at this location. He stated that we are requesting a Variance to build essentially a second accessory building (sic) that would allow occupants to live in it. He stated that the use we’re proposing really is not going to adversely affect the area because there are other accessory buildings or second residences, I guess, on single lots out there. He stated that I think there’s at least three or four on Spectacle Lake Drive, so we plan to build something that matches their residence and is fitting with the area, done tastefully, so, again, we’re here to assist them with that project so it’s done properly.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Michael Apato, 207 Spectacle Drive, stated that I’m adjacent to their property, East of it. He stated that I’m against this, because when I received the letter I immediately came down to the County board here to get some information on it, and the information I was able to get is very, very vague. He stated, so then I asked the Burnetts if they have any plans, and they told me no. He stated that there’s no plans. He stated that they’re just asking for a Variance to put a second house on this structure…structure on a piece of property that is only 43 feet wide. He stated that they already have an existing garage in front of their house, which is only 23 inches off my lot

line, if you go by the wall. He stated that if you go by the overhang, it’s less than a foot off my lot line. He stated that when I look at this paper that is very vague there’s no measurements listed on here as far as how big this structure is going to be, what the setbacks are going to be. He stated, so, trying to judge it from the size of the garage, the garage is 26 feet deep from the road. He stated that this building here is going to be at least 50 feet further deep. He stated that there is barely 100 feet between the back of the garage and the front of the house. He stated that they’re only 43 feet wide. He stated that they have a driveway they cut into the property last year, which has to go around their garage, and, in order to have access to their driveway, they have to go on the property to the West of their existing property. He stated that there’s a utility pole on the West corner of the garage with a guyed wire. He stated that my concern is how are they going to get construction equipment in there, what are the setbacks going to be, what are we going to do about water running off? He stated that this is a very hilly area, water has a tendency to run into people’s garages, namely mine. He stated that I have numerous questions which nothing here has addressed as to how it’s going to be handled. He stated that that’s why I’m protesting, because I need answers to these questions before I can give my okay to them.

Lee Farabaugh, 301 Spectacle Drive, stated that maybe you can answer a question. He stated that I’ve gotten several letters on Variances, usually within 300 feet of the property you get a letter with some information. He stated that I saw a sign out a couple weeks ago, stating that this is going to be like a Variance. He stated that I just have no knowledge of what’s going on. He stated that I was under the impression that if you’re within 300 feet you receive a letter, and I didn’t. He stated that maybe there’s like a problem with the mail, or have you changed your rules? He stated that my property is four or five properties down to the East and it’s not going to impact me. He stated that 13, 14 years ago we okayed a couple Variances. He stated that the people did quite a bit different from what the Variances allowed then to do. He stated that there was a big uproar in the neighborhood. He stated that I just want to have knowledge of what’s going on in the neighborhood.

Mr. Siminski stated that his name is not on the (notification) list, however the new rule is if you drew a circle around their property, it’s two property ownerships away from that particular property, or 500 feet, whichever is less, so if we went two property owners it could stop there, so, if you’re third or fourth or whatever you would not be notified.

Mr. Robertson asked, how many people were notified?

Mr. Siminski stated that there were six.

Walter Van Slyke, 109 Spectacle Drive, stated that I’m not necessarily opposed to this, but without having any information more

than that simple drawing that you have in front of me I have no idea if this is a two-story structure, single story structure. He stated that there are serious parking issues in the area. He stated that I have no idea of the additional parking that would be necessary, how that would be handled. He stated that I have no idea of how the issues of runoff, which impact my property very significantly would be handled, so, while I’m not necessarily opposed to them being able to do this, I certainly would like to see them be able to take care of their two sons in a better manner – I have no problem with that. He stated that I would just like to know more about what they’re planning and how it’s going to impact the neighborhood and those of us who have property close by before we are able to say, yes, this is a good idea or not in terms of how it will impact us. He stated that it’s a good thing if they can do it in a way that it doesn’t impact the neighborhood adversely, but we won’t know unless we have some more developed plans to look at.

Mr. Gough stated that I guess all three neighbors did raise a question that we don’t have detailed plans on what we’re proposing to do out there yet, and, it’s true, we have not developed a plan except for more or less a site plan to determine what area we would intend to build in. He stated that we didn’t want to go through the expense on the Burnetts’ behalf of going through full design until we knew where the Board stood on such a matter. He stated that we would be proposing to design something that met the side-yard setbacks, didn’t cause runoff on adjacent properties. He stated that we would manage runoff, and I understand, I guess, there was an issue with Mr. Apato’s land and some runoff from the Burnett’s property, which they agreed to make some corrections to. He stated, so, again, we would be proposing to design something that would be fitting to the neighborhood. He stated that we would be bringing it before the Porter County staff for approval. He stated that we’d be happy, also, to show it to the neighbors before we even came in to permit such a structure. He stated, again, we did not want to go through the expense of full architectural until we knew where the Board stood on the Variance.

Mr. Robertson asked, are these your initial sketches?

Mr. Gough stated that it must be for another. He stated, wait a minute. He stated, oh, yes, that is a preliminary sketch of what we are proposing.

Mr. Robertson stated, maybe you can work with this a little bit and give us just some ideas of dimensions and so forth.

Mr. Gough stated that we originally looked at a building that potentially would be no more than 18, 20 foot wide, which would fit on the East side yard of the driveway. He stated that then we also looked at a 1.5 story building that would be, again, maybe 18 feet wide on the ground floor and go over the top of the driveway, so the total structure, after you take the setbacks from each property line would be approximately 30 feet wide on the upper floor and would

create more of a carport over the existing driveway, because we’re trying to determine how to get the proper width because it is a narrow lot, as Mr. Apato pointed out – it’s only 43 feet wide. He stated that that type of structure would be approximately 600 or 700 square foot on the ground floor and probably 400 or 500 square foot on the upper floor, for a total of maybe 1,000 to 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Robertson asked, what are the setbacks there?

Mr. Hudson stated that side yard, I think, is 5 foot.

Ms. Byers stated that it depends on whether that would be considered a residence or an accessory structure. She stated that I have that question in my mind as to which that would be considered. She stated that if it’s an accessory structure you can be as close as 3 feet; if it’s a residence you have to maintain…you’d have to have 8 feet on either side of it, with a lot that narrow.

Mr. Gough stated that we viewed it as an accessory structure and I’m not sure if that’s the proper interpretation, but that’s how we viewed it. He stated, an accessory structure with occupancy.

Ms. Byers stated that we’d probably have to ask Mr. Thompson what that would be considered.

Mr. Elwood stated that I would say it would be considered to be a residence.

Ms. Byers stated, so then it would be 8 feet on either side of the structure.

Mr. Robertson stated, so you have an 8-foot setback on each side and then you have your driveway there.

Mr. Gough stated that that’s again why we considered building over the top of the drive and having part of the second floor. He stated that essentially the drive would go through part of the first…it would be like a carport on the first floor, living space on the East half of the first floor and then living space above the half space on the second floor, so that the 8-foot setbacks would work, as well, if that’s what needs to be required.

Mr. Robertson asked, and then on the length of the building you’re thinking….

Mr. Gough stated that we’re thinking of 1,000 to 1,200 square foot max, so, 27 feet wide would probably, I guess, get us about 35 feet in length, potentially.

Mr. Robertson stated, drainage. He stated that they both brought up drainage. He asked, what are your thoughts on that?

Mr. Gough stated that the property…this property and all the others on the North side of Spectacle Lake Road, are obviously, on the lake side of the property, so all the water runs downhill to the lake. He stated that we are proposing already to put up some sort of landscape detention system on the East property line and, potentially, if needed, on the West property line to make sure that our water runs down the hill on our property, and not onto our neighbors’ property, so we will properly address that and, if need be, we will regrade some of that when we do the construction of the proposed structure.

Mr. Robertson asked, how much room do you have to get around the existing garage to get your equipment back there?

Mr. Gough stated that there’s a road and there’s a driveway, which, I believe, is about 12 to 14 feet wide right at the entrance 0f the road, so there’s plenty of room to get equipment in there to get footings in and the building itself would be a stick-framed building, so there’s not going to have to be a lot of equipment brought in to do the work, except for the excavation.

Mr. Robertson asked, what about parking? He stated that I imagine you won’t really need any additional parking spaces after it’s completed.

Mr. Gough stated that that is correct. He stated that the boys do not drive, so additional parking would not be an issue.

Mr. Apato stated that in regards to the grading, I’m concerned on how they’re going to get equipment in there to grade, and where are they going to grade it to, because their house sits between the lake and where they’re going to build the next structure. He stated that if you come out there and look at it, the houses are staggered. He stated that they’re down, up, down, up, and if they send the water around their house that means it’s either coming into my house or his house. He stated that they don’t have much room on either side of their houses to grade the water down without it affecting my house. He stated that now it’s affecting my garage. He stated that if they grade the land off to send the water around the house down to the lake, it’s going to run into my house or it’s going to run into his house if they do it down the other side. He stated, as far as the drivers are concerned, the boys right now have caregivers at night. He stated, now, maybe they’re going to discontinue the caregivers, but the caregivers come with cars. He stated that the caregivers come during the day to pick up checks and stuff. He stated that I’ve had a problem there with the parking and blocking my driveway. He stated that they’ve already got one structure, which is in non-compliance, with the garage being too close to my lot line. He stated that in regards to the boys, they’re delightful boys, but this is not something new. He stated that the Burnetts have only lived there a year and a half. He stated that if I’m not mistaken, the boys are 39 and 29. He stated, you know, this isn’t something that just came up.

He stated that I was at their old house. He stated that they had a three-bedroom ranch with an unfinished basement and the boys lived at Andover, which was a good half hour to 40 minutes away, depending on traffic and weather. He stated that now the boys live 5 minutes away. He stated, I mean, these things should have been addressed when they bought the house a year and a half ago, that there wasn’t enough room to build this kind of a structure. He stated that I’ve already seen the Board turn down one structure being built in the front yard, and that’s what this would be, another structure in the front yard.

Kevin Givens stated that I am representing the home at 203 Spectacle Drive. He stated that my father-in-law owns the home, Jim Rozhon. He stated that we own Lot 7 and we own Lot 15. He stated that we have an issue with parking already with the lot to the side of us, which is to the West of us. He stated that the Burnetts are nothing but great people. He stated that I mean the kids are….they need help. He stated that we have an issue with when they go to build this structure our driveway is the common driveway for their home, for our home, and the people next door, so, if you look at that print, which is the survey right there, you can see that everybody is using our driveway as the easement for everybody else. He stated that it’s the egress for everybody. He stated that if this was to be approved by the Board, we would want to make sure that on our lot, which is Lot 7, that if any kind of construction or anything that was damaged in regard to water, sewer, or anything done to our asphalt at all that we would want it replaced. He stated, any kind of landscaping or anything to make it look as clean as possible and make the environment look good. He stated that that’s the only thing we’re concerned about, and that comes from my father-in-law and that comes from us and we’re just trying to be good neighbors. He stated that we only use the home as a summer home. He stated that we’re from Chicago and we try to keep everything clean there. He stated, again, we have no problem with them having that, but we just want to make sure that when this construction goes through, again, Mr. Apato has an issue with water. He stated that we want to make sure that we don’t have a problem or an issue with water or Walter or anybody else where the crown of that house, when the top of that house comes down, the water comes down, it either doesn’t go to Mr. Apato on the East side or my side on the West or Walter just West of us also. He stated that it’s just an issue where I think that the Variance would have to be…there’s a lot of issues in regards to just natural problems, just water and stuff like that. He stated that that’s the big deal and the Board would really have to look at the plans of this thing. He stated that you really have to think this out. He stated that it isn’t one of those things where sure, we’ll make this living space for the kids because they’re you know, they’re handicapped. He stated that it’s a matter of other people who live there also, other sides that are at issue also. He stated that I just wanted to say my piece and I don’t want any trouble from my neighbors.

Mr. Apato stated, as far as there being multiple structures on lots in this Spectacle Lake area, on our street there is not. He

stated that I do have two structures, but I also have two lots, and each structure sits entirely on their own lot. He stated that this would not be the case here. He stated that there would actually be three structures on one lot.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated that I just wonder if we should have the Technical Advisory Committee (sic) look at this.

Mr. Detert stated that I was going to suggest the same thing. He stated that if they were going to go ahead with this we would have to do that. He stated that I guess the problem is with two structures on one lot and we also worry about if you sell it or the owner dies or something happens somebody’s going to buy that and put (inaudible), especially down on the lake. He stated that it’s just not good policy to put two residences on one, and I understand you’ve got a severe hardship here, but as long as there’s that little question in the back of my mind what’s going to happen in the long term, and that’s what we have to look at.

Mr. Hudson stated, it’s a tough one. He stated that I guess I would agree with Rick, if there could be some technical review of this to…I mean there’s issues. He stated that you’ve got the existing house with everything sloping. He stated that it’s certainly possible that they could put drainage pipe in to get the water to run around either side of the house you know on the West or on the East, but those issues would have to be worked out. He stated that I guess I can finally understand now, I was trying to figure out how they got back to their house. He stated that they’d have to go through this gentleman’s property to get down that driveway, which I assume someone parks down there and walks back to the house.

Mr. Brickner stated that we don’t have enough information. He stated that there’s no question that I think we need to get some more information, but, I got a question, can you build onto your house, rather than building another structure? He asked, would it be, would it be wiser to put an addition on your house for your boys and eliminate this problem with the two residences on one property?

Mr. Gough stated that we looked at the existing home and it’s been built onto it appears several times previously and it’s located very low, very far on the downward slope to the lake. He stated that from an engineering perspective it’s a pretty difficult task to build onto the existing home. He stated that I don’t know that it’s impossible because I don’t think anything is, really, but it appeared to be more difficult than adding an accessory structure near the garage, the existing accessory structure near the road, so that’s why we thought this was the better solution, and we clearly can address the technical issues and have engineered solutions to storm water, etc., and we think that’s a very reasonable request.

Mr. Hudson asked, is this on sewer and water or well and septic?

Mr. Gough stated that it’s on sewer and water.

Mr. Hudson stated that I didn’t know where that ended.

Mr. Gough stated that it was just recently connected.

Mr. Hudson stated, so that helps, at least they don’t have a septic issue, so that is a plus. He stated that I would agree that anything is doable and I think if you’re willing to put some engineering effort into this to make sure that these two gentlemen and the other gentlemen are protected, it seems like it's a doable thing.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we have two things here: One is the technical feasibility of it, which we probably would have to send it to TAC to have them look at it, but, from Rich’s expert understanding it looks like that would ultimately not be a problem. He stated that the other would be just the wisdom of putting two residences on one lot, and that’s a different problem, and that’s really the problem we should probably be dealing with to decide whether to go forward or not.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess if you look at it, and Mr. Apato said you have two lots and two homes they basically have two right now on two lots if you consider that accessory building. He stated that the fact that their existing house is over the line between 8 and 16, I guess if you swapped a little bit of land you could get them on separate lots where the house, the new house, would have a garage and the existing house wouldn’t and then you’d have maybe that situation taken care of.

Mr. Apato stated that there’s a width issue, also. He stated that I’m 60 feet wide and they’re only 43.

Mr. Hudson stated, that is narrow, I admit. He stated that it’s pretty hard to visualize the overhanging, that’s pretty creative and sounds interesting.

Mr. Robertson asked, so you’re thinking of some sort of a land swap within their own two lots there.

Mr. Hudson stated that they could have a piece of Lot 8 go with Lot 16 and they’d have ownership of…

Mr. Detert stated that I thought of the same thing. He stated that that would be one solution.

Mr. Hudson stated that that way you don’t wind up in the future with the situation that we always deal with when you have that and we always discourage that happening and have voted those situations down quite a bit in the past.

Mr. Robertson asked, would you be willing to look into that a little bit maybe?

Mr. Gough stated, yes, we would.

Mr. Robertson stated, and maybe have some fuller answers and maybe come back in a month. He stated that it might be taken care of if you could do some sort of land thing like Rich suggested would take care of a lot of the problems. He stated that it would have to go through TAC (sic) no matter what happened to take care of any concerns, it would have to go through the Technical Advisory Committee (sic) in any case to take care of any concerns that you had, so that would be addressed.

Mr. Hudson stated that those meetings are not public, so you need to work…I think if everybody can come together and they can know what you’re doing and when you’re going to make those meetings and let them know so they can be there to have that input, I think when you come back, if they’re happy, we’re going to be happy and you’re going to be happy and you got a project if all those things can happen. He stated that that’s a lot to happen.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-V-14 to the 8-16-06 meeting for more information. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated that so they know what we want, you go to the TAC committee and come up with a plan and some details and some specs on the house and on the drainage and whether or not you can divide this thing properly into two lots and avoid the problems of two residences on one lot.

Motion to continue Case 06-V-14 to the 8-16-06 meeting carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

Case 06-V-15. Petition of Stanley Sorrels, 701 Graham Dr., Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 1,880 square foot accessory structure, larger than what is allowed in a subdivision, to house a car hobby, to be located at 701 Graham Drive, in Westchester Township.

Stanley Sorrels stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that I’m here today because I got a collection of cars that have been in my family for about 40 years and kind of have them spread out in numerous locations as far away as St. Louis. He stated that I’m kind of at a stage in my life and a time in my career that’s coming to an end and I’m getting to a point where I want to gather all this up and get it together and have some time to enjoy it. He stated that I don’t restore cars; I just collect them, and I haven’t had them with me for many, many years it’s just time that I want to try to do that. He stated that I brought some pictures of some samples of what I have. He stated that the reason I’d like to do this now near my house is because as I think you can see from looking at the pictures is there’s a substantial investment that’s in this

collection. He stated that I feel like having them close to home is important to me. He stated that what I want to do on the purpose of my Variance is to build an 1,880 square foot accessory building and what this is this is about 30 feet wide on the average, it’s a little bit wider in the center and 60 foot long. He stated that I’m really sensitive to where I live to want to build the right thing in the right place. He stated that I live in a very nice house and the community I live in and it’s real important that I get it right. He stated that I’ve been working on this for about a year. He stated that a year ago I had a building survey done on my property to see what my options were. He stated that I’ve lived in Graham Woods about two years. He stated that I want to do something that blends in with the environment. He stated that I live in a wooded area and what I wanted to do is to do something that I thought would fit well with my house and the community, so I’ve kind of done this in a way with some browns and some greens to match my house. He stated that it is wooded on this side. He stated that this side is (inaudible). He stated that there is nobody behind me at all. He stated that this isn’t a pole barn. He stated that some people think that I’m going to build a pole barn. He stated that this is not a pole barn. He stated that this is actually normal construction, foundation, footing and so forth, and it’s certainly consistent with the kind of construction of my house. He stated that I won’t be required to remove any large trees from the property. He stated that that’s really important to me, because I bought the house in Graham Woods because of the large trees, and that was kind of what I was looking for, so I don’t have any intention to change any of that. He stated that what I really want to do, I want to build this building. He stated that this is a survey that I had Davies and Rensberger do last year. He stated that my lot is approximately two acres. He stated many of the lots in the area of Graham Woods that I live in are two acres. He stated that some of them more toward the entryway are a bit smaller than that, but there’s 600 foot down the right side of my lot. He stated that there’s 160 on the bend in the road. He stated that there’s an easement on this side, but basically there’s a runoff off the road that runs into kind of a little ditch here, and then this is very wooded. He stated that it runs down into this creek. He stated that my home is here. He stated that there is 2,700 square feet under roof in my house. He stated that this is where I propose to locate the building, which is 250 feet from the roadway and it’s about 65 or 70 feet behind my house. He stated that it’s over 230 feet to the nearest neighbor who’s sitting over here on the other side of the woods. He stated that it’s 350 feet from the house that’s across the road on the other side, and, of course, I have a neighbor over here, but he’s a little further away. He stated that where I propose to put this, there’s woods on actually three sides. He stated that these are kind of large, big oak trees and I would work around those. He stated that that’s why I’m saying that this is an open area of my property and I’m trying to locate this where I would not have to affect any of my large trees. He stated that there is a storage shed here that was built some time ago, at least 25 years ago. He stated that it sits kind of in the middle of kind of on this easement. He stated that it’s about 200 square feet and it's a garden shed. He stated that

it’s roofed, double doors on both ends. He stated that I keep my lawn tractor and other things in it and I would eliminate that building, so that’s 200 square feet that I would take off the property and just move my lawn equipment into this one. He stated that there’s 31 lots in Graham Woods and I think 30 of them are built on. He stated that there’s one of them that I don’t believe is built on and this is my lot. He stated that we’re going to show you one other picture. He stated that this had to do with kind of showing you this area behind my house. He stated that this is my house and you can see that the house proper has an attached garage and behind it it has a screened in porch, which is part of the house structure and part of the roof structure. He stated that if you were looking behind my house, this is the area right here that I’m looking, wanting to build, and, more specifically, here’s this open ground that I’m talking about. He stated that the storage building that I’m talking about is right over here. He stated that there’s a big piece of my property in the back that’s open and allows me to locate there. He stated that one of the things that I did when considering this I went to an environmental company and asked them for an environmental assessment and I did that because I know I live in a sensitive area and I have people in my neighborhood, myself as well, that are concerned about the environment, concerned about where we live and want to make sure that everything is right, so I hired an individual. He stated that his name is Tim Black and he works for URS corporation and I’ll give you a copy of his report that he did. He stated that he is a scientist and he’s worked in the environment for 22 years, and he’s an Indiana licensed professional geologist and he visited me on the site. He stated that he looked at my architectural design and he evaluated it. He stated that he talked about construction and my big trees and we talked about environmental issues related to the building itself and as well as during the construction of the building and his comments are here, but basically he believes I can do this without any harmful effects, whether it’s 1,200 square feet or 1,880 square feet, so I wanted to give you this to let you know that I sought out a professional opinion. He stated that one of the other things is that I visited a lot of my neighbors. He stated that I said I lived in the Graham Woods section and there’s 31 lots there. He stated that I talked to not all my neighbors. He stated that I didn’t have time, but I certainly talked to the majority of them, and many of them couldn’t come tonight, but, in order to represent them, I did take the opportunity to visit with many of them and share with them, as I did before, the picture of what I wanted to build and the Lot 20 plot plan, which I have up here and visited with each of them, as many as I could in the time that I had. He stated that I have 19 signatures on this piece of paper which says that…which is intended to support my proposal. He stated that this represents about two-thirds of the folks in Graham Woods. He stated that that’s basically my proposal and that’s what I’d like to do.

Debby Stoit, 761 Graham, stated that I live two houses away from Mr. Sorrels. She stated that I’ve lived there over 12 years. She

stated that when Mr. Sorrels moved in he not only greatly increased everybody’s home value in Graham Woods by what he’s done for the home he has, but I believe what he wants to add to his house will benefit everybody in Graham Woods. She stated that I drive down all the streets. She stated that I ride my bike down all the streets. She stated that his house, by far, just brings a lot to the community. She stated that it’s added to my house. She stated that people that come to visit me make comments about his house, which doesn’t make me happy, but…She stated that not only does he care about the wooded areas, because when he talked to me about that proposal the first thing I said is I’m a tree lover; you’d better not touch any of those trees, and he’s like, he would never do that. She stated that I know there is some concern about the building, but I also know that people buy a home because that’s their dream and that’s where they want to live. She stated that I bought my home in Graham Woods because I love that area. She stated that I have oak trees that are probably 80 years old on my property and I have deer and so much wildlife, it’s just absolutely beautiful, and I think we need more people that are willing to bring quality things to our neighborhood. She stated that there are some homes that really need some work, and I know everybody can’t always do it. She stated that I can’t always take care of my house, but, you know, I like to garden, and I garden. She stated that there are other people who have…anyway, I’m in support of it. She stated that I think it’s a beautiful building. She stated that I wish I could have something as nice as that. She stated that I have no objections and I live two houses away.

Anthony Goodson, 530 Graham, stated that I’ve seen the building plan, walked the lot and understand the proposed building. He stated that I’ve also witnessed the improvements that Stan’s accomplished since he’s been in the Graham Woods area. He stated that it’s obvious to me that he’s done things the right way. He stated that having known Mr. Sorrels for a number of years it’s clear to me as he demonstrates in the way he approaches everything that he loves this area and the property and the natural aspect of it. He stated that his property is a wooded lot. He stated that he’s already told you that and I don’t believe he would ever cut down a tree for any reason. He stated that he’s committed to doing things in an environmentally sound manner and cares about what the people that live near him think. He stated that I fully support Mr. Sorrel’s proposal and believe it will add value to the Graham Woods area.

Jason Dooley, 691 Graham, stated that I approve.

Michele Corazzo, 551 Graham Dr., stated that because I work I didn’t get a chance to go over and see the plans and that’s why I had a question mark. She stated that I walk Graham Drive and run it every day pretty much, and so when I saw his notice up I did look more closely to see. She stated that I do have some questions and some concerns. She stated that I’m not necessarily against it, but these are my concerns. She stated that one thing I didn’t understand what the Variance is, why it is he has to have a Variance for this. She

stated that the second thing is, according to the drawing, the new building looks smaller than the house, but according to some anonymous citizen who gave us this form, the house is 1,848 square feet, and the new building will be 1,880 square feet, so I don’t know if that’s right or not, but, if so, then the storage buildings will be larger than the home. She stated that that was a concern to me. She stated that it’s really quite large. She stated that the houses in Graham Woods, unless you go way back in the new additions, are not very big by and large. She stated that they are kind of medium-sized to some might even say small and so, this building, seems to be really, really big. She stated that I really respect the fact that he’s not going to touch the trees, but, in that location, it’s a little deceptive. She stated that if you were to walk along the street, it’s very visible from the street. She stated that it’s not hidden at all. She stated that if you were to hide it, he would have to cut down all those trees, and I understand. She stated that I was really worried about that, but he’s not doing it, but the location that he has it in is very visible. She stated that it’s very big and it’s very visible. She stated, and also, the height. She stated that I don’t see any relationship between the height of the new building and the height of the house. She stated that if it is really big and it is really visible, is it going to really show height-wise?

James Oates, 1006 Sandpiper Drive, Chesterton, stated that my mother, who’s the white-haired lady in the back, asked me to come and speak on her behalf. He stated that she lives at 246 Arbor Drive in Graham Woods. He stated that it’s the childhood home that I grew up in. He stated that I do have some comments regarding the proposal. He stated, the first thing, there are covenants on this subdivision. He stated that the covenants provide that each principal residence have only one out building, that out building being, at maximum, a two-car garage. He stated that this particular building would violate that covenant. He stated that that’s the first problem. He stated that it would invite litigation on behalf of the residents that are there, enforcement, and, essentially, you would be endorsing violation of those covenants. He stated that I want to go right to the point as far as why should this Variance be granted. He stated that first of all, one of the standards is, are there any exceptional circumstances about this property, and the answer is no. He stated that the principal use of this particular lot is a residence. He stated that nothing in this Variance detracts from his ability to use it as a Variance. He stated that he already has a garage and I don’t know if it’s two-car or not and it’s a nice house. He stated, but, as the lady stated, this building would be particularly visible from the street. He stated that in addition this area back here around the creek, actually some of that is actually federally protected wetlands and I don’t exactly know who controls it, but, when you look at the water survey maps and the wetland maps it’s marked federally protected and I think they have some jurisdiction over that. He stated that I know the Army Corps actually contends that they have jurisdiction over not only this area but a creek that goes down further. He stated that this construction would not have any impact on that. He stated that I

just want you to know what’s out there. He stated that it would be visible and it would be something that’s there. He stated that there’s not exceptional circumstances granted. He stated that this is basically a commercial building. He stated that it's a warehouse. He stated that you can dress it up, but that’s what it is. He stated that the second standard we look at, is it necessary to have this Variance for him to enjoy that use as a residence and I answered that, no is the answer. He stated that it is a residence and he has a garage and he has storage facilities, so he does not need this. He stated that it’s not within the realm of what the character or nature of the property is, and that’s a residential district. He stated that the Variance is a material and detrimental to the area. He stated that you’re basically taking residential areas, and, as one of the people stated, smaller houses toward the front of the subdivision and a little bit bigger; nice green lots with the trees, as everybody’s described. He stated that what you’re going to do is plop down a commercial storage building. He stated that it’s a nice-looking one. He stated, I’ll tell you what: It’s one of the nicer buildings I’ve seen in a long time, but it’s a commercial storage building. He stated that it would require a Variance on this. He stated that it would be detrimental and completely in (inaudible ) of the nature of this residential area. He stated that there are no other commercial storage buildings or garages of this size in that subdivision. He stated, in fact, it would change the character and the nature of that subdivision. He stated that as you come around that bend – the road has a bend here – he’s on the bend in the road and it actually winds back through and comes around, and that’s this road right here. He stated that it would be visible and what you’d then see is a commercial building within the midst of the subdivision. He stated that lastly, that leads to the conclusion of will it alter the value of the properties around it, and that answer, I think, is a fairly obvious yes. He stated that I’ve never seen a commercial storage building, no matter how much you dress it up, no matter how much you make it nice, that adds to the value of a residential property.

Ed Rich, 1307 Park Road, Chesterton, stated that I appreciate the opportunity to address the Board. He stated that the structure that’s being proposed this evening, as noticed by others, is 1,880 square feet. He stated that it does, in many respects, dwarf the residences that are located throughout the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood, by the way, is not just 31 lots in itself. He stated that that is Graham Woods First Addition. He stated that there’s a second addition and a third addition and 19 people do not represent maybe 70, 90 people and those people have not come here as we have to voice our concerns about this property and about this proposed building. He stated that the layout of the site and the site plan itself is rather deceptive. He stated that I wonder if the building itself is actually to scale with the entire lot. He stated that it probably is, but the fact of the matter is that, as you see from his house and the picture of the house itself, it basically sits off back to the left side of the house. He stated that it is quite visible

from the road front and you can see it coming or going. He stated that he refers to the woods to the left, right and behind it, and basically behind the building, the proposed structure, and the property line here, it’s a swale that goes down into the creek itself, which is, actually, the Little Calumet River, and that’s controlled by the Little Calumet River Commission, and that is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that the building itself would sit right on the edge of the hill where it does drop off and it drops off significantly, and, as a matter of fact, you can see the tree tops behind his house. He stated that the top of the tree tops of the area that that is going to butt against, so drainage is going to be an issue of some sort and (inaudible) control of that. He stated that the other facet about this is that his house is quite visible from here and it is a marvelous house. he stated that he did a nice job of doing some different things with it, but this structure is really deceptively close to the road, and it is quite visible. He stated that the ones he talks about, in this section here, is not really woods per se; it’s kind of a stand of trees, more or less. He stated that you can see this building coming and going from either direction. He stated that it does stand out, and although the architectural design that he’s done here appears to be nice and all that, and I agree with Mr. Oates, it is a dressed-up version of a building, a dressed-up industrial building. He stated that this is the type of building that’s approximately 2,000 square feet that you would find located in commercial developments, industrial developments, and that’s where it belongs. He stated, now, he has his vehicles spread out throughout the entire region, and outside of our region, and it does not create any hardship for him necessarily to not have those here on this site. He stated that he can bring those into the town of Chesterton, build a building or a structure at some location there, and have as much enjoyment as he can here. He stated that however fabulous his vehicles might be, the gentleman may not be here for long. He stated that he might move in another year, two years, or three years. He asked, what happens to the structure at that point in time? He stated that we all know that once we move on, that structure is left to the next person, and they use it differently, quite differently. He stated that I know of property elsewhere in Chesterton where we’ve had buildings that were vacated and people have moved in and used the garages for shops, body shops, machine shops, motorcycle shops. He stated that that is the potential that we have here in your neighborhood, as well as ours, if this is allowed. He stated that it’s very important to recognize that that happens throughout our community all over the place, and this is a residential neighborhood. He stated that it's a residential neighborhood and structured in nature. He stated that we have lot sizes in here from 1 to 5 acres in size. He stated that we have values ranging from about $187,000 all the way up to $700,000 in value. He stated that we don’t want to see these things come in to actually change the character and the nature of the neighborhood. He stated that this is a residential neighborhood by design, intent. He stated that its intent is to be open and wooded so that you can see through the neighborhood, see between the houses, enjoy the environment. He stated that this

(inaudible) those vehicles, and that’s fine. He stated that he’s entitled to do what he wants in certain respects, but we are also entitled to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Dale Manuel, 1660 Graham, stated that I agree with the two previous speakers. He stated that it’s a commercial building and it’s a residential area. He stated that it doesn’t belong there, and it’s just going to detract from property values.

Phil Tucker, 1690 Graham Drive, stated that I think everybody that’s objected said everything that I want to say except I don’t see where it really helps us enjoy nature like we want to do out there. He stated that it seems like we all have sheds out, but we sure don’t have anything like that. He stated, especially the idea that what’s the use of that building going to be next time, the next owner and the next owner. He stated that we have in the area a garage built, a two-car garage, and it kind of sticks out from the house, and it just seems like it makes it more of a business than a hobby and the cars, though they’d be nice to have around, could be, like someone else said, put in a building somewhere else.

Mr. Sorrels stated that I don’t view this as a commercial building that’s being disguised. He stated that I’m not in a commercial business. He stated that I’m an engineer by profession and I work in an oil refinery in Whiting, IN, so I’m not into the commercial side of any of this. He stated that it’s a family hobby and I wanted to bring it closer to my house and enjoy it. He stated that the commercial side of it – I can appreciate the views people have and I understand, but that’s never been my intent. He stated that I would also say that we all buy and sell properties every day and I think it’s a little difficult to hold people hostage for what might be 5 years, 10 years or 20 years from now. He stated that I bought numerous properties over my time, and I think it’s a little difficult to hold me hostage to what might happen after I’m gone with the property. He stated, I mean, we all face that at some point and that’s kind of unreasonable. He stated that I am extremely sensitive to the area. He stated that I bought in the area because I liked it. He stated that I drove around the area considerably. He stated that I can tell you that there’s a lot of people that have lots of things in Graham Woods, lots of things that they like. He stated that there’s very large pools in Graham Woods, there’s some very large buildings that remain close in the area that people have various things in. He stated that there’s lots of interesting things in Graham Woods, and I felt like when I bought the property and drove around in the four or five road area there that certainly what I was interested in doing was something I could possibly do there. He stated that that was something I checked into before I bought the property and was told that I could build a 12,200 square foot building and I could get a permit to do that. He stated that I chose to go a bit bigger because I had a few more vehicles than a 1,200 square foot building would hold. He stated that I’m leaving here with the assumption that I can

permit a 1,200 square foot building on that property, so I would like to get your feedback about that, if nothing else.

Mr. Oates stated that I just want to reiterate that the covenants provide a two-car garage, generally about 600 square feet.

The public hearing was then closed.

Ms. Corazzo stated that he didn’t answer one of my questions about the height.

Mr. Detert asked, what’s the height?

Mr. Sorrels stated that the height would be the same height as a normal building or my house, whatever the normal height is; nothing unusually tall. He stated, standard size.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not sure where the people that spoke are getting a commercial or industrial building out of this. He stated that I guess they’re judging by size. He stated that it’s not being used in that manner and you’re not buying and selling antique cars. He stated that you’re not manufacturing anything, and we have quite a few – not quite a few – but we’ve got a number of people who have as many as six-car garages on their home, so it’s not unusual for somebody to come in here and want to keep his antique cars in his own area. He stated that I guess I’m a little concerned about how clearly this is seen. He stated that I do commend you for a good presentation. He stated that I do commend you for trying to build a building that is not an eyesore. He stated that you could have come in for a pole barn and it would have looked a lot worse. He stated that the covenants – let me speak to those—those are a matter of civil action. He stated that covenants mean nothing at this meeting. He stated that we cannot enforce covenants. He stated that if you have covenants and we were to approve this and you still didn’t want it, you’d have to seek your own civil remedy. He asked, am I right?

Mr. Elwood stated, absolutely.

Mr. Burns stated that I have mixed feelings. He stated that there is no large buildings like this in this subdivision so it doesn’t really fit.