BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
September 20, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on September 20, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Robert Detert and Rich Hudson. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, attorney Kenneth Elwood and Toni Byers.

Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the August 16, 2006 BZA minutes and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 01-UV-12. Petition of Cynthia Dillingham, 295 Mander Road, Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting manufacture and sale of all-natural skin care items, on the West side of Mander Road, between Tratebas Road and U.S. Hwy 6, in Jackson Township.

Mr. Brickner stated that I understand that Ms. Dillingham no longer has the business.

Mr. Siminski stated that I talked to her on the phone. He stated that she said that she hasn’t been doing this since 2002, so she has no need for the renewal.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 01-UV-12. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 83-V-28. John Pallone, 264 E. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of U.S. Hwy 6, between Mander Road and the B&O Railroad overpass in Jackson Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners asking for a renewal of this TCO. He stated that they do have the trailer still on the lot and they are asking for a renewal.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 83-V-28 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-21. Sally Prater, 1401 S. 600 E., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 600 E., between CR 1400 S. and CR 1300 S., in Pleasant Township.

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

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated, no.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-21 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 90-V-26. Irvin Morgan, 1240 S. SR 49, Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on SR 49, between CR 1200 S. and the Kankakee River, in Pleasant Township.

Mr. Siminski stated that I visited the location. He stated that last year they told me that they were probably going to have the mobile home out of there. He stated that the mother is now living half the year inside the home at their residence and half the year at their sister’s up in Michigan, so the trailer is now gone. He stated that there’s no request for a renewal.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 90-V-26. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-53. Alan Hurst, 988 S. 250 W., Hebron, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 250 W. between CR 900 S. and CR 1000 S., in Boone Township.

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

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints on this case.

Mr. Siminski stated, no.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-V-53 for 1 year. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 01-V-29. Ray & Rosalie Stone, 402 E. 300 S., Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the South side of CR 300 S., between CR 300 E. and CR 500 E., in Morgan Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Brickner stated that I understand that the mobile home has been removed.

Mr. Siminski stated that Mr. and Mrs. Stone are here tonight.

Mr. Stone stated that am asking just to extend it until I get it sold. He stated that it’s unoccupied. He stated that we are living in the new home, so I just need some time to get it sold.

Mr. Detert asked, how much time do you need?

Mr. Stone stated, probably six months.


Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 01-V-29 for 6 months with the trailer to be removed at that time and, if it isn’t, for the petitioner to appear in person. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-V-16. Petition of Dan & Deena Wachowski, 5736 W. 25th Ave., Gary, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 1,920 square foot pole barn, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a minor subdivision, to be located at 305 S. 300 W., in Porter Township. (This Case was continued from the 8-16-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed, for input from the Development Advisory Committee on drainage issues in the area.)

Mr. Siminski stated that there are letters there that I just received late this afternoon from Kevin Breitzke and there is also a map, too, from them about…are they here?

Mr. Brickner asked, are the Wachowskis here tonight? He asked, no?

Mr. Siminski stated that I’m a little surprised that they’re not here.

Mr. Burns asked, should we continue this to the end of the meeting to see if they show up.

Mr. Brickner stated that we’ve not had a chance to read this, so I think it might be a good idea to continue it.

Mr. Burns stated that we should continue it to the end of the meeting to see if they show up.

Mr. Siminski stated that I think that would be a good suggestion.

Mr. Brickner stated, all right. He stated that we’ll put it at the end of new business.

New Business:

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

Case 06-UV-10. Petition of Wendy King, 673 E. 950 N., Westville, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a pet boarding kennel for approximately 20 animals, to be located at 673 E. 950 N., in Jackson Township.

Wendy King stated that she is the petitioner in this matter. She stated that I have a 21-page document that outlines the kennel plans, business hours of operation and it also addresses potential sound issues, as well as property value issues. She stated that the petition is for a boarding kennel to be placed on the back portion of



my property. She stated that the building itself is located over 200 feet from any residence. She stated that I put a basic diagram of its location. She stated that with the acoustic specialist that I’ve been working with and the charts that you see here there will not be any noise issues. She stated that we will address those in the actual construction of the building itself. She stated that between the concrete blocks, and there’s also a material that can be placed within the walls and the floor and the ceiling. She stated that it is called Acoustiblock and by the time any noise reaches the outside of the building with the dispersement through distance the noise generated through the kennel itself, theoretically, will not even go off of my property. She stated that visually the kennel will be nearly 100 percent obstructed from most of my neighbors. She stated that this does not include Mr. and Mrs. Ihnat who live directly next to me. She stated that they will see part of the kennel from their back yard, as will, possibly, Miss Rivera. She stated that I put in here the actual layout, why it’s been placed in the position that it is, the kennel design and construction, the distance, sound transmission, sound absorption of materials. She stated that I have also spoken with several real estate agents and brokers as to any possible detrimental effects to our area that we live in, which not only includes the noise, but aesthetics, as well. She stated that the building will actually blend into the community so that it’s not an eyesore.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Corrinna Hoag, 679 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I am against the petition because I do not want our community, our area, our road, to become a commercial area. She stated that I want it to remain as a residential. She stated that I’m about three houses away.

Tereas Rivera, 677 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I submitted a letter that I would like to have read pertaining to this issue.

At this time, Mr. Siminski read the letter from Ms. Rivera in opposition to this case and to the following case for Michael Stephens. The letter is in the file.

John Ihnat, 675 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I live directly South of this. He stated that I, too, sent a letter in. He stated that I won’t ask you to go through that letter because I have to agree with what Ms. Rivera’s letter has to say. He stated that I have noise concerns. He stated that even with residential acoustically designed soundproof venting in the building, dogs do make barking and howling noises. He stated that it’s part of the canine life. He stated that given the information that was given previously about the 20 animals that will make potentially 23 animals, because she has three animals which are pets next door right now. He stated that these animals could be in the yard, in runs, virtually at the same time, possibly not at the same time. He stated that I saw no restrictions upon the evening time in or morning time out in her presentation. He stated



that the odor from dogs, I don’t know how it would be disposed of. He stated that the soil around there is naturally wet. He stated that it does dry out in lengthy periods of no rain, but the potential of having odors hanging around. He stated that there is a natural sluice, washway that goes between her property from the property to the North of her and through my property and on to the property that is to the South of me. He stated, traffic…a kennel could generate what I would call unwanted traffic. He stated that the majority of the traffic that goes up and down 950 are people that are either residents or related to residents or doing business with residents in the form of home remodeling, etc., etc. He stated that we rarely have strangers that I can tell coming through there. He stated that we do have people that are now coming in to use the outdoor atmosphere in the shelter that they have approved around the corner, and I have no problem with that. He stated that I do have a problem with strangers coming through here. He stated, commercial businesses. He stated that it’s zoned R-1, if I’m correct. He stated that I moved in there…my comments are, I moved from areas in the Town of Chesterton to the country. He stated that I moved to another spot in the country because it was a little further out, almost 3 acres, 2.67 acres. He stated, quiet, no problems and what have you. He stated that I’m looking at the fact that that portion of my life there could change, it could change considerably. He stated that I have talked with Realtors. He stated that I had one Realtor come out and actually do an appraisal, and comments were made to us that not many people are going to want to move next door to a kennel, and it could easily be a 10 to 15 percent reduction in the value of the property, depending on what could show up and what the occurrences are out there, I’m looking at a loss in property values. He stated that I had one person do his appraisal. He stated that I have other people that I did telephone conversations with. He stated that in her letter she has references to Realtors that she’s talked to, one of them from Colorado. He stated that I don’t know what Colorado has to do with this.

Janet Ihnat stated that I agree 100 percent.

Sarah Deiotte, 676 E. 950 N., stated that I’m right across the street from Wendy. She stated that my concern was just all the extra traffic that would come through there. She stated that I will have, this will be our fifth child. She stated that I like my big yard, and I like being outside and I just don’t want to hear dogs. She stated that I think the acoustic part is taken care of, but just the extra traffic is a big concern of mine, and I just don’t want to have to worry about who’s driving past my house.

Joseph Young, 671 E. 950 N., stated that I’m going to pass this out to you. He stated that this is a drawing of my property and her property. He stated that it shows distances from the property lines to the kennels. He stated that regarding the statement about the barrier that I planted years ago being a visual stop, this is a picture of what the trees will look like in the next few years when they start losing their bottom branches, and when they drop off they



will be visible right to her 104-foot-wide kennel, which would be 220 feet from my patio. He stated that my letter addresses all of these points. He stated that I want to pass this around to you because this shows the 12 parcels that were subdivided by Mr. Gorski for the purpose of residential homes, not commercial, not for anything other than residential. He stated that we bought that property with the understanding that it would be residential homes, no commercial ventures at all. He stated that everybody else bought their properties also based on that. He stated that the visual aspect from my patio is addressed by the last picture you saw right there. He stated that the sound aspect that you saw in her documents pointed out that there would be zero noise level 40 feet or so from the building. He stated that this is completely erroneous. He stated that that’s only if the animals are secured within the building proper. He stated that if they’re outside and she decides to use the whole back half of the property for a fenced-in area for running her dogs then it will be terrible for half a mile. He stated that when the trees start to lose their branches my patio area will be visible from her dogs which will incite them to bark a lot. He stated that the visual side, the sound side. He stated that the distance between her house and the property line is 30 feet, according to the drawings that we were supplied. He stated that this does not lend itself to having a disposal truck get back to the back of the property. He stated that I have a driveway which she is going to install on my property line next to my trees which I planted for visual purposes, not for protecting somebody else next door. He stated that that would be transited by people visiting her kennel in the back for approximately 400 feet. He stated that that’s going to produce a lot of noise along that area. He stated that we have so many people that walk their children in carriages down the street, it’s just unbelievable in that area, and I do not think the increased traffic flow would be appropriate in that area. He stated that we’re like a miniature Brown County out there. He stated that it’s fantastic. He stated that the state wanted to annex that whole area at one time for a park and we got a walking path out there right now, and it’s just too beautiful an area. He stated that the residential area was sold as residences, not as commercial purposes.

Lillian Young, 671 E. 950 N., stated that one of the major concerns – we’ve put a lot of money and time into our house and this is going to cost a great deal if we have a kennel if we ever have to sell our house because people are not going to pay the price we need to get out of our house to substantiate, you know. She stated that we would take a really great loss.

James Jeppesen, 670 E. 950 N., stated that I live directly across from the proposed thing. He stated that I’m pretty much in agreement with everybody else. He stated, the noise factor – I don’t care what the acoustics are; there’s always something that’s going to get through. He stated that the door’s open. He stated, valuation of the property. He stated that I moved out there two years ago and built because it’s just perfect, and the traffic going by there, you get all the strangers going in there. He stated that I have collector




cars that I keep in the garage and things like that, and I don’t want people out there that I don’t know getting around there. He stated that a lot of things happen. He stated that you get traffic and it may not be them, but they may say something to somebody and the valuation of your property just goes down. He stated that that’s the reason I moved out there.

Don Houser, 668 E. 950 N., stated that the side of my property views the proposed kennel property. He stated that I basically am in agreement with all of my neighbors with all the different reasons and I oppose any rezoning. He stated that I love the area. He stated that I’ve been there 13 years. He stated that I love the peace and quiet. He stated that I love the low traffic travel. He stated that I’m very concerned about what will be brought in, property value especially. He stated that I’ve had dogs on and off all my life. He stated that I’ve not been to a kennel that’s completely soundproof. He stated that dogs have to be out in a run and I work shift work and I really don’t want to hear all that.

Ms. King stated that first, I’m going to address everybody’s concerns collectively because, obviously, they are much the same. She stated that most of these concerns I’ve already addressed in the papers that I handed to you. She stated that I know that everybody is worried about it being rezoned commercial and this is not about rezoning. She stated that I’m not asking for a rezoning for commercial property; I’m simply asking for a Use Variance and those are two very different things. She stated that as far as traffic goes, yes, there would be a slight increase in traffic, but the slight increase in traffic is very, very minimal. She stated that another issue that everyone is very concerned about is property value. She stated that I am just as concerned for everybody’s else’s property value as I am my own, which is why I’ve taken a lot of time to try to show everybody that through the construction and how it will actually blend into the community that it does not decrease somebody’s property value. She stated that Mr. Ihnat asked about the gentleman in Colorado. She stated that his name is Jerry Becker. She stated that the reason that I called him is that he actually sold my house in Colorado and I know him, and when it comes to basics as far as property value owning a home next to a kennel, these are questions that can be answered by any real estate broker, not one that is going to be specific to a state, however, the majority of the real estate brokers that I did speak with are here. She stated that one of the…actually on that last ditto that I handed everybody, and this will also address their other concerns as far as on the noise and also the issue of smells came up. She stated that the kennel is going to be completely enclosed. She stated that my other neighbor…and, he is right: Nothing is absolutely 100 percent soundproof, which is why the charts will show here the estimated decibel level outside of the kennel and how it will disperse with distance. She stated that John brought up a point where he indicated that he had spoken with a Realtor and that the Realtor had indicated that it could bring his property value anywhere from 10 to 15 percent down. He stated that



there is no basis for this estimate at all. She stated that whichever Realtor had given him this information doesn’t have my information has no information on the kennel itself, what it’s going to look like, the actual placement of it, the acoustic materials that are going to be used. She stated that I believe that I very thoroughly addressed the noise issue in this material. She stated that as far as any unpleasant areas go since the dogs are going to be contained within the kennel, much of the waste goes into a drainage system, and this system not only has to meet your standards, it also has to meet the EPA standards for animals. She stated that another concern that came up is the extra area that’s going to be fenced in around the kennel. She stated that there will be times when I will have a dog out in that area for a daily exercise run. She stated that these are supervised. She stated that there are no dogs that are put together. She stated that aside from the fact that it could cause animal fights, these are different people’s animals that I’m responsible for taking care of. She stated that that’s a situation that would never happen as a business rule.

Mr. Ihnat stated that this is a rebuttal response to that. He stated that I would not put the Board in a position to ask you who of you would like to move into an area next door to a kennel with potentially 23 dogs, but the Realtor in particular that I asked lives on 400 E. here in Valpo. He stated that she’s a Realtor. He stated that she has two very large dogs of her own, which she has a run for in her back yard. He stated that it's in a very nice neighborhood and she told us what her dogs do. He stated that she lets them out just to get their exercises. He stated that she is in a position to compare what dog attitude is. He stated that the drainage potential there…this is going to have to be washed away, taken away somehow. He stated that you have to wash floors out. He stated that you have to have drains to get rid of what you washed off the floors. He stated that it’s going to go outside and it’s going to go into the ground. He stated that I live downhill of that property. He stated that it slopes to me from Mr. Young’s property, through Miss King’s property, down to me and then on further down to my neighbors. He stated that I don’t want it. He stated that as far as being rezoned, I did not hear anything that made me indicate (sic) that she was asking for a rezone. He stated that I understand Variances and rezoning are a whole bunch different. He stated that it’s an R-1 area. He stated that it’s not going to go commercial unless something drastic happens. He stated that we’re here to go against the Variance.

Mr. Young stated that in looking at her kennel design line, every kennel has an outside door, access to the outside of the building. He stated that they are going to be used for letting dogs outside. He stated that the building is 104 feet long and 32 or 34 feet wide. He stated that in this zoning, the building would have to have a Variance itself. He stated that once this building is constructed and put on this lot for a 7-year (sic) maximum Variance, what happens at the end of 7 years. He stated that they got a building there, right? He stated that if she decide to fold up or if we find there’s a nuisance



going on there for so long, we’ve got a building there that was not approved for zoning at that location. He stated that it may be occupied by what other entity, we have no idea. He stated that I don’t think it’s appropriate to have this building constructed in that area. He stated that regarding the noise levels, it’s common sense if you’re 40 feet from a dog barking outside it’s not going to be precipitate (sic) to zero decibels. He stated that that’s an error. He stated that I moved from a piece of property that was 8 acres near Camelot bowling alley, which I was going to build my home on, because of commercialization at that location. He stated that I don’t want to see this deteriorate. He stated that I understand that people have aspirations for their lives. He stated that I’ve had them myself.

Heidi Martinek, 667 E. 950 N., stated that I happen to be her sister. She stated that most of these people that have already spoken have built their houses since I’ve lived out in that area, so I can understand concerns about traffic and cars you don’t know and people you haven’t seen before going up and down the road and their friends and family and what not visiting. She stated that we had to adjust a little bit when we moved out there because there wasn’t anybody else out there, and that’s what happens – areas grow and they change a little bit as time goes on. She stated that I have a big horse barn. She stated that I don’t normally have complaints. She stated that after two years I have neighbors were like a half a mile away telling me they’d never seen flies like that before. She stated that they had other people out on the other side of them that had horses, as well, so I figured I was just (inaudible). She stated that I’ve already talked to Wendy. She stated that it would require a separate septic completely to have a kennel of any size out there and, of course, that would require examining the drainage. She stated that it would have to be approved before she could even go forth and build it just to stay within codes and whatnot. She stated that traffic from a boarding kennel is really pretty small. She stated that people are not in and out at all times of day and night. She stated that they come, they drop their animal off. She stated that they might come to look at it first and then they come to pick their animal up. She stated that it’s not an all day affair. She stated that I’m exactly half a mile from County Line Road as you drive. She stated that there’s a few more houses. She stated that like I said, most of those houses have been built more recently since I’ve been out there, but you’re not talking about freeway traffic going through. She stated that the noise issue, I’d have to read more of her material, because I know she’s done a lot of research as far as this goes, because you can’t just throw up a building and say I’m going to take care of animals. She stated that it's not going to make you money. She stated that you’re not going to get the animals proper care. She stated that you’re going to have complaints. She stated that it’s an unworthy cause and it’s not going to make you any money, it’s not going to make you happy. She stated that I know she’s got more research left to do.



The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I haven’t heard anybody speak in favor of this, and I keep hearing people talk about this being a residential area and they moved out there to live in this residential R-1 area. He stated that I know what dogs are like. He stated that I have one to the South of me and I have one to the North of me, and I don’t want to say I’m woken up every night, but there’s not a night that goes by that I don’t hear that dog sometime, or both those dogs sometime during the night. He stated, 20 dogs, a kennel, that size of building. He stated that there’s all kinds of issues the lady brought up about additional or a separate septic system being required. He stated that I don’t know if that’s required or not. He stated that I just, if I’d heard one positive thing from a neighbor, an adjoiner, that they didn’t mind having this there – there’s just too many people here that are against it. He stated that these people are having their neighborhood invaded by a commercial use.

Mr. Burns stated that I feel the same way. He stated that Rich said it perfect. He stated that it's a commercial use in the neighborhood and it will, in my opinion, affect property values. He stated that it will change the quality of life for the residents. He stated that the noise would increase. He stated that the levels of traffic would increase. He stated that odors, of course, would increase, and the view of the residents – they moved out in the country for a country view and that’s going to change.

Mr. Detert stated that I feel the same way.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 06-UV-10, incorporating the findings of fact as drawn up 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

Case 06-UV-11. Petition of Michael Stephens, 972 N. County Line Rd., Westville, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a kennel for service dogs, to be located at 972 N. County Line Road, in Jackson Township.

Michael and Leann Stephens stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Stephens stated that I’d like to point out that they are not the same kennels, so to speak. He stated that she was looking for a commercial business. He stated that I am not. He stated that I’m not running a commercial business on the property. He stated that right now I’m raising labs. He stated that the dogs that I have, I’ve been working with and training them since the last time I was here three years ago. He stated that we first got started back in 2001 and planned on raising, breeding and training Labrador retrievers and donating part of each litters to service dog






organizations. He stated that this idea seemed wonderful at the time, but I ran into one conflict after another, it seemed like. He stated that whether it was…I was under the impression that they wanted the dogs very well trained and donate them. He stated that it turns out they don’t really care how they’re trained; they just want really healthy dogs. He stated that that was just one of the many problems that I had run into. He stated that I have been brought up around dogs all my life and Labs had always stuck with me because of their loving personality and they’re easily trained. He stated that after the last meeting my wife and I sat down and were wondering what we should do, and she had suggested that I do some pet therapy. He stated that I was like, well, that’s interesting enough, so I basically got to work training the dogs that I had, working diligently to get them certified as therapy dogs. He stated that that means that they’re very obedient. He stated that they listen to you. He stated that they’re not going to relieve themselves indoors. He stated that they’re just very well-behaved. He stated that I know there were some letters that I asked a couple of people to write. He stated that I think there’s a couple from Porter Hospital. He stated that there’s couple from Porter Hospital. He stated that there’s one from the president of Porter Hospital. He stated that I actually approached Porter Hospital about volunteering, coming in there and volunteering with my dog, going around to the pediatrics and all the kids that are sick in the hospital. He stated that it raises their spirits, gets them real happy. He stated that there’s some pictures here, the three different dogs that I have that I’ve taken into the hospital and nursing homes. He stated that I not only go to Porter Hospital, but I go to like six or seven other nursing homes that I go to frequently every week. He stated, back to Porter Hospital. He stated that I had gone in there to volunteer and found out that they didn’t have a pet therapy program, so I talked to Janet Pakish. He stated that she is the patient advocate and Suzette Mahneke, who’s the director of all nursing and, between the two of them, they approached the different…they brought it in front of the state Board of Health and got that approved and next thing you know, I think it was about a year later, they called me up and said that everything got approved, so I’ve been going in there on a regular basis each week, take my dogs in there. He stated that the kids…there’s pictures there. He stated that the children just get a great kick out of seeing the dogs. He stated that they come in there, Sydney will jump on the bed if they want them up there. He stated that she’s very gentle. He stated that parents love it because they have their 2-year-old or 3-year-old child in there. He stated that they’re sick and they’re crying all the time and they see the dog and they even walk the dog down the hall because they’re very gentle, very nice and trained, very well (inaudible) by themselves. He stated that these are…I originally started documenting my visits. He stated that this is like right after I left here last meeting. He stated that these are just a few of the…this goes back to, looks like November of ’04 to the present and just signatures of when I was there with the different dogs. He stated that I originally had planned on breeding Labs. He


stated that I love Labs and think they’re a great dog and I thought it would be great to build a kennel, breed the dogs, train them, donate them to service dog organizations and sell to friends and family, as well. He stated that they make great family pets. He stated that there were too many conflicts there, so I haven’t bred any dogs since the last time I was here. He stated that I’ve concentrated on just training them and socializing them, donating my time going to different nursing homes and I would like to in the very near future go into some different schools. He stated that I know there’s some special needs schools, SELF and Cooks Corners that would really benefit from this sort of program. He stated that I would like to still have the option of breeding and donating. He stated that in the spring I would like to breed Sydney and I still would like to donate part of the litters to service dog organizations when they are young, like 8 weeks old, so I don’t have like a bunch of 8, 9, 10-month old dogs in the house that I’m training, waiting to donate. He stated that they would be donated at 8 weeks old. He stated that I don’t see myself having more than a litter a year. He stated that I raise very healthy dogs. He stated that they’re not running around outside. He stated, as a matter of fact, for the past year,…for the past three years, I’ve only had one call, one complaint from any neighbors. He stated that the neighbor right across the street, he moved in like three years ago, he was very much in favor. He stated that he was going to come tonight and he ended up having to go to school at the last minute. He stated that I have a couple very elderly neighbors to the right of me, Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Gorski, and I go over there several times to socialize with them and they’ve come over for lunch at my house. He stated that he actually built my house, and they don’t have any problems with my dogs. He stated that the dogs have been inside the house for the past year. He stated that they haven’t even been outside at night. He stated that they’ve been inside. He stated that they’ve been inside. He stated that they lay down in the living room on the floor with us. He stated that when my wife goes to bed they hop up next to me on the couch. He stated that they are very well-trained and very well-mannered. He stated that I’m not raising…I’m not looking for a commercial…I’m repeating myself. He stated that I know there were some concerns. He stated that everyone around us does have dogs, just about every house around us has dogs and they do bark.

Leanne Stephens stated that our kennel is pretty much like a puppy palace, even though we’re not even using it for a kennel. She stated that we’ve increased the property value since we’ve built the kennel. She stated that we’re very much into keeping the value in our area. She stated that our dogs are great and well-trained. She stated that we have four dogs now. She stated that we have three Labrador retrievers and one Jack Russell. She stated that we don’t want any other dogs. She stated that they’re our pets. She stated that it’s not going to be a commercial venture, like my husband said. She stated that it’s great, the work that Michael does with the therapy dog program. She stated that he goes to hospitals and to nursing homes and it’s proven by bringing the dogs to uplift the



spirit. She stated that it decreases the amount of recovery time. She stated that everyone just loves it. She stated that they love it and we love it, and we’re not probably not even going to be living there in another four more years. She stated that we’re planning on building to a larger piece of property because County Line Road is very high traffic and we don’t…we like the area, but we want to get out of that and go elsewhere, so we just need a permit to have our four dogs and be able to have Michael do the therapy work that he does in the community. She stated that he spends probably 16 hours a week for free going to the different public facilities and people who are either residents of nursing homes or who are in the hospital.

Nancy Weimer, P.O. Box 1184, Valparaiso, stated that I am the activity director here at Life Care Center in Valparaiso and we’re at 3405 Campbell Road. She stated that we’re kitty-corner from Cooks Corners School and I come from a different aspect, I think, than most of the neighbors. She stated that I come from the aspect that Mike has come to our nursing home and has made a difference with our residents. She stated that we have a 110-bed capacity nursing home and we have all levels of cognition there, and when you see Mike come in with his dogs and faces light up and smiles and they know the dogs’ names. She stated that it doesn’t matter which one comes in or anything like that. She stated that it’s they’re there, they’re here. She stated that people are coming from all over in their wheelchairs to see the dogs, and Mike goes around from room to room to see them. She stated that even ones that have been scared in the past now know them, they’re familiar with them. She stated that he’s been coming here for about two years and I can’t tell you the difference that it’s made in our population because they’re asking daily, is today the day that Mike comes, is this the day that Sydney comes, and they know all the dogs by first name, so, I mean, I really am coming from a different point of view. She stated that we need people like that that volunteer their time that we can count on that are faithful to bring their pets and I just think that we’ve been blessed by Mike and his gifts and his dogs that it would be much more in favor of him being able to continue with the dogs. She stated that I’ve seen their home. She stated that I know what they’re doing with the remodeling and the stuff that they’ve done outside the building and all that sort of thing, and there is nothing wrong with their home. She stated that there is nothing that would devalue that at all. She stated that I know that they’ve just spent several thousand dollars with the brick work that they’ve done on the outside of the kennel and all that and reestablishing the doors and what have you, so I really commend them for what they’re doing and the time that Mike spends in the community.

Corinna Hoag, 679 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I’m not really for or against. She stated that I have really questions about this particular petition because it seems kind of…it’s a little vague to me that it says operation of a kennel for service dogs. She stated that I don’t know how many dogs will be there and I don’t know in our neighborhood with the zoning laws what’s required and what’s the definition of a kennel. She stated that it was very clear to me with


the last petitioner that that was a kennel, a commercial business. She stated, this one, if he’s got four dogs that just happen to be in a building, I don’t know if that is against our zoning or not, so I have questions about what the zoning laws are in our area for something like this and more details. She stated that I would like it to be more specific so I can know more of what’s going to be.

Teresa Rivera, 677 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I, too, first of all, I would like to apologize to you. She stated that when I submitted my letter after receiving both registered letters regarding the Variances I did not have enough information pertaining to the particular request to make an educated decision. She stated that I was assuming it was going to be commercial, as was the previous Variance, which I was completely against. She stated that I would like to have some more information, as Corri also mentioned. She stated that I would like to be more informed, better informed to make the right decision. She stated that I commend you on what you are doing. She stated that I think it’s wonderful. She stated that my brother worked for a vet for 25 years before he became disabled, and it takes a very special individual to do what you’re doing, donating your time and your talents. She stated that it’s truly a blessing to children and to people in need, so I would very much like to have some more information.

John Ihnat, 675 E. 950 N., stated that I also was misguided and misinformed about what was occurring on your property. He stated that I was told that he was raising dogs and that he had three of his own as pets, which, according to what I was given as information, he was allowed to have six kennel dogs and three pets. He stated that we have heard the dogs occasionally, but rare occasion, and that to no point was it ever bothersome about the barking or anything that we heard from over there. He stated that I’m happy to get informed on what you’re doing with the dogs. He stated, as a matter of fact, just two or three weeks ago, you were at Life Care, and my mother-in-law’s in there, and we found out about the dogs coming in and didn’t know that it was you and your dogs. He stated that what he is doing is excellent.

Joe Young, 671 E. 950 N., stated that I’ve been before this Board regarding this Variance before. He stated that I expressed my misgivings about his ability to raise the dogs and breed them properly. He stated that he’s also showed that he’s restricted from doing that for other reasons, which we don’t know about. He stated that after the last Variance meeting we received a letter from him about selling dog food from his residence, I believe, distributing it. He stated that that’s part of a commercial venture. He stated that I’m not really upset about that. He stated that I’m not really upset about what he’s doing. He stated that I think it’s beautiful. He stated that the only thing that I would request from this committee is that the same restrictions that are in place now continue to be in place – six dogs, three dogs at home, and that the other six dogs to breed. He stated that what he is doing is great. He stated that he showed that they may be leaving in four years. He stated that I think


that might be a good time to set on that Variance, the four years, with the restrictions that are in place now, and keep doing the great work he’s doing. He stated that one of the reservations in my letter was that would the kennel be a precedence for future arbitration from other people that want to put kennels in this area?

James Jeppesen, 670 E. 950 N., stated that I also was misinformed as to what he is doing. He stated that I think he’s doing a pretty good job out there. He stated that when I first moved out there I heard some dogs barking for a while and I was informed that he was raising dogs or something and then I didn’t hear anything anymore. He stated that it’s been two years and I haven’t heard any noise and I’m satisfied with that, and I think for what he’s doing, I think it’s marvelous. He stated that there’s a lot of people that just don’t take the time to do different things like this to help other people, and I think it’s a pretty good thing here, so I’ll go along with him on it.

Don Houser, 668 E. 950 N., stated that I, as well, did not have enough information on this particular case. He asked, is the kennel the building that’s at the end of your driveway?

Mr. Stephens stated, yes.

Mr. Houser stated that I’d have to say that it’s the most beautiful kennel that I have ever seen. He stated that it is really nice. He stated that a question I have is that they have stated that they may only be there another year or two – four. He asked, what happens to the Variance, then, once they’re gone? He stated that I have no real opposition to this.

Ms. Weimer stated that I missed one part that I wanted to…we do wheelchair exercises, and I mean most of the residents are in wheelchairs and that sort of thing and all you have to do with Sydney – she joins in the exercises. She stated that you say, high five, Sydney, and she helps them raise their hands so they can do that sort of thing, and then we’ve done some other things, too, with her, so she has been more beneficial to us, but I just wanted to demonstrate that, that she is very careful with the residents.

Jim Gorski, 1107 N. 650 E., stated that we submitted two letters to the BZA about…we have adjoining property. He stated that my dad owns property around Mike, and, also I have interest in property across the street, and, the same thing, like other people here, we weren’t sure what you were doing. He stated that we thought you were going to be boarding dogs. He stated that if I read it right in the paper it was 20 of them, or whatever. He stated that maybe I didn’t read the paper correctly. He stated, so, anyway, I know Mike well, and the only thing, question we have is, what happens after Mike moves, the Board approving this, if it does approve it? He asked, limiting the dogs, how many dogs would you be handling at one time, and this is a service thing, not a boarding thing, the way I understand




it. He stated that, other than that, I have no problem. He stated that like I say, we submitted the two letters to the board, and as long as it’s limited to not 20 dogs.

Judy MacDonald, 3006 Coach Trail, Valparaiso, stated that I am representing my parents, Alvin and Leona Gorski, who are neighbors to Mike. She stated that I’ve sat through all this comments and questions, and my question still is to you, the Board: The petition asks for an operation of a kennel for service dogs. She asked, how many are we talking? She stated that I know Mike says he has four right now. She asked, is it going to stay at that, or is there going to be an actual number placed on it that would be reasonable? She stated that I realize that you’re doing a wonderful job and it is very beneficial, but still, I think there is a number that would be unpleasant to have in the neighborhood, so, when you have your discussion, I hope that will be made known to us, how many dogs we’re talking about.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Stephens stated that I know that you need a kennel license if you have more than three dogs, if you have four dogs. He stated that we’ve always had like four dogs. He stated that I remember when we first came in and petitioned the Board we had four or five dogs, but right now, I don’t want to get any more dogs. He stated that I don’t have a plan to get any more dogs. He stated that the old regulations that we’re governed by, or that you guys put on us, that’s plenty. He stated that if you don’t want us to have more than 9 dogs, I think you said six in the kennel and three in the house, but I don’t see us having any more than the four dogs that we have. He stated that if I do have the opportunity, and I come across a breeder that has a bloodline that’s impeccable like Sydney’s – she has an impeccable bloodline, both her parents, I mean I have their certification here, both her parents are excellent, I mean as far as breeding her, she’s got great bloodlines. He stated, the kennel itself, if you’re worried about what’s going to happen to the kennel, I mean, I’m not talking about the actual permit, but the kennel itself is easily transformed into an outside workshop. He stated that it’s not like the kennel’s going to go into like this old abandoned building.

Mr. Burns stated that there are concerns about increasing the animals. He stated that I don’t have any problem -- I think it’s very noble, what he’s doing, but at the same time, you’re in a residential area and I don’t have a problem with the four animals. He stated that I’m against boarding animals because it turns into a kennel, and we have a lot of problems in the County with kennels right now, major complaints. He stated that it’s nothing personal, at all. He stated that I think it’s noble, what you’re doing. He stated that I do have to ask you about selling pet food. He asked, what was that comment about?





Mr. Stephens stated that that was…I was trying to find a way that I could get like the best food possible for my dogs and I did a lot of research, and it’s Eagle Pro-Pack. He stated that it’s made from the greatest food. He stated that I thought, well, you know, if I get enough neighbors…and I know…I’m not trying to make a commercial venture out of it, but I know all the neighbors have dogs, and I thought if I could get the neighbors to buy the dog food from me, then that would make it more affordable for me. He stated that I could order a pallet of food and I understand what you’re saying. He stated that that went out just about as soon as…

Mr. Burns asked, you’re not doing it anymore?

Mr. Stephens stated, no, that was three years ago, and that was maybe a three-month venture.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t have a problem with the four animals. He stated that I do have a problem with a higher number than that or boarding animals, because it is a residential area.

Mr. Stephens stated that I don’t want to board animals. He stated that there is no boarding. He stated that originally there was talk about boarding, and I don’t want other animals there. He stated that they won’t get along with my dogs. He stated that I’m have my girls and I’m happy with them. He stated that I don’t want any other dogs.

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t have any problems as long as we put restrictions on any motion to approve it to depict exactly what he’s doing now – no more dogs.

Mr. Hudson asked, how many dogs do you have now?

Ms. Stephens stated, four.

Mr. Hudson asked, and they’re all your personal dogs?

Mr. Stephens stated, yeah.

Mr. Hudson stated, yeah, I would agree, as long as we…there’s no boarding going on, no selling of commercial dog food. He stated that it’s a beautiful building, and there were people that spoke in favor of this – maybe not completely in favor of it, and that’s important because they live there, and I know you have to live there, and I think the only other issue that…and maybe our attorney can explain what happens to this use once they leave, if you would explain that please.

Mr. Elwood stated that I think you should place, to address the concerns of the public, either a time limit or have the Use Variance run to these folks and this particular operation only.



Mr. Brickner stated that I was going to ask the same question. He stated that one of the concerns is what’s going to happen to this building after the Stephens leave, and I would be concerned about that, too. He stated that somebody would buy that place with the idea of starting a kennel, because it’s a beautiful kennel. He stated that I mean, it’s made for more than, for nine or more dogs, so we should put a restriction on that.

Mr. Burns stated that one concern, I think the Board should look at, is the time. He stated that I’m not too sure that we should go four years. He stated, not that I don’t trust you two, but we have a lot of issues in the County with kennels right now, so, whatever time frame you would put on it, I would favor a year or two, but I don’t think I would favor four years.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-UV-11 for 2 years, with the number of animals at 4; no boarding of animals; no selling of dog food. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated that the original was for nine dogs, so we’re making it four dogs,

Mr. Stephens stated that I didn’t even get to ask what I was asking as far as the Variance goes time-wise.

Mr. Hudson stated that this is a Use Variance and is this renewable for…

Mr. Detert stated, three times.

Mr. Hudson stated that if we do this two years, he can come back two possible times to get a year or two.

Mr. Burns asked, should we pass it as a Use Variance, or a temporary Variance.

Mr. Elwood stated that if you place a time limit on it, it’s temporary.

Mr. Detert stated that I think the motion should restrict the operation that they have to them, and that said operation will cease to exist if they discontinue the use.

Mr. Burns stated that I agree.

Mr. Hudson stated that the second agrees.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-UV-11 for 2 years, with the number of animals at 4; no boarding of animals; no selling of dog food; restricting the operation that they have to them, and that said



operation will cease to exist if they discontinue. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Ms. Stephens stated that I just have a quick comment. She stated that if we have to come back in two years to do this again, one of my concerns is it’s very expensive, when we did all the public...

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t think anybody’s asking you to notify the public. He stated that these people that are here now will know that this thing will come due in two years, okay.

Mr. Stephens stated, …come up with another $400 just to come back.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t think anybody’s asking you. He stated that I noticed in the prior minutes that there was a special…

Mr. Elwood stated that in order to avoid a public, republication, we would need to set a specific date. He stated that we can say the month of September in 2008, the meeting in September in ’08. He stated that we can do that, and then you would not need to renotify.

Mr. Burns stated that I disagree with that totally, because we need to hear from the public. He stated that what I’d like to do is take a different approach because of the situation is waive (inaudible) the two years. He stated that I think we need to hear from the public.

Mr. Elwood stated that the problem with waiving the fees is that they’ve got certified mail and things like that that they need to send out. He stated that we can waive the application fees.

Mr. Detert stated that I think what we should do is put the burden on them to notify the neighbors that they’d be coming for a new time limit on their application.

Mr. Elwood stated that generally, the way publication works, and what you’re saying is absolutely fine, but, if you announce a date at a public meeting, it’s just like continuing it for a month. He stated that obviously two years is quite different than that, but if you announce it at a public hearing, it satisfies the statute for public notice. He stated that that’s not to say what your preference is. He stated that I’m just advising that.

Mr. Burns stated that that’s my concern.

Mr. Detert stated that I think you want to make sure that the neighbors can maybe write in or call in in two years when they come back to renew, and that’s all you’re looking for, right?

Mr. Burns stated, yes.


Mr. Detert stated, some public input, not a public hearing, okay. He stated, so, when they come back, in September of ’08, they will have to show proof of having mailed to that same number of people that they mailed this time, stating in their letter that this is strictly a renewal and the public may or may not be heard; it will be at the discretion of the Board as to whether any public persons are recognized.

Mr. Burns stated that if the people that are here didn’t get letters from them, that they are aware of the meeting, that would satisfy me. He stated that I mean, they may not have to send it out through the postal service. He stated that they get letters, they go to their houses, or whatever, get some type of document that they were aware of the meeting.

Mr. Brickner stated that the Stephens have complied with all of our requests from the last Variance. He stated that I, having been out there. He stated that Rich was out there, and it’s a great place. He stated that I think they’ve done everything we’ve asked them to do and more, and I was really pleased when I saw it. He stated that they really did a good job, so I’m really not so concerned about…as long as we put the restrictions, I think they’ll be fine.

Mr. Detert stated that the question is on the floor. He stated that if you don’t think the time limit is satisfactory, you need to vote against it and make another motion with a different time limit.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think the time limit is two years. He stated that you were talking that you are going to sell …

Mr. Stephens stated that there’s a possibility, and you know, I never got a chance to actually address what I was asking for, originally, as far as the number of years, and what not, and I was hoping to get a 4- or 5-year approval. He stated that the biggest concern I hear is what’s going to happen to the approval or Variance when we move. He stated that if you make that just for us, then, you know, somebody else that moves in there…when you look at that house and you talk to Realtors about what’s a bad selling point and what’s a good selling point, they look at the kennel and, first of all, it doesn’t look like a kennel, and, second of all, it’s very easily converted into a workshop or something.

Mr. Detert stated, I call for the question. He stated that we need to vote on the motion.

Mr. Brickner asked, would three years be better?

Mr. Detert stated that the motioner and the seconder would have to change their motion.





Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-UV-11 for 2 years, with the number of animals at 4; no boarding of animals; no selling of dog food; restricting the operation that they have to them, and that said operation will cease to exist if they discontinue; at the end of 2 years, when the Variance expires, the Stephenses will send letters to inform their neighbors of the hearing for a renewal of the Variance. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Discussion:

Mr. Siminski asked, what kind of letters? He asked, just regular first class mail?

Mr. Burns stated, letters or documents, they could walk to their house.

Mr. Brickner stated, just a regular…no registered letter?

Mr. Detert stated, just so they know.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-UV-11 for 2 years, with the number of animals at 4; no boarding of animals; no selling of dog food; restricting the operation that they have to them, and that said operation will cease to exist if they discontinue; at the end of 2 years, when the Variance expires, the Stephenses will send letters to inform their neighbors of the hearing for a renewal of the Variance; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Siminski stated, just for the definition of what was taking place tonight, a kennel, in terms of the code, reads that it means “any lot or premises, other than a veterinary hospital or pet shop, in which four or more dogs, or other small fur-bearing animals at least four months of age, are kept or for sale, breeding, boarding, training and treatment purposes”. He stated that that’s the reason he had to go through this process.

Case 06-V-16. Petition of Dan & Deena Wachowski, 5736 W. 25th Ave., Gary, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 1,920 square foot pole barn, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a minor subdivision, to be located at 305 S. 300 W., in Porter Township. (This Case was continued from the 8-16-06 meeting, with the public hearing closed, for input from the Development Advisory Committee on drainage issues in the area.)

The petitioners were not present.






Mr. Hudson moved to continue Case 06-V-16 to the 10-18-06 BZA meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Other Business:

Discussion among Board members and counsel as to the parameters of business activities to be allowed in residentially zoned districts.

At this time, Mr. Elwood stated that he met with Mr. Siminski and Robert W. Thompson Jr. regarding this issue. He stated that generally the issue is to what extent should businesses in residential districts and the violation of that be enforced, and he’s not talking about selective enforcement. He stated that there’s a lot of business activity in residential districts in Porter County, and, quite frankly, you could hire a staff of 10 to enforce all of it. He stated that he can tell you that he litigated probably 10 of those cases over the last 12 years, and they are, by far, the most difficult to prove because you can have pictures and other things and what happens is the business owner withdraws the activity for a period of time and brings us new pictures and new evidence and then immediately upon winning or what have you or settling the case they increase the activity again. He stated that the discussion with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Siminski was that generally to not limit enforcement but to focus enforcement on those businesses that have more of an impact on their neighborhood. He stated, for instance, if they are having employees come to their residence and park during the day or gather there and then leave from there; if they are storing materials onsite; if they are having significant materials delivered onsite; customers visiting there, things like that. He stated, I guess an example would be, running an excavating business versus maybe an Ebay type of activity on the computer, or maybe he has an occasional UPS delivery, but no employees, no customers and most of it’s done by computer. He stated that I guess most of these would be at each end of the spectrum. He stated that that just needs to be discussed by the Board.

Mr. Burns stated that that’s exactly my thoughts, too. He stated that Number 1 was no employees. He stated that if a residence has employees, to me, that’s a business and that will impact the neighbors because, of course, it would increase traffic. He stated that noise level I did have, also. He stated machinery or pounding or whatever the case may be, that impacts the neighbors. He stated that storage materials, I had that also. He stated, and deliveries. He stated that anything that would impact the neighbors.

Mr. Detert stated that I think that any time there’s a complaint about a business being obnoxious it should be investigated. He stated that we should follow up with a letter and when we follow up with a letter and threaten them that 30 days, they have 30 days, we should follow through on that in, or about, 30 days. He stated that we shouldn’t wait too long a time following that, because I think you lose the impact of the letter when you do that.

Mr. Elwood stated that our office has also met with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Siminski about that issue addressing what he would call streamlining the process and I think we have a good procedure in place to do that now versus maybe before.

Mr. Detert stated that there was a question on there about using the telephone, using their personal telephone. He stated that I don’t think they should be printing cards and advertising business cards and using their home phone, because that’s going to alert the people that get them that there’s a business running there, and now the guy three doors down wants to have a business so how can you deny him if he comes before us. He stated that I don’t think they should be using their home phone for a business phone.

Mr. Brickner stated that we have to differentiate maybe between somebody who’s running a consulting type business rather than….

Mr. Detert stated that they ought to use a cell phone or a non-advertised phone or not use the phone in any advertisements.

Mr. Elwood stated that I guess I would say that the (inaudible) that advertising in the Yellow Pages a business, here’s my phone number and here’s my residence. He stated that I agree it’s a violation and if a complaint is received I think the letter process ought to proceed. He stated that I think the more egregious violations certainly are those that Mr. Burns has talked about and what I kind of summarized.

Mr. Burns stated that what I’m concerned about is what Mr. Hudson brought up at the last meeting. He stated that there are so many people that have home offices that do not impact the neighbors. He stated that I think if we cross that line, first of all, we won’t be able to manage it, and, personally, I don’t think it impacts the neighbors. He stated that I think you, Mr. Hudson, probably work from home from time to time. He stated that I know I do.

Mr. Brickner stated that we all do.

Mr. Detert stated that I did as a real estate agent, but I didn’t have people come there, I didn’t have cars in there.

Mr. Burns stated, but trying to control phone numbers and stuff, I really think we don’t have the staff to do that.

Mr. Detert stated, but even when I used my home, I had a business address and I had a rented facility for my business. He stated that I had to to be an MLS, so I had a legitimate office, but you can’t stop people from calling at night, so, if it’s quiet I don’t have any objection to it.

Mr. Hudson asked, is Fred going to spend his time on the computer going to Ebay and finding out who all…





Mr. Detert stated, but if somebody wants to advertise that they’ll sell stuff for you on Ebay and they publicly acknowledge that with their phone number….I guess the reason, I had a bad instance by my house and it just changed so wonderfully that you can’t believe it. He stated that it changed more than I expected it to change. He stated that the other point that I saw while doing this is that once the business is established you can’t get them out. He stated that it’s hell getting them out.

Mr. Burns stated, also, we want to add, no signs.

Mr. Elwood stated that, as I understand it, it seems we have a consensus that these primary factors we talked about will be used to…

Mr. Burns stated, let’s talk about what Mr. Hudson said. He asked, what if a person has a consulting business and he advertises in the Yellow Pages, so all he does is phone calls.

Mr. Elwood stated, well, I think you’ve got to balance these factors. He stated that that would be one factor is public advertising, but is there any of these other things as far as impact of employees or neighbors and I would say there is not.

Mr. Hudson stated that I have a friend of mine who’s a consultant and he does webinars from his third bedroom on the second floor.

Mr. Elwood stated that is that technically a violation – sure. He asked, but is it something that we want to use our resources to enforce? He stated that I’m hearing no.

Mr. Hudson stated that I just don’t want to read this and wake up one morning and think that I’m not still living in the United States of America where we are free to do things to a large extent without harming our fellow man.

At this time, Mr. Detert stated that I’ve got another little follow-up so I’ll ask the Board for their input on it. He stated that the guy that was running the obnoxious business in my neighborhood shut down, even was shutting down as we pursued it, and he moved out in the country, which nobody has any objections to and he bought a property with a barn on it. He stated that my contention is he still needs to come in for a Use Variance, and I think the reason I would want him to do that is so that we can come in, grant the Use Variance and put some restrictions on him ever coming back and doing any more work in his home, because he still comes back occasionally and works on lawn mowers at his house, so I think there should be a follow-up and a Use Variance should come before us so that we can find out, Number 1, if there’s anybody in that neighborhood objecting to that business going on, and Number 2, that we can put restrictions on it to make him conform to using that area only.





At this time, referring to the parameters of businesses in residential districts, Mr. Brickner asked, did anyone pick up on no excessive deliveries. He stated that we said just no deliveries, period, no deliveries of business supplies or material to residential areas. He asked, can we say that?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, no deliveries.

Mr. Brickner stated, just none. He asked, rather than excessive, why say no deliveries?

Mr. Burns stated, that’s a tough one. He stated that I say excessive. He stated that the guy that’s selling or dealing on Ebay out of his office and he gets a delivery once a month, or twice a month, are you going to go after that guy versus the guy that gets two or three a day or daily? He stated that that’s excessive to me.

Mr. Detert stated, once a week, I could care less.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that the Board needs to vote on findings of fact from the previous month’s cases.

Mr. Detert moved to approve the findings of fact for Case 06-V-17, with the correction on Item 1, changing the wording causes many issued to causes many issues. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve the findings of fact for Case 06-SE-9. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve the findings of fact for Case 06-UV-8. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that it’s come to our attention that one of our TCO’s at 491 W. 400 N. might be in violation, both in leasing of the trailer and they are in violation with the Health Department and also with the Building Department. He stated that he will get with Mr. Elwood concerning this. He stated that we renewed it a few months ago. He asked if we can recall this case.

Mr. Elwood stated, absolutely, if they are in violation.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS


S\ Marvin Brickner, Vice-Chairman


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