BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
October 18, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on October 18, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Richard Burns, Robert Detert and rich Hudson. Staff members present were Attorney Scott McClure and Toni Byers.

Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the September 20, 2006 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Correspondence:

Mr. Siminski stated that we have one case that I was asked to bring before the Board and I think it was in your packets. He stated that it came from Elizabeth Watkins. He stated that the situation is she lives on County Line Road in Jackson Township. He stated that she and her husband planted a lot of pine trees in the years past. He stated that her husband has passed away, but the letter says that she is requesting a Use Variance for one month each year for the month from Thanksgiving to Christmas for the purpose of selling Christmas trees on a cut-your-own basis. He stated that they began planting in 1999 and planted over 10,000 trees, many of which did not make it. He stated that this is not the typical Use Variance as the use is just for one month and Robert W. Thompson Jr. said he thinks in the past that such requests have been granted on a seasonal basis, but he can defer that situation to our attorney. He stated that this is October now, but it's up to the Board.

Mr. Detert stated that we granted one on the organic farmstand on 30 and I don't know for how many years we granted it.

Mr. Hudson stated that it's there now.

Mr. Detert asked, is there any problem with us.

Mr. McClure stated that I think it's been done at least (inaudible) another time in the past, also.

Mr. Detert stated that I think if we did it I would like to put some language in the motion that would limit it to her and when she dies somebody else would have to come back before us if they wanted to do the same thing and that it be on a year to year basis if we granted it.




Mr. Hudson asked, so she would have to notify us again next year?

Mr. Detert stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Elizabeth Watkin's request for a seasonal year-to-year Use Variance, to run from Thanksgiving to Christmas, for the sale of cut-your-own Christmas trees; to be considered each year for renewal by letter. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Pending Business:

Case 96-UV-6. Rose Miracle, 14 S. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Use Variance permitting an antique, crafts and Amish bakery business at 147 E. 50 S., in Morgan Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Use Variance.)

Ms. Miracle stated that it's been an on-going business now for 11 years. She stated that it's a beautiful, turn-of-the-century barn and my son has taken over my deceased husband's business. She stated that he sells Amish goods, antiques and a little of everything. She stated that it's very low-key. She stated that the parking is more than ample. She stated that it's just a quiet, little business.

Mr. Detert stated that I've been out there a number of times. He stated that my wife is into antiques a little bit. He stated that it seems to be pretty quiet. He stated that it's pretty far out in the country.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original reason for this? He asked, was it antiques and bakery?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah. She stated that it's been there a long time, long before she ever owned it. He stated that I think she bought it from somebody else, didn't you?

Ms. Miracle stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated that the only issue I have is all the signs.

Ms. Miracle stated that I'll explain that to my son. She stated that he's new at this. She stated that he needs to calm down.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, because I don't think any signs were approved.

Mr. Hudson stated that the one sign has been there for a while.

Mr. Burns asked, was it approved?




Mr. Hudson stated that I can't say that, but it's been there for quite a while, the wooden sign. He stated that I don't think that's new.

Ms. Miracle stated, no, it's not.

Mr. Detert stated that we never granted signage of any kind.

Mr. Hudson stated that the now open sign is very fresh and the fresh Amish bakery.

Mr. Detert stated that I haven't been there in recent years, but I don't remember.there might have been a sign right at the juncture of Division, but the other signs are new.

Mr. Burns stated that I don't have any problems with the business; I just have an issue with the signs. He stated, so, if I can get a commitment from you.what are you going to do with the signs? He asked, are you going to remove the signs?

Ms. Miracle asked, do I have to remove the main one, too?

Mr. Burns stated that that's up to the Board. He asked, was that main one approved with the original or not?

Mr. Detert stated that we can't find anything that says it was, but I would think they would be hard-pressed for people to locate them if they didn't have that one sign on Division, so I wouldn't think it would be out of line, but that's my opinion.

Ms. Miracle stated that it's hard to carry on a business without a sign.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess I would be okay with the wooden sign, but I think the others..that's the one that's been there for quite some time.

Mr. Detert stated that I think that might have been there when the other people owned it, too.

Mr. Burns stated that it was.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 96-UV-6 for 5 years with there to be just the one wooden sign. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 05-UV-7. David & Phyllis Biedron, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Use Variance permitting a facility for dog obedience training and agility at 771 W. 350 S., in Porter Township.

Mr. Biedron stated that we've been trying to start an agility/dog obedience business. He stated that we did have some classes going up until this time, however, with the weather now, it will be starting


again in the spring, and we'd like to keep on doing this. He stated that when I was here last time the concern was with some horses. He stated that I did fence the area that we're using, so I brought some pictures of that, also.

Mr. Hudson stated that the staff report says there have been no complaints on this.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 05-UV-7 for 5 years, subject to two days a week, any weekday or Saturday (not Sunday); temporary fencing will be installed (which has been done); time to be no later than 8:30 p.m.; if there is a dust issue on the driveway that will be corrected; 8 animals maximum in any one class; morning start time 8 a.m. is the earliest they can start; no boarding or kenneling; no signs. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 83-V-33. Joseph Butrym, 1089 N. 200 W., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to allow a mobile home on 200 W., between CR 1050 N. and Old Porter Road, in Liberty Township.

Mr. Detert stated that I understand this is a hardship case with the father having medical problems, is that correct?

Mr. Siminski stated that it is. At this time, Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner asking for an extension of this TCO.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 83-V-33 for 1 year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 90-V-29. J. Thomas Frank, 6744 Creek Ridge Trail, Indianapolis, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 S., between SR 2 and County Line Road, in Porter Township.

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

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 90-V-29 for 1 year. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 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 and 9-20-06 meetings, with the public hearing closed, for input from the Development Advisory Committee on drainage issues in the area.)

Dan & Deena Wachowski stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Wachowski stated that I need it for my truck. He



stated that I have a semi-tractor trailer and I would like to have it to keep it in and maintain it.

Mr. Detert asked, are you an over-the-road driver?

Mr. Wachowski stated, no. He stated that I'm local.

Mr. Siminski stated that there was a letter given to me from Kevin Breitzke after the DAC meeting that they attended. He stated that it says: .To whom it may concern: I have inspected the area Southeast of the intersection of CR 300 W. and CR 300 S. for ongoing drainage issues brought up by the BZA hearing on August 2006. The regulated 8-inch drain tile was overwhelmed, due to a 4- to 5-inch rain, which collects occasionally in a large detention area at this location. There is a slight ridge, about 500 feet Southeasterly. Additionally the tile may have been damaged or failed due to age, utilities, or recent construction activities in the area. So far the steps taken to correct this issue, including building up the road about 16 inches and proposing to the property owners affected some drainage improvements that include some excavation and tile repair to the Southeast. At this time, the affected parties are cooperating, so I'm hopeful that the Drainage Board will bid and award the maintenance work this fall, since the Ludington Ditch system here is on active assessment.. He stated, also, the Highway Department was contacted.right after the meeting in August we had that heavy rain and the road did flood over. He stated that the Highway Department did put a new drain tile in there. He stated that this was the road that's East of the proposed house, so some activities did happen right after that meeting, and Mr. Breitzke also has a copy of the Ludington Ditch arm that we're talking about in that area.

Mr. Burns asked, what's the capacity of 300 S., the road? He stated that if you're going to be driving a semi-truck...

Ms. Wachowski stated that there are no weight limit signs currently.

Mr. Burns stated that there's still a limit, even if there are no signs.

Ms. Wachowski stated that I went and asked at the Highway Department on Route 2 and he told me that was not a problem on that road and he did inform us of the possibility of the frost law, where, for the spring months, they basically ask him not to not come home loaded. She stated that he can bring his truck home, but it has to be empty.

Mr. Burns stated that I wish we had a letter from the Highway engineer.

Mr. Detert stated that we have frost laws on that road. He asked, what do you do in the winter time?




Ms. Wachowski stated that then he wouldn't be able to bring his truck home loaded.

Mr. Burns stated, or, maybe empty, too, depending on how heavy the truck is.

Mr. Siminski stated that it was told to me by the Highway Department that he will have to follow the frost laws. He stated that I'm not sure what the weight is of your trailer.

Mr. Wachowski stated that it's about 14 tons.

Mr. Burns asked, what's the capacity of that road now, Fred? He stated that we have some that says 12 tons.

Mr. Siminski stated that the Highway Department designates which roads are all-weather roads. He stated this is definitely not an all-weather road, so the frost law would apply. He stated that I did not see any weight signs there, so I really can't say.

Ms. Wachowski stated that I don't know if it's a problem or not, but I know that adjacent to our property, just down the street, there's another semi that is parked there about every time we've been by there.

Mr. Burns stated, but they're putting these new drainage pipes in.

Ms. Wachowski stated that those drainage pipes are actually East of our property.

Mr. Detert stated that that creates another problem. He stated that I don't know why we didn't discuss that last time.

Mr. Burns stated that I didn't know about the semi.

Mr. Detert stated that this is the first time we knew he's parking a semi there.

Ms. Wachowski stated, no, when we came here in August we discussed the semi-truck.

Mr. McClure stated that at this point in time, he's there for the Variance on the size of the pole barn. He stated that there's nothing to stop .he still has to follow the frost laws with the semi now, irrespective of the size of the pole barn.

Mr. Wachowski stated that we don't live there right now. He stated that we're looking to buy that house. He stated that we're not going to buy it if I can't take my truck home.





Mr. Detert asked if we gave him permission to put up the pole barn before the home.

Mr. Siminski stated, no. He stated that currently there is a pole barn on the property adjacent to them, and I found out that.and it's a huge pole barn, but it was built in 1940. He stated that the owner made this a minor subdivision, and that's why they're here tonight, because their's is going to be larger than 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Detert stated that they also have to have permission for the pole barn. He stated that the pole barn that you're talking about is next door, is that what you're saying?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes, that's not their's.

Mr. Hudson stated that they're requesting one now; that's what they're here for, is requesting a pole barn.

Mr. Detert asked, before the house?

Mr. Hudson stated, no, the house is already there.

Mr. Detert stated, okay, I misunderstood that.

Mr. Burns stated, if it meets the capacity.

Mr. McClure stated, he still has to follow the frost law. He stated that irrespective, this Board can't say he can't.

Mr. Burns stated, especially if there's a semi down the street already.

Mr. McClure stated that I guess my point is that if he wanted to, he could not build the pole barn and park the semi outside.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-V-16, 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:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

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

New Business:

Case 06-V-18. Petition of Samuel D. Shultz, 2043 Corinne Drive, Dyer, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required minimum side-yard setback for a residence from 8 feet to 5 feet, to be located at 1415 Island Drive, in Center Township.




Mr. Schultz stated that I am presenting a plot plan to the Board members to show there is ample room from one side. He stated that here is a copy of the approval from the utilities. He stated that this is the proposed floor plan. He stated that I am requesting for a 5-foot side setback. He stated I'm not sure whether it will be a hip roof or a gable roof at this time. He stated that I'm requesting for 5 feet instead of 8, which can be a 20-foot wide building. He stated that if I do.it's not impossible to design a 14-foot-wide home, but it's relatively improving the plot. He stated that next door to that lot is a quite large home and it seems like it would be quite an improvement in the area. He stated that I think a 20-foot building would give me a two-car garage instead of a one and a half. He stated that since we have to go two-story, I think architecturally it would be more appealing to have a width. He stated that, as you see, you have ample room in case of fire to put a ladder up or whatever, firemen to get in and out. He stated that I also own across the street, Lot 171, and next door to me is 6 feet. He stated that I notice many buildings in that area is somewhat.like two doors down is almost like a couple feet to the property line.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Edward Schwuchow, 1423 Island Road, stated that I am approximately three houses down from where the proposed site is. He stated that I represent the property owners. He stated that I'm on the board of directors there. He stated that I think you have some petitions there that they signed. He stated that everyone that I talked to is against it . everyone. He stated that I have not had one positive comment. He stated that it ranges from problems with flooding. He stated that I know my good friend and neighbor, Dennis, is going to be getting even more water than before. He stated that parking is just atrocious. He stated that Island Road is approximately 9 feet wide. He stated that it's one lane in and one lane out . it's one way. He stated that I think there's 11 homes in this little area. He stated that it's an island in Flint Lake. He stated that every home is within approximately 200 feet of this lot. He stated that that will give you how tight it is. He stated that I know Sam had just brought up about the house across the street. He stated that it's nightmares. He stated that we've had them on our driveways. He stated that we've had them parking alongside our road, fire hydrants. He stated that they knock on your door and you say, yes, you can park there, then the next time, they don't ask because you let them the first time, and then they get mad when you tell them they can't. He stated that it's really, really bad.

Judy Schwuchow, 1423 Island Road, stated that the area where we live is a very small road. She stated that it's a very short, private road . one lane. She stated that there is absolutely no room to bring in equipment to build a home down the street. She stated that even when a delivery truck comes for an instance to deliver equipment to the home that is being remodeled by Mr. Shultz there is no room for the truck to pull in to park, so, therefore, they back over mailboxes,


shrubs, bushes. She stated that we don't have the room to build a home. She stated that they'd have to walk the stuff down by hand because they couldn't get the big equipment down to park. She stated that literally there is no parking. She stated that if you do not park on your property you are parking on someone else's property, because every piece of property is owned by the homeowners. She stated that the parking is a nightmare. She stated that it is extremely congested. She stated that two cars cannot pass on that road. She stated that you have to pull over onto someone else's property to let a vehicle go by you, and, like I say, if you're pulling over onto someone else's property you are pulling over on private property. She stated that it is extremely congested.

Mr. Detert asked, Sir, what kind of drainage problems are you having?

Mr. Schwuchow stated that Flint Lake is so very high right now. He stated that I also represent the VLAC Conservancy Board and I represent that area there. He stated that with all the new subdivisions and stuff we have just a tremendous amount of water coming in there now. He stated that it's actually . I don't know if you know the formation of the lakes . but Flint Lake builds up so fast it's going back into Long Lake now. He stated that everything is going into Flint and going out to Calumet, so, I think there's a picture in there. He stated that the water's really high right now. He stated that our lift station . Mr. Shultz read off the thing about people next to him . our lift station is right next to the home that he had bought in the Sheriff's sale and I have to tell you that I think this goes toward the character of the builder himself. He stated that he went over 35 feet onto our property to cut down trees and brushes and (inaudible) wetlands without our permission. He stated that the DNR's been notified. He stated that Dave Hollenbeck, our attorney, has been notified. He stated that it's not right. He stated that to me there's right and wrong, and he's wrong for trying to come in there and stick this little house. He stated that it's only a 30-foot lot. He stated that even the overhangs . you've got to account for that, so I'm totally against it.

Carole Broderick, 4410 Flint Lake Gateway, stated that I'm adjacent to the property that he's referring to. She stated that a couple years ago the home that he bought was evacuated when the lake rose, and I got the call when I was down here when I got home. She stated that the emergency equipment that went in there to evacuate could barely get in onto Island Road to evacuate the people that needed to get out, so I'm opposed to any other house going out there because it just means more people, more cars, more congestion and more confusion.

Dennis Harrington, 1413 Island Road, stated that I've lived out there for 10 years. He stated that I've seen the house on the lot next to Mr. Shultz's house built. He stated that it raised the grade of that house probably 2 or 3 feet when they built that. He stated that that used to be the lowest lot in the neighborhood. He stated


that Mr. Shultz's was next, and mine. He stated that that's the highest now. He stated that any time there's rain it flows on Mr. Shultz's lot and it flows onto my lot. He stated that we've had high water before. He stated that after this one was built the water used to come up into the lower area, recede and that was fine. He stated, well, this last time, after Lot 174, now all the water comes up, it comes straight over my crawlspace. He stated that it's in my crawlspace. He stated that in the pamphlet that I gave you there's a picture of me in my crawlspace shoveling out wet mud from my crawlspace. He stated that it's congested. He stated that my driveway now is used as a parking lot for construction people in there and all they're doing is a simple remodel. He stated that Ed said something about him cutting a lot. He stated that I don't know what kind of builder he is. He stated that I see no building permits. He stated that they're doing plumbing. He stated that they're doing electrical. He stated that they're doing drywall, sewers. He stated that they're running a NIPSCO line under the roadway, which I don't know what code is, but it's not right. He stated that I don't know what kind of builder he is. He stated that I don't know what he wants to build here. He stated that I know, if you give him this Variance, and now he's only 5 feet from my property, I want to know where his rainwater's going to go. He asked, can you put a sewer to the lake? He stated that his rainwater's going to come off his house and come straight into my yard. He stated, building concerns. He stated that when Lot 174 was built the builder was very.the people that owned the lot were two people before Mr. Shultz. He stated that they destroyed the lot putting that house in there. He stated that the woman cried. He stated that the woman cried that lived in Chicago when she saw what they did to her lot because everybody (inaudible) passed on it because they didn't live there. He stated, well, I live here now and I'm going to watch it real close. He stated, the parking, the water's going to come to me. He stated that to build a home in there, and I'm going to get water. He stated that he's going to have to raise the elevation. He stated that the road elevation is 3 to 4 feet higher than the lake elevation. He stated that if they cut that out there, the base of that home will probably be 3 blocks high on my crawlspace within 18 feet of my house. He stated that I own 10 feet on this side. He stated that I don't know if it matters, but the drawing that he shows here on the Blossom old house, there's a 2-foot cantilever that sticks out that actually makes it closer here than this measurement. He stated that I'm not sure on that measurement, but I know there's a cantilever that somebody didn't put on their plans or Mr. Blossom or whoever when he built that home got away with it. He stated that I know he didn't get a Variance. He stated that other than that, a two-story house, I don't know if I'll see the sunshine come up anymore. He stated that my house faces North. He stated that I have a nice view of the lake. He stated that if this comes up, it doesn't end my house, but I'm sure my house is back behind what I call the old Blossom house, Lot 174. He stated that it's going to block that. He stated that it is very crowded. He stated that my mailbox has already been destroyed by a delivery truck. He stated that there's no place to turn around. He stated that it is a bad spot. He stated that the drainage problem, me getting flooded out, is my


biggest concern, and even a 14-foot house in there. He stated that the houses over here he referred to were built in the '20s. He stated that they were cottages. He stated that we were a cottage community. He stated that we have a homeowners' now. He stated that Ed has a big, beautiful house. He stated that the other house next door is 4,000 square feet. He asked, can we stack three house trailers on top of each other?

Mr. Detert stated, Sir, all he has to do is meet the County minimum standards. He stated that we can't dictate that he has to build a house as big as yours.

Mr. Harrington stated, well, I don't know. He asked, is there a minimum width on a house that can be built in Porter County?

Mr. Detert stated, well, he can't obviously.what's before us now is to reduce the side-yard so that he can build a house that he wants to build. He stated that that's the only issue before us.

Mr. Harrington asked, is there any grade level that has to be maintained?

Mr. Detert stated that we would have the option of referring that to the DAC Committee if he felt there were drainage problems.

Mr. Harrington stated, and, another concern, every house that's been built in here now has had pilings had to be put down for foundation. He asked, can they guarantee me when they drive 30-foot pilings into this . my house doesn't have that. He stated that it was built in the '20s. He asked, is that going to cause me problems. He stated that it's going to destabilize the ground next to my house where my foundation can slope, and I know that's probably going to have to be addressed at a different time, but those are my concerns.

Karen Kosak, 1424 Island Road, stated that I agree with everything they've said. She stated that we just purchased our house not too long ago, maybe about 8 months ago, and just with us getting deliveries with furniture and things like that. She stated, I mean, there's people that have to wait to get out of the little area, the Island Road, until the moving truck is gone because they can't even turn around. She stated that it's really bad.

Steve Kosak, 1424 Island Road, stated that it's very congested. He stated that any large vehicles that come in there, they literally block the.they have them move the traffic, okay.

Ms. Kosak stated that like that one lot that he's talking about that he owns that he wants to build on it would have to be built up terribly high because we walked down there the other day and it's just soaking wet. She stated, I mean, your feet go into water.

Mr. Kosak stated, and also, I mean, the parking, I mean, it's so limited there, the spaces are just so small, I mean, it causes

problems if you have like one relative, let alone have anybody else. He stated that I think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood to have this built because, for one thing, it's got to go straight up. He stated, that I mean, for one thing, it's impossible to build any other way on it.

Stu Summers, 4700 Lowenstine Lane, stated that I'm in that same Burlington Beach subdivision. He stated that I'd like to present two pieces to consider, other than what you've already heard. He stated, first, I have a letter here from our fire chief. He stated that if there were a fire here in this neighborhood or on our property the Valparaiso Fire Department would have to fight the fire. He stated that the fire chief went to the site today and he said, .after inspecting the site location of the proposed Variance request, our department would like to share some concerns that they have. This area with its narrow roads already poses limited access for our equipment. The possibility of responding with any type of aerial apparatus to the site does not exist. With that said, all suppression and rescue activities would have to be performed using ground ladders. If this Variance were to be granted prior to suppression, rescue operations would be negatively impacted. To further complicate this Variance request, the existing structure to the immediate East is a 3-story residential that appears to be favoring the West property line. This is the same property line that the petitioner is seeking to have the building setback line reduced. Any reduction to the building setback requirement would make the raising of a ground ladder between the two structures extremely difficult. Trying to perform a successful third-story rescue from the structures would be questionable, at best. The Valparaiso Fire Department realizes that other existing structures in the neighborhood appear to be infringing on current setback standards, but we do not believe that a tough situation should be made any worse. The Valparaiso Fire Department respectfully requests that this Variance be denied. Signed, David Nondorf, Fire Chief.. He stated, with that in mind, I would propose that a counter-petition on the findings of fact. He stated that I've got a few copies here for you. He stated, first, I propose that the grant will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the reduction of side-yard setbacks will expose personal danger and risk to fire fighters who might be called to suppress structural fires. He stated that the only fire truck access to the property is off Island Road, which is too narrow for heavy fire suppression equipment, such as our snorkel unit, thus, any fire would have to be fought with fire fighters on the ground and on portable ladders using hand-held hoses. He stated that reducing the setback leaves limited working room for our fire fighters. He stated that there would not be enough space to adequately protect these first responders from heat, smoke, nor would it be enough space to erect ladders at an angle sufficient for safe fire-fighting rescue. He stated that the narrow setback would unnecessarily endanger the lives of the community fire fighters. He stated that in addition to human pain and suffering this could cause, the reduced setback could expose the City and Center Township to unnecessary expenses for workman's compensation, therefore, I propose that the grant is injurious to the public health and safety. He


stated that second, you've already heard about the value and the use of the area adjacent to the property affected. He stated that finally, I remind you of what the petitioner said. He stated that he told you that it's not impossible to build a 14-foot-wide home. He stated that therefore, by his own testimony, he misses the state statute requirement that the application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. He stated that he himself admitted that it's not impossible.

Tom Banaczack, 4417 Flint Lake Gateway, stated that the questions that I have are, has this contractor obtained a site report or a soil test? He stated that I had to get a soil test on the property I had out there, and the soil test indicated that I had to have piles. He stated that even though another contractor came out there prior to that and took a backhoe out and scooped up about 6 feet of dirt and said, no, you've got a clay layer down there. He stated that when the soil test came through, they punched through that 6-inch (sic) clay layer like it was nothing. He stated that it ended up where I had use 25-foot piles. He stated that there's another home out there on piles. He stated that it's Ed Schwuchow's home. He stated that if this individual has to use piles, and we don't know if he does or not if he hasn't had a soil test . and they run around $1,500 for them to take a boring and find out what actually is going on in the soil -- we don't know for sure if he's going to have to use piles or not. He stated that if he has to use piles and he's asking for a Variance, he's awfully close to his foundation, and so, when they're doing a lot of pounding, and you're talking about 25-foot piles being set, maybe 20, you're talking about a lot of shaking of the ground. He stated that it's kind of premature for this individual to be asking for a Variance to be closer to another home unless he knows for sure that he doesn't have to use piles, and the inference I got from the planning commission when I was out there looking for a building permit was that everybody has to get a soil test out there because they are concerned about piles. He stated that the issue here is, I think, basically, if the individual can prove he doesn't have to have piles, then maybe he can go a little closer, but, if he has to have a soil test and the soil test indicates he has piles, then he probably shouldn't be asking for a Variance to come closer to that home because you're talking about a lot of shaking of the ground and then it has an old concrete block foundation, so I think it's a little premature. He stated that I think he should be.he should find out if he's got a soil test and he should know for sure if he's going to have to use piles or not.

Mr. Shultz stated that I'd like to respond to this gentleman here first. He stated that I never built a structure without a soil test anyway and my opinion I don't think, looking at my left side and right side, I don't think a piling is necessary, but there is a way to do it without pounding, technology, pressure type, that no noise whatsoever for the piling, if necessary. He stated that Mr. Harrington said that heavy equipment and Mrs. What is her name said that the big thing cannot come in there. He stated, well, he's doing the big remodeling. He stated that I don't see no (sic) permit. He stated that we're doing the underground, which, I will get the permit when they start



hooking up the outside fixture and so on. He stated that he had a big dumpster out there in front of his house.

Mr. Hudson asked, do you have any comment about the fire chief's letter?

Mr. Shultz stated, as you see, I submit the plot plan. He stated that there's 13 foot 9 inches on one side. He stated that on the East side you've got 13 feet. He stated that from the..I measured from the pavement, which in some case misses, but I measured from that window to my property line, so you've got 13 feet.

Mr. Detert asked, how about the adequacy of the width of the road?

Mr. Shultz stated that this way I have a two-car garage plus the driveway. He stated that a lot of houses that they're living in have no driveway.

Mr. McClure stated that I'm going to remind the Board and all the members, all the public that are here. He stated that we are here for one thing and one thing only. He stated that we are here to talk about the side-yard setback and that's it. He stated that we really cannot deal with things that.we start talking about dumpsters or permits or anything else like that. He stated that we can't really address those here. He stated that we're dealing with the side-yard setbacks from an 8 to a 5. He stated that I just wanted to point that out to everyone really.

Mr. Detert stated that we can take into account any hazards that this building would present.

Mr. McClure stated, with the knowledge that.the other thing I would add is that if this house was 14 feet wide we wouldn't be here.

Stu Summers stated that I would only respond to his comment about the 13 feet. He stated that 8 of those 13 feet aren't his. He stated that it's the 8-foot setback for his neighbor, who would be permitted, I believe, to erect a privacy fence, which he might want to do if there was a house that close. He stated, therefore, his allegation that there's 13 feet for ladders would be quickly compromised by a neighbor who chose to exercise their privilege to install a fence along that property line.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated that I have some concerns. He stated that I think that if this was approved it would definitely impact negatively the neighbors in two ways; flooding, runoff from the property if the house was elevated. He stated that I'm sure if you went out there you



would see that it has to be elevated. He stated, also, the runoff from the gutters to the neighbors. He stated, also, fire hazards. He stated that two areas of my concern is flames jumping from one roof to the next roof. He stated that we cannot forget about the overhangs on the houses. He stated that we're talking a 5-foot side setback but that's not counting the overhangs. He stated, plus, like what was in the letter, the fire fighters, not enough area for their ladders. He stated that that's my two largest concerns.

Mr. Hudson stated that I would agree whole-heartedly and I have the deepest respect for the fire department and emergency management type people who have to deal with getting access to this house. He stated that the idea of the houses being so close goes back years and years to the 1920's and '30s when these homes were built, as someone said, I believe, as cottages. He stated that they were not fulltime year-round residences. He stated that I would agree that this presents an unsafe.if we allow this, it presents an unsafe condition to compound already existing unsafe conditions out there, so, I would not be in favor of it.

Mr. Detert stated that I would agree with everything that's been said by the Board, and the testimony clearly states that this would be detrimental to the neighborhood in many different ways.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-18, with the findings of fact as presented by Mr. Summers to be included within the findings of fact as prepared by the Board's counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 06-V-19. Petition of Spero & Paula Valavanis, 128 Johnson Dr., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required minimum front-yard building setback from 30 feet to 21 feet, in order to build an accessory structure, to be located at 128 Johnson Dr., in Liberty Township.

Mr. Valavanis stated that I have a house at 128 Johnson Drive. He stated that we are requesting a front-yard setback Variance of 9 feet to construct this proposed garage in the front. He stated that right now the house is oriented this way. He stated that it's Southern orientation. He stated that this would be a third garage to the two existing garages. He stated that our well is located here. He stated that a large shade tree here, and what I'm trying to do is take advantage of the existing drive and built the garage right here. He stated that I think some of the key considerations here why I would come and ask for this is the fact that when Johnson Drive was built there's a deep swale here, if you've been out here, and when E. J. Hutson did the platting of this this first lot was affected by the deep swale and he put our setback line 20 foot deeper than all the





rest of the houses on the whole cul-de-sac. He stated that if you live at the adjacent house and this is the setback line of all the rest of the houses it's built to this setback line. He stated that my original corner is built exactly to the setback line that I had to start with. He stated that what I'm requesting is that I can build this garage here, use the existing drive, maintain access to the well, maintain access to the utilities and not damage this tree that I have right here and still be 11 feet back from the building setback line that is for all the other residences there. He stated that I believe, and in Ed's comments, it will not be detrimental to anybody there. He stated that it maintains access for me that I need and it starts to drop off here, so I prefer to keep it up front because I have a nice sloping lot that's going away, which makes it more difficult to put it further back. He stated that I would build this in such a way that the building is not exactly to match the house. He stated that the house is a series of gables and it's natural cedar. He stated that this garage I don't look at as an accessory building. He stated that I look at it as almost a carriage house that would be done with the same cedar and tie into the house directly. He stated that it would be an accessory building that would actually improve the property value of this house and the neighborhood, which everybody's spending a lot of money on their homes right now to make improvements.

Dan Schumann, 122 Johnson Dr., stated that I live three doors down from Spero. He stated that I've been a property owner in that subdivision for approximately nine years. He stated that I've been a resident in that same subdivision three doors down for six plus years. He stated that in the time that I've lived in that subdivision Spero has demonstrated that he's been a perfect neighbor. He stated that he keeps his yard nice. He stated that he's continually improving his landscaping. He stated that he's got a couple of very nice pine trees that border the road on his side of the street that literally block out the view from anyone even really seeing that the building would be there. He stated that he has done nothing in the past and no one else in the neighborhood has that's not in keeping with the neighborhood covenants and I see nothing against what he's trying to do. He stated that it would allow him to park the vehicle and keep it off of the driveway and put it inside a covered structure, which is also in keeping with the neighborhood covenants and restrictions, so I totally approve it and think it's done in very good taste.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that I have no problem. He stated that I'm familiar with the lot, the positioning of the well and the tree. He stated that it seems to be the most appropriate place, both visually, and from an elevation standpoint, to not have to bring in a large amount of fill and disrupt the natural slope of the lot.

Mr. Burns asked, there's no issues with covenants with this?




Mr. Valavanis stated that it's in R-1, so you're allowed to have an accessory structure in the front yard.

Mr. Burns stated that that was my con.some subdivisions you can't.

Mr. Valavanis stated that it's zoned R-1. He stated that I spoke with Bob when I came in about that.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-19, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 06-V-20. Petition of Sandra Taylor and Juanita Houpt, 473 S. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a waiver of subdivision control for creation of a parcel of land with an existing house on it that is under 10 acres, to be located at 480 W. 400 S., in Porter Township.

Sandra Taylor and Juanita Houpt stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Ms. Houpt stated that we have a farmhouse with an old barn and a couple of bins. She stated that this is Agricultural. She stated that it's 63.86 acres. She stated that we would like to take the farmhouse and the barn, the buildings around it and the grass. She stated that it's between 3 and 4 acres, so that the house can be sold. She stated that it will just be the area where the house is, not where there's fields. She stated that there is an acre in front of the house and the barn. She stated that the rest of it is just.it goes back to these here grain bins. She stated that this is where the house is located. She stated that this is 500 W. and this is all farmland.

Mr. Hudson asked, and you're looking to take everything around it?

Ms. Houpt stated, yes, which is between, we think, 3 and 4 acres. She stated that if this is 500 W., this is 400 S. and this is the area, but right now it is in the 63.86 acres and it is Agricultural.

Mr. Detert stated, and you want to sell the house off.

Ms. Houpt stated that we want to sell the house off.

Mr. Detert stated, and keep the farmland.

Ms. Houpt, stated, in time, maybe, we'll sell it to a farmer, but right now keep the house and try and rent it out. She stated that we're getting older. She stated that that walnut trees are here in front of the barn and this is just grass in front of the house. She



stated that with the 2 acres in the front it could be between 3 and 4 acres because right behind these bins is farmland. She stated that the rest of it is all farmland all around it. She stated that this is 500 W. and this is 400 S.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated that I don't' have any problems with it.

Mr. Hudson stated that I have no problem. He stated that I just roughly scaled off the photo and it's all of 4 acres, maybe a little more even.

Ms. Houpt stated that we are going to have it surveyed, but, we didn't want to do it until we were sure this was going to be okay.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-20, incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 06-V-21. Petition of Emmanuel Baptist Church, 760 McCool Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a modular classroom, to be located at 760 McCool Rd., in Portage Township.

Harold Smith stated that my company is Chicayna(sp) Enterprises, 8908 E. 109th Ave., Crown Point, stated that I am here tonight representing my client, which is Emmanuel Baptist Church, which is the petitioner and they are located at 760 McCool Road, in Valparaiso, IN. He stated that the church is proposing to get approval to install a modular classroom. He stated that dimensions on that is 24 foot wide and 60 foot long. He stated that this is proposed as a temporary classroom. He stated that they are in a master building plan to continue for the next three to five years, but, because of their needs and the growth that they have experienced over the recent years they are pressed for more space for their membership and their main objective is to do that in a safe manner and a manner that meets all the requirements of the County and so this will also be based on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy as a temporary structure in lieu of their master building plan.

Arthur Kird, 775 N. 425 W., stated that the only reason I'm here is because, in the past, I didn't follow through on storage units, whether it was a miniature golf course or a whole bunch of other things. He stated that when you put this as temporary, I don't know


how long that would be. He asked, is the building getting torn down, or is it going to be converted into something else? He stated that that's what I'm concerned about, because the last time you guys spit in my face when I walked in, .You didn't do anything about it; you didn't sign the thing.. He stated that you got the laws changed to where if you don't do what you do in two years it goes back to where it was before, because there's been a lot of changes since I've been out here since '59, long before South Haven, long before Portage or anything else. He stated that I get a little bit ticked off and I just want to know: It's fine what you're doing . I like it and everything else, but, when it's done, what happens to the building? He stated that that's the only thing I've got because I've been screwed in the past.

Mike Haller, Porter County Building Commissioner, stated that I visited the site, looked at the property. He stated that there's nothing temporary about the building. He stated that it's basically a state-certified, modular structure. He stated that we had some issues about exactly where it was going to be located, which we're currently working through. He stated that I just wanted to make you aware of the quality of the building, as well as the permanence of it. he stated that you can deal with the use issues.

Mr. Detert asked, what kind of a foundation is it going to be on, do you know?

Mr. Haller stated, well, he's technically allowed to have two or three. He stated that all are concerned proper or permanent in that instance, but it could be on a basement, it could be on a crawlspace, or it could be anchored to the ground like a mobile home in a mobile home park. He stated that the state has new licensing and installation requirements for projects like that and they would have to follow that anyway. He stated, so, it's not going to fall down or blow away or burn down. He stated that I don't know how much information he gave you. He stated that there's an issue as to how exactly they are going to position it on the lot based on the fire code but we're working through that, and I have some more information for you today, but I thought I'd speak in between.

Mr. Burns asked, who determines the final location?

Mr. Haller stated that I don't know that anybody has yet.

Mr. Burns asked, but who does?

Mr. Haller stated that that would be local jurisdiction. He stated that I had some conversation with Bill Casbon this morning about it. He stated that he's not local jurisdiction but he's the fire chief in Boone Township. He stated that it didn't present a problem.





Mr. Smith stated that on the initial contact that I had with the Planning Commission was to basically research it, see what kind of requirements that would need to be met in order to get this accomplished. He stated that the church's main intent originally was to put up a permanent structure, but that was not cost effective. He stated that, of course, that has nothing to do with what we're proposing to do here now, so we opted to go with a temporary structure based on that. He stated that because of their continual growth they are in a master building plan. He stated that they do want to have a larger auditorium down the road, three to five, maybe seven years, and, again that would depend on their membership, their increase, their growth as the time goes on. He stated that with all that in mind, this structure is, because they could not opt to go with the permanent building because of financial restrictions, they opted to go with the modular. He stated that because it is modular, the Planning Commission recommended going with a temporary certificate of occupancy to be renewed and reviewed on a yearly basis. He stated that as soon as the new auditorium is constructed and completed, at that time there will be no use of the temporary structure and they can go ahead and remove it at that point. He stated, an additional note on that, is the company that we're making the purchase from has worked out in the business end of things a buy-back program, which makes it even more advantageous to the church because then they can actually sell the unit back to the seller, which makes it more advantageous for them to just have it up as a temporary structure.

Mr. Detert asked, what kind of foundation are you putting on it?

Mr. Smith stated that actually, the foundation that the installer will do is based on a pier foundation and that does meet or exceed the state requirements for the state of Indiana.

Mr. Detert asked, but those piers can be, what . concrete blocks loosely set?

Mr. Smith stated, yes, I believe it would be concrete piers 48 inches deep and 12 inches across.

Mr. Detert asked, temporary means five to seven years, is that what you're looking at?

Mr. Smith stated that we would leave that up to the Planning Commission or whatever government entity that would control that time frame. He stated that we would, of course, do everything that we can to honor that.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that this is a temporary use variance. He stated that it will be reviewed on a yearly basis and I think when we approach five years, and, if I'm still on this Board, there's going to be some serious questions as to what their building program is. He stated that, with that said, I'm in favor of this.

Mr. Burns stated that I don't have any problems.

Mr. Detert asked, can we grant this for five years?

Mr. Hudson stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated that I thought you were proposing that.

Mr. Hudson stated that I wasn't proposing that; I'm just saying that when this comes around in 2011 I think there's going to be some questions, and maybe that will come up every year because you will be coming back.

Mr. Smith stated, if the Board recommends that they do a yearly review I'm desirous of following the letter of the law.

Mr. Detert stated that I think if you wanted to do that maybe you ought to include some language in the motion that says that after 5 years, after 5 renewals you would want a full report.

Mr. Hudson stated that I might want it sooner than that.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-21, with the petitioner, after three renewals, come back and make a presentation as to where their building program stands and what their estimated life expectancy of keeping this structure there and also work with the building department in providing the proper location, with that location to be worked out with the Building Commissioner and approved by the Building Commissioner. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Smith stated that the original proposed location initially was, the current existing buildings create a courtyard, which is three-sided, and the original proposal was to put that in that courtyard. He stated that, again, with our desire to do things safely and properly, there was a concern generated on the egress, and bringing that to our notice, and, again, we'd just like to make a side note that the expertise of the Plan Commission personnel brought that to our attention when we had not thought of this, and so, upon that, with this we're applying for a design release downstate, talked to the folks down there, Joe Harding, who regards the fire hazard or egress situation through the state of Indiana, contacted him, and discussed it with him, and also contacted.spoke with the egress with Deputy Hepshire at the South Haven Fire Department, and all concurred that that was probably one of the worst locations to put it. He stated that upon that recommendation we re-proposed with the state, with the design release, to locate it on the West side of the gymnasium, which only has one side, and, as far I can see, would pretty much eliminate the egress situation.

Mr. Burns stated that this motion is contingent upon the County Building Inspector making approval for the location. He stated that if you don't agree with the Building Inspector there is no approval.


Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-21, with the petitioner, after three renewals, to come back and make a presentation as to where their building program stands and what their estimated life expectancy of keeping this structure there and also work with the building department in providing the proper location, with that location to be worked out with the Building Commissioner and approved by the Building Commissioner; incorporating the petitioner's proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file; and, after three renewals, on the fourth one they would have to come back here with a full report. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 06-V-22. Petition of Michael & Sharon Powell, P.O. Box 691, Chesterton, c/o Andy Wheele, 479 Whitewood Dr., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the front building line setback for a house currently under construction from 50 feet to 35 feet, to be located at 496 Knotty Pine Dr., in Jackson Township.

Andy Wheele stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioners in this matter. He stated that we started construction on Lot 47 in September. He stated that the house was originally staked by McMahon & Associates. He stated that we had back 80 feet off the road. He stated that when we looked at it we needed to move it forward because the lot falls off very rapidly. He stated that we talked to my excavator, Dick Davis, and we talked to the engineer on the telephone and through some kind of miscommunication we misunderstood and measured off of the curb rather than the building line, which was 30 feet off the center of the road,ot like you'll be coming around the curve into a short driveway, so it doesn't cause any safety hazards. He stated that both the people on Lot 46 and Lot 48



have,.I've talked with them one (inaudible); the other one said they had no problem with it. He stated that I brought some pictures, also, of the lot and a drawing of what we now have out there and how it goes over the line. He stated that here are some pictures of both sides of the house taken from the garage of the house and the surrounding houses around it and this is a location report done by McMahon & Associates to kind of show you what happened and this is the what we thought we were measuring off of. He stated that that's the original layout. He stated that this was an accident, not done intentionally. He stated, as for the Variance, it's not going to affect the property value or safety of the residents in the subdivision. He stated that I'm also a resident of the subdivision. He stated that I live in Jackson Heights myself.

Matt Keane, 490 Whitewood Drive, stated that I think I'm on the bottom of Page 2 . that's my house. He stated that I have two comments and one concern. He stated that the first comment is that I'm here to attest to the quality of work that Andy does. He stated that he built my house and did my parents' house as well, so he does a quality product. He stated that as he mentioned he's in the subdivision. He stated that he's not trying to affect anyone's property values. He stated that it was a simple miscommunication. He stated that those were my comments. He stated that my one concern is that I think if we were to have to alter the house plan I think that might be a concern to all of us. He stated that I think that affects the quality of the look of the house and the overall aesthetic value of it. He stated that I think if they were forced to have to move the garage or move to the side accordingly, I think that could be more of an issue than.we all might have an issue with the fact..then we have to move it and what's going to happen now. He stated that I live 200 feet to the West of the actual development. He stated that I see the house every day. He stated that I see it from my home office. He stated that from my point of view, you wouldn't know the house was any closer or any further back from any other setbacks from the road. He stated that as he mentioned, there's no set pattern. He stated that they're all kind of varying accordingly to where the people wanted the front in relation to the trees and whatnot. He stated, personally, I'm strongly in favor of the development and I'm here just to attest to the quality and I don't think it's going to affect anyone's property value, which ultimately is the big issue, if there's anyone here opposing it.

Walter Smith, 499 Whitewood Drive, stated that I live Northwest from where the house is being built, and, as he said, it's going to be a quality-built home. He stated that I don't see the problem with them going forward. He stated that you can't tell from where I'm at if it's going to be any closer or further from where it's at right now. He stated that it was an honest mistake. He stated that it was not intentional and I approve of it. He stated that I don't have any problems with it.





Jeff Bakaitis, 497 Knotty Pine Drive, stated that my property line probably splits the property in question in half. He stated that I absolutely have no issues with the property itself. He stated that I've seen the plans. He stated that it's going to be an outstanding home. He stated that as one of the other concerned residences I'm concerned that altering the house is only going to cause issues. He stated that it's a beautiful home. He stated that we've seen it. He stated that obviously I've seen it going up. He stated that it's a beautiful lot. He stated that we have an outstanding neighborhood and I don't see it being an issue whatsoever. He stated that it's going to be a really nice place.

Fred Adomitis, 404 Windwood, stated that I own Lot 37, which is just Northwest of this property. He stated that my only concerns are, to me, it's very noticeable that it's 15 feet closer than it should be. He stated that all the lots out there are at least an acre. He stated that I just don't see the need to have moved it so close to the road.

Deborah Adomitis, 904 Glenwood, Valparaiso, stated that if the person that dug your home or the excavator.the person that excavated this spot for the house, has he excavated other basements or foundations in the area to know where to measure from? She stated that what I'm asking is, if he's got other lots out there, how come all of a sudden he didn't know to measure from that spot.

Mr. Adomitis stated that one more thing was that after the mistake was noticed they just kept on going. He stated that as of last Friday they were still framing.

Dick Davis, 2890 Glenrose, Portage, stated that I'm with Davis & Son Excavation. He stated that we excavated the site. He stated that to address what was just commented on a moment ago. He stated that the surveyor stakes it and he spoke directly to that. He stated that it was originally staked 80 feet back. He stated that it was moved forward, and it was a mistake. He stated that it was not anything intentional.

Mr. Wheele stated that to address the issue on how did we make this mistake, Dick Davis has done many more houses and excavation jobs. He stated that when the other two homes that were built in the subdivision, one was 150 feet off the road and the other was 85 feet off the road. He stated that there was no issue with it and, as it sat on the lot there wasn't a problem because we had already known where the house was going to sit. He stated that we didn't have to move stakes or anything else like that. He stated that when we got out there we ended up with 14 feet in the basement and we thought, oh, we got to move forward, so, we got on the phone and they said, yes, you have space to move it. He stated that when you look at the one plan that I gave you that has what we had planned to do on the lot, there's a slight misprint on the print that shows the 52 mark splitting the driveway line. He stated that alls (sic) I can say is that when we looked at this thing, we thought that that was the 50-



foot marker, and that's what happened. He stated that the house is not that noticeable driving by it. He stated that the houses range anywhere from like I said, 150 feet back from the road to right now where this one sits. He stated that they go in between every lot.

Mr. Siminski stated that we have two letters. He stated that one is from Brent and Amy Walker, 1030 Kathryn Ct., Chesterton, in favor of this petition. The letter is in the file. The other letter was from Michele and Christopher Dillingham, 403 W. Faris Road, Greenville, SC, also in support of this petition. The letter is in the file.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that I understand how mistakes happen. He stated that I guess my biggest concern was the gentleman talking about once this was found out that they continued; that bothers me. He stated that it also bothers me that the location report that found that out is dated October 10th. He stated that I'm not sure how they got on this agenda so quick. He stated that they possibly may have found out ahead of time and that was generated some time after. He stated that I guess my question to you is, when you found out, why did you continue to build?

Mr. Wheele stated that the only part in question is the garage, and we haven't touched the garage. He stated that we stayed into the house, beyond the building line because the house is going to be built there and this meeting will determine if it gets a garage or not. He stated that the report from McMahon and Associates on the size of the.that survey report, that was done on my behalf. He stated that the bank surveyor never gave me any drawing or anything.

Mr. Burns stated that I think it is very noticeable. He stated that I think it is close to the road. He stated, I mean, we're not talking 1 or 2 feet here, and, if you guys remember, we had a contractor cut his garage off for 2 feet because they were over the building line. He stated that I understand . it's a mistake, but that's the reason why you have to follow the surveyor or call the surveyor back. He stated, I mean, this is 15 feet and I think it's noticeable. He stated that I have a problem with it.

Mr. Detert stated that I've got a question. He stated that I don't mind giving people a little bit on the sides or the back, but the front yard is kind of holy to me and I can't believe.how long have you built houses?

Mr. Wheele stated, three years.

Mr. Detert stated that I can't believe that you would make a mistake like this. He asked, who set the stakes the second time, when you moved up the house? He asked, who told the excavator where to dig?

Mr. Wheele stated, the excavator. He stated that we were both out there on the site and we had the engineer on the phone and, what we were talking about, we said we're measuring from the building line here, the curb, back 50 feet . is that going to be safe. He stated, yes, that'll be fine. He stated, but when.

Mr. Detert stated, wait a minute . let me stop you right there. He asked, you measured from the curb? He stated, and you've been building all this time. He stated that you should be smarter than to measure from the curb. He stated that I'm not a builder, and I'm smart enough to measure from where I'm supposed to measure. He stated that the problem I see here is that it looked like you had a problem with the dropoff in the back and you had a problem of fill, so that you could set the house at the proper location so you just went ahead and dug it and started building and when you got caught you didn't quit.

Mr. Wheele stated that it wasn't a matter of doing this intentionally at all.

Mr. Detert stated that, to me, if you measure from the curb, it's kind of intentional if you've been in the business all this long and you don't know where to measure from.

Mr. Wheele stated that I've always had surveyors mark my house.

Mr. Detert stated, well, you should have had one here.

Mr. Wheele stated that you're absolutely right.

Mr. Detert stated that you guys come in here and you claim you've got a mistake to save $300 or $500. He stated that I don't know what it is, and you want to do your own surveying and then the property owner gets stuck with your mistake. He stated that that's not fair. He stated that I don't think that's fair at all.

Mr. Wheele stated that I honestly did not do this on purpose. He stated that we spent a lot of money on the house period. He stated that it wouldn't have been anything to keep the house.there's no way I would have done this intentionally.

Mr. Detert stated, but you measured from the curb.

Mr. Wheele stated, yes, sir.

Mr. Detert asked, and you've been building how many years?

Mr. Wheele stated, three years. He stated, now, the.

Mr. Detert asked, how could you make that mistake? He stated that I can't comprehend somebody being in the business and making that kind of mistake.




Mr. Wheele stated that the subdivision that I was in before, Stone Ridge, that was the Variance there. He stated, like I said, I didn't stake that one and I didn't stake the others I've built. He stated that why I did this is because I felt confident by talking to the surveyor on the phone and the excavator there that I would not be.

Mr. Detert stated that the surveyor needed to be out there. He stated that I think you and the excavator made a decision on where to set the house without properly measuring and without properly getting someone to measure for you if you weren't competent and, to me, that's inexcusable and I, for one, will not vote in favor of this. He stated that we had a public discussion here and everybody had an opportunity to talk.

Mr. Davis asked, can the homeowner say anything?

Mr. Detert stated, well, she's going to be the one on the spot because of you guys, because of you guys making a field decision, and I don't think that's fair, either. He stated that I think she's got a civil matter, in my opinion. He stated that I'm not an attorney, but she expected you people to be competent. He stated, come up here, ma'am. He stated that I'm going to break the rules and let you talk. He stated that you had an opportunity to talk and you should have taken advantage of it.

Sharon Powell, P.O. Box 691, Chesterton, 7126 Texas St., stated that we did stop building. She stated that we were extremely concerned. She stated that we just started like last Friday. She stated, I mean, we stopped for three weeks. She stated that it wasn't that we knew this was a problem, but this would just be devastating to us, extremely. She stated that it really, truthfully . I don't know if you've ever driven through the neighborhood or not, but, I know you say it's awfully close, but when you're driving through, it doesn't look any closer than when you're going around the corner and you see there's one house there and then another one. She stated, I mean, there are the houses.there are some that are very setback, but the one directly across the street from us.

Mr. Detert stated that we've had testimony to that, so we're aware of that. He stated, just bring up anything new.

Ms. Powell stated that we didn't touch the garage, you know. She stated that it is as it is. She stated that, really, he only had our best interest in mind when he made the decision because he said, you know, let's try to bring it as close as possible, and we said we agreed, yes, let's do that.

Mr. Detert stated that I understand that, ma'am. He stated that I understand that he probably had your best interests at heart but, he either wasn't competent or he should have got a surveyor.

Ms. Powell stated that this would just be devastating for us.



Mr. Detert stated that I understand that and that's what I don't like about this because people who make these mistakes are not the ones that suffer. He stated that the one that suffers is the homeowner. He stated that we had a period here where we were getting all kinds of requests because contractors said they made mistakes and they put the house too far forward and then we're supposed to take care of his mistake. He stated that when these setbacks were set they were set for a reason because somebody thought in the ordinance that was appropriate or your developer thought that was appropriate for his development. He stated that now we've got somebody that made a mistake that's building your house and he wants to punish, in effect, the whole subdivision. He asked, what's to prevent somebody from building another house and saying, hey, you guys got a Variance, now we want a Variance. He stated that it can get out of hand.

Ms. Powell stated that if you listen to the other people that were talking I know the one person Northwest of us, but all the other people that spoke are directly related to where our house is, and they're not concerned.

Mr. Detert stated, we heard that.

Ms. Powell stated, they're not concerned.

Mr. Detert stated, we heard that. He asked, anything new?

Ms. Powell stated, please, please, just grant us this. She stated that it's extremely important to us. She stated that we're not rich people. She stated that I don't know how we could afford anything.

Mr. Detert stated that I'm not hard-hearted and I appreciate what you're going through, but, there's the guy. He stated that he made the mistake. He stated that we need a motion.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-V-22 to the November 15, 2006 BZA meeting when all five members are here. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that if this motion passes it's continued to next month, and I don't want you building out there, anything done out there. He stated that if I hear anything's done it's going to be a big mark against you, in my opinion.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-V-22 to the November 15, 2006 BZA meeting when all five members are here. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:





Mr. Detert stated, in the meantime, nothing happens out there. He asked, does everyone understand that?

Mr. McClure stated, nothing on the garage, I understand. He stated that I totally understand no building on the garage. He stated that the garage may or may not be there, but, as far as the house, the house could remain.

Mr. Detert stated, I need to clarify that. He stated, no building within the encroachment.

Mr. McClure stated, any part of the home that's within the 50-foot setback line will not have any continuing building on it. He stated that everything behind the 50-foot setback line you can continue to build. He stated that you do not need to renotify.

Mr. Burns stated that I'm not sure what's going to happen next month, but you may want to be looking at alternatives.

Mr. Detert stated that I would appreciate it if you would bring any alternatives to that meeting that you might have, okay?

Mr. McClure stated that I think we'll make a note that we're probably going to reopen the public meeting when we have the other two members here to allow for public comment when the other members are here.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-V-22 to the November 15, 2006 BZA meeting when all five members are here, with the public hearing to be re-opened; with there to be no building within the encroachment. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-V-23. Petition of Melisa Culbertson, 137 W. 625 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required road frontage for 10-acre parcels from 96 feet to 60 feet and from 96 feet to zero feet, respectively, to be located between 570 E. and 580 E. on CR 950 N., in Jackson Township.

Melisa and Robert Culbertson stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Ms. Culbertson stated that we recently purchased 90 acres on 950 N. in Jackson Township. She stated, as you can see on the drawing, there is 10 acres that was kind of cut out originally as 100 acres. She stated that that piece had already been sold when we purchased this land, so we actually bought it after that was done. She stated that we have 1,136 feet of road frontage, so we have plenty of frontage to divide 9 10-acre parcels, if we wanted to. She stated that what we think would be better is where on the end you can see that there's 20 acres that's being divided off. She stated that we're putting that into a conservation easement and we're working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on a 13-acre wetland restoration. She stated that when the land was originally divided . the 10 from the 100 . a 60-foot



wide roadway was left there on the West side and that as done so that the 90 acres could become a subdivision, and they did all the engineering on 45 lots. She stated that when that didn't go through, we purchased the land and decided to keep it in much larger parcels. She stated that the 50 acres that you see left after the 20-acre conservation easement which has 260 feet of road frontage and two 10-acre parcels that would share that 60-foot drive is intended for our home and horses. She stated that one of the reasons that we're.you know, we could run a driveway to each of those 10-acre parcels around Nicole's property, then that would be two driveways coming onto 950 N. and we would have to make one of the 10-acre parcels very strangely shaped to pick up 30 feet on the East side of the property. She stated that there's two reasons for not wanting to do that. She stated that one, they're very, very long driveways, and I feel that one would be better than two. She stated that the other is, the fewer long driveways that we have going across there, the less impact it will have on our wetland restoration project.

Mr. Culbertson stated that I did have a discussion originally with Bob Thompson on this and I mentioned the fact that, obviously, there is room for the additional driveways. He stated that he said that they prefer not to have a larger number of driveways going onto a County road and kind of encouraged us to try and limit the driveways since the lane is already there.

Ms. Culbertson stated that in addition, we've already planted 6,000 trees on that property, additional trees to the 25 acres of mature trees that are already there. She stated that our intent isn't to chop all the land up.

Nicole Doctor, 580 E. 950 N., Westville, stated that I'm the 10 acre-parcel that was split off from the original 100 acres and the Culbertson's property surrounds me on three sides, one being that 60-foot-long strip, and I would prefer only one driveway rather than have two going down either side of my property right up against it, so I prefer having just one driveway to go to those back two parcels.

John Kadish, 678 E. 950 N., stated that this property.there's one piece of property next to that, and this property is pretty close to the back of my woods, and I was just wondering what was going on. He stated that I could see there's two 10-acre parcels there on the West side. He stated that I don't really have a problem with that. He stated that I know that the rest of the property mostly is wetland, but that area there, no, I don't have a problem with that. He stated that I didn't know what was going on. He stated that I don't really oppose that. He stated that I didn't really know what was going on. He stated that I didn't know if it was going to be eight 10-acre parcels or what, because the whole Eastern side of that, as you go, is marshland, it's all wetland.

The public hearing was then closed.





Mr. Hudson stated that if I understand this right, and I apologize if you said this and I was looking at that and trying to hear you, you are going to access.you're going to build on the large parcel, you're going to build one home on that large parcel, and you're going to sell off what's marked on here as parcel 3 and 4, or have they already been sold off.

Ms. Culbertson stated that we actually have no intention of selling any of it.

Mr. Hudson stated, but you want to use that 60-foot strip to build on your parcel.

Ms. Culbertson stated, no. She stated that we, in our estate, we would like to leave two 10-acre parcels of land to our kids.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, somebody at some time may build on it.

Ms. Culbertson stated, maybe 20-some years from now, but that's the only control we have on it.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, you want all three of those to access that 60-foot strip and come across.

Mr. Culbertson stated that we have a driveway permit on the 50 acres, which is right about right here and we aim to build right in here somewhere.

Mr. Hudson stated, so you're asking to allow this to be used for those two?

Mr. Culbertson stated, correct.

Mr. Hudson stated, I'm okay. He stated that I don't have a problem with this. He stated that when I saw this.my only concern is when we do these 10-acre parcels that somebody comes in in the future and splits those 10-acre parcels up and instead of having two homes off of a 60-foot strip, we have more homes. He stated that I would be in favor of this petition as long as we could write something into this approval that those two 10-acre parcels are not further subdivided and, at such time as they're transferred or put in or you could put that in your estate, and I guess I have to defer to our attorney to see if that's possible. He stated that maybe we can't do that.

Ms. Culbertson stated that I have no problem agreeing to that. She stated that where we live now we have 10-acre pieces of land and we're all bound by a covenant and restriction that says they cannot be divided smaller.

Mr. Detert asked, so you'd be willing to write a legal document that.


Ms. Culbertson stated that I would prefer to do that, actually.

Mr. McClure stated that you would do a commitment, and do a restriction on the deed, that the parcel must remain in 10 acres.

Mr. Detert stated, and, before you would proceed, we would have to have a copy of that document, but our motion, I assume, would be contingent on you supplying that document.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-33, subject to recording and supplying a copy of a written commitment that there be no further development of the 10-acre parcels; incorporating the petitioners' proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes Detert - Yes

At this time, Mr. Siminski asked if there were findings of fact on Wendy King that we were supposed to get.

Mr. McClure stated that he'll check.

At this time, Mr. Detert stated that he got a call on the Mixon property on 725. He stated that the caller said that there is some activity taking part on the North side between that Cathy's house.and.He stated that he's been pestering him to have the people come in and he keeps telling him that we've talked to the attorney, and the attorneys tell us that that can't be.

Mr. McClure stated that we gave him six months to get out and he's got six months to get out. He stated that he's called me and basically complained that they're not, according to him, making strides on getting out.

Mr. Detert stated that he's still got three months.

Mr. McClure stated, right, and, on top of that, the Board at some point asked that I write a letter to the property owner basically saying, clean your act up, blah, blah, blah; don't harass the neighbors, etc. He stated that then this individual called me and basically pleaded with me not to send the letter because it would make matters worse for him for the next four months. He stated that I can't just go out there and say you're out of there. He stated, then he begged me not to send the letter, so the letter didn't go out. He stated that I basically told him that on the 181st day, if he's not out of there, I will do everything I can legally to get him out, but, until then, unless he breaks the law.

Mr. Detert stated that that's what I've been telling him.

Mr. McClure stated that unless he breaks the law or something there's not a whole lot we can do. He stated that we can learn a lesson from the amount of time we give a petitioner now.

Mr. Detert stated that we should have never given him that much time.

Mr. McClure stated, but, on the other hand, we're stuck until this is over. He stated that it's something like January 17th or February 17th or something.

Mr. Detert stated, January.

Mr. McClure stated that I've talked to him at least three times. He stated that he called me at one point and asked if I had done something because it got real quiet and said everything was good, and I said, no, I didn't send a letter like you asked. He stated that then he called me up and said, did somebody screw up and send a letter because it's out of control again. He stated that I said, no, the letter still hasn't gone out.

Mr. Hudson asked, so the harassment.?

Mr. McClure stated, yeah, and it goes up and down. He stated that I'm not saying they're not being harassed. He stated that they're running the excavation up and down the drive and running their four-wheelers and shooting their guns in the air.

Mr. Detert stated that I'm sure they're being harassed. He stated that he claims that they were traversing Cathy's property with their vehicles. He stated, then Cathy has a civil matter, I would think.

Mr. McClure stated, or trespass.

Mr. Detert stated that I think maybe what we ought to do is send, maybe 30 days ahead of time, a letter that we expect you to be out and have all your equipment out, and you do not have storage. He stated that that is not a storage facility. He stated, that I could agree with doing.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS


Robert Detert


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