BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
November 15, 2006

M I N U T E S

PLEASE NOTE THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH THE TAPE FOR THIS MEETING, THEREFORE MOST OF THE TAPE WAS GARBLED. TRANSCRIPTION IS AS BEST AS COULD BE DECIPHERED.

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on November 15, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the October 18th BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. Mr. seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

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. (This Case was continued from the 10-18-06 meeting, with the public hearing to be reopened.)

Mr. Siminski stated that this Case has been withdrawn by the petitioners.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the withdrawal of this Case. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Case 96-V-37. Gerald Scott, 539 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the East side of CR 300 E., between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township.

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

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 96-V-37 for 1 year. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-UV-6. Issues regarding the proposed 36-foot height of a riding arena for Virgil DiBiase and Mary Ellen Spaite, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, on a previously approved Use Variance permitting a horse stable and


therapeutic riding clinic, to be located 1,800 feet East of CR 350 E., on the South side of Tratebas Road, in Jackson Township.

Paul Sharp, 1600 Hogan Avenue, Chesterton.

Mary Ellen Spaite, 362 E. Tratebas Rd., Valparaiso, stated that I’m the clinical director of the program.

Mr. Sharp stated that we are here to request a Variance for height on this project. He stated that we apologize that we didn’t include this in the original request. He stated that that is an error on our part. He stated that the site itself has been reviewed by an arborist. He stated that all the old-growth trees have been trimmed, all in an effort to maintain the natural surrounding area around this arena. He stated that the floor of the building will be 6 feet below the roadway. He stated that the building itself is some 800 and some feet back from the roadway. He stated that there will be some tree screens along the roadway which will reduce the visual effects from the roadway. He stated that we believe this will provide enhanced property values for those homes in the area. He stated that inside the arena there is no grandstand, no spectator area, nothing for public exhibition. He stated that it is really meant to enhance the community through therapeutic sessions with young people and old people. He stated that we wanted to note that other arenas of similar size and (inaudible) have been built in and around the area and they are used for training purposes. He stated that this is meant to enhance the area through therapeutic activities. He stated that with that in mind, if you have any questions, we would be happy to answer them.

Ms. Spaite stated that we believe that the building we are looking at is most important because of a number of things that make it user friendly for clients and clinicians. She stated that these buildings require little electricity. She stated that they are about 10 degrees warmer in the winter and 10 degrees cooler in the summer. She stated that if it’s raining outside and there is strong winds, which we also have in bad weather, there is no decreased ability to hear someone speak, which in steel buildings it is very difficult at times to talk when you are carrying on conversations with just two or three people, so these are all reasons why these have become especially useful for what we are using it for, which is therapy and activities related.

Jim Perkins stated that I’m the site planner for the project and I would like to add the fact that one of the reasons that the building is as high as it is at the peak, which is 36 feet, not 38 feet, is because we have to have the clear span inside the building. He stated that in order to get that we have to have a certain amount of slope on this roof to shed water and snow, etc. He stated that once you do that you eliminate the need for columns and so forth you can’t just drop it down.




Mr. Brickner stated that I’m glad you explained that, because that’s what the Variance is for, is height, and I was wondering why we had to have…

Mr. Detert stated that that is fabric covered, and I guess there was some concern about the flammability of that.

Mr. Sharp stated that we presented them with an image of a certificate for flammability resistance approval in California. He stated that subsequent to that meeting we called the company and the state of Indiana has purchased a number of these structures, more than 10, and these are for equipment storage, material storage, and temporary structures while permanent structures are being installed, so the impression I got for the last category is that they are relocating these structures to spots where they are building a, let’s say, a home equipment repair shop or salt storage, etc.

Mr. McClure stated, I have a question. He asked, Fred, this originally came in as a Use Variance to be approved for basically a therapeutic riding stable, correct?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. McClure asked, did the original request even have the square footage of the barn? He stated that I guess what I’m getting at is I’m wondering if this should not be…we should have notice out to the neighbors because the one issue…we obviously have two separate issues. He stated that we have a Use Variance issue that has been granted for the therapeutic riding stable, and now we’re having, basically, a developmental standards Variance for the height.

Mr. Hudson stated that I couldn’t figure out why they were coming back.

Ms. Byers stated that I was at the DAC meeting where they brought this up and it was Mr. Thompson’s feeling and recommendation that it should be treated this way.

Mr. Detert stated that it seems to me…I think we did discuss….we discussed, at least, the building and the view of it from the neighborhood. He stated that I can’t remember exactly if they gave us the height, but I thought that we had discussed the height.

Mr. McClure stated that perhaps he is getting confused with the one that we had with the same type of rounded fabric structure, etc..

Mr. Brickner stated that we denied that.

Mr. Hudson stated that that was the one that already had the steel structure up.

Mr. Sharp stated that we didn’t bring that poster board that we made, but it showed how big the arena was and it showed how big the



stable was and there was some discussion as to how far back it was from the road and what it would appear like from the road and the point was made that the closest building to this stable combination is indeed their house. He stated that in between their house and this building there is another residential person, but his house is much closer to the road…

Mr. McClure stated that I’m not at all trying to insinuate that you didn’t bring it up in the first case. He stated that I’m just speaking out loud as far as it got brought back under the old case number and therefore you didn’t have to renotice, so, in my mind, there’s some difference between giving notice on a therapeutic riding stable going in and potentially a 36-foot building going in.

Mr. Sharp stated that when we discussed that at the DAC meeting it was their recommendation…they liked the project – they liked everything about it, but they said…

Mr. McClure stated, and, believe me, I’m not making any comment on whether I like it or not. He stated that I’m just thinking about it from a purely legal standard.

Mr. Sharp stated that we were told, you use the same number, you make your presentation to the BZA…

Mr. Detert stated that you were right. He stated that that other one was visible from the roadway and we turned it down. He stated that I got that one confused with this one.

Mr. Sharp stated that Mr. Perkins has drawn, by hand, a sketch that shows what’s around and the scale and how far away it is from the stable and the arena and I would be happy to pass this around.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t know how you can see this.

Mr. Perkins stated that we have 100 to 110 feet of solid woods on the West side of the property. He stated that the building is 150 feet from the property line, and it’s like 170 feet to the East property line to this building. He stated that we’re 680 feet from the road and it’s behind an old-growth tree line. He stated that it’s a little different. He stated that it’s hardly visible. He stated that we’re not 30 feet from the road.

Mr. Brickner asked, is this flammable, or is it not flammable?

Mr. Sharp stated, no. He stated that the material meets the flammability requirements of the state of California. He stated that we were unable to find any standard for the state of Indiana, so we’re basing our statement on the certificate from California.





Mr. Detert stated that I think it may be flammable, but I think if the state of Indiana is using the same type of fabric on buildings…

Mr. Hudson stated that the City of Valparaiso has one for salt storage.

Mr. Perkins stated that he took a sample of it and he was going to just try to burn and we never heard back from him, so I figured that it passed.

Mr. Brickner asked, what I is was getting at was, you don’t need a sprinkler system on a building like this, a building this big?

Mr. Sharp stated, no, we don’t need a sprinkler system because it’s not going to be used for exhibition or spectator use etc. He stated that the number of people inside is small enough so that we don’t need a sprinkler system.

Mike Haller stated that I’m the Building Commissioner. He stated that I’m the guy who can answer all your questions. He stated that what I received today via email was the state design release for their project, and the question I have is whether the state design release that we received was for that building that they’re talking about or for some other type of project.

Mr. Sharp stated that it was for the stable. He stated that we didn’t request a design release for the project we are discussing right now because it wasn’t approved for the height.

Mr. Haller stated that therein lies the rub. He stated that the flammability issues and so forth that you’ve been speaking about have to do with another state. He stated that what the state of Indiana is going to do is they’re going to classify this building based on use and occupancy and that will determine what square footage is involved as far as sprinklers and so forth, which is one of the reasons I provided you with that letter that I sent to Michelle Wirsing a while back because (inaudible). He stated that before I explore that any further, I think he hit the nail on the head when we have to decide whether we’re approving a Use Variance or a type of building. He stated that on this one, the approval is almost contingent on whether they’re going to use that building or not, so three-way Catch 22 triangle here. He stated that I don’t know how big your building is. He stated that nothing’s been submitted to me and nothing’s been submitted to the state as far as that building is concerned. He stated that what we got back on your other building was considered a business use or a B-I classification, which would be a whole other set of codes that would be different than the riding arena itself. He stated that they’re going to classify both buildings as a Class 1 structure and from there they’re going to break it down a little bit more, but each one will be separate. He stated that if they’re connected, like I see in your drawing, the most restrictive code will apply to the whole thing, which, without getting into a whole discussion about building


Codes, would preclude them from using that for that type of use. He stated that the flame spread stuff becomes important when we decide how we’re going to classify that building. He stated that it doesn’t matter how tall it is.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, we don’t have enough information here tonight to make a decision on whether or not we should approve this building.

Mr. Hudson stated that we’re not here for the flammability issue or the water issue; we’re here for the height of the building, right?

Mr. Haller stated, right.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, if we approve this for the 36-foot height and Mike says that it comes back that either you can’t use it or it has to be sprinkled…

Mr. Sharp stated, or it has to be uncoupled.

Mr. Hudson stated, or, it has to be separate from the front part. He stated that that’s an issue beyond us. He stated that that’s an issue for you and the state to hammer out, so we’re only here tonight talking about the 36 feet.

Mr. Haller stated, right. He stated that I just didn’t want you here tonight wasting all that time beating all that other stuff to death when it’s totally….

Mr. Hudson stated, I mean, I care about the flammability, but that’s not the issue in front of us.

Mr. Haller stated that you’re not getting approval for a type of building; you’re just getting approval for the height of the building, whatever it happens to be. He stated, but I think the height issue brings out the aesthetic stuff and so forth, which, I mean, I don’t know where we start talking about it, but I thought it would be important that I give you a little info on that.

Mr. Detert asked, where do we stand as far as the public hearing?

Mr. McClure stated that I’m not 100 percent comfortable with it, but I think that obviously at this point they’ve been told by Mr. Thompson and DAC to come in and ask for it at this point, so we’ll leave it at that. He stated that I think you can understand the little bit of an issue I’m having and, once again, I’m not saying that the neighbors would have a problem. He stated that I’ve read the DAC note and it seems like the neighbors like the thought of it. He stated that once again, my comments aren’t based on for or against the project as proposed, but I had that initial concern.

Mr. Brickner stated, say we approve this and somebody comes in and remonstrates after the fact?



Mr. McClure stated that I think we potentially have an issue.

Mr. Brickner asked, if, after we approve it somebody comes in and complains about the height of the building, the aesthetics, as Mike said.

Mr. McClure stated that they would have, I don’t know how they would have notice to remonstrate about the height of the building, at this point. He stated, once again, I don’t know if anyone is out there that would have a problem with it.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t have a problem with it, and I would approve it, but my problem is I don’t want this thing coming back to haunt us and allow them to have to take this thing down if another Board, you know, other members…

Mr. Haller stated that I think the short of it is, we should determine if that building is going to pass the state building code for the use and occupancy that they are presenting. He stated that the issue might come up later with regard to the aesthetics. He stated that we can always make it shorter and not have to come here at all.

Mr. Brickner asked, is that true? He asked, you can make it shorter?

Mr. Sharp stated that it would be difficult to make it 25 feet without incurring tremendous amounts of additional expense and to compromise on the design, but it is possible. He stated that we would basically have to sink it into the ground, build walls around the outside and berm out from there, so that makes the construction or design process more complicated. He stated that it’s no longer just a stressed skin structure. He stated that it’s now potentially considered some hybrid structure. He stated that that’s not what the owners desire and that’s not what we originally requested. He stated that when we originally came here it was described as this type of building. He stated that the drawing is basically the same as it is here today. He stated that one thing that wasn’t on was the height of the structure, but the dimensions for the area and all that remain as they are today.

Mr. Detert stated that we keep jumping back to the type of building, but I’m not sure that’s the issue before us. He stated that the issue is the height. He stated that if they can’t build this building then they can build a conventional building, right? He stated, a conventional pole building. He stated that my point is you could do something different. He asked, if the state turns you down on this, what would you do?

Mr. Sharp stated, I don’t know. He stated that to put in a traditional pole barn requires the same free space inside. He stated that the advantage of this structure is that it provides a lot more light inside…

Mr. Detert stated, I understand.

Mr. Sharp stated that if you want to have that same envelope inside the structure would almost have to be the same size outside. He stated that it’s very difficult to span so many feet without going up some.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, that’s the issue before us is the height. He stated that I guess the other question that I have is I don’t have any problem with the building and what you’re going to do because I know somebody is going to step in and stop you if it’s not the type of building that’s allowed. He stated that I guess the problem is still the legal one. He asked, can we approve this or can’t we?

Mr. Brickner stated, for the Board’s information, back on 7-16 when we heard this Case there were eight people here to speak against this. He stated that they had been notified excluding the height of the building.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-UV-6 to the December 20, 2006 BZA meeting, with there to be public notice given. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

New Business:

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

Case 06-V-24. Petition of Robert Tattini, 1111 Whitehall Drive, Crown Point, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn prior to the house, for the purpose of storing construction materials, to be located at 771 W. 50 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Tattini stated that it’s going to be 40 by 30 – that’s what I’m allowed. He stated that it's going to be 270 feet back off the road and the reason I want to build it now is I’m planning on building my house in May or June – starting it. He stated that the reason I want to have that pole building so I can store all my construction equipment.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, you’re not going to run a business out of this building, are you?

Mr. Tattini stated, no.

Mr. Hudson asked, what kind of business are you in?



Mr. Tattini stated that I manage an estate.

Mr. Hudson asked, you’re not with a construction company or…

Mr. Tattini stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated that we had either this lot or another one like it before us at one time for something. He stated that you’re real close to County Line Road.

Mr. Tattini stated, right.

Mr. Detert stated that my memory tells me that there were some drainage issues in this area. He asked, which side of the street are you on?

Mr. Tattini stated, I’m East of County Line.

Mr. Detert stated that you’re on the North side. He stated that I think the problems were on the South side.

Mr. Hudson stated, you’re up on a hill, though.

Mr. Tattini stated, correct.

Mr. Detert stated that the problems I remember were on the South side.

Mr. McClure asked, how tall is it?

Mr. Tattini stated that it’s going to be 12-foot walls.

Mr. Brickner asked, it’s not 36 feet?

Mr. Tattini stated, no.

Mr. Brickner stated, when you build this pole barn we require that you give us some kind of a date for the building of your residence. He stated that we usually require that it be no longer than 24 months.

Mr. Detert stated that we want a legal document that says that you’re going to build your house within X years of us granting this. He stated that if you do not build a house, then we would have the right to tell you to tear the pole barn down. He asked, when do you expect to build your house?

Mr. Tattini stated that I expect to start it in May or June.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-24, subject to recording a legal commitment that he build the house within two years. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.



Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated, be sure you don’t put your house behind your pole barn, okay?

Mr. Tattini stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated that his sketch shows it way back.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-V-24, subject to recording a legal commitment that he build the house within two years; that the pole barn be in the general location indicated on his sketch; 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:

Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes Brickner - Yes

Case 06-V-25. Petition of Kenneth & Elizabeth Saffran, 450 E. Greening Road, Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a detached garage in front of the house, to be located at 450 E. Greening Road, in Jackson Township.

Ms. Saffran stated that it’s in front of the first wall, so, I guess technically it’s in front of the house. She stated that it would be off to the side and it’s a Cape Cod which complements our house. She stated that our house sits on a hill. She stated that on one side is a well and the other side is a septic field, so those would both be in the way and it would cost a lot of money to bring the level of the ground even to stick a garage beside it. She stated that we’re considering slightly to the right and in front of it. She stated that it’s a 28 by 24 is what we are proposing. She stated that the ground is flat there.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that I’m not crazy about putting stuff in the front yard.

Mr. Hudson stated that I’m not sure she has any other place to put it.

Ms. Saffran stated that I’m not crazy about putting it there, either. She stated that when we put up the house we put it up ourselves and we weren’t contractors. She stated that our excavator said, well, let’s move it over 10 feet and, at the time, we went, okay. She stated that in our master plan we had made room to put the garage to the side of the house, but now it’s a little bit crowded next to the property line.

Mr. Detert asked, is this picture you have here of the garage, is that exactly what you’re going to build?

Ms. Saffran stated that that’s what we’re proposing. She stated that we’ve contacted a builder who’s going to hopefully put it in for us. She stated that everything was put on hold when I went for the permit and I was told that….I want to know why the Variance (sic) was put up. She asked, was it for aesthetic reasons? She stated that I took that into consideration and that’s why we’re…you know, our house is Cape Cod and the style of it I think I showed a picture in my report or whatever, also is a Cape Cod, so I think it would be complementary.

Mr. Detert stated that you got the dormers up there and they’re aesthetically pleasing, but, are you going to have an upstairs in that garage?

Ms. Saffran stated that we’re not planning on it at this time.

Mr. Brickner asked, so it’s just for appearance.

Mr. Detert stated that I guess we have to be careful somebody doesn’t build you know for a rental unit or something like that.

Ms. Saffran stated that we’re not planning on that.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-25, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that he would like to add to the motion that the garage depicted here be essentially what is built.

Mr. Brickner stated, and that the upstairs is never turned into a rental.

Mr. Detert stated, that the upstairs is not finished.

Mr. McClure stated, basically, what I think is that we’re looking to see is the dormers, so, let’s just say we want the dormers.

Mr. Detert stated, I think that’s aesthetically pleasing, that the dormers…

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-25, contingent on having the dormers on the proposed garage and that there be no upstairs.

Discussion:

Ms. Saffran asked, will we never be able to put a board up there for storage?


Mr. Brickner stated, storage, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated that I guess storage would be acceptable.

Mr. Brickner stated, just as long as there are no rooms or…

Mr. McClure stated, no finished living quarters.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-25, contingent on having the dormers on the proposed garage and that there be no finished living quarters upstairs.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated that you’ve got it 40 feet in front of your house. He asked, that can’t be brought back?

Ms. Saffran stated that there is a line that runs in front of our house that is a phone and an electric line, and so we are hoping to get as close to it and still stay within code.

Mr. Brickner stated that I have no objection. He stated, I agree with the Board that it is a hardship thing, but if you can move it back…

Ms. Saffran stated that I’d love to.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-25, contingent on having the dormers on the proposed garage and that there be no finished living quarters upstairs; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes Robertson - Yes

At this time, Mr. McClure stated that we have findings of fact regarding two cases to approve.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve the findings of fact for Case 06-UV-10. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve the findings of fact for Case 06-V-18. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that in front of you is the BZA calendar for 2007 for the members to take home and consider for approval at the December meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

S\ Marvin Brickner, Vice-Chairman


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