 |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on February 20, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Richard Burns, Robert Detert, Debbie Kerr-Cook and Marvin Brickner. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure, Tracy Burrell and Toni Byers. Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 1-24-08 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Correspondence: Mr. Siminski read a letter from Hoeppner Wagner & Evans law firm asking that Case 07-EDD-1 be continued to the March 19, 2008 BZA meeting. Case 07-EDD-1. Petition of Lamar Advertising, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, seeking an appeal of the Executive Director’s decision to deny a building permit for an electronic outdoor advertising sign, saying said sign does not meet the requirements of the Porter County Zoning Ordinance, to be located at 368 W. Joliet Road, in Union Township. (This Case was continued from the 9-19-07, 11-28-07, 12-19-07 and 1-24-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing closed.) Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-EDD-1 to the March 19, 2008 BZA meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Mr. Siminski read a letter from Gary Lindley, asking that his Use Variance case, due for review in March, be continued to the April 16, 2008 BZA meeting as he could not attend the March meeting. Mr. Burns moved to continue the review of the case involving Gary Lindley and his carpet cleaning business to the April 16, 2008 BZA meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Old Business:
At this time, Mr. Siminski read a letter from Mr. Sawa stating that he is no longer interested in his Use Variance. He stated that he did talk to Mr. Sawa’s wife and she said he is no longer in business.
Ms. Calvert-Ray stated, yes, and I said that I was going to do a lot of improvements. My finances look a lot better for many reasons. Case 07-V-23. Petition of the Porter County Board of Commissioners, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, seeking Variances for a sign at the Porter County Expo Center, to vary the height from what is permitted from 8 feet to 31 feet; to allow for an electronic sign board; and to allow the sign to be 100 square feet in size, larger than the 46 square feet allowed, to be located at 215 E. Division Road, in Washington Township. (This Case was continued from the 10-17-07, 11-28-07, 12-19-07 and 1-24-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing closed.) John Thorstad, manager of the Expo Center, stated that he represents the petitioner in this matter, and that he is accompanied by Scott Toth of Landmark Signs. Mr. Thorstad stated, in reviewing the last design, I believe there were some concerns that were brought to our attention about the overall size and height and Scott was gracious enough to have his design team review the drawing and bring it down by 6 feet to come within 25 feet. It didn’t make any dramatic changes to the sign except crunch it down, but now it’s within the 25-foot height. As you’ll see by the drawing boards that Scott has, it does create a marked difference between the size of what we had and this. The overall size of the electronic sign didn’t change. It’s a 3 by 10 electronic message board. I think time will tell that this sign is going to be one of the most dramatic impacts economically for the Expo Center and the Fairgrounds in general. The sign that is there is at least 40 feet off of the road. It’s hidden on the grade as it slopes down. I don’t believe the sign stands out, but it does show the Expo Center is a viable business. In economic times, we’ve got to compete, just like the next guy, and this is one way of doing that. Mr. Toth stated that I have the boards from the previous meetings that show what the old sign looks like as compared to the revised sign, sizewise, at that intersection. I don’t know if you want to take a look at these and compare one to the other. Mr. Detert stated, yeah, I’d like to look at it. Mr. Burns asked, how high was the old sign? Mr. Toth stated that the old sign was 31 feet from grade to the very top of the sign and we’re now at 25 feet. What we did is we reduced the rough structure a little bit, changed the layout of the copy on the main signboard to gain some extra area to lose the overall height, and we took a little bit of the height out of the base, so that shows what we were proposing as to the new revision. Mr. Burns asked, do you have a picture of the original sign, the sign that’s there now? Mr. Toth stated, yes. Mr. Thorstad stated, the sign that’s there now is basically rotting from the back side up. There’s not much left to the sign. I think, I’m surprised with some of the strong winds we’ve had this fall and winter that they haven’t knocked it down. Mr. Burns asked, how tall is this sign? Mr. Toth stated that I want to say 16 feet from grade to the very top. Mr. Burns stated that this sign is further away from the fence. Mr. Thorstad stated, correct, it’s almost 40 feet off the fence. Mr. Burns asked, why so close to the fence with this sign? Mr. Toth stated, well, if we go any further, say, where the current sign is, the grade drops off from the fence, so, what will happen is, the electronic message center…the fence will be in the way. It will make it a little harder to read, and we’re allowed to be 5 feet from the property line, so… Mr. Thorstad stated that the property line is actually right on the corner there. Right by the pole, right behind the pole there’s a cement marker. That’s the stake marker. Mr. Toth stated, and that’s 1 foot on the highway side of the fence, so we’ll be roughly 4 or 5 feet behind the fence. Mr. Thorstad stated that the present sign is down below that level. Actually, from the road, it’s covered by the fence. Mr. Burns stated, I know what you are trying to do, you’re trying to keep the electronic sign above the fence. Mr. Thorstad stated, right. Mr. Burns stated, and I agree with that, but I’d like to see it a little bit away, much as you can, and still keep the sign above. You might go 3 feet, 5 feet more, but I’d like to see it away from the fence a little bit more, if that’s possible. I don’t know how steep your grade falls off. Mr. Thorstad stated, right there, it falls pretty dramatically. Mr. Burns asked, can you gain any feet? Mr. Toth stated, well, if we raise the sign back up again to keep it above the fence. Mr. Burns stated, looking at this, it looks like you may have…just looking at this…you may have a foot or two.
Mr. Brickner asked, can you backfill? Mr. Toth stated, well, we could, and I don’t think it would play that much into the foundation. It would just be an added cost, which was not in the price of the sign when we initially did that. It would just be an extra cost that would be incurred. I believe, if you look on the photoboard, the existing sign… Mr. Burns stated, see, it doesn’t show how close the sign is. I know it’s at least double that, if not more. Mr. Toth stated that the sign is right where the pine tree is. Mr. Detert stated, the big problem is the fence, and I think that I would rather see it closer than have to raise it. I don’t want to raise it up; they’re at 25 feet now and I think that’s fine. They’re barely clearing the fence with the graphics. I’m a little more concerned about the electronics on it and I think you previously testified you would not have graphics – am I remembering right? Mr. Thorstad stated that our primary intent is to display what events are out there. I’m more concerned about being able to maximize that than I am to put pictures and things like that up there, if that’s what you choose. It would not have video. Mr. Detert stated that I don’t want video, and I don’t want a graphic that’s going to move. Mr. Thorstad stated, we would not have that. At most, we would have a picture of a boat or something for a boat show. Mr. Detert asked, and it would be static? Mr. Thorstad stated, it would be static, correct. Mr. Detert asked, and the text, how often would that change? Mr. Thorstad stated, for me, I would like to see no less than every 15 seconds, only because it sits on a highway. If it transitions 5, 10 minutes an hour, you know, we’re talking about a 3 by 10 foot area that we’re trying to maximize the use of the sign. At times we’ve got more than three or four events out there, but I believe the fair would benefit greatly from (inaudible, someone coughing), and of course we would go with what you put in place. We’re just trying to maximize the full potential of the sign. Mr. Brickner asked, this would be like an amber…the standard, the amber lights with the…
Mr. Brickner stated, I understand what you’re saying. For some reason, I thought we had decided that we would just have the amber. Mr. Burns stated, that’s what I thought, amber with a black background. Mr. Brickner stated, just the standard amber background with a static message. Mr. Toth stated, I don’t think that had ever come up at our previous meetings. I don’t recall that. I have the minutes from all the prior meetings. The color or the amber or the red has never been brought up before. Mr. Thorstad stated, one of the things we could offer, especially at night, we could turn the sign off from, say, 11:30 to 5 in the morning if there are some traffic concerns because it is nighttime. We have no problem with that. Mr. Detert stated, I think one of the things that we are concerned about, if you’re going to have it on or off you’ve got to effectively flash, and you’re going to be using the spectrum of colors, and you’ve got a traffic light, and that could be a bad corner, especially at fair time or when something is going on. We’re a little concerned about distracting drivers from driving and watching a light, and you’ve got a flash of yellow out of the corner of your eye, or green or red, you may think on a green, it’s safe to go, or, on a red, you don’t realize…you may stop when it’s green, so, that’s our concern. Mr. Thorstad stated, I can promise you, there will be no flashing. Mr. Detert stated, well, if you change messages every 15 seconds, there’s going to be a flash every time you change, or sort of a flash, and that’s distraction, and that’s what our concern is. Mr. Thorstad stated, maybe utilizing the same color in the message part, the wording can be the same color. I have no problem with that. We don’t have to have different color lettering. Mr. Toth stated, it can be programmed to utilize certain colors, say, for instance, we don’t have to use a white background. It seems, some of the signs on a highway, where it’s had a white background and that blinding is too much. That’s a distraction. With this unit, we can program it to use colors that are more subtle, that won’t be such
a distraction, but are still visible and will still work. I believe the sign itself right now…it sits fairly well away from the stop sign. I don’t know if you would be receptive to maybe moving it a little bit further away from the intersection. Mr. Burns stated, see, that was my point. If you’re heading from the South, heading North, from a distance away, what are you going to see – the sign or the stoplight? What would catch a person’s eye? They may miss the stoplight completely. That’s a problem I have with these at an intersection. I’m like Marv. I thought it was going to be a black background with the amber light, because we just approved one last meeting, and I was not aware it was going to be different colors. Mr. Toth stated, no, it’s always been a full-color unit since we’ve been coming here. Mr. Burns stated, I did not know that, because I thought there would be no animation. Mr. Toth stated, it won’t be animated. Mr. Thorstad stated, it won’t scroll, we won’t have any animation. Mr. Brickner stated, but, it will change every 15 seconds. Mr. Toth stated, or whatever you determine. Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with the electronic sign, but I do have a problem with the colors, especially at the intersection. Mr. Toth stated, well, we can move the sign a bit further North. Mr. Burns stated, I know, but I’ve still got a problem with the colors. All the reports that we’ve read on signs is that color is a big distraction by an intersection with stoplights. Mr. Toth stated, I don’t think any of the studies that have been done have been conclusive, by the way. Mr. Burns stated, but I’m not going to sit here and approve something that might be a safety issue. Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think they’re conclusive inasmuch as it’s distracting. Whether or not it causes accidents, that’s not conclusive, but I think all the reports that I read did say that those signs are a distraction, the colored signs that flash every 15 or 18 or 12 seconds. And that’s a problem I have with it, is the different colors at that traffic signal could be a distraction. I believe it will be a distraction.
Mr. Detert asked, can you stay away from the traffic colors, red, green and yellow? Mr. Toth stated, we could. I mean, it would be a bit difficult, but sure. You know, for the boat show, we maybe have to choose a blue boat, as opposed to red or yellow. Mr. Detert stated, the 15 seconds, I think, is a little fast for changing. Somebody’s going to get caught with the flash when you change, but I think the longer that you take, the fewer people that are going to be exposed to that. Mr. Toth stated, I did stop out or go to the Radisson at the corner of 65 and 30, and, typically, they change their messages every 5 to 7, 8 seconds. Mr. Detert stated, that’s way too fast. That sign is just obnoxious. Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think we’ve all looked at a number of signs in the past few months, everywhere from Lake Station and Merrillville to places downstate, and the flashing signs are a big concern. We have a concern about it. If it causes or just might cause an accident, is it worth taking a chance? Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with the sign being there away from the fence as far as possible and still have the electronic part above the sign (sic). You may have to, as Marv said, fill in the soil at the far East end, if you have to, but I do have a problem with the colors. I thought it was going to be a black background with amber, for advertisement, you know, for your weddings, your shows and all that. But now you’re talking colors by a stoplight, a pretty busy intersection. I’m really concerned about that. But I don’t have a problem with the electronic part, if it’s black with amber. Mr. Brickner stated, I think we’re all in agreement that the sign is not a problem. It’s the colors and the flashing of the colors and the changing of the sign. It’s a big concern, because we just don’t know. We don’t have them in Porter County, per se, and I don’t think…I’m not willing to take a chance on the distraction part of it. I wouldn’t mind a sign. I mean, an amber sign would be fine, but the colored lights and changing the message every 15 or 20 seconds or 12 seconds, I think that’s going to be…could be a problem. Mr. Toth asked, well, then, what is your recommendation? In the ordinance it doesn’t state as to whether or not the color of the electronic unit, you know, it doesn’t say whether it has to be red, amber, or full color. We’re just trying to make a nice presentation for the Expo Center, and we’re trying to abide by the ordinance. And the Commissioners chose to have the message center be a full color unit when it was put out to bid, back in May.
Mr. Brickner asked, and you’re not willing to change that and go with just an amber message sign? Mr. Thorstad asked, can you bring this back up at the end of the meeting and Scott and I can talk about it? Mr. Brickner stated, sure. Mr. Thorstad stated, we’ll sit and discuss it. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 07-V-23 to the end of the agenda. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Case 07-PUV-4. Petition of Horvath Towers LLC, 401 E. Colfax Ave., Suite 101, South Bend, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit a 195-foot monopole wireless communications tower and equipment cabinet, to be located at 600 N. 250 W., in Liberty Township. (This Case was continued from the 12-19-07 and 1-24-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing open.) John Falvey stated that he, Sean Boylan, director of operations at Horvath Towers, and Will Faber, the site acquisition specialist hired by Cricket, are representing the petitioner in this matter. Mr. Falvey stated that the last meeting was continued for, among other reasons, to give Horvath an opportunity to create a better presentation for the folks behind me, I guess, and, with that remark I would just go ahead and turn it over to Sean Boylan, the director of operations, who will give you the presentation as it will be seen behind Mr. Detert, and I have copies of the presentation for the records. Slides will be utilized. I will ask Mr. Boylan, please refer to the numbers on the slides so it will be reflected in the record which exhibit you are referring to. Mr. Boylan stated, I do apologize that last month I was not able to be present. I would like to go through some of this. I think, given the fact that we did have an additional month…the last 30 days have really given us an opportunity to go back to the drawing table and find out, can we move this, and, if we can move it, where can we move it to to make this the most aesthetically pleasing for some of the surrounding neighbors. We understand, as a tower company, that we will not ever be able to appease the masses; we know that going into it. We’ve been here twice before. Both times it’s given us the opportunity to hear the neighbors, find out what their concerns are, and that pretty much, to this point, does boil down to the proximity on the property lines. Now, keeping in mind, when we originally did propose this, it was in line with the zoning ordinance. It does call for 60 percent of the tower height; we did exceed that at 130 feet. The new proposed location, as you can see here, takes it…we were 130 feet right here – we are now 1,612 feet off the property line. As you will see later in the slides, there is some specific reason why we’re at 1,612 feet and not more so. There is an existing tree line that
becomes very…construction feasibility is just not there. Sixteen hundred and twelve feet is one-third of a mile. You can relate that, when you’re driving in a car 60 miles an hour, that’s 18 seconds, so, from the South property line to where our proposed location is, it would take 18 seconds to get there at 60 miles an hour. That’s how far back this is. That is slide two of the exhibit. Slide three, I’ve taken the liberty of a Google map. You can see, the blue box is where we used to be. We were located in a compound 130 feet off of the property line. The red square is now indicating where we at with 1,600 feet. If you notice here, very interestingly enough, there are 100-foot-tall high-tension power lines that we are 50 feet located from. Fifty foot from 100-foot high existing tension lines that are, as you can see here, there is a tower here, a tower here and then, in later slides, you’ll see a picture of an existing tower there, as well. That is slide three, the exhibit. Slide four shows, as in the past we’ve indicated to some of the neighbors, these propagation maps, the coverage maps that nobody was able to see, so, as you can see here, there’s a bold yellow dotted line that indicates Cricket’s search ring for this general area. As you can see, noted by the surrounding area, these are the sites that Cricket is currently utilizing, leaving a donut that needs to be filled. Our proposed location does that to the best of our ability. Keeping in mind, these are just computer simulations, using best-case scenario, unless you’re out there in the field, that’s where you’re going to be able to get your true analysis. Slide six of the exhibit shows our current new proposed location. As you can see, the 100-foot-high powered tension line and tower that we were indicating earlier, as you can see, is visible from our proposed new location. Slide seven…I’m just going to take you through a North-East-South-West view of the 360. This is the view North from our proposed location. And I’d like to slide back to three. The reason it’s 1,612 feet, once you hit this, these high-tension power lines, the remainder of her property all the way up is exactly one mile North-South is nothing but trees, starting once you get past that first letter there. This is the view East of the additional power tower that we were referencing. This is the view South, as if you were looking back towards our landlord. As you can barely see here on the slide, that is her house. Here’s a view West, slide 10 of the exhibit. It’s another power tower with some high tension lines running through. Here’s the view from the closest Southeast residential house, of course, not on her property, but it is trees. I believe this is the property immediately South of our old proposed location. The next slide indicates the closest Southwest residential property owner, who should be noted, would be surrounded by trees. His house is buried and nestled inside these trees. Slide 13 of our presentation…I’m trying to add perspective here on other cities. We walk a fine line – I talk to zoning administrators all the time. If we build a tower, they build housing additions around all the time, which I’ll show you. However, if we go in asking to put a tower around additions, they’re really asking for our head and this here, as you can see, in South Bend is a 280-foot existing tower that was build circa 2000. It’s less than a quarter of a mile away from this house that John confirmed the asking price of that is $535,000.
Slide 14, as you can see, just across the road, is that same existing 280-foot, self-supporting tower, less than a quarter of a mile with an asking price of $565,000, just for the house alone. That does not include the land. Here’s the same 280-foot self-supporting tower with Farmington Hills, which is a housing addition in South Bend, just outside, in the County, that this entire housing addition – I’m going to say there’s probably in the neighborhood of 150 homes that are in that neighborhood that was built after 2000 and that surround this tower that is lit and a completely different tower type than what we’ve proposed here. Finally, in my last slide here, it is showing two homes in that Farmington Hills housing addition that is immediately adjacent to that compound. These things are immediately adjacent that the homeowners knowingly knew that tower existed and bought there. In closing, as far as the presentation, I cannot express enough, the existing power towers that are out there – there’s three of them in the immediate adjacent parent parcel, and I think these pretty much, say what you want, these pretty much speak for themselves. At 1,600 feet, we’ve pretty much taken every reasonable attempt that we can. There’s nowhere else we can move on this property. We’ve done absolutely everything we can to try to appease the masses here. Mr. Brickner asked, can you show us on this slide, right here, where the nearest home is in relation to your tower? Mr. Boylan stated that, if you see here in the lower right-hand corner, this is our landlord. This is her home. I believe the next home is about right here. Mr. Brickner asked, those are the two closest homes to there? Mr. Boylan stated, yes, well, then there’s the other one that I showed later on in that slide that was completely nestled in the trees. Mr. Falvey stated that I’d just like to add, in conclusion, that Horvath’s submitted application and this additional information that was sent to the Board members last week regarding the change in location indicate that Horvath has met all the requirements for a Special Exception under the ordinance and the fact that we’re seeking a Variance goes back to really what was the change in the ordinance that made Rural Residential zoned properties no longer permissible for building cell towers and that is why a Variance is being sought. There are no other areas zoned other than residential or Rural Residential in this part of Porter County, with the exception of the adjacent Girl Scout property, which is just to the East, and it was noted in at least the first meeting, and, perhaps the second meeting, Horvath reached out to the Girl Scouts on that property in order to try to put the tower on that side of the property line, which would mean we would not be seeking a Variance, but the Girl Scouts informed us that they are going through a reorganization right now and that they weren’t in a position to have any new dealings, so that’s put
Horvath in a position here where they must go on a Rurally (sic) Residentially (sic) zoned property and seek the Variance from the Board. Will Faber, 738 W. Randolph, Chicago, stated that the only things I would like to draw your attention to, would be in reference to our coverage maps, and this was addressed at the last meeting, as well, but, you know, in keeping with Cricket’s policy, we pursue collocations. We have very little interest in adding to this stock of towers and that’s why we turn to a company like Horvath. But, prior to that, and this was addressed last time, as well, we had pursued the NIPSCO towers, none of which are available for collocation anymore. NIPSCO is no longer leasing tower space. For this reason, we have to increase the tower stock, and it’s only because of that reason, so, in a sense, we are dealing with a last option in order to provide coverage to this area. Richard Sundstrand, 596 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, stated that we have the property, as was indicated earlier, immediately adjacent to this parcel. We’re still against it. I was prepared to address property values and such again, but, again, the location is moving – it’s a moving target, and to be able to speak intelligently, I would have to check distances and so on and so forth on that, but I think it is still, for us, a matter of concern, but there are some questions. It has been represented at all three meetings that this is the only location that this tower can be at because Cricket needs to be able to cover this area. My question, I guess, would be: Does Cricket not have capabilities with other organizations for roaming and so on and so forth? On the internet and that, Cricket is indicated to be a Chicago metro system, for the most part, so, if I were to have a Cricket phone and I’d be in Wyoming, does that mean my phone would not work? If my phone would work in Wyoming, because of the cellular network throughout the U.S., why would not that phone still be able to work in Valpo in an area that has several other carriers right there that the phones do work. So, I would really question whether or not there are other alternatives to actually having the tower there, but, as I say, some of my other remarks I can’t, at this point, probably speak totally on the button, so, I wouldn’t want to probably readdress them at this point. The one point I would like to make though is last month I did review with you the 2007 Porter County Unified Development Ordinance and the five elements, and I still question whether or not they’ve all actually been met. As before, I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your courtesy. Attorney Brian Hurley, 14 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, stated that I represent the Lund Troms. They came to me about a month ago and sat down and expressed, probably in the strongest sense that they could that they would be against this tower. They’re against it for probably all the reasons that you would think that they would be against it. It’s a residential area. It’s a residential zone. They’re classified as residential, and there really can’t be anything more inconsistent with this than a tower being put up. I noticed the
slide show, and the thing I noticed was that every time they took a picture, you could see the tower, no matter where you were. Wherever they took that picture from, whatever house they were trying to show you, you can see the tower. And that’s the thing about towers. It doesn’t matter where you are. It doesn’t matter, if you’re looking in the direction of the tower, you’re going to see it. I would also like to address, a little bit in the ordinance, and maybe this is going over some things that might have been gone over before, but I think it’s important for you to consider the fact that the zoning ordinance no longer allows towers in residential areas. It allows them everywhere else, in every other area, in Agricultural, in park areas, as well as commercial and industrial areas, but there was a decision made the last time this ordinance was passed, and that decision was, we’re no longer going to allow these towers in residential areas. Somebody had it in mind that we’re going to start requiring collocation. We’re going to start using the towers that are there. We are going to force these companies, in order to do that, so that they aren’t dotting our landscape with too many of these towers, and, in order to ensure that they aren’t dotted in areas that we are real concerned about – the residential areas, we’re going to remove that as a permitted use under the residential areas, so, in other words, they can’t get a Special Exception. They need more than that. They need an actual Use Variance to put something that your ordinance says ought to be in a commercial or industrial district, and is not. So, I think that you run the risk, as a board, and especially in light of the fact that this provision in your ordinance use was changed, about removing it from residential districts, I think you run the risk of now, all of a sudden, granting a Use Variance, to have something that was removed from the zoning ordinance to begin with – and, can you imagine, once this gets out, every cell tower company’s going to be coming in here, they’re going to try to put things in residential areas and they’re going to come to you for a Permanent Use Variance. Really, where they ought to be, if they’re really serious about this, is in front of the Commissioners, get it rezoned, have it become a permitted use, and then come before you to get their Special Exception. That’s the way it ought to go. A Special Exception, as you know, is different from a Use Variance. You have the authority, even if they present everything that you are satisfied with, you still have the authority, you still have the discretion to deny it. And, in this case, I think you ought to exercise that discretion. This is a lovely area. This is really a very nice residential area. I drove up there myself. I’m sure many of you have been up there. It’s a very quiet, very non-250 W.-like area. It’s almost to 600. It’s rural in its nature. It’s rural in its elements, and it’s a very nice area, and I think it would be a real shame to put this tower, this commercial use, this industrialized-type use, in this area. So, as a Use Variance, you do have the discretion. If they came to you with a Special Exception, if they were properly zoned, you’d have to grant it as long as they met every single requirement of the Special Exception. That’s not the case you have before you. You’ve got a Permanent Use Variance. Thank you.
Joy Sundstrand, 596 N. 250 W., stated that I have to admit, when this first happened and when this first came to our family a couple months ago, we were really upset, and we were really mad at Horvath, because we thought, how could they do this to our little castle in the woods. Then, by the second meeting we realized: It’s not Horvath we’re mad at; we’re mad at having a cell tower right outside our back yard. We don’t want to look at a cell tower. I know it’s selfish, and it’s very personal to us. But I knew it wasn’t Horvath. Horvath is in the business to make money, and they’re going to do what they can do. But now I’m at my third meeting and they’ve moved again, and we haven’t even had notice of it ahead of time – now I’m mad at Horvath. They’ve had three chances to get it right, three times in the last spur of the moment minute, they’ve dropped a new location on us. It’s not fair. Where’s the confidence in Horvath Towers to actually do what they say they’re going to do? Every time they come here, there’s a new address for this tower. Where, really, are they going to put the tower? Thank you. Mr. Falvey stated that I guess the way I should respond is some of the more understandably emotional responses that we’ve had here tonight and at previous meetings is to point out, as Mr. Hurley correctly pointed out, if this tower was 50 feet East, we wouldn’t be seeking a Variance. We’d be seeking a Special Exception because of it being on land that is zoned Special Exception. But we can’t put it on that land. But all the things would still apply. People would still claim that they could see it and it would affect their property values and everything else, so nothing in that respect really changes. With respect to where it goes on the land, we’re seeking a Variance for the entire parcel of property. We moved it on the land as best we could to the final location, and one we hope is approved, in deference to things that have been said here and I don’t think we need to be called out for that. It’s still a Variance for the same parcel of property. With respect to Mr. Sundstrand’s concerns about if you’re in Wyoming can you get Cricket… Mr. Faber stated, yeah, I would absolutely like to address Mr. Sundstrand’s concerns regarding the ability of Cricket to provide coverage in Valparaiso without this tower. We all have experienced the instances when our phone doesn’t work and, yes, Cricket is a nationwide carrier, however, it’s a slightly different type of company and really, in the Chicago market, there is not a company exactly like Cricket. Their business model is an all you can use, all you can talk, all you can text for $40 a month. Cricket is designed to replace your residential home phone. In that sense, there’s a completely different use pattern that Cricket customers employ because the ultimate objective is for $40 a month to combine your cell phone and your home phone, to replace the residential landline, so, I think for that reason, specifically meant to address the roaming possibilities and why Cricket could not obtain coverage here, we are in the Chicago market, we are building coverage from Madison to South Bend. In that region, you have region-wide roaming agreement or
Mr. Falvey stated, I would just add, in conclusion, since Slide number 4 is on the wall there, Cricket is on all those sites marked with ORD in the surrounding area, and those were existing sites. They didn’t have to build any towers. As Will testified earlier, they’re not in the business of just building towers. In fact, the tower is needed in this particular case because there are none in that white area in the middle and all that area is zoned either residential or Rural Residential, so, by changing your zoning ordinance, you’ve effectively zoned out cell phone towers without having to seek a Variance, and that is why Horvath is seeking a Variance. We believe one is warranted in this particular case. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert stated, there’s five towers around there, and I guess I just don’t understand why we have to stick another one right in the middle. The people have testified it’s unsightly. The attorney has testified that we have the discretion to turn it down. With all those towers around there, there’s got to be some way that they can utilize some for coverage. I just don’t like putting another tower up. Mr. Falvey stated that my understanding is that Cricket is assigned part of the spectrum by the FCC and they have to operate within that spectrum and, if the spectrum doesn’t provide for, say, wider areas of coverage, that’s just what they have to deal with, so, to respond to why do you have to put another tower there, because where they put their equipment on other towers is not going to work. Mr. Detert asked, have you had any responses to your letters that have been sent out to other mobile people as to collocate? Mr. Boylan stated, at this time, no. To date, no, we’ve not received any responses. That’s not uncommon. We’re actively pursuing this. As a tower company, we have a very much vested interest in getting as many carriers on this as possible. Mr. Falvey stated that this carrier (sic) is designed to hold four cell carriers, that’s three in addition to Cricket, and, in addition to that, we offer space, free space, for law enforcement and public services. Mr. Burns asked, did you look into towers that look like trees or lighthouses?
Mr. Burns stated, I’m sure you can see it. It’s 190 feet high, so you are going to see it. Mr. Boylan stated, to further elaborate, a 195-foot tree is not really doable. They generally start tapering off around 120, 130. You may see a 150-foot flagpole, but you would be hard-pressed to find a 195-foot tree. Mr. Brickner stated, so, the answer to the question is, you don’t have anything that looks like a tree? Mr. Boylan stated, right. Mr. Burns stated, and they don’t make anything like that, that’s what you’re saying? Mr. Boylan stated, I don’t want to say that they don’t make anything. I’ve got to believe that anything can be made. Mr. Burns stated, because there’s some counties and states that are requiring that and I don’t know the height. Mr. Boylan stated, yes, some cities do require cell type applications. If they are right in the middle of the city, they would like to see some type of flagpole type application. or, a monopole, like the proposed structure that we do have, but they require flush mount antennas, instead of having the larger, as you can see on the last page, the tower elevation map shows platforms for the antennas stick away from the tower. What they do require is just your standard monopole, but they require the antennas to be flush-mounted up against the tower. Mr. Burns asked, was NIPSCO contacted? Can you mount the antenna on NIPSCO’s towers? Mr. Boylan stated, no. I believe prior to this meeting there was an affidavit signed by Mr. Faber that indicated that they had made every reasonable attempt to… Mr. Burns asked, what was their reason? Mr. Faber stated that NIPSCO is currently not leasing any tower space, largely for Homeland Security reasons. They have decided that…all their towers are located within their substations and for Homeland Security reasons, they are no longer allowed to take anybody else onto them. That was the two NIPSCO towers located within the search ring is what we initially tried to locate on. Mr. Burns asked, where is the Scouts’ property on that slide? Mr. Boylan stated, everything East of this two-track is existing. This does belong to the Girl Scouts, so everything from the two-track and over….so, as you can see, as John indicated earlier…130 feet one way…we’re not even here asking for the Variance. Mr. Brickner asked, is that zoned Agricultural? Mr. McClure stated, no, it’s zoned Parks. And Parks is allowed, with a Special Exception. Mr. Brickner asked, and you’ve contacted the Girl Scouts? Mr. Boylan stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, and they weren’t interested in… Mr. Boylan stated, at the time, as John indicated earlier, they were going through a restructure, reorganization internally and they wouldn’t even really consider it for the next couple of years. Obviously, as a tower company, we would prefer to take the path of least resistance, so, if that was an option, by all means we would have exercised it. Mr. Burns stated, because this is a residential area and that is out of character for the area. Mr. Detert asked, would you put that screen up again on the coverage, the lack of coverage? Do you have any map showing what you would cover if you collocated on that or this or that? Mr. Boylan stated, that’s exactly what this map does indicate. Mr. Detert asked, you would not get any better coverage if you collocated on any of these other towers, is that what you’re telling me? Mr. Boylan stated, no. What this map is depicting here is showing that they are currently located on those existing towers, Cricket. And that’s what you see, as a result. Mr. Detert asked, who is supplying service, phone service, into that area? Mr. Boylan stated, I would imagine your top tier one carriers, your Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T. Mr. Detert asked, and they’re providing service. Mr. Boylan stated, yes, to the extent of their coverage. I can’t speak on their behalf, but I do know that they do have licenses in this area.
Mr. Detert stated, but you’re not collocated on these towers over here? Mr. Boylan stated, Cricket Communications. Mr. Detert asked, they are? Mr. Boylan stated, yes. This is the end result surrounding. It’s leaving a donut. Mr. McClure stated, just so I’m clear: All the ORD notations, all the way around, Cricket’s on, Cricket’s using those. The area in between is what’s left over? Mr. Boylan stated, yes, the hole, the donut. In essence, that’s the reason why we’re here. Mr. Falvey stated, it isn’t a matter of filling the needs of their customers; it’s also a matter of law. Their FCC license requires them, if they’re going to license them in Porter County, to have complete coverage, so, essentially, by not being able to provide complete coverage, they’re in violation of their license. Mr. Brickner asked, who’s they? Mr. Falvey stated, Cricket. Mr. Brickner asked, Cricket’s the one with the donut hole? Mr. Faber stated, correct. Mr. Brickner stated, and everyone else’s coverage is adequate, but… Mr. McClure stated, no, that’s not what they’re saying. Mr. Brickner stated, well, they’re not saying that… Mr. McClure stated, they say they don’t know. Mr. Brickner stated, Cricket has the donut. Mr. Faber stated, correct. Mr. Detert stated, I can’t believe that nobody has coverage in that area. Mr. Brickner stated, obviously, they do, because everybody that lives in that subdivision has cell phones. So, what’s happening is we’re running out of places to put cell towers without putting them in residential areas. What are we going to be looking at? Putting cell towers in Rural Residential areas from now on because there isn’t any
other place to put them and that, of course, is contrary to everything we’ve been trying to do, to keep cell towers out of residential areas for the last 10, 11 years, that I know of. So, to take an area that was referred to as a pristine residential area, and we’ll have to put a road and a cell tower 1,600 feet back alongside a Girl Scout camp for Cricket to have coverage. Mr. Falvey stated, we are proposing to place it, Mr. Brickner, next to an existing utility that is already there. The transmission towers are there. It usually makes for a good location, since we know there’s already the use there. There is that utility easement that runs diagonally across this property. Mr. Brickner asked, there is a road that runs along the Girl Scout camp, is that a two-track? Mr. Boylan stated, which we will actively seek to get an access easement to utilize instead of cutting in a brand-new road. Mr. Detert stated, well, the bottom line is that Cricket cannot compete with the other cell phone operators in that area and they want to compete. Mr. Burns stated, I guess my concern is, what if another company starts up next weekend, sets up shop and wants to compete? So, we’re looking for another tower? Mr. McClure stated, they’d have to have a license. If they got licensed, then they would compete, but there’s a limited amount of licenses. Mr. Burns stated, see, I’d be concerned about the property values, too, how this will affect the property values. I think it would negatively impact the property values, especially if they see a tower. Mr. Brickner stated, well, the other part of the ordinance that we have that just gets tossed out here is the 2-mile radius that we’ve always maintained is adequate and, obviously, for a new carrier now to come in…the towers that are in existence are less than 2 miles. I mean, there’s two or three towers that are…I know of two towers that are less than 2 miles and our ordinance states that it’s a 2-mile radius that… Mr. Detert stated, well, we fought that for a long time, and that was what we finally divulged (sic) out of all our contacts with all the carriers. That’s what we were trying to accomplish, and now we’re asking for exceptions to that. Mr. Burns asked, how close is this proposed tower to the NIPSCO tower?
Mr. Boylan stated, I’m going to say about a mile and a half. I do believe it’s under 2 miles, and, unfortunately, if they did work with Cricket, we, as a tower company, would not be here. Mr. Burns asked, wasn’t that a part of the agreement, that they would collocate on that tower? Mr. Brickner stated, well, see, they didn’t have to have it. They’re in public service, so they just built their lattice towers. I don’t think they needed any kind of…they have a right to build there. Mr. Burns stated, oh, no, they came in front of us for a Special Exception. Mr. McClure asked, who did? Mr. Burns stated, NIPSCO, for that tower, at 700, at the sub-station. What I’m asking is, why can’t they locate, collocate, on that tower? Mr. McClure stated that they’ve answered. We don’t have a further answer from NIPSCO. NIPSCO’s basically saying, Homeland Security, we don’t want…. Mr. Burns stated, well, that’s what they’re saying, but I’d like to go back to the minutes and find out. It would resolve this issue if they would collocate. Mr. Falvey stated, as Mr. Faber indicated, and I believe he said in his affidavit, this is a policy that’s across the country. This isn’t just here. Mr. Burns asked, for all utilities? Mr. Falvey stated, well, for NIPSCO. Mr. Burns stated, because I was in Pennsylvania and I saw them on utility towers in Pennsylvania, they’re sharing. Mr. Faber stated, until two years ago, NIPSCO was allowing wireless carriers on their structures. This is a relatively recent policy that they’ve enacted. Driving along the highway, you will see antennas on transmission towers. Mr. Boylan stated that there’s First Energy out of Ohio and Pennsylvania, they do the same thing, they allow collocations. Unfortunately, as Will has testified and written in an affidavit, he did, he made every reasonable attempt and, short of dragging a NIPSCO official in here and having you guys ask them directly, we really don’t have answers as to why outside of what is considered “Homeland Security” why they’re not allowing Cricket on there.
Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Counsel, would that be proper for staff to call NIPSCO about that tower on 700 and ask? Can we do that, legally? Mr. McClure stated, you can call and ask. Whether or not, when they came in and got approval, whether or not that approval and the contingencies we put on it are trumped by federal legislation that’s occurred since 9-11. Mr. Brickner asked, is that what’s happened, since 9-11, is that what the Homeland Security is? Mr. Falvey stated, that’s what we’re being told. Obviously, if this policy has just been instituted a couple of years ago, it didn’t go all the way back to 9-11. Mr. Burns stated, then I have to ask why there are other utility companies doing it in other states. Mr. Falvey stated, we don’t know. We just know what NIPSCO’s policy is. Mr. Burns stated, that would resolve this problem. The 700 location would work for you. Is that correct? Mr. Faber stated, yes. That was our original candidate for this area. Mr. Falvey stated that the evidence before this Board is that it’s been tried and it will not work there. Mr. Brickner asked, then you would even agree to secure your facility with fencing? Mr. Falvey stated that we weren’t involved in those conversations. That was before us. Mr. Faber stated, our proposal is to fence off our equipment and basically cut out an access gate so that we would not have access to the NIPSCO sub-station. Mr. Brickner stated, so, I guess all the antenna that are on those NIPSCO belong to NIPSCO? There’s several of them, like four or five different antennas up there. They all belong to NIPSCO? Mr. Faber stated that that is correct. There are antennas there. Some of them belong to U.S. Cellular. They are on a number of NIPSCO sites. Basically, that’s prior to NIPSCO’s policy.
At this time, Mr. Brickner read the rules of order for public hearings. Case 08-V-5. Petition of Jake’s Feed and Garden, c/o Douglas A. Wilks, 326 S. SR 49, seeking a Variance from the requirements of the storm water ordinance, to be located at 326 S. SR 49, in Morgan Township. Attorney David Appel, 2621-B Chicago St., Valparaiso, stated that he and Don Bengel are representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter, Doug Wilks. He stated that, as indicated in the original documentation that you received earlier, on this particular application, they were expecting to have John McQuestion, Soil Solutions, with us tonight. John asked me to give all of you his apology. He had forgotten that he had promised his wife and children that he would go to Florida to visit grandparents, so I have two things that I would like to give to you tonight in connection with starting my presentation. The first is a simplified site map on which the proposed addition to the warehouse has been highlighted in yellow. Mr. Bengel has already given each of you a very slightly revised site plan. The second item that I’d like to give to each of you tonight before starting our presentation is a letter from John McQuestion, together with photographs of the site, which John took on February 6th of this year, which was the day following the torrential rainfall that we had just recently where much of the County experienced flooding. The Variance that has been requested by my clients, Jake’s Inc., has to do with the applicable provisions of the storm water management ordinance as the same have been detailed in the DLZ review memorandum dated December 6, 2007, which I understand that each of you have a copy of. Specifically the Variance is directed to items 6, 7 and 8 on that DLZ memo. The Variance is being requested in connection with the proposed construction of a 1,500 square foot addition to the Jake’s building. This map is comparable to the revised site drawing that Mr. Bengel passed out to each of you, except I colored it up for use in my presentation. The proposed add-on here is 32 by 48, and it’s on the South edge of the existing warehouse that’s there today, which is 48 by 48 feet. We’re asking for this Variance on the basis of two things: Number 1, the strict application of the storm water management ordinance would effectively prevent Jake’s Inc. from being able to expand their business any further whatsoever. Secondly, we’re asking for the Variance because we believe with the presentation of what we have here for you tonight we can show you that you can grant this Variance and Jake’s Inc. can still meet the spirit of what’s encompassed in the storm water management ordinance, which is to
retain the surface runoff on the site and get it offsite into a public ditch or drain without having to go through the strict application of site improvements. You have the site plan attached to that, and, with the first packet that I gave to you, there are a series of letters from each of the adjoining property owners, property owners to the North, West and South of the subject property. They all have written positive letters in favor of Jake’s Inc. and they’ve all confirmed that there is no storm water runoff problem from this property. There is also a letter in the first packet that I gave to each of you from Morgan Township Trustee Richard Schultz, also in favor of Jake’s Inc. Finally, there’s a letter of support from Richard McSparin of Morgan Township, also in favor of what we’re asking for here. By way of background, very briefly, Jake’s Inc. is a feed and garden center. It’s been in operation almost 18 years in the same place, which is at the intersection of SR 49 and CR 325 S. It was founded by Jake Blastick, their two children and their spouses back in 1990. The site is still family-owned today and primarily operated by family, although now it has grown to a point where there are eight non-family employees. Through the intervening 18 years there have been three expansions to the project: The size of the store building itself has been doubled and, most recently the warehouse building was built and, as I think Mr. Wilks indicated in his sketch, part of the reason for the warehouse space and to add onto the warehouse space is because, in order for a small outfit like Jake’s to be competitive in the marketplace with the larger stores, the chain stores, and so on that are out there, they have to be able to purchase product in bulk, like the bigger guys do, if you will, and to buy that in bulk means they either have to buy those on pallets or by the truckload and they need space to store that product prior to its being put out for sale, and that’s the principal reason why they want to expand their warehouse at this time. Each of the expansions that have been made to date have been properly…they have obtained the proper permit for that. Regarding the Variance itself, there are four items, as I mentioned, in the DLZ memo. Under the storm water management ordinance, effectively, what Jake’s would have to do is to rearrange the drainage for the entire 2.7 acre site, which is all of this, and pull all the drainage from this whole site and concentrate it into this little pond down here at the Southeast corner. The practical problems, I should say, the other DLZ items basically tie into that. One of the other items, Item #1, talks about maintaining a minimum .5 percent slope for the swale, which would have to extend from the Northwest corner here down to the Southwest corner, over here to the pond. There is a water structures item, which, I believe, is Number 6 on the DLZ memo, calling for a water (inaudible), which would entail creating a three-pond system down in here somewhere, and a final DLZ item, which is Number 8, calls for maintaining a 1 percent slope across the bottom of the pond. Those are all standard, but there is one huge problem with this property, which, if you look at the topo there, which Don Bengel provided for us tonight, the critical problem is that over this entire .7 acre site, there is basically one foot of fall, so, if you want to, let’s say…if you’re going to say, as
DLZ says, it’s required by the ordinance, and I think they’re correct, that you have to have .5 percent fall on the swale, starting up here at the Northwest corner and bring that down 275 feet to this corner, and then come back to this pond another 400 feet, at .5 percent, that means you’re going to have to have 3 feet of fall. The problem is, the elevation at this point is 717. The pond bottom is 714, so you essentially have to have a swale that would wind up being below the bottom of your pond. If you were to put in a three-pond catch basin here in advance of the pond, which is, again, contemplated by the storm water management ordinance, you would have even more problems because you effectively can’t do that. It’s not possible with the slope of the site. Effectively, and, when we had a meeting at my office a week and half ago with Mr. Bengel and Mr. Wilks and Mr. McQuestion from Soil Solutions, his comment at the time was, to make this site be able to comply with the storm water management ordinance you would have to demolish all the buildings on the site, you would have to bring in 2 feet of fill, and then you could cut the swales you would need to comply with the storm water management ordinance. To get to the point where we are at, and this is what I meant by saying that we think we can apply with the spirit of the ordinance, even with your granting the Variance that we are asking for. The spirit of that ordinance calls for the surface runoff from this site to be contained, not to go here, not to run off on the County road, not to run off on a neighbor’s this way. If you examine, and I would ask each of you, if you could…because I think the pictures that are attached to John’s letter would be helpful…if you look at what the condition of this site was on February 6th when so much of the rest of the County was totally flooded, John’s taken a series of pictures that cover essentially the whole site. You will see that there’s absolutely no flooding of the property. There is water in the ditches out here along the road, where it should be, and these ditches here, by the way, connect up to the ditch here that runs North and South along the West side of SR 49, the same ditch that the pond would dump into anyway. The only significant standing water that you really see in this photo would be in the…it would be the fourth photo…and you see in the right-hand side of the photo, there’s a longer area of standing water. That longer area of standing water is what I hash-marked here in black, which is a detention basin which Jake’s Inc. installed earlier in connection with one of the expansions they made of the building, and this photograph pretty clearly shows that it’s doing its job in collecting the water. The point is…and I think John makes this point in his letter…there’s absolutely no flooding, there’s no water going offsite, and the ditches are only partly full. The final photo in John’s packet, which he put in by way of contrast, is a photo taken a few minutes later of the intersection of Sturdy Road and Division, where you’ve got open water flooding right over the road, and John’s comment to us was that this is an example of the difference in the kinds of soils that are on this site, versus the kind of clay soils that are so common in a lot of Porter County. If you look at the soils data that John compiled and that came with your packet, the infiltration rate on this soil, even at the top level, which is the densest, and John took borings, took a boring in the middle of this pond. He took another boring here, and
he took another boring here. The infiltration rate that he found in examining that soil in the first 12-inch thickness of it was that at a half-inch to 2 inches per hour, which is probably 10 times better than the typical clay soils of Porter County and why we feel that there’s not going to be a problem in being able to maintain the water on the site. What we have asked for – we haven’t asked in the Variance to just throw the storm water management ordinance out the window at all, and that’s the purpose of this drawing here – what we’re asking in connection with this Variance is to effectively exempt out what amounts to approximately 1.2 acres of the site at the North end, which you can see from the photographs already collects the surface runoff in these ditches here along 325 S. and, by underground pipe, puts it into this ditch that runs along the West side of SR 49. This is the same ditch that the pond is going to dump into. What we’re asking is to be able to base site drainage, go ahead and fill the pond, go ahead and put in the swales, but to limit the site drainage picked up by the pond to the back half of the property so that everything that’s shown in red here will drain to the pond. That’s doable. Mr. Bengel indicated that if we limit the drainage to that area, we can almost achieve the .5 percent slope to the swale. We can get to .4. The pond is calculated in size to pick up all the surface runoff. This area will probably not be necessary at that time, because the swale will be here. There was a concern in the DLZ report as to whether the ground was high enough at the West and the South edges of the property. I think if you look at the DLZ photographs, specifically, the third and the fourth photographs show the West and the South sides of the property, and I think it’s clear from those photographs that the surface water on the property is being fully contained onsite, and you can see that the edge of the property is higher than the property line, so that any runoff is going to be fully contained on the property. So, we would like to limit the drainage area under the storm water management ordinance to here, with the type of swale and pond that is detailed. There are four other items in the DLZ memo, all of which are being worked out by Mr. Bengel and Mr. Kenning at DLZ. We believe that we have a handle on those and there’s not a problem with that. And we just think that the soils here are of such a unique character that there really is no threat whatsoever of there being any kind of drainage problem offsite, even with this Variance being granted. So, we would ask the Board to vote in favor of this Variance from Jake’s Inc. Dale Bagnall stated that I sold Jake the property where the one addition’s been on and I own all the property around it, and I have no problem in what they’re telling me. I have a house to the West of that property that I have my ex-daughter-in-law in. My son is to the South of that property, and I’ve done digging in both areas, and as far as an adjoining property owner, you don’t have any problem with me. And they do have the drainage, the water goes down and I have farm fields all around it, so you’re not going to get any complaints out of me. I own 3 to 4 feet all around that.
Dick Schultz, 177 S. 550 E., stated that I’m the Morgan Township trustee, and I’m in favor of this. Not only am I Trustee-Assessor, but I also supply Jake’s with corn. We do it at random. I’ve probably been doing this since its inception and the only time I’ve ever gotten stuck in there is with snow. At time, after heavy rains and things, we have to go through…I need to drive through the retention (sic) pond into this bin, and I’ve never gotten stuck, so there definitely is not a drainage problem that I see. James Polarick, 167 E. 250 S., stated that I’m a member of the Morgan Township advisory board. I have lived within 1 mile of Jake’s Feed and Garden for 18 years and I’ve never had a problem with drainage anywhere on my properties and I think as a government body we should help support any local businessman we can competing against the big guys as they may need the storage place to compete against TSC and things like that. We totally support Jake’s Feed and Garden. Andy Vasquez, 489 E. 500 S., Kouts, stated that I’ve been a customer of Jakes for 14 years and, in all that time, through all the heavy rains, even the recent ones, I’ve never seen standing water there. I’m also on the executive board of the RC and D, and we have members of the Soil and Water Conservation of Porter County on our board, and I talked with them and took a look at some maps and that water, that soil, it just runs right through there. You really don’t see it. Even with the heavy rains, not more than a day does that standing water in that little retention ditch that got back there, you really don’t see it. The other thing is that with being poultry superintendent at 4-H, a lot of our local people go there, and I believe that being family owned, once again, we’d like to see our money staying within the township and Porter County, because our next shot is to go down to Crown Point, down to Crown Feed, or way up North to the other feed store that’s up in Chesterton, Chesterton Feed and Garden. So, this is great for those who are trying to save a few dollars on gas. And by having the additional space, it may also provide…I don’t know that, they get kind of busy, I don’t see them growing more, but you can never tell if they may need another employee, which would be kind of nice to see if this would grow and add some type of employment for Morgan Township. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert asked, everything you’ve proposed to us, the swales and all of that to contain that water, has that all gone back to DLZ and have they said it’s going to work? Mr. Appel stated, actually, in both their memorandums, there was one dated Dec. 6th and one dated Feb. 14th, on those items, they basically said, you’ve either got to meet the criteria or get a Variance, but they did not issue an opinion on whether it would work, and I did, just for the record, the same date that I delivered all of your packets to Fred, I did send a complete packet to Mr. Kenning at
Mr. Detert stated, I just wonder about the details of it. Are they comfortable with the height of the swales, the size of the swales? We have DLZ look at these things for a reason, so I think the reason that I’d like to hear from them is that they think this system would work, or it meets the criteria that you need to get by this Board. We don’t have any final resolution from DLZ, is that correct? Mr. Appel stated, I think part of the problem is that the analysis that DLZ does, at least in my experience with this and that’s, admittedly limited, but when they’re looking at it their analysis is based on, here’s what the applicant wants to do, here’s what the ordinance says… Mr. Detert stated, I understand that. Mr. Appel stated, they don’t look at the soils. And I don’t think there was a site inspection, either. Now, when I sent this…I sent Mr. Kenning a complete copy of the soils report, together with John’s letter relating to it, and when Mr. Kenning provided a response to that, he did not even mention the soils report or how it impacted their analysis of the site. He may not be a soil scientist and he’s not qualified to address it; I don’t know. But he did not even mention… Mr. Detert asked, but he has all the information from you? Mr. Appel stated, absolutely yes. Soil borings, everything. Mr. Detert asked, so, if they saw some problem, they’d flag it, come back to you? Are you saying since they didn’t come back to you that you think that they’re somewhat satisfactory with it? I’m just looking for some clarification. Mr. Bengel stated, first of all, DLZ’s doing their job. They’re looking at this as though the building isn’t there. And that’s one reason we’re asking for the Variance, to consider just the Southern portion of the building. In their last response to us, they kind of said, don’t come back until you go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and give us a copy of the minutes to show what Variances you’ve got, and then we’ll review it on that basis. And, if there’s something that they’re not happy with, they’ll certainly tell us. Mr. Appel stated, I think I understand what you’re asking, which is, all right, Dave, you’re coming in here and saying your client proposes to do this. Did they examine that in light of the soils data and render an opinion? The answer to that is, no, they didn’t. Again, I don’t know if they don’t have a soil scientist on staff or whatever. Mr. Burns stated, that was my exact question, too, the same as Bob had. Yes, this is a unique piece of property and it is pretty
Mr. Bengel stated, that’s what we gave them. Mr. Burns asked, was it explained to them, though? Mr. McClure stated, wait, let’s be clear exactly what I think the Board’s saying. I know you’ve sent that. DLZ gave you this report that said these things don’t meet the code. I think what they’re saying – correct me if I’m wrong – fine, this Board says DLZ, look at what they’re proposing and tell us if you see any problems, not whether it matches the code, but whether or not that’s going to cause…if they see any glaring problems. Mr. Detert stated, exactly. Mr. McClure stated, DLZ, their scope wouldn’t have done it originally, so whether they have a soil scientist or Tony can look at that or not, they wouldn’t even look, because they’re only looking to see if it matches the code or not – does that make sense – and I think they have the people on staff to say, given what they’re proposing, we know it doesn’t meet code, but given what they’re proposing, these four different elements that they’re looking for a Variance from from the storm water management ordinance, given that, will this work or do you see any major problems? Mr. Burns stated, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Mr. Brickner asked, do they need a Variance first? Mr. Burns stated, no, I’d like to see the DLZ report first. Mr. Bengel stated, according to their last letter, they want to see the Variance before they agree with any other way. Mr. Burns asked, Fred, can you communicate with DLZ what we’d like to have? Mr. Brickner asked, are you planning to pave any more of your driveway? You only have a portion up on the East end that’s paved, up next to the road. Are you planning to pave any of this, because that’s going to make a difference. If you put asphalt down where you now have no asphalt, you just have a gravel driveway…do you have any intention of paving all that? Mr. Wilks stated, obviously, if we look at the…in one respect, we look at your ordinance. It says that you want everything paved. In the other respect, you’re saying that that would be an impervious surface and may contribute to other problems. What do you want me to do?
Mr. Burns stated, well, I can tell you, just looking at the property and the soils, you don’t want to asphalt the drive. Mr. Wilks stated, well, we’re not going to do it then. Mr. Appel stated, the last paragraph, I think, of DLZ’s letter really says it all: “Please address the above items and re-submit for review. Deviation from the above items will require a Variance from Porter County. If Porter County grants Variances, please provide the meeting minutes documenting such Variance.” They’re like washing their hands of it… Mr. Burns stated, no. We will get that taken care of. Mr. McClure stated, I’ve talked to DLZ. They know it’s a possibility if this Board asks, and they’re prepared to do exactly what I just… Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have problems with this. It’s a unique situation. You have a good business. The only problem, we have to make sure it’s going to work; that’s all. Mr. Appel asked, so, how would this proceed? Mr. Burns stated, DLZ goes back…this new proposal… Mr. Wilks asked, does it go back to BZA and then Plan Commission? Mr. Burns stated, you have to come back here first, so, we’ll continue the case until we get the DLZ report. Mr. Detert stated that we’ve had an awful lot of drainage problems in Porter County and we’re being ultraconservative, perhaps, but we’re trying to avoid them. And you may not own this building. You may sell it. We have to look at it long-term. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 08-V-5 to the 3-19-08 BZA meeting, subject to a DLZ report evaluating whether or not the petitioner’s proposal will work. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote. Case 08-V-7. Petition of Jovan & Nancy Alavanja, 424 Chessington Dr., Crown Point, seeking a Variance for the maximum height allowed in an A-1 zoning District for an accessory structure from 20 feet to 106 feet in order to erect a windmill, to be located at 118 E. 250 S., in Morgan Township.
Michael Barelet, 234 Skyline Drive, stated that I would just like to say that in the future, I think you’re going to see a lot of this. I feel, personally, that people are going to take it upon themselves to generate their own energy. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, what’s the noise level? Mr. Alavanja stated that I think it says on the paper here. Mr. Burns asked, what’s the decibel rating? Mr. Alavanja stated, I was told you won’t be able to hear it if it’s higher than 6 feet up. It’s only a 12-foot, top to bottom, blade and you shouldn’t be able to hear it, but it’s so far off the road. I think the four horses we’re going to get are going to make more noise than that. It’s the most modern one they put out to produce electricity for your house. Mr. Burns asked, do you know what type of coupling it has? Mr. Alavanja stated, I have no idea. Mr. Burns asked, do you know what the blade’s made out of? Mr. Alavanja stated, man, I could not tell you. Soon as we put it up, the neighbor across the street is going to want to put one up, too. Mr. Brickner asked, how close is your nearest neighbor? Mr. Alavanja stated, maybe 2,500 feet. Mr. Brickner asked, and you have 24 acres? Mr. Alavanja stated, yeah. Mr. Brickner stated, almost 23 acres. Mr. Alavanja stated, mm-hmmm. We have the geothermal, the solar panels. We’re trying to produce our own electricity so we don’t have to be hooked up to electricity, so that when somebody hits a telephone pole, we still have power when they cut off the electricity.
Mr. Alavanja stated, the electric company is not too fond of it, though. They ran over six of our geothermal lines, putting in an electrical line. Mr. Brickner stated, the only problem the Board has is wanting to keep these things to a point where they’re not going to infringe on anybody else’s either the noise or the visual effect, going to infringe on your neighbors or any of the people who live in the area. Mr. Alavanja stated, that’s why we put it so far back, to get it away from anyone. Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, I was there. I saw about where you are going to put it. Ms. Kerr-Cook stated, I do know that downstate, even though it isn’t anything that’s been brought up as far as a bill or anything, they are talking about how they are wanting to start mandating some of the utilities to start looking at these alternatives, to have these available, so I think it’s going to be something that’s going to be a lot more prevalent probably fairly quick. Mr. Burns stated that I’d just like to get some more information on decibels, the type of coupler that determines the noise level, so, if you could bring that to the next meeting. It is a remote area, pretty much, but, still. How far are you going to put it behind your house? Mr. Alavanja stated, 200 feet and then about another 100 feet behind that the other barn’s going up. Mr. Burns asked, what utility company do you have now? Mr. Alavanja stated, REMC. Mr. Burns stated, if you could bring that information, I’d appreciate it, the decibels, how much noise. Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t see anything about the noise level. Mr. Burns stated, what type of coupler, what type of blade? Mr. McClure stated, there’s a couple different couplers where the blades hook up, and, depending on what that coupler is really does change the ability…. Mr. Alavanja stated that my wife found the most modern, latest one that they had just produced. It’s supposed to be the quietest – because we don’t want it either. I have a 96-year-old grandmother that’s going to be living there with us and we don’t want that either.
Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 08-V-7 to the 3-19-08 BZA meeting, with the petitioner to bring more information about the decibel level, type of couplers, type of blade, the brand etc. Mr. Detert seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Burns asked, did you talk to the airport? Mr. Alavanja stated, yes, I went there myself. Mr. Burns asked, did you get a letter? Mr. Alavanja stated, they won’t produce you a letter. Mr. Siminski stated, I confirm that they will only send out a letter if they have to research it, and he said he thought Mr. Alavanja called him and said that it’s something they won’t do, because it’s below their threshold to do anything about it. Mr. Burns asked, so, it’s not a safety issue? Mr. Alavanja stated, no. They don’t even consider it. Mr. Burns asked, can we even get a general letter from the airport authority saying that, so we know in the future? Mr. Alavanja stated, every location’s different, though. Mr. Brickner asked, you said the blades are 12 feet? Mr. Alavanja stated, from top to bottom, 6 foot. The tower height is… Mr. Siminski stated, it was advertised at 106 feet. Mr. Alavanja stated, yes.
Motion to continue Case 08-V-7 to the 3-19-08 BZA meeting carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.
Doug Wilks, 195 S. 325 E., Valparaiso, stated that Dale is the property owner adjoining our store property to the South. All the changes he’s made to his properties have been improvements, in my opinion, and the fact that he…I know he has a unique situation with his business in terms of not having the ability to store his trucks in town for fear of vandalism and that type of thing, and he’s had some real problems with it, so I guess I’m sensitive to that and I don’t have a problem with it. Rich Ribar, 353 S. SR 49, stated that he’s got a nice, clean mini-farm over here, but, what I’m worried about is a truck stop happening over there. Now, what we had out there, was a semi-trailer that has a gaudy billboard advertising Sealy Posturepedic. It just doesn’t go with the area. Mr. Bagnall stated, when I was made aware in the ordinance that I wasn’t supposed to have that there and I’ve since taken care of that problem. I’m not here seeking to put that semi-trailer back there. What I’m seeking is to continue to put the trucks in the barn as I’ve done for 27 years. I don’t think that most of the public driving by e even knows that I have them parked in that barn at night, and, like Doug said, over that last years I’ve lost three trucks to fires in town here. They’ve stolen the gas out of my trucks. Last year they stole three of my air conditioners, so it’s a matter of trying to keep the trucks secure. I load the trucks at night before I put them in the barn so they are secure, and I need to load the trucks the night before to serve the public. I need to get out in the morning, and leaving them parked here in town loaded with a lot of furniture, it’s only a matter of time that I’ll probably come up missing a truck. I guess the only thing is that if you see that I can’t get approved tonight, I would ask for…because I know that if I get denied tonight I can’t come back for a year…I would ask for a continuance so I can get some legal help to get my situation taken care of. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, where you park the trucks now, that’s on the East side of 49?
Mr. Brickner stated, it’s on the West side. Mr. Bagnall stated, right behind Jake’s Feed. I own all that. Mr. Burns asked, you own all the houses? Mr. Bagnall stated, I own everything except the one house I sold off a year ago, or two years ago, an acre for my warehouse manager. He built a house here, but all the other property and everything I own, all the houses. Mr. Burns asked, do all the trucks fit inside? Mr. Bagnall stated, except the 53-foot semi, which that gentleman was complaining about that. Mr. Burns asked, what’s going to happen with the semi? I see you got it parked in town yesterday. Mr. Bagnall stated, I have one in my Boone Grove barn. I can’t find anyplace else for it, and I’m looking for a place to put them. I keep moving them around when I’m not using them. Mr. Burns stated, your neighbor’s right though. It’s a billboard. Mr. Bagnall stated, and I did comply to that. Mr. Burns asked, and there’ve never been complaints about parking the trucks? Mr. Bagnall stated, no. Mr. Burns stated, personally, I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with those two semis. Mr. Bagnall stated, I have a problem with those, getting places to keep them, because, if I came back here in front of Mr. Harper…I’m friends with Mr. Harper and I know Mr. Harper and I say, hey, can I change this to commercial zoning so that I can comply, he’d go through the ceiling. There’s not a lot of property in Porter County and I don’t, personally…I own 500 acres in all of Porter County. I do have a cell tower I own on Division. There’s 2 acres there, but I can’t park them out there. That’s suicide, because that’s out in the middle of nowhere. I’m not here asking for the semi trailers; just the regular trucks. I’m trying to take care of the semi-trailers. And why I hesitated, I know there’s an issue at Boone Grove, but, hopefully…it’s in the barn there, right at the present time. I’m trying to find a place. Why I don’t have it up here, I’ve got two of them and not using them, one is over there. Mr. Burns stated, apparently, you don’t use them much, right, if they’re sitting there for advertisement?
Mr. Burns stated, well, I don’t have a problem with parking your trucks in the buildings. Mr. Bagnall stated, I’ve been doing it for 27 years. He stated, the only trouble is the semi. Mr. Burns stated, the semi’s got to go. They can’t be there on 49. Ms. Burrell stated, he hasn’t had it there since I sent him a letter. Mr. Burns stated, but it goes back and forth, and that’s the complaints we get. Mr. Bagnall stated, it’s in my Boone Grove barn right now. Mr. Brickner stated, he can’t do that, either. Mr. Burns stated, well, he’s being honest. Mr. Detert stated, I guess the biggest concern is that we don’t have a bunch of trucks parked out there with Indiana Furniture in them, because that acts as a sign, so, if they’re all under cover – what don’t you have under cover? Mr. Bagnall stated, now? Everything’s under cover now. If you drive by there tonight, they’re in there, and I got permission. Mr. Detert asked, but you said earlier, you have left some out? Mr. Bagnall stated, the semi-trailer, I had parked on that property, because it was close. I have two semis, also. Mr. Detert asked, it’s not under cover, or it is under cover now? Mr. Bagnall stated, one semi trailer is in the parking lot down at the store right now, and the other trailer is in my Boone Grove barn. Mr. Detert asked, inside? Mr. Bagnall stated, inside, but that’s the only place… Mr. Detert stated, (inaudible, talking over each other)…you don’t have room for it, or what? Why isn’t it parked at your business?
Mr. Bagnall stated, that’s the only commercial property I have. Mr. Detert stated, that’s what I was wondering. Are you going to take that back if we approve your Variance tonight? Mr. Bagnall stated, no, I’m not going to risk losing my…all I’m asking for is the Variance for the trucks in the shed that I’ve done for 27 years. I know the semi was a problem. Mr. Brickner asked, where are the trucks now? You’ve got them inside? Because I just saw the four vehicles sitting outside. I didn’t see any trucks. Mr. Bagnall stated, I have to keep them in there every night to protect the furniture. They’re all loaded for tomorrow’s deliveries, but they’re inside all the time. Mr. Burns asked, they’re never outside sitting there? Mr. Bagnall stated, except for the semi trailer. Ms. Burrell stated, I know he hasn’t had it out there since he moved it. It has not been back on the property on 49. Mr. Burns asked, you own all those three houses behind Jake’s? Mr. Bagnall stated, yeah. Mr. Brickner stated, we just don’t want you to put it back out there. What you have out there, I don’t have a problem with. It’s all covered, so, that Variance I have no problem with that. Mr. Burns stated, because I had read in the paper about the break-ins over the years. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-UV-1 for 5 years, with the understanding that the vehicles will be parked inside all the time; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes Discussion: Mr. Bagnall asked, in reference to the semi-trailers, if I find that I can keep it in the…and I know you have issues with Boone Grove…but I don’t have any more storage on 49. Do I need to come back and get another Variance if I want to park the semi inside my Boone Grove sheds? It’s a commercial vehicle, it’s plated commercial, and that’s an agricultural farm, also.
Mr. Bagnall stated, yes. Mr. Brickner asked, that wouldn’t be a problem, would it? Mr. Burns stated, ask counsel. I don’t know. What do you think? Mr. McClure stated, I think it’s the same issue we have dealt with here. Mr. Bagnall stated, to be legal, I need to apply for another Variance for that trailer? Mr. McClure stated, we’ll have staff look at it, but I think, yes. Case 08-UV-2. Petition of Travis Huber, 401 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit vehicle reconditioning and repair, connected with Huber Automotive Group LLC, to be located at 793 N. 425 W., in Portage Township. Mr. Huber stated that, currently, I’m interested in purchasing a property at that said location. There is, in existence, a Variance already on that property. I believe you have a copy of that. There is a Variance for a service shop and what I’m proposing to do is use it for the same type of purpose, for servicing vehicles. Store hours would be very similar to what the store hours are currently with the Variance that’s already in place. One of the things is, one of the main issues, I think, it’s probably an eyesore with a bunch of cars there. It’s zoned residential. Right now, I believe there is 11 vehicles that are allowed with the existing Variance, and they’re all parked out front. What I propose is that I’d like to increase that to 18 cars and allow six to be parked out front. What I’d do is put up a privacy fence behind the building, which would, pretty much, be hidden from the view of the road and store the remaining cars behind the building, behind the privacy fence. That would be enclosed. James Hamilton, 789 N. 425 W., Valparaiso, stated that I don’t see any problem with it. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, why 18 cars? Mr. Huber stated, right now I’m already backed up. What I have is, at the dealership, I usually get two truckloads of cars at a time, sell about 60 cars a month, so, by the time I get done with the first
12 another load’s coming in. And I don’t have…the cars that are at the location for the dealership are really supposed to be for retail use only. I can get fined for having cars that are not ready for sale at the lot, so, what I like to do is keep them there and I realize there would be an issue with the general public in that area. That’s why I want the privacy fence, but once those cars are serviced and go back out on the retail lot, then another shipment of cars will come in. Mr. Burns asked, they will come in by semi? He stated that that’s a unique area. It’s half business and half residential, or three-quarters residential. I was down there and I did see one of the neighbors at the end, Mr. Krull, down there. He’s concerned about the storage because there’s been more than 11 cars at times then, and the vehicle traffic, I guess they test the cars after they repair the cars. They are going up and down the roadway at high speeds and locking the brakes or skidding the tires. He said it really disrupts the neighbors. Mr. Huber stated that I can check into that. Mr. Brickner stated, this is really a big business for this area. This is a small road, 16 cars. Have you bought this property yet? Mr. Huber stated that we have an agreement signed based on getting the Variance. Mr. Brickner asked, the gentleman that just spoke – he’s the owner right now and he’s selling it to you? Mr. Huber stated, correct. Mr. Burns stated, this is turning out to be much more than a business. Mr. Brickner stated, this is a pretty big business, and the street is narrow and it’s not in the best of condition. I don’t think…of course, your property is zoned residential. There are some businesses, I think on both sides. But they’re very small compared to this. This would be an awfully big business. Mr. Huber stated, keep in mind, I am putting up a building or proposing to put up a building at the current location of the dealership and there I’m planning to house four bays. It’s all in the plans. But I still need a little bit of room here. So, for me, this is kind of like a temporary fix until I get a permanent building up, so, yes, for a temporary period of time you’re going to have probably more traffic there than you’d like, but, once again, it’s not the main source of my service. My service is going to be in the building on location. Once that’s done, I’m looking to turn that into more like a detail shop for cars. So, me, I’m behind a rock and a hard place. Right now, I don’t have a service department I can go to, but I
Mr. Detert stated, you say temporary. What are you talking about or what are you looking for in time? You said a year and a half, I think. Mr. Huber stated, right here, I was here last month because I got a temporary Variance for the trailer that’s at the dealership site. Right now, it’s with Great Lakes Engineering so, I don’t know – I’m not used to putting up a commercial building. However long that time period takes. If it takes three months, great. If it takes a year and a half, great, but, you know, once that’s up, that’s part of the plans, to have four bays in that building. So, for me, this is just down the road. Believe me, I’ve looked and looked and looked. There’s no other location for me to house just a service department there. Mr. Brickner asked, so you’re saying 18 vehicles, you want a Variance for 18 vehicles? Mr. Huber stated, correct, six out front, 12 in the back. Mr. Brickner asked, what’s the minimum? We allow 11 there now, so I think that’s a lot for that piece of property, 11 vehicles. Could you get by with less than 18? Let’s say we give you a Variance for 12 or something. Would that help you? Mr. Huber stated, yes, I mean, I’d just have to make do. Right now, my hands are kind of tied. I need a place to service vehicles. Mr. Brickner stated, I’m not saying we’re going to do that. I’m just saying 18 vehicles and bringing in truckloads of vehicles down that little road. Mr. Huber stated, I can have the cars unloaded at the dealership and just take them over one by one. It’s just down the street, so that’s not a big deal to me. But I’m just looking for a place to stay in business. Mr. Brickner asked, and you say a year and a half from now you’re going to be able to just limit this operation? Mr. Huber stated, 12 cars is not an issue once the structure is up because, once again, you know, the bulk of the business is going to be out of the new building. That’s what it’s designed for, and this is going to be more for overflow, like I said, more for detailing cars and whatever I can’t get done at the larger structure.
Mr. Detert stated, well, the Use Variance motion, if it was in favor of him doing this, could be limited by whatever amount of time you want to do. That would be a control. Mr. Brickner stated, the number of cars and the amount of time…and of course, the number of… Mr. McClure stated, the property has a Use Variance. It expires August of 2011. Mr. Brickner stated, but he’s buying the property from the gentleman who has a Use Variance, so it means that that Use Variance dies. Mr. Siminski stated, it should die. Mr. Brickner stated, it has to replace that Use Variance, if he, in fact, buys it from him, Mr. Hamilton, I guess it is. Mr. McClure stated, if he doesn’t, he’d still have a Use Variance until 2011. Mr. Brickner stated, he does, right, which is for 11 vehicles, which is what he has now, I think. I think that’s what I counted out there was 11 vehicles. Mr. Burns asked, after you get your building built, four bays, how many vehicles would be here at one time? Mr. Huber stated, if it does, it wouldn’t be an issue for me. Mr. Burns asked, what kind of work would you do? Mr. Huber stated, primarily detail work and maybe some overflow with mechanical work, but, once again, the more I can make at a central location the easier it is for me. Mr. Burns asked, what kind of privacy fence are you talking about? Mr. Huber stated, the 5-foot privacy fence, you know, the wooded. Mr. Burns asked, nice wood, not a slotted? Mr. Hubert stated, so it’s fully enclosed and you can’t see in there. Mr. Brickner asked, that’s what that big pile of wood is in there, that big pile of logs? Mr. Huber stated, well, that would be cleaned out. Back where the pile of logs are, well, yeah, we’d put the privacy fence, just a big square back there, directly behind the building. Mr. Burns stated, my biggest issue is it’s part residential down that street, past that business. I don’t have a problem if we could put something together to start out with 16 or 18 for a year, year and a half, and reduce it back down to 11 vehicles. Mr. Huber stated, I have no problem with that. Like I said, the main thing for me is a time period there. Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t want the trailerloads of cars going down that road. Mr. Burns stated, it’s too narrow. Mr. Brickner stated, well, that’s why I thought he needed the trailers, because of the 18 vehicles. Mr. Burns stated, well, he changed. He said he’s going to drop it off. Mr. Huber stated, and I can understand that. You get that going down that little road. That’s not an issue for me. Mr. Burns asked, how about testing the cars down that street? Mr. Huber stated, they can’t. Mr. Burns stated, because that’s an issue right now. Mr. Brickner stated, it’s a dead-end. It would be hard to turn around on that street. Mr. Huber asked, if I could make a suggestion: Would it be possible to get a Variance for, like I said, a two-year time period, make sure I get the new building up and everything structured and stuff, and then we drop it down to 11 cars? We make it the 18 just for two years and then make sure that no truckloads are coming down there with the cars, and then, after that, it’s down to 11 cars. Because, I mean, I want to buy this property and keep it. I don’t want to just keep it for two years. I want to keep it long-term. Mr. Burns asked, what’s the hours of operation? Mr. Huber stated, hours of operation would be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr. Burns asked, nothing on Sunday, just like it is now, correct? Mr. Huber stated, correct. Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have any problem with it. Ms. Kerr-Cook stated, I agree with the two years.
Discussion: Mr. Huber asked, is there a reason it would be just for 1 year? There’s already 11 cars… Mr. Detert stated, yeah, because I think we want you to come back and we want you to tell us you are building your extra bays. Mr. Brickner stated, if you need some extra time, we’ll look at it at that time. Mr. Huber stated, the only thing to consider is I’m buying this property and if I get 1 year and then the Variance doesn’t continue, you know, I’m in a hardship here. Mr. McClure stated, what I want to make really clear – I’m not sure I was clear with the Board. The Use Variance that was previously granted doesn’t automatically extinguish upon change of ownership, unless it was explicit in the motion that it only ran with the petitioner. Mr. Siminski asked, but, if Mr. Huber purchases the property, Mr. Hamilton does not own the property any more… Mr. McClure stated, it would have to have been in the motion that it was running with the petitioner, not with the land. Mr. Burns asked, a Use Variance. I thought that was just with a Permanent Use Variance. Mr. McClure stated, it’s even in our code. Mr. Detert asked, what’s the present one last – three years? Mr. McClure stated, until 2011. Mr. Brickner asked, then why does he need a Variance? Mr. McClure stated, he’s here for a Variance because he wants to change the Variance. He wants to change the number of vehicles. That’s the difference. Mr. Detert stated, well, then, I don’t need to make my motion, because there’s…he’s already got three years with 11 cars, right?
Mr. McClure stated, he has…that property’s going to have…unless their minutes specifically say the petitioner, it runs with the property, unless the motion is otherwise. Mr. Detert stated, on the basis of the lawyer’s interpretation I withdraw my motion. Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 08-UV-2 and Mr. Huber lives with the Use Variance he has. Discussion: Mr. Brickner stated, we don’t know for sure whether there was some comment, some limitation made, when we granted the first Variance. I mean, how are we supposed to know that? Mr. Detert stated, he’s got to look it up. Mr. McClure stated, the minutes are right here. Mr. Detert stated, he’s only allowed 6 cars. Mr. Brickner stated, 6 plus 6, six of his own cars, plus 5 additional cars – 11 cars, which is what he has there now. Mr. Detert stated, but he’s not talking about personal vehicles. He’s talking about dealership vehicles. So I think he needs a motion to even continue if he wants more than 6 vehicles, in my opinion. You can overrule me, if you want. Mr. Brickner stated, the fact that 6 are his personal vehicles.
Mr. Burns stated, plus, the owner now lives there. And you won’t be. You’re buying a house… Mr. Huber stated, no. He will maintain the house. It’s on a separate parcel from the house. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 08-UV-2 for 1 year, with no more than 12 cars at any given time and no truck off-loading at this location (all cars will be delivered and picked up individually); hours 8 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday-Friday and 8 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday; and no road testing of vehicles on that road; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes
Case 08-UV-3. Petition of Fred & Vicki Shelton (Shelton Tank Cleaning), 206 S. 300 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit a septic tank cleaning business, with indoor and outdoor storage, to be located at 206 S. 300 W., in Porter Township. Fred Shelton stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He stated that I clean septic tanks and rent portable restrooms. That’s about it. Ed Briesacher, 232 S. 300 W., stated that Mr. Shelton is a neighbor of mine. He’s a very nice man. I have nothing against him, however, this area that he wants to do his work in is designated as Rural Residential. I didn’t know that until I looked on the plat myself sometime back. What I want to know is, how many trucks does this Variance allow for? A lot of trucks? A small amount of trucks? How big can the company get? Can it get to be bigger than what he anticipates? Does the Variance transfer to another owner if the property is sold? How many people can this company have traveling to this location for an employment? Is there a time limit on this Variance? What recourse does the community have if problems arise from the operation of this company? I’m not opposed to Mr. Shelton. Those are questions I have from him and maybe the Board can help clear that up in my mind. Mr. Shelton stated that I have two trucks. It’s just me that works. I might hire a couple more guys this summer if I get busy. Mr. Burns asked, how many Porta-Potties? Mr. Shelton stated, I have 42 Porta-Potties. My plans was to get 100, but I was sort of stopped because it keeps me too busy for parties and everything. Mr. Burns asked, two trucks? Mr. Shelton stated, I got two trucks, yeah. Mr. Burns asked, are you going to get more trucks? Mr. Shelton stated, no. I got three, but one of them’s not road-worthy. Mr. Brickner asked, how many employees? Mr. Shelton stated, it’s just me, for now. I might hire a couple more this summer if I get busy. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated, this type of business really doesn’t fit in a residential, RR, district. Matter of fact, I can’t think of any business like this in a residential. Most of them are in commercial.
Mr. Shelton stated, well, it’s not economically…I mean, can’t pay the house payment and pay somewhere to rent. Mr. Burns asked, how are you doing it now? Mr. Shelton stated, I have it at the house. I can’t pay $3,000 for storage a month for one guy. Mr. Burns asked, so, was there a violation? Was he cited? Ms. Burrell stated, no, I drove by and saw all the Porta-Potties outside. He’s moved everything indoors. Mr. Shelton stated, just one’s outside the barn. Mr. Brickner asked, how long have you been doing this business? Mr. Shelton stated, since ’95. Mr. Burns asked, when did he move there? Mr. Shelton stated, ’95. the sign’s been out front since ’99, I think. Ms. Burrell stated that the signs are down. Mr. Shelton stated, I was permitted from the state. I notified all the neighbors. You guys got a |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
February 20, 2008