 |
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 March 16, 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, Luther Williams and Marvin Brickner. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure, Tracy Burrell and Toni Byers. At this time, long-time former Board member Rich Hudson was honored with the presentation of a plaque for his years of service to the Porter County BZA. Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 2-20-08 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Old Business Case 03-UV-2. Amy Golembeck, 39 E. 600 N., seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting an antique shop, on the North side of CR 600 N., between Meridian Road and Calumet Avenue, in Liberty Township. Ms. Golembeck stated that she would like to continue on with her Use Variance. Mr. Brickner asked if there have been any complaints. Mr. Siminski stated that there haven’t been any complaints from this location. He did put in the staff report – I was trying to reach you, Ms. Golembeck – about the swimming pool. There is a violation in your back yard. There is no fence or thing around the pool; that is a violation. Also, you have two houses on this parcel or something? Ms. Golembeck stated, yes. There is the main house and a guest house. Mr. Siminski stated, okay, because I noticed there was two houses. But there is like a truck bed or something that is used for a shed or something? It’s in the back of the house. Ms. Golembeck stated that it's like a box, yeah. Mr. Siminski stated that those are not allowed – that’s another violation. And you also have some door panels or something sitting up against it.
Ms. Golembeck stated, oh, that was something we were going to put on E-Bay. Mr. Siminski stated, okay, because that’s considered outside storage. I just wanted to note that. I tried, but I couldn’t get through. Do you have an answering machine? Ms. Golembeck, stated, voice mail. Mr. Siminski stated that I tried calling and I couldn’t get through. Ms. Golembeck asked, what number do you have for me? (At this time, Mr. Siminski read off the phone number. She stated that that is the right number.) Mr. Siminski stated that that is the number I called. For some reason, I couldn’t get you. Ms. Golembeck asked, so we can’t store anything in that box, then? Mr. Siminski stated that you’re not supposed to have that type of parts of trucks and beds and stuff like that are not allowed to be used as storage. Ms. Golembeck stated that the doors that are on there are doors from like a Chevy truck that we were going to sell. It had nothing to do with storing anything. Mr. Siminski stated, I wasn’t really sure, because you were running an antique…and I wasn’t sure what was going on. Ms. Golembeck stated that my husband works on cars and we were just knocking doors off; that’s all. Mr. Burns asked, do you have antiques in that shed? Ms. Golembeck stated, just maybe stuff that I still need to fix or something like that, but they’re not for sale and people don’t go back there or anything like that. I might take a rocker and fix it and bring it in the house or something. Mr. Burns stated, because that wasn’t part of the motion, to have outside storage. Ms. Golembeck stated, no, that was stuff that’s not even sellable right now. It’s just, you know, like I said, I need to fix it before it can even come in the house. Nobody goes back there.
Ms. Golembeck stated, okay, so you’re saying I can’t have the doors leaning up against the box? Mr. Burns stated, no. Ms. Golembeck stated, okay, and the pool… Mr. Burns stated, fence. Ms. Golembeck asked, and what was the other ones? Mr. Burns stated, the storage shed. Ms. Golembeck asked, even if it’s just my personal…it’s not my… Mr. Siminski stated, it has nothing to do with personal or business. It’s no…you cannot use that type of a vehicle or parts of vehicles for storage. Ms. Golembeck stated, okay, so if I just brought all that stuff into the pole barn, that would be okay then? Mr. Siminski stated, if it’s inside the pole barn out of sight. Ms. Golembeck asked, and what was the fourth one? Mr. Burns stated, the sign. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 03-UV-2 to the 4-16-08 BZA meeting, with the petitioner to clear up outstanding violations on the property (pool fence), storage shed, sign, truck doors picked up. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. Case 07-V-4. Pamela Fliege, 567 N. 400 E., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, for a mobile home at 567 N. 400 E., in Washington Township. Mr. Brickner asked, you are using the mobile home for what purpose? Ms. Fliege stated that I am using it for someone to live there to help me maintain my property. Mr. Brickner asked, so someone’s living in the home now? Ms. Fliege stated that they moved in in December.
Ms. Fliege stated, it’s my brother. Mr. Burns stated, your husband passed away, if I remember. Ms. Fliege stated, yes. Mr. Burns asked, any complaints from the neighbors? Mr. Siminski stated, no. Mr. Burns asked, you did put the screening up? Ms. Fliege stated, we have not put the green screen in. Weather…we had such a wet fall, it was a quagmire and then the weather turned sour, so, as soon as possible this spring. We haven’t planted anything yet. Mr. Burns asked, what are you going to plant? Ms. Fliege stated, green arborvitae. Mr. Burns asked, how tall? Ms. Fliege stated, well, as large as I can get them, and they grow pretty fast. There’s only one area that you can see it from. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 07-V-4, with petitioner to install the green screening as soon as possible, and with the petitioner to appear in person at that time. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote. 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. (This case was continued from the 2-20-08 BZA meeting with the public hearing closed.) Attorney David Appel, 2621 E. Chicago St., Valparaiso, stated that he and Don Bengel are representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter, Doug Wilks. He is passing out copies of the DLZ memorandum. Basically, there were four items that we had requested consideration for on our original application. DLZ has renumbered those. If you look at the last paragraph on the first page of the letter they’ve renumbered those four issues as 1 through 4 and, in the last line of Page 1 they indicate that they do not offer any objection to Items 1 and 4, which leaves Items 2 and 3 for us to address tonight, consistent with this Board’s request that we get DLZ’s approval or blessing on this. Basically, there are two issues that they address on their items #2 and 3. The first item, which is
their item #2, “Water quality will not be provided due to lack of site drain and sufficient slope”. What that related to was putting what they call a forebay in advance of the detention pond on the site, and if you go over to the very top of Page 2 of DLZ’s letter, they ask that a forebay be provided and consistent with what they asked, we have modified the site drawing to put in the forebay that DLZ had requested in advance of the detention pond. We believe that the forebay, as shown here, the intent primarily being, as DLZ indicates, to capture and trap within the forebay the bulk of any sediment that might be contained within the runoff. We were able to fit that in without having to further alter the various elevations that were on the earlier drawing. So, we feel that with the addition of the forebay, we are meeting what the request of DLZ has made with respect to Item #2 as far as water quality. The second item that DLZ had a question on would be their Item #3 on Page 1, which is continuing to allow the North portion of the site to drain to CR 325 S. without entering the detention pond. In the first full paragraph on Page 2, DLZ addresses Item #3, and they agree with the position that we presented to the Board the last time, through Mr. Bengel, that it is not feasible to drain the North side of the site to the new detention basin without completely re-grading the site, and they indicate that we may even have to put in a pump station. They acknowledge that there is storm water management in the form of swales there for the new structure, and the storm water in the North portion will be conveyed to adjacent roadside ditches at 325 S. and, in fact, the ditches then drain to the North-South ditch that borders the West side of SR 49, which is immediately adjacent to Big Jake’s Inc. site. What they come up with here, or their recommendation, basically, is at the end of that paragraph, saying “proof that the continued flow of storm water in the North portion of the property does not contribute to flooding onsite as well as offsite”. That’s kind of what I want to address a little bit. When we were here before, we presented a whole series of photographs that John McQuestion took in February after we had that horrendous rain and the frozen ground, and each of you have copies of those. There was no flooding onsite then, and I also gave you a copy of a letter which John McQuestion had prepared because John couldn’t be here at the time of the last meeting. It was a letter that John wrote on February 18, 2008. He indicated that he also visited the property on January 9th, which was the other horrendous rain we had this winter, and that, on both occasions he did not observe any ponding of water or flooding of the property. If Mr. Wilks were to speak tonight, he would tell all of you that there has never been any flooding on the property, so we don’t know how to prove that there isn’t going to be, because there never has been, so we really can’t address that other than indicate that the photographs in front of you clearly establish that there is no flooding at this site. The neighbors who were here last time on both the West side of the property and the South side of the property testified that they had no problem with storm water runoff, so I believe that between the photographs that were provided by Soil Solutions, John McQuestion’s letter, the character of the soils and the testimony of the neighbors, I believe that we should have established the proof that we need to
show that allowing the present situation to continue on the front half of the property will not adversely affect anything. One thing I would point out is that the pictures that you have from February are pictures that were actually taken with the whole site effectively draining to the roadside ditches. Now, when this small addition, this 1,500 square foot add-on is put onto the pole barn, 60 percent of this site is going back to that pond, so we’re going to have 60 percent less water going to the front of the property at that point. So, I cannot imagine that there would be any possible circumstance under which there would be any type of flooding whatsoever. There is one final issue which DLZ raised and that is related to the berm that was shown, and this is under the paragraph on Page 2 of their letter, called “other items”. They go on to say that “it appears as if the existing ground elevation and the property line is slightly lower than the surrounding property”. I raise that because DLZ says we need to prove that we’re not going to flood offsite. They are acknowledging here that our property is, effectively, lower and that water is coming our way, so we can’t, by definition, flood neighboring property that is higher. It’s scientifically impossible. DLZ questions the berm that we had put in our drawing along the South and the West edges of the property. We are willing to do whatever this Board wants to do regarding a berm. I just wanted to point out to the Board that the reason that berm was included in this drawing in the first place is because it wasn’t originally included in our first drawing, in their first review memorandum dated December 6th, 2007, DLZ made a finding in Item #2 of that memorandum, saying that the soil elevations appear to be higher than the grades along the property line and that we needed to raise the property line to make sure the water stayed on the site, so we put the berms there because they asked us to put them there, and now they’re saying that we should probably take them away. So, we’re fine with taking them away. That’s not an issue. We only put them there because they asked us to. So, we did get DLZ’s blessing on Items #1 and 2 that are shown in their more recent letter and, with the forebay correctly drawn in by Mr. Bengel to address Item #2 in their most recent memorandum, and with the photographs and everything else we have to establish that this site doesn’t flood, and, of course, John McQuestion had indicated in his soil findings that our permeability on this site, I believe is 2 inches an hour. So, we have very highly permeable soils, and, in fact, these storms occurred in January and February with frozen ground, so, we really do not have any….John Olson noted in his letter, by the way, of January 18th, that when he examined the store site on January 9th and on February 6th of this year, he also examined the North-South ditch along the West side of SR 49 into which the property ultimately drains, the North part, and that ditch was only partially full at that time. So, we feel that there really is no issue at all with flooding, and we would ask that you approve the application, as submitted, subject to the modification with the forebay in the drawing. Mr. Burns asked, how often does that forebay have to be maintained?
Mr. Bengel stated that it’s pretty much the same as a pond. All it does is catch any sediment that may come that way. Mr. Burns asked, don’t you have to clean that out before it gets into the pond every so often? Mr. Bengel stated, yes, it accumulates; that’s just normal maintenance. Same thing with the pond. Mr. Burns stated, the other question is the berm. Why was it required originally, Don? Mr. Bengel stated that DLZ indicated that we might be dumping water onto the neighbor, so we put the berm up. Now they are saying that’s not the case. Mr. Burns asked, any problem removing the berm? Mr. Bengel stated, we don’t care. You guys – that’s one thing you got to do tonight, is decide on the berm. Mr. Burns stated, my opinion is, remove the berm from the plan. Mr. Detert stated, I just think DLZ misunderstood the grading on the original reason to put the berm in. If they say you don’t need it, I could care less. Mr. Bengel stated, we did supply them with additional information. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-5, with the stipulation that they remove the berm from the plan and provide maintenance on the forebay and abide by all the other items in the DLZ report dated March 11, 2008; 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 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. (This Case was continued from the 2-20-08 BZA meeting with the public hearing closed.) Jovan & Nancy Alavanja stated that they are the petitioners in this matter.
Ms. Alavanja stated that on the very, very last page is what the blades are made out of and the couplings are made out of. And I think you guys asked my husband last time the information on who’s putting it up, and that’s also on the very last page. We have the gentleman putting it up right here also if you guys have any more questions. Mr. Burns stated, explain the sound. How does it rate to the other type of towers or windmills? Eric Cotton, ECR Wind and Solar, Fairmount, IN, stated that the Board should keep in mind this is a small, residential-size wind turbine, so, according to what the study said…this study was conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service in Texas by Southwest Wind Power and the USDA, to give you a judge of what the noise levels disturbance make. Keep in mind that all these measurements were made about 50 feet away from the turbine and also keep in mind that the Alavanjas’ closest neighbors are about 1,500 feet. Basically, they measured the sound level at about the maximum that the turbine could ever make, even during its most powerful production period at about 65 decibels, which is the sound of this room right about now. Actually, it’s about the sound of a busy office in a building with office workers, printers and fax machines working. So, what’s important to realize is that there’s a background noise, as well, so, just from the fact that the wind’s blowing, it’s making a background noise that’s equal to about 55 decibels, so, throughout the entire spectrum of wind speed, the turbine never makes much more than 10 decibels more than what the surrounding noise level is naturally. And this is, again, a reminder, taken at about 50 feet away from the turbine. So, this sound level will reduce significantly as we get further away from the turbine and, in my estimation, by the time you would reach the neighbor’s house, it would be inaudible, indistinguishable from the background noise. Mr. Burns stated, from the turbine. How about from the couplings? It’s my understanding that some of the couplings also emit a sound. Mr. Cotton stated that they’re bolted together pretty tightly. They’re not going to move or vibrate. Mr. Burns asked, no vibration? Mr. Cotton stated, the guy wires are going to be…they’re not extremely tight, mind you, but they’re tightened down with turnbuckles, so, they’re not subject to vibration in order to make noise. Mr. Burns asked, so there won’t be no decibels coming from that couplings?
Mr. Cotton stated, no, strictly the noise is going to be coming from the sound of the turbine. Mr. Burns asked, so no sound is going to be coming from the vibration of the couplings? Mr. Cotton stated, no. Mr. Burns asked, so the only decibel readings will be from the fan blade? Mr. Brickner asked, these couplings are not buffered? They don’t have a rubber grommet or anything to keep the noise…I mean there isn’t anything…it’s just metal on metal coupling, right? Mr. Cotton stated that this is where it joins two sections of the tower together, so we’re not talking about anything that actually touches the wind turbine itself. What connects the tower together is a series of three stamped metal couplings that form a complete circle around the (inaudible) and they’re all bolted together, so, to answer your question, there’s no metal grommet or anything that would reduce noise, but the manner in which these couplings are clamped down would prevent them from vibrating or any other way of creating noise. Mr. Burns stated, I think it’s the coupling that drives the generator. That’s the coupling we’re talking about. Mr. Cotton asked, you mean the alternator? Mr. Burns stated, the alternator, generator…that’s the coupling. Mr. Cotton stated, the reports that are before the Board would take into account the noise made by the fan and the coupling together. Mr. Burns stated, the question I’m asking, how much of this comes from the coupler versus the fan blades? Mr. Cotton stated that there’s no way to distinguish. Mr. Burns stated, because I had read about, where the chairman came from, the rubber couplings must be the quiet type, or rubber cushion, or rubber inserts. Mr. Cotton stated, the technology that you’re telling me about I’m not familiar with. I know that the commercial-scale wind turbines have very large ears inside of them that are sometimes attributed to some low-frequency vibrations. Mr. Burns stated, that’s probably where it’s coming from. Mr. Cotton stated that that’s not applicable to this situation because this is such a small scale.
Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted? Because there are residents across the street. Ms. Alavanja stated that there are two houses across the street. Mr. Siminski stated, there’s two. Mr. Burns asked, and two were contacted? Ms. Alavanja stated, Jane Maxwell and Potucek. Mr. Burns asked, and you’re going to place this up against the woods? Ms. Alavanja stated that there’s a lining of woods around the perimeter. It actually was a cornfield before we started building. Mr. Burns asked, so where are you going to place it? Ms. Alavanja stated, almost dead center on the 23 acres. Mr. Alavanja stated, it’s about 700, 800 feet from the road. Mr. Burns asked, so it’s going to be close to your house? Ms. Alavanja stated, yeah. Mr. Burns asked, you wouldn’t want that back further? Ms. Alavanja stated that it doesn’t make a lot of sound. Mr. Burns stated, I just want to make sure it doesn’t affect the neighbors, because there’s two neighbors across the street from you, but there’s neighbors down the road, also. Ms. Alavanja stated that they’re almost a quarter of a mile down the road, but, yeah, it’s about 100 feet out our back door. Mr. Burns stated, I would think you’d want that back a little bit further, because you got the space. Ms. Alavanja stated, we don’t have any problems with that because, from what we understand, it’s not going to make that much noise, any more noise than what the wind is out our back door right now. Mr. Burns asked, is it more costly to move it back? Mr. Cotton stated, yes, significantly. Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with it; I’d just like to see it back a little bit further, just in case, just a little bit of insurance, away from the neighbors. Mr. Alavanja stated, if you look out the back of our house, it’s quite a ways away. It’s more than 100 feet, because the other barn’s more than 200 feet from the house, so it’s between the house and the other barn. Mr. Burns stated, it’s a nice home. I don’t have a problem with it. You have the right location for it, and there’s not many homes out there, but we have some homes across the street and down the street and I’d just like to see it back a little bit further if you guys keep it like that, though. I’d like to see it back at least another 100 foot. Because you have the space for it. Ms. Alavanja stated that we just thought it would be nicer there because we don’t have to go too far out if we have to do maintenance or anything else like that on it, because it will be right in the center near barns and everything like that. Mr. Burns stated, well, I will support this if they agree to go back further. Mr. Williams asked, is the power of this thing 10 miles an hour 1,800 watts? Mr. Cotton stated, no, sir. At 10 miles an hour it would probably be closer to 900 watts. It doesn’t reach its maximum power production until around 28 miles an hour. In the report, there is a graphic that details the power production of the turbine with respect to the wind speed in meters per second. Keep in mind that about 6 meters a second is about 12 miles an hour, and then 15 meters per second is going to be close to 30. So, the turbine is rated at 1,800 watts and it hits that at 10 meters per second, roughly. As the wind speed increases it continues to produce more power, up to a maximum of about 2,700 watts. Mr. Williams asked, so, what really is this going to power? Mr. Alavanja stated, the entire property. Mr. Cotton stated that the internal electrical components of the turbine produce AC power that’s 240 volts, so it will be put onto the main panel of the house, so any load that’s on in the house will receive the benefit of the turbine at the time. Mr. Williams stated, it just doesn’t seem like 1,800 watts is enough to… Mr. Cotton stated, oh, it’s not much. Mr. Williams stated, it barely would run a toaster. Mr. Cotton stated, right. What we look at is average production over the course of a year. And we can calculate that the turbine will produce about 400 kilowatt hours a month. Now, their house will use
quite a bit more than that, but it still is going to produce a portion of their power renewably and still provide them with a payback period that’s acceptable to allow them the ability to do the green thing, I guess. Mr. Brickner asked, is there any method of storing this electricity? Mr. Cotton stated, there’s no batteries involved in this system. The wind system and the solar system are completely separate systems. They’re not integrated into each other. The wind system itself does not have any batteries associated with it. Mr. Detert asked, well, doesn’t your storage system consists of the grid, right, that you’re putting it back into? This thing runs and it puts the power back into the grid, right? What it really does is reverse his meter or slow it down. Mr. Cotton stated, that’s exactly right. Mr. Detert stated that there’s one in Hebron that’s been there a long time and I’ve noted it and watched it and it really isn’t objectionable to me, but one thing that’s happened recently, and that’s the repair, and I don’t know if you spoke to that or not. The thing apparently has malfunctioned, and the structure for getting the generator down, it’s been sitting there for a month or two. I guess that’s a bit unsightly and what assurance do we have that this thing is going to run and not be down and sitting there for any length of time? Mr. Cotton stated that the manufacturer’s gone to great strides to improve the quality of modern-day turbines. In the past, there have been a lot of issues with maintenance, mostly because these things have moving parts. What assurances can I give you? I really can’t give you any assurances, because things happen. The turbine does have a 5-year warranty; that’s what the manufacturer supports. It has a life expectancy of 15 years. Mr. Detert stated, I guess, if the bill is so big to repair it and the guy decides not to run it anymore, then we’ve got this big structure sitting out there and that becomes a little eyesore. It’s a little bit of an eyesore to begin with, but if you know that it’s doing some good for the environment and it’s running, you can live with that, but once it’s non-functional, that presents a problem. Mr. Cotton stated, in the past, if I may bring up my experience with other boards, they have granted the approvals contingent on the word of the homeowner, for lack of a better term, in the case that it became un-functional and inoperable that, in a period of three months, that they would disassemble the structure and remove it from the site. Mr. Detert asked, what’s the longest time you would envision it being down for the worst problem that might occur?
Mr. Detert asked, what’s the worst thing you could think of? Mr. Cotton asked, that would go wrong with the turbine? Mr. Detert stated, yeah, and getting it down and repairing it and under the worst weather conditions. Mr. Cotton stated, three months. Mr. Burns asked, converted to amps, 1,800 watts, how many amps does that put out? Mr. Cotton stated, less than 10 probably. The turbine uses a 25-amp breaker to connect to the main panel. Mr. Burns stated that you have a geo system, too, you mentioned, too. Ms. Alavanja stated that we have a geothermal heating and cooling system and we also have a 3 kilowatt solar panel on the roof. Mr. Burns stated, because that geo system requires a lot of amperage. Ms. Alavanja stated, we’re grid-connected. Mr. Burns stated, if I remember right, the heating is 60 amps. Some are more. Some are between 60 and 100 amps for the geo-system when it’s operating. Back to the question, you said it’s 100 feet behind your house. Ms. Alavanja stated, roughly. Mr. Burns stated, because this is 106 feet high. You don’t want it to fall on your house. Mr. Alavanja stated, it’s more than 100 feet, because the barn is 200 feet from the house. Mr. Burns asked, you can’t put it next to the barn? Ms. Alavanja stated, it’s just North of the barn. Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to see it further away from the house. If it’s 100 feet and it’s 106 feet tall, I’d like to see it further away, just for safety reasons, away from the house. Mr. Alavanja stated, I believe it is further than 100 feet.
Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to see it 150 feet from the back of the house. If you have a deck or a porch, 150 feet from the back of the house, so whatever sticks out the furthest, if there’s a deck or a porch, 150 feet from that point. Mr. Brickner stated, and if this unit should require any repair or removal, that three months would be an adequate time to get it repaired, or, if it should become unserviceable for some reason, you would have to remove it. We want to be sure you take it down if it’s not working. Ms. Alavanja stated, that’s fine. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-7, subject to it being placed 150 feet behind the house; if it’s inoperable for more than three months, it has to be removed. Mr. Detert seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Burns asked, is it going to be in the center of your property or on the property line? Mr. Alavanja stated that it’s going to be more toward the center. Ms. Alavanja stated that we have two 10-acre lots, technically, and it’s just inside the property line of the first 10-acre lot. Mr. Burns asked, are you going to sell that second 10-acre lot? Ms. Alavanja stated, no, definitely not. They were supposed to combine the 10-acre lots into one, and there’s been…from what I understand it was done, but the last time I checked the records it hasn’t been done. They were supposed to combine both of our lots into one for building purposes. That’s how we got the permit for the barn that’s already there. The last time we checked, for some reason there’s a glitch in the paperwork, and it hasn’t been combined, so we’re still trying to work and figure where the paperwork went wrong and get it combined again, because we have to get it combined for our house mortgage anyway, but the two lots…it’s right inside the lot line for the first lot. Mr. Alavanja stated, if you took the 20-some acres, it’s right in the middle. Mr. Burns asked, but if you took the 10… Ms. Alavanja stated, it’s right, about 50 feet off of the property line. Mr. Burns stated that he would like to add to the motion that he will make a commitment to combine the two parcels into one.
Ms. Alavanja stated, we did, but, like I said, that’s how we got the permit for the one barn that’s technically on Lot 2, but, last time I checked, it was still two separate lots. I don’t know how that happened, so I’m still trying to work on getting that back to one lot. Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-7, subject to it being placed 150 feet behind the house; if it’s inoperable for more than three months, it has to be removed; with a commitment to combine the two parcels so the windmill is not on or near the property line and that the property cannot be subdivided; 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 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, 1-24-08 and 2-20-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing closed.) Mr. Siminski stated, last month, they asked for a continuance at the February meeting, and I have received no call or anything saying that they weren’t coming tonight, so I’m not exactly sure what’s happening. Mr. Burns stated, apparently, there’s some confusion. Should we table this? Mr. McClure stated, continue. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 07-EDD-1 to the 4-16-08 BZA meeting. Ms. Kerr-Cook seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-1 voice vote, Mr. Detert dissenting. 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, 1-24-08 and 2-20-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing closed.) Attorney John Falvey, Will Faber and Sean Boylan stated that they are representing the petitioners in this matter.
Mr. Brickner stated that we were hoping that you were going to mark this off for us so that we could go out and look at the location of this tower, and those of us who went out couldn’t find any place where you had marked it off or where we could determine was the exact location of this tower. Were we not looking right? All of the Board members did go out and look at this site, and we couldn’t find it. Mr. Boylan stated that the site was staked about two weeks ago, so, depending on when you guys went out there, it was staked. We had Mr. Burns, who made a guest appearance this afternoon and Tracy was out there, as well. I received a phone call about 3:20 from Fred indicating that a Board member was at the site yesterday and could not find the stakes. Mr. Burns stated that I went out there yesterday. I could not find the stakes. I walked most of the property. I contacted staff and told them I could not find the stakes. I thought it was clear that they would use large stakes, like you did on previous locations, so everybody could find those easily. I got called today by staff and went back out there on my way here, about 4:30 or whatever time it was. Tracy was there, and these gentlemen were there and they were putting up the larger stakes. I’m not sure how many people seen (sic) those stakes, but I did see those stakes. They were out there about 4:00 or whatever it was. Mr. Brickner stated, I was out there two days prior to today. I couldn’t find the stakes and I walked the property in the rain. I don’t know if anybody else looked for them, but I couldn’t find them either at that time. Mr. Boylan stated, I do apologize if there was any confusion as to exactly what type of stake. I do not recall it specifically being stated that they needed to be a certain height or a certain color. Mr. Brickner, no, I don’t know that we stated that, but I assumed that we would be able to see them when we went out there. Mr. Boylan stated, in all fairness, they did blend in with the cornstalks. I know that I did personally walk out and I got as far as I could without being buried in them, but I did notice them from about 120 feet away. I was directing them while I was out there. Mr. Falvey stated that, if you did walk out to the property and you did walk out to the high tension power lines you were at the site. That’s where it’s going to be, essentially, right before you get to that easement for the power lines. We didn’t put new stakes in. We simply added a new cylinder over them so they are more noticeable so you don’t have to track through the mud. Mr. Brickner asked, well, you saw the stakes? Mr. Burns stated, yes.
Mr. Burns stated, yes. Mr. Detert asked, did you see them today? Mr. Burns stated, this afternoon. They were out there installing the stakes. Mr. Boylan stated, and we did ask our landlord whether or not anybody had asked for permission to walk back there, and she indicated nobody has, so that led us to believe that no private citizen was interested in going back to find the location, as well. Mr. Burns stated, well, I’m not too sure that’s true. I went back there and I didn’t ask them. Mr. Brickner stated, I didn’t ask. Mr. Boylan stated, I’m just saying, nobody had asked her. Mr. Detert stated, we never ask permission to go somewhere unless we get to the property and there’s somebody there, and we tell them who we are and why we’re there, and, if they have any objection, they can voice it, so, if you were waiting for us, we’re not in the habit of doing it. Mr. Boylan stated, not at all. What I’m simply informing the Board is that it’s to our knowledge, through our landlord, that nobody had asked to go back there. I’m just simply stating that no private citizen had gone back there. Mr. Brickner stated, they probably didn’t know who to ask. Mr. Boylan stated, we also, over the last four weeks, we were able to confirm, not only through our discussions with NIPSCO, but also confirm that they have been in contact with Fred about the collocation possibilities on the two NIPSCO sites. Mr. Falvey stated that the diagonal line across there, as you can see on this particular photo, cuts through the trees that are there in the center. That’s the utility easement. So is the power wires, and they continue to go all the way across in a diagonal fashion up the right-hand corner of the slot and the red square would be our location. And we’re located just in front of that easement that continues across into the Girl Scouts’ property. So, if you walked up the Girl Scouts’ property on the access road there, the two-track, and as far as those towers you are, essentially, right there. Mr. Burns asked, can you blow that slide up?
Mr. Burns asked, why can’t you move the tower to the edge of the property? Mr. Boylan stated, as you can see, the existing tree line starts to bend around here. You can see, the easement cuts right through there. We put it any further North, we not only are going to be right underneath that, but we’re going to be cutting into existing forest. Mr. Burns stated, I thought there was an opening right at the property line. Mr. Burns stated, if you take that gravel road all the way back to the edge of the property, there is a space. Mr. Boylan stated, with overhead easements, overhead lines. You can see right here, it starts to bend around. If you just keep on this diagonal, it’s running right into it. We can certainly move it, with the condition of approval, as far North as possible without being physically in their easement. I have no problem with that if that means another 50 feet. Mr. Burns stated, it’s more than 50 feet, but, in between, there’s two power lines. There’s two sets of power lines. The other set is on the property North. In essence, if you move that tower, you’d be between the two sets of power lines. Mr. Boylan stated, I cannot confirm that without… Mr. Burns stated, I understand. Mr. Boylan, and, also, if you do remember, the further you walk North is where it started to look like a lake out there. I don’t know if you recall, but it was pretty swampy. Mr. Burns stated, I walked it. I’d like you to get it further away from the neighbors. I looked at it and I thought it would work. If you take that gravel road all the way to where it ends you place it on that same location, just further North, because those trees… Mr. Boylan asked, you’re referring to South of that existing tree line, right? You’re not asking us to cut into the tree line. Mr. Burns stated, I think the tree line stops and there is another clearing, if I recall. Mr. Boylan stated, no. Mr. Falvey stated that I was also out there today. On the other side of that brief tree line you can see where it says location. It’s a very thin tree line. That’s where I think you are talking. It’s just beyond that? That is a very, very swampy area. I’m not even sure we can construct there.
Mr. Burns stated, and then it drops off right at the fence line. It’s low here, and then the elevation rises a little bit. Mr. Boylan stated, so, you’re asking us to cut into the woods? Mr. Burns stated, it could. But the neighbors wouldn’t hardly even see that tower. Mr. Boylan stated, I don’t think they can see that tower. Mr. Burns stated, oh, you can. I think you can. Mr. Boylan stated, in all fairness, we have made every reasonable attempt. Per the ordinance, we were 130 feet off the property line. That is exactly what the ordinance calls out for. We have moved it 1/3 of a mile. I’ll go back to my example last month. If you’re driving 60 miles an hour, it would take 18 seconds to get out there at 60 miles an hour. Not only are we going to have to put in a new access road if we cannot secure an easement with the Girl Scouts of Chicago, but, the further North that we get, the further North we get from the primary coverage objective. And that’s the residences that are…the housing additions that are South of us. So, in essence, yes, the further…ideally, we would want all those in Antarctica. It’s just not possible. So, to start cutting into forestry, not only is it just not feasible from a construction standpoint, it’s not working from a coverage objective. Mr. Falvey stated, I would argue it, too, from the idea of maximizing the number of carriers on the tower, which is something I know the Board is interested in. the primary objective of not only client Cricket, but future carriers need to reach residents South and East of this location; the further you move it North, the less likely you are to do that. And they wouldn’t even be interested in going on the site, because we are further away from all those houses. Mr. Brickner stated, but you’re talking in terms of feet. How many feet further back? Mr. Burns stated, probably about 500, 400 to 500. It might make a little bit of difference on the coverage, but one percent, two percent? I don’t know. Where I’m coming from, it is a residential area, and if we’re going to allow this, we should probably place it where it has less impact on the residents. Mr. Boylan stated that it’s within 50 feet of an existing utility easement that has high tension power lines. Now some of these high tension power lines, you’ll see, they’re immediately adjacent to some of the housing additions that have come and protested in the last few months. Right along 550, you’ll see one of them is an old, rusted, four-legged utility pole that is immediately adjacent to the back yard of a house.
Mr. Brickner stated that we have a difference of opinion between Board members. I went out there and I couldn’t see where the tower was going to be put, so I don’t know exactly how much further back you could go. One of the Board members seems to think you can move it back further North without any problems without going into the tree line, without doing anything out of the ordinary. Is that possible or not? Is it possible for you to move that tower further back without damaging the tree line or getting into the tree line or without making a compromise for your coverage? Because it might come to that here. Mr. Boylan stated, no, it’s not possible. And I say that, from the simple standpoint of we would have to go back and renegotiate a lease with absolutely no guarantees that we would get landlord approval for that. I guess I would pose the question, it was my understanding of last month’s continuance that we were coming back here tonight to confirm the feasibility of collocation on the NIPSCO sites. Mr. Brickner stated that one of the reasons you’re coming back is because we wanted to look at the exact location and we wanted it staked out so we could go back and look and see exactly how it’s going to impact the neighborhood, the residential area. That was the main reason I had in mind. Collocation, I’m assuming, we’re assuming that you’re going to accommodate collocators to the full extent of the
ordinance. I mean, everybody that wants to collocate – that’s part of the ordinance, too, that you subscribe to collocators. But we want to know exactly where that tower is going to be and exactly how it’s going to impact the residential area. That’s the main reason that we wanted you to come back tonight. Mr. Boylan stated, and I really wish I had received a phone call much sooner, then I could have met any of the Board members out there, as I did today. Like I said, I didn’t receive a phone call until around 3:30 local time, 4:30 my time, and I immediately jumped into the vehicle to come out and meet with Fred and Tracy to show them… Mr. Detert stated, don’t blame it on the Board. You’re the petitioner, and you got to satisfy this Board. Mr. Boylan stated, oh, absolutely. Mr. Brickner stated, looking at the photos, there’s probably some room for you to go a little further North. I don’t know how much further. Mr. Burns stated 500 feet. I can see where the high tension lines would be a problem. You’d have to get on the other side of the tension lines. They’d have to go on the North side of the tension lines. Mr. Boylan stated, which would result in us moving into the woods. Anything North of the high tension lines would be going into the woods. Mr. Falvey stated that there’s a small tree line and then there’s another little clearing, which is a very swampy area, even on days unlike today. Mr. Brickner stated, okay, so there’s no room for movement that you know of. Mr. Burns stated, no, I’m not saying that; I think there is. Mr. Brickner stated, well, they’re saying there isn’t. Mr. Boylan stated, I can assure the Board, we can move this as far as 50 feet South of those high tension power lines, so, if those high tension lines…wherever they may be, we would be 50 feet South of that easement. Mr. Brickner asked, where is that from where it is now? How much closer…how much further North is that? Mr. Boylan stated, I would be lying if I told you a number. I can ballpark it. I would say anywhere in the neighborhood of 200 feet. If the Board would like to take a 5-minute recess I could pull up Google earth and it would give an approximate. It would be exactly this image. I can put one point, the next point…it would give an approximate distance.
Mr. Williams asked, are there two high tension lines running down the same right-of-way? Mr. Burns stated, no, different. The second set…the North high tension line is on adjacent property, the North property, part of it, at least, so, if they place that further North, they’d be between the two high tension towers, the lines. Mr. Boylan stated, running through the woods is not an option. We can’t put it on the other property. Mr. Burns stated, I’m not saying that. You could put it on this property, on the Northern edge of the property. I mean, you would be between two tension towers. They’d be in between. Mr. Brickner stated, I know where you’re speaking of, but I can’t remember if it’s marshy. Mr. Burns stated, parts of the whole farm is marshy. And then it dries out. But, being marshy, I can understand now. There’s a marshy area where the woods are, and there’s a low area that’s wet, because of the rain and snow melting. That doesn’t mean you can’t build a structure there. A swamp, you can’t now, but just because it’s so slow and wet now, it hasn’t dried up. You still could build there. Just as long as it’s not wetlands. And I don’t think it is. Mr. Brickner asked, would you like to go and take a look at that? I hate to continue this another month, but I kind of agree. I would like to have seen that myself, but I couldn’t find it. I actually had some people with me, and they didn’t find it either, so, it wasn’t that we didn’t look. There might be some other Board members now that want to take a walk out there. Mr. Falvey asked, what is it the Board is asking? Mr. Brickner stated, that you go back between the high tension lines, that you move it back further North until it’s located between the two sets of high tension lines, which would be about 300 to 500 feet further North, in his estimation. Mr. Burns stated, I’d have to walk it. Mr. Boylan asked, can we take a 5-minute recess so, at least, I can pull that out to verify that that existed, that a second easement does cut through her property line and, also, I can accurately… Mr. McClure stated, let’s be clear: The Northernmost utility lines are not on the landlord’s property. What I think they’re asking, if I’m correct, is that…we’ve got power lines running here. Somewhere up here is another set of power lines. Mr. Burns stated, that’s correct. Mr. McClure stated, what they’re saying is, your Northern tip of this property is far North, and that’s why they’re saying that it’s in between the two power lines. Mr. Burns stated, Mr. Counsel, there’s a picture that shows that. Mr. Brickner stated, let’s take a 5-minute recess. (Back from break.) Mr. Boylan stated that I just want to show the Board, you can see the mouse here moving – that’s our current location, 1,600 feet off of the property line. The proposal to move it North between the two is approximately another 1,100 feet, and I’ll show you that by moving this down a little bit. To get it between them, you’ll see that we got this existing easement that we’re referencing in our second drawings. The second easement is up here. That’s almost 1,130 feet to move up in between the two. Three hundred feet puts us just on the other side of the existing easement that we’re referencing in our drawings, and then here’s 500 feet. I just want to show the Board that that puts us almost in the middle of the forestry that we’ve been saying just really doesn’t work for us, not only from a construction point, but, also, we don’t know…we have no idea what our landlord has for plans for that property. In addition to that, the further North that we go…every foot we go North, is another foot we have to cut into an access easement and, as of right now, we don’t know if we can secure an easement from the Girl Scouts. Obviously, we would like to do that, not to cut into a new road. So, my question, now that we know about how far it is between easements, is it the Board’s preference to go 300 feet and put us just on the North side; is it 500 feet and put us in the middle; or, is it 1,100 foot to put us in between, like we’re talking about. Before I can really start to make a decision here… Mr. Brickner stated, he said 500 feet, approximately. Mr. Burns stated, since I know where the stakes are now, I’d like to go out there and look at it again, and give you my answer. I want to be reasonable. If you can do it within 300 feet, 400 feet…fine. Mr. Boylan stated, I don’t know if that is reasonable to continue us another month, knowing where the stakes are now and showing you
exactly where…and from an aerial perspective where 300, 500 and 1,000 feet is. Mr. Burns stated, see, if I knew where the stakes were yesterday or the day before would give you more time to pace it off and look at it. I didn’t see those stakes until at least 4:00 today. I had to come here to a 5:00 meeting. I didn’t have much time. Mr. Brickner asked, well, are you willing to move it back? Are you willing to do that, if you can, if it’s possible for you to do that with the landlord and everything else considered? Are you willing to move it back from 300 to 500 feet and get it on the other side of the tension lines? It doesn’t have to be exactly between them. Mr. Burns stated, oh, no. I just want it further away from the residents. Mr. Boylan stated, if I can obtain landlord approval, I would be willing to move it 50 feet North of the easement, approximately 300 feet. Three hundred feet puts us almost to the North side of the easement. I would be willing to move it 50 feet North of that, or approximately…anywhere between 300 and 350 feet. Mr. Falvey stated, why don’t you explain the relevance of wanting to be near the existing utility easement. Mr. Boylan stated, it’s kind of two-pronged. First of all, from an aesthetic standpoint, obviously, we want these as close as possible to something that’s already out there, what the Board may consider as a blight on the horizon. The second prong is, if we are 50 feet from the utility easement, we can avoid having to go through state historic preservation office, which is a 30-day process. Obviously, if this site is approved, we want to see this thing get up as quickly as possible. And we’ve already consulted with our environmental consultants and there’s no reason to believe that we’re going to have any historic adverse effect on the property, but it’s one part of 13 checks that have to go into the federally regulated report. Mr. Burns asked, can you repeat the first statement? You have to be within 50 feet of the easement? Mr. Boylan stated, right. Mr. Burns asked, for what reason? Mr. Boylan stated, if we’re within 50 feet of a utility easement, we can avoid having to go through the state historic preservation office. We’ve already consulted, and there would not be any adverse effect on the area. It cuts down a three-month-long report down to two months.
Mr. Brickner asked, is that a residential area up there on the left? Mr. Boylan stated, it just seems to me, we’re just pushing this further and further North, where those people…. Mr. Burns stated, all this is all wooded Mr. Boylan asked, are there homes there? Mr. Burns stated, that’s 149. Mr. Boylan stated, we’re approximately 2,700 feet to the closest house, if we move it to this location, as opposed to 2,000 feet, so, it’s really right in the middle, essentially. Mr. Burns asked, in that new location? Mr. Boylan stated, yes. Fifty feet North of the utility easement. Mr. Brickner stated, that would be about 300 feet… Mr. Burns stated, further North. In my opinion, that’s more acceptable. Mr. Boylan asked, is it possible to make a request that it’s a conditional approval, one with the recommendation that it is depicted in the updated zoning drawings and reviewed by Fred’s office to verify, as opposed to being continued an additional month? Mr. Burns stated, I thought you stated that you have to get approval from the landlord first, and then you have to find out about the Scouts approval for the easement. Mr. Boylan stated, that’s a side issue. If we don’t get that easement, then we’re going to be forced to cut into a new road. That’s just a cost savings for us. Mr. Detert asked, is that the only concern you have, Rick, is the site location? Does anybody have any other concerns? Mr. Siminski asked, is there a pipeline parallel to this? Mr. Boylan stated, that’s the other main question. We may come into that once we get the full title report back and those easements are placed on our drawings. We may have to come back and say, we’ve been now moved into a pipeline. Mr. Burns stated, there is a pipeline…I thought it was North…
Mr. McClure stated, I think if the Board would make a motion, they could be within 300 to 350 feet. Mr. Detert stated, that’s what I was going to do. Mr. Brickner stated, we can vary it. Mr. McClure stated, minimum of 300 feet, maximum of…. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 07-PUV-4, subject to a site 300 to 350 feet North of the site that was depicted in this meeting. Discussion: Mr. Williams asked, why not just say over 300 feet…. Mr. Burns stated, at least 350 feet. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 07-PUV-4, subject to the site being moved a minimum of 350 feet North of the site that was depicted at this meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Burns stated, you’re talking 195-foot tower, no light, a fence around… Mr. Detert called for the question. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 07-PUV-4, subject to the site being moved a minimum of 350 feet North of the site that was depicted at this meeting; and that all the other Unified Development Ordinance codes be met, including landscaping and offering collocation; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes New Business: At this time, Mr. Brickner read the rules of order for public hearings. Case 08-V-6. Petition of Santa’s Storage Shops c/o David Luke, 2801 McCool Rd., Portage seeking Variances to permit a reduction in the required depth of a buffer area in a CH zoning district from 25 feet to 15 feet and to eliminate hard-surface paving around mini-warehouses, to be located at 2801 McCool Rd., in Portage Township. Tom Harris, 2559 Hamstrom Road, Portage, stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that Mr. Luke is in Florida and I told him that he asked, do you think it would be a wise idea to attend this meeting, and I said, I don’t think so. I hope I wasn’t lying to him. Join me at U.S. 6 and McCool Road, the corner of South Haven. Go North a mile and a half and on the right side of the road you’ll find a golf course, an entrance to a mobile home park, Pleasant Valley, a series of storage buildings and then a second series of storage buildings, and if you find yourself on the bridge over the Toll Road, you’ve gone too far. The first set of storage buildings is Santa’s Storage. There’s four storage buildings on the site now that front on McCool Road. We’re proposing four more that are on the back of the property. The property’s bordered on the North by the second storage complex, on the East by the mobile home park, which, for whatever reason, has not built to within about 200 feet of their property line, or not used for mobile homes. On the South by the entrance to the mobile home park and another 50 foot, and then beyond that to the South is the golf course property, which, in that location, is undeveloped. The proposal is to not pave the area. The area is not paved at present. I think we may be dealing with a nomenclature. I read your ordinance very carefully – as carefully as I could -- and I keep finding that the things that apply in this kind of zoning really applies to something like you’d see from across the County jail out here, a great, big, complicated warehouse filled with trucks moving back and forth. This is a place that two or three vehicle movements per day is as much as they would get. So dust, noise, the things that a warehouse would generate is not really a consideration. The reason that we’re asking for this is that the property is absolutely dead flat. There isn’t more than 6 inches Variance in elevation over the whole piece. It’s sitting on the last lake bottom left by the glacier a couple years ago, and it’s all sand. And it’s very absorbent, and so the engineer’s faced with an interesting dilemma. The sand takes the water, as in the past, as fast as it comes down. There’s virtually no outlet. There’s a very small outlet that goes to the County ditch, which immediately goes at an angle off to the Toll Road, but it's not practical to lower it, and it’s only about 3 feet below the existing lay of the land. So, there’s just not a great deal of choice in any utilization of that property, unless we consider long distance storm sewers to go to some much lower elevation and, frankly, it isn’t needed. So, what we’ve done is we made a very conservative design on the water and water storage, and put it in a corner where it’s the least obtrusive. Thus far, apparently it’s been accepted by your engineers because we’ve heard nothing about it. The reason I mention this at all is that this scheme requires that the gravel in the parking area take, on a temporary basis, enough of the water so that we can slope these swales as little as this 6 inches that we have across the entire length of the property. Since the buildings are held up, we’re not worried about them becoming wet in any way, shape or form. We’re not worried about overweight vehicles punching holes through the gravel, because there are no overweight vehicles. The thing has worked in the past and it’s a good system. The reason I’m here tonight is because without having a system that absorbs a good deal of the water directly
into the land, without a system that allows these very minimal swales, without a system that…there’s a large land area that’s taken up in detention, for the simple reason that detention is between the lowest level that you can drain and the highest level that you can maintain. When your outlet is near 3 foot below the ground level, you don’t have much height of storage, so, in order to make the volume, it has to be quite large. Well, we made it very conservative – it’s a small piece of ground – we made it very conservative. Simply stated, without this system, these buildings couldn’t be built, and so we’re here asking for…that’s our prime request, is to allow this to be built without paving. The second request is that the ends of the building are 35 feet from the property line. If we have 10 foot between the end of the building and the property line, it wouldn’t be the end of the world, but we wouldn’t be able to have our customers. The smallest storage units, in cubic feet, are on the ends of the buildings. They would have to walk down a sidewalk or a 10-foot space. In order to utilize them, they wouldn’t be able to drive there with their vehicles. But that’s minor in comparison, because that’s not an impossibility. The matter of drainage is. I leave it up to you. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert stated, if I understood you, the reason you want to have the extra 10 feet is because of the end storage? Mr. Harris stated, yes. Mr. Detert asked, well, why don’t you move the building in 10 feet? Mr. Harris stated that the distance between the buildings, end to end, is something we don’t want to get into fire codes. The other question would be, if you can’t move the buildings, why don’t you make them shorter? Mr. Detert stated, that’s what I’m asking. Mr. Harris stated that it’s not impossible, but it begins to chip away at the feasibility of the project. Mr. Detert stated, it’s a matter of money, right? You can’t rent as much space. Mr. Harris stated, right, and we would use the 25-foot before we do that and just make it so that they would have to walk 25 feet to get to their cubbyhole.
Mr. Harris stated, yes. Mr. Detert asked, well, what would happen if the movements increased substantially? You could get vendors in there and put their goods in a storage bin and come in two or three or four times a day and you could have 10 or 15 or 20. I’m just trying to establish what the problem would be if it was not paved and if you had more traffic through there. Mr. Harris stated, I don’t know. It’s slag, so it’s a hard kernel. My experience with it is that there’s no dust there, even when you drive on it. It’s…I can’t imagine anything else that would be offensive, the crunch of tire on gravel? It would be kind of a stretch. Mr. Detert stated, we get complaints from time to time when places aren’t paved where there’s traffic and the dust that’s raised and I don’t want to get in that situation somewhere down the line. Mr. Harris stated, it’s not that kind of a facility. Mr. Brickner stated, you’re increasing the coverage. You’re building buildings, so you’re going to increase the runoff here considerably. You’re doubling your storage space is what you’re doing, so the amount of building-covered area is going to double, so you’re going to have a lot more runoff than you’ve had in the past, so, if you paved this area, that would even…no telling where that water would go then. Would it go into the trailer park next door? Mr. Harris stated, no. Their land is exactly like this land. It’s absolutely flat, and so there’s no channels going either way. Just the amount of gravel and the little berm left nothing much more than a hedgerow for a plow has convinced me that there’s no traffic of water in either direction, certainly no signs of it. Mr. Brickner asked, is this another thing for DLZ?. Mr. Detert stated, that was going to be my next thought is that… Mr. Harris stated, we submitted all of our calculations and we were delayed an extra month, so we’ve had quite a while for them to… Mr. Brickner asked, for whom? Mr. Harris stated, DLZ. Don’t you automatically submit to them, our calculations. Mr. Burns stated, not automatically, no.
Mr. Harris stated, I wasn’t because we put in this large detention pond, and we more than met the County’s requirements. Mr. Williams asked, is this a new detention pond? Mr. Harris stated, yes. Mr. Williams stated, that will be added to take care of the runoff. Mr. Harris stated, yes. Mr. Williams stated that the detention pond does not exist now. He’s adding a detention pond to take care of any runoff and provided the runoff requirements. Mr. Detert stated, I guess really the only concern is to have some experts testify or give us information to the fact that what you have designed is adequate. Mr. Harris stated, well, that was reduced to paper and given to you three months ago. Mr. Detert stated, well, I don’t know that it was ever sent to anybody. Did it ever go through DAC? Mr. Harris stated, yes, to the best of my knowledge it did. Mr. Detert asked, do you know, Fred, if it did? Mr. Siminski asked, did you ever go to a DAC meeting? Mr. Harris stated, no. Mr. Siminski stated, then it wasn’t at DAC. Mr. Harris stated, now, this is something brand new to me. We submitted the thing, the calculations, the soil report…. Mr. Siminski stated, you submitted the application for the BZA; that’s all you submitted for this Board. Mr. Detert stated, that’s immaterial, when you submitted it. Plan Commission Executive Director Robert W. Thompson Jr. stated that there is a submittal for an application for a development plan. Ray Joseph is reviewing it, but it has not been assigned anywhere to
go to, either the Plan Commission or the Development Advisory Committee, because of the fact that the submittal is not complete yet. Ray did notice that there were certain Variances that were going to be required for this development, so he requested the petition to go forth with these Variances, but, at the time, to be able to go to DAC and the Plan Commission, I do not believe it’s a complete submittal yet for an application. I am going to have to double-check with Ray, but I believe that is the reason why it has not been shown at DAC. Mr. Harris asked, is that an interlocking approval? Does that have anything to do with what we’re asking here? Mr. Brickner stated, I think it does, because we would like to see a recommendation for adding all this storage space without knowing what all the calculations are for runoff and where all the water’s going to go. Mr. Harris stated, I’m gathering that this DAC has the power to stop this thing if the drainage is not adequately taken care of. They do not have the power to stop it? That isn’t part of your law? Mr. Thompson stated that they are simply an advisory committee to the planning commission. The independent engineers who review our storm water are the ones that will give recommendations. We do not submit these to the Plan Commission until all items have been cleared from the review or Variances have been granted for the various items that there is true hardship on for the storm water ordinance. I don’t know if Ray Joseph has submitted that information to DLZ yet. I would assume not, because it hasn’t been a complete submittal yet. Mr. Harris stated, I’m in a Catch 22. I can’t make a complete submittal until I know that the system can function because of the gravel being left in place. Mr. McClure stated, I think to clarify – Mr. Thompson, correct me if I’m wrong – they’re here for the Variance. If the Variances are accepted, it is then going to go to DAC and then it’s going to go to Plan Commission for site plan, and if there is a drainage issue, Plan Commission will have had a DLZ report, and if there is a drainage issue, Plan Commission has the authority to stop it at that point, so that this Board doesn’t have to necessarily concern itself that the drainage will or will not work, because the Plan Commission is going to have the review of that. Mr. Detert stated, yeah, you’re right. Mr. Burns stated, well, except, pavement. Mr. McClure stated, your decision is whether or not to accept it. It either has to have pavement or it doesn’t have to have pavement. Mr. Burns stated, that pertains to drainage. If you have pavement versus gravel, it changes your drainage plan. Mr. McClure stated, I think what his testimony said is that if it’s pavement, it’s not a project. Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, he doesn’t want it paved. Mr. McClure stated, I’m not even sure it’s a matter of want. I think his testimony was, if it’s pavement, it’s not going to happen. It’s not a matter of expense. It’s a matter of drainage. They know from the drainage calculations that if it is pavement, it’s not going to be able to meet the soil (inaudible) requirements. Mr. Harris stated, yes, that’s exactly correct. Mr. Detert stated, I don’t have a problem with the pavement so much as I do with the drainage, because we’ve got problems all over, and I’d be willing to grant them a Variance on the pavement and the other one I would like to see what DAC and the Plan Commission have to say about it, so I’m not sure how we do that, contingent on approval, but this has to have a site review, and I forgot about that. Mr. Burns stated, my guess, they are going to have to have a DLZ report, probably for Plan Commission, won’t they? Mr. McClure stated, it’s my guess they will. Mr. Burns stated, okay. Mr. McClure stated that he submitted everything. The confusion is that…everything has to be together before it goes to the Plan Commission. Mr. Burns stated, yeah, I don’t have a problem with the gravel. Most of the storage units in the area have gravel, and, like he said, it is low speed and not much traffic, at least the ones I’ve been in – 6 and 49 and other areas like that, but I do have a problem from the 25 foot Variance to the 15 feet. There’s no hardship there. I don’t have any problem with the gravel. Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, walking 25 feet isn’t that long. Mr. Harris stated that that my client and I have discussed and we’re ready to withdraw that part of the petition. Mr. Burns stated, so, basically, you’re asking to eliminate the hard surface paving. Mr. Harris stated, correct. Mr. Burns stated, that’s what he’s asking.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-6, subject to the request to reduce the buffer area being denied and the only Variance to be approved is to eliminate the hard surface paving around the mini-warehouse; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Ms. Kerr-Cook seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes Case 08-V-9. Petition of Wagner Homes, P.O. Box 1457, Valparaiso, seeking Variances to permit a reduction in the minimum required frontage for a parcel from 160 feet to zero feet, to build a road not to County specifications and to designate said road as private, to be located at 211 S. 75 E., in Morgan Township. Gary Green stated that he is the petitioner in this matter and that he is here representing his client, Jerry Abbott, in this matter. He would like this Variance. We have a large tract in Morgan Township off of CR 75 E., between CR 150 S. and CR 250 S. My client’s parents own the various parcels. They have a permit to build along Parcel 3B. My client would like to build a home on Parcel 3A. They would like to be able to access their property off of their parents’ driveway. I do have some drawings showing the design of the property and the adjoining property. The property is zoned Agricultural. Impact on the property would be minimal. They would like to build a single-family residence, very low density, consistent with the present zoning. Prior zoning allowed the stripping out of frontage on CR 75, so it makes it very difficult to access that property otherwise. John Hollandsworth stated that it sounds all right. I don’t have any problems with it at all. I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t more to it. Mr. Brickner read a letter from Mrs. Ruth Howard in opposition to this petition. Jackie Collins, 2210 Schaffer Dr., Valparaiso, stated that I just have two questions. I just wanted to make sure I understand what he’s saying. There’s only one house back here is what you’re saying? I want to know how many houses he’s putting back there. That’s my parents’ main concern. When they sent the letter out there was only one house being asked to be built back there, and we want to make sure there’s not three or four houses to be built back there because there are three plots of land that looks like someone could build on. So they want to make sure there’s not a mini-subdivision going back there and those kind of things. Mr. Green stated that I will steadfastly tell you that the property was purchased by Mr. Abbott Sr. He is building his own personal house. We have a permit for that home. The way the property was divided has nothing to do with any future development. Basically,
they have no plans for any other homes to go onto the site. His son, Jerry, is the second home. They’re not building this to develop. They didn’t purchase the land to develop. They purchased it primarily for themselves. His son wants to build a home on the site, as well, but that’s the extent of it. These folks are very involved with the farm community, very good stewards of the land. They would not do anything to harm any of the neighbors. Ms. Collins asked, how do we know that that’s exactly what they’re going to do? If we approve this big parcel to go back there, which does make it open, which they could have a subdivision back there, how do we know that they don’t do it? Mr. Green stated, if you’d like me to commit something to writing, we’d be happy to do that. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, when was this subdivided? Mr. Green stated that the parcel was purchased from Greg Good originally and I think that’s part of the reason it was set up into parcels. Mr. Burns asked, so he owns how many parcels? Mr. Green stated that there are actually…Parcel 3A, 3B, Parcel #2… Mr. Burns asked, so he purchased 2, 3A and 3B? Mr. Green stated, yes, and the easement for access. He has no intention to build or develop or do any more additional building sites. Mr. Burns stated, I couldn’t find the site. Mr. Green stated that it’s a little bit difficult to get to. If you know where the corner of 250 turns to 75 it’s about 2 miles down the road. Greg Good’s property…the home sits pretty far back into this. This actually sits behind it. Ms. Kerr-Cook asked, the house that’s there already is on Parcel 1? Mr. Green stated that Greg Good’s home is on this parcel. We have a permit already to start construction on Mr. Abbott Sr.’s property. We inquired about building on the other lot and that’s when we were told we needed a Variance to be able to access this site. Mr. Burns stated, the way I understand it, your parents’ property, if you come up here, is right here?
Ms. Collins stated that there’s a fence line that runs… Mr. Green stated, probably along here. Ms. Collins stated that it would be on this side of the fence line. Mr. Green stated that Lamplight Estates (sic), I think, comes in off of CR 75 and probably ends right here. Ms. Collins stated that there’s a farm field that’s here and they have these sections divided off. There’s a fence line that goes across and their parcel is right on the fence line. Their house is way up on the front acreage of the farm. There’s swamp area back in here and this is just farm. Mr. Burns asked, are you going to build a house, also, on Parcel 2? Mr. Green stated, no. Mr. Burns asked, never? Mr. Green stated, if you’d like to have us commit that to writing, if that’s a restriction that this Board would like to place on the property, I’m certain that they would comply. Mr. Burns stated, so, really, these two parcels were landlocked. Mr. Green stated, yeah. Mr. Burns stated, then they got an easement…the concern is that it’s going to turn out to be a spaghetti subdivision. Mr. Green stated, I can tell you, if you need anything in writing…the person that purchased this originally, Mr. Abbott, bought it with the intent of building his own home, solely his home. His son had been looking for property, and he said, boy, it sure makes sense to do it right here. It would be convenient to have their son right next to them. Mr. Burns stated, I guess I’m confused. How do you subdivide it without access to it? How did 3A happen? Mr. Green stated, I couldn’t tell you. It’s zoned AG and they’re probably going to farm a good portion of this. It’s not like they’re going to try to subdivide it. Mr. Burns stated that the problem we have is private drives. The complaints after the homeowners move in, the snow removal and the maintenance of it.
Mr. Green stated that we could give some type of maintenance agreement that the two homeowners… Mr. Burns stated, let’s say they move in 10 years. Mr. Green stated that they could have a maintenance agreement in place and they would be more than happy to commit that to writing. Mr. Brickner asked, where’s this drive coming from? Mr. Green stated that it’s basically coming from CR 75 E. The last sheet in the packet that I gave you shows the driveway that is going to Abbott Sr.’s home. Mr. Brickner stated that it’s basically going to be almost a couple thousand feet long. Mr. Green stated, right. Mr. Brickner asked, is this going to be…is it going to be wide enough to have any kind of emergency vehicles get up and down this driveway? Certainly, they’re not going to get a school bus. Mr. Green stated that we wouldn’t expect that a school bus would be going up somebody’s driveway. Mr. Brickner stated, that’s a long way. Mr. Green stated that my client is prepared to make a substantial investment in putting the driveway in. Their goal is to be out in the country and looking for a larger piece of property. Mr. Brickner asked, a single dwelling, just a single dwelling back there? Mr. Green stated, yes. Mr. Detert asked, what’s the surface of the driveway going to be? Mr. Green stated, right now we’re going back and forth between asphalt and concrete. We don’t really have that finalized. Mr. Detert asked, you’re possibly going to have that long road in concrete? Mr. Green stated, if the cost of concrete versus asphalt…it’s a pretty substantial driveway. They have a pretty good understanding of what it’s going to take. We’re building back here and they’re going to be very nice homes. Mr. Detert asked, it’s going to be one lane wide?
Mr. Detert stated, if I understand the drawing, you don’t have the ability to have two cars – one coming into the driveway and one going out – the pavement will not be wide enough for that? Mr. Green stated, the goal for us, given the amount of traffic for two single-family residences…the amount of impervious pavement we’d be putting on, it’s to reduce the amount of runoff, we’re going to have it for one-car width and provide for a passing blister so that if cars are coming in at different times one can pull in, stop, let the other pass. We did a similar project to this off CR 200 and midway into the home we provided…it split to a double lane. Mr. Detert stated, then, if I saw the one plat, there’s a driveway immediately on one side of this one for the Southern parcels. Is this a driveway up to here? Mr. Green stated, that’s the Gregory Good parcel. Mr. Detert stated, I guess I go back to spaghetti subdivisions we had. All these drives would be under parcels that are not acceptable to ambulances and other public utilities. Mr. Williams stated that it would seem to me that somebody who is going to build a 6,100 square foot home back here, I mean, we’re talking big dollars. They’re going to build a driveway that’s going to be suitable for whatever is necessary back there. Mr. Burns stated, if you look at this, Bob, he could have two homes now built, if I’m looking at this correct. He could have a home on 3B and #2. Mr. Green stated, I’d be more than happy to have my client submit in writing to you that they have no intention to develop this beyond two homesites. Mr. Brickner stated, we’re just saying that you could have. Mr. Green stated, if it’s this Board’s pleasure to make sure that they have something in writing to make sure…. Mr. Burns stated, let me finish, please. Right now, the way I understand this, he could have a home right now, his permit for 3B, and he could build a home on Lot 2, is that correct, the way this is laid out right now?
Mr. Green stated, not without coming in for a Variance for access. Right now, I’m requesting a Variance for access to Lot 3A, and I can tell you, the clients that own the property have no intention, and we’d commit in writing, that it would not develop into a spaghetti subdivision. Mr. McClure stated, part of the problem with Parcel 2 and Parcel 3A is that it has no access. Mr. Burns stated, but he could build right now… Mr. McClure stated, he could only build on 3B. Mr. Burns asked, because you have a permit? Mr. McClure stated, and he has access. Right here’s the access. 3B has access. Mr. Burns asked, so this dashed line is 3B? That’s what I’m trying to get clear here. Mr. McClure stated, right here. Easement for ingress and egress. Mr. Burns stated, okay, and it stops right here. Here is the property. It looks like it goes to 2. You see what I’m saying? See, the drive looks like it goes to 2, not 3B. Mr. Green stated, it comes to here and it turns and goes into this parcel here. Mr. Burns asked, so the drive is approved already? Mr. Green stated, yes. Right now, this is the road access to this parcel. What we’re suggesting is that we access this parcel. Mr. Burns stated, so he has the ability to get to 2? Mr. McClure stated, only with the approval of this Board. This is only good enough for one house. My point is this: Could they have chosen to use this for Parcel 2? Yes, they could have, but then these two wouldn’t have been able to. Mr. Burns stated, my point I was trying to make is, the way I see it, they could have two houses now and, if they agreed to not build on 2, they might have two houses anyway. That’s where I was coming from. The way I see it, you could have two houses now, so there’s not much difference. That’s where I was heading. Mr. Green stated, it’s still easement, I think, by strict interpretation of the UDO. Mr. Burns stated, the way I see it, you could have two houses now. No, that’s not true.
Mr. Detert stated, 160. Mr. Williams stated, he doesn’t have it. He’s got the one, but not the other. Mr. Burns stated, see, this was subdivided apparently years ago, not lately. What are we going to do? Do you know when this was subdivided? Mr. McClure stated, I guess our problem is, it’s already subdivided. Mr. Burns stated that it had to happen many moons ago. I really don’t have a problem with it. If they’re going to make commitments… Mr. McClure stated, so, the commitments would be that the Parcel 2 would not be built on? Mr. Burns stated, yes. Mr. McClure stated, it would be some sort of road maintenance agreement? Mr. Burns stated, yes. Also, the drive for Lot 3A would just extend just enough to get to 3A. I don’t want it to go all the way to the furthest point. I want to make sure it doesn’t affect the adjacent property owner. Mr. Brickner asked, to 3A only, is that what you’re saying? Mr. Burns stated, to 3A only. Mr. Williams asked, is this plan for 3A? Mr. Green stated, correct. Mr. Williams asked, is this for 3B? Mr. Green stated, correct.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-9, subject to a road maintenance agreement; for the driveway to be completely paved or concrete and for it to extend just far enough to get to Parcel 3A; and for a written commitment that there be no further subdivision – that there be no other building sites allowed on Lot 2; 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 Robert W. Thompson Jr. stated that he and Al Hoaglund are representing the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Thompson stated that the reason for the Variance, I’ll go through, the fence first. The Unified Development Ordinance requires that a fence can only be 4 feet in front of the front face of the building. We would like to have that go to 8 feet, the reason being that it will enclose the parking lot and also enclose the office of the proposed Highway garage. We were here once before, last year, with a Special Exception for this particular development, and now we’re here for some Variances. The actual 6-foot fence will be back behind the front building setback line. There will be a 40-foot dedication right-of-way per the Thoroughfare Plan, and then there’s the 40-foot building line, and this fence will sit back behind the 40-foot building line. There’s only a 10- or 12-foot pavement in this area, so, we’re looking at that 6-foot fence being over 70 feet away from the edge of the pavement on this road. It’s more than enough to have a semi truck with trailer pull in off of the road if the gate is closed. But we’re asking for this fence to be 6 feet in front of the front face of the building. We don’t want to move the building up to the building line. We do have parking in front. The buffer yard requirements: 1. Commissioner Evans has a commitment and the Commissioners also made a commitment with the rezoning of this parcel with the adjacent landowner, who is also who they purchased this property from, to buffer the South and West boundaries of this and it would be buffering her parcels. The reason why we’re asking is to waive the buffer requirements for the North and the East side, is the North side of this parcel is along an elevated railroad track. The East side faces Brummitt Road and also has the old Porter County Highway Garage, or what will be the old Porter County Highway Garage in this situation. We don’t want to do the East side because there will be truck traffic coming out. We don’t (sic) want to make sure that there is any views blocked by the
traveling public or from the trucks coming out or possible heavy equipment, such as a grader. That, and it will also allow a foreman and others in there to have the site going across. They still are going to maintain the yard across with the salt dump in the old site. The parking requirements, as far as the landscaping, there’s a lot of heavy equipment that’s going to be moving around in there, and I’m sure these trees or bushes will get run over regularly. Just trying to save the taxpayers some money. DLZ drainage – we have been going through this with DLZ as far as the drainage goes and with the drainage review. This is the second review on this and I spoke with the DLZ engineer on this particular case. What we’re asking is a Variance to Item #1, and that’s dealing with slopes, and Number 4 does talk about some of the slopes on this. But, to explain the slopes, this water will be captured and put into a detention pond that is designed on the plans in the Western part of this development. It will be released by the weir type structure and go into a ditch, an existing ditch, and it will flow down to Sand Creek, and there’s a pipe underneath the railroad tracks. The reason for asking for the Variances on this is because we cannot obtain 2 percent slope from the existing ground where this detention facility is out to this pipe that is underneath Sand Creek. We can’t get it. It’s flat, and to be able to go any more, we would have to ask the railroad to lower that pipe, which I’m sure would be a no, and it would also require cleaning Sand Creek, which would probably be a no from the DNR. We cannot obtain that grade. The reason for the other grade item is, there is a requirement for a 1 percent grade in the detention facility. To be able to get that would mean that we would have to dig the detention facility deeper at the outlet, which even makes the slope even flatter for the ditch going down to Sand Creek. Here again, we’re asking for Variances on those items for slopes dealing with this site, because it is very flat. We have a good outlet going to this for the storm water, and, at that, we’ll be more than happy to answer any questions the Board or the public might have. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked, is the old garage going to stay? Mr. Hoaglund stated, the existing concrete block garage, our intentions are to level that building, remove the underground fuel tank from that area. There’s a metal pole barn that’s back farther on the property. We would like to retain that for storage. It’s not heated. It’s just a building, but we do have equipment that we put in there in the wintertime. We’ve already made a commitment that, as soon as we can move to the new facility to try and rehabilitate the old facility somewhat. There’s absolutely no room on that property for us to do anything but what’s there. If we could move our equipment out and the intentions are to screen the front. The only
functioning item that you would be able to see is the top of the salt dome. Screening on the front. All the material storage would go to the back of that yard, and the new site, which we hope to maintain a very clean appearance with enough storage inside to park the equipment. There should be no outside storage at all. Mr. Burns asked, so, once you remove the old building, does that change any drainage or landscaping? Mr. Hoaglund stated, removing the old building, no, because both buildings are on the highest spot. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 08-V-10, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes Case 08-UV-4. Petition of Howard E. Wallace Jr. and Johnny D. Wallace, 2206 Silhavy Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a handyman service, along with a 16” by 24” sign, to be located at 2206 Silhavy Road, in Washington Township. Howard Wallace stated that I’m just seeking a Use Variance. We actually don’t do any work at the house. I pretty much just get phone calls and then I just take my tools and work at their house. I do like ceiling fans, screen doors, painting. We don’t have any equipment at home, I mean, materials. The homeowner usually buys everything, and I have tools in my home. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert asked, what do you use, pickup trucks? Mr. Wallace stated, I just have a pickup truck, a halt-ton, two-wheel drive. Mr. Detert asked, just one pickup truck is all you have there? Mr. Wallace stated, my brother has a truck and I have a truck. Mr. Detert stated, so, okay, you have two trucks. Are they going to be inside a garage or outside? You don’t have a garage? You do or don’t have a garage? Mr. Wallace stated, no, I just have two carports right now. I wanted to take those down and have a garage.
Mr. Wallace stated, yes. Mr. McClure stated, just to be clear, this parcel has two houses on one parcel of land. Mr. Wallace stated, no, we had it divided out. Mr. McClure stated, this is the case that came before the BZA. Mr. Detert stated, that’s the one we gave you a second parcel. Mr. Burns stated, and there’s supposed to be no business, though. That was part of the commitment – no business. Mr. Wallace stated, no, we had that legally separated in two parcels. Mr. McClure stated, to be accurate, it’s two parcels. We, the BZA, exempted them from the subdivision control ordinance. Mr. Burns stated, and the motion stated that there would be no business run from the residential site. That’s all residential. Mr. Wallace stated, I’m here to see if I can get a Variance; if not, then I’m gone. Mr. Brickner stated, so, he’s asking for a Variance. Mr. Burns stated, if I remember right, when they subdivided… Mr. Wallace stated, I don’t do any business at home. It’s just…that’s what you guys asked me to do and I’m just trying to follow the rules. I just have people calling me. I go to their place and work. Mr. Brickner asked, is he really running a business? Mr. Burns stated, that came in front of us because he was running a business. I think he was cited for it. Mr. McClure stated, well, it came up when we were dealing with the original Variance. One of the reports from the staff included that there was a sign on the property for a handyman service. So that’s where it came up from. Now, I think at that point, was the sign at the road, or was it like back on the house? Mr. Wallace stated, no, it was on the road. Mr. Detert stated, it was by the road.
Mr. Wallace stated, and that’s when we knew there was a sign Variance because right after that day I went down and I got the Variances and I thought, oh, there’s a Variance for a sign, and I took it down. I mean, we got licensed in Valpo to have our handyman business, but they never told us that we needed any kind of Use Variance, so we talked to Fred, and he recommended this. Mr. Brickner stated, well, this seems to be kind of an innocuous…I mean, he doesn’t have a lot of equipment or trucks or… Mr. Burns stated, there used to be. Didn’t they clean this property up? Wasn’t there an issue? Mr. McClure stated, I think there were tents or something? Mr. Siminski stated, well, the tents are still there. He does not have a garage. Mr. McClure stated, if my memory serves me, I believe the tools are in the back of your truck. Mr. Brickner asked, what do you use the tents for? Mr. Wallace stated, I have a ’68 Chevelle and I just have it inside there, and I’ve been working on it. I stripped it all down and I got parts on one side, and the car’s on the other side, and that’s just my little hobby, is to restore the car. I got some tools in there, an air compressor and welder and stuff. I’d rather have a garage. Mr. Brickner asked, no signs? You don’t have any signs? Mr. Siminski stated, he is requesting one. Mr. Brickner stated, oh, you are requesting a sign. Well, that I don’t agree with, but as far as what he’s doing there, I think if we make it for 1 year and see how it works out, let him have his handyman business for 1 year. Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 08-UV-4 for 1 year, with the provision that there be no sign; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Ms. Kerr-Cook seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:
Burns - No Detert - Yes Kerr-Cook - Yes Case 08-UV-5. Petition of Joanne Webb and Will Webb Associates, 608 N. East Long Lake Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit an existing communications and remote control business, to be located at 608 N. East Long Lake Rd., in Liberty Township.
No one spoke in favor of this petition. Barbara Malone, 93 E. Long Lake Rd., stated that we are asking that you deny the petition based on the increase in traffic. I know that you have just heard there’s one delivery a day, however, I have been home at times where I’ve seen the UPS truck go up there three times in one day and there was another delivery truck – I don’t remember if it was DSL (sic) or FedEx. It is a very tight area. It’s windy. If you’ve been up there, right at the curve, when you head up, my house is right on the curve. Being a recreational area, you’re going to see a lot of people who come to bicycle, to jog. Some live in this area and some live outside of the area. A number of us have dogs. I’ve been out walking my dog when I’ve had to hurry and jump to the side because of the traffic coming. Traffic is the problem, and we don’t feel that a business that has both employees and deliveries belongs in a residential area, let alone a residential area that has no outlet. Now, what we experience as far as traffic is, not only do we see it one time, on the way in, but we see it on the way out also. Those people that live in close proximity on one end of Scott Drive, they don’t experience that, because once they get to their home and they’re looking out, they don’t see the traffic. I live on East Long Lake and I’m on that curve and I see it two times; everything that comes in, it goes back out. My husband has had over the years worked shift work a number of times, which I’m sure a lot of you have experienced, and, at first, we didn’t know why there was so much traffic and he would complain that, you know, it’s so noisy. I just can’t sleep. And that’s when we found out that it was, of course, the UPS trucks. We also have right now this time of year the geese that
are walking across the road and people that live in there, for the most part slow down. Sometimes you have to actually stop and let them walk, but some of the delivery trucks just start to drive on through, so it is definitely a problem, and we ask that you deny the request. They have had exceptions on three occasions – temporary Use Variances, I should say – allowing exception to zoning, for a total of 11 years. Those 11 years were after they were caught, because they did it without the Variance prior to that. Now, I have nothing against these people and I really hope that their business goes well, but they have been given ample time to develop their business and locate within an area that is zoned for that type of business, which, I think, would be light industrial. Otto Schaefer, 593 N. 90 E. Long Lake, stated that I’m against it because we’ve got too much traffic there, especially with UPS, FedEx and there’s one more coming in. UPS is coming in three, four times a day. FedEx is coming once or twice, so we got more delivery trucks coming in than personal cars coming in or out, which people are living there. We got too much traffic there and we got only one small road, no outlets. You have to come in, turn around and go back out. And that’s too much. Larry O’Dell, 93 Jensen Drive, stated that I think the key issue for me is we talk about emergency vehicles. That is an extremely tight area in there. I mean, extremely tight, and that means that if an ambulance and a police car comes up there, all traffic stops. Nobody moves up there. And the other issue – I have five grandchildren and they’re going to be spending more time out there with me. It’s just too tight for all this extra traffic. My big concern is getting the emergency vehicles in and out of there. Janet Williams, 97 Scott St., stated that we’ve been there for 25 years and we signed the letter stating that we were against it four years ago, as well as the petition that’s been submitted. Our main concern is the traffic, in that it’s a Rural Residential neighborhood that has a business right in the center of it with one road coming in. We’re just against it. Mr. Evans stated, most of the objections I’m hearing speak to the traffic issue. As I indicated, there’s a total of three employees. Mr. Webb lives across the street from the location we’re seeking the Variance on, so, at most, there’d be three cars there. As to the UPS deliveries, to the extent that’s the primary concern, my client would gladly instruct them to deliver off-site and bring his deliveries in independently if the delivery trucks…the emergency vehicle concern I really can’t speak to. I mean, that’s a concern for everybody there, but no more or less so than for the business, and the business isn’t contributing to that problem over and above what’s already an issue. It is not a retail business. There are not clients or customers coming to this business. And we appreciate the traffic issue. We’re quite willing to address it to the extent that we can by having deliveries off-site, and, if that were to be done, the influx and outflow is no more than other people there living there who have two cars. Mark Malone, 93 E. Long Lake Road, stated that…I forget his name, but he just said something about he’d be willing to have the trucks deliver elsewhere. Why doesn’t he just find a place for his business elsewhere, if that’s the case? Warren Webb stated, as to the issue of the UPS trucks and delivery trucks, we’re not the only people out there who get deliveries made. There are other people who buy stuff through the mail, and UPS comes at those times, also. I’ve tried to keep my employees – we cut down in order to keep the traffic down. I know that’s a concern, and as far as the emergency vehicles go, I think we’re the only spot on the island that an emergency vehicle could turn around in, and then we always try to keep it clean enough, so that if that would be the case…our driveway’s about the only one there that’s big enough. That’s where the snowplow turns around and the school bus turns around. We try to keep it so that there is a place for emergency vehicles to turn around. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Detert asked, how long have you been operating there? Mr. Webb stated, since 1988. The business was started in about 1968. Mr. Detert asked, you never understood that you needed permission from the County to operate. Mr. Webb stated that the first time we applied…in 1997, and you gave us a temporary Variance, and then we came back in five years and then you granted us another temporary Variance. Mr. Brickner stated that there is a petition here that has seven names, uh, six names, in favor of Mr. Webb and Associates, saying that he’s been a good neighbor in the community for many years and has never been a hindrance, and I |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
March 19, 2008