BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
June 18, 2008

M I N U T E S

 The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on June 18, 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 and Toni Byers.

 Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the May 21st BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail.  Ms. Kerr-Cook seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business

Case 06-UV-5.  Iris and Cheryl Pratt, 665 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting leased office space for a home builder or contractor (with no outside storage) in an existing house, at 1808 Georgia St., in Center Township.

Mr. Brickner stated that the staff report shows that there is no signage or outdoor storage and no complaints.

Ms. Pratt stated that I would like a renewal for the maximum time.  If it could be for three years or four years, that would be great, but if it’s only two years at a time, I would be very happy with that.

Mr. Burns stated, you said there were no complaints.  What were the restrictions when that was granted?

Mr. Brickner stated, no outdoor storage.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m sure there was a time factor, too, till 4:00 or…what was the time of operations?

Ms. Pratt stated, I don’t think there was restrictions on that, but it is closed by 5 and very seldom do we have a 6 or 7 appointment.

Mr. Siminski stated, hours of operation to be 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the week and an occasional Saturday.

Mr. Burns asked, and no complaints, correct?

Mr. Siminski stated, correct.

Mr. Brickner stated, no deliveries, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., occasional Saturday employee to come in from time to time, but not on a regular basis, and this was for 2 years.

Mr. Burns  moved to approve Case 06-UV-5 for 3 years, with the same restrictions as the original case.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 80-V-13.  Darrell L. Qualkenbush, P.O. Box 109, Wheeler, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home lying North of the North end of Third and Fourth Streets in Wheeler, Union Township.  (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Shonk (no first name given),  stated that I’m speaking for Carolyn. I’m her son-in-law.  Her address is 204 Fourth St., Wheeler.  The present situation right now is Carolyn is legally blind.  She’s a bad diabetic, and she’s been diagnosed with dementia, requiring pretty much care 24 hours a day. My wife, Joyce, has left her job and has been basically taking care of her the last two years, making sure she gets her medicine, her shots.  She cannot be left alone for any extended period of time.  Is there any way that this can be extended through besides doing this year by year? 

Mr. Brickner stated, well, we’ll take that into consideration.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 80-V-13 for 1 year.  Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 87-V-33.  Jerome O’Day, 554 E. 1400 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 1400 S., between CR 500 E. and CR 600 E., in Pleasant Township. (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Robert O’Day stated that I’m the one who resides in the mobile home.  My father wasn’t able to make it.  He won’t be in until the 26th of this month, so if you guys would like to talk to him, we’d have to see if I could get next month’s meeting.  Otherwise, I’d like another year’s TCO.

Mr. Burns asked, what was the original request for, the use?

Mr. O’Day stated, it was a hardship.  I’ve got a handicapped brother that lives with my parents.

Mr. Brickner asked, who’s living in the trailer?

Mr. O’Day stated, my wife and I and my son.   We’ve been there 23 years.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 87-V-33 for 1 year.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 89-V-24.  Lillian Roman/Sylvia Moore, 19 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of U.S. Hwy 6, between Meridian Road and CR 75 W., in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 89-V-24 for 1 year.  Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 07-V-29.  Travis & Jennifer Huber, 401 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home to house a temporary office for Auto Superstore, at 401 & 403 W. U.S. Hwy 6, in Portage Township.  (Petitioner is to appear in person.)

Mr. Siminski stated that I did contact them.  They haven’t contacted us, but the mobile home, the mobile office is now gone.  I talked to the manager and asked for them to please send something, but they haven’t done it, but the mobile home is now gone, and he had told me that they’re not planning on bringing it back.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 07-V-29.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 08-V-19.  Petition of Family Express Corporation, c/o William A. Ferngren, 570 Vale Park Road, Suite 3, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from Section 5.51 (A)(1)(d)(i)(b) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the area of a sign to be 90 square feet, instead of the 60 feet allowable; and from Section 5.51 (A)(1)(d)(ii) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the height of the sign to be 14’6” instead of 8 feet; to be located at 252 W. SR 130, in Center Township. (This Case was continued from the 5-21-08 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Attorney Bill Ferngren stated that he and Scott Jones, director for real estate for Family Express,  are representing the petitioners in this matter.   As Mr. Brickner indicated, this case was continued from last month.  What we were asked  to do at that time was to go out and place stakes on the property identifying the proposed location of the sign and we also identified some other areas in Northwest Indiana where Family Express had a similar sign and asked that you each take the time to visit those particular locations, and, finally, we were also instructed to seek the input of the County Highway Department with respect to the proposed location.  We did all of those things.  Hopefully, you all had the opportunity to visit the property and the final item that you asked us for, again, was the input of the County Highway Department, and, on June 11th, Ray Riddell, the Porter County Highway Engineer, issued a letter indicating that the proposed location complied with all of the AASHTO requirements with respect to sight lines and visibility and specifically indicated that he would not be opposed to approval of  the request for the Variance, indicating that the sign location is, in fact, a safe one.  With that, we’d be happy to answer any other questions and seek your approval.

Mr. Burns stated, I seen (sic) your stakes out there.  I still feel this sign will be too large.  It’s almost like a billboard on the ground.  I went to your Lake Station site off of 249, and I did take a picture of that one. You do have a lot of advertisement on that sign.  I also went to your Route 2, Silhavy Road, by Menard’s complex and took this picture.  I know it is a little bit taller, but this is a lot cleaner.   You still have, you know, the electronic portion of the sign.  I still feel that intersection is wide open, and this here is just gonna close up that intersection and this is just too large.  Ninety square feet is just too large.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and we appreciate that, and we did take the time to visit and review all of those vision clearance requirements and, as Mr. Riddell indicated, there will not be any issues from the AASHTO standard, which is the County standard and the state standard, quite frankly, about visibility.  This is the preferred sign.  Mr. Burns, if you’re suggesting an alternate sign such as the one that you’ve shown, that’s something that we could look into as well.  We did resend notice of tonight’s meeting to all property owners indicating that that type of alternative, in case we went in that direction…the preference is the ground sign that we’re asking for, but we did, again, send notice.  So, if that type of a pole sign is the one you’re more interested in we can discuss that tonight, since we did notify.

Mr. Burns asked, do you know the height of the sign there now, the Mobil sign?  What’s the height of that?

Mr. Ferngren stated, it’s about 21 feet.  Actually, it’s over 24 feet.

Mr. Burns asked, the Mobil sign?

Mr. Ferngren stated, at this point in time.  Incidentally, that sign is not owned by Family Express. It’s owned by Mobil, which is typical in a gas station environment.

Mr. Burns asked, so they’re going to remove it?

Mr. Ferngren stated, it’s their sign.  They generously allowed us to continue until we obtained….

Mr. Burns stated, now you say remove it.  Frame intact?

Mr. Ferngren stated that the sign itself…

Mr. Burns asked, the whole assembly?

Mr. Ferngren stated, correct.  The whole, entire assembly is their’s.

Mr. Burns asked, this sign at Route 2 on Silhavy Road.  I think you said the height of that is a little more than 14 feet?

Mr. Jones stated, yeah, that’s probably more like…closer to 30 feet.

Mr. Burns stated, okay.  I know you said the station height was around 14, 18…is that true?  The canopy.

Mr. Jones stated, the under-decking is 14 foot 6 inches, the under-decking for clearance for trucks.

Mr. Burns stated, I like the style of sign, but I’m not too sure about 30 feet high, because you’re trying to get the expressway business with this.  I understand.  I like the design of that and I like that it’s open at the bottom.  It just keeps that intersection open.  I just think this would…it’s just too cluttered, too much advertisement.  It’s going to change the character of that subdivision, that intersection.  That’s my opinion.  I don’t have a problem with the electronic portion of the sign at all.  I understand what you’re trying to do.  Gas prices change hourly sometimes. 

Mr. McClure stated, this is fine.  I just think that since this went out and this may be an alternative, I just think you need to open up for a public hearing for anyone that would have showed up on this notice.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t know what you have there, so.

Mr. McClure stated, they redid a notice, a public notice, so that we could notify the adjoining property owners that there may be this alternative instead of the original notice that the sign would be more like…this sign.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and we did that because..

Mr. McClure stated, right, which I think is the proper thing to do.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and we’re fine if there are people here who are interested in speaking; we have no issue with that at all.

Mr. Detert stated, I feel the same as Rick.  I think that maybe our ordinance got proposing monument-type signs because of all the clutter we have on U.S. 6.  I think when you get out away from that, I think there’s something to be said for a tall sign where you don’t have much more than a foot wide post and your line of sight, then, is not prohibitive like these things do, and particularly at intersections I think those are more appropriate.  During the course of between the intersections, a monument sign may be more appropriate, but I think that you’re kind of way out, you’re kind of  up the road from there, and you’ve got some pretty important junction there, especially at the speeds people drive, and I would feel much better if there was a line of sight around a pole or through a couple poles than I would be a monument sign.  I think the only thing that I object to is I think you just attempt to put too much advertising on here and I’d like to see this line of sight kept open for a little more distance.  But I know, you know, you said originally in your opening remarks that you wanted this sign to be consistent for corporation purposes.  But, actually, your corporation has a lot of these type signs, and all of them out by me are these type signs, and the only fault I found for them is that there’s just too much on them and they’re a little bit too low to get the clearance line of sight that you could get out of it.

Mr. Jones stated that the continuity that we were referring to is that it’s the same type of sign frame.   The same sign that goes on the ground mount is the same that goes in the twin pole for efficiency of bulbs and maintenance and things like that.

Mr. Detert stated, but I think your milk sign and then you had your Java sign on the big sign here.  There’s a lot more advertising on this than there is on this, but, again, I still feel that I’d like to keep it up a little higher.

Mr. Jones stated, I think the current distance from bottom sign to ground is not more than 6 feet, because I almost hit my head on it.  This actually would propose to have a little bit higher.

Mr. Detert stated that the monument signs have an 8-foot height limit on them.  I think on these pole type signs we ought to have an 8-foot open area for visibility purposes, a minimum of 8 feet.  That’s how I feel about it.  Because you’ve got to be able to see over a car.

Mr. Ferngren stated that we’ve taken all those things into consideration.  That’s why we sent out the letters.  So we’d be happy to hear if anyone does have any questions or comments about that from the public.  We have no issue with that whatsoever.

Mr. Detert asked, the LED lights are not going to flash?  They’re only going to change when the gas prices change?  I don’t have any objection to them. That’s pretty often, I know, anymore. 

Ms. Kerr-Cook asked, if you put the pole type up, how high are you proposing?

Mr. Ferngren stated that this is a schematic drawing of what the Family Express generally uses for that type of sign. 

Mr. Brickner asked, is this the new proposal…

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s what we provided on the amended notice, yes. 

Mr. Brickner asked, 33 feet high?

Mr. Burns stated, that’s pretty tall.

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s our…that’s Family…well, Scott, maybe you can explain how the Family Express sign frame works.

Mr. Jones stated that it has the typical twin pole system that we use.

Mr. Brickner stated, you’d have to put a red light on top of that.  

At this time, Mr. Brickner opened the case up to a public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to know the difference from this sign and your sketch.  You don’t have a sketch of this one.  Do you have the measurements?

Mr. Ferngren stated, we do not have a sketch of that sign.  Scott and I were just visiting about and listening to what Mr. Detert said about…we can lower that sign and provide the 8-foot clearance that Mr. Detert just had mentioned, which would take 2 feet off of  the top of the schematic that we just handed you.

Mr. Brickner asked, so that would make it 31 feet?

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s correct.

Mr. Burns stated, personally, I don’t have a problem with a 6-foot clearance.  This is a 6-foot clearance, is that what you said?

Mr. Jones stated, no, the sign that’s existing at the location.   That one, I do not know what that one is.  That one is probably every bit of at least 8, maybe 10, feet.  And we typically put those a little bit higher, as well.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, if you lowered it to 6 feet you could take a little bit more off of the height of the sign, get it down below 30 feet maybe.

Mr. Ferngren stated, right.  And then we’d start talking about the sight line.

Mr. Brickner stated, personally, I’d rather see that than 6 feet.

Mr. Burns stated, and then we have to see how many miscellaneous signs are going to be here or we’re back where we were with all the advertisement.  See, that’s why I’d like to see more detail.   I’d like to see exactly how that’s going to look.  I know you have the gas prices here.

Mr. Ferngren stated, it will look much like the one that you’re looking at, with the Java Wave and the milk and those sorts of signs. 

Mr. Jones stated, the diesel price, the milk sign, ATM, the Java Wave on the Rocks…similar to what we are proposing on the ground model would be identical to what’s there.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s exactly what I was afraid of.  As Mr. Detert mentioned, he thought that was too much, okay, and I do, too. You’re trying to get everything…

Mr. Jones stated, that’s everything we promote that’s different, like, for example…

Mr. Burns stated, but you don’t have everything on this sign.

Mr. Jones stated, and that’s also been there at least 10 years.  We’ve added to our marketing program.  We didn’t advertise milk before; we advertise that now.  So, the poles there are too short.  We’d have to put in new poles to put on everything we do since that’s an older station.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s a nice, clean sign.

Mr. Ferngren stated, and remember the investment that was made in the property in taking over title to the land.  They have spent a tremendous amount of time and money renovating the property, the landscaping, removed the overnight truck parking from the site, landscaped to provide some buffer from the South, so I think as a corporate citizen they’ve shown a tremendous amount of effort.

Mr. Burns stated that they do a nice job.  I mentioned that last meeting.  Very clean operation, very neat, very good reputation. But, I need more information. I can’t approve something like this without knowing what’s going on here.  How many different signs.  You’ve got a big square here, miscellaneous signs.  That might be 10, 15 different signs. I’m not sure.

Mr. Ferngren stated that essentially, it would just take the things that we’re proposing on the ground mount and these sections would just blend into that.  It’s just vertical, instead of horizontal.

Mr. Detert stated, that 10 feet 6 inches for miscellaneous signs is just too much advertising. 

Mr. Burns stated, I’m afraid it’s going to be way out of character.  It’s going to be too gaudy.  I mean, it’s just…

Mr. Detert asked, what’s your sign in Hebron?  How tall is it?

Mr. Jones stated, I don’t know the exact height.

Mr. Detert asked, how about Four Seasons?

Mr. Jones stated, probably pretty similar to the 30 feet.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t think it’s 30 feet.  It doesn’t look 30 feet to me.

Mr. Jones stated, I don’t know that to be…

Mr. Burns stated, see, I can understand why this one is a little bit taller because they’re trying to attract vehicles from the highway, of course, on 250 and 130, it doesn’t have to be that tall, I don’t think.  Unless you’re trying to get more advertisement.

Mr. Jones stated, I would say when we built that store 10+ years ago that wasn’t the intent of that sign, is that that area, if you’re coming from the highway on LaPorte Avenue heading West, our store actually sits down a little bit, so it had to get high enough again, for the visibility clearance, and that’s why it’s up a little bit because of the highway to LaPorte Avenue being a little bit taller.  So, it’s a little bit far from 49 to probably do a lot of attraction.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think what we’re talking about is how the more cluttered it is, the less time anybody has to read the advertisements that are on there, so, I’m not sure it would do you much good to try and squeeze a whole bunch of stuff into an area that big.  Nobody’s going to be able to read it unless they stop.

Mr. Jones stated, it’s what we’ve done at our other 50 stores and it’s the same marketing…similar, I would say, not the same…

Mr. Brickner asked, and the only lighted part is the gasoline, I mean, the prices, but nothing else is going to be lighted?

Mr. Jones stated that the rest of the signs are lit.  They’re internally illuminated for night vision, yes.

Mr. Williams stated, you originally asked for a 90 square foot sign, and I noticed that this one is 108 square feet.

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s correct.

Mr. Williams asked, why…I mean, in keeping with what was previously mentioned, is it possible to make this sign 90 square feet, like you asked for originally?

Mr. Ferngren stated, I think the change arose simply out of…it’s a different style, pole signs versus the other.

Mr. Jones stated that the main difference is the sign on top, the Family Express sign, as you can imagine, 14 feet on (sic) the ground versus 30, proportionally, if you get higher off the ground it gets a lot smaller, so the lower ground-mount sign has a smaller Family Express sign because it’s lower to the ground.  The 6 by 8 is the standard twin pole like Mr. Burns shows.  Any twin pole sign we have out there is a 6 by 8, and that’s what that one is, only because you’re going higher in the air.  As you get up higher, it gets smaller and less proportionate.

Mr. Burns stated, but Luther…that’s where I was asking.  One hundred and eight square feet – that’s a big sign. 

Mr. Ferngren stated, again, as Mr. Jones just mentioned, it's a dimensional type of thing, because of your view, but Scott has indicated that we can go to 90 square feet, which would be consistent with the ground.

Mr. Burns asked, how many square feet is this one?  You don’t know that offhand, do you?

Mr. Jones stated, no, but, knowing in my mind what’s there, it would be a little bit less. But, again, because of our change in marketing in the last 10 years and what we promote, any new store today…if I were to come back next month, we would do the same thing.  I’m doing the same thing in Plymouth, in LaPorte…

Mr. Burns stated, if you get approval.

Mr. Jones stated, if I came back to you, or I would go to any community today, it’s the same.  I’m not coming to you with anything different than I would ask any other community to endorse.

Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have a problem with this sign here.  I do have a problem with this.  I need more information.  How much advertisement?  How many signs?  So, I don’t know if you want to continue the case.

Mr. Ferngren stated that the problem, Mr. Burns, is Mobil’s going to move in and take the sign off  the site.  I think, you know, again, we sent out the information.  We’ve taken into consideration your comments at the last meeting, and I think we can accommodate all the different parts, Mr. Detert’s and your comments with respect to the sight line underneath the sign.  We can move that down to an 8 feet, commit to 90 square feet on advertisements and that would make the sign 31 feet in height.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s the square feet of the sign on Silhavy Road?

Mr. Jones stated, one thing that I just thought of in looking at what’s here is what’s unique about this location, too, is we have a tenant, Subway franchise, that we also are including in that 10 feet, so that may not matter to you, Mr. Burns, but we do have a tenant that we’re responsible to market for, so the square footage is a little bit larger because of that.  I just remembered that.

Mr. Burns stated, well, you could take out the ATM and put Subway. 

Mr. Ferngren stated, the reason for the change in square footage, the twin pole versus ground mount, is because of  the height and dimension that creates with your view, but we can scale that back to the 90 square feet of advertisement and move the base of that advertisement up to provide the sight lines that you’re interested in protecting and, in doing that, we can reduce the height of the sign that’s shown in the schematic down to 31 feet.

Mr. Williams stated, it would be less than 30 feet.  If it’s 8 feet off the ground, that already gets it down to 31 feet, and if you reduce the sign by…are you going to reduce the sign by 18 square feet by reducing the Family Express logo, or reducing the signs underneath?

Mr. Jones stated, we’ll have to do the signs underneath.

Mr. Williams stated, okay, so, if you took 18 feet off of 5 foot 8 wide, that’s going to reduce it 2 more feet, so you’re down to 29 feet tall, or less than 29 feet tall.

Mr. Burns stated, the Mobil sign there is 24 feet high right now.  It’s a single pole sign if I remember right.

Mr. Ferngren stated, it is.

Mr. Jones stated, and that’s barely 6 feet of clearance.

Mr. Burns stated, and that keeps the intersection open.

Mr. Detert stated, I feel like a 10 foot 6 sign for miscellaneous signs is much more than I would like to see.  You could knock 5 foot off of that and 2 foot off the height clearance here and you would have 7 feet and that would drop you to 26 feet. 

Mr. Jones stated, the sign that you refer to, Mr. Burns, if you use that as a template, the things that I would be looking to add….it would be the bottom sign that’s a milk sign is 3 feet tall by 5 foot 8 inches wide.  So, that’s roughly…we would be looking to add one more 3 foot sign like that and one smaller sign, one would be for the Subway and one would be for the ATM, I believe.

Mr. Burns stated, the ATM looks like it’s shorter.

Mr. Jones stated, yeah, it’s a 1-foot 6 inch.

Mr. Burns stated, you do have ATM on here. So you have to add the Subway sign.

Mr. Jones stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, and how much do you need for the Subway?

Mr. Jones stated that we were planning on the 3 foot by 5 foot 8.

Mr. Brickner asked, could you take this drawing and take your pen and put on there what the size and approximate shape of what you are going to put on this?

Mr. Williams stated that on your drawing, on the monument sign, you’re only showing the Subway sign being 18 inches tall.

Mr. Jones stated, in conversation with them….it was before we actually purchased the property was when we submitted that layout.  Since now we have them as a tenant there’s square footage commitments that we provide for them, so that’s probably why that shows different on there.

Mr. Detert stated, I’m ready for a motion.

Mr. Brickner stated, I want to see what he’s going to do here, because 28 feet is plenty high.

Mr. Detert stated, I was going to limit that in the motion to 26 feet.

Mr. Ferngren stated, I was just going to ask, because you had mentioned some figures earlier and I was trying to remember what they were.

Mr. Detert stated, you’re showing 10-foot clearance from the ground.  Is that what you’re proposing?

Mr. Ferngren stated, well, we can move that down to 8.

Mr. Detert stated, I was going to say, 8 foot would suffice.  The miscellaneous signs are 10 foot 6, and I would like to see you cut that in half, and that’s 7 feet.

Mr. Burns stated that the existing sign is about 6 feet now.

Mr. Detert stated, I’d like to see it a little higher off the ground.

Mr. Burns stated, it still keeps it open.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, but I think 8 feet would just give….it doesn’t give you much sight there, if you look at that.   A couple more feet, I think, would be appropriate. 

Mr. Brickner stated, I think 6 feet is high enough.

Mr. Burns stated, let’s ask the petitioner if they want to take 10 to 15 minutes, we hear the next case, and sketch a sign with 6 feet clearance on the bottom and a total of 26 feet and see if that works for you.  I don’t think we should make a rash decision and neither should you.  It’s a major business decision.  Sketch something out and we’ll hear the next case and then you come back to us with a sketch.

Mr. Detert stated, you know, I don’t think we should be engineering their sign.  We’ll give  them a height and we’ll give them a clearance and they can work their sign any way within those limitations.

Mr. Burns stated, except, you want to make sure, you know, how many signs they’re having.  You don’t want, I think, 15 small signs, do we?  And they don’t, either; you won’t be able to read the signs.

Mr. Jones stated, I think, I don’t know…I provided Mr. Brickner the sample layout and I believe there’s three 3-foot signs and one 1.5-foot sign beyond the gasoline pricing.

Mr. Burns asked, how high will the sign be?

Mr. Jones stated, well, he asked me to fill in the 10 foot 6, so I filled that out for him, which is three 3-foot signs and one 18-inch sign.

Mr. McClure asked, are you planning on limiting the motion to the miscellaneous sign space to how many signs they can put there?

Mr. Detert stated, my motion was going to give a height of clearance and a maximum height for the signs, and they can work that out, and I’m sure that they can work that out. I’m not a sign engineer.  Give them the height we want to see and a clearance.

Mr. Burns asked, what does our code state?  How many signs they can have or do we have any control over that?

Mr. McClure stated, square footage.

Mr. Detert stated, well, if you’re marketing – and I’ve had some marketing classes – you’d want to put a billboard up there.

Mr. Burns stated, I think what I’m hearing from Luther, he wants to stay around 26 feet, and I agree.

Mr. Williams stated, 28 feet is what I said.

Mr. Brickner stated, 26.

Mr. Burns stated, the existing out there is 24.

Mr. Williams stated, I think we do have the situation though…couldn’t the Subway come in and ask for a sign also?  I mean, they’re taking the Subway sign and putting it in there.

Mr. Burns stated, no.

Mr. Siminski stated, not a free-standing sign.   It’s limited to only one free-standing sign per development.

Mr. Ferngren stated, we’ll take a few minutes, you move on to your next case, and we’ll kind of sketch and see how things can work on our drawing, and we’ll come back.

Mr. Burns stated that the parameters is 26 feet tall, 6 feet clearance on the bottom.  Sketch something out and see if that works.

Mr. Ferngren stated, we’ll do that.

Mr. Detert moved to move Case 08-V-19 one item down on the agenda.  Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 08-V-20.  Petition of East Porter County School Corporation, 381 E. SR 2, Valparaiso, seeking Variances from Section 5.49 of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit a sign with an area of 86.4 square feet, larger than the 46 square feet allowed; to allow a sign to be 11 feet in height instead of the maximum of 8 feet in height; and to allow said sign to contain electronically placed text and to be lit; to be located at Washington Township School, 381 E. SR 2, in Washington Township.  (This Case was continued from the 5-21-08 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Chad Bailey with Vanadco Signs, 10625 SR 10, Argos, IN, stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.  He stated that I have to apologize for Mr. Jerry Hale.  He had a family emergency last night; called and had to go to Pennsylvania last night.  So, I’m here by myself to represent the school.  We were continued last month and asked to put stakes out at the property about where the sign’s going to sit and we did that.  I don’t know if you had the chance to go to this site and take a look at it.

Mr. Burns stated, I visited the site. Thanks for putting the stakes in.  It is on a mound and it’s back far enough where it’s not a visibility issue.  My only concern is, why such a large sign? 

Mr. Bailey stated that the reason being, since it’s going to be for both schools – the high school and elementary – they’re both going to be putting messages on this sign.   And being a school and not being able to scroll and keep messages fast, they are hoping to be able to get a larger message out there with the traffic that it is.  It’s kind of a short time period.  We’re hoping to get a bigger message across.  As far as the 3 foot 6 base, the brick that’s going to match the building, that’s just to try and get it above so that if there’s a car, kind of the situation that it is, coming around the curve there, if there’s a car behind another car, the car behind the first car is not going to be able to see anything until they’re right on top of the sign, so that’s the reason.  I’ve tried to get it above as much as I could.

Mr. Detert stated, I didn’t have too much of a problem with the sign last time.

Mr. Brickner stated, that will be the biggest sign in the entire Porter County School District.  Portage, Valpo, Boone Grove, Hebron – no school has a sign that big.

Mr. Bailey stated, Boone Grove’s sits up taller. As far as a message center, you’re right.  This is a bigger sign than what they have.  And Boone Grove’s actually looking to try to replace that one because it’s not effective for them.

Mr. Brickner stated, personally, it’s on a mound.  I looked at it.  It sits up where you can see it very well compared to the one that’s down in a hole that you could probably use for the elementary school if you wanted to, but I’d like to see it come down a little bit in height.  I think 11 feet is not necessary.  I’m not so concerned about how wide it is; I think that’s all right.  But personally I’d like to see it come down to about – I’d like to see it come down to 8 feet.  Is that possible?  That would comply with the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Bailey stated, I don’t know if the school would necessarily think 8 foot was going to be possible.  As you can tell, they’re trying to put their mascots on the sign.  I have a sign here that the school was okay with, and they said that it would be fine to use this, with a (inaudible) cover, if you want to pass it down.  As far as the brick facing, I’ve lowered it down to 10 foot.  I think if you go much lower than that you’re going to lose a lot of that bottom sign. 

Mr. Burns stated, you’ve reduced it by 1 foot from the last meeting.

Mr. Bailey stated, right.   And I think if you got much lower than that one they have to put there because you guys require landscaping around that, if you get down much lower than that and they put any kind of even a hosta, it’s going to start getting up into that main ID sign face there, the internally illuminated one.  I think that they would start to have a few problems with the landscaping underneath that.  And, also, snow removal and things like that.  If snow gets piled up, if it drifts there, it’s going to be right in the middle of that sign.

Mr. Brickner asked, why did you make it 10 feet? 

Mr. Bailey stated, that’s what the school wanted.

Mr. Brickner asked, 11 feet was your idea?

Mr. Bailey stated, that was their idea, as well.  They would rather have the taller, if they could, due to the traffic issue.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have a problem with that 10-foot sign.

Mr. Williams moved to approve Case 08-V-20 to allow the sign with a height of 10 feet.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked, are we going to put any restrictions on flashing, scrolling, or background?  Any restrictions on scrolling, flashing?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, all those restrictions that we have been putting on them, I would assume, right?  No flashing, no scrolling…

Mr. Brickner asked, this sign isn’t going to flash, right?

Mr. Bailey stated that the principal did not want it to flash.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s what he said, but I want to make sure it’s in the motion.

Mr. McClure stated, well, let’s enumerate exactly what the….

Mr. Burns stated, the way I understand it, it’s going  to be a black background with amber…

Mr. Bailey stated, I believe red.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, red lettering.

Mr. Bailey stated, correct.

Mr. Burns stated, no scrolling, flashing?

Mr. Bailey stated, correct.

Mr. Burns asked, no background movement?

Mr. Bailey stated, correct.

Mr. Brickner asked, what did you say, no scrolling?

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, no scrolling.

Mr. Detert stated, no images.

Mr. Burns stated, no images.  It’s just going to be information.

Mr. Bailey stated, that’s all in programming on the principal.

Mr. Burns stated, I agree with that.

Mr. Burns asked, how is it going to fade in and out?

Mr. Bailey stated, that’s all in the programming of the principal.  He can have it fade slowly.  He can have it pop up on there.  However you guys want him to do it, it’s all in the programming, and he said he would comply with all of your requests.

Mr. Burns asked, in your opinion, what’s the safest way of transitioning?

Mr. Bailey stated, I don’t know if there’s really much of a difference as far as safety-wise.  I would say if they have the capability, or if you guys would allow them to have either the option of fading in or just a flash-up, pop up, shut off, pop up, shut off.  I don’t think there’s really a safety issue on either one.

Mr. Burns stated, I agree.  I think the fading.

Mr. Bailey stated, that’s in the programming, and he can do that.

Mr. Burns stated, so the transitions will be a fading, and it would be one sign – double-sided, but it won’t be multiple signs on one side.

Mr. Bailey stated, correct.

Mr. Burns stated, no animation, no flashing, no blinking, no rotation, no sequencing, video display, scrolling, flickering, zooming, multi-colors, multi-framing, shaking, spinning, no background movement.  I’d like to have that included in the motion.

Mr. Detert stated that the maker and second agree to all of the stipulations that you put in  and the motion should reflect that.

Mr. Williams moved to approve Case 08-V-20 to allow the sign with an area or 86.4 square feet; with a height of 10 feet; colors to be black background with red letters; no background movement; no animation, no images, no flashing, no blinking, no rotation, no sequencing, video display, scrolling, flickering, zooming, multi-colors, multi-framing, shaking, spinning; with transition of messages to be a fade-in, fade-out; one sign, double-sided, without multiple signs on each side; 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
Williams -    Yes   Brickner  -    Yes

Case 08-V-19.  Petition of Family Express Corporation, c/o William A. Ferngren, 570 Vale Park Road, Suite 3, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from Section 5.51 (A)(1)(d)(i)(b) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the area of a sign to be 90 square feet, instead of the 60 feet allowable; and from Section 5.51 (A)(1)(d)(ii) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the height of the sign to be 14’6” instead of 8 feet; to be located at 252 W. SR 130, in Center Township. (This Case was continued from the 5-21-08 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)

Bill Ferngren stated that we did some figuring and what we would like to do in consideration of the things that we’ve accommodated you with.  We’d like to be at 26 feet 6 inches tall, at the top of the sign.  We will give the clearance of 6 feet at the bottom, and what that would produce is the miscellaneous sign area would be 8 feet in height, which would give us, really, 2 3-foot sign areas, and one 2 foot sign area, and we can do that.  In talking to Scott just about, how do they arrive at these different placards, their industry standards and norms, and that’s what they obviously fall into, as well.  Looking at the sign overall, we would say 26 feet 6 inches to the top of the sign.  Then we would have 6 feet of clearance from the ground before we get to anything, and then the miscellaneous signs area that you would have on the schematic, that would then become 8 feet in height, down from 10 feet 6.

Mr. Burns asked, would you be able to get all your pertinent advertising in there?

Mr. Jones stated, depends on what you mean by pertinent.

Mr. Burns stated, I do have a question.  You made a statement earlier.  That sign’s going to be lit all night? 

Mr. Jones stated, no.  It’s lit at night.  When Mr. Brickner made a comment about it’s not lit I wanted to clarify:  it’s lit, but it’s internally lit during business hours.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, because the neighbors were concerned about several things when that was originally approved – truck parking, lighting was an issue.  Hours of operation?  That’s not changing?

Mr. Jones stated, no.  It’s 5 to midnight, I believe, where we’re at right now.

Mr. Brickner asked, so it shuts off at midnight?

Mr. Jones stated, it shuts off when they close. They shut all of the lights off, and part of it’s the sign.

Mr. Burns stated, I thought it was 10:00. Is it midnight?  I’m not sure, but I thought the original one was 10:00.

Mr. Jones stated, it might be 10:00, but my norm is usually midnight.

Mr. Detert stated that part of the sign that is LED with the gas prices will be as you gave us.

Mr. Jones stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, Bill, can we see a sketch?  So I understand this now:  26’6”, 6 feet clearance, and your electronic portion would be through here.

Mr. Ferngren stated, it would get basically the gas prices, whether it’s diesel or unleaded.

Mr. Burns stated that the only question I have – this is for us – landscaping requirements.  If we’re trying to get visibility under a sign, what type of landscaping?  I’d like to have low-type landscaping, instead of high bushes, because we’re defeating the purpose if we’re putting 4-foot pine trees or bushes, you’re defeating the purpose.  If you look at this one here, they do have – besides a tree behind it – this is low-lying landscaping.  Would that be the same type? 

Mr. Ferngren stated, that’s where the landscaping would be, probably.

Mr. Burns asked, how long does it take to order a sign?

Mr. Jones stated, what’s critical here is the poles.  We had some poles set for ground-mount, but we can work on getting (inaudible)

Mr. Detert asked, what’s the dimensions on this portion of the sign with the gasoline and diesel prices?  You don’t show that on there.  I could get to it, I guess, by subtracting.

Mr. McClure stated, I think it’s 6’6”.

Mr. Detert stated, the only reason I’m asking is because, if I make a motion, I want this document to be a part of the record, with the size that you indicated.

Mr. Detert moved to approve the sign for Case 08-V-19 as provided us and indicated on Exhibit A and Exhibit A will be a part of the record; with no scrolling, no flashing, no animation, no starbursts; no background movement; colors will be a black background and reddish lettering (identical to the one on Silhavy Road); 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
Williams -    Yes   Brickner  -    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, 2-20-08, 3-19-08, 4-16-08 and 5-21-08 BZA meetings with the public hearing closed.)

Attorney Todd Leeth stated that he and Shawn Petit are representing the petitioners in this matter.  He stated that as you indicated in introducing the case, we’ve been here a time or two asking for your approval of a change in an existing advertising sign on the North side of U.S. 30 near the Joliet Road intersection.  Actually, this case is framed as an appeal from an administrative decision where Mr. Thompson denied a permit to change this existing sign from its existing, if you will, traditional poster panel to our request to change it to an LED message display. Our position is that, under your ordinance, we’re allowed to have this change because your ordinance says poster panel or equivalent.  We’ve made that argument before, but we also understand that there’s some concern because this is the first time that an LED display has been proposed for Porter County.  It is somewhat in the national literature has some controversy, and we understand that concern, and that’s why we’ve been here working with you, offering up the zoning commitment letter to address those concerns, which we think that this is a safe sign in its location and that the concerns that were heard at the public hearing and by members of the Board are addressed in that zoning commitment letter.  I’m not going to rehash all of our legal arguments; that’s already in the record.  I know that you had the opportunity to look at other signs that Lamar has in the community West of here and Mr. Petit and I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. Burns stated that I did investigate some of the intersections and have some accident numbers, and these numbers may not be exactly right on, but they’re close.  I talked to INDOT and they gave me numbers.  And the reason …let me back up…the reason why I did this is

I started talking to professionals – the Porter County Highway Engineer and INDOT personnel, state police and they all state this stretch of highway from 250 W. – some say from 150 W. – say from 250 W. to 475 is a dangerous stretch of highway in Porter County, and, when I heard that, I started looking at some of these numbers.  I went to INDOT and they gave me numbers.  Like I said, these are close, may not be exactly, but it gives you a trend.  At intersection 475, in 1995, there were 17 accidents; 1996, 14 accidents; 1997, 11 accidents; 1998, 21 accidents.  A light was installed because of the accidents around 2001, and the current numbers they do not have yet.  But they told me verbally they did drop since the stop light was installed.  Same with 250 W.  250 W., in 1997, there were 6 accidents; 1998, there were 7; 1999, 10; 2000, 17 accidents; and a light was installed in 2001.  They did have the numbers for 2003, which was 4; in 2004, which was 2.  So, after a light was installed, the accidents reduced dramatically.  Also, got some information from the Sheriff’s Department, and they gave it different ways.  They gave it and…some of these could be the same numbers…but just the stretch from 250 W to 475, time frame, from 1-1-2005 to 12-31-2007 there was 44 accidents in that stretch.  And, like I said, I got this from this stack of papers and this from the State verbally – I talked to the state personnel.  I just have a very difficult time supporting  this with this number of accidents.  With all the information I read, several things stood out in these reports.  We have all the negative from those reports.  They’re talking about grade change – we have grade change from both directions.  We have a curve.  We have high speed.  It’s high speed out there. That’s one thing they did do.  They did reduce  the speed limit out there, I think, by 5 miles per hour, and it didn’t help. People still speed.  There’s no stop light at the intersection. If there was a stop light, I mean, okay.  I might take a second look at this.  But all the negative is there.  Plus, if you’re driving East, the stop light at the Shorewood Forest intersection is on the same plane as that sign, and the problem I have – I had a picture here, somewhere – what I’m afraid of, what a driver’s going to see, is sign changing colors and not the stop light.  It’s right below it, right in the same plane. So, I do have concern for the public safety and welfare. 

Mr. Leeth asked, may I interrupt one moment for a point of order?  Mr. Chairman, is that photograph going to be made part of the record?

Mr. Brickner stated, I haven’t seen it yet.

Mr. Leeth stated, my only point is, that if it is, I’m going to object to its entry into the record, for the record. I’m just preserving my right to object to that if we go onto the next stage.

Mr. Brickner asked, why?

Mr. Leeth stated, because the entry of that photograph is coming from a Board member, not from the opposition of the public or the remonstrators, or from us.  It’s being presented from a Board member. I think that’s inappropriate for Board members to submit evidence into the record.  If it is being made part of the record, I want to preserve my right to object to it in court.

Mr. Burns stated, I think – we’ve been working on this case for several months – I think I got this from the Highway engineer.  I thought.  I don’t know that for sure, whether I did or not.  But I did go out there.  I took some pictures, too, but I think the Highway engineer took some pictures.  I can’t remember where this one came from.

Mr. Leeth stated, I think you can appreciate the position I’m in here tonight.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m just being up-front.  My concern is the public safety.  And especially, we’re getting all these comments from the professionals.  And I still go back to the original County ordinance. It’s a panel.  The original ordinance claims a panel, and I have to agree with the Executive Secretary (sic), it’s a single panel.  That’s all I have.

Mr. Detert stated, I thought you might want to say something, because you supplied a lot of the information from the internet.  Do you want to make your comments now?

Mr. Brickner stated, I was going to make a comment after everyone else was finished, but, I think there is a lack of any concrete evidence that these signs cause a problem.  I don’t think there is any concrete evidence to support that flashing signs do cause accidents.  On the other hand, there isn’t any concrete evidence to show that they don’t.  This particular place in Porter County is probably the worst place I know to start with a flashing sign.  I think that a lot of the things that Mr. Burns has said, and a lot of the Board members have said in the past, is this is one of the worst places to experiment, and I’m afraid that it would be irresponsible, if there was even a chance that this type of sign distracts or causes accidents, that we can’t error (sic) on the side of allowing a sign to exist.  I think that would be irresponsible, because that would not be in the best interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Porter County.

Mr. Detert stated, I just didn’t want to repeat everything that everybody else said, but I do have some notes, but in the meeting minutes of the meeting of November 28, 2007, you stated that you were basing your request on the Federal Highway Administration report dated 9-11-2001, the ominous date, titled Research/Review of Potential Driver Attention and Distraction and, too, on a report conducted by the Traffic Institute at Virginia Tech and the date on that was 3-22-2007, and the title of it was Driver Performance and Digital Billboards.  Your comments were, you’re going to find, I mean, I can’t present you a study that has, aha, they’re safe.  And I don’t think that these reports are going to say, aha, they’re dangerous.  So, there isn’t any concrete evidence. But there is evidence to cite that says that signs do detract and billboards detract, and I think you even admitted to that, because that’s how you get your advertising to a person.  With the changing momentarily, within seconds, of that billboard, you’re jacking that exposure up tremendously.  And I thought it was interesting, and one of the comments that I found in my reading, one of the experts indicated that even – and he was, I’m going to have to look through my notes for his name – but he indicated that electronic signs, in his opinion, ought to be limited to no more than two times, changing twice, very limited, to reduce that exposure.  And the other comment was in regards to the person that travels that highway all the time – the person that travels it only occasionally is only going to see that sign once, and then going to disappear.  The guy that travels it every day, and we have a lot of people that drive to Chicago and North Lake County, to the industrial complex there, that travel it both to and from work, so they’re probably going to see at least twice a day two signs there.  And if they travel it every day, five days a week, they’re going to see it 10 times in that week.  So, there’s going to be a lot of exposure and a lot of detraction (sic) from their driving.  And the comment made in that reading was, static signs – you see them once or twice and then they’re gone – you don’t pay any attention to them anymore. But these, by the nature of them changing constantly, you’re always going to be like you got a new sign, and, related to that thought, too, is that I think that the Director acted appropriately because you may be talking about one structure, but you’re talking about – and I don’t know how many advertisers you’re going to have – but you’re talking about messages that are going to be multiple during the day, even though they’re housed in one structure.  To me, that’s more than the concept of the billboard was as it was presented in the ordinance that you’re under, and I don’t think that the writing of that ordinance…I don’t think that exposure to electronic signs was there or was written…so the intent of that ordinance was to limit it to a static type billboard.  I think from one of the things I did read – and that was from Wikipedia, free encyclopedia, has the following statement:  “Studies based on correlations between traffic accidents and billboards face the problem of under-reporting.  Drivers are unwilling to admit responsibility for a crash, so will not admit to being distracted at a crucial moment.”  I think that’s appropriate because your studies that say that they may not be dangerous are not really full studies as I see them because you’re not going to get the proper response from people that were in accidents.   And that was in the…there were a couple studies that those comments were based on, and there were some studies that one paper was presented at the Road Safety Research Enforcement and Policy in Brisbane, Australia, and another one was a Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards and Driver Attention and Distraction, Washington, D.C., Federal Highway Administration.  And, as we all know, you were basing part of your presentation on the Federal Highway Administration, but, to me, the Federal Highway Administration now has funded – and I assume it’s in progress with results expected in 2008 or 2009 and that study has been funded, as I understand it – so there’s some thinking there that may be the original study that you mentioned – is not really appropriate or was not done in enough depth on billboards. I’d feel a lot more comfortable if I  had the results and then your petition came in and I think I, based on someone that I think would not be – would be somewhat independent, I think that would be a better approach for us to have had that study, so, those are mainly some of my comments.  I think one of the guys that did the 1980 study – and I’m looking for his name here – but, his name was….Jerry Wachel, an engineering psychologist and safety expert and lead author of the FHWA’s original study in 1980 on electronic billboards, and he’s he one that made the comment that the frequency of the sign change was important.  They thought that there should be no more than a sign change twice.

Mr. Leeth stated that the original hearing that we appeared in front of this Board, you’re right…we came in and had those two studies, the Federal Highway Administration study and the Virginia Tech Study.  But I want to make it clear that our position is is that your ordinance requires you to issue the permit, which we applied back in…over a year ago, in May or June of ’07.  And the purpose of those studies was to highlight to this body that we believe that the support…that the studies support the position that the LED technology does not cause a safety concern.  I believe that those studies show that.  I think that my statement was…or, at least, that’s certainly my intent was…that those statements indicate that any result is inconclusive.  One of the reports uses the word “safety neutral”.  We have to show, I think, to you that the ordinance requires you to do that.  That’s the purpose of the appeal of our decision from Mr. Thompson from June 26 of last year.  What I was trying to show to you and to the Board was that the real crux of what you try and do – the health, safety and welfare of the community – is not being detrimentally changed by you granting our request to appeal that decision and allow the sign to change.  That’s the purpose of these studies.  It wasn’t to bolster our legal argument. It was to give you a sense that the studies are inconclusive and that these are safety-neutral issues.  We’re not trying to suggest to you that that’s a legal hurdle that we have to overcome in order for you to prevail in seeing our appeal successfully.

Mr. Petit stated, first, to address member Burns’ comment, the selection of this site is such that the lease with the property owner is long-term.  These signs – the sign that we are going to put up – is $250,000-$300,000.  Corporate policy of Lamar is that they’ll sign a lease for the property has to have an X amount of years on it.  So we selected that because…we list it as the old Gary Cellular – and I think it now might be Cingular.  I’m not sure of the cell tower owner.  We selected that – this site – for sales because of the Valparaiso market sales department – and then we looked at the leases that would have been eligible.  That’s why we selected this location.  To member Detert, I have a couple comments, or, I guess, concerns.  You’re absolutely right.  There is no concrete data either way, and when you’re in an accident – and I’ve most recently been in an accident in the last two months, unfortunately – when the police come out, can any of you honestly – or any of us honestly say, oh, yeah, I was looking at that billboard, officer.  You’re not going to say that.  You’re not going to find a police report  that has that box checked.

Mr. Detert stated, that was my point.

Mr. Petit stated, but, this just went off.  And how many of us have these that we talk on the phone in our car.  They’re just as much of a distraction as Lamar’s billboards, and I can almost guarantee you that to a fact.  And there are certain municipalities and states that have outlawed, in fact, the City of Chicago does not allow you to be this way.  You have to be hands-free, if I’m not mistaken.  So, there are other road distractions.

Mr. Detert stated, I agree with that, but that’s not what’s before us.  What’s before us is a billboard.

Mr. Petit stated,….is to look at that. First of all, the distraction, if it is denied tonight, is going to remain up there.  We’re permitted under the old ordinance.  It was built.  It’s constructed. It’s up.  I think Mr. McClure would agree, it cannot come down right now.  I mean, there’s no ruling, as part of this decision, that they can say to take the billboard down.  So, a one panel billboard…is that more distracting or less distracting than what we’ve proposed.  You guys talked about, a couple of meetings back, about the color scheme.  McDonald’s copy is up there now with a red background.  CVS could be up there with a red background in coordination with the street light…or traffic signal.  You know, the other concern that I have – both as a Lamar representative, but as a planner for 17 years is – and I preach this to a lot of the boards that I go to, and I probably mentioned it to this Board is, two tri-waves were approved before the area was annexed into Chesterton, on SR 49 and the Indiana Toll Road.  Those are tri-waves.  Those are three panels that are moved under your old ordinance.  They were permitted.  They were built by a competing sign company and, to the best of my knowledge, they are still spinning. So, you know, you talk about one poster panel in your definition, and yet a precedent had been set by your executive director to issue building permits. It doesn’t matter when it was done. I understand you’re supposed to judge on a case by case basis.  That’s understandable, but you cannot ignore that a precedent had been set by the executive director to allow more than one poster panel on an advertising structure in another location in the County, even though, again, it was annexed into the Town of Chesterton just recently.  So, that’s where my concerns lay when we’re trying to dissect all of these things.  The last thing I would ask – and, Todd, I hope I’m not speaking out of context with this, Mr. McClure – I believe that you or the Board were provided a letter that outlines certain issues from Lamar, both from court cases and from potential alternative.  Now, obviously, Lamar, we would like some sort of resolution, as I’m sure you folks would like tonight, as well, to either rule on the 30 and Joliet site.  But it was presented, I think, at the last time we were totally together about the possibility of looking at an alternate site.  We went out and secured and researched an alternate site near Hayes-Leonard Road.  I don’t know if that’s something that would be considered, Mr. McClure.  It would go under the new Uniform Development Ordinance.  Again, Lamar wants a resolution one way or another. That’s the preference of the Board.  We would accept that, table this indefinitely until we can file those new Variances for that location on the South side of U.S. 30, East of Hayes-Leonard Road.  We will want to bring that closer.  The property owner that we talked to does want us to bring  that closer to the intersection, Mr. Burns, so that would be near that light, but that is an option that we would want to continue to visit with you folks, but, again, to go through all of the things we need to go through, Lamar would need some type of consensus, Mr. McClure, and I don’t know if the Board is able to give  that.  My understanding, Mr. Siminski, is it would probably require a Use Variance and some developmental Variances.  We, again, would be willing to go through that, set that lease up with the property owner, if that’s a better location for you folks. Or if, in general, the LED’s are something that is not something that Porter County wants, then I would say scrap that, vote on this petition before you, and then we’ll move on from there.  Those are, Mr. Chairman, just a few things to chew on.

Mr. Detert stated, I feel that that offer you made for a sign is in a worse and higher-congested and has many businesses there and that’s probably as bad as you can get.  I think that would be to your advantage to put the sign there, but I think it would be detrimental to us to put the sign there.

Mr. Leeth stated, we’re trying  to work, as you know…we’ve been here since…it’s been a long time.  We’re trying to work with you.  You said the alternative site was the worst one, and Mr. Burns said that the site that we’re talking about at Joliet is the worst  site.

Mr. Detert stated, they’re both bad.  That was no improvement.  That’s all I’m saying. 

Mr. Petit stated, now, I disagree with that, because the alternative site doesn’t have the curves.

Mr. Detert asked, can I finish?  Please.  You said that we had issued before two signs.  And there’s an old saying that says two mistakes don’t make a right so, in my view, and what I was trying to get across here, that this sign, by its changeability, is, even  though it’s the same structure, is many, many more billboards.

Mr. Petit stated, it’s six panels versus the three that are spinning on the Toll Road right now.

Mr. Detert stated, let me read this thing.  I mentioned this Jerry Wachel, and he was the lead author of the 1980 study.  There was comments made in the readings that we had for the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and I will just read you what was said in that report.  It was done by somebody like FPF Engineering, but here was  their comments on their interview with him: “Wachel also offered comments on drafts of this report. In later conversations related to his review Wachel stated his belief that even though visual fixations on roadway signs decreased as route familiarity increases the strength of the digital billboards is that they can present messages that are always new.  Thus, the conclusion from the 1980 FHWA’s study is another argument against these billboards.  Namely, drivers spend more time looking at the unfamiliar signs than at familiar signs, suggesting digital billboards are more dangerous than traditional fixed billboards.  Wachel also suggested his preference for a goal to have any given driver experience only one or a maximum of two messages from an individual roadside sign”.  That guy’s considered an expert.  He was a lead writer on the 1980 study.  You know, I’m trying to look at the expert opinions on this, and, I don’t think there’s much question, at least in my mind and in most people’s mind, and I think common logic would tell you when you’re changing signs you’re increasing distraction.

Mr. Petit stated, but that argument, Mr. Detert, could be made on any and all on-premise signs you ladies and gentlemen granted, and the Porter County Expo Center has a digital display.

Mr. Detert stated, we’re not going to have the size and we’re not going to have the information that’s on your sign.

Mr. Petit stated, well, they’ll change copy just as much as we do, and so you get into the argument of the distinction between off-premise and on-premise.  Is there a prejudice in not only Porter County, Lake County, LaPorte County – all of Indiana – is  there a prejudice between off-premise and on-premise advertising?  There is a video unit at Walter E. Smithe at U.S. 30 and Broadway in Merrillville.  Now, if you polled 100 people would they say Lamar’s digital in Merrillville up on SR 55, is that less distracting or more distracting than Walter E. Smithe?  They run animation.  They run full-motion video.  If you want to focus on the distraction and that the sign is going to be a distraction, you need to look at all aspects of this.

Mr. Detert stated, point of clarity on that sign.   You’re talking about the one by Smithe?

Mr. Petit stated, mmmhmmm.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s a Tri-Wave.

Mr. Petit stated, no, I’m talking about Walter E. Smithe’s on-premise sign. We’re talking about the distinction and the possible prejudice between off-premise and on-premise advertising all across Indiana.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s what I wanted to clarify.

Mr. Petit stated, we see digitals on all kinds of on-premise buildings.  Walgreens has got the red scrolling things and changeable copy.  And they change the message.  They change it from Advil at $4.99 and this and that and whatever and get your prescriptions filled here.  That’s changeable.  That’s just as much a distraction as an LED from Lamar changing six copies from Bosak to Strack and Van Til’s to whoever.   I mean, you can make that argument, if we’re going to look at the traffic distraction and that’s going to be what you folks deny or approve this on for the general welfare, we need  to be fair to both on-premise and off-premise when a decision’s being made.  And, again, I look to that precedent  that the  Porter County Expo Center was granted an LED.  Again, smaller – you’re absolutely right, but, again, the copy is different, promoting different events all throughout the year.  That’s changeable copy that could be….

Mr. Detert stated, I no longer have an interest in Merrillville.  I no longer live there. I’m no longer a board member there.  So, if Merrillville decided that that was a good sign, I’m not going to argue about it.  I don’t think it is.  But my opinion is, from everything that I’ve read, is because of the ability that these signs change messages, they create a greater distraction and the frequency of those changes create a greater distraction and I think that that tells me that there’s some danger. Furthermore, the federal government is going to restudy and, I assume, update their last report, so there must be something in their thinking that says we didn’t do a thorough enough job on the last study and we want to look at it a little more conclusively, and I might agree with you if I had that study and knew what that was going  to show, I could probably work something out.  Right now, everything I’ve read, and I think it’s a common sense approach, is that common sense tells you, when you’ve got that much change, that there’s going to be that much more distraction, and distraction, I don’t know how you feel about it, but distraction almost all the experts agree, are (sic) what causes accidents, not just billboards.  I agree with the cell phone, but that’s….

Mr. Burns stated, I’ve got one more comment:  On Hayes-Leonard Road, one of the days I was talking to INDOT, they were telling me they were doing a study on that intersection because of accidents and near-misses at that time.  I think the principal, they told me, requested that because they had near misses with the buses. That’s why that’s a major concern.  I think they had between 14 to 20 buses a day come out of Hayes-Leonard School.  They all don’t go across 30, but a majority or half or whatever – some do.  That’s a concern at the intersection, because of the school and the school buses, and they say they performed a study – I talked to INDOT – so, for safety issues. But a question back to that intersection, where you want the sign.  You have to agree…I thought you made a comment that if you put a sign, that is the worst place with the curve, the grade change and high speed.  Do you agree that’s not the best place for a sign?

Mr. Petit stated, oh, yeah.  From a sign standpoint, that is a great, because of the read, the readability into the curve is such a long read.  There’s no vegetation there.  We’ve taken out some of  the vegetation with a state permit and landowner approval to clear it out on the back side, the East face.  From a sales perspective and from businesses, Porter County and Lake County businesses wanting to be on that board.  That is an excellent board.  That’s why the sales department selected it. That’s the best read you have in Porter County.

Mr. Burns stated, see, and that’s a concern, from those reports is a curve, because people are reading those signs longer, and the distraction is greater, and you have high speed.  There’s a grade change.  Everything’s negative.  If there was a stop light there, I may have a second thought  about it…

Mr. Petit stated, well, that’s why we went to investigate Hayes-Leonard for you folks, to see if that could be an alternative, and I guess this is what I’m hearing:  It’s really not an alternative, so, you know, I don’t know what more Lamar could say, Mr. Chairman.  I guess we would, again, beg for a decision by the Board tonight to put this…once and for all.

Mr. Brickner stated, yes, we should make a decision on this tonight, and I think whether or not they uphold the Executive Director’s decision, at this particular sign, at this particular location.  I think that’s what we need to decide.  I think it’s been well-covered by all the Board members.  Mr. Detert’s and Mr. Burns’ research is exhaustive.  At this point, I think we’re ready for a motion.

Mr. Detert moved to uphold the Executive Director’s decision to deny a building permit for Case 07-EDD-1, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file.  Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns    -    Yes   Detert    -   Yes   Kerr-Cook    -    Yes
Williams   -  Yes   Brickner -    Yes

New Business:

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

Mr. Burns moved to move Case 08-SE-1 from the last spot on the agenda to the first, because of children interested in the case, attending.  Ms. Kerr-Cook seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

Case 08-SE-1.  Petition of Horvath Towers LLC, 401 E. Colfax Ave., Suite 101, South Bend, seeking a Special Exception to erect a 250-foot-tall monopole wireless communications tower and accompanying equipment cabinets under Sections 10.02 and 5.69 TC-01 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to be located at 751 W. 800 S., in Boone Township.

Attorney John Falvey stated that he and Sean Boylan are representing the petitioners in  this matter.  Mr. Falvey stated that there’s the biggest baseball quote:  “It’s like déjà vu all over again”, as Yogi Berra once said.  As the Board knows, is familiar with Horvath Towers, due to the fact that Horvath was in front of this Board in March seeking a Variance for a telecommunications site in Northwest Porter County that was granted and is under way through the remainder of the process to get constructed.  Construction is expected to begin in some time in August.  Horvath is not here tonight seeking a Variance, but a Special Exception under 5.69 of the Unified Development Ordinance.  The reason for the distinction is that the particular site that Horvath is seeking a Special Exception for is located in a district that is zoned P-2, and that is a parcel of property approximately 15 acres, that is owned by Hebron Little League Incorporated at approximately 751 W. 800 S., in Hebron.  The proposal before the Board is for a 250-foot monopole design telecommunications facility.  This particular structure would hold four carriers, plus include free space for public safety and law enforcement use.  In addition to the needed cell phone coverage in the area, this site would also provide enhanced opportunity for E-911 use in that particular area.  The two initial carriers to use this site would be U.S. Cellular and AT&T.  An additional two carriers could then go on the site at a later date.  As I mentioned, Horvath meets all the telecommunications standards in Section 5.6 in the zoning district development standards.  In addition, because this site is owned by a Little League, Horvath has a unique opportunity to provide revenue to a well-deserved entity in a Little League, and I believe some members or supporters of the Little League are here tonight who wish to speak in favor when the time allows.  I would, at this time, before I turn it over to Sean Boylan, director of communications, who has a visual presentation, I’d like to present the Board, for the record, two copies of the demonstrative exhibit, or  the slides, that he’s about to show, so that’s going to be included in the record.  And, also, because those are black and white, I have color photos of the slides of  the coverage potential for AT&T and U.S. Cellular.  It is included in the presentation that Mr. Boylan is going to show of the current coverage for U.S. Cellular and AT&T and the additional improvement in the coverage that would be shown by this site.  In addition to that, I’d like to put into the record a copy of the determinant of no hazard to air navigation provided to Horvath by the FAA.  At the time I submitted the application over a couple months ago, this determination had not been made.  However, in the packets I sent to the Board members, we received it, so all the Board members have that in Tab #6, but the official application to the BZA did not include that, so I’d like to make sure that’s included.  And also, Fred, the copy I sent to you at the time I sent it to the BZA members has that in there, but our initial application did not.  So, at this time, I’d like to turn this over to Mr. Boylan to present, using his visual aids, the reason Horvath is here tonight seeking this Special Exception.

Sean Boylan, director of operations with Horvath Towers, stated that a few months ago, when we were heard for what we considered our Roble Woods area, you guys had asked us to come back and present a presentation showing, not only the Board members, but also the interested parties that came out for the public hearing, the location of this specific property, as well as pictures.  This is a Google image aerial view of the parent parcel, showing the different ball parks and exactly where we’re located on the parcel.  Our lease area is indicated by the pinkish square, so, as you can see, there’s a nice fuchsia blot by the existing trees, as well as, you will see on the next slide, and I’m not sure what tab you have, but our zoning drawings do have a survey that I’m about to show you here.

Mr. Falvey asked, Sean, do you know approximately how far back from the South portion of the road?  Gentlemen, the slide he’s referring to is Page Z-1 in the site plan that was submitted  to you, and that was under Tab 2 of the submittal mailed  to you over a week ago.

Mr. Boylan stated that the distance from the South…there’s going to be two distances.  We’re approximately 800 feet from the road.  We do meet all the setbacks, as you can see. Porter County does require a 60 percent tower setback and that is met on all sides of the parcel.  I’m going to move on from this slide, but if, at any time, you guys would like me to move back to any of the slides, please let me know.  As submitted for  the record, as John just indicated,  this is U.S. C’s current coverage of the Town of Hebron and surrounding areas in the County.  After this site is up, you can see, there’s a significant coverage increase.  Pink and red is bad, and they’re going to change from carrier to carrier, but, for this instance right here, U.S. Cellular, pink and red are extremely bad.  Then you’ve got yellow, blue and then red.  As you can see, once this site is on, then you’ve got just a tremendous blowup of not only in-car coverage, but in-building coverage, as well.  Their primary objective here is to penetrate the buildings and the houses, as well as the SR 8 and 231 corridors.  The next is AT&T’s current coverage. Our site is indicated right here by the site number.  The closest site is about 4 miles away.  There is a chart with the submittal that does have the mileage indicated on there.  After the site is on there, you’ll be able to see a significant increase in coverage with AT&T. Unfortunately, unlike with U.S. Cellular, you can’t see the specific street routes in the Town of Hebron, so, it’s a little bit difficult to know exactly where that coverage increase will be.  These are some pictures taken recently of two towers in South Bend, East Side Little League.  These two towers used to be owned by Horvath Towers at one point, a long time ago.  They were constructed back in 1996, and this gives just a couple vantage points.  These are two guyed towers.  I believe they’re both under 200 feet with five carriers on them, which is what we hope we have on ours one day.  Moving on we have some specific pictures of the location itself.  This is the view looking North.  This is the view looking East, West and South.  So, as you can see, pretty desolate.  If there is going to be one location, this is definitely it, and then, as you can see, there’s not much here, visually, and their hopes is one day it will look as nice as East Side Little League.

Mr. Falvey stated, I would just add, too, based on the current existing zoning map for that portion of Porter County, we’re very close to the Lake County line down there in the Hebron area.  As it pertains to this particular BZA and its jurisdiction, all the other areas outside the Town of Hebron in that area are zoned residential, so we were able to pick the one area for the site where this tower could go for these two carriers that is not zoned either R-1 or R-2 (sic).

Dave MacNeill, 1003 Aspen St., Hebron, stated that I’m on the Board of Directors down at Hebron Little League.  Some of the things…I’ve been on the Board for a while and there’s a lot of things that the funding for this for us would help out tremendously on handicapped access on the field.  Our fields are in the back property.  Presently, we scrape every year just to get funding to get things going. Presently, we don’t have any running water down there.  We’re way behind the times on stuff like that.  Safety issues.  We have no safety nets in between the fields. That, to me, is a priority.  We’re hoping that, if this comes through, we’ll be able to get some of those needs down there.

Shawn Ryan, 469 W. 900 S., Hebron, stated that I’m also a member of the Hebron Little League Board.  I’m down here speaking in favor of the proposed site down here for a number of reasons.  I’m going to try to keep them brief.  I just think it’s a great opportunity for Hebron Little League and the kids we have sitting over here. Those fields have been there for at least 12 years.  It’s a great site, but nothing has changed over  the course of those 12 years. We really need some things down there.  We have safety issues all over the field.  As far as the fencing goes, we have heaved concrete footings all over the outfield, almost every field, backstops.  We recently got estimates done on the money it’s going to cost and it’s just outrageous.  So, if we don’t get an outrageous group of volunteers down there working on this field – which, in a community like that, it’s not going to happen. We’re trying, but things like that, we could get taken care of.  Like Dave said, to reiterate, running water, indoor bathrooms.  We have two outhouses down there that are Porta-Potties, I guess, I should say that we are using to facilitate our bathroom needs.  For  the boys, it’s not such a bad thing, sometimes.  But we also have girls’ softball down there and moms down there and babies.  We have a lot of challenges.  I think Horvath is going to kind of meet us halfway with this not only to improve cell phone coverage in our area, but it would be a big improvement for our community and the children.

Dwayne Hernandez, 507 W. Wilson St., Hebron, stated that I am our league’s president.  Fortunately, the two gentlemen hit on everything that I was going to talk to you about, but we do have…I’d like to hit on the Porta-Potty issue and the lack of running water.  To ask our young ladies and our moms to use a Porta-Potty is just unbelievable, you know.  And we are behind times.  We are a community of about 3,000 plus.  We are losing businesses and we are losing residents, and  that’s making it harder and harder for us to come up with the funds to run our program.  Two years ago we did, the one thing that is new at our facility is our pole barn.  With that year, it took $58,000 to run that program, our program down in Hebron.  We went in debt with the pole barn.  We still owe on that, but every penny that we take in, we are scraping for these kids.  Shawn hit the heaved posts.  We have over 120 heaved posts that are heaved out  of the ground to a point, some are this high, some are…the cement’s exposed.  These kids go diving for a ball, unfortunately, you know, we don’t have the means to get them in the ground right now.  We were planning on dropping all the fences and like Shawn mentioned, getting all the volunteers, and, unfortunately, sometimes, that’s like pulling teeth.  With Horvath coming in, it would be a lot easier to go to a local fencing company and say, you know, we are a not-for-profit.  We are dealing with 300+ children.  Can you give us a break?  We do have the funds now. It would go to a contractor. We have the funds now to put in running water, put in the toilets.  To expand on our concession stand.  To keep our residents and our ballplayers intact in Hebron.  So, I am definitely for it and each of these children are, and this is just a portion of the kids.  We have 300+ ballplayers.  Some of them…well, we have no lights, so we’re off the field right now, it’s dark. It would be a bonus to Hebron Little League if it was passed. 

Mike Wheeler, 823 S. 400 W., Hebron, stated that I’m a former Board member, coach for 8 years. I think it’s a very good idea, and we are committed to Hebron.  We are losing so many businesses right now. It’s hard to get income to do things on the field.  It’s hard to go to companies and ask them to sponsor things when there are no companies anymore, no businesses in our town.  There’s numbers of kids that aren’t playing Little League in our town because they can’t afford it, because their parents don’t have the money.  Hopefully, generating some income this way it will help us lower the cost for these kids to play.  We can get more kids in there playing, get them off the streets, keep them out of trouble, get them involved in activities and keep them safe.  And that’s what I think this will help us with.  This money is very important for our small community right now. Especially trying to work on getting the kids safe and off the streets.  And that’s why I’d really like to see this program go through.

Terry Eich, 3515 E. 153rd Ave., Hebron, stated that I’m representing St. Helen’s Catholic Church tonight, which is on 305 Madison St., directly adjoining the Little League field.  Father Dudash, who’s our pastor, was going to be here, but his father’s ill, so he asked me to read what he had prepared to the Board.  “I am the resident pastor of St. Helen’s Catholic Church in Hebron, Indiana. 

Our church property adjoins the property where the wireless tower is proposed to be erected.  My residence is on the church property.  The proposed tower is directly in view from my house and every point on our property, which means that at any time, any activity – religious, social or educational is held.  The proposed 250-foot proposed tower would be in full view.  There are two other Baptist churches, which also adjoin the property upon which the tower is proposed to be erected.  The Little League field is situated right in the middle of three church congregations, which hold regularly scheduled worship services, as well as educational programs and social programs for those families.  There is also a subdivision of approximately 50 houses close to the Little League field.  We doubt whether all of the residents of this subdivision were notified of this proposed construction and its proximity to their residences.  Imagine how you would feel if such a structure were literally proposed to be erected in your back yard.  In what would otherwise be considered a tranquil and serene County setting, which contributes to an atmosphere for worship and family social activity, the proposed tower constitutes not only an eyesore to all concerned, but is totally out of place within this otherwise bucolic setting.  When people move to Hebron and join the parish, I ask them why they move to our town.  Most are from urban environments.  Almost to a person, they tell me that they relocated in order to be able to raise their children in a kind of pastoral setting that they’ve dreamed of.  Situating a wireless communications tower which rises almost 25 stories into the sky certainly detracts from the environment into which they thought they were moving.  While most people are not opposed to the good things technology brings to their lives, I feel certain that the proposed wireless tower could be located in an environment other than right in the middle of  three houses of worship and a subdivision of homes.  I write to you today representing approximately 300 church families. We definitely feel it is important to maintain the present peaceful and pastoral setting within which our church now resides. I am definitely opposed to any exception being granted for the purpose of allowing this or any other tower to be erected on the property in question.  Although technology has its miracles, it is not given that every new advance has to find its way into our back yard. Thank you for your consideration”.

Mr. Boylan stated that we do, certainly, respect the opinions of the adjacent property owner with respect to the…certified mailings we did mail out to everybody that was required, according to (inaudible), as well as it should be noted…and I’m sure you guys heard this in the last petition…60 percent of all 911 phone calls come from cellular wireless communications, as well as 16 percent of all homes in the United States have now converted over to mobile only, and they’ve dropped their land line.  I find it interesting that he mentions the church and also the housing development that is adjacent to us, but yet one person out of 40+ or however many residents…however many members they have in the church, would come out.  There’s just one person here, so I think the benefits of the cell phone tower far outweigh the visual aesthetics of one house.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t live in Hebron, but I spend a lot of time out there.  I patronize some of the few businesses that are left out there, so, I’d say I’m out there three, four times a week, and the reception out there is absolutely horrible.  There’s a completely dead spot on my phone just on the North side of Hebron, and the reception anywhere I’ve used my phone in Hebron is blotchy, so, I think if there was ever a need for another tower, it’s probably in Hebron.  I guess I question the need for the 250 feet.  Most of our towers are in the vicinity of 200 feet, and I just don’t see why we have to go to 250 feet out there. Now, if you can answer that.

Mr. Boylan stated, originally we did propose a 200-foot tower to both customers.  Unfortunately, U.S. Cellular, to eliminate the need for additional sites in the County and thus come back time and time again for towers, demanded, at least to us, that we propose a 250-foot tower.

Mr. Detert asked, this tower will have to be lighted, correct? What kind of lighting are you going to put on it?

Mr. Boylan stated that it’s an FAA mandated.  It’s a white strobe during  the day and…

Mr. Detert stated, those are a bit obnoxious.  I look out of my living room window and see one of those every evening. I understand it’s a tower for radar for O’Hare Airport.  I understand the need and I’m willing to put up with it.  It’s there; I don’t like it.  That’s what I don’t like about your tower is the need to put this strobe light up there.

Mr. Boylan stated that it’s a white pulse during the day, with a red strobe at night.

Mr. McClure stated, which is required by our ordinance now.

Mr. Detert stated, if you put a 200-foot tower up there with the conventional, you wouldn’t need any lighting.  I could better appreciate that than the 250 feet you want to put up there.

Mr. Burns stated, like Mr. Detert asked, why 250 versus 200 or 199; that’s a concern, because we have had several complaints in the County of these flashing lights on the towers.  Also, this is a question for counsel:  The height restriction in this zoning – do they need a Variance?

Mr. McClure stated, I don’t believe so.

Mr. Brickner asked, does our tower ordinance specify anything over 200 feet…we’ve never seen a tower 250…a monopole tower, 250 feet.  And I could probably direct  that question to John. I don’t know why or how they build them 250 feet.  The stability would bother me.

Mr. Burns stated, another question with that:  If he could put that slide back up where it’s located, next to that wood line…where is the church property, on the other side of the wood line?

Mr. Boylan stated, well, I do know…and I could stand to be corrected here…but I do know this is an existing church.  Is this the church?

Mr. Eich stated, St. Helen’s is up over…if you look to the far right, second down.  You can see the parking lot.  That’s St. Helen’s, and then the Baptist Church is North of there. 

Mr. Burns asked, so how far is that tower from the church’s property line?

Mr. Boylan asked, to the East?

Mr. Burns stated, yes.

Mr. Boylan asked, to the property line or the church structure?

Mr. Burns stated, property line.

Mr. Eich stated, that’s our property.

Mr. Boylan stated that the zoning required 153 feet, 60 percent of the tower height.

Mr. Burns asked, from the property line of the church?

Mr. Falvey stated, from the property line.

Mr. Burns asked, so, the fall zone would fall onto the church’s property, if the tower fell down.

Mr. Boylan stated that we structure our towers to be…

Mr. Burns stated, I know, if you had an earthquake or whatever or a storm…

Mr. Falvey stated, we submitted a letter in our application from the tower designer indicating how they structure it.  In the unlikely instance of a fall, basically, the structure falls on itself, so, the maximum fall zone is half the tower height.

Mr. Burns asked, that’s the way it’s engineered?

Mr. Falvey stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, but, do they say 100 percent?

Mr. Falvey stated, I don’t think they ever say 100 percent.

Mr. Burns stated, what I’m saying is, if the church wanted to expand in the future, how’s that going to affect  them or the fall zone.  Let’s say you want to build another addition or structure on their property.  Are they going to be in the fall zone?

Mr. Boylan stated, I would just say, again, this fall zone you’re referring to, I think is an inaccurate description.  What you’re trying to say, we’re just complying with the setback requirements of the ordinance.  If you wanted a true…fall zone being the height of the tower, I would suggest you redo the ordinance to make it such, but, right now we went by the ordinance in siting the tower, and that’s…we comply with that setback.

Mr. Falvey stated, to answer your first point, I believe Chapter 5.70, Telecommunication Facility Standards, refers to maximum height limitations on telecommunication facilities.  And it indicates that maximum height:  “A telecommunication tower shall not exceed 199 feet in height”, but then refers to “these standard sections apply to the following zoning districts”, and then lists the zoning districts, and does not include the P-2 district.

Mr. Burns stated, and that’s why I asked counsel, I think it falls under the structural height.  In other words, 25 feet or 40 feet, whatever comes in my mind, with the new UDO, that’s what I was questioning, if it should fall back to the 25 or 40 feet, I can’t remember with the new UDO on height.  That’s what I was questioning.

Mr. McClure stated, I understand the question.

Mr. Burns asked, you’re saying that’s…

Mr. McClure stated, correct.

Mr. Burns stated, well, I don’t have a problem with the 199 feet; I do have an issue with the 250.  I just think it’s too high and, with the lighting that’s going to be incorporated – we’re getting so many complaints.

Mr. Boylan stated, the easiest way I can answer that question is, I assure you, if we didn’t need the 250, we wouldn’t be building any 250-foot monopole.  Once you break the threshold of 200 feet, monopoles become economically unfeasible.  Then that’s when you start proposing a self-support tower. Unfortunately, according to the ordinance, all towers must be a monopole type design, so that’s why we’re sticking with the monopole, and it’s going to cost us probably 40 to 50 percent more than what is normal for 199 foot.

Mr. Brickner asked, will you build a 200-foot tower there, instead of a 250 foot?  Is that an option or not?

Mr. Boylan stated, unfortunately, no.  If we build a 200-foot tower, then we’re not going to have any customers.  Those customers are going  to leave.  That’s why we proposed the 250.

Mr. Brickner stated, but the lighting..you understand, the lighting’s a problem.

Mr. Boylan stated, I do.  I also understand that you drive up and down 30…

Mr. Brickner stated, every place we have those, we have complaints.  And I don’t…I’m just trying to get you guys to agree to something here because I, with the lighting…this Board, I don’t think, is going to approve a 250-foot tower, because of all the complaints we have with the strobe lighting and red lighting.  I think it’s a great place for a tower and the Little League benefits, but the 250 feet with the strobe lighting is going to be very difficult.

Mr. Boylan stated, I wish I could make any concessions here, but, unfortunately 250 is…according to the ordinance, we could build a 500-foot monopole.

Mr. Brickner stated, there’s no other tower in Porter County, monopole, that’s 250 feet.

Mr. Boylan stated, I understand that, but we are following the ordinance, and, under state law, if you meet all the requirements of a Special Exception, it’s a permitted use.

Mr. Brickner asked, 260 feet with the antenna, I suppose, huh?

Mr. Boylan stated, I think 255 is the total height.  I assure you, from a cost standpoint, we would not be asking for 250 and sticking to a monopole design if it was not a requirement of our customers.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have anything to show us on coverage up there of a 250 versus a 200 foot?

Mr. Boylan stated, I don’t. I don’t have it because they didn’t supply it to me.  It’s not even an option to them.

Mr. Detert asked, is that something you could get for us?

Mr. Boylan stated, I think that would just be a waste of a month.  I don’t think they’re going to provide that.  They’ll say, we’re not interested.

Mr. Detert asked, when you say “they” who are you talking about?

Mr. Boylan stated, U.S. Cellular and AT&T.

Mr. Falvey stated, let me say this for the record.  Having been before this Board before and being familiar with some of your concerns, it was proposed to U.S. Cellular that we build a 200-foot monopole.  They’re telling us they don’t want 200 feet.  If you give us 200 feet, we’re not coming on, and, from a practical standpoint, as Mr. Boylan mentioned, if, let’s say that was their only option, then they would say, now we need another tower further in another direction because, now you’ve shrunk our footprint, and so we’d be back in here asking for a Variance for one in a residential area, because there are no other areas to put this.  So, it’s just a rock and a hard place situation.  We’ve already posed that question to them. That’s why we’re not in a position here where we feel like we can….

Mr. Boylan stated, I’d also like to inform the Board that, from an FAA standpoint, 199-200 feet is not an absolute certainty as to the threshold of lighting requirements.  We’ve got a site in…just South of the Gary airport – it’s a 90-foot tower.  We are being required to light it. 

Mr. Brickner stated, we understand that.  But there’s no airport requirement here.  This is just a residential or rural area.

Mr. Boylan stated, I don’t know what else to say other than I assure you, from a cost standpoint and also just from a pain --  I’ve got to light this thing, and, not only that, I’ve also got to monitor it.  If a light goes down, I’ve got to pay somebody to go out there, I’ve got to pay a monthly charge to have it monitored.  We prefer not to do this.  We prefer to stick with a 199-foot tower, much like the one that was approved in March. But, unfortunately, in this instance, it’s not a possibility.

Mr. Detert asked, can somebody jog my memory, but memory tells me that Bob Harper was looking at a different type of lighting than a strobe light.  Do you have any information on that?

Mr. McClure stated, that’s what I was talking about earlier.  The code has been changed.  Before our code didn’t have anything about the strobe lights, etc., because it was controlled by the FAA. And that’s why I clarified earlier:  Our code requires that, if required by the FAA to have a light and it’s allowed by the FAA to be the dual light – which is what you have proposed – it must be the dual light, which means it’s the strobe during the day – the white strobe during the day – and the red at night.

Mr. Boylan stated, which, I believe, is indicated in the FAA determination of no hazard.

Mr. McClure stated, correct.  So, that was the change that we have made in the last 90 days to our code, roughly. 

Mr. Brickner stated, so, all those strobes at night now…

Mr. McClure stated, if they can be dual, by the FAA, they are going to be required to be changed to the daytime white strobe and the nighttime red.

Mr. Detert stated that the strobe light is not nearly as obnoxious in the daytime, but they’re bad at night.  A strobe light is terrible at night.

Mr. Boylan stated, you’re not getting a white strobe at night.  You’ll be getting a soft red.

Mr. Detert stated, I understand.  I’m just making a comment. 

Mr. Boylan stated, it defaults to white if the red would burn out.  That’s a default factor.

Mr. McClure stated, that’s why we changed it, so that…we were having trouble with them getting repaired.  This requires them to be repaired.

Mr. Brickner asked, so, when the kids are playing baseball on the field at 7:00 at night or 8:00 at night, the white strobe will be on, in the summertime?

Mr. Boylan stated, it’s all….much like your outside lights there’s an eye, so once it becomes dark enough it would automatically switch over to the red.

Mr. Burns asked, again, what’s the nearest tower?

Mr. Brickner stated, Hebron water tower has cellular dishes on it, right?  That’s a half a mile away.

Mr. Boylan stated, there’s also a Crown Castle tower with Sprint on there.  It’s roughly .97 miles or 1 mile away.  Unfortunately, that is a 160-foot tower with 150 available.  It’s also a 30-foot drop in ground elevation proposed, so, essentially you’ve got 120 foot available to the first carrier and 110 to the second, so, if you’re looking at them side by side, you’ve got our 250 proposal and 120 foot available on their’s, so it’s almost one-half the height available on their structure.

Mr. Falvey stated, and U.S. Cellular has indicated that that just doesn’t accommodate their planned equipment at the height necessary to function reasonably, so they’re not interested in that.  Believe me, they’d rather go on an existing site than have us build one.

Mr. Boylan stated, we’re looking at a 2-month process as opposed to 9 to 12 months for us to get zoning approval, go through the environmental regulatory reports. They’d much rather collocate on a structure.

Mr. Burns stated, because, in our ordinance, we have a 2-mile radius.  Fred, do you want to explain that, about the two-mile radius and existing towers?

Mr. Brickner stated, well, the engineer has to submit a report.  I know that.

Mr. Siminski stated, it does say on Page 10.6:  “No new telecommunications tower for commercial wireless communication service shall be approved unless the Board of Zoning Appeals finds the telecommunication equipment planned for the tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within the 2-mile search radius of the proposed tower due to one of the following reasons:  An existing or approved telecommunications towers or buildings within a 2-mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as documented by the qualified or licensed Indiana engineer.”  That’s on Page 10.7.

Mr. Boylan stated, with those specific instances, according to the ordinance, the existing Crown-Castle tower in the city limits of Hebron cannot accommodate the planned equipment by U.S. Cellular and AT&T at a height necessary to function.  Stick them side by side, and it’s almost one-half the tower height (inaudible).

Mr. Burns asked, and a 199-foot tower won’t work at all, is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Boylan stated, that’s the information I got.

Mr. Burns stated, because I don’t have any problems, pretty much, with 199, but a 150 I do.  Because once, I think, you get to 250 up, the strobe lights, we’re going to have all kind of complaints.  And I’m not too sure it’s fair to the churches at night to have that light flashing during their services.

Mr. Boylan stated, but, they’re inside.  And those services are held inside.

Mr. Burns stated, well, they have windows in the church – big windows, large windows a lot of times, too.  But that’s my concern. I don’t have any problem with the 199-foot.

Mr. Detert stated, U.S. Cellular has a tower just East of Four Seasons and 675 and just South of 100 S.  I think that’s a U.S. Cellular.

Mr. Falvey stated, if they’re on there, they would be on their coverage map.

Mr. Boylan stated, the only tower that I could see existing is, obviously, down here.

Mr. Detert stated, where I’m describing is farther North.  It would be just South of 100 S. on 600.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m like Bob Detert – I’d like to see the coverage at 199 feet, see what difference.  I know there would be a difference, of course, but how much – 5 percent, 10 percent?

Mr. Brickner stated, they’re not going to build it.

Mr. Boylan stated, under your ordinance, there is no height restriction for P-2.  We could put a 1,000 foot monopole here, and we’re still permitted through a Special Exception.  I’m not thumbing my nose at the Board.  We’re building it at the minimum height necessary to function reasonably here.  And I think we showed that by the site that’s North of Valparaiso at 199 foot.  That was workable.  That was what was considered reasonable.  One hundred ninety-nine does not work here.   We’re a tower company.  We’re not a licensed FCC operator, so, if they were to come to us and say they need 1,000 foot, under your ordinance, that is allowed.

Mr. Brickner stated, I guess it’s really hard for members of the Board and myself to understand.  We don’t have a 250-foot that’s a monopole in Porter County, and we have probably 80+ towers now and nobody has told us that they have to have a 250-foot monopole tower.  We’ve approved towers for the last 10 years that are 200 feet, primarily because of the lighting situation.

Mr. Falvey asked, are there guyed towers that are above 200 feet?

Mr. Brickner stated, we don’t have….we have some lattice towers that are not allowed anymore.

Mr. Boylan stated, if we could do that we would do those kind, but we can’t. 

Mr. Brickner stated, well, that’s why we’re so stunned at this height. Everywhere else in the County are 200 feet.

Mr. Detert stated, I just can’t understand why it can’t work here when it works everywhere else.

Mr. Brickner stated, they have to have 250, for some reason.

Mr. Falvey stated, perhaps, and I’m just guessing – I may be out of turn here because I’m just guessing – but U.S. Cellular’s stance is possibly based on the fact that they don’t want to have to come before you again and seek a Variance in a residential area somewhere else to put up another tower to satisfy their RF requirements.  They’re thinking the 250 will do it, and they’re done.  I haven’t been provided with that information, but they’re staying by their contention that they need 250 feet, despite our repeated requests for them to drop to 200 feet.

Mr. Boylan asked, are you saying you don’t have towers over 200, or you just don’t have 250-foot monopoles?

Mr. Brickner stated, monopoles.  We have some 300-foot monopoles that are lattice towers, NIPSCO towers. They’re old towers, but…

Mr. Falvey stated, we’d much rather build lattice towers.

Mr. Boylan stated, if it was a condition of approval by the Board, I would much rather build a 250-foot self-support, as opposed to a monopole.  We stuck it as a monopole to conform to your ordinance.

Mr. Falvey stated, it would still require lighting.

Mr. Brickner stated that the whole idea is to get rid of the lights.

Mr. Boylan stated, and that’s not going to happen.  This is Porter County right here.  These are all FCC-registered sites.  There’s three of them within 6 miles of us, right here, indicated in the green. You’ve got one here, and it’s 298 foot.  You’ve got one here that’s 252 foot, and you’ve got one here that’s 223 foot, all three of those within 6 or 7 miles.

Mr. Brickner stated, they’re not monopoles.

Mr. Boylan stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, and that’s all the towers you can build in Porter County are monopoles.  So, those are old towers, before the ordinance.  You can’t build lattice-type towers anymore.

Mr. Boylan asked, would the Board be willing to relax that standard of a monopole to make it a more traditional self-support?

Mr. Brickner stated, it would still be 250 feet tall.

Mr. Falvey stated, the lighting is an FAA requirement.  We’re simply complying with their law.

Mr. Brickner stated, I understand that it has to have lights, no question.

Mr. Boylan stated, I’ll say it again. I think that our past application of 199 foot shows our willingness to keep it unlit.  The fact is that the customers are telling us they need a minimum of 250.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s unfortunate.

Mr. Detert asked, what are they telling you about that?  Do they explain why they have to have 250, coverage?

Mr. Boylan stated, it’s a wide-open area.  There’s not a lot of density right in Hebron, so not only are they trying to cover Hebron, but also the corridors.

Mr. Detert stated, the reception is bad.  I can testify to that.  I experience it.  I mean, we have all kinds of spaces in Porter County, and we don’t have anything over 200 feet, and it's hard to comprehend why you feel you have to have it here.

Mr. Falvey stated, we just showed on the map that there are towers over 250 feet.  They exist.  They’re just not monopoles, that’s the distinction.  The only reason we’re requesting above a 200-foot monopole is because you require it in your ordinance.  We’d much rather build a different style of tower; we just can’t do it and still meet all the requirements of the Special Exception. I understand that the problem seems to be the lighting, which, you do understand, is a requirement of the FAA, but just to put it in practical terms, and this doesn’t change the fact of the lighting, but, as Mr. Boylan mentioned, we don’t know that a 200-foot tower wouldn’t require to be lighted there.  We do understood that there’s no airports nearby.  We don’t have that information.  So, even if we conceded to a 200-foot tower or 199-foot tower in this area and that made you unconcerned enough to vote and you went ahead and voted in our favor and we went back to the FAA there’s a possibility they could say that that tower needs to be lighted.  There’s the possibility.  It’s a small one, but it’s a possibility.  And, again, sticking with my baseball analogies tonight, 50 feet is less than the difference from the pitcher’s mound to home plate. We’re not talking about a great difference here – to us.  But, in the RF world, and apparently to U.S. Cellular, it’s a huge difference, for them to stick their…draw that line in the sand and say no.  We encouraged them, 200 feet, we can meet all the requirements, and we know from the past this Board would be satisfied with that, and they still said no, we need 250.  Two hundred fifty is permitted under the ordinance.  Go for 250.  That’s what we need. That’s why we’re unable at this point, we think, to say yes to 200.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s permitted, because it’s not specifically excluded, is that right, Fred?  I mean, we just didn’t exclude it.

Mr. Siminski stated that it was noted in certain zones. 

Mr. Brickner stated, so, it’s kind of a quirk.

Mr. Burns stated, I know. I understand what Scott said, but, see, I differ.  To me it will fall under the zoning height if it’s not spelled out for towers.  If it’s 25 feet or 40 feet.

Mr. Boylan asked, but what about towers that are allowed in those districts?

Mr. Burns stated, no, no.  I’m talking about this district here. 

Mr. McClure stated, it’s not a primary structure; it’s not an accessory structure. You can’t have an accessory structure unless you have a primary structure.  It’s hard to call this a primary structure. 

It doesn’t meet what we call a primary structure standard.  We have