BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
July 16, 2008

M I N U T E S

 The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on July 16, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

 Those members present were Richard Burns, Luther Williams and Marvin Brickner.  Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure, Tracy Burrell and Toni Byers.

 Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the June 18, 2008 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail.  Mr.   Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 98-UV-12.  Peter Shiplov, 115-2 S. SR 2, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a lawn-care business on the Southwest corner of SR 2 and CR 300 W., in Porter Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)

 Attorney Robert Welsh stated that I’m here tonight on behalf of Mr. Shiplov, who’s one of the principals of the Perma-Green landscaping business and also the owner of the property.  We would like to request the Board to renew the Use Variance that has previously existed on the property since 1998.  My understanding is that this would be the last term for renewal to that.  We would have to go through a formal public hearing process to continue with any use Variance.  If that’s acceptable to the Board, I would certainly understand that and would ask for the renewal at this time. 

 Mr. Burns asked, what were the restrictions back in ’98?  Was there outside storage?

 Mr. Welsh stated, my understanding is that it was for an office building and for a storage building. 

 Mr. Siminski stated, according to the minutes, it was said that the residence was to be used as an office and the pole building to be used for storage.

 Mr. Burns stated, okay, but no outside storage?

 Mr. Siminski stated, it doesn’t state outside storage; it just says storage.

 Mr. Burns stated, so that’s assumed that there is no outside storage.

 Mr. Siminski stated, right.

 Mr. Burns stated, that’s my only concern.  There has been no complaints?

 Mr. Siminski stated, there has been no complaints.

 Mr. Burns stated, my only concern in outside storage.

 Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 98-UV-12 for 5 years, with the understanding that there is no outside storage and with the same restrictions that were stated in 1998 when it was granted.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion.

Discussion:

 Mr. Brickner stated, it’s my understanding that there is a snowplow, a trailer, a boat and so these things will have to be stored inside now.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 98-UV-12 for 5 years, with the understanding that there is no outside storage and with the same restrictions that were stated in 1998 when it was granted.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-UV-9.  Armand Boltovitz, 698 W. 600 N., Hobart, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a car repair shop at 698 W. 600 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Boltovitz stated that we’d like to try to continue with the same…

Mr. Burns asked, any complaints?

Mr. Siminski stated that there have not been.

Mr. Burns asked, was the sign approved?

Mr. McClure stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, outside storage?

Mr. Boltovitz stated that they said I could have like 10 cars outside.

Mr. Burns stated, you keep a very clean place.

Mr. Brickner asked, the fuel tanks, have they been removed?

Mr. Boltovitz stated, oh, yeah.  The fuel tanks are long gone.  The semi-trailer that was there for storage is long gone. 

Mr. Burns asked, how about this fifth-wheel trailer?

Mr. Boltovitz stated, that’s mine.

Mr. Burns asked, for just personal?

Mr. Boltovitz stated, yeah, for farm there, hauling the campers and that.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 03-UV-9 for 5 years, with the same restrictions.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 81-V-20.  Vicki Panozzo, 977 N. 200 W., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 200 W., between County Road 900 N. and CR 1000 N., in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Burns stated, it was a hardship case, if I recall.

Mr. Siminski stated, it goes back to ’81, so…it’s definitely a lot of years.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 81-V-20 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person at that time.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 84-V-5.  David & Girthon Reid, 456 W. 450 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 N., between Sedley Road and the Nickel Plate Railroad, in Union Township.

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

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated that there have been none.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 84-V-5 for 1 year, with the petitioner to appear in person at that time.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 99-V-31.  H. Glenn Wiles, 920 N. 100 W., seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the West side of CR 100 W., between CRs 900 N. and 1000 N., in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Brickner stated that there have been no complaints.

Mr. Burns asked, now, there’s a business on the property, a flower shop, is that correct?

Mr. Siminski stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, the trailer’s not being used, any part of it, for a flower shop?

Mr. Siminski stated, no.  That’s on a separate Use Variance.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-V-31 for 1 year.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-V-3.  Petition of Roe & Norma Phelps, 426 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to permit placement of a mobile home at 426 N. 400 E., in Washington Township.

Mr. Phelps stated that I got rid of what you needed.

Mr. Brickner asked, you want to put a mobile home there that does not exist?

Mr. Siminski stated, no, there is one there, in the back yard, and all the heavy equipment and the car are now gone, and the property is very well cleaned up.

Mr. Brickner asked, the crane is gone?

Mr. Phelps stated, yeah, the crane is gone.

Mr. Brickner asked, you sold it?

Mr. Phelps stated, yeah, I sold it to a fellow in DeMotte.

Mr. Burns asked, you won’t rent this trailer out?

Mr. Phelps stated, no.  He’s like a brother to me.  He just stays there.  He’s got nobody else to take care of him. We’ve been friends for 45 years.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-V-3 for 1 year, with the trailer not to be rented out.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

New Business:

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

At this time, Mr. McClure stated that we are only going to have three people here tonight, so, anyone that is here for Case 08-V-27, the petition of Charles and Luther Williams, c/o Attorney William Ferngren, that case is going to be continued, due to a lack of quorum.

Case 08-V-25.  Petition of Ronald Walker, 13245 S. Green Bay Ave., Chicago, IL, seeking a Variance from Section 5.04 AS-01 (D) of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit construction of a barn prior to the house, to be located at 237 N. 600 W., in Union Township.

Mr. Walker stated that I’m actually appearing on behalf of my father, Ronald Swick, who owns the property.  He signed over power of attorney for matters regarding that property to me.  What we’re trying to do is basically put up a storage garage for equipment that we have on the property, and we want that to serve as a replacement structure for one that’s out there that’s in disrepair.  We’d like to demolish that one.  I think in doing that we will ultimately be able to comply with the Porter County ordinance, being able to keep heavy equipment out of…it won’t be stored outside anymore.  Additionally, it will improve the aesthetics of our property, as well as the adjacent properties, and that will get rid of the barn that’s close to the roadway.  The new structure that I’m proposing is going to be about 840, 842 feet from the roadway, and about 400 feet approximately from the back of my property and will pretty much be out of public view.

Peter Gojko, 235 N. 600 W., Valparaiso, stated that the reason why I petitioned against it is because this case, in itself, has been there for almost 19 years with the barn already setting on there, which has deteriorated over the years.  It hasn’t had any maintenance on it. The roof is ready to cave in…the walls…the garage door fell off for almost a year and a half and it was covered up with wood, which is a lot better than having no doors at all.  And then what has been brought onto the property has been cars, other things and materials whenever, all across the property, which has nothing to do with the barn itself, but as relating to a pole barn or a barn being built, of course, that’s for storage of equipment and material and whatever, not just vehicles, unless they’re stored there for a purpose of reselling or not, and that’s mainly what’s in that barn right now, is vehicles, and they’ve been in there for 10 to 15 years, that I know of, which, with no check, like they were talking earlier, of gas tanks leaking or anything like that.  I don’t know.  And most of the people around the town here have not City water; they have wells and septic, so, in that Variance there, I’m against that part of it, as the barn itself being a storage, because if they’re not going to store material and equipment in there for maintenance of the property, which isn’t being done pretty much at 50 percent of the time, because most of the equipment that he has is being stored outside, with the whole barn being occupied.  Now, if the barn itself isn’t going to be as big as the existing barn, which, if he would build it back there, to cover that and the other equipment that he does have outside of there, then, to me, it’s just like putting more garbage back there than what needs to be covered before even a house is built.  So, to me, I’m pretty sure that the laws state that your barn has to be built before a home (sic), and that’s what I’m going to stick with is with the law.

Cheryl Gojko, 235 N. 600 W., stated, we do live South of the property.  I brought along a couple of pictures.  Unfortunately, this one’s big, because it’s an aerial shot and it shows the status of the barn when we moved on the property 18 years ago, and they purchased their property two weeks after we purchased ours.  So, the barn is at the left in the photo. These are a few extra shots I have over the years, the status of the barn from where it was 18 years ago to almost present day, and then also you have pictures yourself that the planning commission came out and took of the condition of that whole property at the time this all has come to light, and so, if you ever reflect back on those pictures, too, you’ll see there’s been quite a demise of the barn, of the property itself.  I did take the liberty to come in and read the report in full to try to understand exactly what they were asking for, and, to my understanding, the present-day barn has been deemed unsafe, so, when asked what that meant, they said that would mean that barn would have to come down.  Again, as that relates to the storage of what’s in that barn now, just moving into another pole barn and there is no home there, there is no evidence whatsoever that he would be there to maintain it.  It would be the same…we feel it could end up in the same position that has taken place over the 18 years with the barn that is already there.  To us, we feel that if the owners of the property really, truly intend to build a home there there’s been ample time to do that with a very good existing barn for all those 18 years.  And also in the report I read it stated from the owners that there is no indication that a home is going to be built there.  There’s nothing that says that in two years I’m intending to build my home.  Is there a time limit?  Is there anything that states how long they have to build a home?  He could put another pole barn up and end up never building a home there.  And, if that’s the case, we would like the law to really be in effect, that there has to be a house there before a pole barn, and that way we would feel more assured that they would maintain it or take care of it and not just use it as another storage area. 

Dean Houpt, 232 N. 600 W., Valparaiso, stated that I’ve lived there for 40 years, and, when they bought this property, the property was all split up, and I was under the impression that he was going to build a house.  His father come and asked me if I would sell him some of my property to build a house years ago because they didn’t like it because they would hear the Route 30 noise.  And my big concern right now is if they’re going to build a barn, is there a time limit that they have to have a house there and somebody’s going to live there to maintain the property?

Mr. Walker stated that with regard to the maintenance of the property and the things that have…I mean, it’s obviously deteriorated.  I’m 30 years old; most of the time that’s been out of my control.  That’s why I’m stepping in now and I’m trying to do what I can to improve things.  I was notified by…basically, I was notified by word of mouth or verbally by the Porter County Building Department of the violations of the things on the property.  As soon as I found out about that, I addressed those things promptly.  I would say within a week’s time I got out there, I rented a dumpster.  I threw out one of the biggest dumpsters I could find. There was a vehicle that needed removed; I took care of that.  There was an additional vehicle in question.  That vehicle runs; it’s now plated.  As far as the cars that are inside of the barn, there are cars inside of the barn.  With regard to them possibly leaking fuel, I would say that’s impossible because, for my purposes of storing them, they’re antique vehicles.  My father collected cars for years. I have some in my garage.  He has some in his, and we have some out in the barn in Valpo.  They’ve been there.  When we store our vehicles, they’re there for a long time.  We drain the tanks because, if you don’t, the fuel gets rotten. I would say there’s no reason for concern with regard to the cars leaking fuel, and, if need be, if the concern is me putting those cars in another barn, if I have to get rid of them, I’ll get rid of them, if that’s what I have to do, or I’ll find someplace else to put them.  The building now, the garage door, they said it fell down for almost a year – that’s correct.  And, again, that was out of my control.  When I was able to do something about it I did.  I went and took the door down.  I put plywood in, and that’s it.  That’s the best I could do, because the property legally is not in my name.  At the time, up until now, I was limited as far as what I could do.  As far as the disrepair of the car and barn, again, from what I took from the letter that I got, it either needs to be demolished or repaired, so, if it’s not demolished, it will be repaired, and whether I get a new building or not.  If I don’t get the Variance for the new building, that building’s going to stay – it will be repaired.  Something has to be there so that I can put the equipment that I have there in there.  I have large equipment.  The largest thing I have is a John Deere backloader.  It’s a front-loader and it has a backhoe attachment on it.  What I want to do is take the backhoe attachment off and put a larger cutter on there, because the property’s big.  It’s 8.5 acres.  It’s hard with the end that I have to cut that, and it’s an old tractor.  I do what I can with it, but its uses are kind of limited.  And as far as the front-loader on the John Deere, I use that to move trees around and stuff that’s small, stuff that needs to be pulled up, stuff that I cut.  And, as far as me building a home out there, I would like to commit to building a home out there, but I can’t.  I work for the City of Chicago.  I have boundaries…there’s rules set forth in my department that say I have to live within the City limits; I can’t move.  My father’s 71 – I don’t think he’s moving.  I’d like to build a home. I’ve been saving to build a home as a second home.  It wouldn’t be my primary residence at least for the next 20 years.  Again, the property might not be maintained to the expectations of some people. Obviously, you live next to something you want it to look decent.  It’s been my argument for years.  If I could come out there every week and do it, I’d do it.  I can’t.  I get out there as often as I can.  I work two jobs and I do what I can on the property as far as cutting, and usually when I do it I usually cut the stuff up close by the other properties so that people don’t have to look at the stuff. Other than that, I don’t know what to do with this.  I need something to put my equipment in and the building is close to this size.  Actually, it might be a little bit larger.  The building that I have now, I can tell you what’s in it.  There’s building materials for a house for the future.  I have 2 by 6’s in there. There’s plywood in there.  There are two cars in there.  I have some shower fixtures that are on the second level.  The new facility will not have a second floor because I don’t need it.  I just need a high ceiling so I can pull the tall equipment in there.  That’s what’s inside of the barn.  The majority of that, obviously once the proposed building that I want to do, I’ll use some of that building material, so some of that will be gone. 

Mr. Gojko stated that I have to admit, he has done a good job of cleaning up and taking care of it when he’s out there and has the responsibility of it.  That’s true.  But also, I just feel, if everybody has to go by the law and the provisions that they set forth, that they should have to abide by them.

Ms. Gojko stated that there was a letter that was given to your office from the other neighbor on the other side.  I don’t know if you’d like to read that, it’s Hazel Benjamin, and if it’s not in the file…

Mr. Brickner stated, we have it in the file.

Ms. Gojko stated, I wanted her opinion to come in, as well, because she sees the view from her side in a different way, as well, and making sure that that was brought to light.

At this time, Mr. Brickner noted that there is a letter from John and Hazel Benjamin in opposition to this.  The letter is in the file.

Mr. Walker stated, the concern about there not being a home there; there’s not a home there now.  Again, there’s a building there that’s used for storage.  It’s my understanding that there’s not a demolition order on that building to date, and I’ll do what I need to do to rebuild that building if I don’t get what I need, and it’s just going to be stuck between two houses.  What I want to do is not only better for my property, but the properties on both sides.  They won’t have to see a barn.  It’s going to be all the way in the back.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated, see, there’s the problem of having a building before the house. It comes back to haunt us.  What size of new barn are you going to construct?

Mr. Walker stated, I’m looking for 40 by 60.

Mr. Burns asked, what size is this one?

Mr. Walker stated, I believe it’s 35 by 50, approximately.  I called Mr. Siminski’s office I think with the exact on the existing one.  And the new building’s actually going to be a replacement. I’d say within 5 months of erecting a new one that old one would be demolished.

Mr. Burns asked, when are you going to construct the new one?

Mr. Walker stated, as soon as I get the permits rolling.

Mr. Burns asked, your intention is not to build a house?  I mean, that’s pretty much what I heard.  You live in Chicago.  It would be a second house.  It sounds like it’s not really going to happen.

Mr. Walker stated, I’m trying.  I put quite a bit of money away, and that was actually the next step I wanted to make, but this is something that needs to be addressed now, so this is where I’m at right now.

Mr. Burns asked, you are here because it was condemned?  That’s why you’re here.

Mr. Walker stated, no.

Mr. Burns asked, you’re here on your own?  There wasn’t a citation?

Mr. Brickner stated, we had an inspection.

Ms. Burrell stated, Mike (Haller) inspected the building, and he said it needs to be condemned.

Mr. Walker stated, well, that’s not what I have in writing.

Mr. McClure stated, and, during the unsafe building process, if it’s ongoing that he would have an opportunity, there would be an order filed and that order would allow him, potentially, to repair it, within a time frame.  If that did not occur, then the building would come down.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, then he has opportunity to repair it.

Mr. McClure stated, correct.

Mr. Burns stated, so, the building can stay.

Mr. McClure stated, correct.

Mr. Burns stated, if it’s repairable.

Mr. McClure stated, correct.

Mr. Burns asked, why is it condemned?  Is it rotten?  Is it repairable?

Mr. Walker stated, I was under the assumption that it needed to be repaired or removed, and that’s why I think, if I have to repair that building, I’ll do it.  I’d rather not, because, if I do put a house, I don’t want to see it either. It will be in front of my house.  It’s all the way in the front of the property.

Mr. Burns stated, I need to know, can it be repaired?

Mr. Brickner asked, he must know, can it be repaired?

Mr. Walker stated, I think it can.

Mr. Burns asked, what’s wrong with it?

Mr. Walker stated, it needs a roof.

Mr. Burns asked, is the roof rotten?

Mr. Walker stated, not really.  The walls are solid.  The inside stuff is bad. Some of the floor planks are bad, obviously, from the bad roof, but I think it can be repaired.  I’d rather not, again, because it’s in the front of my property, and it just takes away from everything.  If I do, someday, build a house, it’s going to be in the back, and this will be in front of it, and that may be another issue later.  But I think it can be repaired.

Mr. Burns moved to continue this Case for more information from the building inspector regarding if it’s repairable or not.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated, I need to know.  If it’s too far deteriorated, you may not be able to repair it.

Mr. Brickner stated, if we allow him to have a new building with the provisions that the old one be torn down.  The new building’s going to be put back further on the property, way in the back, which would probably be better.  But, if we allow him to build a new one, you would have to tear the old one down.

Mr. Walker stated, absolutely.

Mr. Brickner stated, and we’d give you a time frame in which to do that.

Mr. Walker stated, I will comply with it.

Mr. Burns stated, well, that’s where I was heading, but, if…he’s still going to have a building there without a home, forever.  But, here’s my point…

Mr. McClure stated, well, I can tell you, I understand what you’re saying about whether it can be repaired or not…this is in the very early stages of the unsafe building process.  The only thing he’s received is the initial letter. He hasn’t even got to the attorney, as far as the unsafe building process goes.  At this stage, if it is possible…irrespective of economically reasonable, if it can be, he’s going to be allowed to fix it.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, because you know where I’m heading.  If it’s condemned, it’s coming down, regardless – problem’s resolved.  That’s where I’m heading.  I want to know what stage it is in.

Mr. McClure stated, he’s responding to the very first contact.

Mr. Burns stated, okay.  You understand where I was coming from, because it could have been tore down and the building disappears.

Mr. McClure stated, assuming it would be, it was inrepairable (sic), and the process continued, you’re still looking at probably 8 months to a year before that would come down.  You’re probably looking at 6 to 8 months before a determination from a judge to say take it down.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s why I think if we just tell him, he can build the new one, but he has to take the old one down.  Then we don’t have to do anything else with the old building.  It has to come down.  Is that more reasonable than having him repair the old one.  And the location of the old one is not…it’s not in the best location.  It’s close to the neighbors’ line.  He’s going to put the new one way in the back.  I don’t like to see a building built without a house, either.  But we’re going to have a building there, whether it’s an old one or a new one.  I’d just as soon have a new one and tear the old one down.

Mr. Walker stated, as soon as that new one is up, that will be the next order of business; it will be gone.  I can commit to that in writing.  Whatever needs to be done.

Mr. McClure stated, that would be part of the motion.

Mr. Burns asked, who’s going to build the new building?

Mr. Walker stated, I haven’t…I’ve been shopping around trying to get ideas with…I didn’t want to get too far in the process and start making commitments to people that I can’t commit to.

Mr. Burns stated, well, that’s the only way I can support it. I need some dates.  I need who’s going to build it; what time frame – is it going to take four months, five months to build it; and then when do we remove the old one – two months later, 30 days later?  We’re going to lock you in, but we need some dates, some times, some schedules.

Mr. Walker asked, if I can give you a time commitment, but not a builder commitment?  I would do it within six months…well, six months would be December, so, that wouldn’t be reasonable…but I would do it…

Mr. Burns asked, do you have Morton Buildings or one of those companies? Are you going to do it yourself?

Mr. Walker stated, no, I don’t.  I don’t know. I don’t know what the building ordinances are in Porter County, so I really have to get in there and see what I can and can’t do.  I’d like to build it myself.

Mr. Burns stated, with you working, that might take two years.

Mr. Walker stated, yep.  But I have the money put away, and if I have to pay somebody…whatever I have to do to get…all I want to do is be in compliance with Porter County’s laws. I don’t want any problems out there.  I want to put the equipment away, take care of the property and knock down the old building, and that’s all I’m looking for.  I’m not trying to hide anything out there. I’m not trying to get around anything.  I just want to be in compliance.  If you tell me six months, it will be up in six months.  You tell me three months…I’m going to work at it.  I’m going to do whatever I can to get it up in three months because, if I don’t, I know the opposite end of it.  I’m just going to be at a loss all the way around.  I have no place to put the equipment, and to dispose of that…the place is just going to go.

Mr. Burns stated, see, that’s why we need a schedule, a time frame.  Otherwise, it’s not fair to you.  I can’t support it and I don’t want to lock you into a time frame you can’t live with, so we need some information from you, how long it’s going to take you to construct it, you going to do it yourself or are you going to have someone else do it; when will the existing building be coming down?

Mr. Brickner stated, we’d like to see the footprint of where you are going to put the new building in relation to the old building.  Not now, but, if we continue this for…what, how much time do you need?  Sixty days or 90 days?

Mr. Walker stated, no, not even that.  I would say…

Mr. Brickner asked, 30 days?  Until next month’s meeting?

Mr. Walker stated, I think I could.

Mr. Brickner asked, you could have everything by next month’s meeting?

Mr. Walker stated, yes.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 08-V-25 to the August 20, 2008 meeting, with the understanding that we need a sketch of the buildings; placement on the property; where the drive will be, schedules; schedule of construction of the new building; schedule of removal of the existing building; who’s going to perform the work; what’s going to be stored in the barn.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Walker asked, what’s the date?

Mr. Siminski stated, August 20th.

Mr. Walker stated, I’m actually going to be out of the country. I’ll be gone from the 17th to the 23rd.  Is there a sooner date I could take?

Mr. Brickner stated, no.  It would have to be 60 days then.   Two months…by the September meeting.

Mr. Walker asked, would I have to appear, or could I waive my appearance if I did everything in writing?

Mr. Brickner stated, you have to be here in person.  That would be the 17th of September.

Mr. Walker stated, okay.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 08-V-25 to the September 17, 2008 meeting, with the understanding that we need a sketch of the buildings; placement on the property; where the drive will be, schedules; schedule of construction of the new building; schedule of removal of the existing building; who’s going to perform the work; what’s going to be stored in the barn.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on a 3-0 roll call vote.

Case 08-V-26.  Petition of Steve & Letitia Barncord, 492 W. 400 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance from Section 2.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to permit a reduction in the minimum side-yard setback for a detached garage from 15 feet to 10 feet, to be located at 492 W. 400 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Barncord stated that I’m applying for a Variance to move a proposed storage building to 10 feet to the property line. 

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, can you place it on the opposite side of the property?

Mr. Barncord stated, no.

Mr. Burns asked, why is that?

Mr. Barncord stated, well, then I have no access to it.  I’m placing it on the West side where our driveway already exists so we can have access to it.

Mr. Burns asked, so you’re going to construct another drive on the side of the house?

Mr. Barncord stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, what are you going to use this for?

Mr. Barncord stated, storage.  We’ve outgrown our two-car garage and basement, so we’re looking for storage.

Mr. Burns asked, and your neighbor was contacted?

Mr. Barncord stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors?

Mr. Barncord stated, 13.

Mr. Burns asked, and you’re still 10 feet away from the septic?

Mr. Barncord stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated, you’ve got to be 10 feet away from the tank, too.  Is that the tank or the field tile?

Mr. Barncord stated, that’s the mound.

Mr. Burns asked, where’s your tank at?  So (looking at drawing), you’re okay then.   It could work.

Mr. Barncord stated, actually, the way I have it laid out, it’s 12 feet.  I know it’s not a big difference.

Mr. Burns stated, well, every little bit helps.  So, it’s 12 feet from the property line?

Mr. Barncord stated, yes.  I want to apply for 10, though, just to be safe. 

Mr. Burns asked, but it will work at 12?

Mr. Barncord stated, I could probably make it work at 12, but, just in case it becomes 11’6” I don’t want to be…

Mr. Brickner asked, it can’t be moved any further to the West?  I mean, you only need 5 more feet to be in compliance.

Mr. Barncord asked, you mean to the East?

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t know which is which on the sketch here; it doesn’t show.  Yeah, it probably would be to the East.

Mr. Barncord stated, no, because that would put it too close to the septic.  It has to be 10 feet from the septic.  The mound sits at an angle. So, if I go to the East anymore, then it’s going to encroach on that.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-V-26, subject to moving as close as he can to the septic, if that’s 11.5-12 feet (giving leeway of 1 foot – the closer the better); and that it will be a 30 by 40 pole barn; and not to be used for business – just personal items; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns    -    Yes   Williams    -   Yes   Brickner    -    Yes

Case 08-UV-8.  Petition of Melissa Oestreich-Somers, 302 Glendale Blvd., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance from Section 2.21 of the Unified Development Ordinance to permit a one-chair beauty salon and from Sections 5.46 SI-01 and 5.47 SI-02 of the UDO to permit a sign for said business, to be located at 4201 John St., in Center Township.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated that she is the petitioner in this matter.  She stated that it is a one-chair beauty salon for myself, three days a week.  I live there with my husband now.  We just purchased the property at the end of June.  The sign – I’ve been hearing my neighbors comment about the sign and I guess I should clarify.  Sign is really kind of a bad description.  The state of Indiana, when you put a salon out of your home, they like some kind of signage right outside the door, the salon door, or on the salon door, so the proposed sign that I want to attach to the side of our house, to the right of the door of the salon, is football-shaped, and it’s painted with the words “The Salon”.  There is no light.  It wouldn’t be in view of the street. Matter of fact, the salon door is blocked by our garage, so you can’t even see into the salon from the street, and it’s just myself, so, at best, there would be one car there coming and one car going throughout the day, so our driveway is ample to support parking.

Edgar Roger, 4106 John St., stated that we had thought that she was going to put a large sign in her yard for the business, but she has already told us otherwise, so we have no complaint against it.

Louise Roger, 4106 John St., stated, I just want to say the same thing.

Louise Butterfield, 4203 John St., stated I live next door to her.  I hope she gets it.  They are good neighbors.

Lois Carlen, 4111 John St., stated that I was concerned about parking. I live right next door and we have no curbs on the street and the grass comes down into the street, and, if anybody parks on the side, they cut ruts into my driveway or into my lawn, so I was concerned what would happen with parking.  If she parks offstreet, then that would be all right, if everyone could park off the street. And I was confused about the sign, because, in the letter we got, it did not say what type of sign that was.  I thought it would be something out near the street, but that was my concern, was parking.

Mary King, 4107 John St., stated that I was concerned about the sign and the traffic.  I didn’t know what kind of sign it was going to be.  Does it change the zoning where other people can start businesses on our street?  We have little children riding bicycles, so we wondered about the traffic.

Tim McDonnell, 4202 John St., stated, pretty much all my concerns were answered. I had an issue with the sign.  I didn’t know what…big sign, little sign – it just said sign in there.  Hours of operation – she said three days a week, and that was another concern.  You know, I didn’t know hours of operation, what time of day, nighttime.  Parking, she said that she was going to try and keep most of the parking in her driveway.  I guess her husband has a snowplow.  It’s a pretty steep driveway.  You have two or three cars in there, they’re eventually going to have to park on the street.  But she said she would take care of that.  And the zoning, also.  I didn’t know if…I don’t know zoning laws.  I don’t know if it affects any of the other homes in the area when that’s zoned.  Is it changing  the zoning of the other neighbors, or is it just a Variance for that property?  That’s the only concerns.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, as for parking, I do not have an automobile.  My husband does.  And, with him working during the day, just clients’ cars would be in my driveway, and it is a larger driveway, so I don’t, myself, foresee any issues with parking, and, again, the sign, it’s very small and it would be on the side of our home, directly to the right of the door, and that’s just because the state of Indiana requires that. And, other than that, I don’t know zoning laws or things of that nature, so I’m going to leave that in your guys’ hands to explain.

Mr. Brickner asked, would you respond to the hours of operation?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, oh, yes.  Three days a week. Some mornings it’s 10 a.m. I start; some mornings it’s noon, in between that time frame.  And I’m usually finished between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. in the evening.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Williams asked, is the driveway a one-car or two-car?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, two cars wide. 

Mr. Williams stated, I think that would address the parking issue.

Mr. Burns asked, what days of the week?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. 

Mr. Burns asked, could you set a more rigid time, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.?  Nine p.m. is getting a little bit late.   Those houses are close.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, I do have clients that work out of the city.  They come in from Chicago, a couple of ATF agents.  It’s very difficult for them to get to my salon usually before 8 p.m.

Mr. Burns asked, so what time would they finish?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, 9 at the latest.   Nine would be the latest I would be open until.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m confused about the sign.  It’s a concern.  We have approved other salons without a sign.  It’s not mandatory?  Is it suggested by the state?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, no, it’s a state law.  And that’s why I’m complying with it.  I mean, that’s why I have to have it as small as possible.  They just require that there has to be an outside entrance, a separate entrance to the salon, and there has to be some type of sign.

Mr. Burns stated, because, your clients will know your business, of course.    Mr. Chairman, have you heard this before?

Mr. Brickner stated, no.   That’s for your license? To get your license?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, that is for it to be licensed as a salon.  Any salon has to have a sign, whether it’s in your home or not in your home.  It has to be on the door or in the vicinity of the door.

Mr. Burns stated, well, you would be inside then.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, no, on the outside.

Mr. Burns stated, I never heard this before.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, and, actually, I didn’t know this either until I got on and actually started researching what I needed to do, state-wise, and that’s how I came across it.

Mr. Burns stated, I’m not going to approve the sign for now.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-UV-8, with hours of operation Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.; no employees; only two clients’ vehicles in the driveway – the one that’s in and the one that’s coming.

Discussion:

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, I will be honest with you.  There will be times that if I’m doing a chemical treatment and that person is processing, sometimes they can process up to 45 minutes, and I will do a haircut while they’re processing, and it’s a very rare thing, but, at times there may be a car leaving as a car is coming while that client who is processing is sitting, so I don’t want to mislead.  It’s very rare that there would be three, and my driveway could handle it.

Mr. Burns stated, just as long as there’s no off-driveway parking.   The lady’s right.  There’s not much parking in the neighborhood, so no on-street parking.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-UV-8 for 1 year, with hours of operation Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.; no employees; only two clients’ vehicles in the driveway for the most part – the one that’s in and the one that’s coming – once in a while three; no on-street parking; no sign at this time.

Discussion:

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, if I can’t have a sign, I’m not in regulation with the state, so can I bring you a copy of the law, because, if I don’t have that sign, they won’t let me run.  They won’t give me my license that I need.

Mr. McClure stated, that’s why I’m asking if you would consider potentially making the motion contingent upon the petitioner providing proof, and I can review it to see if it’s actually a requirement, then the motion would allow the sign to be placed.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s obviously new, because we’ve had a lot of these…

Mr. Burns stated, never had a sign.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, and, like I said, I would never have known either unless I got on.  I know a lot of the salons that people do out of their home and they don’t comply.

Mr. Burns asked, I don’t know if they just need a sticker on the doors saying…

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, yeah, that’s….as long as it’s like a decal, yeah, that is doable, too.

Mr. Brickner asked, she can have a sign in her window, though, can’t she?

Mr. Burns stated, I think all she needs is a decal.

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, and I would be fine with that.   It did say on the door or beside the door, so, a decal to me is on the door.

Mr. Burns asked, so you won’t see that from the street?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, no.

Mr. Burns asked, and it’s not lit?

Ms. Oestreich-Somers stated, not lit.

Mr. Burns stated, I’d like to take counsel’s recommendation to add that to the motion.
 
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 08-UV-8 for 1 year, with hours of operation Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.; no employees; only two clients’ vehicles in the driveway for the most part – the one that’s in and the one that’s coming – once in a while three; no on-street parking; no sign at this time other than a decal by the door, with counsel to research whether a sign is a state requirement; incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file.  Mr. Williams seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns    -    Yes   Williams    -    Yes   Brickner    -    Yes

Case 08-SE-3.  Petition of SPR Development/Grand Oaks LLC, 324 W. Division Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to construct a wastewater treatment facility under Sections 2.13, 2.14 and 5.54 SE-01 of the Unified Development Ordinance, to be located at 324 W. Division Road, in Porter Township.

Rich Hudson stated that he and Steve Henschen and Steve Melvick are representing the petitioners in this matter.   We are here tonight to seek a Special Exception for a wastewater treatment facility in an R-1 zoned piece of property.  The development that we are proposing, as you can see, is outlined in red on this aerial photograph.  It’s generally located on the South side of Division Road, which is on the North.  On the West side is SR 2, which is kind of on the South, Southeast, and on the North side of CR 100 S., and that’s all within Porter Township.  We’ve kind of developed a name based on the vegetation that’s predominant through this development, Grand Oaks development.  The parcel outlined in red is approximately 227 acres.  If this development goes through, with us complying with the new County UDO, we’re anticipating development of only approximately 60 percent of this, due to all the natural features of the development.  This dark portion in here is a well-established wooded area.  In this area here, there’s probably a 30- to 35-acre wetlands.  Siever’s Ditch, which crosses under SR 2 at about this point, runs up to about this location, I believe, splits off, continues North and then traverses North and then exits the West side of the property, about in this location.  Again, we’re anticipating this development, as we proceed through with it, to utilize only 60 percent of the 227 acres.  I’m not going to speak myself on the treatment facility.  Steve Henschen is a professional engineer and will be able to answer any questions as we proceed on, but the reason we are here seeking the Special Exception for a wastewater treatment facility on our parcel is the fact that we feel that a better way to develop the property is with sanitary sewer and water.  About a year ago we approached the City of Valparaiso and went through their process to ask them to extend sanitary sewer and water to this development. City water is over in Aberdeen, which is about in this location.  The location of the existing City sewers are up SR 2.  I think the closest point is probably along 2 is the Juvenile Service Center.  There is a lift station there and then up shortly, maybe about a half a mile before the Juvenile Service Center on 2, there’s a lift station within the development of Heritage Valley.  We did go to the Valparaiso Utility Board, requested both sanitary sewer and water.  They chose for whatever reasons to only grant us pubic water extension into our development.  So this 227 acres we’re proposing to have Valparaiso water, which will be coming out of Aberdeen.  As I said, they did deny us the extension of the sanitary sewer from Valparaiso, which would have been, I believe, about 3 miles up SR 2, so probably over up somewhere there on the wall.  We did then approach Aberdeen.  Aberdeen is covered by a conservancy district called Nature Works Conservancy District.  We applied to that board, were heard at a meeting – it was either late last year or early this year – and they denied us access to their sanitary sewer, stating their capacity issues with their plant and the capacity that was there would be used for areas within their boundaries.  I think their boundary limits I think now are about right at the corner here.  This is Autumn Oaks, right there, and I believe that’s the Westerly limit of the conservancy district now.  So this is our beginning step.  This is a public hearing.  There’ll be people here asking questions, expressing concerns.  Again, this is the beginning step.  We need to do this so we can continue on.  We have a long haul ahead of us.  There’ll be another public hearing, as you know.  There will be design drawings that will be developed, not only for the treatment facility, but for the development itself.  We’ll be working with the County’s Unified Development Ordinance with staff in developing what we’re going to call right now Grand Oaks.  I’ll be able to answer any questions that might come up, but I’d like to turn it over now to Steve Melvick.  He has some comments to make before we break for questions from the audience.

Mr. Melvick stated that I represent SPR Development, which is melding two properties together for this development, so I’ll be kind of the loose on the ground individual for development activities as we go forward here.  Rich has pretty much outlined what we’re attempting to do.  To kind of bring it into focus with some of the issues that we noticed in the UDO, it seems to indicate that one thing we want to stay away from is the use of individual well and septic systems where possible.  And, just to take a look at a couple of these, it’s Paragraph 2.14 of the UDO on Page 215 where it indicates that septic systems should be permitted only where sanitary sewer utility is not available.  We agree with that concept from the standpoint of what we hope to accomplish with the development.  We want to have the full complement of utilities and not be in a situation where we need to look back to an arrangement where the lots are designed with individual well and septic systems.  It does a few things for us. Primarily, it opens a whole range of design elements that we can consider that we think will add to the amenities of the subdivision.  We are hopeful to develop a subdivision here that the community can be very proud of, that can add to or sustain property values for people, and we think that not having been successful in tying into an existing system, that if we go the extra mile in terms of developing our own wastewater treatment plant, it allows us to design the subdivision in accordance with the zoning that we have there.  Being zoned residential, single-family, low-density, as the R-1 definition runs, to promote low-impact development in concert with the natural settings.  One of our concerns is that if we fall back to the septic system and leave the field arrangement an awful lot of our natural features will be disrupted for the sake of clearing land for those individual systems. So we feel that developing our own wastewater treatment plant is a solution that benefits all parties concerned.  So, that’s primarily our goal and the reason that we’ve come before the Board is to get the go-ahead, more or less, and enter into a design phase where we can actually come and propose a layout based on having the full complement of utilities, and go through the process and scrutiny of not only additional public hearings – at that time, we’ve got something concrete in the way of design, but also to demonstrate that we intend to fully live up to the, and hopefully even exceed, some of the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Ron Salakar, 317 W. Division Road, stated, first of all, I’m not really against it, as of yet.  I just need to find out what they’re going to do and I’m concerned about traffic flow.  There’s a lot of cars going up and down Division Road as it is.  I’m concerned about noise, smell and things of that nature need to be addressed.

Mr. Siminski stated, I just want to explain one thing here tonight:  They’re asking for a Special Exception for the sewer plant.  This has nothing to do with the Plan Commission decision as to approving the subdivision or denying the subdivision.  They have to go through this, or want to go through this hoop, because otherwise they would have to draw something up as individual septic systems, so this is an option for them to come before the BZA.  This is like a first step for them.  I just wanted to clarify what was going on here.  This is not approving the subdivision or anything here tonight.  This is just approving that they’re requesting to put a sewer system, a sanitary system, in place on this property.  If approved, they still have to go to the Plan Commission and present the whole ball of wax to them.  I’m just trying to clarify that.

Pete Malouhos, 314 W. Division Road, stated that my concern about it, like the other gentleman said, is the traffic. 

Mr. Brickner stated, I’ll say this one more time.  This is for the septic system (sic).  This does not have anything to do with the subdivision.  This is just for the building of a sewage disposal plant.  The rest of this is not in discussion here tonight, so anybody that has any problems with traffic or congestion, this isn’t going to be discussed tonight.  This will only be for the sewer.

Mr. Malouhos stated, I just don’t want a sanitary thing there. I know there’s one down the street on 500 and 100 S., and, when you go down there in the summertime, you can smell it.   And I don’t want to smell it next to my house.  That’s my concern.

Ed Brown, 301 W. Division Road, stated that I’m opposed to the sanitary system.  Anything that’s electrical, anything that’s mechanical will definitely fail.  That’s a known fact.  If it fails, what’s going to happen to the wastewater, sanitary stuff?  I don’t know. 

Lenora Finazzo, 52 S. SR 2, stated that they sent me a notice of public hearing, but they didn’t say that I was in the group.  They gave me the notice to “inform you of the proposal in your neighborhood”.  But they didn’t say I was in the proposal.  I might be just a little bit out. I’m on SR 2.  But, even at that...I’m against it.  I don’t want it, because I’ve been told that when you put those things in if the wind blows your way the smell is horrible, and it’s very difficult to live like that.  I’ve been there 40-some years and I’ve got a nice little place there, 7 acres on SR 2, and I’d like to stay there for the few years I have left.

Mary Medina 323 W. Division Rd., stated that I was going to show you on a map because it’s actually right in this area, right in the outlined section of the borderline of this subdivision…there wasn’t any statement on where this facility plant might be located on this property, so that was one question I had for them.  They said only 60 percent of this might be developed and I’d like to know what 60 percent they’re talking about here.  I assume that you said the water’s coming from the City of Valparaiso, so, my question is, where will it be discharged because we’re really concerned….if there’s failure we have a lot of wells out in this area, so I’d like to know where it will be discharged.  You mentioned Siever’s Creek and you mentioned this one section.  You’ve got this and if it goes up North I’d like to know how far North it goes and where is the discharge? 

Deb Armstrong, 334 W. Division Rd., stated that my concern is, like Mary stated and the others, I have a concern of the smell of the wastewater treatment facility.  We have a 14-year-old son who will be going to the high school this year and my concern is the added population, what that’s going to do to our school system.  They’re already, as I understand, at capacity and considering adding on, so that’s a concern I have as far as the subdivision.  And I didn’t understand the relationship of having a wastewater treatment facility, how that would affect the density of the housing or the number of the houses in the subdivision and that would also relate to…if they have the wastewater treatment are they going to have more houses than if they had individual septic and well and how those houses will be dispersed in the property.  I’m at 334 W. Division, which is adjoining property.  We are on well water, and I do have concerns about the discharge and how that would affect our well water. 

Ruthanne Wangerin, 310 W. Division Rd., stated that this proposed subdivision abuts us on two sides, the North side and on the West side.  My concern is that this treatment plant will run through Siever’s Creek, which is on and near our property.  And I’m concerned also about water treatment plant failures.  There has been a water treatment plant failure recently in Aberdeen.  There also has been a water treatment plant failure in a subdivision in Crown Point that was just in the newspaper last week, and people really complained about the stench for days at a time about that.  And then I also just want to reiterate what some of the others said if…will the wastewater treatment increase density and will it affect our well water?

Walter Wangerin, 310 W. Division Rd., stated that my wife’s right.  Siever’s Creek cuts across the corner of our property (inaudible).  Some of these things may be answered.  I wonder, does that mean that the effluent flows over the creek?  If it’s open, that concerns me even more.  There are things that we do on the property that can be affected by an open flow, even when the water has been treated. It doesn’t seem always to be completely treated.  And I’m concerned about bacteria and so forth.  With my wife, I am concerned about the fact that these systems do break down.  I want to add to what she said that I know that Aberdeen did some of the best planning that they’ve ever seen around here, and they planned not only the way in which the houses are arranged, but almost everything they did there – their choices of what other buildings would be there, and then their choices of the layout of the road and their choice of a wastewater treatment plant were as good as I know around here.  Nevertheless, that plant failed, and it looks like it may again.  Because what you’ve heard is exactly right – it is at capacity.  I don’t know if they have more houses than they expected, more flow than they anticipated.  I think they are very good at setting up the number of houses that they thought the treatment plant would need, so I’m concerned about the size of it.  This leads me to another thing, which is not directly, but indirectly, related.  I am concerned about the number of houses, too.  You said that 40 percent would not be developed.  That sounds good to me, but it also makes you want to ask later, where are you not going to develop?  Where are you going to develop?  The more houses you have, the greater that treatment plant is going to have to handle, so I’m concerned about its size.  If you have already in mind the general figure of how many houses are going to be in there and so you plan the treatment plant according, are you bound to that, or are you going to add more property, some more housing sales, after that?  And then…and I think this relates…I am very interested…you may not know this in the size of the (inaudible). Low density, I know, means that there’s a kind of restriction there, but the smaller the lots, the greater the number of houses and the greater number of people that are there.  All of this…management of the plant, open flow, size of it…but management I’m very concerned about, because I know Aberdeen did very well with their management.

Carol Sue Delicio, 306 W. Division Rd., stated that I have the same concerns that everybody else does.  We all have septic and well on our property and so I’m not sure how that’s going to be affected by this and the smell that could come from it – we’re all concerned about that.  The density, if they are allowed to put in a treatment facility, obviously they would be allowed to have a lot more houses.  The density would be there for a lot more houses, and so that is going to affect the traffic on Division Road.  It is a two-lane road, and it will affect that, whether they have to be on their own well and septic, then that might decrease the density of the houses.

Mike D’Alessio, 306 W. Division Rd., stated that the only additional comment I may have is that the anticipated tons of sludge that would be coming out of this facility and how much semi traffic that would entail, as far as bringing in and how would they handle that?  Is it typical dumping into a box and bringing it out?  Again, the amount of tons of sludge and how that would affect semi traffic bringing tons in and out of the facility.

Beverly Mendenhall, 319 W. Division Road, stated that I’m concerned about the location.  I did come down and spend some time looking at the file, checking out exactly what we’re looking at tonight.  I have some concern over the treatment plant and I wonder if that’s something that’s already been used somewhere else, like Aberdeen etc.  I’m curious as to why it was denied by Valparaiso and the overflow, as everyone’s mentioned.  I’m very concerned about that.  I understand that this is specifically to discuss the treatment plant.  I think it is a leap of faith that we are doing this.  I understand, that’s the process, but that I think it would be nice if we had a little more information about some of the other peripheral things that are not really to be discussed here tonight.  I think that’s a peace of mind issue for some of the neighbors.

Mr. Hudson stated that I’d just like to go through and pick some of these out that I can address, and then I’m going to let Steve Melvick….  He stated that I want to answer Beverly Mendenhall’s question about Valparaiso.  The corporate limits of Valparaiso are somewhere around close to maybe the old Fetla’s up to…Heritage Valley, I believe, is not in the City.  The limits come and pick up Essex Park, so that kind of sneaks down and picks that up.  But Aberdeen is not within the City limits.  Aberdeen to Division Road is probably…again, from the youth service center there on SR 2, about 2, 2.5 miles.  So. We’re 2 to 3 miles outside the City limits.  The City has extended water down to Aberdeen, and Aberdeen is serviced by water, not sanitary sewer.  So, Aberdeen, again, as you all know, is right there at the corner and extends all the way out to…if 2 goes up like that, Aberdeen would be over in this area here.  They chose not to extend sanitary sewer because of that distance.  The 2 miles of maintenance on a force main at this time, they just did not feel it was in their best interests financially to do that.  They do not service Nature Works or Aberdeen, and I don’t mean to speak…not to the Board, I guess, just addressing the plat, so that was their decision.  They were very willing to give us, extend water to us, because, again, public water, drinking water is in Aberdeen.

Mr. Melvick stated, I have the letter from the City of Valparaiso regarding the decline of…the letter that we have from Valparaiso states that the reason that they declined our request was the distance from the City limits and their cost to provide maintenance:  “The Civil City has no desire to annex this area in the foreseeable future” and that they would just as soon hold onto their capacity that they have for developments closer to the City limits and desirable for annexation.  So, those are the reasons that we were declined by the City of Valparaiso.   We can get copies of that for the file if you choose. 

Mr. Hudson stated, regarding Siever’s Ditch, if you look at the USGS map – and that’s the U.S. Geodetic Survey map, they list…Siever’s is named South and East of 2.  There is no name that shows up on the North, right?  It comes through at this location here, too; comes up in this direction and about…right about here, splits; and continues on; cuts the corner of this parcel; comes up in here, in this location; and then exits out here and continues on and then continues up through here.  I can’t tell you how far North, if there’s any culverts.  I believe the lady that was asking that lives somewhere on the North side of Division, so you probably know better than I if there’s a culvert that comes under the road that drains from North to South.  If you can see this – and I know it’s pretty hard for me to see this, so it might be hard for you – the light blue lines on here are the wetlands that show up on the national inventory maps, and that’s this big area here is the wetland I spoke to, and the creek runs through it on and off  the property, and then continues up through this wetland area.  Honestly, right now, I can’t tell you what it does. You wanted to know where that split.  I think, again, as the Chairman mentioned, the traffic issues and the development are a process that we will do after this is going to address a lot of those questions.  The school system, I think, Steve Melvick will be able to talk about.  So, I think I’ll let Steve Henschen try to answer the questions on the treatment process, plant and location and those types of things – noise, smell, the sludge, discharge, discharge plant failure.

Mr. Henschen stated that I will try to address some of the more technical questions that had come up.  Let’s address the noise and the smell, first of all.  On one of the maps that Mr. Melvick passed out today you’ll see a bunch of dark blue or purplish circles on that map.  Those are circles that represent a 500-foot radius around each of the existing dwellings in this area, in this neighborhood.  IDEM has specific rules.  They are the agency responsible for approving and permitting wastewater treatment plants in Indiana.  One of their rules is that no wastewater treatment plant can be located closer than 500 feet to an existing dwelling and, while the rule doesn’t say specifically if that is to allow what they feel is a reasonable setback to not have the noise and smell issues that can be associated with a treatment plant.  I won’t deny it; there are.  If you go to a treatment plant and, standing above the tank, you’ll have some odors.  If you are 500 feet away, you shouldn’t have odors.  A lot of those issues are operational in nature, as well.  A well-operated plant – that’s going to be minimized.  A well-designed plant will also control noise, as well.  So, IDEM has some rules in place that impact that.  So, the plan would be here that this treatment plant would not be closer than 500 feet to any existing dwellings that are out in this specific area.  There was a question about electrical and mechanical failures, and, again, that is a true statement.  Equipment does fail. IDEM, again, has certain rules and requirements.  They require, Number 1, backup power source, so, if your main distribution system goes down, a plant like this would have a standby generator that would automatically kick over and begin operating upon some type of a lightning storm that might have knocked power out.  Also, there’s redundancy built into these plants.  Let’s say, the type of plant we’re discussing is a biomechanical plant.  Basically, it would be concrete basins, buried in the ground, that will then have mechanical equipment like a blower that will pump air into this wastewater treatment plant to get the activated process going.  The blower, one blower is sized to handle that plant by itself, but you’re required to have two. If one fails, you’ve got the second to run and then you can take the first one out for repairs and begin…continue with your operations.  So, there are redundancies and backup systems built into these wastewater treatment plants.  Where will the discharge go?  We have…the first step in the permitting process with IDEM is requesting a wasteload allocation, and we have started that process and have an initial response back from IDEM.  And, in that process, we tell them that we have a proposed development with a certain anticipated flow, and we base that on initial concepts here of approximately 400 and some homes at what IDEM governs as the typical maximum average daily flow from a given house, roughly 310 gallons per day, is the number that they use, and then we go to IDEM and say, we’re planning a treatment plant that will discharge into Siever’s Creek in this location.  What are the treatment requirements?  They have responded back to us and said for a discharge at location immediately on Siever’s Creek just North of SR 2, that’s indicated by a light blue bubble on that map.  That was one location where we requested treatment effluent limits.  IDEM came back with those effluent limits and we would then be designing our treatment plant to operate within those limits that IDEM has established.  We have recently requested one additional location, which is upstream, up towards the Northwest corner of our property.  IDEM is currently working on that, and we should have a response back from them soon.  But that’s the formal process.  You get the requirements from IDEM.  We then design around that, and, then, ultimately, we would have to go to IDEM for a construction permit – that’s after we have the facility completely designed.  And then you will be required – the operator will be required, the owner of this development, to obtain an operations permit. It’s a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.  It’s valid for a 5-year period, typically, but, again, that’s where the formal requirements are set up – what the treatment and effluent limits are, and it’s very closely monitored system in the state of Indiana. 

Mr. Hudson stated that there was a gentleman that talked about smell of a plant that’s down on Division Road about 500 W.  I believe he’s speaking of  the lagoon system at Lake Eliza Conservancy District.  Could you just talk about the difference between those open lagoons and the process that we’re talking about using?

Mr. Henschen stated, well, an open lagoon system is letting nature do its course, and it takes a much longer time to process that wastewater and it requires a large surface area. Those lagoons – I’m not specifically familiar with them – but I know they’re acres and acres in size. Our treatment plant facility we’re talking about here would be able to set on a footprint of roughly…overall, each tank is going to be about 30 by 20.  At a potential full buildout here it would all fit within a footprint of roughly 100 by 170 feet, roughly the size of that light blue circle we’re showing on that drawing.  Basically, that’s the size of the entire footprint of this wastewater treatment plant.  As far as sludge, I don’t have specific numbers to share with you tonight as far as how many tons of sludge would be generated.  But I can talk to you about typical operations and methods and how it’s handled.  On most plants of this size, which I call a fairly small wastewater treatment plant, the sludge will be disposed of two times a year, and it would be done with typically a larger – it could be a semi-trailer tanker truck or it could be smaller tank trucks, but many times they’ll come in with a semi with a trailer, usually about two times a year.  And it will be pumped out as a liquid form, and then, at that point, typically on these smaller plants, it’s either taken to a larger plant – that’s what happens with sludge all the time. Sludge goes from smaller plants and it goes upstream to the next larger plant, which could be in Valparaiso, or it could be some other larger plants in the area where they then take that sludge and process it farther in their system.  Larger plants would typically have their sludge and they would dewater it at their own facility.   And it would come out in more of a solid form and then disposed of and land-applied.   We haven’t gotten into the specific aspects of that.  Typically, a plant of this size would not have that type of dewatering system.  Typically, the sludge would be removed in a liquid form one to two times per year and taken to an appropriate licensed facility for further treatment or disposal.

Mr. Melvick stated that regarding some of the additional questions that go beyond the technical aspect, Steve Henschen indicated that the plant location will have to be at least 500 feet away from any existing residence.  There’s an interesting thing here in that once you have the plant established, you’re allowed to build pretty much right up to that plant.  So, from a practical standpoint, one of the primary concerns that we hear from all the individuals voicing their concerns is the smell of the plant.  And to go a little further into that, we cannot have a nuisance, we cannot develop a nuisance within the subdivision and hope to have a successful subdivision.  If we look at the Aberdeen plant as similar in nature to what we’re going to design – although technology’s advanced a bit and we anticipate doing an upgrade, if you will, to that particular plant.  If you head on out to that plant and walk around it, the odors are virtually unnoticeable right there at the fence line around the plant. I’ve been doing that now for the last month or so, just sampling myself.  And, if you take a look at it, they have townhomes that are being built within 100 feet of the plant, and the apartment complex out there, as well, is well within 100 feet.  So, while we anticipate being at last 500 feet away from any existing structure right now. Once we’re in with the landscape around it, you’ll hardly notice the fact – if you like I have pictures of the Aberdeen plant that I could show, distribute, if you’d like to see those to get an idea of how it blends in with the landscape there between the apartment complex, townhomes and the golf course.  So, that would be our goal is to tuck it away where it would be not really noticeable, landscape around it.  And we have to make sure that there is no odor issues at all, and we’ll do whatever it takes to make sure that that’s the case.  From a practical standpoint, we’d be out of business if we create a nuisance within the subdivision, and we certainly don’t intend to create a nuisance for anybody that’s in that neighborhood there with this plant.  And I think as demonstrated by the existence of that facility there at Aberdeen and Nature Works, as well.  In terms of density, we will be able to design to the density levels of the zoning that’s in place there right now.  The R-1, low-density single-family residential is the zoning that we have.  We will be able to design to that density level provided we have this utility in place.  Without it, it will be slipping back towards a situation with well and septic systems, and the density will be less.  But what will happen is, the density will be spread over the development, and it’s very likely at that point that we’ll have less contiguous open space.  When we talk in terms of having 60 percent of land in development, 40 percent in the open space areas, we hope, by having the density clustered, if you will, rather than spread out in acre and acre and a half sized parcels to meet the requirements of septic systems, we’ll be able to hopefully cluster the density around the development and have the amenities centered, which is the streambed that comes through the West and proceeds out the Southeast and the wetlands, as well as the forested area that we have here in the center of the development.  So, that would be our intent, and we would like to get to that point of design, but we need to be able to design with the full complement of utilities there.

Mr. Hudson stated that there was a lady who commented and she is on the East side of SR 2.  We were required by the Unified Development Ordinance to notify people adjoining our boundary outside two parcels or not more than 500 feet. So, if our boundary is the centerline of 2, people along this side of 2 were notified. You’re not necessarily in our development, but you’re in our notification area. We were required to certify return receipt mail, notify all the people around.  So we are not including anyone in our development, but we had to notify, and you’ll be notified again.  The people will be notified a second time through the same process.  When we talked about the development of 60 percent of the acreage, we have approximately 227 acres.  We’re going to develop about 136, which, math-wise, works out to about 60 percent.  The areas that we are not going to develop are any of the wetlands areas, and our charge, at least as a development group, a design group, by our client, is to maintain as much of this wooded area in the middle.  There’s another sizeable wooded area down here and some features in here, isolate those out and not develop those.  I’m not going to say we’re not going to put walking paths through those.  I’m not going to say that we’re not going to make enhancements to the creekbed, to the sides of the creekbed.  There’s requirements in the County that are driving this 40 percent/60 percent scenario, but there’s also requirements that leave us with a perimeter strip around the outside that will be maintained so that, theoretically, if we’re developing in these lighter brown areas and this green area up in here, people in the North side shouldn’t be able to see through to the South side, and people in the South side shouldn’t be able to see through to the North side.  So, it’s these logical areas that are open, that do not have natural features on them – trees, wetlands, streambeds, those type areas are what’s in that 40 percent. 

Mr. Wangerin stated, just one thought, and I’m hearing that this is possible.  This is my property.  So, you’re going to be all the way around here and here.  The thing I want to point out is that maybe you’re only going to be from here down to here using Siever’s, but the North branch comes like this through my property.  And this is a wetland, a small wetland, here through which it goes, and then it remains wet as it follows down here.  So, it’s very much where we live and where I do work.  I’d be very interested that this doesn’t get affected because that’s a good deal of property that I use, and I use it in various ways.

Ms. Mendenhall stated that I guess the question that I don’t think was really addressed here is who’s going to maintain the plant. 

And another part to that is is Aberdeen the model?  Is this the best of the best?  This is what’s out there, and this is the best technology right now?  And we already know we’ve had an issue with Aberdeen.  I guess the maintenance of it is an issue.  I understand that there are federal, state, County guidelines regulations, but I do have some concerns. I know elevation issues, which, again, gets on that whole issue of that that’s not really what tonight is about, but I do have questions with the drainage and I don’t think that was really addressed here.  As an educator, I’m very vested in this community.  I also work in the community.  So, I guess I’m back to this whole station and how it’s going to be operated.  Is this the best?

Ms. Medina stated, maybe I missed it, but they didn’t exactly show where the facility will be located, where are they actually going to build this facility on this property?  I’d like to see where that’s going to be.

Mr. Hudson stated, it’s the blue circle.  There’s another spot that we requested up in this area.

Ms. Medina asked, and there’s no intent of changing where those locations are?  I mean, if you pretty much stated to IDEM that that’s where it’s going to be, that those are the locations it’s going to stay?  You noted that they said the facility can’t be located within a certain distance from the dwelling, but are there any rules that the discharge couldn’t be certain distances from existing dwellings out there? That goes into the discharge we were talking about where Siever’s Creek runs, and I really would like to know if you guys know where Siever’s Creek actually does run, so we have an understanding of where that discharge is going to go and how close it will be to our dwellings.  What I wanted to know is is there any sort of acceptable level of…I don’t want to say sewage, but what are the acceptable levels that can be in a discharge?  Who checks that and how frequently are they checked?

Mr. Brown stated that the North branch of Siever’s Creek starts at my property, 301 W. Division Rd.  It flows South and if you have a problem, are you going to reverse the flow of Siever’s Ditch and have it flow North?  If you do, you’re going to flood my property.

George Armstrong, 334 W. Division Rd., stated, gentlemen, we’ve heard a lot of concerns, facts, figures tonight.  You have a big decision in front of you.  Personally, I have done surveys on at least six local treatment plants, usually for upgrades or flow problems.  Yes, technology has its problems.  Yes, it’s getting better every day.  But it’s a concern, and most of the neighbors, we have large parcels.  This is all about density, the size of the parcels that they’re going to be selling as home units.  Not to belittle other decisions that you’ve made tonight, but shouldn’t we have something on paper – a footprint, a plat, of where this is going to be built.  If you ask somebody how far a setback is on a garage and they have to have sketches?  That’s my question to you.

Mr. Hudson stated, wherever Siever’s Ditch begins – and I can’t answer you where it goes, where it’s technically a County drain to.  At its highest point, wherever that is, is the beginning of it, and it’s going to slope downhill, and it’s going to continue to slope downhill.  We don’t plan to change the location of…the one gentleman talking about the wetlands here and continuing South.  It’s going to continue to go South.  If we were to top SR 2, the elevation of SR 2, I’m going to guess that you have to be 30 or possibly 40 feet higher than SR 2 is, and that’s our controlling structure, so, if that were to block up this culvert under here, you’d overtop the road before you’d even come close to this or even come up into any of these other areas up to the North and to the Northwest.  We’re going to maintain this wetland.  That wetland’s going to have the same control that it does over this ditch, the Northern part and the Western portion.  Steve will talk about the location of the plant and some other comments that just came up, but Drew brought up the density issue, and I know the density issue was brought up before. This property is zoned R-1.  You do have large lots that are out here in an R-1 zoning.  This area has been zoned R-1 since the 1983 zoning ordinance was enacted, and we are going to develop it consistent with the guidelines that were set out in the Unified Development Code.  We’ve got a long road to haul.  The design will come after this, will be scrutinized by both the state and the County – several levels in the County, and that process is just beginning.  There is no design.  We can’t tell you what the ultimate system is going to look like until we design it based on the criteria that Steve spoke about that we will obtain from IDEM.

Mr. Henschen stated that we have…when you request the wasteload allocation from IDEM, they are asking, where are you going to discharge the treated effluent from your wastewater treatment plant.  We have selected two locations so far.  One is here, and one is there.  That does not mean the wastewater treatment plant is right there.  Technically, the wastewater treatment plant is six miles away and you pump it and you discharge it right there, but, realistically, it’s going to be right on our property, and then the 500-foot setbacks comply…you have to do the 500-foot setbacks to comply with where the actual plant is going to be located.  And where we are in this process right now is kind of the cart before the horse.  We have this land.  There are some concepts being bounced around.  One of them was a treatment plant down in this location, or one is a treatment plant up in this location.  I can tell you this:  We have less restrictive treatment levels at this location than we do up here.  And it’s a function of how much flow.  This stream splits here, and I’m not going to see 50-50 – I don’t even know what those numbers are – but because we have more flow at this point, the typical guidelines for wasteload allocation is the more flow that you have, the less level of treatment you have to do.  Now, it’s not drastically different, but there will be more restrictive effluent limits here than there would be here, basically based on the two smaller streams coming into one larger stream.  So, that treatment plant could be located in here, and the reason we’re not showing a specific location yet is we haven’t advanced a design enough to know where are the specific lots, roads going to be, and where does it make the most sense to have the treatment plant?  We do have the general areas, and that’s, again, why we have shown the 500-foot radiuses, just to show where we can’t have a treatment plant.

Mr. Hudson stated, again, we’re developing in an R-2 (sic) zoning.  We’re developing in an R-2 zoning that has been here and this is the beginning process.  We’d like to have on-site wastewater treatment.  We’re going to have water, and that allows us to then develop within an R-1 zoning, according to the County drainage code, the County Unified Development Code.  All these things will be reviewed once we know where we are, and that’s what we’re trying to find out here.  We can’t do a design without knowing whether a treatment facility will be allowed as a Special Exception and that’s what we are requesting.   We’ll be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. McClure stated, I think there’s a few you didn’t get to. Maintenance?

Mr. Melvick stated that we’ve contacted an NCO, which is the organization that maintains Nature Works and several other wastewater treatment plants of this nature within the area.  We’ve looked to contract with them for maintenance, as well.   They seem to have the best reputation and know how to get the job done for us.  So, it will be a contract operation.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. McClure asked, is this going to be a conservancy district, or is this going to be, basically, funded by a POA?

Mr. Melvick stated that we’re considering both, as a matter of fact, depending on the final design of the system.  We’ve looked at conservancy district, talked to Dave Hollenbeck about initiating something like that.  A POA is under consideration.  Then, the idea of maintaining operational supervision of the plant ourselves is also in consideration.  So those are the three options that we’re looking at currently.

Mr. McClure stated that there’s a huge difference, obviously, between a conservancy district or doing it through the POA system.  If one of you could speak a little bit about the difference between the two operations.  Obviously, in a conservancy district we’re going to be creating another unit of state government.  They’re going to be able to tax the people in your district a certain amount to be able to keep the operation and the repair of this package plant.  A POA is going to work a little different. It’s not a unit of state government.  We’re going to be dealing with dues, fees, etc.  That money would be used to operate the facility.  In either option there’s going to be some sort of…as anyone who’s living within a municipal district who has sanitary sewer, there’s going to be a charge.  People within this red outline, in a conservancy district type of plan, would get the equivalent of a sewer bill once a month, once a year, quarterly, however it’s set up, as if they were in the city.  That would be, potentially, that would be the tax that I was referring to earlier.  That would also be equivalent to paying a sewer bill.  A POA would probably be closer to dues, fees, etc. 

Mr. Hudson stated, it’s still a sewer bill.

Mr. McClure stated, I think eventually what some of the Board members are going to get to is they have some questions about that direct issue – conservancy district, POA.  How the conservancy district, if it is a conservancy district, how that would be set up.  Obviously, there’s lots more options in a conservancy district.  We can start incorporating storm water.  We can start all kinds of the public improvements that would go within the development.  As our Plan Commission members know, it’s caused us some issues in some of our other developments.  The issue relates more to timing and funding.  They are not issues related to operational issues.

Mr. Melvick stated, one thing that we discussed.  We lean towards the conservancy district because it has the authority to collect revenues from the residents within the subdivision district, and there’s no question about whether or not you’re going to be funded for those revenues.  I think where you’ve seen some problems with that kind of setup has been where they didn’t phase in the development.  Our plan is for a phased operation, so there’d be smaller increments developed at a time.  One of the scenarios would be as low as 30 lots initially, meaning a much smaller cost of infrastructure for the conservancy district to pick up on.  So, we like that idea, however we really haven’t gotten far enough along in the process whether or not we’re going to have the utility to make that determination.

Mr. McClure stated, and I understand that.  I understand the process that you’re going through, why you’re here and why we have partial answers, and I can share with you a bit of what some of the issues that we’ve had with the conservancy districts, and I believe your phasing would address most of those issues we’ve had.  Obviously, the concern is the…normally these things are not inexpensive.  They are a significant capital investment.  Normally, we do a conservancy district we’re going to have significant bond issue that eventually, basically, all the lots within the subdivision are going to be, in some way or another, responsible for making those payments back onto that issue.  I can tell you that, with the members just in dealing with these other ones that we’ve been dealing with, one of the ways that have made this funding issue for the owners, for the eventual third-party lot owners better, is not only the phasing approach, but also equally spreading the costs along the lots, whether or not they’re sold third-party or not.

Mr. Burns stated that that’s definitely a concern is that we’ve seen that issue in the County with the funding.  That’s a real issue.  The POA I’m really concerned about. I’m not too sure that’s going to work.  I really think you need a utility, and I do have some technical concerns.  Talking about the flow rate:  What is the flow rate, of your first location for discharge, what is the flow rate of that stream?

Mr. Henschen stated that we requested the full buildout of what we had anticipated at the 60 percent development, roughly 423 homes at 310 gallons per day was around 137,000 gallons per day.  We went to IDEM and said, give us a wasteload allocation for 150,000 gallons per day, just to have a little buffer in there.  The initial phases that we’re talking about could be as little as 9,000 to 10,000 gallons per day, if we’re talking the number of homes…423 was like the max number we’re going to have in here. Mr. Melvick  had mentioned they could be starting with smaller phases, as few as, how many, Steve?  Thirty homes.  Thirty homes at 300 gallons per day is only 9,000 gallons per day, roughly. So, we would see this starting out small, this type of treatment plant is really ideal to set up to do a lot of unit-type construction so it could be easily duplicated and expanded as development increases.

Mr. Burns stated, okay, so you’re talking max would be 150,00 gallons into the stream?

Mr. Henschen stated, yes.

Mr. Burns asked, and what effect would that have downstream, temperature-wise, flow rates?

Mr. Henschen stated that we’re required to monitor pH, e coli, temperature, along with some other BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), total suspended solids.  We’re supposed to – and part of the requirement will be – routine monitoring of each of these elements for compliance.  Those are done on a weekly basis – sometimes twice a week, sometimes three a week – depends on which specific test you’re running. Those reports are sent to IDEM then on a monthly basis showing them what your average daily flow was.  If you’re asking how does this flow compare to what the flow of that stream is, it’s not going to be a significant amount that you’re going to see a noticeable difference in the flow. But it could be, during some dry weather, you might see some additional flow, but, again, it’s a very minor…if we take the 310 gallons a day times 400 homes, it’s about 60 gallons per minute, is where that worked out to.  It’s not what I would consider a significant flow that you have to worry about downstream drainage issues.

Mr. McClure stated, and, just so we don’t start panicking, when you say the system is being built upon or expanded as a unit, as you put in 30 homes, 30 homes, 30 homes, or however many you put, the system is growing with the homes.  We’re not saying more package plants all the way around the facility. 

Mr. Henschen stated, if this is where we picked our treatment plant site enough space will be set up there for that future buildout.  There won’t be another package plant here and one over here and one over here.  It would be all done and concentrated at one location with the same effluent discharge location, as well.

Mr. Burns asked, why do you pick a second location where there’s less flow?

Mr. Melvick stated, we took a look at…we had the approval for the discharge location on Highway 2.  The stream that comes in from the West side is in a situation where it doesn’t flow naturally anymore.  In years gone by it had.  This is a Priority 3 streambed within the County and, under the guidelines for development, we will restore that streambed back to its…as much as possible, back to its original shape and contour with seeding and grasses and that will all be set aside open space.  What we’re thinking is, we can enhance the flow within that creek, possibly by moving our discharge point up and picking that up and causing it to flow more consistently throughout the year, so we look at it as a possibility to enhance the flow through the stream and into the wetlands, as well.  We’re not sure that we’re going to see that as a possibility, but we’ve asked IDEM to take a look at that for us as a secondary possibility.

Mr. Burns stated, so, that second location would enhance your wetlands?

Mr. Melvick stated, yes.  It keeps that stream live all year-round. It goes dry now from time to time.

Mr. Burns asked, the odors from these plants, does it come from the discharge area or the process area?  Where does most of the odors come from?

Mr. Henschen stated, the process area.

Mr. Williams asked, what are the state requirements for people that are outside the subdivision if all these neighbors that have spoken tonight decide that they want, for some reason, want to get a sewer.  If their septics fail and they want to hook onto your sewer, what are your requirements to allow them or not allow them to do that?

Mr. Melvick stated, it’s similar, if it’s a conservancy district, it would be similar to what we attempted to do with Nature Works in Aberdeen.  We applied for annexation.  And in that situation we had to be contiguous to the property. So, we came in and asked to be annexed into their service district and obtained service that way, so I would assume that would be the same for anybody around the development as long as they were adjoiners contiguous to the property.  Should they want to get service from the district they could apply for an annexation.

Mr. Burns stated, it’s a concern I have.  This is different from a lot of the other developments.  It’s almost like spot zoning.  You carved out a piece of property here, or two properties.  You’re plucking this in here, and, as we know, some of these plants do have odors.  And you’re not only going to affect your development, but a lot of people on the outside of the development that’s not part of it that will be affected with this odor.  I mean, that’s a concern.  If you look at this map here, all these people on the outside could be affected.  That’s a real concern.  Like when Aberdeen was built that was their own development.  There was a farmhouse here. House down the street, but not congested like this.  That’s a real concern.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think you see now that the development is centering around…it’s moving out from Aberdeen.  Aberdeen has expanded out into these areas.  You know, we’re in R-1 zoning today, as it was 25 years ago, and those homes that have been built around have chosen to build on larger parcels.  Are we going to have odors?  I’m not going to say that you’re not, but we’re trying to take the best approach at processing the sewage.  We don’t want to use septic.  We don’t want to have 200 septic systems flowing into that creek, but we want to have a processed flow going into that creek at one spot. 

Mr. Burns stated, this is just a concern I have.  It’s going to affect a lot of people that’s not involved in the development.

Mr. Brickner stated, the problem we have with these developments has never been at the inception.  It’s always been 10 years down the road.  All the plants that we have that have failed in Porter County – and I can probably name 5 without even thinking about it, it’s always been long after the subdivision is sold out, long after you guys are gone, and then the maintenance of these plants has just deteriorated, and I think you guys…Rich knows this…the maintenance has just disappeared, and then you find out they have a person coming in once a week to maintain a septic system (sic) for 200 homes, and it doesn’t work.  It hasn’t worked in a lot of these subdivisions that we’re talking about.  That’s one of my concerns.  Some time down the road we have to know that this is going to be maintained.  When we talk about a conservancy district and people paying to have these maintained, we’d like to know if there’s going to be some kind of future plans to maintain these things the way they should be maintained instead of dumping them after you guys are gone and the subdivision’s sold out. That’s one of my concerns.  The other concern is, the City of Valpo, the looping in of your system with the City of Valpo has been denied – totally, completely denied.  Is that right?  They have told you that you cannot do it, or, is it under consideration?

Mr. Melvick stated, no, it’s not under consideration.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, they’ve told you…and Aberdeen has said the same thing?

Mr. Melvick stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, that you can’t hook into the existing septic systems (sic), sewer plants?  Is it because of the cost to Valparaiso, or is it because of the costs that are prohibitive for you that they’ve denied these.  Or that they’re not going to make any money on it, I guess is what I want to say. Is that what they’re telling you?

Mr. Melvick stated, no, we were willing to establish the link ourselves.  So, it didn’t have to do with our cost to bring the lines to them.  We were actually going to fund that ourselves, but it had to do with capacity issues.

Mr. Brickner stated, the reason I’m asking the question is because one of the purposes of the Unified Development act was to locate subdivisions near the hubs of cities so that they could hook into the existing utilities.  That’s one of our goals, to do that.  Here we are with a subdivision just outside the city limits of both the subdivision of Aberdeen and the City of Valpo and they’re both denying you a request to hook into their…something is wrong with our code here, or something is wrong with the way we’re doing business with the City of Valpo, with Aberdeen, because this is what we should be doing.  You should be hooking into Valpo, and all these people here tonight that are against this, I kind of agree with them. I think that another sewage plant, with Aberdeen right there and Valpo right here, another sewage plant is…it doesn’t make any sense, and it doesn’t make any sense to the neighbors that we can’t do what we say we want to do with the development code.  Those are the concerns that I have.

Mr. Hudson stated, Mr. Brickner, I think your development code allows this type…I mean, you have the mechanism where we come and request a Special Exception. Your ordinance allows us to come and ask for a Special Exception for a treatment plant; that’s allowed in your ordinance.  We have gone to the conservancy district, Nature Works, which incorporates Aberdeen and some surrounding areas, and they have turned us down because of their capacity issues.

Mr. Brickner asked, capacity?  See, I understood it was a cost issue, not a capacity issue.

Mr. Hudson stated, well, the capacity issue is relative to cost.  They don’t have the dollars to…they’re kind of locked into where they are, area-wise.  So they can’t expand their facility where they are.  I believe that’s what we were told.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, they’re telling you you can’t hook in because they would overtax their system.

Mr. Hudson stated, right. And we were willing to…the same way we were willing to run the force main into Valparaiso, Valparaiso came back and said, that’s great, but now we’ve got to maintain three miles outside of our district and the force main in between it. We’re not getting the tax dollars, although we’re getting operational costs from the fees that are assessed, you know, on a monthly basis, however they do it.

Mr. Brickner stated, so, the alternative is 250 septic tanks, or something like that.

Mr. Hudson stated, 250 individual locations, or one spot location.  Let me just talk about this whole conservancy district maintenance, the maintenance in 10 years.  Again, sometimes I think we’ve got the cart before the horse here.  We can’t answer your question about what’s going to happen in 10 years, what mechanism’s going to be in place to make sure that in 10 years, 20 years, that this plant still works.  Certainly, in 10 or 20 years there will be upgrades. How many upgrades there might be.  Who’s going to do that?  Those are questions that we are going to have to address and come back with not only our plant design, but our development design before the Plan Commission and the state of Indiana for the treatment plant.  Again, we’ve got the cart before the horse here.  We’d like to answer your question, and we’re going to do that, but we have to get past this to be able to answer your question and proceed on. 

Mr. Brickner stated, I appreciate that, too, but I think maybe the people of Fox Chase Farms would have liked to have known what was going to happen when they put their septics there, and I could name a lot of others, but…

Mr. Hudson stated, I think maybe their situation has been helped by some recent developments.

Mr. Brickner stated, and I can’t compare what you’re going to do with what happened there, right?

Mr. Hudson stated, no.

Mr. Brickner stated, those are just concerns that I have for the people who live around there.

Mr. Hudson stated, but those are concerns that are going to have to be answered before we can get approval.  If we can’t answer those…

Mr. Brickner stated, I understand.  This is just preliminary.  You would need our approval first.

Mr. Hudson stated, we need your approval to get our approval.  We have to move on so we can answer these questions and develop the process that we’re going to…the system that we’re going to use, and to pinpoint the layout, to talk about traffic, to talk about all these issues that really aren’t a part of tonight. This approval tonight will allow us to do that and answer those questions, and if we can’t answer those questions to the approval of the Plan Commission and the state of Indiana on the treatment plant, this development will go no further.

Mr. Burns stated, another concern is back to the POA versus the utility.  You don’t have a decision now which way you’re going to go for sure, and that’s a big issue. That’s major.  I mean, we just went through a situation in the County – I mean, how are you going to fund it?  You’re sitting here?...

Mr. Melvick stated, the installation. That would come from part of our development funds as part of the project, and most of the system would be installed initially with the first phase of lots. 

We’ve thought about such things as maintaining the responsibility under a bonded arrangement for maintenance of the system.  As I mentioned early, we like the idea of a conservancy district, and if that’s something that the County would like to see us utilize, then we have no problem with going that route, either.  Our biggest problem is not having a fixed design to be able to generate the proper options or solutions for those types of issues.  And that’s what we’re hoping to accomplish, is to get to a point where we can generate a design that addresses all these issues, bring it to the County and say, here’s what we propose to do, to meet the requirements of the UDO and to satisfy the issues of ongoing maintenance.  We realize that the subdivision is going to be there long after we’re not, and we have a strong vested interest in this community, personally, for the last 45 years, myself. I’ve got a strong attachment to this particular property, and I intend to do my best to make it the type of development that handles all those issues, that’s developed properly and, again, that’s something that the community can be proud of, so, I understand your concerns and I have the same concerns, but I am hesitant to say we’re going to do this or that, because we haven’t been able to sit down and draw up sold plans and concepts for.  It just wouldn’t be right to say…(inaudible) three or four things over here, but until we can sit down and design the subdivision in accordance with the zoning and come back to the Plan Commission and said we believe we’ve met all the requirements now and get the input of the County at that time.  Ongoing maintenance/durability issues, the reliability issues of the system, as well as traffic/drainage, all the other elements that have to pass muster.  We’ve come this far; we believe we’re going to be able to handle those issues and do it right.  But we would like to be able to have preliminary plat to the County and say, here’s what we propose to do under the guidelines and the zoning that this property is in.

Mr. McClure stated, I think the problem we have is this: I think we have two issues that are kind of boiling on that.  One issue is the plain issue of the package plant itself.  Then we have another issue, I think, that we’ve talked about a little bit more as to the longevity, the maintenance, whether going conservancy or whether we’re going POA.  I think…and I’m not sure…I can tell you, if I’m not sure, it makes me real nervous that if we were to approve this tonight, if we were to approve the Special Exception to allow the package plant that the Plan Commission wouldn’t have much authority over the package plant at that point in time.  Does that make sense?  Especially as it relates to the decision of if it’s a conservancy district or POA or it’s going to be private, etc.  At that point in time, I don’t believe the Plan Commission is really going to have a say over that.  Because this Board gave you the Special Exception.  This Board has that power.  We can’t transfer that power to the Plan Commission, and so the issue of whether or not it can go there is one issue. And then this other issue that I know you don’t have the answers to on the conservancy district side, the POA side, the private side, now what I’m thinking – I’m thinking out loud to kind of help the members a little bit – and I don’t know if potentially we could do a situation if you would be agreeable to do a situation where pending you could get approval for the Special Exception, contingent on coming back to the Board of Zoning Appeals and satisfying the members of those issues – the maintenance, the financing, how you’re going to do it.  So, in other words, you come back to the BZA and say, we’re going to do a conservancy district.  Because, at that point in time, we could then explain to everyone, the neighbors, the Board, the powers the conservancy district has, the longevity the conservancy district has, the power to tax and that, therefore,..and that basically you’re going to eventually have the people living within that red line are going to be on the conservancy district board, therefore, they’re going to have the inherent…the people that live there are eventually going to have the inherent power to be able to maintain the plant.  You could bring that back to us and say that’s how we would do this.  If it’s a POA, this is how we would do it, and if it’s a private, this is how we would do it. 

Mr. Burns stated, I agree with you, but I don’t think we should take it to vote.  We should continue the case and they should come back to us with that information.  I’m not ready to vote unless I have that information one way or another.

Mr. Melvick stated, I understand both those issues, and the problem that I think we’d have with…we can probably do that with a continuation in terms of coming back and nailing down the structure – if it’s going to be a district or a POA.  I believe we can settle that issue.  What we really can’t do is go into a design mode.  It’s cost-prohibitive to do a design mode, not knowing if we’re going the right direction.

Mr. McClure stated, I think what this Board understands, IDEM, the state’s eventually going to review your design.  We’re not going to review your design.  Meaning, we’re not going to sit here and say, this basin’s too small; this basin’s too big.  That’s IDEM’s issue. That’s IDEM’s power.  We don’t have that power.  We have power, potentially, over where you put it, as far as within reasonable relation to etc., your approved outflow, outfall, etc., but we’re not going to sit here, and, frankly, we don’t have an engineer on this Board to tell us whether or not your package plant’s big, small, in between or not.  That’s going to be IDEM.  So, I’m not really sure what the member is speaking to is necessarily, come in with engineered drawings of your plant.

Mr. Hudson asked, are you looking more for what that mechanism’s going to be?  And a commitment from us that we’re going to…

Mr. Burns stated, and how you’re going to fund it and what type of maintenance will be performed.  And do you have any documents from the state like about the flow you were talking about, 150,000 gallons.  Is that documented?

Mr. Hudson stated, we have the document…the wasteload allocation letter for the Southerly location that we had submitted a month ago, six weeks ago, the request for the Northern one or Western one.  It takes like 90 days, and we came up with that, I mean we probably could have come up with them…it’s just as we were thinking about what the benefit could be, moving it up to the creek and the redevelopment of that creek bed.  That’s the only reason we said, let’s get another one and see whether it will be up there.

Mr. Brickner asked, will  you develop this property without a sewage disposal plant?

Mr. Melvick stated, we would go back to the well and septic.  You know, that’s an interesting aspect, too, in terms of the one plant, which is fully engineered, professionally engineered, professionally maintained, with the alarming 24-hour, basically, maintenance versus say 200 well and septic systems out there.

Mr. Brickner stated, there’s no well.

Mr. Melvick stated, no, I’m sorry, no well.  That’s right.  Septic systems, but they’re not monitored at all.  So, in terms of protecting groundwater conditions and making sure you have a fully functioning system, I think the alternative of having a professionally engineered, commercial operation with the benefits of that type of maintenance, alarming, 24-hour surveillance, if you will, of it, is far preferable than having an individual system that may or may not be functioning properly and has no scheduled maintenance on it.  This is a concern that we have.  We just don’t feel that it’s appropriate to look towards well and septic development when you have a solid option that we believe is superior. 

Mr. Burns stated, just to rebut that, some of what you’re saying.  I have spoken with the Health Department.  Their failure rate with the new designed septic is low.  I mean, less than 8 percent and probably less than that, but they don’t have the failure rate like they used to.  So now I hear this, we don’t want septic, da, da, da.  You know it’s not as bad as people make it out to be because of the new-designed system.  But, you’re correct.  There’s not a monitor until it’s coming out of the ground.  That is a true statement.

Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t want to argue the point, but we’ve got the same situation from the treatment plant side, also, with the well-maintained, improved maintenance on it, improvements made to it through that process over time.  Those things are shown to fail less and less.  And there are quite a few of them around here that have been poorly maintained.  We don’t deny that. 

Mr. Burns stated, and, also, when you come back, the location – a couple of the residents want to know the location of it; so do I.  I mean, where are you going to locate this, because I would have some real concern if it’s down here by all the residents just for obvious reasons – the odor.  Where are you going to locate it?

Mr. Melvick stated, well, you see, there we’re back into the design aspect of the subdivision.

Mr. Burns stated, you have to have some idea. I would think, looking at this, you know where you’re going to put your homes, your houses.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think you have, in your packet…is there a little USGS map in your packet that was sent out?  It should be an 81/2 by 11 sheet.  You may not have gotten them.  I know I submitted it to Fred.  But the two locations were this point here, shown on that map, and a location shown about right here.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s your discharge location.

Mr. Hudson stated, those were the discharge locations, but the plant could be as close there, or it could be someplace out. Like Steve said, the plant could be offsite.

Mr. Burns stated, we need to know that.  I mean, I don’t want you to design it.  Do you have property off-site somewhere?  I don’t think you do, but….

Mr. Hudson stated, it would be within our property.

Mr. Burns asked, but where?  I mean, is it going to be next to all these homes up here or down here?  Where’s it going to be?

Mr. Melvick stated that we’ve got the (inaudible) to go into the machine and start developing lands.  Once we do that, we have the application process through IDEM yet to go and approval from them for design o