 |
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on June 13, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Ray Riddell, Tim Cole, Mike Haller, Harvey Nix and Ray Joseph. Also present was Toni Byers. The following cases were heard by the Committee on this date: Case 08-6-12. Petition of Robert & Helen Surman, 696 W. 350 S., Hebron, seeking secondary plat review for Surman’s Point subdivision, to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 700 W. and CR 350 S., in Porter Township. Zoned RR. (Sec.23-34N-7W) Mike Krull stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that they are proposing secondary plat. The Surmans are planning on building a home adjacent to their parents’ home, and they are proposing a 2-lot subdivision to do that. He is questioning whether or not they have to have the Drainage Board certificate on here, since they got a Variance on drainage. Mr. Breitzke stated that they will just put a note on here with the date of the meeting. He needs something on there for reference. Mr. Cole asked how big a house they are planning on building. Mr. Krull stated that it’s probably about 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. Mr. Cole stated that he supposes that at some time in the future there may even be a swap on houses. Mr. Krull stated that he can’t answer that, but he doesn’t think the parents would want to move out of the home that they’ve been in for 25 years. Mr. Breitzke stated that somewhere on Lot 2, toward the Westerly side, there are some field drainage tiles coming across that property through the open space. With the driveway location, they should keep that as far West as they can to keep it as far away as possible from that traffic intersection point. Mr. Krull stated that they are pretty much limited because they have the septic on the West side of the house. Mr. Breitzke stated that he realizes that, but that they should avoid the point.
Mr. Joseph asked if the South part of that is going to be open space. Mr. Krull stated, yes. He stated that it will be labeled on the plat. There will be 1 acre of open space down there at the South point. Mr. Joseph stated that in Chapter 7, Easement Standards, there is specific wording that is required for open space easements and it also talks about drainage easements, the wording. Issues raised were note regarding Drainage Board Variance on the plat; road agreement; keep drive as far West as they can from the intersection; specific wording regarding open space and drainage easements. Informal for Horvath Communications. Sean Boylan stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that back in March they got BZA approval for the tower…the drawings that DAC has in front of them. At the time, there were a few residents to the South that didn’t like their location. They were approximately 120 feet from the property line when they originally started zoning. The residents didn’t like that location, although they were in accordance with the setback requirements, so they decided to move the proposal about 1,600 feet due North. At the hearing, Mr. Burns indicated that he didn’t think that was sufficient, and required them to move another 350 feet North, which they hesitantly agreed to. They indicated to them that they were not sure what would happen with that move as far as the woods that they were forcing them to go into, and, as a result, they were in a wetlands. As such, neither they nor any other carrier can locate on a tower that’s in a wetlands. So, staying with the condition of that approval of moving 350 feet North, they found a location that was not in the wetlands. That is the location that DAC has in front of them. Mr. Joseph stated that the reason he asked them to come before DAC today was to get the opinion of the board if they should require them to go back in front of BZA or give permission for them to build the site where they are proposing. Mr. Haller asked what the Variance was for. Mr. Joseph stated that it was a Permanent Use Variance because the current zoning is R-1, and that is not allowed in R-1 zoning. Mr. Haller asked if it was contingent on the location. Mr. Joseph stated that it was. As Mr. Boylan explained, the location to which the Board advised him to move the tower is in the middle of a wetland.
Mr. Boylan stated that the requirement was a minimum of 350 feet. They didn’t say they couldn’t move it East or West. Mr. Breitzke asked if he said they got zoning approval. Mr. Joseph stated that he received a Permanent Use Variance. Mr. Breitzke asked, but they made him move it? Mr. Joseph stated, yes. Mr. Breitzke stated that that doesn’t make sense. Mr. Boylan stated that it was part of the conditional approval. Mr. Breitzke stated that he has an issue with the notice to adjoiners, because they’ve moved it so much. Mr. Boylan stated that the notice was given on the parent parcel, not their specific location. So they could have moved it back due South. Mr. Breitzke asked if he had contacted all affected parties. Mr. Boylan stated that they did. Mr. Breitzke stated that that was his biggest concern as they moved it. So, since they were on the parent parcel, which is a very large parcel… Mr. Boylan stated that he would say it’s about 80 acres. Mr. Breitzke asked where they are located on that. Mr. Joseph stated that they were North of 250 W., and then the new site is closer to 149. Mr. Boylan stated that at Z-1 near the bottom you will see a parent parcel detail and where they are located. Mr. Cole stated that they have that little stream going through to the North and a little gully. He asked if the soils in that area have been tested and is that going to be adequate for a monopole? Mr. Boylan stated that those reports have not come back yet. They have no reason to be concerned about it because, what’s going to happen, when they receive their geotechnical report back, the engineers for the tower manufacturer will just design the tower accordingly. There are two different types of foundations for a monopole: a pad and pier; and then a straight drilled caisson. A typical monopole foundation for a caisson is 6 foot wide by 30 foot
deep. They have one in LaPorte right next to Clear Lake that’s 10-foot wide and 38 foot. Mr. Cole asked if this is a lease agreement. Mr. Boylan stated that it's a 35-year lease agreement. Mr. Cole stated that, essentially, what this does is protect that 80 acres from further development during that time. Mr. Boylan stated, for their specific location, yes. Mr. Cole stated that the wetlands and woods in that area then are protected for at least a generation. Mr. Boylan stated that they will never have ownership of the property. At the end of the 35 years, they basically come back to the table and renegotiate if the tower is even in use at that point. Mr. Cole stated that with high definition television coming into play there is going to be a release of airwaves. Essentially, there are going to be frequencies available now, he assumes. Are they going to be compliant with this facility, will they take over the facility, will they replace the facility? Mr. Boylan stated that he can just answer from the standpoint that the licenses that he’s referring to for the high def are at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. Mr. Cole stated that he knows that. He is just saying that because we’re going to high def we are releasing the other frequencies and if those are available, would they be available for cell towers or cell phones? Mr. Boylan stated that he doesn’t see those being used as voice and data for cell phones. He stated that he thinks Porter County has abandonment regulations. Mr. Cole stated that they are still going to be there. Mr. Breitzke stated that demolishing is part of the ordinance. Mr. Haller asked if he has a ground ring around that tower. Mr. Boylan stated, yes. Mr. Haller asked if that is inside or outside of the fence. Mr. Boylan stated that the tower itself has a ground ring inside the fence and also the fence is grounded at 4 points and the gate.
Mr. Riddell stated that they have a long driveway here and they state that there are wetlands in the area and one spot looks like the lower area is about 653. He would suggest that they protect that from washout or if they place culverts through the drives or he doesn’t know if they let it run over the gravel or what. Mr. Boylan stated that, typically, their drives are anywhere between 6 and 8 inches deep of gravel and they just follow the terrain as it is and allow for sufficient runoff or typical drainage through the stone. Mr. Riddell asked, after they are done building the tower, how soon do they put the fence up? Mr. Boylan stated, immediately. It’s part of the general 3-week construction process. That’s one of their biggest concerns and liabilities. Mr. Breitzke stated that Mr. Riddell brought up one of the things that he’s concerned about, the driveway. He would say to put a 12-inch culvert under the drive. He’s seen water ponding on some of these drives and it’s unnecessary. Where the draw tapers off, they need a culvert somewhere to the South of that draw. They definitely need ground rings because these towers require much smaller space and everything, however, at the same time, they will probably have more carriers coming in. In this area, they are a little more sensitive to any kind of spills or anything. Their expectation is to have containment for any generators or backup systems, proper disposal of electrical batteries, those kind of things. Mr. Nix asked if the road is going to go through part of the wetlands. Mr. Boylan stated, no. If you look at Z-1, where the proposed location is on the right side, there starts to be some heavy woods there. Basically, everything in those woods and back to the East is all those wetlands. They are not even allowed to have access drives cross wetlands. Mr. Joseph stated that barbed wire is not allowed under our code. The fence shall be at least 7 foot tall, and they need to have a landscaping plan submitted with this packet. It also requires that they have a land surveyor stake out where the driveway is going to go. And that needs to be updated before they can make a decision. He stated that this is not a complete package that they have submitted. Mr. Boylan asked if DAC would be in agreement that that is probably just for the East side of the lease area and the South, to the left and the right of the gate. There are mature trees to the West and to the North. Mr. Joseph stated that he understands, but they have to follow the code.
Mr. Breitzke stated that their plan doesn’t show that they are tearing down trees to the West. Mr. Joseph stated that it doesn’t show anything about what’s existing there. Mr. Boylan asked if, to the North and to the West, DAC wants him to put 6-foot arborvitae or whatever it is that the landscaping plan calls for when 3 feet more to the West and 3 feet more to the North there are mature trees. Mr. Joseph stated that that needs to be shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Breitzke stated that he should show it on the drawing, because, right now, the drawing shows the tree line being about 20 feet away from any trees. They don’t have any landscaping plan right now. Mr. Joseph stated that if it is close and they want to use that as a credit towards their landscaping it should be shown on the plan. Mr. Boylan stated that he’s willing to do whatever the County requires in landscaping. He sees no reason to have to come back here. He can’t just walk up there and grab a building permit. Mr. Breitzke stated that it's been the Plan Commission’s position not to take any contingencies. Mr. Joseph stated that he should complete the application and submit it and he will review it and, if everything’s fine, they will issue the permit. He stated that the basic reason why they’re here is that he wants the opinion of DAC whether they have to go back through the BZA, or should a permit be issued? Mr. Breitzke stated that his biggest concern was that the affected property owners weren’t notified. It sounds like everybody was noticed. How many people even came in to look at the file? Was it just the people in Glenwood Hills? Mr. Boylan stated, when they moved this site 1,600 feet North, that’s when the addition (sic) stopped coming out, and it was just the people to the immediate South. Then they were required to move it just 350 feet North. Mr. Joseph asked if there is anybody opposed to the move. No DAC members voiced opposition. Mr. Joseph stated that they should update their plan and make sure it meets all the County codes; bring it in; submit it; and he will review it. If it’s up to date, they will issue a building permit. Issues raised were to protect the drive from a washout; put 12-inch culvert under the drive; 7-foot fence (no barbed wire); must have landscaping plan; surveyor to stake out drive; if want to use mature trees as part of the landscaping plan, must be part of the plan submitted for the ILP. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
June 13, 2008