BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
November 19, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on November 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, Richard Hudson, Jim Robertson and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Lily Schaefer and Toni Byers.

Mr. Detert stated that there was an error, probably a typographical error, on Page 12 of the 10-15-03 meeting minutes: Where it says there was no motion needed in the motion for that case, it should say no permit is needed, and Ms. Byers has provided all of the members with an amended page for those minutes.

Mr. Robertson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 10-15-03 meeting and to accept them as amended. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 98-UV-13. H. Glenn Wiles and George Musgrave, 920 N. 100 W., Chesterton, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance for a retail flower shop, on the West side of CR 100 W., between CR 900 N. and the Indiana Toll Road, in Liberty Township. (This case was continued from the 10-15-03 meeting.)

Mr. Wiles stated that I want to renew this Use Variance for 5 years.

Mr. Detert asked if the flower business is doing well.

Mr. Wiles stated that it’s holding its own very well and can’t complain. He stated that we are starting our 21st year now.

Mr. Brickner stated, I’ve got to at least inform the Board, if we approve this for another year, it has to be with the stipulation that this property be cleaned up. He stated that all the vehicles and the debris that’s on the property could be stored and this property could be made to look good, but it is in bad shape. He stated that the buildings are in bad repair. He stated that I have no objection to the flower shop, but I think that it needs to be cleaned up.

Mr. Detert stated, you could continue it and give him 30 days to clean it up.


Mr. Brickner stated, I think that would be a good idea.

Mr. Brickner moved to continue Case 98-UV-13 to the 12-17-03 meeting, with the property to be cleaned up before it is heard again. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Wiles stated, I question that somewhat, because the vehicles that are there are all in use.

Mr. Brickner stated, the payloader, I know, has not been used if ever in a long time, and there are six vehicles there, some of which I can’t tell if they’re plated or not, but…

Mr. Wiles stated that everything is plated.

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t know if they are all plated, but the debris on the property could be stored. He stated that it really needs to be cleaned up, there’s no question about that.

Motion to continue Case 98-UV-13 to the 12-17-03 meeting, with the property to be cleaned up before it is heard again, carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 89-V-44. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, P.O. Box 471, Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 150 E., between CR 325 S. and CR 400 S., in Morgan Township.

Mr. Thompson read a letter from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO.

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Thompson stated that there have been none.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 89-V-44 for one year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 96-V-37. Gerald Scott, 539 N. 300 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the East side of CR 300 E., between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township.

Mr. Thompson read a note from the petitioner requesting a renewal of this TCO. He stated that the original reason for the TCO was to care for elderly parents.




Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 96-V-37 for one year, with the petitioner to appear in person next year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 03-V-27. St. Michael Evangelical Lutheran church, 905 S. County Line Road, Hebron, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home for housing for laborers on an education center, at 805 S. County Line Road, in Boone Township.

Mr. Detert stated, I go by there quite often and it looks like they’re pretty close to being done. He stated that it appears that they are working inside and not quite finished. He stated that there are still some trailers there.

Mr. Burns asked, do you think 3 months, 90 days?

Mr. Thompson stated that the original motion was for 3 months.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-27 for 3 months with the trailers to be removed at that time. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 93-V-29. Eugene & Gena Winders, 733 W. 50 N., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to allow a mobile home on the North side of CR 50 N., between CR 700 W. and CR 750 W., in Union Township. (This Case was continued from the 10-15-03 meeting.)

Mr. Detert stated that if you read the staff report, you know that the trailer is no longer necessary.

Mr. Thompson stated that they did send a letter to them (sic). He stated that I did stop by and speak with Mrs. Funk. At this time he read a letter from the Funks stating that they are just trying to sell the trailer at this time with no current success and asking for an extension on the permit till the end of June, at which time it would either be sold or moved to their farm in Kentucky.

Mr. Robertson asked if the trailer is there or not.

Mr. Detert stated that it is there. He stated that the original reason for it is not valid anymore.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 93-V-29 for seven months. Mr. Brickner seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 02-V-29. Millie Rabatine, 173 E. 600 S., Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the North side of CR 600 S., between CR 150 E. and S. Baum’s Bridge Road, in Morgan Township. (This case was continued from the 9-17-03 and the 10-15-03 meetings, with staff to investigate.)


Mr. Thompson stated that Ms. Byers sent certified mail and it was received. He stated that we have the receipt and everything and twice, in September and in October, both times it was received by somebody within the Rabatine family. He stated that I went down there and did an investigation and I was talking to Mr. Brickner, who also went down there, and there is no trailer there.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 02-V-29. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of order for a public hearing.

Case 03-SE-2. Petition of Kerry Herbstritt, 1301 Meadow Glen, Valparaiso, seeking a Special Exception to permit in-home child care, to be located at 1301 Meadow Glen, in Center Township.

Mr. Detert stated, I might mention to the Board that this has not gone through the Plan Commission yet and I’m not sure what the Board’s pleasure would be since Plan Commission has not voted on it.

Mr. Thompson stated that I apologize totally on that. He stated that there was supposed to be a report coming from the Plan Commission on both Special Exceptions and I slipped, I forgot, but as the bottom part of that code does state, it’s up to the Board’s decision. He stated that they do not necessarily have to wait on that.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think we should hear the petition. He stated that we can get a good feel for it, perhaps approve it, perhaps continue it.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess if we wanted to make a motion, we could always make it subject to approval by the Plan Commission.

Mr. Burns stated, I agree.

Mr. Brickner asked, has anybody been out to the address?

Mr. Detert stated, let’s let the petitioner speak and lay this out.

Ms. Herbstritt stated that I come in front of you to get my home rezoned (sic) for in-home day-care. She stated that I’m currently going through the state for licensing of the home. She stated that I’ve gone through all their requirements and I’m just waiting for the license individual to come to the home. She stated that I originally worked in Chicago for eight years now, and I have three children of my own, and the reason I decided to do this is because to get child care that was dependable…I had a hard time finding, so I thought I’d stay home with my boys and so, in order to supplement my income I decided to do this. She stated that I quit my employment about two months ago and in that time I’m watching three children and I haven’t had any complaints from my neighbors. She stated that we’ve put in, fenced in our whole yard. She stated that we have 1.8 acres and I’ve gone around talking to the majority of our subdivision and I’m just going further to get it zoned.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Dave Kinel, 1302 Meadow Glen, stated that my wife, Sue, and I are 18-year residents at that address. He stated that our house would be located across the street and one over from the petitioners. He stated that none of you have visited the subdivision and there has been no Plan Commission discussion, so, if you’ll bear with me for just a minute or two, I’d like to tell you a little bit about the subdivision because I don’t know if any of you even know where it’s located, and I think it’s important to the question at hand. He stated that the subdivision was established and recorded in 1978 by John Tilford of Tilford Homes. He stated that he was a very well-known homebuilder at the time. He stated that he built about 20 houses out there. He stated that it’s located just off Sager Road at the Southeast corner of Center Township. He stated that it’s about a mile and a half South of U.S. 30 and a mile and half West of the Porter County Expo Center. He stated that it’s zoned R-1, single-family, low-density district. He stated that it was originally a one-street dead-end subdivision. He stated that it had a little spur at the end and came off Sager. He stated that about 8, 10 years ago, Carmen Good, Carmen Good Builders, bought out the remainder of the land. He stated that Mr. Tilford, I think, had some financial problems. He stated that he ended up selling it to a doctor and the doctor ended up selling it to Carmen Good. He stated that he then got an extension of the street and connected up to Sturdy Road. He stated that he’s also put some spur streets up and been developing housing, real nice, up-scale housing, big lots, very nice things, and the one thing though is when he connected to Sturdy Road, our subdivision road has gotten much, much busier. He stated that it goes from Sager to Sturdy and every morning and every night you can see the traffic going through. He stated that people cut through there coming up Route 2. He stated that there are a lot of residences to the South of us and they all go to Valpo, and coming home it’s the same way. He stated that it’s less busy on the weekends and maybe during the middle daytime hours, but it’s very busy during those times and those are the same times that most people who use traditional child care would be dropping off and picking up their children. He stated, in fact, we have noticed children being both picked up and dropped off and I noticed at least four and maybe five tonight when I got home. He stated that I got home a little bit early and I wasn’t really looking, but I was outside because my phone’s not working and I was on the cell phone trying to call Verizon. He stated that one thing, uh, Meadow Glen, the subdivision has a three-page list of restrictive covenants. He stated, I don’t know if you all have a copy of them.





Mr. Detert stated, sir, we have no authority on restrictive covenants.

Mr. Kinel stated, I was going to get to that, though. He stated that these restrictive covenants come with everybody’s title work and when everybody has a real estate closing.

Ms. Schaefer stated, sir, as the attorney for the Board, unfortunately, I have to tell people all the time that this Board has absolutely no jurisdiction over your restrictive covenants. She stated that that’s a private civil matter that is not County business. She stated that if you have a restrictive covenant and somebody is violating it, then it’s up to the neighbors to take whatever legal action they need, but it’s not properly part of our consideration.

Mr. Kinel stated that I want the neighbors here to have heard that, too, so, if it comes to that, they know. He stated that there are a number of people in this audience who are from Meadow Glen subdivision. He stated, okay, I’ll skip over that. He stated that some homeowners have been there 25 years in that subdivision. He stated that most of the lots are around an acre in size and it’s all septic and well. He stated that all these lots have 100 foot of frontage and they’ve got about 300, 400 feet more in back, so, from the front, and the houses are close to the street, it’s like a regular subdivision with houses elbow to elbow. He stated that it’s not like you’re on a big acre and a half tract where you have a lot of room between the houses, so what one person does in their house very much impacts on the next-door neighbor and the neighbor across the street. He stated, the other thing, there’s a real mix of, we have elderly and we have young families with young kids and we have empty nesters like my wife and I and things of that nature. He stated that it’s a good mix neighborhood. He stated that it’s a viable neighborhood and it continues to be viable and the property values continue to hold their own. He stated that here’s my concerns. He stated that if you have a home child-care thing, it’s essentially a business, and a business in a residential zoned area can impact on your property values. He stated that Kerry says she’s going to get licensed. He stated that I have got a copy of all the state licensing rules relevant to child care in the home. He stated that it states, first of all, you can have up to six kids other than your own in your home, watching them, for money, without getting a license. He stated that when you’re getting a license, it allows you to have up to 12. He stated that that’s a Class I license. He stated that a Class II license, which is very little step, you have to do very little improvements to your home, allows you to have up to 16 kids in addition. He stated that it requires you to have another helper or so, but I’m just saying, you’re talking about a lot of children, potentially, if you open this avenue, and that’s a concern to all of us: How many children will there be? He stated that we already know that there’s at least 4 or so right now because of what Kerry said. He stated that there’s not other businesses currently in our subdivision. He stated that there never have been. He stated that we like it as a residential area. He stated that it’s a nice, quiet area, other than the more traffic we’re having and that’s a concern. He stated, you have drop-offs and pickups and people pulling into driveways having to back out and you have this fast traffic going through there at these times of days. He stated that it’s an accident waiting to happen. He stated, septic concerns. He stated that we have houses now that are 20, going on 25 years in some cases. He stated that this is the original part of the subdivision and this is on Ridley soils. He stated that it’s considered moderate soils and I’ve got the soils manual from the County here.

Mr. Detert stated, sir, that’s another area where we’re not involved in. He stated that that’s a Health Department issue.

Mr. Kinel stated, I’m saying that sanitation is an issue. He stated that we don’t have public sewers out there. He stated that we also don’t have fire hydrants to fight fires. He stated that we’re in the very corner of Center Township. He stated that we’ve had a couple people in the immediate area that have had to have their septic systems redone and spend as much as $15,000. He stated that I think Kerry and her husband have had some work done on theirs recently. He stated that we have the potential of 11 more kids in that house and it’s a factor that has to be taken into consideration. He stated, again, I just want to remind you of the R-1 zoning that’s in your zoning manual and, basically, it states, and this is important, it says “R-1, residences, low-density, single-family district, intent: The residential, low-density district’s intent is to establish and preserve quiet, single-family home districts as desired by substantial numbers of residents which are free from other uses, except those which are compatible with and for the convenience of the residences (sic) of such districts. To maintain the character and integrity of existing residential areas which are comprised predominantly of residentially built single-family dwellings” and it goes on and on. He stated that it also talks about well and septic at this time, saying that it’s important. He stated that we’re basically just saying that you’re opening up the box to too much in a subdivision which has worked for years. He stated that it’s a very nice subdivision. He stated that I’ve been there 18 years. He stated that my property values have doubled. He stated that it’s something that we all take comfort in. He stated that there’s a lot of elderly people who still think that they can depend on their property values and it’s one that any Realtor in the area can tell you is a darned good subdivision. He stated that we bought our house and the Realtor lived across the street from me, that’s how much she thought of the subdivision to bring me out there and show me a house across the street, when I described what I was looking for, it was where she lived. He stated that all we’re asking you is to recognize and protect the best interests and rights of the Meadow Glen property owners and reject this petition. He stated that she can watch up to 6 kids. He stated that the going rate now is $100 to $125 a kid per week, and to us, to supplement, you would think, that should be more than adequate. He stated, you get much more than that, I think we’re having problems with traffic and with the other things, and once you get that license, by the state standards, you can go up to 11 children, and if you just do a little bit more you can go up to 16, and this neighborhood, as close by as these houses are, it’s just not suited for that. He stated, I guess I’ve said my piece.

Lisa Davison, 1207 Meadow Glen Drive, stated that I’m just going to read mine because I’m nervous. She stated that I live next door to Kerry and our yard is probably about 19 feet next to their yard. She stated, to be honest with you, we’ve been in the neighborhood for nine years, so we’ve been there awhile. She stated, having a day-care business next door like that, if you have one that’s licensed, is going to end up being where it injures and damages our property, and the way it will do that is that…I’m going to go by first what she had in her questionnaire when I went to the County office. She stated that when I went there the answers were very vague. She stated that you really didn’t know what her whole game plan was. She stated that I can only assume, taking the logic of what I said that she’s applying for a license, that her plan is for a big day-care program. She stated that I’m going to go by what…her question number 2, question number 3.

Mr. Detert stated, you can ask whatever questions you want and she’s obligated to answer them, but she will answer them only as a group, after everybody has asked their questions.

Ms. Davison stated, all right. She stated that the proposed use will and already is beginning to threaten and damage properties, will indeed injure appropriate use of and for question number 3, and I will elaborate in more detail, will cause inconvenience and threaten and damage the welfare. She stated that welfare is already being threatened. She stated that as an immediate next-door neighbor, within approximately 19 feet of their yard, we are already feeling the strain and stress from having our property and quality of life threatened from its purpose. She stated that the way our home is set up, we might as well be in their yard. She stated that our property and home is in a country setting in a residential neighborhood intended for privacy and enjoyment of nature. She stated that the property homestead is more than a structure built on land, grass, with trees and natural wildlife. She stated that property also represents intangibles that cannot be seen nor touched. She stated that it is something that you feel deeply and has a special place in the heart of each family. She stated that it is your sanctuary, a safe haven from the rest of the world when you don’t want to be out in the world. She stated that it represents what we cherish most of all, and that’s safety, security, privacy and peace and happiness. She stated that we purchased our property in our residential neighborhood to enjoy the quality of life, which for over 9 years, we have grown accustomed to.



She stated that we left the City of Valpo for this purpose, not to live next door to business. She stated that anybody can complain, and I shall oppose and offer a solution. She stated that nobody wants to deprive Kerry Herbstritt of free enterprise and the ability to earn income. She stated that they did, themselves, choose to live in our all-residential subdivision. She stated that they did willingly and knowingly accept the offer of the subdivision and its purpose and guidelines. She stated that enticed by the appeal, they signed legal, binding documents, negotiable instruments, confirming acceptance to an offer to live in a residential neighborhood in privacy and in a country setting. She stated that our neighborhood is defined, first and foremost, because it’s a priority. She stated that it’s a residential neighborhood. She stated that for this reason and the fact that it will injure and harm and damage neighbor’s properties, those closest will be affected hardest. She stated that Herbstritt should not seek Special Exception. She stated that it is not necessary in order to watch a couple or few kids. She stated that there’s no need to license unless you have big plans. She stated that there is no need to threaten our quality of living. She stated that putting a fence around one’s yard is not the answer to protect neighboring property from damage and injury. She stated that the solution will earn reasonable money and lessen the odds of damaging properties. She stated that the solution will not cause conflict or bad feelings. She stated that being neighborly and considerate and caring is important when you have neighbors in a subdivision. She stated that with the big business plan, Herbstritts have everything to gain. She stated that any property loss they will offset and recover by their income and write-off in tax deductions. She stated that we, the neighborhood, only lose. She asked, why should we accept losses? She stated that our compensation must be maintaining the quality of life we enjoy and are accustomed to. She stated that some of us have been here for 9, 18, and even over 20 years. She stated, keep it small, skip the license, keep it simple, and keep the peace.

Tim Davison, 1207 Meadow Glen Drive, stated that, first of all, we have a petition – I don’t know who Kerry talked to – we went out to 17 different homes, and out of those 17 homes we had 15, and these are the most immediate homes, surrounding her home, and out of those 15 signed the petition saying they were against this Special Exception. He stated that I own and have lived at 1207 Meadow Glen for over 9 years. He stated that my family and I will definitely be negatively impacted by the proposed use and rezoning (sic) of the Herbstritt’s residence. He stated that contrary to the information given on their application for Special Exception to zoning, the width of their property next to my house is not 270 foot wide. He stated that there is less than 40 foot between the side of their house and the side of my house. He stated that there is only 19 foot between the side of our house and their driveway. He stated that their driveway runs along the side of their yard within less than 3 foot of my property line. He stated that the use of our property will definitely be injured by the Herbstritt’s proposed rezoning (sic) of their residence. He stated that we will have increased noise from the increased number of children and vehicle traffic from parents coming and going. He stated that we will also have the negative visual impact of many cars parked in their driveway and the street. He stated that the increased use of water and toilets will overtax the septic system not designed for this level of use, consequently causing unpleasant odors and health risks. He stated that I will also have a great loss of privacy in my own yard. He stated that increased traffic will also pose a safety hazard because of all the vehicles parked along the street and pulling into their drive and backing out onto the street. He stated that when I purchased this home I was looking for a nice, quiet, scenic, rural subdivision with the feeling of living in the country, zoned purely residential. He stated that if this Special Exception is given to the Herbstritts I will no longer have the home that I sought out in the first place. He stated that I would never have bought my house if I had known that there would be a business allowed next door. He stated that I am sure many other people would feel the same way, which will cause a loss of value to my home if I decide to sell it. He stated that the loss of value to my home or any other home in my neighborhood, negatively affects the value of every house in the neighborhood. He stated, I am sure no one wants to see that happen.

Rita Van Gorp, 1501 Meadow Glen Drive, stated that I live 9 houses East of Kerry, down the street from her. She stated that my neighbors have pretty much covered everything, I think, that concerns me, too, but I basically want to say that I have lived there for almost 19 years. She stated that my husband and I built our home there, and I’ve seen a lot of good and bad happen to the neighborhood. She stated that it’s true, our traffic has increased tremendously. She stated that I’ve seen a lot of close calls with children. She stated that I think the increase with a business having people being dropped off and picked up is going to increase the situation that we already have and that’s a concern, along with everything else that my neighbors have brought up, I’m also concerned with.

Mr. Thompson read a letter in opposition from Carmen Good. The letter is in the file.

Kelly Imbody, 1503 Meadow Glen Drive, stated that I basically want to reiterate everything that my neighbors have said. She stated that the traffic, again, is tenfold worse than it has been. She stated that there is no room for off-street parking. She stated that this is not like people can do a drive-by and pick up their kid. She stated that they’ve got to stop, they’ve got to go in; there’s no room for that. She stated that speed is a real problem, as well as volume on the road. She stated, a couple points on her filing at the Plan Commission. She stated that her lot is not 278 feet. She stated that it’s 110, at best, in the front. She stated that her whole yard is not fenced. She stated that, again, the covenants say that it’s for residential purposes. She stated that it’s going to negatively affect our property values. She stated that, again, just everything that everybody else has said.

John Schrader, 1305 Meadow Glen Drive, stated that we purchased and built in the area 24 years ago. He stated that one of the questions that I had for the petitioner is what hours of operation and days of operation were you planning on operating this.

Mr. Detert stated that we ask all the questions and then she answers.

Mr. Schrader stated that the other point is that we were not approached. He stated that we are 100 feet from their property line. He stated that we did not get the opportunity to really find out what’s going on with this. He stated that it was also interesting to me that when they put up the fence, the day after they put up the fence, they claimed that it was too high. He stated that they came around and said, is that all right? He stated that they explained that it was for the dogs. He stated that it does not sound to me like it was for the dogs, and I have some concerns about the credibility of the statements being made. He stated that I am one of the two people that did not sign the petition, waiting to hear what the responses were going to be. He stated, at this point, with the information that I have, I am strongly opposed to this petition.

Ms. Herbstritt stated that as far as the hours, it’s Monday through Friday, 6:30 to 5:30. She stated, as far as the traffic, my driveway is long enough. She stated that it’s double-sided, that nobody has been dropped off or picked up at the same time, but I have not had more than one drop-off or pick-up at the same time with the four children I currently have. She stated that the reason that I am getting licensed is because it required more of the home, it required more of me and it was also a referral agency as long as I got licensed as a Class I home and just it looked more presentable to the public that I took the extra study, took the time and the (inaudible) for the children to get licensed. She stated that as far as the fence, our fence is 1,200 feet. She stated that it is all around the perimeter of our property except the front of our house and when I went around about the fence, I was not intending to do the day-care. She stated that I was currently working at the University of Chicago and it wasn’t until after that that I started having some serious problems with my day-care that I had while I was working at the university and then made a decision. She stated that the fence we did get for the dogs, originally, and now it’s in place for the day-care, as well. She stated that I do have a separate pen for my dogs, in addition to the outside of the fence, so they won’t be in the same area with the children. She stated that as far as septic, we put in a brand-new septic field two years ago with 18 fingers. She stated that it’s more than enough for our house. She stated that they said 8 adults could live in there perfectly fine for a long time with our septic system. She stated that I have out of the four children, I have one child that uses the toilet, in addition to my own. She stated that all the others are in diapers.

Mr. Detert stated that there was an issue raised about how many children you might have.

Ms. Herbstritt stated that I am going licensed just for the prestige and to help with the referral system. She stated that I don’t want any more than 7 kids, because any more than that, I can’t give my own children any more, it’s going to take away from my kids.

Mr. Kinel stated that my wife has come home from work, had to wait because there was a person waiting in the street because someone was in their driveway picking up their child so they could back out. He stated, for some reason, there’s been a blue van, some kind of commercial van, with a for sale sign, parked for over a month at the end of their driveway. He stated that it blocks the view of people backing in and out and the traffic going. He stated that there has been some obstruction. He stated that I think it’s just starting now, because the business is just starting up recently and we’re just starting to see it and notice it. He stated that, two, I (inaudible) the process here. He stated that in a lot of these hearings, it’s like a two-month process, and the first month you have to make sure you get the correct paperwork in and approved and it’s bound over for the public hearing on a lot of commercial things. He asked, is that how this works?

Mr. Detert stated, this is a public hearing, right now.

Mr. Kinel stated that she said they weren’t thinking about this when they started the fence. He stated that the fence was about a month ago. He stated that I’m not sure if they started this process or when they filed these papers, but, again, she came…I signed the petition for the fence because they just wanted to make it a foot higher, and they explained to me, it’s in the back yard and it’s for their dog, and the 4-foot fence wasn’t necessarily high enough to keep the dog in. He stated that I bought that. He stated that my other, my biggest concern, a Class I license entitles you to have up to 12 kids. He stated that, I tell you, these places do nothing…there’s such a lack of child care, they want more and more, you know…I’ve got a sister and she’s looking…

Mr. Detert stated, sir, it’s up to this Board to put any restriction that they want. He stated that we could tell her three kids, five kids, whatever.

Mr. Kinel stated, all I ask is this: Who’s going to say whether they have seven or eight of nine? He asked, are we going to stand out there and study license plates and…

Mr. Detert stated, you’d have to report it.




Mr. Kinel stated that whatever you decide to let them do, it’s going to be hard, it’s going to make it hard on all the surrounding properties to come back and try to make an issue of it and I’m just asking that you look at this thing from the beginning and think the things through, because you’ve seen a lot of comments from a lot of people. He stated that there are a lot of good people here. He stated that I have nothing personal, believe me, against Kerry and Dave Herbstritt, nothing. He stated, we just don’t feel it’s appropriate.

Ms. Davison stated that if her day-care, licensed day-care – which I told you I had a reasonable type of solution to that -- and I think if she was reasonable…then she’s saying that she only wants about 7; I don’t see what the need for a licensed day-care is unless there’s a bigger plan, and if it were a good idea…

Mr. Detert stated, she answered that question.

Ms. Davison stated, I know that she’s answered, but she’s proven that her credibility is not intact. She stated, if it were a good idea, I would have done this years ago. She stated that I briefly entertained the idea after the birth of my first daughter. She stated that the truth is that there’s a possibility of making a lot of money. She stated that there are many tax deductions and write-off benefits, even to the point of being obscene. She stated that a child-care business, licensed, you can even profit and gain financial rewards by taking care of your own children and relatives.

Mr. Detert stated, ma’am, all of points that you’re making, you’ve pretty much already made.

Ms. Schaefer stated, the tax evasions and things like that that you’re alleging (sic) to or talking about, that’s not appropriate. She stated that that’s not relevant to this.

Mr. Detert stated, we don’t want this to get to a personal level.

Ms. Davison stated, it already is personal.

Mr. Detert stated, we’re not going to tolerate that.

Ms. Davison stated, anyway, the fact is in the paper that she had filled out at the courthouse (sic) and question number 2 and number 3, it comes out and it asks directly if it will injure and damage the people’s properties, and I already made the point that it will, and I think that’s a very important premise to consider.

Mr. Detert stated, ma’am, you’re redundant. He stated that you’re saying the same thing that you said, and we do have a lot of business tonight. He stated, I don’t mean to be rude, but we do have to run the meeting and get to the other people that are here.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that I tend to be against this, based on the testimony of the neighbors. He stated that she can have I believe it was up to 6 and she said she wanted 7. He stated that that’s so close that I think she can have 6 without a permit.

Mr. Brickner stated, that doesn’t include four (sic) of her own, though. He stated, so, you’re talking about 10.

Mr. Robertson stated that it does sound like it doesn’t fit the neighborhood.

Mr. Burns stated, I feel the same way. He stated that this does not fit the neighborhood.

Mr. Brickner stated that I tend to agree. He stated that I would like to have seen the TAC (sic) report, you know, on parking, but I agree, with all the people that are here tonight and all the testimony we’ve had, that this is not an appropriate area for a business like this.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess I agree with Marv. He stated that I would like to have seen the TAC (sic) report. He stated that I would like to have seen a Health Department report on the septic issues.

Mr. Detert stated, you can continue it with the public hearing closed, if you really feel that that’s necessary to see that report.

Mr. Hudson asked, what happens, if she had gone, what would have happened if she would have gone to the Plan Commission?

Mr. Thompson stated, Plan Commission does a report, basically, on three items: the fitness of the proposed use as related to and breaks it down into two points under that – potential use of adjoining lands, uses permitted in the district, current trends, the development of lands; B, the effect of the proposed use on the natural features of the site to be utilized; and C, the quality and capacity of access roads existing or to be provided by the applicant to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use. He stated that those are the three things the Plan Commission does look at.

Mr. Hudson asked, would there have been a public meeting again, then?

Mr. Thompson stated, no. He stated that it’s under pending business. He stated that essentially it’s just myself, um, and one or two of the Plan Commission members will actually go out and visit this site and look at that and judge on whether or not we feel those three points are met, whether or not this will…what effect this will have on surrounding properties and…do we look at the quality and capacity, I mean, we could look at the fact that…I mean…the parking in the driveway, I mean, it’s based on what? Single-family parking? He stated that it requires for three vehicles, I think it is, is the requirement, and I’m sure if I go into the parking requirement in the back chapter for day-care, it will tell me what the parking is.

Mr. Hudson asked, and it doesn’t stipulate circular drives so you can be driving in and out?

Mr. Thompson stated, no.

Mr. Detert asked, are you operating the day-care center now? He stated that I gather that you have been operating it.

Mr. Brickner asked, but you have only how many children now?

Ms. Herbstritt stated, I have three of my own, then I have two that are full-time and one that is part-time. She stated, actually, it’s a brother-sister. She stated that one comes part-time every week; the other one is part-time once in a while.

Mr. Brickner stated, but only three are in day-care.

Ms. Herbstritt stated that three are in day-care, and, I was going to say, as far as the state’s concerned and the numbers, it’s five that you can have while you’re not licensed and your children are counted in that, so then that would only leave two for the day-care, to get paid for.

Mr. Hudson stated, I don’t know that continuing it would help. He stated, just listening to what Bob indicated…

Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t think it would change a great deal to have a TAC report.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 03-SE-2 (findings in the file). Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-SE_3. Petition of Hebron Cemetery Association, c/o Mary Jo Kats, 979 S. 475 W., Hebron, seeking a Special Exception to permit a cemetery across from the existing one, to be located on the Northeast corner of CR 900 S. and SR 231, in Boone Township.

David Wilson, 593 W. 600 S., Hebron, stated that I am the president of the Hebron Cemetery Board, and Mary Jo Kats, 979 S. 475 W., stated that I’m the treasurer of the Hebron Cemetery Board. Mr.



Wilson stated that we’re just about out of room on our existing cemetery. He stated that we have about a year, year and a half there. He stated that this piece of property was offered to us at a reasonable price. He stated that we tried going North of our existing cemetery, but the party doesn’t want to sell at this time, and he wants quite a larger sum of money for the piece of property to the North of this because of highway frontage. He stated that this has got an entrance off of 900 S. and is approximately 25 acres. He stated that the piece of property that the neighbor to the North would want to sell to us would have been 10 acres. He stated that we can get this 25 acres for less than the price he wanted for the 10 acres and it’s right close by our other cemetery. He stated that like I say, we’ve got about a year and a half left, when we’re going to be filled up on our cemetery down in Hebron. He stated that we have about a hundred, 150 lots left, and that’s why we’re here tonight.

Harold Haberlin, 702 W. 1200 S., Hebron, stated that I’m in favor of this. He stated that I’ve been on the cemetery board now for about 15 years and with the growth of our community and the rate our cemetery is disappearing, we need to expand. He stated that this is the closest piece of real estate that’s available for us, so we’re interested in increasing our cemetery size. He stated that we want to make it a showplace cemetery, not just a little place in the woods, so to speak. He stated that we only expect to use about 5 acres for a cemetery at the time, and the rest would either be left in farm ground as it is, or we’ll try to develop it into some type of green acres.

Jeff Meyers, 885 S. SR 2, Hebron, stated that I assume that the property is located directly behind my building. He stated that I really don’t have any objections to a cemetery. He stated that I just want to know what the expectations are of the neighbors. He stated that the people that are buried there aren’t going to have a problem with what I’ve got going on, but maybe their families might not want to look at the back side of my building or maybe my grass is too tall or something like that. He stated that I want to make sure there is not going to be any concerns like this. He stated that I’d like to know exactly where you’re planning the cemetery to be. He stated that you say you only want 5 acres of that.

Ms. Kats stated, the Southwest corner.

Mr. Meyers stated that currently there are about half a dozen children that ride four-wheelers out behind that property, across that property. He stated, I’m wondering if there’s a cemetery there, is that going to push them onto my property or if you had any notions that they were there, or aware of anything like that going on?

Mr. Wilson stated that we’re looking at developing close to 5 acres of this right off the start. He stated that there is a pipeline that runs right down through the middle of the property, I think there it’s 120 feet easement through the center that NIPSCO’s got. He stated that we were going to come from the Southwest corner of the property from the South and go back to the pipeline and if we do, as far as keeping on expanding with this piece of property we’d go to the North the next section, then back over to the West and then back to the South. He stated that we wouldn’t do it straight across. He stated that that way we can tie the roads in as we go around that. He stated that as far as the four-wheelers and that riding on the property, that’s something I couldn’t tell you. He stated that to me that would be trespassing.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Bert Lawson with concerns about the petition. The letter is in the file.

Patta Zacek, 683 W. 900 S., stated that our neighborhood offers affordable housing in a rural setting. She stated that we have immediate access to SR 2. She stated that we are only 2 minutes from the Hebron schools, and only 3 minutes from the businesses in Hebron. She stated that all of these will be positive factors at the time we are ready to sell our homes. She stated that we understand that this land does not meet the required 40-acre minimum stated in Table 19 Special Exceptions and Requirements, Section B, Number 11. She stated that we do not oppose the proposed cemetery at this location, but we are concerned the external influence of the cemetery could adversely affect the value of our property. She stated that the cemetery could limit potential buyers should we decide to market our homes. She stated that this has proven true already with Mr. Robert Baker’s property, as stated in the letter from Mr. Bert Lawson, executor of his estate. She stated that we believe with certain guidelines set by this zoning committee that our concerns can be put aside and future marketing of our properties will not be affected. She stated that the homes built on 900 S. adjacent to the potential cemetery have all been set back from 900 and therefore our back yards are small. She stated that my home is 67 feet from my back property line, adjacent to the cemetery. She stated that my septic tank and my septic bed occupy a large area of my back yard. She stated that this limits me and my neighbors, also, from being able to block the view of the cemetery without compromising the size of our back yards. She stated that we are asking for a 50-foot greenbelt adjacent to all residential properties as the cemetery fills and expands over the years. She stated that we want a natural growth barrier on this greenbelt. She stated that this can include evergreens, arborvitaes, flowering shrubs, etc. She stated that this will help us maintain our rural setting and provide privacy for us from the cemetery and it will also provide privacy to the people who are visiting the cemetery. She stated that we are also requesting ground-level headstones only be allowed in the cemetery. She stated that this will improve the overall appearance of the cemetery and also simplify maintenance for the cemetery association. She stated that Table 19 Special Exceptions and Requirements Section I Number 1 states: a 6-foot wire mesh fence where it’s accessible to the public is required. She stated that we ask that no fencing be installed at the cemetery. She stated that we feel that fencing will take away from the park-like setting we are trying to create in our neighborhood. She stated that if a fence must be installed, we ask that it be installed on the inside of the greenbelt so that it is not visible from our homes. She stated that Section B of Table 19 addresses the issue of outdoor signs. She stated that we ask that the sign be set at the entrance of the cemetery, not along the roadside of 900. She stated that the last concern we have is the drainage issue. She stated that our water source is private wells. She asked, will there ever be any effect on the quality of our drinking water from the cemetery graves and are you able to document your answer to this question? She stated, also, the homes adjacent to the Southeast corner of the property are experiencing drainage problems from the field now. She stated that we understand this will be the last corner of the cemetery to be developed, and this will be in many, many years, but we want this drainage issue to be addressed at the time when they are developing that corner. She stated, in closing, we hope that you will consider our request and set appropriate guidelines for the cemetery association to follow.

Chris Sinkiewicz, 677 W. 1000 S., stated that in all actuality I don’t oppose, for the most part. She stated that I’ve been born and raised in the town and watched it grow. She stated that I’ve seen the cemetery fill quickly. She stated that my biggest concern is what will be expected of our property back that is going to be visible to the cemetery. She asked, what is going to be expected of us? She asked, are we gonna get, um, repercussions if we’ve got something sitting in our back lot. She stated that there’s also, uh, a used car lot adjacent to the property, also. She asked, is he going to have to put up a fence? She asked, are we going to have to put up a fence because they don’t want this, that or the other showing to the cemetery in view of people that are coming to view the graves. She stated, besides that, I see no problem with what they’re proposing.

Mr. Wilson stated that as far as the water issue, I would have no idea. He stated that we have our cemetery across the road there and there is a subdivision along the side of it; they have no problems with water. He stated that they’re all…the vaults are sealed vaults. He stated, as far as there being a water issue, I really couldn’t answer that question. He stated that as far as this lady here with the stuff, as far as viewing from the back, if there’s a greenbelt back there or something, I see no problem with that.

Mr. Detert asked, you would agree to put in a greenbelt?

Mr. Wilson stated, I think we would.

Mr. Detert asked, Bob, what’s the requirement on that?

Mr. Thompson stated, I don’t believe there is a requirement on that.


Mr. Detert stated, I didn’t think there was.

Mr. Brickner asked, how about the fence. He asked, were you planning to put a fence?

Mr. Wilson stated, no, just whatever the Board required on that.

Mr. Brickner asked, signage?

Mr. Wilson stated that there is no talk of any signage on this now. He stated that it wouldn’t be right on the road. He stated that it would be where you went into the property.

Mr. Brickner asked if there would be ground-level stones.

Mr. Wilson stated that they have talked about it. He stated that they haven’t made a decision on it, but they are talking about ground-level stones just for the maintenance factor.

Margaret Kinder, 691 W. 900 S., stated that that road that’s going into the cemetery will be between Baker’s house and my house and it isn’t very big and I’m just worried about…I think there’s about 25 feet to the road, and if they have stone there, all that stone’s going to be in the grass and someone’s going to have to pick it up.

Mr. Wilson stated that in regard to the driveway, we’ve got a 60-foot easement coming in off of that between her property and the property on the other side of that and the road won’t be no (sic) 60 feet wide. He stated that it will be just large enough to get a vehicle in. He stated that there will be no parking on the road, on the main County Road, it would all be up into the cemetery, and it would loop around in a circle so that they could go in and make a loop and come back out.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t really see a problem, especially if they are going to put a green area in.

Mr. Detert stated that they have agreed that they would put some kind of a greenspace.

Mr. Burns stated, I would just like to see it defined, though, what type of green area and this sign on 900 if it’s in the interest of the subdivision. He stated that I think we went through that years ago, and I think there’s really not an issue, the cemetery on 49, years ago, we went through all that. He stated that if they will agree to the green space and the sign and the roadway for that lady, if you keep it away from her property as much as you can, I think that would help.




Mr. Robertson stated, the ground-level headstones, I don’t know if we should be telling them what kind of headstones they should be putting in. He stated that they do have the Northern part of this property here which will be developed last and maybe they could put big ones there, but I do think the greenbelt is important and I think we should specify, I think the lady asked for a 50-foot greenbelt. He stated that I’m not sure how the others feel about that.

Mr. Detert asked, how many feet?

Mr. Robertson stated, 50 feet, I think, is what she asked for. He stated, I ask the other members: Do you think that would be adequate or overkill?

Mr. Brickner asked, that wouldn’t infringe on your…?

Mr. Wilson stated, I don’t think it would, really, on that end of it.

Mr. Robertson stated, and that would be made of natural green things, arborvitae and so forth that would grow up and block the homes so that some of the concern of the neighbors is that they might lose their privacy or if they got their back yard in a mess, somebody would look at it and feel bad. He stated that I assume they’re talking about this section along here.

Mr. Wilson stated, right.

Mr. Robertson asked, what about the other borders of your proposed cemetery?

Mr. Wilson stated that not on that first part, up to the pipe…do you see where the pipeline is, on the Southern edge of that, that’s pretty much commercial in there. He stated that this gentleman who spoke, I think his business is there and then there’s an auto body shop or used car lot on the next one.

Mr. Robertson asked, would you think you’d need a greenbelt in that area? He stated that I don’t think the gentleman really asked for it. He stated that he was just kind of concerned that his place might not look good enough to the people who were visiting the cemetery.

Mr. Wilson stated, yeah, but on the other side of the pipeline, up in there, there is residential up there.

Mr. Robertson stated, well, at least behind the residential areas I think, if you would commit to that, and that the signage be off the road and no fencing and that’s about all. He stated that I think that should satisfy them.




Mr. Detert asked, what happens to the ATM machine or whatever that is.

Mr. Wilson stated that that’s on the corner. He stated that that’s not on this piece of property. He stated that there’s another piece of property and this used car lot’s in between there.

Mr. Hudson stated, when they talked about water, I guess I sensed that somebody was talking about drainage issues. He stated, I guess that would be my only concern. He stated, I think if he agrees to the other items that Rick brought up and Jim brought up and they seem to be very agreeable to do that, I think if they’re not creating a drainage issue, and I assume this has to go before TAC….

Mr. Thompson stated, I would like you all to request that.

Mr. Hudson stated, I would like to add that.

Mr. Detert stated, you could send this to TAC and have them look at it. He stated that they’re the drainage experts.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think that should be that way.

Mr. Brickner asked, the road going in, will that be paved?

Mr. Wilson stated, we haven’t really talked about that yet, but I think maybe eventually it will be, up to a certain margin, from 900 up to where out property…

Mr. Brickner stated, so the lady who’s concerned about picking up stones out of her yard…

Mr. Wilson stated, like I said, we haven’t gotten that far on that end of it yet, but maybe eventually it will be.

Mr. Detert stated that the existing homes that are in there are on stone, right? He stated that I don’t think any of it is paved.

Mr. Wilson stated, no, there’s no roads in there yet.

Mr. Detert stated, I mean, in the existing cemetery.

Mr. Wilson stated, oh, yeah, they’re just stone.

Mr. Detert stated that you’ll have all the corners pretty much covered. He stated that it’s an unusual layout.

Mr. Wilson stated, yes. He stated, we didn’t want to develop a large section. He stated that we wanted to go a small section at a time so we’re not scattered out everywhere. He stated that we would probably do like 5 acres at a time or maybe a little less.



Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 03-SE-3, subject to behind any residential areas, on the borders, the cemetery board build a 50-foot greenbelt with natural growth, that the arborvitae and other trees they put in be 4 feet to start with and that they grow into a solid barrier; that any signage be off the road; that it go to TAC for any approval of any drainage concerns in the Southeast area particularly, but any drainage anywhere; and that the fencing requirement be waived. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Robertson stated that he would recognize Mr. Haberlin.

Mr. Haberlin stated that speaking as a member of the cemetery board, I don’t know how much you are familiar with the rules. He stated that they request a fence on the inside of the greenbelt. He stated that state law states that a wire fence in a position over 20 years becomes the line of the property, so I would be reluctant…

Mr. Detert stated that he has in his motion to waive the requirement for a fence.

Motion to approve Case 03-SE-3, subject to the aforementioned stipulations, carried on the following ballot vote (finding are in the file):

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-46. Petition of Robert & Gail Snyder, 4106 Cardinal Lane, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a 6-foot-high fence in the front yard, to be located at 4106 Cardinal Lane, in Center Township.

Mr. Snyder stated that we’d like to build a 6-foot fence along the road, which is actually our back yard, not our front yard, the way the plot’s laid out. He stated that everything along that road’s the back yard.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated, Cardinal Lane…and your house…that winds up being a back yard?

Ms. Snyder stated that we have pictures.

Mr. Snyder stated that this is the driveway and this is the door.. the kids are going to use this. He stated that everyone comes in and out of here and this side runs along the road. He stated that the building is at this end and the road runs along this end. He stated that everything along here is the back yard. He stated that the front yard, the driveway faces the road and it’s on the far side of the house.

Mr. Hudson stated, so, you don’t access off the…where’s your driveway come off of…Cardinal?

Mr. Snyder stated, umm hmm.

Ms. Snyder stated that part of our concern is there are dangerous dogs in our neighborhood. She stated that we had pit bulls and Rottweilers in our yard, not just in the neighborhood, but, physically, in our yard. She stated that part of the concern is that both of these dogs are known to jump at least…they can easily jump a 4-foot fence, and I need to know that I can have my children play in my back yard and not worry about dogs that have already been in our yard re-entering.

Mr. Snyder stated, these little guys, we have a Lab ourselves and they’re not afraid of big dogs. He stated, so, if a big dog comes in the yard they’re not going to run away from it and that will increase the opportunity of that dog getting closer to them.

Mr. Brickner asked, what kind of fence are you going to build?

Mr. Snyder stated, just a wooden fence…

Mr. Brickner stated, stockade?

Ms. Snyder stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, solid wood?

Ms. Snyder stated, solid wood along the road.

Mr. Snyder stated, the yard ends…soon as you step out of the yard…

Mr. Brickner asked, where the rock wall is?

Mr. Snyder stated, there’s a short rock wall.

Mr. Brickner asked, it’s going to be on top of the berm?

Mr. Snyder stated, it would be set back from it. He stated that there are trees that run, this rock wall, trees above, 2 feet in, and then we’re going to put the fence behind those.

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s pretty close to the house then.


Mr. Snyder stated, it’s about 7 to 8 feet. He stated that there’s a pathway along the house, then there’ll be a strip of landscaping, then the fence, then a bit more landscaping, then the rock wall.

Mr. Brickner asked, your yard, it has a fence in the back yard already?

Mr. Snyder stated that there is a split rail fence along the back on the other side.

Mr. Brickner stated, but the solid wood fence isn’t yours? He asked, that must be your neighbor’s?

Ms. Snyder stated that the solid wood fence is ours.

Mr. Brickner asked, and you’re going to connect up to that?

Ms. Snyder stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, is this going to be back from that rock wall a couple feet?

Mr. Snyder stated, yes. He stated that it won’t be right up against the road.

Mr. Brickner stated, ‘cause there’s a hill there coming from the South, when you come over Cardinal Lane you come over the hill. He stated that you won’t be able to see anything…you can’t see anything now?

Mr. Snyder stated that we’ve trimmed away trees to be able to see. He stated that the fence will be further back than those trees that we’ve trimmed. He stated and now, before the leaves fell off, we trimmed back the big evergreen and now we can see to the top of the hill.

Mr. Hudson asked, but isn’t the fence going to block that out?

Mr. Snyder stated, no. He stated that it will be set further back.

Mr. Brickner stated, not if they put it where they say they are because it’s beyond that stone wall, which I was thinking you were going to replace.

Ms. Snyder stated, no, we want to put it back behind…in fact, we, they said it has to be like 10 feet from the center of the street, which…actually, we put a string about where we were thinking of putting the fence, which is…




Mr. Snyder stated, you saw the rock wall and the trees that run along it?

Mr. Brickner stated, yes.

Mr. Snyder stated, so, there’s a string hanging behind those trees, which is where we’re planning on putting the fence. He stated, so those trees will still be in front of the fence.

Mr. Brickner stated, I wasn’t sure where your neighbors…you both share like a mailbox stand there.

Mr. Snyder stated, yes, because we just bought this property and the people owned this one and the one across the street.

Mr. Brickner asked, the carpenter that was out there, is he working for you?

Mr. Snyder stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated that my only concern is that I’m not sure that coming 10 feet from the centerline of the pavement is going to be on the property or not. He stated that I know those roads weave around through there, and they’re very narrow. He stated, I’m not sure if the water line has been replaced along that road; I know they’ve replaced a lot of water lines along there. He stated, but I guess in my opinion it wouldn’t hurt to run this by – this is in the Valparaiso Lakes Area Conservancy District? He stated that I want to make sure that this doesn’t…I mean, I realize that if the fence is on their property there’s not a whole lot we can do, the right-of-ways are so small right now, that this doesn’t cause any problems for them.

Mr. Detert stated, it should be run by the Highway Department then, too.

Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not sure the Highway Department…I think maybe Cardinal might be one that the Highway Department does plow.

Mr. Snyder stated, no, they do not. He stated that we are on City water.

Mr. Burns stated, I agree with Rich, it should go through the district. He stated that another concern I have is visibility. He stated that once that fence is up it’s a situation…I think we made an error years ago on 250 W. North of 130, years back, remember that fence? He stated that it’s a problem right now, been for years, matter of fact, it’s on the easement.

Mr. Brickner stated that normally I don’t like 6-foot fences in the front yard, but if I had two children and I lived there, that’d be the only way I’d live there because that is so incredibly tight in there, that street. He stated, and it’s off the street far enough, it’s beyond the brick wall (sic). He stated that having looked at it, I don’t have a problem with that.

Mr. Hudson stated, I think the brick wall’s in the right-of-way.

Mr. Brickner stated, stone wall. He stated that it probably is because it’s right on the street. He stated that it would be beyond that.

Mr. Burns stated, I understand their need, but I’m still concerned about creating another safety hazard, that’s all.

Mr. Snyder stated, just to talk about visibility. He stated that we’re not building a fence all the way up the edge of the driveway. He stated that we’re setting it back half the length of the house.

Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t know how you’re going to connect up so that you keep the dogs out.

Mr. Detert asked, is this something, Rich, that they should have a surveyor out there and have it surveyed to make sure it’s in the right spot?

Mr. Hudson stated, well, I mean, that’s to their benefit, to make sure. He stated, I’m just saying that I’ve done enough work out there that I know those roads are not centered and when you talk about a 20-foot right-of-way and being 10 feet from the center of the pavement, I‘m not sure that would give you the property line.

Mr. Robertson stated, it’s hard to say. He stated that it looks awfully tight here. He stated, now you say you’d start it about halfway down the house, about where the door is there?

Mr. Snyder asked, you see the window there? He stated that we’re going to start it at the back end of the window. He stated that it’s going to be behind those trees that are already here.

Mr. Robertson asked, how far away from the house is it?

Mr. Snyder stated, probably….about 6, 7 feet.

Mr. Robertson asked, how many feet is it in front of the house.

Mr. Snyder stated that (inaudible, kids fooling with the mike).

Mr. Robertson stated, I think if he’s starting it way back here, he’s not going to affect the driveway or cars pulling out. He stated that I would be in favor of it as a safety factor as long as we address Rich’s concerns.




Mr. Hudson stated, I’m not saying that the district is going to say no, I just want to make sure that, from a safety standpoint, they have the liability out there and I think…

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-46, subject to meeting with Karl Bauer of the VLACD and obtaining a letter from him of approval, and, if he doesn’t approve it, they need to appear again before the Board. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote (findings are in the file):

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-47. Petition of Robert & Nancy Urschel, 487 Froberg Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit a 6-foot-high fence in the front yard, to be located on the East side of Froberg Road, just South of CR 500 N., in Center Township.

Larry Ballah, 1623 Greenwood Ave., Michigan City, stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that the fence that they would like to install is – I’ve got a brochure here with some pictures in it – it’s a decorative, wrought-iron fence. He stated that it’s not a stockade fence, as the previous homeowner had. He stated that they would like to increase the height from the allowable 4 feet to 6 feet basically for an added security, plus the fact that the frontage along Froberg Road is so long that a 4-foot fence would look rather squatty. He stated that they would like something a little more monumental down the road. He stated that at the gate they would have brick pilasters that would not exceed the height of the fence.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Robertson stated that we don’t like 6-foot fences in the yard. He stated that we did it in the last case, I think, due to unusual circumstances of the large dogs and children. He stated that it looks like this fence doesn’t connect up down the sides – it’s just in the front – is that right?

Mr. Ballah stated that they’re going to have fencing down the side. He stated that the variance is just for the 6-foot across the front.

Mr. Robertson asked, so the property is going to be fenced all the way around?

Mr. Ballah stated, that’s the game plan, yes.


Mr. Burns asked, how many neighbors were contacted?

Mr. Ballah stated, I believe there were 12 or 13. He stated that everybody that was required to be was.

Mr. Burns stated, because this is adjacent to Waterford subdivision and were they contacted.

Mr. Thompson stated that there were a number of people on Regatta Court who were contacted.

Mr. Burns stated, I have no problems.

Mr. Thompson stated, plus, the Waterford POA.

Mr. Brickner stated, I think it’s great. He stated, I looked at it. He stated that it’s going to go from the big columns where you have the gates and then down that road, or is just going to end there?

Mr. Ballah stated, right now, what the petition is for is across the frontage. He stated that they will probably turn it and go back. He stated that our concern right now is getting it installed, if we receive a favorable review before the wintertime, so we don’t have too much time left this construction season to install the fence, so right now, we’re looking at getting it across the front and saving the rest for next year.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, it’s not a stockade, solid fence. He stated, I think it would look really nice there.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-47. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated, we had a similar-type fence on 100 S., just West of 725, and I thought I spoke to you, we had some issue with it. He stated that the gentleman subsequently broke his parcel into three or four parcels. He asked, were those issues resolved with that fence?

Mr. Thompson stated, that I’ve got to go out and check on it. He stated, I know Kevin Breitzke was out at the parcel before with other items. He stated that I can check with that. He stated, but I know what you’re talking about. He stated, since he subdivided it it needs to be, according to the right-of-way for the thoroughfare plan, which I was going to try and adhere on this, consideration that it be set 40 feet from the centerline of the road, according to our thoroughfare plan.

Mr. Detert stated, I guess the only concern I have is that that looks like a fairly large piece of ground. He stated that it’s 20 acres; if they subsequently subdivide it are they going to provide us with any problems with the fence?

Mr. Thompson stated that we would ask for a 40-foot dedication because of that road.

Mr. Burns stated, now, there’s a pond there. He asked, how does that affect the pond?

Mr. Brickner stated, it’s back further.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-V-47, subject to 40-foot dedication from the centerline of the road, according to the thoroughfare plan. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote (finding in the file):

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-V-48. Petition of Linda Edison, 10607 S. Campbell Ave., Chicago, IL, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the side-yard setbacks from 8 feet to 6.9 and 6.4 feet on one side and 1.6 and 1.9 feet on the other side, to build an addition, to be located at 1822 Briar Rd., in Center Township.

David Edison stated that he and his wife are the petitioners in this matter. He stated that we are requesting permission to build a rear addition, approximately 11.5 feet back, flush with the sides of the house. He stated that there was a 5.5 or 6-foot addition prior that fell apart and rotted and was torn down.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that I think it’s an improvement to the structure that I think is going to make…anything that they’re doing that’s an improvement, I don’t have any objection. He stated that the lots were small. He stated that most of those were cottages back in the ‘20s and ‘30s. He stated that I’m glad to see people taking an interest in those homes and keeping them and making improvements, so I’m in favor of it.

Mr. Brickner asked, what’s going to be built?

Mr. Edison stated that it’s just an addition. He stated that there was an addition in the back with a bathroom and it was all rotted.




Mr. Brickner stated, I don’t have a problem with that either. He stated, I think it will be a big improvement.

Mr. Robertson stated, I just worry about fire when you get this close together. He asked, is there something on the other side of the building along there?

Ms. Edison stated, no, not next to it. She stated that the one that was already there…

Mr. Robertson stated, I apologize, I didn’t see it, but when you build the new one now, is there something already on the other property?

Ms. Edison stated, no, there’s nothing next to it on either side.

Mr. Robertson asked, what is the closest building to it?

Ms. Edison stated that there is an addition like behind it that comes over a little bit…

Mr. Robertson asked, how far away is that, how many feet?

Mr. Edison stated that the addition is actually flush to the rest of the house. He stated that it doesn’t expand.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’m talking about other buildings. He asked, what’s the closest next building?

Mr. Edison stated that the lot line…what is it…about 1.9 feet on one side.

Mr. Brickner asked, yeah, but where’s the building?

Mr. Edison stated that the building on one side is 1.9 feet from the lot line and the next building…

Mr. Robertson stated, I’m talking about the neighbor’s building. He asked, how far away is your new building going to be from where the neighbor’s building is?

Mr. Edison stated, approximately 8. He stated that we’re not going any closer to them.

Mr. Robertson stated, I have no objection.

Mr. Burns stated, I don’t have any problems with it.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 03-V-48. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.





Discussion:

Mr. Thompson stated, I just want to tell them that when they come and get their permit, they really need to stop by and speak with the building commissioner because there are some fire code items that need to be dealt with with that addition and the fact that your interior walls must be 1 hour fire-rated and you won’t be able to have any windows on those sides because of the proximity to it, and it must be 6 feet away from any other structure.

Motion to approve Case 03-V-48 carried on the following ballot vote (finding are in the file):

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

Case 03-UV-11. Petition of Leann Landgrebe-Stephens, 972 N. County Line Rd., Westville, seeking a Use Variance to permit seasonal sales, to be located on the Northwest corner of U.S. Hwy 30 and CR 250 W., in Union Township.

Ms. Stephens stated that she is the petitioner in this matter and that she is accompanied by her husband, Michael, and her father, George Landgrebe. She stated that many years ago my grandfather purchased this property and when he passed away he left one portion to my father’s younger brothers. She stated that it is located South of Joliet Road and is now being turned into a subdivision. She stated that the other portion that consists of residential, agricultural and undeveloped wooded parcel located on both the North and South sides of U.S. 30 was left to my father. She stated that my plans are to improve this property. She stated that I’ve developed a master plan for the landscaping to separate the residential from the agricultural. She stated that we are planning on planting rows of trees to camouflage any unsightly areas. She stated that I am planning on selecting a color palette for all the exterior of all the buildings to make them cohesive and more aesthetically appealing. She stated that I would like to turn what is now farmed the chemical way into organic farming. She stated that I want to turn this farm into a showplace. She stated that I would like to plant the crops in a grid formation where each specific crop would have a wide border planting of attractive cover crop. She stated that this would allow for equipment passage and would also be very visually appealing for passerbyers (sic) traveling into Valparaiso along U.S. 30. She stated that this was the way the formal gardens of the Renaissance were farmed (sic). She stated that the specific crops that I would like to plant next spring are popular varieties of…heirloom varieties and rare varieties of peppers, pumpkins, gourds, winter squash and ornamental corn. She stated that I would like to have different festivals based on the time of harvest: a pepper festival, an October festival. She stated that following these festivals, I would like to have an annual Christmas sales. She stated that I would like to offer the Valparaiso community an extensive choice of fresh trees, varying in size and types, wreathes of different shapes and sizes and holiday ornaments. She stated that I have developed five different Christmas decorating schemes: a children’s scheme, dots and squares; a modern scheme, silver and white; a traditional scheme, red, green and metallic tones; a natural scheme, fruit, berries and birds; a formal scheme, gilded wheat and eggs. She stated that each scheme consists of hand-crafted ornaments and skirts and stockings made of all the finest materials. She stated that this year I’m starting out small to get my feet wet for what I want to do in the future. She stated that my husband and I purchased a 14-foot by 20-foot tent that we plan on setting up behind my father’s shop. She stated that all the schemes have been designed and crafted by myself. She stated that I feel that there is a definite market in our area. She stated that it seems to me that most things today are mass-produced and don’t have the character and quality that the things in the past had. She stated that to sum up everything I am trying to accomplish is improve my family’s property, offer fine products and services to the local community.

Mike Stephens stated that I’m Leann’s husband. He stated that I’d just like to say that my wife’s an excellent designer and she’s a wonderful gardener. He stated that we have 16 raised beds at our home that she plants all organic vegetables and there is a difference. He stated that it tastes great. He stated that she does all her…she lays out all her plans for the beds on autocad so everything is perfectly placed and it looks great.

George Landgrebe stated that I am the owner of the property and her dad. He stated that one thing, she’s not talking about selling Santa Clauses that are going to do the jig like they do over at Menard’s. He stated that all the stuff is hand-crafted. He stated that I’m a licensed tree nursery…I’ve had a nursery license for several years and I’ve been selling trees out there, actually, spring and fall – seedlings, thousands of seedlings and I always considered that to be agriculture, I consider trees to be agriculture. He stated that actually the hand-crafted goods that she is selling is actually agricultural. He stated that that’s where hand-crafting started. He stated that I think the issue here is that she wants to put a couple of signs up, temporary, small signs, I think maybe like a half sheet of plywood printed on both sides to say…I don’t know what she wants to say on them, but I got property on both sides of 30 for quite a ways, three-quarters of a mile, and I think she wanted to put one of the signs up along 30 on the North side where the business would be located and one sign possibly over on the other side, but quite a ways down, kind of like a warning sign that you’re approaching the business or something like that, I imagine. He stated, and then that could be put away. He stated that the business, I’m sure, will not run around the clock. He stated that it’s a temporary type thing, it’s seasonal, a month at Christmas and whatever else she’s doing, different plans that she has, but that’s basically what she’s trying to do.




No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson asked, do I understand that you’re going to farm what’s left of the property?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated, yes.

Mr. Hudson stated, so what’s not developed as residential – I have knowledge of the property. He stated that I worked for Mr. Landgrebe’s father doing engineering and surveying on this whole property, so I’m kind of familiar with it, so I’m happy to see that it’s going back and not being developed as a subdivision. He stated that I know the Valparaiso fire department, I think, is going to be building their West Side fire department just North of the buildings I believe her dad…

Mr. Landgrebe stated that they’re trying to purchase property on the North of our buildings, yeah, and we haven’t heard from them in some time.

Mr. Brickner stated, 3.5 acres, is that all there is?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated it’s 40 some acres, oh, no…

Mr. Landgrebe stated that the farm is 75 acres.

Mr. Brickner stated, oh, okay. He stated that I was wondering how you were going to do all that on 3.5 acres.

Mr. Landgrebe stated, the 3.5 acres…they’re trying to occupy…the business is going to be on the same property that my manufacturing company is located on, which is, that’s where the driveways and all the gravel and everything is.

Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t have a problem with it at all, all agricultural use, as far as I’m concerned. He stated that I think it’s fine.

Mr. Burns stated that you mentioned a tent. He asked, what size is the tent?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated that it’s 14 foot by 20 foot. She stated that it’s a brand-new tent and it’s fire-rated and it’s to be used for commercial or residential use.

Mr. Burns asked, that would be up all year-round.

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated, no, it’s temporary.



Mr. Hudson stated, seasonal.

Mr. Landgrebe stated to get in out of the rain while you’re running the cash register, I guess.

Mr. Robertson asked, what about the sign? He stated that I don’t think we really addressed the sign.

Mr. Detert stated that the motion will have to include it or not include it.

Mr. Hudson asked, the sign would be seasonal, also?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated, yes, it will be taken down. She stated that there will be a sign for each festival that we would have, and it would be temporary based on when we were having the festival and it would be taken down when we are done with it.

Mr. Hudson asked, you’re not talking weeks of festivals?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated, no, there would be three festivals: a pepper festival, an October festival…it would be like for a week.

Mr. Detert asked, it would be like a 4 by 4 sign?

Ms. Landgrebe-Stephens stated, I would like a 4 by 4-foot sign, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s not a half sheet of plywood.

Mr. Landgrebe stated, a 4 by 4 is a half sheet of plywood, yes.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 03-UV-11 for 5 years and that the signs be removed at the festival’s end, and limited to a 4 by 4 double-sided and that this be for two signs. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote (findings in the file):

Brickner - Yes Burns - Yes Hudson - Yes
Robertson - Yes Detert - Yes

At this time, Mr. Detert stated, uh, Lily, we had a motion last time to prepare a letter, if appropriate, to NIPSCO on the station that they were going to put in. He asked, did you….?

Ms. Schaefer stated, that’s not really necessary, because I have been in touch with Paul Rake, the attorney for NIPSCO, and he has sent me some materials and indicated a willingness to meet with Bob and me and that that’s not yet been set up by the County. She stated that we are going to be setting it up, but we have a lot of other business that we have to complete by the end of November, so, it hasn’t been on the front burner for me, but I think when all is said and done, I don’t think, from reading the case law, that we have any authority to do anything about it.

Mr. Robertson stated, as I understand it, the purpose of the letter was to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, who does have the authority, and it would state that the Board was asking that the authority rule in favor of following our County ordinances. He stated that we’ve had many cases of utilities, pipelines, telephone utilities, gas utilities, coming before this Board. He stated that I can’t remember anybody thinking that they didn’t have to.

Ms. Schaefer stated, well, legally, if you read the cases, I don’t think they have to.

Mr. Robertson stated, well…

Ms. Schaefer stated, I really don’t.

Mr. Robertson stated, maybe they don’t, but it’s up to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to make a decision, and this Board, if it feels that that’s what we feel, I think we should send a letter to them saying that we think they should follow our ordinance. He stated I don’t know what we have ordinances for if we aren’t going to enforce them.

Mr. Brickner stated that I think it’s terrible if they don’t have to follow our ordinances. He stated that we all know people in Jackson Township. He stated that I can’t imagine telling those people that they have no voice in this whatsoever, that they have no meeting to come to, that the Board isn’t going to hear it.

Ms. Schaefer stated that they may have an avenue, but it’s not with us. She stated, trust me, I don’t think….

Mr. Brickner stated, but we’re the people…we are the only voice they have. He stated that other than hiring lawyers or something, we’re their only voice. He stated that I can’t imagine how they can circumvent…this is an industrial plant in a residential area. He stated, what in the world is more of a violation that that? He stated, I can’t imagine.

Ms. Schaefer stated, if you read the case law….I’m telling you, I have no reason to be on NIPSCO’s side. She stated that I don’t like to pay their bills any more than anyone else. She stated, I’m not on their side, but the law is that we don’t have any right to determine where they put their line. She stated that they have that right. She stated that they have an absolute right and I think…

Mr. Brickner stated that we’re talking about an odorizer plant. He stated that that’s not a gas line.


Ms. Schaefer stated that I think it’s premature…I would like to sit down with Bob and find out to what extent they are willing to cooperate before we fire off some letter.

Mr. Robertson stated that I’ve talked with people who are familiar with the way this case will go to the IURC and they said that the local residents have the right to appeal, but if the County expresses an interest, they pay a lot more attention, so that I think it’s appropriate, if we feel that way, that we should just express our interest in the case, not that we’re just standing back and saying do what you want, but that we’re saying we feel we should be involved. He stated, now, it’s up to the IURC to decide if we can be involved or not, but we can express an interest saying we want to be involved and I think that will help in their determination.

Mr. Hudson stated, I guess I would, Bob…I mean, you guys are talking to them. He asked, who are these people you’re talking about, Jim. He stated, you said you talked to people.

Mr. Robertson stated, actually, I didn’t, but my wife talked to somebody at the Hoosier Environmental Council who is the legal authority down there who said that in these cases the local land people can appeal to the IURC, which they have done. He stated, but they said if the County, also, expresses their interest in the thing that the IURC looks at that and it helps in their decision. He stated that they’re saying they don’t have to do it, but it’s up to the IURC to say whether or not they do and all we would be doing is just saying that we have an interest in it and that we feel they should be subject to our ordinances, whether or not they are, it’s up to the IURC to determine.

Mr. Hudson stated, well, I guess if Lily is looking at the case law and I’m going by what somebody told you and I don’t have anything in writing, I guess I would say that I would have to let Lily and Bob…

Mr. Thompson stated, I will draft up a letter tomorrow. He stated, if somebody can get me who to contact at the IURC, I will draft up a letter.

Mr. Robertson stated, I don’t really know. He stated that I would suggest that the fellows…whoever it is in the No Nose group would know, because they are the ones that are doing….

Ms. Schaefer stated, Ted Fitzgerald. She stated, quite frankly, Ted Fitzgerald has indicated to me, too, that it’s probably a hopeless, that NIPSCO has that right, and I’m not going on public record saying…I certainly wouldn’t want to undermine his position with his client, but I’m just saying, you know, you’re tilting at windmills in this case, and although they are willing to sit and meet with us, which I think is fine, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that. She stated, let’s find out whether they ARE willing to come to us. She stated that we don’t really know for sure yet whether they’re not going to.

Mr. Hudson asked, do they have to go to the Commissioners at all?

Ms. Schaefer stated, no, they don’t have to do any of that. She stated that they have an absolute right to make a determination and it cannot be second-guessed.

Mr. Detert stated, I know this is pretty emotional, but I think we should proceed with some caution and allow the meeting to occur, Jim, and go from there.

Mr. Robertson stated, I still don’t see why we can’t express our interest with the people that are going to make the decision. He stated that it’s not going to be NIPSCO who’s going to make the decision.

Ms. Schaefer stated, I think that Bob could write a letter saying that we are…

Mr. Detert stated, Bob’s offered to do that.

Mr. Robertson stated, that’s all I’m really asking.

Mr. Detert stated, but I think before we stand up and start really shouting, we should see and meet with them just to find out what they’re willing to do.

Mr. Thompson stated, I’ll get that letter done as requested.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Robert Detert, Chairman


Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., Executive Director, County Planner