Board of Zoning Appeals

Regular Meeting
October 20, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on October 20, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Richard Burns, James Robertson and Robert Detert. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Lily Schaeffer and Toni Byers.

Mr. Robertson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the September 15, 2004 BZA meeting and to accept them as received in the mail. 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 is the last renewal available on this Use Variance.)

Shelton Cohan, 7448 Broadway, Merrillville, stated that he is the attorney for and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter. He stated that I note that the notice that was sent to Mr. Wiles indicates that this is the last renewal available and that this renewal will only be for one year. He stated that my purpose in being here is to object to that. He stated that Mr. Wiles…

Mr. Detert stated that we haven’t made a decision as a Board as to whether that will be one year. He stated that it was one year the last time.

Mr. Cohan stated that it was one year last time. He stated that it was one year the last time and prior to that it was five years and five years prior to that for, I think, about 20 years, if not maybe a little more. He stated that I don’t understand why the change in policy with respect to the Use Variance in this instance and why this should be the last renewal available.

Mr. Detert stated that we haven’t made a decision. He stated that we can go anywhere from any amount of time up to five years, and that’s the rules.

Mr. Cohan stated that Mr. Wiles and Mr. Musgrave, as I’m sure you’re aware, operate a flower shop on those premises and have done



so, I think, since 1983 or ’84. He stated that we anticipated an extension of five years, and Mr. Wiles brought in a check for $100 to cover the five years, but was informed by the secretary that they would only accept $20, so we exchanged checks.

Mr. Siminski stated that you only pay back for the number of years that you had. He stated that he had one year and it’s $20 a year. He stated that it has nothing to do with the future, at all. He stated that the renewal process means that this is the last time he can renew without having a public hearing; in other words, say he gets five years. He stated that five years from now he can come back, but he has to go through the public hearing process. He stated that it’s not that we’re stopping it totally; it’s the fact that he has to go through another public hearing process.

Mr. Detert stated that we open it back up to the public to see if there are objections from the neighbors and that’s what our ordinance says.

Mr. Cohan stated that we have no objection to that.

Mr. Brickner stated that if you read the history of the case, you’ll know why it was only one year last time. He stated that if you go back and read the history of the case it was because of the condition of the property, and I just wondered, I mean, if you didn’t know that, but that was the reason for a one-year variance. He stated that we wanted to be sure that the property was kept actually in the state that it’s in right now. He stated that it’s very good.

Mr. Cohan stated that I looked at it this morning and it seemed to be all right to me.

Mr. Detert stated that there’s no mandate on the time. He stated that nothing says that we have to give any petition a particular time. He stated that we have the right to up to five years and we have had them all over the map.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’d just like to ask Marv, have you seen it recently, Marv?

Mr. Brickner stated that I was there today and it is 100 percent better than this time last year.

Mr. Robertson stated that you noticed last time that it needed some work, so…

Mr. Brickner stated that it’s much better and I have no objection to making it a five-year variance.







Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 98-UV-13 for 5 years, providing that the property is kept in the same condition that it’s in now. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 83-V-33. Joseph Butrym, 1089 N. 200 W., Chesterton, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to allow a mobile home on 200 W., between CR 1050 N. and Old Porter Road, in Liberty Township.

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

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints.

Mr. Siminski stated, no.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 83-V-33 for one year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Case 90-V-29. J. Thomas Frank, 6744 Creek Ridge Trail, Indianapolis, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on CR 450 S., between SR 2 and County Line Road, in Porter Township.

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

Mr. Brickner asked if this is Boone Township or Porter Township.

Mr. Siminski stated, Porter Township.

Mr. Brickner stated that it says Boone Township on the…

Mr. Burns asked if there have been any complaints on this property.

Mr. Siminski stated, no.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 90-V-29 for 1 year. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion, which carried on a 4-0 roll call vote.

Public Hearings:

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







Case 04-V-25. Petition of Dennis Beamon, 502 W. 400 N., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,400 square foot pole barn for storage of a snowplow and other personal equipment, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located at 502 W. 400 N., in Union Township.

Mr. Beamon stated that I want to get a Variance to build a bigger pole barn than a subdivision allows, 2,400 square foot, 40 by 60, so I can store my extra equipment and my boat and my RV and stuff like that and I don’t think a 30 by 40 that I could fit it all in.

Mr. Detert stated, you said a snowplow; is that on the front of a truck?

Mr. Beamon stated, yeah, my old truck, also.

Mr. Detert asked, what’s it for?

Mr. Beamon stated, I just sub-contract snow-plowing.

Mr. Detert asked, are you going to run a business out of it?

Mr. Beamon stated, no.

Mr. Detert asked, are you going to sub-contract?

Mr. Beamon stated, I just subcontract as they call me and go out and plow and park in the garage.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you going to store any gasoline in there?

Mr. Beamon stated that it would be a 5-gallon can, not any large quantity.

Mr. Brickner asked, no petroleum products?

Mr. Beamon stated, no.

Mr. Burns stated that the question I have about the snowplowing, is this a business that you own?

Mr. Beamon stated, no, I sub-contract for somebody out in Hammond. He stated that I’m on call. He stated that I just store my equipment in there, my snowplow and spreader and my truck.




Mr. Burns asked, but the snowplow and spreader and truck are used for a business?

Mr. Beamon stated that I just do it to supplement my income. He stated, I wouldn’t call it a business. He stated, it depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Mr. Burns stated, it sounds like a business to me. He asked, is it or isn’t it?

Mr. Beamon stated, I don’t look at it as a business, put it that way.

Mr. Burns stated, well, if you’re sub-contracting, it’s a business.

Mr. Beamon stated, yeah, I guess it is.

Mr. Detert stated, if somebody calls you…do they call you and tell you?

Mr. Beamon stated that the guy I work for calls me and says, well, I need you to go plow.

Mr. Detert asked, is that the same guy always who calls you or is it different people?

Mr. Beamon stated, pretty much, yeah.

Mr. Burns asked, so you have a snowplow, a spreader?

Mr. Beamon stated, umm-hmmm.

Mr. Burns stated, that’s three pieces.

Mr. Robertson asked, how large is the truck?

Mr. Beamon stated, it’s a Ford F-(inaudible), just a pickup truck.

Mr. Robertson asked, and this is in the winter that you normally do this?

Mr. Beamon stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson asked, and how often does he call you up?

Mr. Beamon stated, probably, well, usually anything over 2 inches, 2 to 4 inches.

Mr. Robertson asked, 20 times a month, do you think?



Mr. Beamon stated, it depends on the winter. He stated, on the average I’d say 10 to 15 times.

Mr. Robertson asked, what are the neighbors around you there? He asked, how close is the closest neighbor?

Mr. Beamon stated that they are 160-foot lots.

Mr. Robertson asked, can you see a bunch of them in a row there?

Mr. Beamon stated, yeah, they’re all along the road.

Mr. Robertson asked, and how far do you have to travel? He asked, what’s the normal route you take to go…you go to Hammond?

Mr. Beamon stated, well, not necessarily; wherever he tells me to go.

Mr. Robertson asked, but he’s located in Hammond?

Mr. Beamon stated, yeah.

Mr. Robertson asked, is it usually in Lake County that you go?

Mr. Beamon stated, Lake and Porter.

Mr. Robertson asked, so, when you leave your house, you probably go the same way pretty much?

Mr. Beamon stated, yeah.

Mr. Robertson asked, what’s the main highway you get onto?

Mr. Beamon stated, depending on which way I go it’s either 30 or 130.

Mr. Robertson asked, and how far is it till you get to 30?

Mr. Beamon stated, 2 miles at the most, a mile and a half.

Mr. Brickner stated, I guess what we’re getting at, Mr. Beamon, is you understand that you absolutely cannot run a business out of this pole barn. He stated that it’s absolutely forbidden.

Mr. Beamon stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, and you understand that. He stated that what it looks like to us is more like you’re actually running a business out of this thing.

Mr. Beamon stated that I understand where you’re going and I don’t plan on doing that, going out on my own, or anything like that.


Mr. Detert stated that if you run a business, you need a Variance in a residence and you haven’t asked for that tonight, so it’s what they determine here as to whether that’s a business or not.

Mr. Robertson stated, I wonder if maybe we should…it sounds like he’s going to do a business, and like you say, if he wants a business, it’s possible to do a business, but you need a Variance, but you have to advertise for a Variance and let the neighbors know that you’re going to be running a business out of there. He stated, I wonder if we should…would you be interested in doing that?

Mr. Beamon stated, no, not really, because I don’t look at it that way, but if I have to do it. He stated, I just want to store my plow and stuff there during the summer and when it’s cold outside so I don’t have to (inaudible).

Ms. Schaeffer stated that this is a really gray area, because I’m thinking about people, for example, who similarly have the bread trucks or the Mako tool trucks or whatever and they get dispatched to go places and they are not…you could say they are running a business out of their home, but to me, it’s a gray area. She stated, it’s up to the Board, but I think it’s a gray area.

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, it’s a real close call.

Mr. Burns stated, I guess what concerns me, if you only had one piece of equipment it would be a little bit different. He stated that he has three pieces of equipment.

Ms. Schaeffer stated, and that’s a factual question you’re entitled to consider.

Mr. Burns stated, and you are being dispatched by someone else from Hammond, so that tells me it’s a business, and I’m, in my personal opinion, I think you should apply for a Variance, that’s my opinion.

Mr. Detert asked, do you have anybody work with you?

Mr. Beamon stated that he works alone.

Mr. Burns asked, who operates the three pieces of equipment?

Mr. Beamon stated that it’s actually like one piece.

Mr. Detert stated that it’s one unit.

Mr. Burns stated, I thought it was three pieces.

Mr. Robertson stated, our concern, Mr. Beamon, it’s a residential area, and if we allow this the neighbors might be upset that they



didn’t realize what was happening, and if you applied for a Variance to run the business, then they’d have the opportunity to….

Mr. Beamon stated, I understand. He stated that they all know that I do plow.

Mr. Burns stated that you may still get the business, but I’m of the belief that you should file for a Variance.

Ms. Byers stated that what we do with the questions we ask, when this came in, I asked him…when somebody comes in and asks can I do such and such, we ask, do you have employees coming to the property, if no, do you have a sign advertising the business, do you have outside storage of materials in connection with the business. She stated, if all those factors…he’s really doing all the work outside and it’s just him and nobody says anything, we say that’s okay for you to do it unless we get some complaints.

Ms. Schaeffer stated, I’m inclined to agree. She stated from my 20 years’ experience, if these are the facts, then there’s a whole lot of people that you’d have to do the same thing to.

Mr. Detert stated that the only part that bothers me is if he’s plowing parking lots, he’s getting up like 4 o’clock in the morning, and is he going to be disturbing the neighbors with pulling his rig out of there in the early morning hours. He stated that that’s the only part that bothers me.

Mr. Beamon stated, well, it ain’t no different than me pulling out of the driveway.

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I think three of my neighbors have snowplows on the front of their trucks, and they go around plowing everybody’s driveway in the whole area, and I don’t consider that a business, but they do make money doing it and if we are going to be so particular about having one snowplow, one vehicle with a snowplow on the front, then we got a lot of people out there that are doing the same thing.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t have too much objection either.

Mr. Brickner stated that as long as he just has the one piece of equipment and no employees.

Mr. Detert stated, you could put that, whoever wants to make a motion that wants to pass this favorably can put that in the motion that he’s restricted to one piece of equipment, one truck and no employees.

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, I thought he had three employees, that’s what I understood.




Mr. Beamon stated, I have one unit.

Mr. Detert stated, you can restrict it to one unit and put a caveat on it that you don’t want any employees.

Mr. Brickner stated, so the Variance is to build a pole barn.

Mr. Detert stated, that’s what he’s here for. He stated that the question is whether he needed a Variance for a business.

Mr. Brickner moved to approve Case 04-V-25, with the restrictions that he cannot run a business out of this pole barn, with no employees, with no additional equipment other than what he has right now, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-V-26. Petition of George Milde, 451 W. SR 8, Hebron, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a pole barn to store building supplies, prior to construction of the house, to be located on the West side of CR 500 W., between CR 450 S. and CR 500 S., in Porter Township.

And

Case 04-V-27. Petition of George Milde, 451 W. SR 8, Hebron, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,240 square foot pole barn, for storage of personal items, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located on the West side of CR 500 W., between CR 450 S. and CR 500 S., in Porter Township.

Mr. Milde stated that I have a pole building where I live at now that’s 34 by 70, so I’m accustomed to having some room in my building to put the different things that I have, and so on and so forth, and I wanted to build it prior to the home so that I can store any of my tools that I need while the home is being built or any supplies, so I don’t have to leave it out in the weather or anything.

Angelo Vanni, 462 S. 500 W., Valparaiso, stated that the main problem I have with the larger building was, a few of our neighbors, one in particular, at 464 S. 500 W., came before the Board in an attempt to build a slightly larger pole barn than 1,200 square feet and was denied. He stated that I don’t know the circumstances involved there, whether he was planning on housing within that building, but he was denied. He stated, also, Mr. Milde said he was going to keep the materials for his home and tools that were to be constructed. He asked, after the construction of the home is complete, what’s going to be kept within that building? He stated,


and also the position of that building, where is it going to be positioned at on that lot?

Mr. Milde stated that the building is to be constructed in the Southwest corner of the property, or towards the Southwest corner and as far as what I’m going to store in there, I have motorcycles (sic), I have a table saw and welder and all kinds of things I’d like to take inside the garage. He stated that I want to have room to keep them, just as I do now.

Mr. Detert asked, how many motorcycles do you have?

Mr. Milde stated that I have one motorcycle. He stated that I have a bench saw and a radial arm saw and stuff I want to set up, a welder and some mowers. He stated that I have some rental property that I mow, so I have a couple push mowers, a trailer.

Mr. Detert asked, where do you mow?

Mr. Milde stated, it’s my rental property, I mean, I own the property. He stated that I’m not in business mowing.

Mr. Vanni stated, I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot here since we’re going to be neighbors, I don’t want to seem like this is a personal attack or anything, but 2200 square foot of barn seems like an awful lot of space for just welders and power tools. He asked, is it going to be like a woodshop or a carpentry? He stated that I’m worried that someone’s going to try to move a commercial building out there, and I know there’s a few buildings out there that some of the neighbors suspect they’re doing commercial work out of them. He stated that there’s a guy building cabinets out there and he’s selling to people and he has all kinds of cars pulling up at all hours of the day and night.

Mr. Detert stated that all you have to do is report that to the Plan Commission and they’ll take some action.

Mr. Vannie stated, I’m just concerned that a pole barn this size on such a small lot that it might be used for commercial purposes.

Mr. Detert stated, well, he’s not allowed to, by law, so if he does and if he’s turned in, he’s in violation of the law. He stated that we don’t have enough inspectors to go around and check everybody, but we depend on the property owners to call us and tell us that something’s going on. He stated, in fact, we only have one inspector – this guy – and we run him ragged.

Kelly Vanni, 462 S. 500 W., stated that I just have to say my husband and I bought this – obviously we’re a young couple -- and we bought it looking, even though it’s just 1.1 acres, it’s not a big lot and we realized that there was some property behind us that would be sold and we would, eventually, have neighbors behind us in our back


yard, but we like the scenery, we like to be able to look out our windows and see the fields and see the agriculture and know that we are not surrounded by homes or buildings that are too close to us and, as my husband said, we already have some big, large buildings around us that block our view from seeing nature and things like that, and I’m afraid that this is going to be something else that will be blocking our way of enjoying our property.

Mr. Milde stated that I don’t see where I’d be blocking her view that much more than any other building and it just…it’s not straight out of the back door. He stated that she can still see straight out of the back property. He stated that it’s beside her property and there’s going to be a pole building there, regardless. He stated that it might be a little smaller, but there is still going to be one there. He stated that there’s going to be a house there to block the view also, and I have no intentions of running a business out of this building. He stated that I have a job; I work construction.

Mr. Detert stated, just to explain to the remonstrators, he can build a pole barn right now. He stated that what the variance is for is for larger than what the ordinance requires or stipulates.

Mr. Siminski stated, when I went to inspect out there there is like a pole barn on the lot right next to you in the rear, right? He asked, that’s not your lot, right?

Mr. Milde stated, no.

Mr. Siminski stated, your lot is the one with the higher bushes or whatever? He stated, so that building behind you is not yours.

Mr. Milde stated, no.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Brickner asked, how big is this building? 2,200?

Mr. Milde stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, your schematic shows 40 by 50.

Mr. Milde stated, no, it’s 40 by 56.

Mr. Brickner asked, can you show us where your house is going to be on here? He stated, just put an X there or something where you are going to build your house.

Mr. Milde stated, right here.

Mr. Brickner asked, right in the middle?




Mr. Milde stated, yeah. He stated that it will be pretty far off the road.

Mr. Brickner asked, and this is your frontage here, 500?

Mr. Milde stated, it’ll be just about in the middle.

Mr. Brickner stated, okay, so it’s a thousand feet over what we allow for you to build. He stated, that’s not a huge pole barn, I mean that’s…can you tell me where your property is in relation to this?

Mr. Vanni stated, I’m directly South.

Mr. Burns stated, he answered one of my questions – You’re not going to run operate a business out of this?

Mr. Milde stated, absolutely not.

Mr. Burns asked, do you have two riding mowers, commercial mowers?

Mr. Milde stated that they’re just riding mowers and push mowers and roto-tillers for my own gardening and stuff.

Mr. Robertson asked, when do you plan on building your house?

Mr. Milde stated, well, I don’t have an exact timetable, but I’m hoping to start on it by the end of ’05.

Mr. Detert stated that the Board has a policy, pretty much, to restrict the time limit and you run the risk, if you don’t build the house, that this Board could tell you to tear down the pole barn. He asked, did you understand that?

Mr. Milde stated, no, I didn’t realize that, but what is the time?

Mr. Detert stated, it’s up to the Board.

Mr. Burns stated that it’s usually 2 to 3 years.

Mr. Robertson asked if he would be willing to sign an instrument that would indicate that he will build within three years or we have the right to ask you to take it down.

Mr. Milde stated, yep.







Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-26 and that the house be completed in three years or we will have to work with alternatives, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-27 with no business to be run out of the barn and the house to be completed within three years, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-V-28. Petition of Don Grass, 304 E. Tratebas Rd., P.O. Box 2712, Chesterton, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction of the minimum required frontage for a 10-acre parcel from 96 feet to 0 feet, to be located on the East side of CR 325 E., between Burdick Road and the New York Central Railroad, in Jackson Township.

Father Grass stated that I am seeking a Variance to put in a driveway of about 500 feet coming off a private road. He stated that the property is Lawrence Heeg’s, who is with us this evening. He stated that the road has been there for 22 years, so when he built his house and worked on it over the years, we used it in dry weather as a road to circle the woods to get to the back of his house with equipment. He stated that I am surrounded by his property and I am buying the 10 acres from him. He stated that there are no neighbors at all except two of them and one other one. He stated that the rest is 3,000 to 4,000 feet difference between homes.

Mr. Detert stated that the problem in a nutshell is that the road stops short of your property. He stated that there is a stone or a gravel road that is basically a driveway to Father Heeg’s residence and a couple other residences and you want to take off from that driveway.

Father Grass stated that that sums it up.

Father Lawrence Heeg, 327 E. Burdick Rd, Chesterton, stated that I am a retired priest. He stated that Father Grass is one of my closest friends and we always said when he retired…I was fortunate to get into this farm about 23 years ago when it was still possible, and since I’ve retired I live there. He stated that that I told Don if he ever retires then he could build a house on the property. He stated that it’s in the middle of a cornfield. He stated that he’s more than welcome, compared to some other neighbors I have – coyotes and fox.



Monsignor John Charlebois, 1148 N. 324 E., Chesterton, stated that I am a retired priest. He stated that I welcome the opportunity to welcome Father Grass into the neighborhood. He stated that with Father Heeg so close it will give me some status anyway and will upgrade the property, I’m sure.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that I see where the County road ends here, but you’re going from 96 feet to zero feet. He stated that you’re asking for a 96-foot reduction, right?

Mr. Siminski stated that basically what’s happening is the county road, according to the Highway Department, runs 900 feet South of Burdick Road, and after that it becomes almost like a private drive so his driveway is going to connect to the private drive so he has zero access to a County road, so we’re going from whatever to zero, since he’s not going to touch a County road. He stated that it is paved and it’s drivable.

Mr. Brickner stated that I guess my question is if there is any more development. He stated that there’s a lot of land back here that’s cornfield. He stated that if there’s any more development back here, is this going to be a road that can be taken over by the County.

Mr. Detert stated that if they want do a subdivision in there, I would assume that they would require a road.

Mr. Brickner stated that having deer and fox as neighbors, I really don’t see a problem with that.

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

Mr. Robertson stated, I have no problems at all.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-28, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-V-29. Petition of Joe & Dawn Bobrowski, 174 W. Joliet Road, Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 3,072 square foot accessory structure for recreational use by his three children, one of whom has diabetes, and to permit construction of said structure at the same time as the house, to be located at 231 N. 182 W., in Center Township.



Mr. Bobrowski stated that I lived at 180 W., along with my brother and we had worked at developing this property and made it a minor subdivision. He stated that four years ago, almost to the day, my son was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. He stated that he’s 8 years old now. He stated that recreation and exercise is extremely important to his health and well-being, especially during the winter months for him to be able to exercise and do something. He stated that controlling his blood sugar levels when he doesn’t do a lot is very difficult to do. He stated that considering the buildings around me – I have pictures of them and there are pole barns around me -- I never thought that it would be an issue until I had somebody out there to construct the barn and give me some guidance on that and they looked at the plat of land and said considering it’s now a minor subdivision, you’re going to have to apply for a Variance, which I’m here to do that. He stated that I have no intention to run a business out of it. He stated that it’s strictly for recreational use for my kids for exercise – basketball hoop, throwing a baseball around, rollerblading, what have you. He stated that if you looked at the property – I don’t know if anybody’s been out there – it’s extremely secluded. He stated that you probably wouldn’t have been able to see it from Joliet Road considering the elevation from Joliet Road to the property and the woods around it. He stated that I practically have no neighbors, no one would be affected by it.

Tom Bobrowski, 180 W. Joliet Road, stated that I am both the brother of the petitioner and the nearest neighbor. He stated that I would just like to make two points. He stated that I’ve looked at the plan and it looks fine to me, it looks very nice, in fact. He stated, and he’s right, the way it sits on the property, nestled up against the trees, I’m the one that’s going to see it on a daily basis and I probably won’t even be able to see it that clearly and secondly, I’d like to vouch for Joe’s meticulous tendencies as a homeowner. He stated that I’m sure that the thing is going to be landscaped and edged and trimmed, and I just hope it doesn’t look nicer than my house when all’s said and done.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Siminski stated that this is zoned R-1, and on the map that I gave you it’s showing the barn ahead of the house and that is allowed in R-1 zone. He stated that the other thing though is it’s showing on the minor subdivision like a road coming. He asked, is that road going…

Mr. Bobrowski stated that the road is already there. He stated that it’s actually a gravel road going in.

Mr. Detert stated that if you have some pictures it would help if you pass them around.


Mr. Robertson asked, where is that road?

Mr. Brickner asked, where is Joliet Road from here? He asked, right here? He asked, where is your barn?

Mr. Bobrowski stated that if you’re standing on my property, 180 W. would be here and this is the barn, to my West.

Mr. Brickner asked, is your house already built?

Mr. Bobrowski stated, no.

Mr. Robertson stated that I have no problem at all.

Mr. Burns stated, of course you’re not going to use this for a business, right?

Mr. Bobrowski stated, no.

Mr. Detert stated, and you’re testifying here that it’s going to be built in conjunction with the house?

Mr. Bobrowski stated that that’s correct. He stated that the question I had is that this structure can go up, obviously, a lot faster than the house, so I don’t know how that all plays out.

Mr. Detert stated, as long as you start the two at about the same time, you’ll be okay, I think. He asked, anybody object to that?

Mr. Robertson asked, do you expect the house to be done in three years?

Mr. Bobrowski stated, yeah. He stated that I’m hoping it will be done in six months, but considering now we’re coming into the winter, that can be a little weather issues.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-29, with the house to be built within three years and with a written recorded commitment to that effect, with no business to be run out of the pole barn, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-V-30. Petition of Schilling Brothers Lumber & Supply, 8900 Wicker Ave., St. John, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from between 200 and 250 to 66 and to permit parking in the front yard, to be located at the Southwest corner of Division Road and SR 49, in Morgan Township.




Michael Muenich, 3235 45th St., Suite 304, Highland, stated that he is the attorney representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that he also has some materials to hand out to you. He stated that he is handing out minutes from the Technical Advisory Committee, which has made a unanimous recommendation to this Commission concerning this request for Variance. He stated that the request for Variance has to do with the number of parking spaces for a new facility to be erected by the lumber yard. He stated that what he is handing out now is pocket part of the presentation on Powerpoint. He stated, and if I can draw your attention to the temporary screen behind. He stated that the application for Variance is twofold tonight. He stated that one is to reduce the required number of parking spaces per your zoning ordinance and the second is to modify by a distance of 10 feet the parking setback. He stated that this particular parcel of property is located in the front yard and is located, under the ordinance, adjacent to SR 49 and in order to make an alignment with Aldi’s driveway, which enters their facility off of Division Road, it’s necessary for us to make an adjustment to that front setback under your ordinance. He stated that this property is zoned as I-2 and parking is not required (sic) within a front-yard area. He stated that as I indicated to you, property location is the Southwest corner of the intersection of Division Road and SR 49. He stated that immediately to the South is a facility owned by NIPSCO, which serves as one, an office, and two, a terminal area for electrical components. He stated that immediately to the North is the ALDI facility. He stated that there are a total of three parcels: One and two are depicted here, and the third is over here. He stated that there is a small residence way over at this particular corner, and I believe there is a single residence on the opposite side of the project. He stated that the topography for the parcel is generally flat. He stated that the watershed breaks in half roughly diagonally from Northeast to Southwest, with this portion draining down towards NIPSCO. He stated, this portion draining towards the Southwest, the other portion draining towards the Northwest. He stated that there is a very substantial detention basin that is already in that area that services the NIPSCO parcel, which will be expanded to handle the lumber yard as it expands. He stated that there is also an existing roadway that comes between Division and the storage facility yard for NISPCO which will continue to be used as a common driveway for both companies under and easement that’s recorded with NIPSCO as part of a purchase agreement. He stated that that will be the entry point for the supply trucks and heavy trucks entering the area, however, we want to establish a second opening on Division that makes, basically, a four-way intersection with the driveway into Aldi for obvious traffic control purposes and make it, in fact, into a four-way intersection. He stated that this is an artist’s rendition of the proposed facility that’s going to be erected. He stated that you are looking from the intersection towards the Southwest and the portion that actually becomes, under the framework of your ordinance, it’s defined as a retail area. He stated that this is not a retail store like you would think of a hardware store or a Kmart or a Kohl’s. He stated that it,



in fact, is a display design center and it will be a contractor’s yard for purposes of storing lumber materials and building and supply materials, but this portion of the structure, other than the warehousing that goes on inside, is primarily designed to allow purchasers the ability to observe counter tops, cabinet arrangements, doors, windows and things of that particular nature. He stated that this is the current design of the display area. He stated that the area that’s to the forward, you’ll see, is not set up with row shelving, but, in fact, is set up with display areas to highlight bathrooms and lavatories, windows and door facilities and seating areas where customers, primarily customers of the contractors, are able to move through the area and identify the products they want to put in. He stated that using the St. John facility, which is located in St. John, IN, as somewhat of an example, this is what you would find on the floor space in those design areas, and these photos were taken this morning at approximately 8, 8:30, and, as you can see, there is no one on this particular floor. He stated that it’s a bit early for that. He stated that you’ll notice that there are not goods that are laid out on shelving, it’s not a high-traffic, high-density area. He stated that it’s a display area, very well put-together for purposes of allowing customers to pick their materials. He stated that one of the things that we did for the tactical committee, the technical committee, at their request we performed a census at the St. John facility using security tapes and we literally counted personnel on the floor from a period of June 7th of 2004 and Saturday, June 19th of 2004, a total of 12 days out of a 14-day period when the lumber yard is normally active. He stated that it’s early summer, construction has started, and we do have customers coming to the yard. He stated that the census is broken down into one-hour increments by days, 7 to 8, all the way through in the second column, 5 to 5:30 at night. He stated that based upon that census and the 7 to 8 period the high count was 21 people, not cars, but 21 people entered or left the structure or were on the floor during that period of time. He stated that between 8 and 9 in the morning we got 33 people on the floor; between 9 and 10 we got 44 people on the floor. He stated that the high point, I believe, for the week, ‘er, excuse me, for the period examined was between 10 and 11:00 on a Saturday at 66 people, between 11 and 12 it started to drop to 56, 12 to 1 back up to 65, then 66, 51, 50, 31 and 19, and taking the average you’ll see it creates pretty much a normal bell curve, with 15 people in the morning, to a high of 43 between 10 and 11, stayed in the mid-40 range and then started to drop off towards the close of business. He stated that 66 is the high count for the total period of time that was ever on the floor during that 12, 14-day period. He stated that under the framework of your ordinance, and depending on how you’re going to allocate the space between office, counter space and what your ordinance defines as retail space, this project would require something between 200 and 250 parking spaces. He stated that we are requesting that that be reduced and what we have done in the way of our parking lot design…and I apologize, this is a little bit tough to see in yellow…from the entry that has been discussed with INDOT off of SR 49, which is right in this area, from this area towards the North,



curling around the building in this fashion, and again in this area, there are approximately 90 parking spaces in this area to be used by the customers in the yard, which more than meets the maximum number of people we had in the yard during that period of time, even assuming they all drove their own cars. He stated that this area from this area towards the South, that’s NIPSCO’s parcel on this particular area, there are approximately another 90 spaces set aside for employees or future parking if we start to get ourselves into a situation where business is very, very good, instead of just very good. He stated that we can also defer parking into that area and shift employee parking back into the center core of the project. He stated that I do need to discuss the issue of the setback line, and I’ll use the last..the Variance off the front yard is for 10 feet off the parking area that I showed you in the last diagram. He stated that that parking area would intrude by a total of 10 feet into the reserved front yard, and, as I indicated to you, the purpose for that to do that is the way the building aligns to the West side of the parcel to allow a 4-way intersection between the Aldi driveway and the customer driveway off of Division. He stated that we think that’s critical for both safety purposes for the operation of the yard for Aldi and for the public in general. He stated that offset driveways do not make for a good situations and if we aren’t allowed to intrude that 10 feet into that area we either are going to have to make the building substantially smaller or we’re going to have to have an offset intersection off to the North side of the road. He stated that that area in between there will be heavily landscaped. He stated that it will have a berm that will prevent any headlights, although currently there’s only a single structure on the opposite side of Route 49, so it will be landscaped, but there will be an intrusion of 10 feet into that front-yard area.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke against this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that first of all, I think there’s three separate Variances here. He stated that we’ve got one variance in there wrapping up the setback and wrapping up the minimum, and also the number of parking places that they’re putting into one Variance, and I would think we need three Variances, three separate Variances, and I don’t understand why we try to put them all into one. He stated that to me, they should be separate, the minimum number of parking places and the…

Mr. Detert stated that the Planning Commission…when we were doing Variances, we sometimes had as many as 8 or 10.





Ms. Schaeffer stated that I would surmise that when they came in to apply, maybe staff just said you could roll it into one for ease and convenience; I don’t know.

Mr. Brickner stated that I guess it’s okay if we want to hear it that way, but I think there are three separate issues here we have to…

Ms. Schaeffer stated that I see it as two, reduction in parking spaces and parking in the front yard.

Mr. Brickner stated, I thought there was a third one here. He stated, well, anyway, there’s two for sure here.

Ms. Schaeffer stated, they’ve been advertised. She stated that I don’t think it’s a question of the public doesn’t have notice.

Mr. Detert stated, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it myself.

Mr. Brickner asked, what’s on the West side of this building? He asked, is there room for parking on the West side of this building?

Mr. Muenich stated that on the West side of the structure is, first, the driveway, the customer’s driveway off of Division, which intersects and makes the four-way intersection with the Aldi driveway.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s the North side.

Mr. Muenich stated, that’s the West side, and then that’s immediately West of the building, and then immediately West of that starts open storage for the supply materials.

Mr. Brickner stated, I’m not really in favor of parking in front of the building. He stated, I don’t want to set a precedent along 49, the commercial businesses along 49 to have parking in front of the building. He stated that I’m not in favor of that. He stated that the 10-foot setback from the middle of Road 49, that leaves you 80 feet from the centerline of 49 to your parking places. He stated, to me, that’s actually it’s 40 feet from the edge of 49, if you get the 10-foot setback, and to me, that’s not even a desirable situation on 49. He stated, so I’m not even in favor of one of those. He stated that I’m trying to think of an alternative for you. He stated that if there’s parking available in the rear, or if you parked in front of the store, facing 49, the parking immediately in front of the store, but not on the East side, facing Route 49, if that would be an acceptable alternative. He stated that the parking along 49 is not in keeping with the commercial area in our zoning ordinance, and I think we have to take a good, hard look at that for future commercial developments out there and I think…that’s a gateway to Valpo, 49 coming into Valparaiso from the South is a gateway to the City, and that’s one of the reasons I’d like not to see the parking in front, at



least along 49. He stated that Division Road I’m not that concerned about.

Mr. Burns asked, Mr. Chairman, did our engineers approve this?

Mr. Brickner stated, yeah, they did. He stated that I’ve got…

Mr. Burns asked, Dave Schelling, too?

Mr. Detert stated, yeah.

Mr. Brickner stated that they did sign off on that.

Mr. Detert stated, and the Highway engineer is part of the TAC committee.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’m concerned about the 10 feet. He stated that it’s one thing on a small road, but this is 49. He stated that I don’t understand why we are giving Variances in the front yard setback off of 49. He stated, otherwise, why do we have it? He stated that if there’s anything you should keep it on it would seem to me to be on such a major artery as 49, otherwise it’s not necessary to have it at all. He stated, as far as parking in the front, I, too, I don’t really like that concept. He stated that I think that’s something we try to avoid on major arteries.

Mr. Detert stated that I think you get commercial areas and you get all this parking up close to the street, especially if you get into Valparaiso. He stated that I don’t know on a 40-foot that at 10-foot would be all that bad.

Mr. Robertson asked, why do we have 40 feet?

Mr. Detert stated, you’d have to ask the Highway engineer why. He stated that he apparently looked and this, and I’m assuming that he feels that it’s okay, and that’s where I’m coming from. He stated, if he had no objections, and I’ve sat on TAC and I know Dave Schelling well and if he has the least concern he will voice an opinion. He stated that he speaks out, so I don’t really have a problem with it.

Mr. Muenich stated that this is the front of our building on this particular plane. He stated that if the customer base is required – and here is the driveway that lines up that I was referring to on Aldi’s driveway comes into this particular area right through here. He stated that if the customer base is required to come someplace else back into here, our operational area, it’s where we’re storing material and unloading trucks, you see there are three loading docks in this particular area over here. He stated that we provide a large circular area for racked materials and forklift trucks. He stated that we really don’t want to mix our customer base back within the operations of the yard. He stated that that’s the first issue. He stated that secondly, customers who come in either off of Division



Street (sic) or come in off of SR 49 are going to want to pull up in front of the building to walk into the structure. He stated that they’re not going to be very inclined to come back into these operational areas. He stated that we’re concerned about it for safety; they’re going to be concerned about it for convenience purposes. He stated that they’re not going to be wanting to come back into that area to do that. He stated, third, this is going to be our main front entrance, right in this area here, and we’ve tried to set all the parking immediately and as close as we can and conveniently to that entrance so customers can get in and out of the structure. He stated that we’re providing, I think, a fairly attractive structure. He stated that it’s well-designed and it’s well put together and we want to enhance the neighborhood. He stated that we’re certainly not trying to defeat it. He stated that SR 49 is already in place. He stated that as far part of the project, we need to dedicate an additional 40-foot strip to provide for Route 49, and then, on top of that, is an additional 40-foot front yard setback. He stated that the building is set, as you can see, another 50 to 60 feet behind that front-yard setback line already. He stated that all of these cars, all of this transportation area is already permitted by the ordinance. He stated that in issue is a 10-foot strip out here that we’re prepared to landscape and the difference is if we can’t do that 10 feet, we’re forced to shift this building further to the West, which horses up this intersection. He stated that this parking in through here is already permitted. He stated that it’s permitted under the framework of your ordinance. He stated that the issue is not whether parking goes there; the issue is whether or not we’re going to be allowed to utilize 10 feet of that front-yard setback area as parking lot.

Mr. Brickner asked, on your schematic, why can’t you extend parking places to the South? He stated that you stop them right where the entranceway is onto 49.

Mr. Muenich stated, no sir. He stated that these parking spaces go all the way down to NIPSCO’s property line.

Mr. Brickner stated that it doesn’t show them on my drawing.

Mr. Muenich stated, I’m sorry. He stated that these parking spaces go all the way out to NIPSCO’s property line and these parking spaces go all the way to NIPSCO’s property line.

Mr. Brickner stated, according to this there are no parking spaces here, but if you count all of these there is 91, and that’s what you said was the number of parking spaces that you wanted available. He stated that it’s like 91 parking spaces.

Mr. Muenich stated, that’s correct.





Mr. Brickner stated, and that’s not counting these that don’t show on my schematic. He stated that there’s 91 without counting it. He stated that you could probably get another, at least 15 or so or 20 if you use that, but my map…and I don’t even think your map shows it.

Mr. Muenich stated, these parking spaces from the centerline of this driveway North on these two…

Mr. Brickner stated, well, I’m not talking about those; I’m talking about next to the building.

Mr. Detert stated, Marv, will you run through the parking situation one more time?

Mr. Muenich stated that this is the entrance proposed off of SR 49. He stated that counting this area across here and back up through here, by my count, totals 91 parking spaces. He stated that that requires an intrusion of 10 feet into this front-yard setback line to pick up this line of parking along the Northeast corner of the lot. He stated that on the other side, from here South, that we’re preliminarily designating as employee parking, there’s approximately another 90 spaces in that area.

Mr. Brickner stated that according to the map there’s no parking spaces there.

Mr. Muenich stated that those are all parking spaces for employees. He stated that everything from the South line to the centerline of the driveway we’re designing preliminarily as employee parking.

Mr. Brickner stated that they’re not showing on our map. He stated that part of the employee parking would be in the back, though.

Mr. Muenich stated, yes, sir, but then I’m still left with the situation where I’ve got to have customers walk somewhere in the vicinity of 600 to 800 feet through this Southernmost parking area up to these front doors.

Mr. Detert stated, but you indicated that if the business got really good that you could put the parking for employees somewhere else.

Mr. Muenich stated, if necessary, then I could shift this employee parking back into the South.

Mr. Brickner asked, could we eliminate the parking up at SR 49? He stated that that’s what I don’t really like is parking along SR 49, particularly if we’re going 10 foot closer to the road than is allowed by the ordinance. He stated that there’s a person that lives right across the street from you, too. He stated that they’re not here so



I’m sure they’re not concerned, but I think that would help the situation both from an aesthetics point of view and from the neighbors’ point of view, too, to get rid of that row of parking right along 49. He stated that that’s my biggest concern. He stated that I really don’t like that from a precedent standpoint, either.

Mr. Burns stated, let’s talk about this parking. He stated that I think it’s allowed under the ordinance to park in front on 49, is that correct?

Mr. Detert stated, if he didn’t have to encroach into the space he could put parking there anyway.

Mr. Burns stated, he wouldn’t need a Variance for that.

Mr. Brickner stated, that’s what one of the Variances is for.

Mr. Burns stated, but, if he wasn’t asking for the 10 feet and he’d move the building back he could park…

Mr. Brickner stated, I’m okay with the parking in the front of the building. He stated, it’s the parking out by 49…

Mr. Detert stated, what Rick is saying, if he moved the building back and made it smaller, he could still have a row along 49. He stated that it would just be 10 feet further…

Mr. Brickner stated, but he wouldn’t need the Variance for the 10 feet.

Mr. Detert stated that the 10 feet is what’s at issue.

Mr. Brickner stated, if it was back where it should be, and he didn’t go 10 feet closer to Route 49…

Mr. Detert stated, yeah, you’d get 10 more feet.

Mr. Burns stated that I really don’t have a concern. He stated that if Dave Schelling, the engineer, approved this, he looks at this really close. He stated that he really does. He stated that my only concern I have, I don’t think there’s enough parking spaces. He stated that I’d like to see an increase by maybe 10 or 15 in this area here. He stated that I think you’re going to have more business from the start than you think, apart from the employee parking lot.

Mr. Muenich stated that I’m not going to restrict it. He stated that anybody can park there. He stated that I never meant to imply that we were restricting customers. He stated that we want them all.

Mr. Burns stated that on your busy day, I think you had 66 or 60 something.

Mr. Muenich stated that 66 people was the maximum people that we counted on the floor at any given time. He stated that those were people, not necessarily vehicles. He stated that a husband and a wife may have driven together. He stated that if there was a person on the floor, that counted as a person on the floor, so if there was a family of two adults and two children that was four people. He stated that our actual request, and I just confirmed with the lumberyard people, our actual request was for 66. He stated that we…and I don’t have a problem…we’re the one who winds up bearing the difficulty of finding the additional parking if we wind up going over that. He stated that if you want to give us the 66 spaces, we’ll eliminate that one section on the East side, that’s fine, and then we’re going to have to solve the parking issue. He stated that that solves the issue altogether about parking along in that area. He stated that I was trying to come up with the 90 spaces. He stated that by doing it this way I could assure the board that I had 90 spaces in the immediate area to the front entrance of the facility, but if you want to take out this row of parking along this particular area, we’ll remove the employee parking here, remove customers, but under that set of circumstances we would like the 66 number that we actually petitioned for.

Mr. Burns stated, with that, what’s going to happen if your customer base increases?

Mr. Muenich stated, I’m going to have to extend the customer parking down into this area here.

Mr. Detert stated, I think that everybody would feel a little bit better if you would commit to indicated future employee parking at the rear of the building in some way. He stated, if your plat would show that, not necessarily that…,

Mr. Muenich stated that we could mark it on the plat. He stated that we have no problem doing that, showing an area that’s reserved for employee parking.

Mr. Detert stated, and for future expansion.

Mr. Muenich stated, this gives you a little bit better idea. He stated that this shows, this is to the North, to the top; West is over here; 49 is over on this area. He stated that there’s an open L-shaped area that’s primarily designed for truck loading docks, as many of five of those loading docks are mixed up in this. He stated that it then becomes…the roadway, the delivery route then off of the joint road with NIPSCO comes down approximately here, and there’s a large open area that’s left in here for semis to turn and maneuver within that back yard. He stated that we can set an area back off in that side for employee parking and designate it as such. He stated, keep in mind that this plan still has to go back to the TAC committee for site plan review, and we can indicate that there.

Mr. Detert stated, if somebody wanted to allow you to go to head, it would be a contingency that this Board puts on it. He stated that


I think that asking for 66 spaces is way too tight, and your open storage area, I think, is going to be lumber, right?

Mr. Muenich stated, yes.

Mr. Detert stated, so, I can see this thing expanding very shortly, and I think 66 spaces is way too tight. He stated that I think…

Mr. Muenich stated, that’s why I started talking about 90, quite honestly. He stated that I’m not trying to kid you. He stated that I’m just saying that if I’m going to make…Mr. Schelling, as you pointed out, really wants this as a four-way intersection and we’re doing this on purpose. He stated that we’re trying to solve public health, public safety issues by aligning traffic patterns and taking our delivery equipment back off of these particular areas, and we’re putting together a nice structure. He stated that we’re really trying to design it for traffic flow and safe movements on the roads, and that’s why there’s the intrusion of the 10 feet.

Mr. Detert stated that I was just trying to point out that your petition asked for 66. He asked, are you committing now to at least 90?

Mr. Muenich stated, yes sir.

Mr. Detert stated, I just wanted to clear the record

Mr. Robertson stated, I appreciate your wanting the parking right around the front. He stated that it looks very nice and, of course, it’s for the convenience of the customers. He stated that they want to be able to get in easy and not have to come all the way down here, and we’re talking about the Aldi intersection here lining up. He stated that in essence you’re saying that the necessity for shifting it 10 feet is because of this intersection. He asked, is there any way.. I just don’t know…shifting it down 10 feet. He asked, do you have a problem with moving it away from (inaudible). He stated, I just can’t understand why you can’t shift it down.

Mr. Muenich stated, because the stacking distance, what’s referred to commonly as the stacking distance, from this edge of the building out to the road…you’ve got a 20-foot parking space, another 20-foot parking space, and I believe it’s either a 20- or 25-foot alley between the two. He stated that in order for traffic to come out here and get back into this intersection and in order to be able to have traffic still be able to come in and access up here or access back into the yard for individual customers to pick up materials, you’ve got to hold this building far enough away from this side lot line over here, and I have the same issue on this side. He stated that we’re not asking for that variance on this side. He stated that I wind up with an offset intersection and it’s not going to be very conducive for traffic. He stated that it’s going to have to cross the



line of traffic flow and then turn back and come back up into this area because the further I move that entrance to the West, the further I start to offset the intersection. He stated that I don’t have a clear vision triangle.

Mr. Detert stated, I just might point out that it’s no obligation for this Board to follow suit, but your facility in St. John, if you’re athletically inclined, you could jump from the parking area to Route 41.

Mr. Muenich stated, if you’re athletically inclined, yes, sir. He stated that we’re not trying to do that.

Mr. Detert stated, I know. He stated, has it worked over there?

Mr. Muenich stated, yes, it has.

Mr. Robertson asked, does the architecture of the building limit you there? He asked, can there be any adjustment made in this area.

Mr. Muenich stated, if I do that…this is all office space to the back.

Mr. Robertson asked, can you connect (inaudible) anywhere?

Mr. Muenich stated, no sir, I have to keep that integral with the rest of the structure.

Mr. Robertson asked, can’t you go this way a little bit and make this farther down?

Mr. Muenich stated, well, as soon as I start to do that, this becomes the initial warehouse facility right here with the three truck bays. He stated that I really want to keep pedestrians out of the area where these semis are coming back into these loading docks.

Mr. Robertson stated, no, I’m not talking about that. He stated that you’re talking 10 feet there. He stated that I’m just trying to think of some way you can get that 10 feet out of there so we’re not stacking cars…so you don’t need the Variance on 49. He stated, if we have to do it we have to do it, I guess. He stated that it seems like they’ve set the building up so that’s the only option.

Mr. Muenich stated, I assure you sir, we’ve designed, re-designed, trying to shoehorn it in there, and as soon as we start tinkering with that we either interrupt the efficiency of the warehousing facility, we move the customers away from the front end of the structure where we want them and out of harm’s way back in the yard and other areas, and that’s the reason we’re here; it’s a hardship.




Mr. Detert stated, okay, gentlemen, we’ve hashed this over pretty good. He stated that the Chair will accept a motion.

Mr. Siminski asked, can I ask one question before you make a motion?

Mr. Detert stated, yes.

Mr. Siminski stated, according to the map I received from the TAC file, and maybe I misunderstood what was just said, there is a 10-foot need for a setback along 49 and also a 10-foot need…

Mr. Muenich stated, no, that’s a mis-draw. He stated that we’ve had drawings back and forth and back and forth with the project architect. He stated that there’s no request in there and there will not be any intrusion.

Mr. Detert stated that you don’t need that on Division, just on 49.

Mr. Brickner asked if this is zoned I-1.

Mr. Muenich stated, no, it’s zoned I-2.

Mr. Brickner stated, I was mistaken about the front because I-1 there is no parking in the front.

Mr. Muenich stated, the entire strip, as I understand, with both NIPSCO to the South and Aldi to the North and then, as it is my understanding, the entire parcel is zoned I-1.

Mr. Burns asked, are you proposing to withdraw your 10-foot Variance on 49?

Mr. Muenich stated, no. He stated that I am proposing to produce 90 spots if I’m allowed the Variance.

Mr. Burns asked, if you withdraw the 10-foot Variance, how many spaces…

Mr. Detert stated, he wants to go with 66 and that bothers me.

Mr. Muenich stated that that probably bothers me more than the 10 feet, if you really want to get down to it.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-30, with an area to be designated on the plat as employee parking behind the structure and to open up even more spaces for customers, if necessary. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked, what type of screening are we going to have?

Mr. Muenich stated what we are proposing is, because we do know, and I apologize, I can’t tell you…there is another driveway. He stated that one of the reasons we set the entrance where it is, there is a residential driveway that comes in over the side, Ms. Maxwell is immediately across the side and as far as I know that’s the only other structure on the side, so what we are proposing is to place an approximate 3-4 foot berm within that 30-foot greenbelt, but would wind up being the 30-foot greenbelt, with a heavy landscaping screen –not so heavy that the structure is obstructed, but heavy enough so that, at most, anybody from 49 may see the tops of the vehicles. He stated that headlights or other structures are going to be blocked, and keeping in mind that the yard generally operates from 7 a.m. to 5:30 at night, so under most circumstances – this is not a 24/7 type operation – so under most circumstances there aren’t going to be any lights shining across the street because, first of all, they are going to be blocked, but even during operating hours, it won’t be able to be seen. He stated that they will commit to a 3, 3.5-foot berm along that with extensive landscaping to shield it.

Mr. Burns asked, how about your storage yard? He asked, do you have some greenery here?

Mr. Muenich stated, this is all greenery, all the way down the side. He stated that we’re not sure where this came from. He stated that this is another mis-draw. He stated that I can set some greenery in here one way or another. He stated that this is proposed future expansion. He stated that this ultimately will become warehousing as it moves further to the South, totally enclosed. He stated that there is no…right now this will be an open area. He stated that there is not going to be…storage located in this area and what you see immediately to the South is proposed extension of internal warehousing with additional truck docks across the back.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-30, with an area to be designated on the plat as employee parking behind the structure and to open up even more spaces for customers, if necessary; with there to be a berm and landscaping to shield from SR 49; with there to be 90 parking spaces and allowing parking to encroach in the front-yard setback by 10 feet, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Brickner - No Burns - Yes Robertson - Yes
Detert - Yes

Case 04-V-31. Petition of Lawrence & Carol Watkins, 674 N. 700 W., Hobart, seeking a Variance to permit a reduction in the required 60-foot ingress-egress easement down to 25 feet for a possible future residence, to be located on the West side of CR 700 W., between CR 700 N. and CR 600 N., in Portage Township.




Ms. Watkins stated that we are asking for the Variance on the required 60-foot easement to be reduced to 25 feet, which it is already, the 25 feet. She stated that in the future my son and daughter-in-law might like to put a single-family home on a parcel of our land. She stated that we have 7.5 acres. She stated that we were told that the easement had to be 60 feet, but the way it’s set up it’s only going to be for one family increase, so we really don’t need that much.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Sonyia Purser, 670 N. 700 W., Hobart, stated that the only thing that my husband and I were against was the driveway to get back to the property runs alongside of our home about 30 feet and we were just wondering about the flow of traffic would come. She stated that it’s already kind of heavy, but if that’s going to increase. She stated that that’s our main concern.

Ms. Watkins stated that there wouldn’t be any increase in any traffic because the people who…my son and daughter-in-law are already living with us and they are the ones wanting to build a home on our parcel, so there would not be any more increase in any traffic. She stated that we have other children that come back and forth all the time, but there would be no other increase in any kind of traffic.

Ms. Purser stated that the only question I have is are they saying that they are only going to have one home built and in the future there will be no other homes built on that property?

Mr. Detert stated, yes, that’s what she said.

Ms. Watkins stated, yes, there is only going to be one home.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is close to the same property that we had…what was it…last month on this same road, wasn’t it, where they were going to build a child-care or gymnastics facility? He stated that I wonder if this is the same piece of property.

Mr. Siminski stated, no. He stated that it’s on the other side of the street.

Mr. Brickner stated that it says for possible future residence, I mean, you don’t know whether you are going to build a house there?

Ms. Watkins stated that they want to build. She stated that we definitely do want to build a single-family home, but they told us that before we even started the surveying of it that we should find out at least about the easement first before we went on to anything else, and that’s why we are going to proceed with this first.

Mr. Brickner asked, do you have any kind of a business?

Ms. Watkins stated, no.

Mr. Brickner asked, it’s just going to be a residence back there then?

Ms. Watkins stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner asked, a one-family residence?

Ms. Watkins stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, no, I don’t have any other questions.

Mr. Burns stated, I would like this lady to come up to us and explain to us where this easement is.

Ms. Watkins stated, these are the pictures of our driveway and this comes down then it goes back.

Mr. Robertson stated that this is an existing driveway and it’s 25 feet and it goes 600 feet, 700 feet. He stated that the lady lives here. He stated that it already exists, but you want to open it up to another parcel back here to build a future house.

Ms. Watkins stated that that’s right.

Mr. Burns asked, how much property do you have back here?

Ms. Watkins stated, 7.5 acres.

Mr. Brickner asked, who maintains this road now?

Ms. Watkins stated that it’s a private road.

Mr. Burns stated that it goes to her existing house.

Mr. Brickner asked, so you maintain the road?

Ms. Watkins stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated that my only concern would be if you ever decide to subdivide.

Ms. Watkins stated, no, we wouldn’t want to do that.

Mr. Burns stated, well, you say that, but I just want to make sure you’re not hurting yourself, your property values.

Ms. Watkins stated, no, because we never even thought about doing this. She stated that we wanted all this land for ourselves because



behind us is the Duck Creek golf course and we raise our own steers. She stated that we have steers and a horse and chickens and we really don’t want to do anything more than that. She stated that they came to us and asked if they could build a home on it because they don’t want to move away from us; they want to stay with us forever.

Mr. Robertson asked, could someone subdivide this later?

Ms. Byers stated that they are going to have to subdivide to build the one house.

Mr. Robertson asked, and after that they can’t do it again?

Mr. Siminski stated that because the parcel was already subdivided it falls into the minor sub rules for putting the second house there. He stated that had it not fallen in they could have done it, but because a parcel is already cut away from there in that section, it falls into these subdivision rules and subdivision calls for a 60-foot wide road. He stated that they’re asking for the Variance just to reduce it down to 25 feet.

Mr. Robertson stated, we’re just looking ahead. He stated that if we okay this one, I guess if they did want to add more houses again they’d have to come back…

Mr. Detert stated, they’d have to come back…

Mr. Robertson stated, they’d have to come back for that 60-foot thing again. He stated that we could stop it at that point.

Mr. Detert stated, you could put that in your motion.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-31 with the stipulation that there be no further houses added after this one, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-V-32. Petition of Phillip A. Norman, 164 S. 150 E., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance because three major proposed subdivision lots do not have the required frontage along an approved County road, to be located in Wind Whistle Addition, on the West side of CR 150 E., between CR 125 S. and CR 250 S., in Morgan Township.

Don Bengel stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that he is handing out plats. He stated that Mr. Norman has a house that shows on Parcel B and after he built his house



he built this minor subdivision out in front of him, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Morgan Minor 1942-A-1, then subsequent to that he developed Wind Whistle Subdivision, which lies to the North. He stated that I believe those lots have all just been sold. He stated that they do not all have houses on them, but they’ve been sold. He stated that his original petition to the Plan Commission was to do a major subdivision on Lots A, B and C and the original intent was to have Lot C be tied in at some point in time with Lots 10 and 11. He stated that it was his grand scheme to build a pretty nice house on Lot 10 and 11 and use C for the septic. He stated that before Judge Alexa’s ruling on the Variance situation, the Plan Commission had granted a Variance on Lot 10 for Mr. Norman to use that for Lot B and the present house would, I’m sorry, the new house on A would use the 60-foot access out to 150 E. He stated that because circumstances changed for Mr. Norman, the Lots 10 and 11 were sold and he’s left with A, B and C. He stated that we’re here, hopefully, to have this Board grant the Variance that the Plan Commission did grant, except now our request is to have the Variance serve both Lots B and C on this existing 18-foot easement and his proposed 30-foot easement along the lot line between B and C. He stated that Parcel A would still use the existing 60-foot driveway for easement for a driveway out to the County road. He stated that that is an existing drive now. He stated that all the lots have been approved for septic. He stated that they meet all the other requirements for the Plan Commission and if things would have been more timely this would have been a done deal. He stated that our request is to request a Variance to allow Parcel B and C to use the 30-foot easement between B and C and existing 18-foot easement which has a paved driveway on Lot 10 that’s presently being used now by Mr. Norman.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Randy Sutter, 168 S. 150 E., stated that I really wasn’t aware of what Phil was wanting to do before I came tonight. He stated that I’m a little more confused because I’m lost between A, B, C, D’s and everything sitting back here, so, what my concern was was he wanting to use that easement that goes to 150 E. to service more homes in the rear? He stated that, if so, was that road going to be…that easement going to be made to County specs, was it going to..what type of road was going to be put in? He stated, also, if that was the case, that road, that easement comes right out just North of my driveway probably 30, 40 feet. He stated that I’m also concerned that if they’re going to use that for that purpose, the traffic flow coming up right at the end of my driveway and the safety aspect of that.

Sherea Sutter, 168 S. 150 E., stated that my husband just spoke before me. She stated that I’m not too sure where this is at and I’d like to know. She stated that I’d like you to show it to me where I can understand where the road is, what you are doing, because really, we don’t’ really know that yet.




Eric Wojtkum, 140 E. Windwhistle, stated that it’s two lots over, Lot 7. He stated, my concern was due to the placement of the lots as they go in. He stated, one, suddenly I have a house in the back yard, which was not expected. He stated that currently we have no understanding. He stated that there is a big mound. He stated that there is no landscaping on it. He stated that it’s been there several years. He stated that I know he was planning on it and it’s definitely changing the character of the neighborhood. He stated that I have a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old. He stated that we have many young children in this neighborhood and we already have enough problems with children driving cars from those areas at a high rate of speed on a substandard access road. He stated that we have addressed the problem as a community. He stated that it still is not fixed yet. He stated that it’s gotten a little bit better, but it’s not totally fixed. He stated that if we now go one, two, three, three more homes back there on an unimproved substandard road, that will be detrimental to my property value in the long run. He stated that we now have people driving up and down the substandard road and it also creates a quite weird set of lots. He stated that it would be detrimental to somebody else looking at it. He stated that I’m just looking at it; I can deal with it, but the problem is that for the whole neighborhood it will hurt. He stated that there are other issues that we’ve discussed and some of the other people are going to bring up tonight and I concur with them wholeheartedly.

Greg Hart, 136 E. Windwhistle, stated that a couple issues that were entered by Eric and Randy. He stated that one is that we were told initially that it was only going to be two lots. He stated that now there are three. He stated that secondly, as Eric pointed out, the area would infringe on our secluded area as the lots were sold as secluded. He stated that Phil also told me that he wants to cut off the driveway, which is gravel going out to 150. He stated that he has an area going about 37 feet from our home. He stated that initially we were told it wasn’t going to be used that much, but, until recently, we have had between 12 and 15 cars, other than Norman family, up and down there. He stated that our master bedroom is located against it and it’s pretty irritable. He stated that secondly, if he’s allowed to put that road and make that his lone entrance, it doesn’t meet the covenants. He stated that he has a pole barn there, which is strictly prohibited by our covenants. He stated that also his driveway is made of asphalt and the covenants say that driveways have to be made of concrete. He stated that like I say, when I look at this thing, it does infringe on our secluded area. He stated that we’d like to keep it like it is.

Jeff Lindlow, 147 E. Windwhistle Dr., stated that the main concern that I had is the traffic that comes up and down our street through Windwhistle Drive when Mr. Norman is not a part of the subdivision, so he says. He stated that he has a drive accessing from 150 and it’s rarely ever used. He stated that the covenants, which we all had to adhere, he does not have to adhere to, it seems. He stated




that he has access from our subdivision road. He stated that he considers himself not part of the subdivision.

Beth Lindlow, 147 E. Windwhistle Dr., stated that my biggest concern is Mr. Norman and his children and their erratic driving, as well as his children’s friends. She stated that I live on the corner of Windwhistle Drive, Lot 1. She stated that we’re right on the corner of Windwhistle Drive and 150. She stated that we are the first house when you come in and the last house when you leave. She stated that I have a 10-year-old son that likes to play basketball and I fear that he’s going to run out there and chase a ball because I’ve seen some of these teenagers and the way they drive. She stated that they do not stop at a stop sign, therefore I don’t think they should be allowed to have this access road. She stated that they should be using their driveway that comes off of 150.

Mr. Bengel at this time went to the plat he had laid out at the head of the room, away from a microphone, and pointed out various landmarks. He stated that Mr. Norman’s house is here and there’s a pole building down here and there is a concrete slab over here being used for a basketball court. He stated that the original concept that Mr. Norman had is that he was going to build a house here and going to use this area for septic. He stated that this existing lot would use this easement as his existing paved. He stated that the only new house that would be closer to you would be on A, and that would be somewhere in here; the septic system would be here and we would continue to use the existing gravel drive that Mr. Norman used originally when he built his house. He stated that I guess I don’t have any response to the bad driving. He stated that I don’t know how to answer that; certainly, it’s a real concern. He stated that the covenants…he would not be subject to the same covenants, as far as I know. He stated that right now he’s not subject to the same covenants. He stated that I think there is a covenant that you cannot have pole buildings up here and this pole building was built quite a while ago, when Mr. Norman built his house. He stated, to answer the Sutters’ question down here, there would still be at this time, if this continues, there would only be one house coming out here to make use of this drive. He stated that as far as the amount of traffic, if there was the additional house, that’s just a small increase in traffic. He stated that if the driving is bad, if I lived there I’d make sure that the sheriff was out there once in a while. He stated that as far as I know, Mr. Norman does use this right now. He stated that we did change this lot line. He stated that it’s a small lot, but there is someone interested in this lot (inaudible). He stated that there will be no houses out here. He stated that the house sits over here. He stated that this is pretty much the top of the bank at the edge of the woods. He stated that any additional house in this area would be right here. He stated that as far as these folks are concerned, there will be no real increase because A will be the only parcel using this gravel drive and this is gravel; this is paved, but this is gravel here.

Mr. Sutter stated that my property just runs on the full South edge, I guess, of Phil’s original property. He stated, but he’s explaining that there’s going to be one or Phil’s pole barn is and his concrete pad. He stated that someone might be interested in buying that apparently in the future. He stated, also, another lot in that area, too, because I’m kinda lost. He stated, so, what you are saying is there’s still going to be more traffic down that gravel lane and originally when Phil built there he told me he was going to blacktop that drive and that’s when he just first built his house, which, that’s never happened. He stated that that’s my issue.

Ms. Sutter stated that my husband explained where our property is. She stated that Phil had told us he would do that, pave that lane, and as they’re troubled with the traffic, we’ve been troubled with traffic, too: piano lessons at early hours, kids going up and down there. She stated that with all that building, all that junk blows over onto our property. She stated that he said he’d have trees, like a green screen all along there. She stated, not one. She stated that it isn’t right.

Ms. Lindlow stated that if I can just have you show me again…you said there was only going to be this one house here? She stated that if they are going to build this house here, if they are going to use this driveway, but not be considered to be part of the subdivision, then why are they having access to our subdivision? She stated that if they are not going to be part of the subdivision, then they should use this gravel road and then they can have their own little covenants over here, but we are part of the subdivision here and this road is for personal use and there were piano lessons going on and all these customers that came in were using this drive or this one, creating much traffic. She stated, I think if there is going to be houses built here and they’re using this existing drive coming through our subdivision creating more traffic they should be considered to be part of the subdivision.

Mr. Wojtkum stated, just so I understand, originally when I was talking to Phil out in the field there were going to be two new lots – one here and one here. He stated that we got a letter, Greg got a letter in the mail, but suddenly there were three lots, and my concern is there will be one house here, a house here and a house here and a third house being built (sic) and there’s already one existing with its back facing this row of homes here. He stated that that was the initial thing that got me going. He stated, it’s an 18-foot easement and that’s…are they going to expand this to the proper size? He stated, I believe it’s only 12 feet now. He stated that it’s been measured at 12 feet and if they are going to make it an access road, what is the County requirement? He stated, on my lot currently I was denied permission to build a garage this year because I did not meet the covenant restrictions for the subdivision. He stated that I met all county codes and I asked for a 7-foot Variance to do my garage. He stated that I didn’t get it, so I’ve had to jump through hoops to make everybody happy on the approval process and now it’s cost me a



whole lot more money because it delayed me six months. He stated that I had to do a couple design changes, but now it manages the covenant. He stated that that’s the issue here; people are bringing it up. He stated that I understand they might not be part of the covenant, but what’s the truth here? He stated that it changes all the time. He asked, is it going to be subdivided again? He stated, we don’t know.

Mr. Detert stated, you understand, the covenants are not enforced by this Board. He stated that that’s a civil matter that you have to handle yourselves.

Mr. Wojtkum stated, I understand, but that’s what it’s come to now with this. He stated, what’s the County going to do if we want to subdivide that lot again? He asked, how much further is it going to be allowed to be subdivided?

Mr. Hart stated that one more question about the easement. He stated, Fred, you were out measuring it – I was the guy who had the Jack Russell -- if it widens it’s encroaching my property. He stated, because you only got 2 or 3 feet and I got concerned about this being wider to take away from our house, because this is an upscale neighborhood and we’re trying to keep it that way, and I’m probably the one affected most by this. He stated that I’m really disappointed in all this, seeing this thing and these houses being built back here.

Mr. Bengel stated, we always showed three lots in there, but, at the time, Lot C was not intended to be a building site, and that’ll be a request to have that one, but this line here pretty well delineates the buildable ground from the non-buildable. He stated that all this land down here is a nice, steep slope and it’s all wooded and it’s low ground down here. He stated that I think it’s a real asset to this lot because it cannot be any houses down here. He stated that the most that would be built would be two houses, a house on A – Phil’s house is here already – and house on C that would be South of 10 and 11. He stated that you want to know if this lot can ever be subdivided again. He stated that I guess everything’s possible, but, in my mind, it wouldn’t make it. He stated, and this, as far as being upscale, Mr. Norman’s house is pretty much upscale; he’s got a very nice house. He stated and these houses…I’m pretty sure, he’s got covenants within this little development that these houses would have to be of a pretty good standard, too. He stated that it would be, again, the Sutters, there would only be one drive down here, one lot using that. He stated that that would be A, ‘cause Phil is using this now. He stated, I think it’s a 12-foot drive and it’s paved, with an 18-foot easement. He stated that that’s part of Lot 10 and I don’t know when Mr. Norman got that easement, whether he owned the lot at the time or after he sold it he got that deed for that. He stated that the septic has been approved for all the lots. He stated that with regard to the mound, I think it’s still his intention to end up with a mound around



here. He stated that I think maybe there might have been some financial hard times that came on for Mr. Norman that he didn’t complete that, but as far as I know that’s still, that was not part of the subdivision approval, but that’s what he wanted to do. He stated that he’s got a very nice house in there and it’s to their benefit to have that separation, although it’s a pretty nice subdivision. He stated that this drive is not planned to be any wider and it would not abut on Lot 9. He stated that if it were made wider it would have to be within the easement here. He stated that the easement is 18 feet and I believe the driveway is 12, but at this time, I don’t think there is any plan to widen that, just to keep it small. He stated that basically it’s a private drive that would serve two homes.

Mr. Detert stated, there’s a question on paving.

Mr. Bengel stated, I think Sutters raised that question. He stated, I don’t know. He stated, I would think if Mr. Norman said he would pave that my guess is that he will. He stated that I don’t think that was ever part of any approval process when he built his house and, again, it would stay a single drive. He stated that if he said he’d pave that, I’ll bring that up to him.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Brickner asked if Lot C is the only one that’s going to use this paved or concrete driveway that goes into Wind Whistle.

Mr. Bengel stated that it would be B and C.

Mr. Brickner stated, but Lot C would be the only new house.

Mr. Bengel stated, correct.

Mr. Brickner stated, I mean B is already using that.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, and this is already here, this length of road with the 30-foot easement is already in existence.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated, so it would be one more family, one more dwelling that would be using that road that goes into the subdivision, and then over here, you’re talking about one more family that will be using the gravel road…

Mr. Bengel stated, there would be no increase. He stated that there would only be one house using that and there’s one house that can use it now. He stated that the only house there is Mr. Norman’s.





Mr. Brickner stated, but they may build a house on Lot A which would use that road. He stated that that would be an increase of one there on a gravel road.

Mr. Bengel stated that the only one that can use that road now is Mr. Norman.

Mr. Brickner asked, is he using the road now?

Mr. Bengel stated that he quit using that…I don’t think he uses this very much. He stated that I think he goes out and uses the subdivision, so when he builds or somebody buys and builds a house on A, they would use that 60-foot easement which has been used for one house now. He stated that I think the only question is whether or not it gets paved.

Mr. Burns asked, why can’t all three lots use that 60-foot easement?

Mr. Bengel stated that well, if this person buys, these are smaller lots, I guess the answer is they could use it and he can continue to use it, but it’s easier to use this one and you wouldn’t be going through this other property here. He stated that the only increase that we are proposing is on Lot C.

Mr. Burns stated that it makes more sense, you got a 60-foot easement to use it for all three lots.

Mr. Bengel stated that he thinks it’s better him using this one than this guy using this one. He stated that it’s a nice separation there.

Mr. Robertson stated, I’m not sure it’s good for everybody, but he’s going up all the way through that subdivision and it seems like there ought to be some way to just come down to the one on 150. He stated that this has already been approved by the Plan Commission, right? He stated that we can’t take that approval away.

Mr. Detert stated that there’s an easement.

Mr. Bengel stated that it was approved two years ago and in the last six months Judge Alexa made a ruling that any Variances had to be approved by the BZA.

Mr. Robertson asked, it wasn’t retrospective (sic).

Ms. Schaeffer stated, I think it was because it was a declaratory judgment. She stated, I mean, I think a person could come in and challenge it. She stated that the decision was called a declaratory judgment, which is a statement that that law on our books saying that the Plan Commission can give a Variance is invalid.

Mr. Bengel stated, I think the only way Mr. Norman could have beat that was to have been more timely and had this plat recorded the day before Judge Alexa made his ruling.

Mr. Robertson stated, this is open to contest. He stated that he’s using this right now for Lot B, and that was granted by the Plan Commission, so it’s possible…

Mr. Bengel stated that it certainly makes it a messy situation.

Mr. Robertson stated that now you want to add to that by adding another Lot, C, that would use it also. He stated that I feel for these people here. He stated that it’s a long driveway.

Mr. Burns stated, it’s going to help these people here, but it’s going to hurt these property owners down here, correct?

Mr. Detert asked, Don, I suppose you’re not in any kind of position to make commitments here?

Mr. Bengel stated that well, I guess you could say one parcel, B, could use it, if that’s the way it was proposed. He stated that I don’t see a real problem with Parcel A using that if you have two lots and they each use one drive, that doesn’t seem to be a problem. He stated that I think the problem is if you cannot get Parcel C on there, that would be a problem. He stated that I don’t think the neighbors, other than not having a paved driveway there that may have been promised. He stated that Sutters don’t experience any more because they were using this and the same with Lots 1 and 4. He stated that there’s just going to be A using the existing gravel drive. He stated that Mr. Norman will continue to use the drive that he’s using now, so that’s one house on that drive. He stated that he’s certainly like to be able to use C, the reason I’d like to use C is it’s good ground. He stated that we don’t have a lot of good ground around there.

Mr. Robertson stated, at one time, Mr. Norman did go down here, is that right?

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Robertson asked, did this go along the ridge here?

Mr. Bengel stated, no. He stated that it came out…he’s got something like this. He stated that there’s a concrete slab here and that drive came out like this.

Mr. Detert stated, if there’s confusion here, you can always continue it.

Mr. Burns stated, my thought was continue this, go back and talk to your client and see if he agrees to have all three lots go out on the 60-foot easement.

Mr. Bengel asked, what if we had two lots and one went each way, which is basically how it is now?

Mr. Robertson stated that it seems like this way it’s throwing a lot of traffic into this…while there’s a County road and everything. He stated that you have all these houses and there’s a lot of little children there. He stated that the more traffic you can take off there the better.

Mr. Bengel stated that if there were two lots that would not increase the traffic.

Mr. Detert stated, frankly, I’m a little disappointed that he didn’t talk to the neighbors, but I can’t tell you that he has to.

Mr. Robertson asked, Mr. Chairman, what if we continued this? He asked, would that bother you?

Mr. Detert stated, sure, you can do whatever you want to.

Mr. Burns stated, I think Don’s asking for our commitment, for one house to go out that 12 foot. He stated, I don’t want to give him false feelings. He stated, I want to know how everybody else feels.

Mr. Bengel stated, I guess if nothing changed, and Mr. Norman has that easement on Lot 10, I think he can continue to use that easement. He stated, I don’t know if he granted that to himself or not.

Mr. Detert stated, there may be a question on that easement, if I understand it.

Mr. Burns stated I’d like to see all three come out that 60-foot easement. He stated, I don’t know how everybody else feels, but that’s just…

Mr. Bengel stated, but one of the detriments to that, as far as neighbors are concerned, to do that you would have to put a driveway out through that (inaudible) space, which it sounds like nobody wants. He stated that if you had a house here, and you want all three to come out here, then…again, this is where his existing house is, and it’s a very nice house, I think the driveway would end up coming out something like that.

Mr. Robertson stated that I think they’d prefer that to running down the main road there.

Mr. Brickner stated, if we knew how many cars were in that one additional house. He stated that if a guy has five boys and they each have a car, you know. He stated, because one single residence doesn’t bother me at all. He stated that I think one residence added to that drive-through subdivision isn’t a big deal, and the one down on the other road, I don’t think that’s going to be a big deal,


either. He stated that if it was more than one I’d really be concerned, unless the guy has five automobiles and a bunch of kids driving, but we don’t know that. He stated that I’m not concerned about one resident on each one of those roads, myself.

Mr. Bengel stated, I guess I could make a commitment that we would forego Lot C and just keep things the way they are with A and B.

Mr. Robertson stated, so things would stay the way they are. He stated that you’re just adding on A, which would go out…

Mr. Bengel stated that he put the driveway in in good faith. He stated that he did have a Variance to put that in there. He stated that he didn’t do that first.

Mr. Robertson stated, this would clear up the problem with the Plan Commission granting a Variance.

Mr. Burns stated, I think it’s a good compromise. He stated, you’re not increasing any traffic and you’re staying where you’re at.

Mr. Robertson moved to approve Case 04-V-32, forgoing any house on Lot C, as Mr. Bengel indicated, incorporating the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, said findings being in the file. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-UV-4. Petition of Raymond & Anne Marie Brown, 4105 Evans Ave., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance to permit a gas service repair business, to be located at 4103 Evans Ave., in Washington Township.

Ms. Brown stated that three years ago we purchased the pole barn on 4103 Evans Avenue and we have been there…it’s right next door to our property, our house, and we store our equipment and parts and the boys bring their trucks back there in night time and pick them up in the morning and load whatever they need on them and we do service work. She stated, however, our business is called Industrial Gas Services and we’ve found over the years that it’s kind of a confusing name. She stated that people don’t quite know what we do, so, to make it easy, I wrote down some of the information for you and I also wrote on the back of this, not to scale please, a little map of where we are and what it looks like for us. She stated that I guess what I really would like to say is that we don’t work out of this building; we store things there, and we have a lot of parts, a lot of the nuts and bolts of Industrial Gas Services and recently we hired a young lady to work there and we have no bathroom. She stated that we do have a state soil – what is that called? – permission to have a septic system there, but we do not have a washroom for here. She stated that



when it was just the guys we had a Porta-Potty and since they weren’t there most of the day it was no problem. She stated that now that we have a woman there, we are seeking to put in a toilet, simply. She stated that that’s what we would like and when we came in to apply for it, because it was under a business which usually, or in the past, this property was zoned commercially, but it was changed, so now we need to ask for a Variance so that we can put a washroom, just a bathroom, a sink and a bathroom, not a bathroom, per se, but a toilet. She stated, and we also wanted to say that we would like this to be maybe like a three-year permission to use, because at that time we hope to retire and at that point there would be no more use to have it that way. She stated that it could revert back to what it was.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Greg A. Bouwer, 425 Joliet Road, Suite 425, Dyer, stated that I would like to give to the Board members our written remonstrance against this proposed Use Variance. He stated that I represent Beverly and Roger Runk and Toyann Feldsien who are the descendants of Gladys Leffew and other ancestors in the area who were the primary owners of this whole area at one point in time. He stated, in fact, through their efforts…I’m representing, as I mentioned, the Runks and Toy Ann Feldsien, who are the people who are primarily responsible for the rezoning in this area to residential and for the construction of various residences in the area and, in fact, Beverly Runk is constructing her personal residence approximately…it’s a little over 60 feet, it’s right across the private easement, but it’s a little over 60 feet from this where she is building her personal residence. He stated that initially, we’d like to go over this briefly. He stated that we’d like to point out that both Beverly Runk and Roger Runk and Toy Ann Feldsien received no written notice of the hearing on tonight’s BZA agenda, and, what I’d like to point out, we went over this map with Mr. Bengel, the Use Variance is for this lot right here. He stated that it’s Lot B, right along Evans Avenue. He stated that Beverly Runk is constructing a residence right here, which is about the 60-foot distance right here. He stated that Toy Ann Feldsien remains the owner of the remaining portion right here and she intends to continue to work and possibly sell off for future homes, future development. He stated that there will be at least one additional home back there. He stated that neither one of them did not (sic) receive any written notice and I looked at the notice application and it does list…in fact, the adjacent owner, which was actually the residence of Gladys Leffew, which 4101 Evans Avenue, which is immediately adjacent to them…that’s not listed either. He stated that why we know about that is we eventually, Toyann Feldsien actually lived in there and sold it to the Funks, who now reside there, but it’s not contained in the notice, so I’d like to point out that deficiency both to the BZA and the attorney. He stated, in addition, we appreciate a little bit more information that we received from the Browns tonight about this Industrial Gas Service business, but we would point out that the initial application gave us no idea about what they do, other than it’s an industrial gas facility. He stated,


and a lot of the materials that are pointed out that are attached to this…industrial gas has a lot of concerns. He stated, she mentioned parts, she mentioned storage. He stated that we, in fact, went on the web site to look at the Industrial Gas facility and the credentials of Mr. Brown, which are impressive, but they are impressive against what they are seeking tonight, very impressive from Industrial Gas Service and storage and things like that, but that’s contrary to the intent that the Runks and Feldsien have in the development of this R-1 area. He stated that what we’d like to point out, and we’re sure you’re well aware of all the legal requirements in this zoning ordinance that the BZA has to follow to grant this Variance. He stated, of principal concern in that is this was all rezoned R-1 in 1999 by my clients, the Runks. He stated that it was all rezoned back in 1999. He stated that prior to that the Woods of Leffew was zoned R-1 for the development of all these lots and these two lots. He stated that the intent of my clients was to rezone, provide a nice, residential area where they could build homes and actually use the woods. He stated that people live in a very beautiful setting with these woods, and this is entirely woods back here. He stated, in fact, they went to the large expense of building a 20-foot, I think it’s estimated, earthen berm to shield it from the industrial use immediately to the East. He stated that they invested thousands of dollars to do that, and with that R-1 zoning in place, Beverly Runk and Roger Runk made the commitment to build their personal residence at #7 right there and are in the process of building it. He stated that back in 1999 we went through the rezoning process here in Porter County. He stated that it was in December of 2000, almost a year later that my clients sold the property to the Browns. He stated that Exhibit B to our written remonstrance is the listing of the property back at that time, which clearly points out that it’s R-1 zoning, residential. He stated that it was clearly disclosed that it’s residential and that was to create a residential setting from ’99 forward and so no other intent. He stated, based on that, this industrial use and the gas business that would be run there simply are incompatible. He stated that it doesn’t satisfy the legal requirements that need to be met, they have to demonstrate exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to allow an industrial gas business on a residentially zoned parcel. He stated that they need to show that it’s necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. He stated that they have to show that it’s not going to be materially detrimental to the surrounding uses, and I think there will be people to testify about that, the families and the residences that they live in in the nearby area. He stated that I’m not going to spend any time on that. He stated, also, that it will not alter the land use characteristics. He stated that land use characteristics of R-1…what I’ve think we’ve established already through the testimony is they are operating a business. He stated that I’ve heard the testimony all night long about Use Variances and it’s clear to me, especially, the fact that they have a restroom onsite that they are operating a business out of an R-1 lot right now, which is a significant problem in and of itself. He stated that



noting all the requirements that we have in the Porter County zoning ordinance, it is their burden to come in here and satisfy that all these things have been met by their petition. He stated that they bought residential property in a residential subdivision, in a residential area and they simply can’t do it. He stated that in addition, they have to demonstrate the necessary hardship that would lead to this granting of the Variance. He stated that ultimately the enforcer here was the septic permit, otherwise, they would have kept going. He stated that this use is simply barred by the zoning ordinance. He stated that one thing I noted is that I looked in the area of your zoning provision, 17.36.020 and it says, when you’re working with explosive material and combustive material, accelerants, propellants, that is actually a highly limited use and it can only be in the I-2 or I-3 areas.

Mr. Detert stated, you probably didn’t have a chance to read that, but they do not store gases there.

Mr. Bouwer stated that that would address some of our concerns about the storage of gas, but ultimately they’re working with the parts and it’s still a significant issue. He stated that that would ultimately address that issue about the propellants, but it doesn’t address the unnecessary hardship that they would have to demonstrate in order to satisfy that part of the Porter County zoning ordinance. He stated, again, the public welfare, I guess that will detract from some of the materials that you see in there about the public welfare with which we are highly concerned, but still, ultimately, operating a business in a residential district even considering this type is a significant risk and it’s a detriment to the surrounding residences. He stated that ultimately, there’s another provision in there, 17.16.030 C says that no Variance shall be granted unless they can establish that they will not increase any hazard or any other dangers to the adjacent property and it will not diminish the value of the adjacent land and buildings. He stated that they simply cannot do it. He stated that my clients here will testify that this is a significant detriment with her personal residence that she is building within 60 feet of this ongoing operation. He stated that based on these materials and our written submission, we request that this Board deny the application for the Use Variance at this time.

Toy Ann Feldsien, 207 Carter Court, stated that I own land North of Ray Brown. She stated that it’s about 15 acres of woods surrounding them. She stated that I was the one who sold the property to Ann Marie and Ray Brown and they fully knew what zoning it was when they bought it and my Realtor told them and I just do not want a business there, especially that business with trucks going in and out.

Beverly Runk stated that I’m building a residence at 283 E. 311 N. She stated that I’m the developer of most of this land and I feel that I have an obligation to my neighbors. She stated that this was my parents’ land and I had it rezoned to R-1 for a purpose. She



stated that the purpose was to build in the woods and this business, which it is a business, is very close to the woods. She stated, like I said, I feel like I have an obligation to my neighbors and I do not want this business to take place.

Richard Stevens, 1205 Bartz Road, stated that I tell you, I was a little surprised. He stated that I’ve lived in that neighborhood since 1968 when we built there and I actually did not know that this business was going on back there. He stated that where I would be to them is quite a few hundred feet, but it goes straight down the road into the woods where all the homes are being built that Beverly was talking about and in the past few years our neighborhood seems to have gotten better and better, more upscale with the building and the homes that are going in. He stated, like I said, I didn’t know that there was a business going on back there and I don’t think it should be going on back there. He stated that it never should have started in the first place, if that’s R-1. He stated that I think it should have been stopped at the time, so how it got there, I don’t know.

Michael Young, 1204 Bartz Road, stated that my property is right over here somewhere, Lot 2. He stated that I can see their pole barn from my (inaudible), if I’m standing over here. He stated that my grandchildren are back here all the time playing and I’m concerned. He stated that there’s a gravel road, an easement that comes off here on Bartz Road that goes over this way. He stated that one of my concerns is that they’ll be using that road more to expand their business. He stated that first of all, I’d like to say that I appreciate you explaining your business a little bit. He stated that I knew nothing what was going on back there either, and I really still don’t know exactly what you do, and I can sympathize with the lady you hired. He stated that I know my wife hates Porta-Potty’s, refuses to go in one. He stated that for 35 years I’ve been putting up with taking her down the road at festivals…anyway, we all know how women are with Porta-Potty’s. He stated, but, still, bottom line is it is a business and it is zoned R-1. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Brown have been there about three years and right down the road from them is all kinds of property still for sale, industrial and commercial. He stated that they could have built down there if they knew they had a business that they wanted to do, you know, so, I’m opposed to it.

Ms. Brown stated that as the gentleman mentioned, there were a number of our immediate neighbors who did not get a notice also, and so they came to talk to us because they heard about this and were not able to be here tonight, and they wrote down their feelings on this, that they did not, for example, the Funks, and directly across from us and on the corner, right there, all three of those people wrote papers that basically said that they did not object, because as one of the gentlemen said, most of them did not even know that we did do a business.

Mr. Detert stated, let the record show that there are three letters available. The letters are in the file.


Ms. Brown stated, other than that, the only thing that I would like to tell you again and to reassure them,