BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Regular Meeting
December 20, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on December 20, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Marvin Brickner, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Richard Hudson and Ed Russell. Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure and Toni Byers.

Mr. Hudson moved to waive reading of the minutes for the November 15, 2006 BZA meeting and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Brickner stated that our chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals and a member of the Board for the last 13 years has decided to retire and has resigned from the Board. He stated that his name is James Robertson. He stated that he is going to be sorely missed by the Board, and, I’m sure, by the citizens of Porter County. He stated that he’s done an outstanding job over the 13 years he’s been here and on behalf of the Board members and Commissioner Harper, we would like to present Jim with a plaque tonight in honor of his service. He stated that we really wish you the best of retirements and we are going to really miss you.

Jim Robertson stated, thank you very much. He stated that it’s a beautiful plaque. He stated that it’s been a real pleasure, particularly working with my fellow Board members and all the staff members. He stated that it’s been a wonderful time. He stated that we’ve had a lot of exciting moments and many long hours of dull moments. He stated, you guys carry on. He stated that I know you do the best for Porter County.

Pending Business:

Case 01-UV-14. George Landgrebe, 208 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting manufacture and sale of automobile dollies, on the West side of CR 250 W., between U.S. Hwy 30 and Joliet Road, in Center Township.

George and Beth Landgrebe stated that they are the petitioners in this matter. Mr. Landgrebe stated that we would just like to keep on running it like we’ve been doing.

Mr. Burns asked if the business is still active. He stated that sometimes I don’t see much activity.

Mr. Landgrebe stated, very much so.



Mr. Burns asked, how many units do you produce?

Mr. Landgrebe stated that we’re not doing anything like we were doing in the old days. He stated that they are doing 75, 100 a year – something like that. He stated that we have one part-time employee, myself and my wife.

Mr. Detert moved to renew Case 01-UV-14 for 5 years. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion.

Discussion:


Mr. Brickner stated that I don’t have a problem, either, except the pile of tires. He asked, all the tires you have parked out there, the tires, the rims and the pallets – are those yours?

Mr. Landgrebe stated that the only place that I know that we would have tires is near the old barn foundation. He stated that we do have some pallets in between the two buildings. He stated that the tires I kind of inherited from my dad. He stated that we’ve worked on getting them worked down, but we don’t work on them all the time. He stated that they’ve been there a long time. He stated that I think they came in there from when Dad was alive and one of Dad’s renters was always working on cars and that – I think they got piled up. He stated that it was a much bigger pile than it is now. He stated that that’s not part of what we…

Mr. Brickner stated that I know it’s not, but it’s on the same corner. He stated that I’d like to attach that to that motion, that that pile of tires be removed.

Mr. Burns asked, give them 90 days or…

Mr. Brickner stated, 90 days.

Mr. Detert stated, I’ll accept that.

Mr. Burns asked, how about the pallets?

Mr. Brickner stated that the pallets are behind the building. He stated that that’s such a high-profile corner. He stated that everybody sees everything on 30 and 250.

Mr. Landgrebe stated that we’ve planted hundreds of pine trees that they’re coming up and one of these days it won’t be that visible back in there.

Mr. Brickner asked, can you put those pallets and all of that drainage hose, can you put that in one of your buildings there?





Mr. Landgrebe stated that I tried to sell the drainage tile. He stated that if anybody wants to buy it they surely can. He stated that Dad had plans for that. He stated that there’s a lot of it.

Mr. Detert moved to renew Case 01-UV-14 for 5 years, with the pile of tires to be removed and the drain tile and the pallets be stored inside. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-UV-12. Gary Masonic Lodge #677, 209 N. Broad St., Griffith, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance for a private club, on the Southwest corner of CR 675 W. and Division Road, in Porter Township.

Mr. Brickner stated that he understands that this Case has been withdrawn.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the withdrawal of this Case. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 06-V-26. Petition of John & Florence Farris, 70 Deerpath Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 2,400-square-foot detached garage to house personal vehicles and equipment, larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed in a subdivision, to be located at 70 Deerpath Road, in Porter Township.

Mr. Farris stated that we’ve got a motor home, we’ve got three vehicles and we’ve got tractors. He stated that we’d like to get them where we can get them in under cover and if there’s any work to be done we’d be able to do it in the barn rather than in the driveway or wherever the mud happens to be. He stated that that’s it. He stated that that’s what we need – a big space.

Ms. Farris stated that I’ve got a lot of Christmas items and things that I would love to have a storage room put in. She stated that I’m getting a little old to go into the crawl space to get them out, so, basically, having a storeroom on the back of this garage, which is why it’s so big.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mary Jo Fisher, 66 Deerpath Rd., stated that we live directly North of the Farrises. She stated that we have a creek that runs through our yard. She stated that it's a drainage ditch for rain, for runoff, and our lot is almost an acre, but this creek runs, curved, through the entire thing. She stated that they’re talking about putting this up where the runoff is going to create a problem for us.



She stated that they already have an 18 by 12-foot – or however big the shed is that they have – and it washed away our front yard and we had to put drain tile in. She stated that now we have a pretty good sized building up and the runoff water that goes to a culvert on Deerpath Road, which is 18 inches thick, I believe – the water is so bad that it backs up and runs across the road – literally runs across the road and washes out the other side. She stated that we’ve had Porter County come in and they’ve had to dump there because it washes away. She stated that my fear is that this is going to make it worse. She stated that the other thing is that the RV there – I know that people do that in a subdivision, and, you know – the subdivision has never been real strict on the ordinances and because we’ve been there for 30 years I realize that. She stated that our neighbors across the street had one for years and people don’t say anything. She stated that Jack and Flo (?) had their motor home there for years and no one has said anything. She stated that I just have the concern about a building bigger than my house being built on a one-dwelling lot.

David Fisher, 66 Deerpath Rd., stated that for the most part it’s basically the same thing – the drainage problem. He stated that with 2,400 square feet there would be a lot of water from the road and stuff like that and it would all be coming over, for the most part, to our yard. He stated that my concern on that is that the water, drainage, is coming over and keeping us flooded out. He stated that it's a wet area now.

Larry Oros, 419 Forest View Dr., stated that I live in Forest View Estates, which is the same subdivision that they live in. He stated that I’ve lived there about 27, 28 years. He stated that we used to have covenants when we first moved into the subdivision. He stated that as time went by, modular homes became an issue. He stated that we came in front of the Board then and talked about it. He stated that they said because we’d never got them reinstated that our covenants were no longer in effect. He stated that my question is notification. He stated that I received no notification as far as this meeting happening tonight. He stated that years ago there was a tower built – a radio tower built on 500 W. just South of Division Road. He stated that I got a certified letter according to that. He stated that I got nothing, as far as this. He stated that all they had was a sign in their front yard. He stated that I drove by and seen (sic). He stated 2 foot by 3 foot sign. He stated that I don’t know if that’s all you have to do, but I did talk to some people that live on 100 S. at one time – the man doesn’t even live there anymore – the man received a letter, a certified letter. He stated that I’ve talked to other people in the subdivision and they got certified letters about this. He stated that I received nothing. He stated that the sign that I seen (sic) out there in the swale, that is my notification. He stated that this 2,400 square foot garage – this is a subdivision. He stated that we had covenants before. He stated that they’re no longer in effect. He stated, a subdivision. He stated that these are houses. He stated, 2,400 square feet – that’s bigger than most of the houses out in that subdivision. He stated that this is an older subdivision. He stated that we don’t have these



big, big mansion houses that they talk about now. He stated that we’re talking…my house was fairly large, a ranch – 1,900 square feet. He stated that this is 2,400 just for a garage….just for a garage. He stated that the size of his lot. He stated that most of the lots where we are ..we’re in the third addition to the subdivision…we have an acre and a half, acre and a third, probably an acre and two-thirds is the biggest lot back there. He stated that I’m kind of concerned where they are going to put this garage. He stated that on the North side of their house where they have their RV parked at this time, they put it down there. He stated that the first people that lived in this house, Carlson, who built the house years ago when the subdivision first was established, his garage is on the North side of the house because of the location where the garage and the driveway came out, that is at the bottom of the hill. He stated that people coming over the hill couldn’t even see people coming out of this driveway. He stated, so, what Carlson did, he put a circle driveway so he could get beyond that low spot, come over the hill on the other side to be able to pull out of his house. He stated that they still have that. He stated that my concern is, where is this garage going to be, and how are they going to access it. He stated that I want to know, what are they going to use this garage for? He stated that he’s talking about storage. He stated that he’s had this motor home out back in his yard with a tarp over it for years. He stated that I’ve never seen it move. He stated that I don’t know if it’s plated or not. He stated that he’s already got one shed back there and he says he’s got three vehicles. He stated that he has a two-car garage. He stated that I have a two-car garage. He stated that I’ve heard stories, whether they’re true or not, not only is this building for equipment, he wants to run some kind of business out of there. He stated that I don’t know whether that’s true or not. He stated that my concern is, what is this business? He stated that I don’t know his age. He stated that he looks to be about my age or possibly a bit older. He stated that I realize he has a handicapped son and my theory is, not knowing all the facts, because I was never notified, is he planning on putting some kind of business in there for his handicapped son? He stated that that’s one thing, but he’s not going to be here too much longer. He stated that it’s just a fact of life. He stated that my concern is if something happens to him or his wife, they decide to move, the son can’t live there any longer…I don’t know what his handicaps are as far as what he can and can’t do. He asked, does this Variance, with this big garage, if he is, in fact, putting some kind of business in there, does it carry on? He asked, can the next homeowner come in there and, because it’s been established as a business, can he use it as a business? He stated that that’s my concern. He stated that this storage facility that he wants to build, 2,4000 square feet – that’s bigger than five two-car garages. He stated that he says he’s got three vehicles and a motor home. He stated that the motor home is large; I don’t have a problem with that. He stated that he’s got one vehicle, other than the two that would be in the garage, so you’re looking at one vehicle, on motor home and he wants 2,400 square feet. He stated that I don’t see where that goes. He stated that my concern is, if this is any…he is on a corner lot. He stated that it’s not



like you can put this thing behind anything. He stated that he is visible from the South, visible from the East. He stated that the lots are fairly big, so it’s not like he’s confined, because these people here have a big lot next to him, so that’s actually open, too. He stated that you can see three sides of his house from the road. He stated that as you go down – I don’t know what the road is – you can see all four sides of his house. He stated that my concern is what’s this thing going to look like? He stated that we’re talking a big structure – a 2,400 square foot garage. He stated, c’mon guys. He stated that I’m concerned about the value of my house. He stated that I’ve lived there for 17 years. He stated that I moved out there because I wanted a house out in the country. He stated that it’s an older subdivision. He stated that some of the houses have been kept up. He stated that you try to get people to do things. He stated that sometimes they do; sometimes they don’t, but I can’t see letting another eyesore in there. He stated that we do have some pole barns in the subdivision. He stated that people do have built pole barns in there. He stated that I was not happy with that. He stated that we’re not talking 2,400 square feet. He stated that we’re talking basic two-car garages that they built. He stated that that’s all I have to say.

Michael Sinar, 70 Goldenrod Drive, stated that I actually live directly one block West of the Farrises, and my concern really is, and Larry basically – I don’t want to repeat everything he says, except that I just want to throw in something extra is the fact that I built in 1975. He stated that I was the third party that actually built in that subdivision. He stated that we had bylaws, we had restrictions, and we actually followed suit to make sure that everyone there would live as a subdivision, and, as time is going on, it looks like these people are starting to open up and trying to establish larger like warehouses. He stated that, to me, this is not a storage facility. He stated that I think it’s basically a barn. He stated that, quite frankly, we have a subdivision, not a farm or a plantation, and I strongly believe that if they wanted something that large, they should go and buy a farm facility, but don’t ruin our subdivision, because, right now, looking at the houses throughout there, 75 percent, I can seriously say, are not even near this storage facility. He stated that they’re maybe around 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. He stated that 2,400 square feet is basically a big barn. He stated that it’s an eyesore. He stated that it’s at the entrance of our subdivision. He stated that if it was buried out in the corner somewhere that’s one thing, but he’s out there showing everybody what type of facility he’s going to have. He stated that I don’t want to lose the value of my house. He stated that I just retired three years ago. He stated that it’s paid for. He stated that I don’t want to give it away because people are coming in now and wanting to destroy the subdivision.

James Murphy, 72 Goldenrod Drive, stated that other than rehashing the whole thing, we’ve got Larry Baker on the very front lot coming into our subdivision. He stated that I’ve never been to an



ordinance or a Variance or anything like that, but he’s had to put a fence up around his. He stated that he’s running a business there in the very front one, but they’ve got it fence off and like someone said, we try to protect that it don’t (sic) have junked cars setting around and whatever, and we got (sic) a lawn service in the subdivision now that he tries to keep everything hid (sic) behind his place, you know, but you need to work on your cars and your trucks and that and the snowplow service and this and that. He stated, but anyway, we’re just trying to keep it a residential area.

Roger Patterson, 401 Laurel Lane, stated that I have no problem with him putting up a pole barn, but a 2,400 square foot pole barn on a 2-acre lot with a house that’s probably 2,000 to 2,500 square feet is not acceptable. He stated that a 1,200 square foot pole barn is acceptable in a subdivision like ours.

Leslie Lembke, 64 Deerpath Rd., stated that I live two houses to the North of the Farrises. She stated that I’ve lived there for 11 years. She stated that I look across the street to a pole barn that was built on a home here that I believe was one of the original homes before the ordinances went through, before the other homes were built there. She stated that I see that facility, that large facility, every day of my life. She stated that when my husband and I started to accumulate more things, more cars, more attachments, more tractors, we built an additional detached two-car garage. She stated that there was feasibly allowed to handle all that equipment. She stated that I live on an acre and because my lot is next door to the Fishers there is an easement, a natural drainage that runs behind our lots, those two lots, between our lots and then starts the creek that they were speaking of that goes through their lot. She stated that when it is a large, rainy day, when there is a lot of rain accumulation, my back yard is flooded already. She stated that my understanding is that they are going to place a 2,400 square foot facility that is 200 square feet less than my own home on the North side of this property in a lower area. She stated that their house sits up high. She stated that this is a lower area and I can only imagine what the drainage is going to be like coming through there. She stated that I also want to reiterate the concerns of the other citizens and the people in my subdivision about the value of our home. She stated that everyone will see that. She stated that that is the first thing that they see when they come in. She stated that they have a 4,000 square foot home already on that property. She stated that this is a 2,400 square foot barn, which I think is a luxury, and I also agree: If you want to have that type of facility, then you buy a piece of land and you build it there. She stated that you don’t destroy a subdivision that you have only lived in for three years, or four, or five.

John Miller, 63 Rosewood Lane, Valparaiso, stated that I’m concerned, just like the rest of the people that live in our subdivision, that this big building – what’s it going to do to our value. He asked, is there going to be a business there? He stated that I could stand up here and beat a dead horse, but I agree with



everything they’ve been saying, so, for that reason, I vote against it.

Mr. Farris stated that as far as a business, there was never any intention of running a business there – not now, not ever. He stated that as far as the rest of it, the reason that I wanted to get it and got all this stuff, I want to be able to put it under cover. He stated that we have a house full of stuff. He stated that we were going to (inaudible) out the back of this and make a storeroom out of it. He stated that I don’t know what it will do to the property values. He stated that as far as drainage to Dave’s property, I don’t know how we can handle it. He stated that I haven’t talked to the contractor whether they could put in drain tile and run it down towards the street into the ditch or how they can handle it.

Ms. Farris stated that as far as looking like an eyesore, it will blend with our home very well. She stated that it will not be seen from most of the street. She stated that you’ll see a 40-foot face of this garage. She stated that there is one, like Mrs. Lembke said, across the street that’s already been built. She stated that it’s not like we’re bringing something new here. She stated that as far as the space, we don’t have a lot of storage, and, since it’s our property, we have two lots there, I can show you where it’s going to be. She stated that it’s on the back corner where nobody should be disturbed by it. She stated, property values? She stated that I wouldn’t put up a piece of junk. She stated that it will be respectable, so I don’t think they have to worry about their property values. She stated that there are other big buildings like this in the subdivision already.

Mr. Oros stated that storage, I live in a 1,900 square foot ranch, no basement, and a two-car garage. He stated that I have four kids. He stated that I’ve got all the storage I need.

Ms. Farris stated, well, I’m glad for you.

Mr. Oros stated that they’ve already got an out building. He stated that they’ve got a two-car attached garage and they’ve got an out-building already. He stated that now they want to build something else.

Ms. Lembke stated that I just want to respond to the fact that I want to reiterate that the building across from me was one of the original homes, and that pole barn was built there. She stated that it is not 2,400 square feet. She stated that that barn will be seen by everyone driving by, not only the neighbors, but anyone that looks at it. She stated that also, it will not only affect the drainage into the Fishers’ home, but my home, the homes behind us, the natural runoff.

Mr. Fisher stated that I took a couple photos, if I could show them to you, and that’s of their mobile home and stuff like that. He


stated that if I should ever have to move the septic it would have to go back in that area. He stated that hopefully that would not be a problem, but I don’t want to lose it.

Ms. Farris asked, would he run his septic field and drain it into our property?

Mr. Fisher stated, no.

Ms. Farris stated, okay, that question’s answered. She stated that I do have something I want to show you as far as placement.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Hudson stated that it’s a pretty big building. He stated that I understand their desire and I guess if I were a neighbor I’d like to have everything inside, but, when the building starts to approach that size it’s quite large. He stated, now, they do have two lots. He stated that I don’t know how many other people in the subdivision own two lots. He stated that they should certainly, if you consider that one lot can handle a house and a detached garage, they should be able to have four buildings on this one parcel, but I’m not sure why they decided to buy two, or build on two, the people before them, so…drainage is always a big issue, but, again, having two lots, the lot coverage is such that it would, I think, be less than what the maximum lot coverage would be. He stated that I can understand the concern about the massiveness. He stated that he can build a 50 by 24-foot garage, half the size, and wouldn’t have to be here tonight, so, that may be what he chooses to do.

Mr. Russell stated that it would seem to me that you would want to, before you would move ahead with this, you would want to make sure that you have no drainage problems, that you could prove that to your neighbors, and that you had some expert opinion as to what it would do to property values.

Mr. Detert stated that the property is pretty well built up, but the neighbors still think it’s going to be an unsightly looking building. He stated that, as Rich pointed out, he could build half the size of building and not even be here, so that’s allowable. He stated that somebody testified – I think the young lady there in the black coat – that there’s a big building across the street from her, and I would suggest staff look at that and make sure that that was built legally and somebody didn’t just throw it up and cause a problem on their own. He stated that I’m not sure a permit was obtained. He stated that I’d want to know a lot more about drainage. He stated that I wasn’t aware of the drainage problem and I can see in one of the pictures there is water standing in puddles. He stated that I just think you’d be better off if you went to half the size building. He stated that I think the neighbors would accept that, and you wouldn’t have any problems and you wouldn’t give them any problems, but that’s just my suggestion.





Mr. Burns stated that I think 2,400 square feet is much too large for this area. He stated that I agree at 1,200 they could build and that probably would fit, but 2,400 is much too large. He stated that it would be an eyesore, and it probably would cause a drainage issue, so, with that, I’m definitely against it.

Mr. Detert stated that I would suggest, in addition, that if they do build a smaller building that this be looked at, perhaps, by TAC, on the possibility of drainage, because I do see that water standing there, and I wouldn’t want to cause any additional problems.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-26. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Brickner stated that I do think we should add to it that maybe TAC should look at the drainage situation.

Mr. Burn stated, if they proceed.

Mr. Brickner stated that we’ll add that to the motion.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-26, with TAC to look at the drainage situation if they proceed with a building. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Hudson stated that I have a problem with adding that. He stated that I don’t know that you can do that. He stated that I’ll vote against the motion with that on there.

Mr. Brickner asked, well, do you have any other suggestions?

Mr. Hudson stated that they wouldn’t be here tonight if they were building a 1,200 square foot and the drainage would not be an issue. He stated that that would be something for the people to…I understand what we’re doing here, and I saw the water sitting there, but I’m…I think we’re asking them to do something that…I don’t know whether it’s legal or not, but I wouldn’t be in favor of that part of the motion.

Mr. Detert stated that my intention was just to make sure that staff was aware of it and they looked at it as to location, not that they could or couldn’t build the building, just to make sure that they didn’t impact that ditch or anything with the location.

Mr. Burns stated that I agree with you. He asked, can we ask counsel if he’s okay?





Mr. McClure stated that I don’t believe we can add it. He stated that first of all, I think we have a problem with adding it. He stated that they can build a 1,200 square foot accessory structure without permission from the BZA. He stated that they’d have to get the building permit, obviously, and, at that point I think…I don’t think we can add this additional requirement just onto them for a 1,200 square foot. He stated that if we were dealing with something – 1,500 or something like that, I think we could do much more. He stated that I think it would also be a nightmare for the staff trying to track or flag this out if it ever did come up for a building permit and trying to figure out what they did, so I would advise against it.

Mr. Detert stated that as the motion stands that was not added. He stated that I think the young lady there said that or one of the gentlemen said that there were covenants there and they were no longer active. He stated that we don’t really enforce any covenants, but I want to point out to you that if you would have gotten permission and built a building and your covenants prohibit it anyone in the audience could come up and bring a civil action against you.

Mr. Farris stated that we checked the covenants before we even got involved and, according to what we read the county got them on file…

Mr. Detert stated that we don’t enforce them. He stated that I’m just saying that if they’re there…I’m must warning you that you could have had a problem with those. He stated that I don’t know what they say. He stated that they may not allow you to build a 1,200 square foot. He stated that you have to look at those. He stated that we don’t enforce them. He stated that we don’t have anything to do with them, but somebody could enforce them on you.

Mr. Brickner stated that the addition of TAC looking at the drainage is withdrawn. He stated that the motion stands to deny.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-26, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Ms. Farris asked if there is any way that I have any recourse to your decision?

Mr. McClure stated that I tread lightly about giving you legal advice. He stated that there is an appeal from this. He stated that you can appeal a decision from the BZA. He stated that the BZA decision can be appealed. He stated that it’s a statutory appeal process. He stated that there are timelines. He stated that I would say, seek an attorney to help you with that. He stated that there are some timelines that if they are not back they are fatal, meaning the





appeal is no longer viable. He stated, is there an appeal process? He stated that there is.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-V-26, incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Russell - Yes Brickner - Yes

Case 06-V-27. Petition of St. Iakovos Greek Orthodox church, 602 E. Monroe, Valparaiso, seeking Variances for construction of a new church which is to be 42 feet 7 inches to the peak; for a bell tower and cross which is to be 32 feet 8 inches above grade; and for a 40-foot-high steel cross; all higher than the 25 feet permitted; to be located at 38 W. 700 N., in Liberty Township.

Jim Perkins stated that he is representing and accompanied by John Christos, the president of the community, and Father Jim Greanias, the pastor of the community. He stated that we are just asking for a Variance for the height primarily to the church building. He stated that if you look at these drawings, on the church building, this is the higher part of the church that you see here. He stated that this is looking from the West to the East, primarily. He stated that this is a connecting link to the school building over here. He stated that this is the main church building and this is a connecting link between the two buildings. He stated that we have a cross-section, the top of the building, the tile roof. He stated that we have a really beautiful church – 13th, 14th century design, stone face. He stated that it's very authentic in its design, but, in order to be, you have to have these kind of heights in order to make…to really create the authenticity of the old churches, and so, that’s why we’re exceeding the height up to 42 feet 7 inches, actually. He stated that the whole thing is very much in scale with the building itself, and it’s also very much in scale with the whole site, actually. He stated that it's a pretty large site. He stated that the other height Variance relating to this cross – this is quite a structure, actually, in this connecting link and this is really a design element and it’s a small cross over the entrance between the buildings. He stated that the only other Variance – and this, I think, you can see is lower. He stated that it’s 32 feet 8 inches, 7 feet over the 25 foot limit. He stated that the other building is very flat. He stated that it has no height..at all. He stated that the other point, probably, as it relates to the site…over on the corner, we have a small, two-sided sign on the corner. He stated that behind it will be a 40-foot-high cross, which will be constructed of steel beams from the 9-11 disaster in New York. He stated that they are actually shipping some steel out now and we will construct it here. He stated that it’s quite a ways back from both roads, so it will have no effect on visibilities, or anything of that nature. He stated that as you can see, the church building is about 140 to 150 feet back from CR 700 N. and it’s also



about 85 to 95 feet from the property line over here, and we’ll be doing some screening over here to protect the neighbors in this area from the church itself. He stated that it will be very visible from 700 and from 50. He stated that we are here just to request a Variance for the height at this point. He stated that later, next month, we’ll be going to TAC committee and we will be going to the Plan Commission for approval at another public meeting. He stated that at that meeting we will discuss drainage and access and other things of those issues, but tonight is strictly the height Variance.

Mr. Christos stated that, essentially, the reason for the 40-foot church is our traditions require barreled ceilings and a lot of iconography with the church, and, to get the proper effect, that’s essentially why we have that height.

Dave Brandt, 66 W. 700 N., stated that I live about three houses down from where the church would be. He stated that I believe the congregation was so kind as to show me all the plans and they are super plans and it just seems like it’s going to be a great addition to our neighborhood. He stated that I’ve got one concern about the towers and the bell towers and the tall cross. He stated that we live in a very, very rural area out there. He stated that we’re probably a mile and a quarter from any commercial. He stated that you can see the stars and the moon very easy at night. He stated that I have some concerns about whether these things are going to be lighted heavily at night and so we’d lose our visibility of the skies.

Ellen Swartz, 37 W. 700 N., stated that that puts myself and my fiancé’s property directly across from where the church is going to be. She stated that I don’t know whether this is the right venue for this, but I’ll ask. She stated that I need to know whether this is purely an aesthetic addition. She asked, does it have no functionality other than for the aesthetic purposes? She stated that that would be one of my questions. She stated that my second question is in regards to what I understand the gentleman to say a free-standing cross that is to be on 50 W. She asked, am I correct in that? She stated that I couldn’t quite understand what he was saying. She stated that that’s what I would like to know, what that’s going to be and what it’s going to look like and how tall that’s going to be. She stated that I live across from this property and as a non-Christian, I’d like to know what’s going to be across the street from me to look at every day of my life.

Mr. Perkins stated that the cross is 40 feet high. He stated that it’s on the corner. He stated that it’s a fair distance back from the corner of 50 and 700. He stated that I don’t think it’ll be…have any detrimental effect on her property. He stated that she’s further down from that, and I’m not sure that it will even be visible from her property, but maybe from your driveway, going in and out. He stated that it’s a steel structure. He stated that it will be painted, so it’s like a steel beam welded, very simple cross, that’s



it. He stated that in relationship to the area that surrounds it, it’s actually very small. He stated that it won’t be large at all.

He stated that you have to be able to consider that. He stated that if you saw it, you would realize…it has to have a certain amount of scale to it.

Father Greanias stated that there was one question about the functionality. He stated that in understanding the Orthodox Church, the functionality of the church, the Orthodox Christian faith is probably the oldest Christian denomination, and so we have 2,000 years of traditions. He stated that within inside the church, with the iconography, as John mentioned, it’s the goal of reaching us from earth up unto the heavens to remind us of our ascendance into the kingdom. He stated that it does have a function, a very strong function for us, because you have icons of prophets, evangelists and the Lord. He stated that the cross is meant to honor all from 9-11. He stated that the cross will be erected depending upon the vehicle to get the materials, which we believe is a very…we have a very good opportunity to achieve that and it will be melted down and restructured. He stated that we certainly want it to be aesthetic for the community. He stated that we’re not a proselytizing community. He stated that we don’t go out knocking on doors or anything like that.

Mr. Christos stated, let me just make a comment as far as the outside of the community. He stated that the architects designed it with proper tile roofs. He stated that we’re trying to achieve the look of a Mediterranean. He stated that there are only Byzantine-style church, so we’re going to have red tile roof, limestone arches. He stated that the windows are all arched. He stated that it will have all the cues of an early church. He stated that that’s really our goal. He stated that we’re not putting a pole barn up there. He stated that I think the church will probably cost us under $2 million for a structure that’s probably 6,000 square feet.

Father Greanias stated that we want quality materials and a beautiful look to it to blend in well with everything.

Daryl Huber, 37 W. 700 N., stated that I just want to simply say that anything they want to build that requires a Variance, then I’m against it.

Mr. Brandt stated that I guess maybe I didn’t phrase my comment correctly or I didn’t get an answer to my question. He stated that I welcome the church with open arms. He stated that they’ve got a fantastic building. He stated that I still have a question whether it will be all lit up at night.

Mr. Perkins stated that I’ll try to answer that. He stated that other than some lighting for the roads, and I’m just not sure – I haven’t really worked with the architect – we’re just finishing the


plans now as to what lighting will be done on the building itself, but as far as I understand, we’re just talking about lighting that you have to have, safety lighting for like night use and so forth, as you would normally. He stated that I can’t fully tell you about the lighting at this point.

Mr. Brickner stated, keep in mind that this is Variances just for the height of this structure. He stated that there is nothing else that we’re considering here tonight except how tall. He stated that this structure exceeds the zoning ordinance of 25 feet, so, that’s what we’re here to talk about tonight.

Daniel Witkowski, 45 W. 700 N., stated that I live next to Daryl. He stated that I just appreciate saying that we live in America, because, you know, we are able to debate, express our feelings and stuff like that, but I got a dumb question to ask you. He stated that we are debating on the height of the cross on your church. He stated that I have no problem with that, but I never received any type of letter, registered letter, on the beginning of this structure. He stated that I don’t know the procedure. He asked, could you help me out a little bit? He asked, why don’t we receive something before we make a Variance on the height when we don’t even know if we can build it.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. McClure stated that I would just point out one thing that may not be clear. He stated that assuming for a moment that this height Variance was granted for the church, it would still have to go before the Plan Commission, first to the TAC Committee and then to the Plan Commission, so issues, for instance, of the lights, would be addressed also at those levels because we do have ordinances involved with that also. He stated that while tonight we’re only dealing with the Variances on the height, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be drainage issues, etc., that will be dealt with once this is done first.

Mr. Burns stated that this is not part of the petition, but he mentioned a school. He asked, is there going to be a full-time school?

Father Greanias stated that I would suggest that that would be an eventual goal. He stated that it’s not something that we have planned right now, outside of maybe a preschool or day school.

Mr. Burns stated that the architect mentioned that building to the right is a school.

Father Greanias stated that it's an educational center, like Sunday School, preschool.

Mr. Burns stated that it could be a school in the future.




Mr. Christos stated that there is enough space in there for a school.

Mr. Burns stated that you don’t state that in the petition.

Mr. Hudson stated that this is just for the height.

Mr. Brickner stated, but there are a number of issues that I can see coming up, and we’re not going to deal with those tonight.

Mr. Burns stated that I do have a concern. He stated that I don’t have a concern for the church – not at all. He stated that I do have a concern about the height. He stated that it will change the landscape of the neighborhood. He stated that you’re talking two structures, 40 feet and a third one that’s 32 feet 7 inches. He stated that that seems extreme for the neighborhood.

Mr. Hudson stated that I don’t know if I consider this a neighborhood church, but, at some point in time it will become part of the neighborhood that’s going to possibly grow out there. He stated that if it doesn’t grow it’s going to be part of the neighborhood that exists there. He stated that I guess I agree, in part, with Rick, but I understand the need to achieve what they want to obtain, so…

Mr. Detert asked, the height of the church is because you’re going to have the interior very high, very high ceilings – is that correct?

Mr. Christos stated that it’s actually a single-level church. He stated that it’s one floor, and there’s no balcony, no upper level. He stated that there’s an 18-foot (sic) rise for the altar and that’s essentially it. He stated, 18 inch.

Mr. Detert asked, the bell tower, is that going to actually be a bell tower or is that aesthetic? He asked, are bells there?

Mr. Perkins stated that the bell tower, as they call it, is just a structure.

Mr. Detert asked, there’s no bells, no carillon?

Father Greanias stated that there will be bells inside the church.

Mr. Detert asked, but that’s not the purpose of this tower?

Father Greanias stated, no.

Mr. Brickner stated that you say that it’s 42 feet 7 inches to the peak and for a bell tower and cross, which is to be 32 feet above grade and a 40-foot-high steel cross. He stated that when I add these numbers up on your drawings, from the ground level to the top of the


cross is actually 46 feet 1.5 inches. He stated that the cross is 3 feet 6 inches high and the 42 feet 7.5 inches from grade to the peak, so, actually the cross is going to be 46 feet 1.5 inches from the grade, is that correct?

Mr. Perkins stated that that’s correct.

Mr. Brickner stated that it’s actually the peak of the building is actually 42 feet, but to the cross is going to be 46 feet.

Mr. Perkins stated, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated that I have to say that this is a Rural Residential area. He stated that I think this building is a little bit out of character for the area, the height of the building. He asked, is there any way that the church can see to make this building…to bring this height down to what might be a little more reasonable for the area? He stated, 42 feet –we have a height regulation of 25 feet, you know. He stated that it’s just under double, is what you’re asking for, and personally I’d like to see it not so high. He stated that it’s going to be obtrusive for the neighborhood. He stated that I don’t think it’s going to fit with the rural characteristics of this neighborhood.

Mr. Christos stated that the property is actually zoned R-1. He stated that it is a rural area. He stated that one of the reasons we chose it was is that it’s between Portage, Chesterton and Valparaiso. He stated that it’s conveniently located close to the highway.

Mr. Brickner stated that I have no problem with the church. He stated that we’re only talking about why does it have to be 42 feet, that’s my question. He asked, if it was 36 feet high it wouldn’t be any good, is that it?

Mr. Perkins stated that it’s all proportional. He stated that just speaking for the architect – I’m not the architect on the building – so, but, I don’t know how to explain it exactly, but, the proportions when you’re inside of this thing with the arches and so forth, the building is not very wide – it’s not like it’s a 200-foot wide building or something like that. He stated that it’s narrow. He stated that we do have some height to the thing, for sure. He stated that with the plantings and so forth and the trees and so forth I’m tending to plant around the thing and in the area of the building. He stated that that will certainly soften it, to a great degree. He stated that I think as a piece of architecture itself, it’s going to be a really, really very attractive structure. He stated that I think maybe the concern over the height, I don’t know, I don’t think it’s justified. He stated that we’re 150 feet back from the road.

Mr. Brickner asked, if the Board were to deny this petition, what plans do you have for making it…you want to build your church there, whether it’s 42 feet high or 40 feet high or 25 feet high, I imagine, but if the Board decides to deny this petition, do you have a height


that you would be satisfied with? He asked, it has to be this high or…

Father Greanias stated that I don’t know if you’ve ever been inside a Greek Orthodox church to see the full effect of the iconography. He stated that it’s what we said earlier about the levels that go forward and the icons and everything. He stated that I think it’s a building designed to add to the area. He stated that I don’t know what else to answer. He stated that as far as whether we have a backup plan, I don’t know that we really do.

Mr. Perkins stated that you look at some of the Catholic churches and so forth, they’re in towns, right in cities, they’re way higher than that, probably. He stated, and they’re great pieces of architecture and that’s really what we’re trying to create here and, yeah, it does have some height to it, but I think as an item in itself, as a piece of architecture, it’s going to be a great asset to the community, not detrimental.

Mr. Brickner stated that the Orthodox churches that I’m familiar with in Lake County, they fit well within the suburbia area. He stated that the one by Crown Point, the one on Harrison Street, the one of 43rd Avenue, 46th Avenue… I forget, they fit pretty well in those areas, but this is really a big structure for an R-1 area, I mean, a tall structure for an R-1 area. He stated that I think it’s a beautiful church, and I’m all in favor of it. He stated that I’m just concerned about the height. Mr. Burns asked, are all Orthodox churches this high?

Mr. Christos stated that they’re this high or higher. He stated that they’re tall structures because of the interior. He stated that they’re not all… I mean, our church here in Valparaiso is an old Protestant church and it’s probably 20 feet high, I guess.

Mr. Burns stated that there’s other designs. He stated that I guess that’s what I’m saying.

Father Greanias stated, no, not in a traditional Byzantine structure.

Mr. Christos stated that one thing we’re missing here is we don’t have a dome. He stated that all the churches in Lake County have domes. He stated that that’s one thing…we wanted to be a unique Orthodox church and we don’t have a dome. He stated that a dome is going to add 15 to 20 feet to this, on top of the probably 30 feet on the wall, so we’re probably a little under what you might see on a proper church, in that style church with the domes. He stated that at this point, I suspect this is the first time that all of you have seen it, but we have brought this to the Planning staff and they’re aware of our request for the height, so, at this point, we’re essentially done with the designs and if we have to go back and redesign this, it’s going to cost about a quarter million dollars to do this over.




Mr. Brickner stated, but you knew what the ordinance called for in the way of height, but you designed it this way.

Mr. Christos stated, but we couldn’t come to you until we had these drawings. He stated that it's a bit of a Catch 22.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t know if that’s correct. He stated that he could have come with some type of sketch.

Mr. Christos stated that it’s not our intent to put a pole barn out there. He stated that it's our intent to put a proper church out there that’s going to be out there for as long as this community is thriving.

Father Greanias stated, and we do wish to be good neighbors to our neighbors. He stated that we’d be glad to talk to any of our neighbors about their concerns. He stated that we’re not going to go around knocking on anyone’s door trying to convert anyone.

Mr. Christos stated that I suppose the other option would be to reapply for a zoning change, but that’s going to take time.

Mr. Perkins stated that I strongly feel that it’s not going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated that I think it’s going to be a real plus, because it is such a nice piece of architecture.

Mr. Brickner stated that nobody’s complaining about the building, its appearance. He stated that the only thing that we’re talking about here is the 46 foot high structure in a rural area, an R-1 area, and it is out of character. He stated that if this structure were anything else, it would be denied immediately, I mean, if it were a riding stable or anything else, it would be denied, but the reason we’re trying to work this out is because it’s a beautiful church, and we have no objection to the location, but the height is a problem. He stated that I think it’s a problem with the Board members.

Mr. Burns asked, were all the neighbors contacted? He stated that there was a statement made by one of the neighbors out there, he wasn’t contacted. He asked, were letters sent out?

Mr. Detert stated that I guess that’s one of the reasons why we put the sign out there.

Mr. Siminski asked, are you Daniel Witkowski?

Mr. Witkowski stated, yes.

Mr. Siminski stated that I have a receipt here and I also have a green card here with his name on it.

Mr. Witkowski stated that I didn’t say I didn’t receive one for this one. He stated that what I’m saying is that I thought this was


putting the horse ahead of the cart or something, getting a Variance for the chapel steeple for the height when we never got a zoning notification as to whether to even start the structure.

Mr. Brickner stated that this is very preliminary.

Mr. Witkowski stated that I don’t understand the procedure.

Mr. Detert stated that that’s the way the ordinance is set up, and somewhere you have to make a first step, and this is a small step, so that’s first. He stated that the big step is when it goes to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Hudson moved to approve Case 06-V-27 as presented and stated in our agenda. Mr. Russell seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that my only question would be, and I can understand why they want the height and I think we have plenty of other churches that are probably that high, but one of the objections was to a neighbor having to look at the cross, which seemed to me that maybe we could eliminate some of the crosses. He asked, wouldn’t one cross be sufficient?

Mr. Burns stated, yeah, you’re right, because they want to have one on the corner, 40 feet high at the corner.

Mr. Brickner asked, will this issue come before the Planning Commission?

Mr. Detert stated, not if we approve the…

Mr. Brickner asked, if we approve the height it automatically approves two crosses?

Mr. Detert stated that if we approve the height and limit it, then I assume we can do that.

Mr. Perkins stated that the cross on top of the building is only 3 foot 6.

Mr. Detert stated that I was looking at the aesthetics of having so many crosses there.

Mr. McClure asked, where is the 40-foot cross, on what corner? He stated that we keep saying corner, but then I kind of got the feeling at one point that this was not on a corner intersection…

Mr. Perkins stated, right here. He stated that that’s 700 and here’s the cross, right here.

Mr. Burns stated, 40 feet high.

Father Greanias stated that the intent of that is meant to be a memorial to 9-11, first and foremost.

Mr. Brickner asked, are you recommending…?

Mr. Detert stated that I’m just throwing it out as a possible compromise, that’s all.

Mr. Brickner asked, we don’t approve a 40-foot height limit for that cross?

Mr. Burns stated that that’s definitely out of character.

Mr. Detert asked, is that legal? He asked, can they get a permit for that?

Mr. Burns stated that that’s what they are asking us.

Mr. Detert asked, for the corner, too? He stated, okay, I didn’t understand.

Father Greanias stated that I understand other people’s rights, but we have our rights, too. He stated that, I mean, we’re not forcing anyone to stare at a cross, either.

Mr. Burns stated, again, we have no problem with the church.

Mr. Perkins stated that I would feel if it was acceptable, if we were to delete the cross on the corner, if that makes the whole, this whole thing, more acceptable, then I think we should do that.

Mr. Burns stated that I would think that would help.

Mr. McClure stated, just so the Board understands: One issue is for them to commit to it; the other issue is for the Board to vote on it. He stated that the Board can make a motion. He stated that right now we have a motion and a second on the floor, so…I just wanted to point out that if the Board wanted to, there could be a motion made to exclude that cross.

Mr. Detert moved to amend the motion to eliminate the cross on the corner and to eliminate the carillon cross, the bell tower cross. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Mr. Brickner stated that we have a motion on the floor to approve Case 06-V-27, with the exclusion of the bell tower cross and the cross on the corner.

Mr. Detert moved to amend the motion to eliminate the cross on the corner from the petition and to eliminate the bell tower and its cross from the petition. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following a 3-2 roll call vote, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Russell dissenting.




Mr. McClure stated that the motion as it stands now is to approve the construction of the new church in Case 06-V-27, with the peak at 42 feet 7 inches, with the cross on the top of the building of 3 feet 1.5 inches, and not to approve the bell tower cross and the 40-foot high steel cross on the corner; incorporating the findings of fact as prepared by Board counsel, said findings being in the file. Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Russell - Yes Brickner - Yes

Case 06-UV-6. Petition of Virgil DiBiase and Mary Ellen Spaite, 362 E. Tratebas Road, seeking a Variance to permit construction of a 36-foot-tall indoor riding arena, taller than the 25 feet allowed in this zoning district, to be used in conjunction with a previously approved Use Variance permitting a horse stable and therapeutic riding clinic, to be located 1,800 feet East of CR 350 E., on the South side of Tratebas Road, in Jackson Township. (This Case was withdrawn by the petitioners.)

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioners withdrawing this petition.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the withdrawal of Case 06-UV-6. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

Case 06-UV-13. Petition of Frank E. Brown, 1621 N. 500 E., Michigan City, seeking a Use Variance to permit operation of a sporting goods store in a residential district, to be located at 1621 N. 500 E., in Pine Township.

Mr. Brown stated that I’m asking for a Variance from a residence to sell out of my home.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Linda Rance, 515 E. 1600 N., stated that I’m against this Variance. She stated that we’ve had a lot of problems in our area with people trying to bring businesses and that haven’t bothered to go through the channels to do so. She stated that we spent several years with a problem with our neighbors and trucks coming in and out of there. She stated that the woman had seven semis in a residential, right next door to me. She stated that we are concerned that if this Variance is granted it’s going to open up a can of worms and they are going to be right back in there with their trucks again. She stated that another concern that I have is that I understand that this Variance is for a sporting goods store. She stated that my general opinion in that is that a lot of sporting goods stores like to do shooting ranges. She stated that this used to be a very quiet area, a very peaceful area. She stated that all the shooting that goes on out



there now is very distracting. She stated that we have animals that are very frightened by all of this fire going on out there. She stated that I just don’t think that it’s a very good idea to have this type of situation out there. She stated that there’s other places that they could go and track record out there as far as sporting goods, they had one out on 20 not too far from where we are and it fell flat on its face. She stated that I just don’t think it’s a good idea.

Arthur Rance, 515 E. 1600 N., stated that everything she says, plus more. He stated that I’m getting tired of all the damned gunfire. He stated that I’m afraid to walk out the back door for all the gunfire going on. He stated that you don’t know if you’re going to get shot or what, and it’s just getting ridiculous. He stated that we’re just a ways from a school and the store down there, there’d be more traffic going back and forth. He stated that we’ve been trying to get them to stop all the shooting because of the school. He stated that we have dog trouble and everything else. He stated that we can’t get a cop to come out there.

Genowefa Brown stated that I am his wife. She stated that it is a very big property and we will not be a problem to the neighbors.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked, is the business there now?

Mr. Brown stated, not right now.

Mr. Burns asked, you’re not selling any sporting goods?

Mr. Brown stated, no. He stated that I haven’t had a federal firearms license to buy CR guns, which can be sent straight to my home and I don’t have to go to no sporting goods store and pay them transfer fees and stuff like that. He stated that I’ve lived there…I’m the third generation of homes that have lived there. He stated that I’m 72 years old. He stated that I don’t know where these people are getting all this shooting and banging and stuff. He stated that I know I’m hard of hearing, but I know one thing, that I can hear a gun. He stated that when I was a kid you could take a gun and point it in any direction because there was no houses around there and shoot. He stated that I have no intentions of having a shooting range out there, nor do I have any intentions of letting anybody go out there and make that a shooting range. He stated that my main goal with the sporting store would be Number 1, as I belong to the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the North American Hunting Foundation, my main goal, first of all, with anybody, is to learn the safety of a gun. He stated, learn the safety and that will stop a whole lot of the accidents that happen today with guns.

Mr. Burns asked, do you have a federal ID?




Mr. Brown stated that I have a federal firearms license. He stated that anything 50 years and over I can buy and have it shipped to home.

Mr. Burns asked, are you going to be repairing guns, also? He asked, are you going to repair guns and sell guns?

Mr. Brown stated that I will.

Mr. Burns stated, so, after you repair them, you have to test the guns?

Mr. Brown stated, yes.

Ms. Brown stated that I know around our house almost every neighbor has a gun. She stated that sometimes you hear some neighbors shooting guns around our house.

Mr. Burns stated that I don’t have a problem with the guns, sports store and gun shop, but in a residential area I do; I have a problem with that. He stated that this is not the right location.

Mr. Detert stated that I don’t understand what the hardship is that he has to run a sports store out of his house.

Mr. Brickner stated that the only thing he says is that he wants to supplement his…are you retired, Mr. Brown?

Mr. Brown stated, yes. He stated that I didn’t really retire. He stated that I had to quit work in 1994 and the cost of living goes up and up and up, but my wages have stayed the same and I do need a little extra cash, and that’s one way to get it.

Mr. Brickner stated that if you’re selling sporting goods out of your home and you’re going to sell guns and you’re going to sell ammunition. He asked, are you going to sell reloading supplies?

Mr. Brown stated, right.

Mr. Brickner stated, so you have gunpowder, primers and reloading supplies?

Mr. Brown stated, whatever it takes, yes.

Mr. Brickner stated that it’s really tough for us in a residential area like this. He stated that I’m a great sportsman and love to hunt and fish, but I really think this isn’t a good place to have a…be storing gunpowder and reloading supplies and guns. He stated, so, I really think this is not a good fit.






Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-UV-13, incorporating the findings of fact as drawn up by Board counsel. Mr. Deter seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Hudson - Yes
Russell - Yes Brickner - Yes

Case 06-PUV-2. Petition of Laura Arcuri, 359 Devon Road, Valparaiso, seeking a Permanent Use Variance to permit operation and construction of an indoor family entertainment center, with the new building to be 40 feet maximum in height, to be located at 5402 U.S. Hwy 6, in Portage Township.

Mr. Siminski read a letter from the petitioner withdrawing this Case.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the withdrawal of Case 06-PUV-2. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 roll call vote.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that we have the 2007 BZA calendar that was passed out last month to approve.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the 2007 BZA calendar. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 5-0 voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Siminski stated that we are starting to get some inquiries again for cell towers. He stated that he thinks the last cell tower that we had was over a year ago, the one in South Haven, and that got tabled. He stated that he talked to Mr. McClure about this. He stated that there are some lawyers on these cable guys starting to call and asking questions about this. He stated that anyone can apply. He stated that there is no moratorium on this, but they can apply, but each case is on its own merit. He stated that we were questioning last time whether or not to get some expert review of some sort so that when people come in and they are discussing it with the Board…he is just bringing it up to find out from the Board what direction for maybe next month.

Mr. Burns asked, where do you find a neutral party?

Mr. McClure stated, the City of Portage gets quite a few of these. He stated that we’ve probably dealt with six or seven of them in the last couple of years. He stated that while there is no zoning district that explicitly allows them, we do have a couple of zoning districts that have them through Special Exception, which kind of steers these things into places that the City has deemed acceptable and then still allows the Special Exception for the BZA to have all the power it needs to be able to place restrictions on it once it’s before us so we’re not having cell towers and obviously come in in places that we don’t think are good locations, but, on the second hand, the BZA doesn’t lose the authority and the power to say, okay, fine, that could be the proper zoning; you’re here for a Special



Exception, but we want X, X and X and do it that way. He stated that that may be one way, because I think currently as it stands there’s no zoning district that allows one, correct?

Mr. Siminski stated, not without a Special Exception.

Mr. Brickner stated, not that I know of.

Mr. Detert stated that I think what I’d like to see is those maps…they come in with those maps that show the coverage…so that we can really tell whether that tower’s really needed, or, if they’re just putting it in because Joe Blow has got a tower over here and they don’t want to pay the hookup fee…

Mr. McClure stated, see, we had to do a lot of that on the last one. He stated that we probably got more of an education than we all wanted on cell tower frequencies, etc. He stated that that’s quite amazing, that Nextel and Verizon can’t be on the same tower, can’t be at the same height on the tower, and, if they are, they interfere with each other, so, you may have a map and those maps kind of become kind of provider-specific. He stated that they’re not, here’s a cell tower, everyone sells that’s coming off this tower.

Mr. Detert stated that the ones I’m talking about show the towers and show what the coverage is and all the additive towers that we have in addition to the one that we’re requesting. He asked, did you tell them, Fred, that this Board is pretty tough on cell towers?

Mr. Siminski stated, yeah.

Mr. Burns stated, I think they know. He stated that we had that one case where, finding with testimony, that they didn’t need a 200-foot tower; they said 125 would work.

Mr. Brickner stated that we have a cell tower specific ordinance. He stated that it needs to be revised a little bit. He stated that I think we’ve done that.

Mr. Burns stated that I still think we need some expert that’s neutral.

Mr. Brickner stated that they bring their experts in…

Mr. Detert stated, Fred, why don’t you talk to Bob and see if you guys can come up between you or by maybe calling some other locales and see how they approach the neutral input on these things. He stated that maybe somebody knows something we don’t know.

Mr. Burns stated that I keep asking the question, if you go through some of these other states, like Philadelphia, they’re putting towers (sic) on utilities, on signs off the highway. He stated that they’re getting creative.



Mr. Detert stated that I think what we ran into before is that these guys just wanted a tower because somebody else had a tower close to them, and I don’t buy that. He stated that if we put them up we’ve got room for, what, four to six additional connections, and that’s what they need to be looking at – not a new tower.

Mr. McClure stated that we had them come in in Portage and do a very unique collaboration with one of the schools, and it’s actually on the school property.

Mr. Detert stated that we turned one down like that.

Mr. McClure stated that it’s actually producing some revenue for the school. He stated that it had all kinds of requirements for the fence and the shrubs and whatever else had to go around it, etc. He stated that we sent it to the school board, and the school board had to approve it, and it came back, and it actually turned out to work pretty nicely, because it was actually in an area that wasn’t being utilized at the school, anyway. He stated that it wasn’t like they stuck it out in the middle of the front.

Mr. Brickner stated that the one we turned down in Washington Township, I think…

Mr. Detert stated, no, Boone Grove.

Mr. Brickner stated that it was not within the required safety area for collapse. He stated that I think that’s one of the main reasons why we turned it down, the school buildings were right there. He stated that I thought one of them was going to be on the top of the building, on top of one of the school buildings.

Mr. McClure stated that this was one of those straight-up monopoles.

Mr. Detert stated that Boone Grove had a single-standing tower, a tripod-type tower.

Mr. Brickner stated, a lattice-type tower. He stated that we’ve been only doing one tower case per meeting, right?

Mr. Hudson asked, did we not make that our policy?

Mr. Brickner stated that that’s a good idea. He stated that maybe we should, because, if we get two towers in one night…

Mr. Detert stated that we’re going to go crazy. He stated, one a night.

At this time, Mr. Detert stated that I’m still getting calls on that excavation business on 725 W., Mixon. He stated that we had said






that a month before we would have your office write a letter. He asked, would you follow up on it and tell them that we want them out by the January date that they’re supposed to be out. He stated that what I’m afraid of is that they’re going to come in here and then they’re going to plead bad weather and they had all this good weather to get out of there, and I don’t want them having any excuse.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS


S\ Marvin Brickner, Vice-Chairman



Attest:S\ Fred M. Siminski, Assistant Director/Zoning Inspector