April 21, 2010
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2010
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 21, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.
Those members present were Richard Burns, Luther Williams, Robert Detert, and Debbie Kerr-Cook. Staff members present were Attorney Scott McClure, Raymond S. Joseph Jr. and Fred Siminski.
Mr. Detert moved to waive reading of the minutes for the 3-17-10 meeting, and to approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.
Old Business:
Case 09-UV-16. Petition of Opportunity Enterprises, Inc., c/o William A. Ferngren, Ferngren Law Offices, LLC, 570 Vale Park Road, Suite B, Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance from the Unified Development Ordinance for Section 2.33 to permit multi-family residential uses in a High Intensity Commercial District to be located at 40 Fish Lake Road in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (This case was continued from the 10-28-09 and 3-17-10 meetings, with the public hearing closed.)
Case 09-V-29. Petition of Opportunity Enterprises, Inc., c/o William A. Ferngren, Ferngren Law Offices, LLC, 570 Vale Park Road, Suite B, Valparaiso seeking a Variance from the Unified Development Ordinance for Section 2.34 CH District Development Standards: Water, Water Utility connection required to be located at 40 Fish Lake Road in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (This case was continued from the 10-28-09 and 3-17-10 meetings, with the public hearing closed.)
Case 03-UV-4. Donald Ehrick & LuAnn Jones, 576 E. 1400 N., Michigan City, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting the boarding of eight dogs, located at 576 E. 1400 N., in Pine Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)
Case 10-V-12. Petition of Joyce Frechette, 589 W. 100 N., Valparaiso, seeking Variances from the following Sections of the Unified Development Ordinance: Section 10.33 Subdivision Control, to waive the requirement for Primary Plat; Section 10.34, Subdivision Control, to waive the requirement for Secondary plat; Section 2.12 RR District development Standards, Minimum Lot Width, to reduce the requirement from 160 to 60 feet and to waive the requirement for the Minimum Width to Depth Ratio; all in order to build a second home on an 11.4-acre parcel, to be located at 589 W., 100 N., in Union Township. (This case was continued from the 3-17-10 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Mr. Joseph Jr., Case 03-UV-4, Donald and LuAnn Jones, also requested to be continued next month. Case 10-V-12 the petitioner, Joyce Frechette, the petitioner did not submit for DLZ or ???? so staff pulled the petition until next month.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Do I have a motion to accept all the continuances until next month? That would be Case 09-UV-16, Case 09-V-29, and Case 03-UV-4.
Mr. Williams moved to continue Case 09-UV-16, Case 09-V-29, and Case 03-UV-4 to the 5-10 meeting. Mr. Detert seconded.
Mr. Burns, Did the second, did you include 10-V-12?
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, I did not.
Atty. McClure, Because staff pulled that one.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Yeah.
Atty. McClure, Because they didn’t follow the requirements.
The motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 99-UV-14. Frank A. Jury II, 235 W. U.S. Hwy 30, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a law office in a residential zone, on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 250 W. and Hayes-Leonard Road, in Center Township. (This is the last renewal on this Case and was tabled from the Nov. 19, 2009 meeting.)
Atty. McClure, I don’t see the petitioner here. Why don’t we table this case until the end of the agenda for now and see if he appears.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Then we will move on.
Atty. McClure, We would need to do a motion to do that.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Do I have a motion to that effect?
???? moved to table Case 99-UV-14 until the end of the agenda. Mr. Burns seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 10-UV-4. Petition of Patricia Irwin, 607 Driftwood St., Lowell, seeking a Use Variance from Section 2.11 of the Unified Development Ordinance, RR District Intent and Permitted Uses, to operate Rosehill Adult Care Inc., an adult residential care home, to be located at 450 N. 450 E., in Washington Township. (This case was continued from the 2-17-10 meeting, with the public hearing closed.)
Chuck Parksinson, Good evening. Chuck Parkinson, 107 Broadway in Chesterton. I’m here on behalf of and along with the petitioner, Pat Irwin. This matter had a public hearing in February and at that time there were some concerns raised by the board. As you recall, there were no ???? at the February hearing with respect to this petition. The issues that the board wanted addressed were four or five issues. In particular the board wanted the Washington Township Fire Department to go out and conduct an inspection. That inspection was done and we have a letter that we submitted from Chief ???? of the Washington Township Volunteer Fire Department indicating that he toured the facility and at this time gave his approval for occupancy based on his inspection.
The second item that we submitted, that there was some concerns about, the accuracy of the parking and we had submitted a parking plan, which identifies four additional parking spaces in addition to the driveway and the garage parking which would be available. In talking to staff, the four spaces would be adequate based on the employees--one space per employee, a maximum of three employees at any given time plus one parking space per four beds and that’s consistent with your UDL???? So that parking plan, again, has been submitted.
In addition, Ms. Irwin had the water inspected by the Indiana State Department of Health. You should have an inspection report dated March 4, indicating satisfactory water sample. One item that you may not have, we just recently received, and that was a letter from the Indiana State Department of Health Commercial Division indicating that the existing septic is sufficient. They base that on adult residential care facility and based on their standards, which require 450-gallon per day capacity and their conclusion dated in their letter, dated April 13, is that the existing facility would be more than sufficient to handle this particular use.
The final issue was, it was suggested at the meeting last, excuse me, in February that staff and the petitioner both try to contact the Health Department and get them to maybe come out, at the petitioner’s expense, twice a year for an inspection. We’ve contacted the Health Department and they’re not willing to do that. They don’t really have a process for passing on the cost. Maybe your attorney could help us out in figuring out a way to do that. We would be more than happy to have them come out at the petitioner’s expense on maybe particular intervals. The other concern was they just weren’t sure on how to treat the facility--it’s not a restaurant. The standards that they have for typically going out for these inspections would be for retail food establishments. So again, it would be the petitioner’s, she would certainly be willing to pay for the expense of having the Health Department come out, but they’re not sure about how that process would work, so.
Again, those five issues were raised at the February meeting. We’ve submitted the material that I hope addresses all of those concerns. So at this time if there are any questions, we would be happy to try and answer them.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Rick.
Mr. Burns, Yes, Madam Chairman, unfortunately my biggest concern was the State inspection or somebody inspect nursing home--that’s a real concern. I’m concerned about the residents of Porter County. Would you, petitioner, agree to increase it, increase the number? Because I understand the State will inspect it and oversee it if it’s more than five residents, but if it’s under five they will not and Porter County Health Department is not set-up to do this.
Mr. Parkinson, Certainly limited by the space that’s currently at the house. There’s only so much room there for one. Ms. Irwin did attempt to have the State come in and do an inspection prior to this process, but at the time when she indicated that it was going to be a four-bed facility they said that they really didn’t have any jurisdiction over that. So we’ve made, and since the February meeting, we’ve made additional attempts to contact people with the State to see if they could come in and inspect, but again, since their jurisdiction only kicks in when there are five beds or more they don’t have any oversight over this facility.
Mr. Burns, That’s really, that makes it tough. That’s a real concern right now. I can’t ask for it without that (inaudible).
Mr. Parkinson, I would just, I would just again reiterate what I said at the last meeting. If this were in an institutional zone within the County there would be no oversight over the facility. So there may be in other districts, or other zoning districts, uses like this which would not receive the same type of oversight that Ms. Irwin has gone through over the past few months. They would be a permitted use, for instance, a CN Zone????, I believe, along with an institutional zone.
Mr. Burns, But you would still have to have a State inspection.
Mr. Parkinson, Not if they’re less than five beds.
Mr. Burns, Well that’s the first I heard of that.
Atty. McClure, I mean, basically, we have a situation where this use isn’t, the whole reason why she’s here is because the use isn’t a permanent use????
Mr. Burns, Right, in the zoning.
Atty. McClure, In this zoning, but if she was in a different zoning she wouldn’t even be here and then we would, I think what the attorney is trying to point out is that there would be no oversight in that case. So the only thing here, the only difference we could have across the street, we could have the ???? zoning, a four-bed facility that’s operating that would just need to come in and get permits. They basically, or not even need permits.
Mr. Parkinson????, Not even permits.
Atty. McClure, Wouldn’t even need permits because it was already built and they could have a four-bed facility. In this case the scrutiny happened, we’re stuck in between a four and a five bed. It’s not big enough to make it a five-bed to kick in the State. Our local Health Department isn’t set-up to do this. So then she’s caught in this limbo of we’re very concerned about not having any inspection, but it’s just a matter of changing, if she was in just a different zoning they wouldn’t be coming before nobody.
Mr. Burns, Okay. Well does that mean we have a loophole in our ordinance?
Atty. McClure, Well if there’s a loophole, it’s a loophole in State law. They only go down to four beds, I mean, they only go down to five beds.
Mr. Burns, Do we want that in Porter County, do you want nursing homes without oversight?
Mr. Parkinson, If I can.
Mr. Burns, Excuse me, it doesn’t seem like a good practice to me, it really doesn’t. I think we should address that in an ordinance.
Mr. Detert, The county refuses to inspect it, the Health Department of Porter County, refuses to make periodic inspections.
Mr. Burns, They’re not set-up the way I understand, they’re not set-up.
Atty. McClure, I mean basically what they’re saying is that if they went in there they wouldn’t know what they would be grading it against because they don’t have, I mean when they go into a restaurant they know what they’re grading it on. If they go into other places they’re used to, they know what they’re grading it on. This particular facility they would think, if they went they wouldn’t know what they would be grading it on besides just looking around.
Mr. Burns, I’m sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Parkinson, We’d be more than happy to have someone from the county come in periodically, but there’s an issue with having that set-up with the cost be shifted to the petitioner. If there was someway we could work that out.
Inaudible comments made by BZA members.
Atty. McClure, But that’s what our Health Department is saying.
Mr. Burns, I think it’s a great idea. If it was larger where we had oversight that would be great, but I think we’re opening up a can of worms if something should happen, it won’t be pretty. I think we should address that in an ordinance.
Mr. Detert’s response is inaudible.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Luther, did you have any comments?
Mr. Williams, No, not really.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Any more discussion? For a motion.
Mr. Detert, What do you think about passing it for a short period of time?
Mr. Burns, There’s no oversight, I’m sorry, I can not support that.
Mr. Detert’s response is inaudible.
Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 10-UV-4. Mr. Detert seconded. Motion passed on the following vote:
Mr. Williams - No Mr. Detert - Yes
Mrs. Kerr-Cook - Yes Mr. Burns - Yes
Mr. Parkinson, Thanks for the consideration.
Case 03-UV-3. Thomas Gielow Jr., 333S. 600 W., Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting a boat repair business, on the East side of CR 600 W., between SR 2 and CR 350 S., in Porter Township. (This is the last renewal available on this Case.)
Mr. Detert, Madam Chairman, this gentleman is running a business now in, I guess it would be Merrillville, (inaudible). This is Thomas Gielow, right? He’s, it’s a home repair, it’s been replaced so he does not need this (inaudible).
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Okay.
Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 03-UV-3. Mr. Burns seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Inaudible comments made by BZA members.
Case 05-UV-4. Chris Harris, 525 W. SR 130, Hebron, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting operation of a landscaping and sprinkler system business, at 525 W. SR 130, in Union Township.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Staff visited the site and Mr. Harris no longer lives at that address. We spoke with his ex-wife, I guess it would be, and they’re no longer seeking the variance.
Mr. Burns, It’s old business.
Mr. Joseph Jr., That business that they’re seeking approval for is no longer there.
Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 05-UV-4. Mr. Detert seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 05-UV-2. Ted Clark, 27E-1 700N., Valparaiso, seeking a renewal of a Use Variance permitting removal of fill from a site where a pond is to be constructed, to be taken to property East of Meridian and North of U.S. Hwy 6, in Liberty Township.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Once again, Mr. Clark has passed away. Staff visited the site and spoke with, we believe, his niece and they’re aware that there’s a case for this to be heard tonight and they never submitted their renewal fee or contacted staff.
Mr. Burns, So it’s not required, apparently.
Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 05-UV-2. Mr. Detert seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 99-V-15. Emmanuel & Eleni Manos, 798 N. 500 E., Valparaiso, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home on the Southwest corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 500 E., in Jackson Township.
Ms. Kerr-Cook’s response is inaudible.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Petitioner is not here, but she sent in the renewal fee with a letter. The letter is addressed to the board. To Whom it may Concern: Please renew my mobile home permit because I need it to take care of my mother. Signed Maria. She has no other place to stay.
Mr. Burns, It sounds like a hardship case. There’s been no complaints, is that correct?
Mr. Joseph Jr., Yep.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 99-V-15. Mr. Burns seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 05-V-13. Kankakee Valley Historical Society, 22 W. 1050 S., Kouts, seeking an extension of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a mobile home at 1101 S. Baum’s Bridge Road, in Pleasant Township.
Ms. Kerr-Cook, No representative is here.
Mr. Joseph Jr., No, he’s not here.
Mr. Detert, Is he supposed to be here?
Mr. Joseph Jr., He submitted his renewal fee, as well as a letter addressed to the board, well it’s addressed to me. It states, I’m writing on behalf of the Kankakee Valley Historical Society regarding the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy authorizing the use of a mobile home. The Board of Directors of KVHS is requesting permission to retain the mobile home located on the property. The mobile home continues to serve as an office and to site and management processing and documentation of the artifacts from the ongoing archeological studies of the site. The use remains as stated on the original request to permit???? occupancy. A check for the annual renewal fee in the amount of $50 is enclosed.
Mr. Detert, Madam Chair, they’ve been doing some good work out there and they’ve been unearthing a lot of artifacts that are really older than me.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-V-13. Mr. ???? seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Ms. Kerr-Cook, We will go back to Case 99-UV-14. Frank A. Jury.
Case 99-UV-14. Frank A. Jury II, 235 W. U.S. Hwy 30, Valparaiso, seeking renewal of a Use Variance permitting a law office in a residential zone, on the North side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 250 W. and Hayes-Leonard Road, in Center Township. (This is the last renewal on this Case and was tabled from the Nov. 19, 2009 meeting.)
Frank Jury, Thank you for the (inaudible). I apologize for my tardiness (inaudible). Good evening to the board. I was requesting a renewal on a Use Variance on Route 30 at the property located at 235 West U.S. Highway 30. I’ve been there for, this will be my third Use Variance now for ten years.
Mr. Burns, This is for an additional of five years?
Mr. Jury, Yes, correct.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, And you’re aware it’s your last renewal?
Mr. Jury, I’m sorry.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, You’re aware that it’s your last renewal available.
Mr. Jury, I understand that you have three opportunities and then you have to reapply to either stay, if I want to continue to stay at that location.
Mr. Burns, Any complaints, Ray?
Mr. Joseph, Jr., No.
Mr. Detert, The only problem I’ve had with this is he’s not been too good about following the rules we’ve made previously about signs.
Mr. Burns, I thought all of that was resolved.
Mr. Detert, Pardon.
Mr. Burns, I thought that was resolved.
Mr. Detert, I don’t know, I’m asking, it might have been.
Atty. McClure, The signs, yeah, it’s resolved at this point.
Mr. Detert, It is solved?
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 99-UV-14 for five additional years with the same stipulations. Mr. Detert seconded.
Atty. McClure, Just so we’re clear, the sign, no larger than 2 by 3, no more than two attorney’s, hours of operation will end ???? at 9 p.m. and no structural changes. That was the original conditions.
Inaudible comments made by BZA members.
Mr. Jury, I removed the yard sign that was a problem in the past. I do have some (inaudible) decorated (inaudible).
Mr. Burns, One sign, 2 by 3.
Atty. McClure, Yep.
Mr. Burns, Staff, you can go out next week and check because that’s part of the stipulation, 2 by 3.
Mr. Jury, With the, I know the issue has been in the past, I (inaudible).
Inaudible comments made by BZA members.
Mr. Joseph Jr., We’ll come out next week.
Mr. Jury, I’m sorry.
Mr. Joseph Jr., We’ll come out next week.
Mr. Jury, Alright.
Mr. Burns, Same stipulation. You agree?
Mr. Detert, Same stipulation.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Any further discussion?
Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Mr. Jury, Thank you. I appreciate the boards time.
New Business:
Mrs. Kerr-Cook read the Rules of Conduct at a Public Hearing.
Case 10-V-13. Petition of Kami & Chad Woody, 901 Domke Drive, Valparaiso, seeking Variances from the following Sections of the Unified Development Ordinance : Section 2.14, R-1, District Development Standards Minimum Rear Setback, to reduce the rear setback for an accessory structure from 15 feet to 5 feet; Section 9.04 (B) Nonconforming Structure, Enlarged or Altered, to enlarge a legal non-conforming structure; Section 5.06 AS-03, Accessory Structure; Residential (B) Maximum Floor Area, to increase the maximum cumulative square footage of all accessory structures from 1,300 square feet to 1,640 square feet; and Section 5.06 (C) AS-03, Accessory Structure, Residential, Appearance, for the exterior façade of the accessory structure to match the current accessory structure and side of the house, rather than the house’s front façade; all in order to construct an addition to an existing accessory structure; to be located at 901 Domke Drive in Center Township.
Kami Woody, Do you have the presentation on your monitors?
Mr. Joseph, Jr., Yes, we do.
Mrs. Woody, Okay I didn’t know. I’m speaking on behalf of Chad and Kami Woody, I’m Kami Woody. We live at 901 Domke Drive Valparaiso, Indiana. We’re here tonight to request variances to the local ordinances as, I just have all four again, as you already have heard of them all, the four of them. So first, I just wanted to provide some background. Again, I’m Kami Woody, I’m a life-long resident of Valparaiso. I’ve basically lived within a two-mile radius of Valpo my whole life. It’s the area I love, it’s the area I plan to stay in the rest of my life. I purchased my house at 901 Domke Drive in 1999 and my husband, who is the joint petitioner, Chad Woody, he moved to Northwest Indiana in 1996 when he was located with his job at the Lowell post with the Indiana State Police in Lowell. We married in 2001, in which then he moved into my house at 901 Domke Drive.
Just for some background, we, right now our house is a three bedroom ranch, it’s on a crawl space. Since I lived there in ‘99 and Chad has joined me there, we’ve made numerous improvements both inside and out. We put in new floors, updated the bathroom. On the exterior, within the last couple years, well we put on a new roof, redid the front porch. Last couple years we did all new siding, steel siding, we put in new windows. So as you can see, I mean, we do try to maintain a very nice looking home.
Off to the side of our house, as you can see in that picture, off to the right side is an accessory structure that was there when we purchased the house. It’s a limited, I call it a limited use accessory structure because we are in unincorporated Valparaiso, so we’re on a septic system. Our septic laterals actually go out in front of that structure so we cannot put a driveway in there. So we can’t truly use like it’s a second garage because we can’t put in a driveway to access it.
After I purchased my house in ‘99, several years ago we also were able to purchase an adjoining half-acre lot that is to the east of our, what was my original piece of property. We know have an adjoining half-acre, which in November, this past November it was all added and combined onto a single deed. So it is a single property deed of a little excess of one-acre.
The next slide, basically this is just a little bit further down street. It shows our accessory structure in the middle and as you can see around us off to the northwest corner there’s neighbors two over have an accessory structure. Right behind us, there’s, they have an accessory structure, to the north and over to the northeast is a third accessory structure, a rather large pole barn. So all of our neighbors have accessory structures, all of which are bigger than the one we have. So just wanted to give you an idea that they’re not out of common for the area in which we live, or to have these larger accessory structures used for storage.
Why we’re here tonight is, I just want to first outline why we’re here to request these variances, first to outline what our current storage needs are. We have three personal use vehicles. Mine, the one that I use, like, for driving all the time. Plus, I also have two show cars, two mustangs that are kept in, like, truly original, they’re show cars, limited use--they’re just taken to car shows so they’re kept in pristine condition. Like I said they’re ???? so they’re not like loud, noisy hot rod cars, they’re just my show cars. We have Chad’s work vehicle--his State Police car. We have a motorcycle that my husband has had since he was in high school. Several years ago we purchased a 21-foot pleasure boat. We also have a small utility trailer used for, like, hauling the lawn mower around or mulch, that sort of thing. We also have other parking and lawn maintenance items that, like I said we’re on an acre. So we have the riding lawn mower, we have the push lawn mower and we have the snow blower and then through my husbands job we also have a lot of other items, part of his job with the State Police, he has a lot of equipment that we have to store for his job. The off-seasonal stuff, just like extra hats and uniforms, boxes, cases of stuff. Also, he’s the area team leader for the scuba team, which means we have a lot of air tanks in the garage, weight belts, scuba suits. So this, we do have a lot of stuff, and like I said we’re on a crawl space, so we don’t have a basement to store some of these things at our house, so they are in the garage and then also just any other miscellaneous tools that you need to maintain a house and property.
So my next picture just kind of shows you of some of our vehicles that we have. Just so you can see that, I mean, we do take very good care of them. Even my Explorer, I’m out there in the middle of winter washing and waxing it. My show cars, always kept in pristine condition--I’ve won over 80 trophy’s with them. There’s a picture of our boat and as you can see in the picture, it’s, not that it’s a huge boat, but it is wide and long enough that it doesn’t fit in just our standard garage. And then also in considering that’s what we have right now, there’s also going to be possible future storage needs. As in we have, I come from a car family, I’m a car nut and we have two vehicles that are currently in my parents ownership that some day I do hope that I can acquire them because they have very special significance to me. My dad bought a 1957 Thunderbird new, that he still has--I’ve been driving it since I was 15 and he has a ‘68 Mustang, my grandpa bought new that my mom still has--I drove that car to high school, college. So someday I hope that I can have them in my possession and I want to be able to have a facility that I can keep them with me on my property and take care of them and look after them.
What’s currently allowed under the accessory structure standards is, we currently have a one structure at 440-square feet. So we could build up to 1300, which would be an additional 860-square foot addition or unit we could fill, we could upgrade, so we could have another one. And then in consideration of location and set-back it would have to be placed further away from property lines, we could make it further away from what we currently have as buildings, so that’s what would be allowed. What we’re looking at is, what we’re looking at is, and one thing I just want to stress is we’re looking to build for personal storage. I love my cars, they’re very special to me, I take great pride in taking of them. So it’s just personal storage so that I can keep my cars on my lot, I can take care of them, I can keep my boat and keep it under cover so it can stay nice. So it’s just for our personal use, for not, I mean I have all I can do to take care of the cars I have, I’m not going to be running a business. I don’t have time for anyone else’s, so it’s just for our own personal use to have this, a garage space and one that we can actually use as a true garage with a driveway.
Looking at our own personal needs we’ve also have spent a lot of time, considering the neighborhood, we want to make sure that when we try to do something that gives us the storage we need, we’ve considered the whole neighborhood and what would be the best location for this and that’s why instead of, you know, just planking one in the middle of our, that extra lot we bought and then having a total of five different structures out there, we thought it would look a lot better to have it just a cohesive single building tied to what we currently have and just enlarging that one. I mean, too, as we showed in the earlier slide, accessory structures aren’t uncommon in our neighborhood, but our neighbors around us, all three of them have them, they’re bigger than ours. It’s not like we’re in a neighborhood (inaudible). Where we’re are it’s not a neighborhood, they are common in our area.
So what we’re looking at for doing for our addition is, we currently have, as I showed, a 20-foot wide by 22-deep accessory structure. We’re looking at adding on to that to the east, maintaining the same rear-wall as the current one and then just going east and then forward, making it a 40-foot wide by 30-foot deep. So we keep the same rear-wall and just be coming forward and out. It would be consistent with what we currently have; a wood-frame construction with a finished insulated interior. Like I said, it’s going to be humid controlled, moisture controlled and everything just for the storage of my vehicles and, I mean, it’s we’re going to do a wood-frame construction, matching what we have. We’re hire a qualified builder, it’s not something that me and my husband are going to try and build on the weekend or a pole barn. It will be a nicely finished built storage unit.
Here’s an aerial view of our property, to give you an idea of what we have. As you can see the house is marked with the little arrow below it. The property, our property is outlined with the red-line, as you can see it’s kind of an L-shaped from where we, our original lot and then the extra half acre we bought now gave us a full-acre, but it’s an L-shaped. So you can see our house, you can see our accessory structure, there’s our current accessory structure and then this also gives you an idea of where the accessory structures are. There’s one north of us, one to the northwest, and one to the northeast and then again from this one you can see that the current, all of the other surrounding ones are bigger than ours. So then what we can show is to is looking at our extra half-acre lot that we added to our property is we could build out in that lot, up to 860 square-feet, but what we’re petitioning to do is to add on to the building we already have there. It would keep it closer to our current buildings, less intrusive to the neighbors. It won’t be as close to, like the one north of us, it won’t be in their backyard. We feel that that’s just in the best interest of the neighbors as far as it keeps it closer to what we have and out of their way.
So here again, this is the one I already showed, the street view of our structure with the other three surrounding. I know, I know at least one of the board members has driven by our property, but for those that haven’t, just to kind of give a feel for what the property is like, so this is the street view. Here’s just from the southeast corner just, again, so you can see our structure and the bigger one behind it and then just kind of an idea where we would put our addition. Here is just looking, basically, at that half-acre lot that we added on to ours showing it’s a big open area. We add on to ours, it’s really not coming in close contact with any neighbors. Here’s just the straight on view to the west of the side of our property. You can see, like, the distance with the neighbors lot. We actually do, and I don’t know how well, but we do have little markers, little pavers, marking the outline of where the lot would be, or the addition would be just for relatively sake--to show you where it would fall in relation to the others. We have a back corner view, again, of just our structure and the neighbors, we’re almost done, I think, aren’t we Chad? This is just the rear so you can see where we would be building off to the side, we just want to maintain that rear-wall location and go to the east and south.
(Inaudible comments).
Mrs. Woody, And then just another, here’s just the corner of our garage and it’s kind of odd, like when I look at these our neighbors to the north, they do have a door that faces our way, but, I mean they can’t, they have to access it through their yard, I mean they don’t access it from the street where we would be building our addition because that’s our lot, so. If your just confused by the way their door looks like it’s behind ours, that’s not ours--it’s our neighbors and they just too use it for like tractors.
Back to the straight on front view, so we’re starting back with the front view just to give you a frame of reference of here’s what we currently have and then to lead you to, I don’t have good PowerPoint skills so I had to do a rendering in Excel, basically there’s our current structure with our proposed addition. Like I said, this is just what I could do in Excel, but it gives you an idea of what we’re doing with our 40-foot wide, 30-foot deep because I haven’t worked with a builder or anything I don’t know the roof pitch, but I think, I put, I just put it would be a maximum of 20-feet. I don’t know because I don’t know what the roof pitch would be if it’s going to be like between 18 and 20 feet high, but knowing the max would be 20. So that’s a rendering of an elevation what the front would look like.
So back to what was originally stated, we have four variance requests in order to do this addition that we’re proposing. The first one is to reduce the rear set-back from 15 to 5 feet. The reason we need to do this one is our current accessory structure was built 30-some years ago when they didn’t have the 15 foot set-back so it was built only 5-feet from the rear line. As we kind of, I tried to show, we think it would be best to add on to that unit because it would just be less intrusive to the neighbors. In order to add on to that structure we would have 30, a section like 6-feet, we’re 6-feet from what was our original property line. There would be that section that would be 5-foot off the neighbors lot, so that’s why we’re requesting that in order to have the same exterior wall location as our current building. It’s not, I mean, we don’t feel that that’s at all conflicting with the neighbors structure--it’s, you know, only going to be 6-feet over, it’s not going to do anything with them trying to access theirs because they can’t access it from the way their door’s facing anyways. Like I said, it just, we think it would allow to have it added to what we currently have, which we think would just be a nicer looking storage facility.
Our second variance request, kind of along the same reason as the first one. It’s a variance to add to a legal non-conforming structure. As I said, the current structure 30-years ago, not under the current laws, so it’s in violation now, I guess, legal non-conforming because it’s only 5-feet off the rear property line. We would like to add to it, just think it would look nicer. We think we would be able to have, maintain a better curb appeal by having one single facility. If we can’t add to that one, under either one of these two variance requests then it would leave us with the alternatives of having to then just have a smaller structure in the middle of the lot or having to go to non-permanent structures and just leaving our vehicles and equipment sitting outside.
The third variance request was a variance to increase maximum cumulative square footage of all accessory structures from 1,300 square-feet to 1,640 square-feet. We are asking for this because we feel if we’re going to go through the effort of making sure we build a really nice addition now, we would like to make sure we consider, not only our current needs, but future needs that we would have. Like I mentioned, I want to have my dad’s ‘57 Bird, the grandpa’s ‘68 Mustang with me someday and we just would like to address that now so we can make it right from the beginning and then we won’t have to down the road just add a little temporarily storage building, like the little 695 ones you see along side the road. We want to do it right now and consider what we’re going to need so that we can do it all right from the beginning. Again, it’s the same reasons, to make it all look nice and so that we can do it all in one building, one nice permanent looking building.
Our fourth variance request was a variance for the exterior façade to match the current accessory structure and side of the house rather than the houses front façade. This one, well we weren’t, we’re not opposed to making it brick. I just have concerns that our house is 35 years old and how would we ever try to match brick on the house to a new structure. I have concerns about that because I think if they don’t match exactly it actually looks worse than not having it and there’s going to be very little of the front that actually shows. If we have garage doors, there’s going to be very little, like if we go with the siding that would show. Our current accessory structure has a new steel siding on it. I think it looks nice, we have landscaping around it. I think this one would actually tie in very nice if we go with the same steel siding. We would put the landscaping around it, it would look nice. You’re not seeing that much of the front so to try to go through that sort of even try to come close to matching the brick, I just don’t, I think we could a nice look by doing the steel siding and landscaping.
So in closing, I just hope that, despite my extreme nervousness over this, that I’ve been able to fully explain our position regarding our requests for the variances. As we’ve tried to show in this presentation we take great interest in making sure our property and our possessions are all maintained very nice and as I’ve said, like through our continued maintenance and upgrades we are always keeping our house looking nice. I’m always outside, neighbors always stop and comment. I’m outside any time of the year washing and waxing our cars and our boat. So, I mean, we’re very passionate about this project because it’s something so important to us to just to keep not only our property looking nice, but also our vehicles. But, in considering our need to store our property and cars and boat, we have also really wanted to be considerate to our neighbors. We love our area we live in. We get along really well with our neighbors, I think, and we’ve tried to be considerate and what would be best for them too. I mean, what they would want to look at and what would not be in their way. So in putting a lot in thought, a lot of thought and consideration into this, we truly believe that what we are proposing is the best option that we’ll be able to get the space we need, not only now, but in the future and then also having the access for with an option for a driveway so that we can really fully use our property and our possessions the way we would like to. Again, our, we just think a single unit where it’s located will not infringe on our neighbors. None of them have come to us with complaints about it, we’ve, I mean we’ve tried to consider them and then too, not only our neighbors bordering us, but any of the street traffic going by, we think that just what we’re proposing would be the nicest looking for curb appeal. So thank you for your time and attention and now we’ll open it up for, I guess now for public comments.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Did anyone sign in to speak for or against?
Mr. Joseph, Jr., No.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Okay. Public hearing closed. Luther, do you have any questions or comments?
Mr. Williams, No, I went out and I just, a couple of observations I think, and you all had a very nice presentation. I went out and inspected the lots and you do really do take nice care of your yards and so forth, but the one question I had the existing septic system is directly in front of the current accessory building. Is that correct?
Mrs. Woody, The septic laterals, are believed to be, in front of. I did talk with the Department of Health and they do not have septic plans dating back to ‘75, when my house was built. She said even if they did they probably wouldn’t have had a real plan anyway. Looking at it from just what we, the knowledge that we got from the previous owner, he said that’s where the laterals are--it makes sense that they are. I did get a signed-off, I did take in a drawing of where we would, our proposed structure to the Department of Health there and they did sign off that a driveway could be built in front of the new addition, but not the current because they assume the septic laterals go in front of there, but because the new addition would be on what was basically a new, a separate piece of property at one time that the laterals shouldn’t cross over there. So they did approve a driveway could be built in front of the new addition. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Detert, Did anybody else have any problem understanding the sign language or was it just me? I’m just funny.
Mrs. Woody, Sorry. It’s my first board meeting here, it’s a little intimidating.
Mr. Detert, I guess the only concern I had was that this would be set-up so that somebody, if you sold the house, would easily operate a business out of there with all the storage.
Mrs. Woody, I would think, I guess just knowing me, I bought my house because it had that second garage. I would think that, I mean, I just know whoever would buy my house is probably going to be somebody like me because who buys it because it has all this, I mean we’re going to have it finished off. I mean, we’ve looked into, you know, several thousands dollars of floor treatment to make sure it looks like a new car showroom. It will be a nicely finished building that I don’t, I mean, and I think too that there’s, I don’t know, so many rules against having a business there. I guess, I just feel that, if it would be up to me, I would sell the house to somebody that would be as passionate about the car hobby as I am and would truly appreciate having a nice facility like that for their cars.
Mr. Detert, I guess there was one slide in there that indicated what you were going to store in there and it said work related items.
Mrs. Woody, Oh, that was…
Mr. Detert, That bothered me.
Mrs. Woody, That’s what we currently have stored is Chad’s police items. It’s the, his scuba tank, it’s his scuba weight belts, it’s his wet-suit, it’s his dry-suit, it’s his, like, any extra lights he had in his own older police cars that he had put in, it’s his old CB, it’s his State Police items that, I mean, he has like, I don’t know, six hat boxes. I mean, it’s just, given his job, he has a lot of stuff that we seem to have to store at our house because he doesn’t have an office that he can keep his work related items. If, I mean I don’t know if Chad needs to come up and identify himself and come and speak to that part, but it that’s stuff. It’s the stuff that frustrates me in that I might not have as much room to like polish my cars in the garage because there’s scuba tanks, air tanks. It’s his work related items with the State Police.
Mr. Burns, He’s on the diving team…
Mr. Detert, What?
Mr. Burns, He’s on the diving team and he has to have that equipment handy in case he…
Mr. Detert, Is that for the volunteer Fire Department?
Mr. Burns, No, State Police officer.
Mr. Detert, Pardon?
Mr. Burns, State Police. Indiana State Police.
Mrs. Woody, Through the State Police he’s on their scuba team and he’s actually the area team leader.
Mr. Detert, I’d just like you to commit that there’s not going to be any kind of business.
Mrs. Woody, No, like we told you earlier, I mean, we’re not like mechanical. So what we have these cars, we don’t fix them. I just clean them.
Mr. Detert, It’s yes or no.
Mrs. Woody, Yes, I mean it’s only going to be for personal storage. No, it will not be for a business at all.
Mr. Detert, It’s not going to be a business.
Mrs. Woody, No, not at all.
Mr. Detert, That’s all I wanted to find out.
Mr. Burns, Okay. I was out there this afternoon and it is a nice piece of property. They do maintain it very well. Also, your presentation was excellent.
Mrs. Woody, Thank you.
Mr. Burns, Sometimes better than some developers so you did a good job.
Mrs. Woody, Like I said I’m very…
Mr. Burns, What’s your background?
Mrs. Woody, I’ve lived in Valpo my whole life.
Mr. Burns, No, I mean business wise.
Mrs. Woody, Right now I’m a financial analyst at Valparaiso University.
Mr. Burns, You did a very good job.
Mrs. Woody, Thank you.
Mr. Burns, I really don’t have a problem. I understand what they’re up against. The only concern that I do have is that half acre be purchased after you are committed, not to re-subdivide it or ever build on that.
Mrs. Woody, One thing too is when we purchased this lot, as I told ???? too, when we went to purchase this lot a couple years ago, when we were trying to figure out what to offer for this half-acre lot we called and talked to various departments up here in the government building as far as what can be done with that half-acre and they told us nothing. It cannot be built on because it’s a half-acre. Where we live you have to have over an acre for septic systems so it cannot and never would be able to build a house on. Which, I mean, that’s where we came up against of how do you value it for us to buy it because they’re like well it’s really hard to value it because it only has meaning to basically the three properties that adjoin it. When I first bought that property my neighbor to the north of me was like, oh so you’re going to build a garage on it? They know, I mean, they know that that’s my passion. They’re the ones that see me out there cleaning my cars all the time.
Mr. Burns, It makes sense what you’re doing, but otherwise they could build one right in the center of that half-acre. I’m not too sure on how that’s going to look.
Mr. Detert, You could put a contingent on nothing be built or property not be sold.
Mr. Burns’ comment is inaudible.
Mrs. Woody. And I mean we can’t now that we…
Mr. Burns, Yeah.
Mrs. Woody, And that’s one thing too that I think by doing this we can’t really re-subdivide it because we can’t really cut our building in half then, so. I mean, that will help join them all together.
Mr. Burns, One thing I did mention to them, they got to make sure there’s not ???? out there.
Mrs. Woody, No, we are not in the neighborhood, so we do have. We are not in the neighborhood so we’re only limited by the Porter County building ordinances.
Mr. Burns, Okay. Another question was that building, I think it was east, northeast.
Mrs. Woody, The big pole barn?
Mr. Burns, Yeah, what size is that in square feet?
Mrs. Woody, I do not know.
Mr. Burns, Do you have a guess?
(Inaudible comments)
Mr. Burns, This will be a large building, 16 by 16 ????
Mrs. Woody, I think too, I mean that’s, we’re hoping by having the same, I mean our siding is new. I know we can coordinate our siding.
(Inaudible comments)
Mrs. Woody, With the pole barn. We’ll coordinate the siding, it will look like what we have now. Like we currently have, you know, the, what about the aerial do you want to show that? We have the landscaping around it. I, you know, plan to do that with the new one too just because I’m excited to pick out new trees and stuff.
Mr. Burns, If you had to guess what size is it?
Chad Woody, It’s fairly large.
Mr. Burns, It is pretty large.
Mrs. Woody, It used to be, like, for a lot of big tractors.
Mr. Burns, So you’re pretty close.
Mrs. Woody, And like too, that one’s been there for quite a long time.
Mr. Burns, Yeah, how many neighbors were contacted?
Mrs. Woody, I sent out 18 certified…
Mr. Burns, And how many came back?
Mrs. Woody, 17.
Mr. Burns, 17 came back. If you put a driveway in you’re going to have to get another, you’ll have to get a driveway permit.
Mrs. Woody, Okay.
Mr. Detert, Are you aware of that? From the highway department.
Mr. Burns, From the highway.
Mrs. Woody, Okay. But even then too, I mean right now we don’t even like just driving over the wet grass because we know our septic laterals are in front of the current structure or at least over on that side.
Mr. Burns, Also, if you do get approval you may want ???? laterals, make sure they are in before your new driveway because that will (inaudible).
Mrs. Woody, Yeah, and I mean when we first started this process it was still really cold out, so now it’s warmed up so I think, you know, now we can…
Mr. Burns, (Inaudible).
Mrs. Woody, Yeah, and that was some of the, I did information from the Department of Health here about some things that we could do to look into it.
Mr. Burns, Okay, so you will have a letter, a commitment letter, that you won’t build or sub divide on that new lot. You’re going to landscape?
Mr. Detert, Will you switch that back to the cars you’re going to restore?
Mr. Woody, Yes, sir.
Mr. Detert, Back.
Mrs. Woody, The one with the four.
Mr. Detert, You had the four cars there. I just wanted to look at that ‘68 Mustang.
Mrs. Woody, We don’t have a picture of the ‘68. That’s the one we don’t have.
Mr. Detert, Oh, that’s the one you don’t have.
Mrs. Woody, We did have a problem of our hard drive on our computer at home crashed in the last week so that’s created a little problem, but.
Mr. Detert, I don’t have any problems. Do you want to make the motion since you got notes here?
Mr. Burns, I’ll make the motion to approve case 10-V-13 with the following contingent ???? requirements: you will landscape, you’re landscaping plan will (inaudible), driveway permit from the county to put a driveway in, a letter of commitment not to re subdivide because I understand it’s one parcel now.
Mrs. Woody, Yes it is.
Mr. Burns, Okay, so you can’t re subdivide or build any other structure on that half-acre.
Mrs. Woody, Okay.
Mr. Burns, And no business will operate from, no business will operate out of this building. It’s all for personal use.
Mrs. Woody, That’s fine.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 10-V-13 with the following contingent ???? requirements:
Mr. Detert seconded.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Any further discussion?
(Inaudible comments)
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, I just want to add also, that was a very nice presentation.
Mrs. Woody, Oh, thank-you. It’s just something that I’m very passionate about is of this project, it’s kind of a life-long dream so I wanted to give it my all.
Mr. Woody, Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Detert, I want a ride in that ‘68 Mustang when you get it.
Mr. Woody’s comments are inaudible.
Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Case 10-UV-7. Petition of Kerry L. Kapica, 3460 Anthony Drive, Portage, seeking a Use Variance from Section 2.13 of the Unified Development Ordinance, R-1 District Intent & Permitted Uses, to allow a part-time disc-jockey business and related storage, to be located at 3460 Anthony Drive, in Portage Township.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Go ahead.
Kerry Kapica, Kerry Kapica, 3460 Anthony Drive Portage, Indiana.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Tell us about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.
Mr. Kapica, Oh, okay. I’m just renewing a Use Variance that I had in the past for my part-time, it’s what I do for a living, disc-jockey business. My equipment is basically stored in a garage and all my work is done at other facilities like Strongbow Inn, banquet facilities. I do 90-95% of my business is through the phone or through the internet so I have very little traffic at my (inaudible) as far as customers that come there. It’s basically just storage so I can move my equipment to a facility to do a job.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Did we have anyone sign in for or against?
Mr. Joseph Jr., We did not.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Okay. Public Hearing is closed.
Mr. Burns, There’ve been no complaints?
Mr. Joseph Jr., No.
Mr. Burns, Okay and there’s no signage. I was out there today.
Mr. Kapica’s response is inaudible.
Mr. Burns, You do not play music at the residence facility?
Mr. Kapica, No.
Mr. Burns, Okay and how many neighbors were contacted?
????, 12.
Mr. Burns, Okay. I have no problems with this.
Mr. Detert, All you do at the residence is receive phone calls or make phone calls for the business?
Mr. Kapica, For jobs that we do outside.
Mr. Burns’ response is inaudible.
Mr. Joseph Jr., I have a letter from one neighbor that couldn’t make it. I have it if you were interested. I have it on file.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Luther, you have any comments or questions?
Mr. Williams, No.
Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 10-UV-7 with the same stipulations as the original.
Mr. Detert, With the addition with no music being played (inaudible). I’m not sure if that was a contingent before.
Mr. Burns, Oh okay, with no music and no signage.
Mr. Kapica, I hear enough of it at the shows.
Atty. McClure, How long?
Mr. Burns, 5 years.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Is there a second?
Mr. Detert seconded.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Okay. I didn’t hear you, I’m sorry.
Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Mr. Kapica, Thank you very much.
Case 10-UV-8. Petition of David Griffith, 901 N. 264 W., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance from Section 2.11 RR District Intent & Permitted Uses in the Unified Development Ordinance, to permit a private shooting preserve/hunting club, to be located at 901 N. 264 W., in Liberty Township.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, State your name and address, please.
David Griffith, My name is Dave Griffith, 901 North 264 West Valpo. I’ve been running the hunt club for a number of years now and would like to continue doing that. So I need to do the Land Use variance procedure to continue. I could say a lot more, you know, or open it up to questions.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Did we have anyone sign in for or against this?
Mr. Joseph Jr., We did not.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Public Hearing is closed.
Mr. Detert, There’s nobody in the audience?
Mr. Joseph Jr., Is there anybody here that would like to speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Burns, How many years have you been in business?
Mr. Griffith, Better part of 20. First four or five years it was jut, you know, how you raise these chickens, it’s not that simple and just, you know, a very small scale kind of thing is how I began. The interest was there, the enthusiasms for it. You may have noticed that Cabela’s has moved into the neighborhood and Bass Pro. These people need a place to hunt and fish--there we are.
Mr. Burns, You were out there before most of the residents.
Mr. Griffith, Oh yeah.
Mr. Burns, And there’s no complaints?
????, I didn’t see many birds because it’s not season is that...
Mr. Griffith, Correct. Yeah, the legal season is September through April. Effectively we’re October to the middle of March. We like to do some, we do a lot of dog training during the summer with the ponds and stuff like that and point pigeons and low level sort of thing, but no we don’t have the birds right now.
Mr. Burns, Gorgeous piece of land.
Mr. Griffith, Thank you.
Mr. Burns, Really nice piece of land. I understand the original stipulation is there is no hunting up towards the road.
Mr. Griffith, Correct.
Mr. Burns, It’s 400 or 500 feet.
Mr. Joseph Jr., 300.
Mr. Burns, 300 feet. What other stipulations? There were several stipulations.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Hunting times are from dusk to dawn. Provide a 300-foot buffer along State Road 49 and the toll road and both sides of 250 West and 925 North and his variance was good for 5 years.
Mr. Burns, So he’s, is the 15 years up or is he here for another reason?
Mr. Joseph Jr., Because his original Use Variance is…
Mr. Burns, Expired.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Expired and he’s here for a fresh start.
Mr. Burns, So he’s asking for another 15 years.
Mr. Detert, He’s asking for 5 years.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Whatever the board approves.
Mr. Burns, I don’t have any problems with this.
Mr. ????, The original thing was from dusk to dawn? Dusk to dawn would be against the law.
Mr. ????, So really, dawn to dusk.
(Inaudible comments)
Mr. Detert, Madam Chair I don’t see a problem. He’s been operating a long time and we have no (inaudible).
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 10-UV-8 with same stipulations as previous. Mr. Burns seconded.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Is there a time?
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Over time, how long?
Mr. Detert, Five years, I’m sorry.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Further discussion?
Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Mr. Griffith, Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Case 10-UV-9. Petition of Tracy Wright, 1410 Burlington Beach Rd., Valparaiso, seeking a Use Variance from Section 2.12, RL District Intent and Permitted Uses, to operate a one-chair beauty salon, to be located at 1410 Burlington Beach Rd., in Center Township.
Tracy Wright, Good evening. I’m Tracy Wright. I reside at 1410 Burlington Beach Road, let’s see, here in Valpo. I have been doing hair for 25 years, 12 of those years I have been here in this town. Six years ago I purchased my home with the intent, at that time, to possibly work out of my home. It’s just now got to that point. I have a little bit of knowledge I want to share to you about the different types of salons there are--there are four types. There are the chain salons such as your Fiesta, your Hair Cuttery, those type--they pay you an hourly rate. Then if after you make or after you do so much in hair they will pay you a percentage above and beyond that. The second type is a commission salon where whatever you bring in you pay the owner of the salon half of what you make. The third type is a booth rental salon where you’re paying X amount of dollars per week to rent that space. Then the fourth type, of course, is where you own the salon, where you do what I proposed to do is, you know, work out of your home. Of course, there is a fifth point ???? that’s illegal without getting the proper permits, you know, and doing it in your home without the proper permits. I have done three of those and that’s why I proposed to what I would like to do is open a one-chair salon in my home. There are a couple reasons for that. The booth rent that I was paying was the same as my mortgage. So therefore I was paying, I was paying a double mortgage and with the economy the way it is it’s I could not afford to pay both. So I would like to save my home and that’s why I would like to do that. The other reason is, is my grandfather years ago sold insurance for State Farm sold for over 35 years and 20 of those years he had an office in his home. In a small town southeast of here, but, in Harbor ???? City, Indiana and made a very lucrative living, which allowed him to be a snowbird in Texas for 20 years after he retired. Now I don’t anticipate that because he started much earlier than I am, but that is what I would like to do.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Anybody sign in for or against? Anyone in the audience? Public Hearing is closed. Comments from the board.
Mr. Burns, How will you get your clientele?
Mr. Wright, Most of them, because I’ve been here for 12 years, most of it is word of mouth. I mean, there might be some advertising, but it’s not, you know, you’re not talking mass advertising or even signs in yards or nothing like that. We’re talking newspaper…
Mr. Burns, That’s where I was headed.
Mr. Wright, Yeah, probably newspaper heading.
Mr. Burns, No signs?
Mr. Wright, Well, I didn’t know what your stipulations were.
Mr. Burns, We prefer no signs.
Mr. Wright, Okay. Even on mailbox, hanging on a mailbox?
Mr. Burns, Yep, no signs.
Mr. Wright, Okay. No signs.
Mr. Burns, We have several others, it’s not you know, in the county. Most of them don’t have signs.
Mr. Wright, Okay.
Mr. Burns, We’re just worried about…
Mr. Wright, Right.
Mr. Detert, It looks like you have adequate parking.
Mr. Wright, Yeah and there was some proposed new parking if you look at the site map, if you have. Then of course there will be some future permits of improvements that I would like to make to the property.
Mr. Burns, You’re going to have one chair. So many clients at a time, one or two?
Mr. Wright, One.
Mr. Burns, Just one.
Mr. Wright, Just one.
Mr. Burns, Because that is a busy, busy street.
Mr. Wright, Yes, it is a very busy street and if you look at the site map you’ll notice that the driveway has, we have joined the driveway to my neighbors so that it’s a circular drive. So they do not have to back out onto Burlington Beach. I tell each and every client back up, go out, you know, do not back out.
Mr. Burns, Hours? Mondays and hours?
Mr. Wright, Monday through Saturday probably like 9 to 6 or 7, depending on what the board decides is good. The reason I say seven is because I have some clients that obviously work until 5 and they work outside of Porter County. So by the time they get there, you know, it would be late, but not that late.
Mr. Detert, How many days a week?
Mr. Wright, Six.
Mr. Detert, Sunday you’re off?
Mr. Wright, Sunday I’m off. That’s my day.
Mr. Detert, Madam Chair I do not have any objection to him running a beauty salon here as long as he follows the hours of 9-5.
Mr. Burns, No, 9-7.
Mr. Detert, 9, I’m sorry, I got 7 here and I said 5. 9 to 7, six days per week, no Sundays.
Mr. Burns, I’ll second that with no sign, no signage.
Mr. Detert, Yes.
Mr. Burns, And one-chair operations.
Mr. Detert, Yeah, one-chair operation.
Mr. Wright, Only.
Mr. Burns, Yeah, only.
Mr. Wright, Ever.
Mr. Burns, There will be one vehicle at a time for business, maybe two if one’s coming and one’s going.
Mr. Wright, Right.
Mr. Burns, So two at the max. That’s a second.
Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 10-UV-9. Mr. Burns seconded.
Mr. Williams, I got a question. I was concerned about the (inaudible) and the high speed. Was there a driveway agreement between you and the next door neighbor?
Mr. Wright, Yes.
Mr. Williams, Does, do we have a copy of that?
Mr. Wright, Well actually, can I interject here? It is actually my property, but it’s an easement between the two. He’s got, those are lake lots and they’re 25 by 100. My neighbor has a 25 by 100 lot that his house sits one foot from the property line so that’s actually, and then my garage if you look at the site map where my garage is to the east of my garage that’s my property. My property line runs one foot from his house, but it’s an easement and I cannot, you cannot build anything there because his house and my garage, you need to be able to get behind back in where the power lines are and such because the other way there is a hill, there’s a slight hill in the backside of the parcels on Redwing. So that’s the only way they can get in there.
Mr. Burns, Luther, we can add that into our motion about they must use the circle driveway.
Mr. Wright, And that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Williams, Yeah, I was just concerned. I’m very concerned about it because when I was sitting there I had to wait for about 10 or 15 cars to get out and I guess I went into the neighbors, you know I circled around in the neighbors. Is the area that I circled into the neighbors, actually the neighbors property?
Mr. Wright, His property is directly in front of his house.
Mr. Williams, Okay.
Mr. Wright, Okay? So, you know, if you were out there and noticed the telephone pole right there that is basically the property line. So if you pulled in his drive in front of the house and you circled around you are coming into my.
Mr. Williams, No, I entered your driveway and then I just went out through his driveway.
Mr. Wright, His driveway?
Mr. Williams, Yeah.
Mr. Joseph Jr., Kind of like going around the telephone pole.
Mr. Wright, Right. Basically, yeah, you’re just basically going around his.
Mr. Williams, And I just wondered if there was, you know, an actual agreement because if you didn’t have an agreement here I don’t think we would vote for this. If you don’t have an agreement, I would not be in favor of this if there’s…
Mr. Wright, We have a verbal agreement, but we don’t have a written agreement. If you need a written agreement I can definitely get you one because they’re all in favor. They don’t have a problem with it at all. I’ve already spoken to them.
Mr. Burns, Luther, what we could do, if Bob agrees, is put a contingent on the written agreement.
Mr. Detert, I would agree.
Mr. Burns, You agree?
Mr. Detert, I would. Contingent on a written agreement.
Mr. Wright, Okay, so you need a written agreement from my neighbor?
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Any further discussion?
Mr. Detert, You seconded?
Mr. Burns, Yes.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Yes.
Motion carried on a unanimous 4-0 voice vote.
Mr. Joseph Jr., You need to provide the Plan Commission office with a copy of that agreement and also have one recorded in the Recorder’s office.
Mr. Wright, Yeah, what was, and the Recorder needs?
Mr. Joseph Jr., The driveway agreement needs to be recorded in the Recorder’s office as well.
Mr. Wright, Okay.
Atty. McClure, And that was for five years, right?
Mr. Burns, Five years.
Mr. Detert, Five years. I’m sorry I didn’t say that.
Atty. McClure, I think the second brought it up.
Mr. Deter, Yeah.
Mr. Wright, Thank you very much.
Attorney’s Report
Atty. McClure, We got the ruling back on the second (inaudible) case. That was the issue with the cell tower with two, with two being within a half mile of each other and the judge ruled in our favor.
Mr. Burns, Wow.
Atty. McClure, Yeah of the, on the ultimate issue, so.
Mr. Burns, Good job.
Atty. McClure, At this point in time their options are to either appeal that decision or frankly and/or come back to us and show that they complied with that subsection. One of those four reasons why they can’t (inaudible). If you remember correctly when we got to the crossroad of us saying we believe the law is such that you have to prove to us why you can’t (inaudible) on a tower within two miles. That’s when they said, no we disagree, we’re going to court, that’s over now. The court agrees with us. Now their choices are either appeal the courts decision or and/or come back to us and say this is why we can’t (inaudible) on that tower, so.
Mr. Burns, Good job.
Atty. McClure, That’s what we got back, okay?
Mr. Burns????, I have one (inaudible) question.
Mr. Detert, (Inaudible) comply with that tower they all use different systems.
Atty. McClure, Right.
Mr. Detert, I don’t know why that has to be.
Atty. McClure, Yeah, I don’t know either.
Mr. Burns, Counsel, what do we have to do to get this (inaudible) nursing homes. Do we have to vote?
Atty. McClure, What we have to…
Mr. Burns, We should finalize ???? that.
Atty. McClure, We’d have to, frankly, bring it up to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Burns, Bring it, okay.
Atty. McClure, Bring it up to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission will just have to do a, what we normally do, would have to amend our ordinance. We’d have to send recommendation up to the Commissioners and say. We’d have to look, it’s probably called, probably not called a nursing home (inaudible). Probably called adult care or in-home adult care or something.
Mr. Burns, Of course we’d be concerned to have is care of the residents.
Atty. McClure, Sure.
Mr. Burns, When my mom was in a nursing home there’s family that only come and check on some of these seniors and they’re, that’s it, except for the staff. You’re probably aware of that too, Debbie.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, Yes, yes.
Atty. McClure, What we may only have to do is tweak the definition.
Mr. Burns, That’s fine.
Atty. McClure, And it may only be that we say assisted living is five or more and if that’s the case, then if you’re less than five then you’re not assisted living.
Inaudible comments.
Atty. McClure, So it just may be a matter of doing that and frankly what I think we should probably just, Ray if you just want to put one together, just do a…
Mr. Joseph Jr., I’ll have it front of you guys at the next Plan Commission meeting.
Atty. McClure, Yeah, just do it at the next Plan Commission meeting and then you guys will be there to talk to the Plan Commission and tell them why. Tell them to pick the four or five???, I’ll be there and then if they want to vote on it we can send it out. Does that sound good?
Mr. Williams, I’ve got a question about that. I wouldn’t have a February meeting, but how (inaudible).
Atty. McClure, What happened was she got all the way done, the paper found out, the paper did an article on it and then that’s how we found out. Then that’s when staff went out and said you have to get some stuff from us and go from there. That’s how it got in here.
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, I think it’s a good concept, but just want to make sure that…
(Inaudible comment)
Mrs. Kerr-Cook, It is.
Mr. Detert, That’s scary concept.
Mr. Detert moved to adjourn.