Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

To the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Can we have a roll call, please?

Here.

Here.

Cynthia Hasso. Here. Dan Faulkner. Here. Kathleen Hill.

Here.

Five present. We have a quorum.

Next item are the minutes. Can we take these all at one time or one individually? One time is all right with everyone? The staff has requested that we table the minutes for October 28th, 2025, February 24th, 2026, and the April 28th, 2026 meeting until June 30th, which would be the next meeting. Do we have a motion to do that?

I'll make that motion.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote.

Roger that. Yes.

Yes.

Cynthia Hassell. Yes. Dan Faulkner. Yes. Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays. Motion passed.

All right, next item is old business. We have Z-26-04, petition of Ray Green Casa, Inc., for developmental variance regarding Title Section 3.30, parentheses, to allow a reduction in the minimum width and lot area requirements. to build a single family home located at 2633, 164th Place, R.I.U., Urban Single Family Residential District in the city of Hamlin Lake County, Indiana.

Madam Chairperson.

Yes. We have received a request from the petitioner to ask to have their case tabled again. This was tabled 90 days ago at their request, and they are asking for an additional request. tabling to the next meeting at June 30th.

Okay, do we have such a motion?

I'll make the motion at table. I'll second.

We have a motion and second. Roll call vote.

Cynthia Hasso. Yes. Dan Faulkner. No, I'll vote. Yes. Roger Bob. Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak.

Sorry, yes.

Kathleen Hill. Yes. Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion to ask.

Next item is Z-26-08, Petition of Riyadh and Mira Duden for Developmental Variance regarding Title Section 3.30, Paragraph 8, to allow a minimum lot area reduction from 4,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet to build a single-family residential building, an RRQ, Urban Single-Family Residential District, located at 6103 Wallace Road within the city of Hamlet County, Indiana. And I apologize if I mispronounced your last name. They just called it.

They just called it. Can I stand up here? That podium, I think, has it.

Sorry about that. Sorry.

Sorry for .

After I said it, I know I did. I apologize. Is this a petitioner?

Yes.

Okay. Have all the requirements been met?

Yes, they have.

Okay. You signed in. You want to state your name?

I'm Maurice Dawkins.

Representing the petitioner, who is?

Riaz Amiruddin and Naeem.

Right.

Would you like to tell us about the... Yeah, so I'm just trying to get a differential variance for 6103 Wallace Road and then 6105, which we need to... We've just called...

6303. 6103, sorry about that.

Just only 6103 right now, and we're just trying to reduce the minimum lot requirement, which is 4,800 square feet, which is the minimum. And we're trying to get it reduced to allow 4,000 square foot, because the lot is only 40 foot by 100.

All right, anything else you'd like to say about it?

I mean, you wanna talk about how you considered the size of the home that you chose and the design.

So basically, yeah, we reduced the size of the home. We're still meeting the minimum setbacks of everything according to the requirements. The only thing we did was just shrink the size of the house to accommodate the lot size.

Okay, are you aware of everything that we've been presented? Because this was brought up last time and we have an amendment now for it. Can you tell us the difference between for the amendment?

Will you finalize the design of the home? So the amendment to, we amended our staff report that we gave to the board and we amended it because we had finalized the design of the home and stuff like that. I mean, if you want to talk a little bit about, you know, you chose.

So basically like we were just going on, he wanted to match like the existing historic district. So we modify the style of the home to accommodate the rest of the houses on the block there. And we're in the process of trying to purchase the other two lots too, right beside us. So that way we could finish the whole block out. So we're just going to mimic the existing layout of the block there.

Well, it's what the discussion really has been about the architectural design is that this particular part of the neighborhood has newer construction in it than the original part of the neighborhood. Literally, the properties just to the immediate north of the four vacant lots is where the original housing stopped, and that's from... the first decade of the 1900s. And then this part of the neighborhood is more like a 1910s, 1920s construction. And so the architecture is a little different. There's bungalows. There's also some mid-century houses towards Field Street. So we had a lot of discussion about what would be architecturally appropriate as a transition from the original buildings to that mid-early 20s to mid-century styles that exist in the immediate south blocks.

Yeah. So, like, the intention is, you know, you're going to buy the lot to the North and the Redevelopment Commission and put, like, a two-story house. Correct, yeah. And then these are one-and-a-half-story, and then maybe you'll finish with the one-story. And then finish with the single-family house. Something like that, yeah. Okay. And, you know, you did make sure when you narrowed the house, you made sure that you were able to fit a driveway on there with a detached garage. Correct, yes. So you won't, I know the streets are a little narrow over there, so that will alleviate street parking. Oh, and just for the record, you're going to be the, so you're representing the owner. Yes. But you're going to be the general contractor, correct?

Correct, I'm the general contractor, yes. Okay.

And you have experience in Hammond, correct?

Yes, I built a couple houses already, yes. Okay.

Board members have any questions?

I don't.

I do. As far as the construction of the home, I know there's a recommendation. At which point does the city know if the construction is going to include a crawl space or a full basement? At which point?

So it's going to have a crawl space there. That's what we decided because of the height of the other homes. Pretty much, yeah, the height of the other homes and the elevations. to match the first floor elevation.

Yeah, and so just for clarity, it's a raised crawl space because trying to match the first floor elevations to some extent of the houses that are adjacent, they may be slightly lower, so it's not going to be... I think it was probably about three or four feet.

Yeah, we're not going to excavate as much in the ground.

Yeah, and it won't be dug out for a full basement, but it's still officially a crawl space. It's not a basement. It's not livable space, but it'll just be kind of like that interim between a slab house and a full basement. So it's something in between.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions? Do the members online have any questions?

No, I'm good.

All right. Any questions? Mr. Faulkner?

Nope, not for me.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So open now for public comment. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak for or against Z2608?

And this is the home on Wallace Road, 6103 Wallace Road.

Do we have anybody online that wants to speak or anybody else online? I don't see any.

No, I recognize that Nancy's going to be one of the future .

Okay, all right, thank you. All right. Anyone like to make any comments? Anyone like to make comments on D-2608? Anyone like to make any comments? I have to ask this three times. So we will close this period of public expression. And since we have no comments that we need to be addressed, does the board members have anything they'd like to discuss?

I don't.

All right. Nothing from me. Yes?

I said no.

No, nothing from me. Okay. Thank you. We have a staff report.

Yeah, and so the staff report got into a lot of the things we were talking about, how we had some back and forth with Maurice over the last couple months to get these homes a certain acceptable design. You know, he did submit plans from LFA Home Design, his architect he's been working with on some other homes. He's working with Tauranga Engineering. They supplied a preliminary site plan. I did reach out to Tauranga earlier today, hoping that they can make sure they give us a finalized one that shows any kind of grading or slope for rainwater, things like that, show the curb cut, things like that. But no, we don't expect any major changes to that site plan. It should be the same layout, generally speaking. With that in mind, and I'd also note that the reason this is 4,000 square feet, when you look at the average house in the decades to come, usually 125 feet's the standard depth of a lot. These were only 100 feet deep. So if it was 40 by 125, they would have met the standard. This is only 40 by 100, hence the 4,000 square feet falling short. With that in mind, I will read the recommendation. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance. Should the board feel the petitioner has met the standard subject to the following conditions. Consideration be given by petitioner to find a design of home in relation to the character of nearby residences in the Pullman Standard Historic District. in relation to the character of the three other homes plan to be built in a row at 6037 6105 and 6109 wallace road Construction of a home of either one and a half or two stories, which features either a raised crawl space or a full basement in an attempt to match the average first floor elevation of nearby homes and provide a cohesive streetscape. And finally, technical review and final approval of all building and site plans by city staff. Following this, we do have a one page proposed finding of facts for the board's consideration.

Okay, I'm going to offer an amendment to the staff recommendation since it was established in the record that it would be a raised crawl space and not a basement. Condition number two, you can just delete or a full basement out and it'll be a raised crawl space.

Should we get rid of the two stories as well?

Fair enough, I think we- So we're crossing off in number two all full basements, right?

Mm-hm. Cross out the full basement reference. And technically, as I think Mr. Novak was trying to say, is that it's a one and a half story house. It's not a two story house. So you can also make that correction in the staff report. Or we are making that correction in the staff report. Sorry.

And crossing off or two story? Yep. And crossing off either. A home of one and a half stories.

So crossing off or two in line one of number two and then crossing off or a full basement in line one and two of number two.

And we're crossing off the word either, correct?

Yes, that as well. Yes, cross off the word either as well. Yeah, you got it.

All right. We have some proposed findings of facts. Any questions or comments?

I don't.

No. Members online, any questions or comments on the proposed findings of facts?

None for me. None for me.

All right. Then we will move to, as far as board members, as far as accept the staff report with the revised staff recommendation and the findings are passed into the record.

I'll make the motion to approve.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second, so we have a roll call vote.

Cynthia Hassell?

Yes.

Dan Faulkner?

Yes.

Roger Brock? Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak? Yes. Kathleen Hill?

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions, motion passed.

Okay, do we have a motion in regard to the developmental variance for Z-2608?

I'll make the motion.

I'll second.

A motion to what?

Approve. The variance and with the revised recommendation? Yes. Okay.

And I will second. Okay.

Did you second? I did. Okay. We have a motion and second. Could we have a roll call vote?

Cynthia Hassell. Yes. Dan Faulkner. Yes. Roger Brown. Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak.

Yes.

Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed. Okay.

And we will move into agenda. Next item is D-26-09, petition of Riaz, pronounce the name for me.

Riaz Amiruddin.

Okay, thank you for developmental variance. And now the guy's name. Section 3.30, grants aid to allow a minimum lot area reduction from 4,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet. to build a single-family residential unit in a R1U urban single-family residential district located at 6105 Wallace Road within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. All right, I believe you've signed in already. Would you like to explain? Oh, have all notifications been made? Yes, they have. Okay.

Okay, and to help everybody out is that this case is very similar to the one that we just acted upon. The design of the house is slightly different, but it is the same basic purpose and justification for reducing the lot size because of the shallower depth of the lots. Instead of being the normal 125, it's the 100. Again, the site plan is pretty much the same, it's just a little bit different in the style of the house.

And the same as far as basement and all that?

Same thing.

Yep, the same layout. So it'll be the same crawl space. And the only thing that's different is the gate wall in the front of the house. Everything else will be relatively the same, even the square footage and the size of the rooms and everything there.

Yeah, four-bedroom, right? Four-bedroom, two bathrooms, yes.

Any questions from board members? Any other comments from staff members?

I don't.

Nothing for me.

All right. We will open this for public comment. Anybody would like to stand up? And what you need to do is sign your name and put your address down and then tell us your name.

My name is Mercedes Diaz and I live at 6112 Wallace Road. I just heard the 6109. Is that going to be Included as you were talking.

So 6109 Wallace Road, he's currently.

I think right now all she does is ask a question and then comment. You're right. You're absolutely right. I'm jumping the gun. Okay. So basically you want to know if it's going to be the same thing as 2608. Okay. Is that what you're asking?

Is it going to be the same as the 6103?

The same thing that we approved. Okay. Then we're going to take any other comments. and then we'll let the petitioner answer the questions for you, okay?

Okay, I need to ask for clarification. Did you say 6109?

612, yeah, because I heard it's 6109.

Okay, because the case, the first case was... 6103. And this one is... 6105.

Yes, but I heard a 6109.

6109 is another vacant lot south of 05, and that's not on the agenda for today. It was just that... The discussion is that the petitioner is looking into acquiring that property because those are owned by the city, and they have not completed that sale, and that in a future time period, that case will be discussed. Okay.

Because I spoke to you before. You know, there have been people coming in telling me I'm parked in somebody else's property.

Well, yeah, actually, on your side, that's even a different address. Okay. Because you're on the even side of the street.

Right.

Yeah, so that hasn't come forward. Okay. Yeah, because we thought they were going to come.

but they didn't right okay yeah that one is 60 10 61 10 wallace road and they will have to come to the bza but they're spacing things out and it may be the fall or later we can't say yet when they want to have that one heard

And the 6109 was mentioned as far as a staff recommendation. We did hear properly.

Yeah, yeah.

But it was in reference to the vacant lots.

Yeah, 6109. So sometime this year, you're going to get a letter for 6109 and a letter for 6110. Yeah, because I do want to talk to them.

Be your lucky day.

Understood.

You might even get mail. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Anybody else like to make comments on 2609? 05. No. Z2609. Oh, okay. Right?

I thought you said the address. I'm sorry.

Oh, 2609. Z2609. Too many numbers. I'm right?

I know, yeah. All right. The numbers are confusing.

They are. All right. Anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone else we will close this period of public comment. Board members, anything you'd like to say I do not know. Nothing for me. Anything else you like nothing for me? Right, we are ready for the staff report.

Yeah, so basically everything I said at the last case still stands regarding matching the Pullman Standard Historic District as far as trying to create a transition between the early 20th century and mid-20th century homes. The same kind of thing. I will state of interest is that this and 6103 Wallace, as far as we can tell historically, have never had homes on them. 6109 did until 2010, but You know, so basically the same kind of stuff you're talking about. You know, we're still going to need to see how stormwater's channeled and all that kind of stuff. But we're going to work with Maurice Dawkins as the general contractor on this this week. So assuming it's approved. Staff recommendation, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. Consideration be given by petitioner to final design of home in relation to the character of nearby residences in the Pullman Standard Historic District in relation to the character of the three other homes planned to be built in a row at 6037, 6103, and 6109 Wallace Road. Number two, I will amend here now, construction of a home of one and a half stories, which features a raised crawl space or a full basement. In an attempt to match average first floor elevation of nearby homes and provide a cohesive streetscape. And finally, technical review and final approval of all building and site plans by city staff. Following is a one page proposed findings effect.

Did you say deleting?

Yes, he did. He said deleting as far as the either.

A simple yes would have been fine. Yeah, yeah. I made sure not to say those words.

I'm just making sure we all know that. All right. Any more comments in regard to the proposed findings of that? No.

I don't. Nothing. Nothing from me.

Do you have any comments in regard to the proposed finding the back? I'm good. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Do we have a motion to accept the staff report with the change in the conditions? I'll make a motion. And as far as also the... Finding the fact.

I make a motion to accept the staff report with revised conditions as written and amended and the findings of fact as written and amended.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Could we have a roll call vote?

Cynthia Hassell? Yes. Dan Faulkner? Yes. Roger Brown? Yes. Thomas Kazmierczak?

Yes.

Kathleen Hill?

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay. Now we need a motion in regard to approve or deny this developmental variance with the revised amended conditions.

I'll make a motion to approve the developmental variance subject to the amended conditions as listed. I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote.

Cynthia Hasso. Yes. Dan Faulkner. Yes. Roger Brown. Yes. Thomas Casimirzak.

Yes.

Kathleen Hill. Yes. Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

All right. You are all set. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll talk tomorrow. Thank you. Appreciate it.

We'll move into new business. We have Z-26-10, petition of commercial real estate LLC-S series for a developmental variance regarding title section 12.31, Rear yard regulations to a 29-foot reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 21 feet to build semi-truck repair garage in a I-2 manufacturing district located at 1325 Summer Street within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Has all the requirements been met?

Yes, they have.

Okay, would the petitioner like to come forward and sign in?

I believe she's online, Nancy Greer.

Okay, would you like to tell us her name and address and appear before us?

Nancy, you there? Nancy?

Hello, can you hear me?

Oh, good, okay. We can't see you, though.

Sorry, Tom. That's all right. Your case has been called, so if you want to give your name, address, and kind of talk about the project, what you're asking.

My name is Nancy Rear. My address is 24985 County Road 30, Goshen, Indiana. I am the general contractor for TC Transport with Almec Soda Beer. We are requesting a variance to reduce the required rear setback from 50 feet to 21 feet for the property located at 1325 Summer Street in Hammond, Indiana. It is a 3.25 acre site and is zoned as I-21 Manufacturing District. The proposed building has been carefully designed to minimize impact on neighboring properties. The rear wall of the new building will align with the rear wall of the existing building and will be positioned adjacent to the railroad tracks. placing it farther from the residential properties. The building will not extend any closer to the neighboring properties in the existing structure. The nearest residents is located approximately 375 feet across the street of Summer Street. The variance request also includes recognizing of the existing 4,689 square foot building, which currently maintains the same 21 foot rear yard setback. The proposed building will be consistent with the existing building appearance and overall characteristics. In addition, the project will improve site conditions by paving previously exposed areas, reducing dust, and helping contain any pollutants through unconfirmed or environmental concerns. Granting this variance will allow for more functional site layout by approving adequate truck circulation maneuverings and parking necessary for operation of the facility. The proposed location represents the most practical and effective use of the property while maintaining the look of the existing development pattern. This property has been reviewed and approved by Hammond redevelopment commission and was found to be consistent with Hammond's central redevelopment plan. Okay.

You know, Nancy, did you want to talk a little bit about the company? TC Transport?

TC Transport?

Yeah, just, you know, who hired you and all that?

Yeah, it was Chris with TC Transport and they are a transport company and they're gonna use the facility to the maintenance of their semi and parking of trailers.

Okay, Nancy, this is Brian. I'm gonna break in here for a second. Can you turn your camera on?

Let me see, I was having problems with the,

Are you having technical difficulties, Nancy? Mr. Westland, can you answer a question for me?

Yes, I can.

Okay. Apparently she's having difficulties getting her camera to work. Can we proceed under that circumstance?

It's really up to the commission. I mean, the state law is that the commission members who are voting have to be seen. It doesn't really speak to petitioners. But it would be up to the commission.

Okay. Or the BZA in this case, yeah. Yes, okay, thank you. And thanks for appearing, Mr. Wesson.

Not a problem. I'm here.

Okay, Nancy, if you can hear us, why don't you just proceed since you're having technical difficulties on the camera?

Do you want to call her again?

Is there another question?

Yeah, sorry we kind of threw you off by posing that question, but it was a technical question we needed to have clarified. The BZA is okay to proceed under the circumstances.

Okay. Pardon? I'd like to be able to see the person that we're talking to. Okay.

So, well, that's a question of how the board wants to proceed by majority vote.

I really would like to see her, too.

I have better views.

Do we need a roll call vote on if we're willing to proceed?

There's no motion pending right now. If somebody wants to make that motion that this get deferred or continued to the next month so that she can appear, then that's a motion that can be made.

My apologies, but for the technical difficulty, This project has been behind a lot and it's not your, have anything to do with Hammond. They've been actually magical and wonderful to work with. I really can't put the project another month behind. I'm trying to resolve this and talk at the same time. I can maybe call back in and see if that would let me do it.

If you call back in, do you think the technical difficulties would be corrected? It could be.

Yeah, it might. When you go to log back in, it might give you an option to select how the camera is being fed, maybe.

Okay, well, it's... Madam President, can I just make a point?

Since technically it's not... we're not there it isn't a rules violation for her not being on camera i understand that that you do have some people may have their opinion on seeing her or not um in my opinion it doesn't really change anything whether we see her or not we're still taking her word whether she was there in person that she is the person representing this company um since we don't We don't check IDs of anybody when they come up to speak. So, I mean, we're still technically taking her at her word that she is who she says she was, whether she was on camera or not.

I will also say that we've been communicating with her on the staff level by, what, phone, email?

She has come in a couple of times.

And we've had, yes, so we've had in-person contact with her. So for whatever that's worth, you know, we can vouch for that.

Well, at this time, I'll just, I'd like to make a motion that we proceed allowing her to continue as the petitioner without being available on camera.

I'll second. I'll second. Motion on the second roll call vote.

Cynthia Hassell.

No.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Roger Brock. Yes. Thomas Kazmierczak.

Yes.

Kathleen Hill.

No. Motion passed.

Three ayes, two nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Thank you.

So we can proceed.

I understand your difficulty, but we would have liked to have seen you, okay? Do you want to continue with anything else you'd like to say?

And the last thing we were talking about was TC Transport and Mr. Chris Krizmala and who had hired you and what they were tending to use the property for. Not sure if you had more to add to that or if you had it wrapped up.

Loser? I'd like to call her again and tell her to join the meeting.

Nancy, are you speaking to us? Because we cannot hear you. I've wrapped up. Okay.

All right. Do you want to continue with your comments?

You said she's wrapped up? Yeah, she's.

I think she's saying if you have questions.

Ms. Greer, are you done with your presentation?

Yes, she said so. She said so.

Yes, I am. Is there any questions?

Board members have any questions?

I don't.

No.

I do not. None for me.

All right. We will enter a period of public comment. Anyone in the public would like to speak in regard to Z-26-10 for the developmental variance? Anyone in the public? Anyone in the public? Anyone in the public? Okay, we will close this session of public comments, and we have a staff report.

Yeah, you know, for context, we have been working with Nancy's company and with Terenga Engineering. Terenga did a lot of the site plans, stormwater calculations, those kinds of things. So we have been working on it for a couple months, like more than a couple months now. There is going to be about 78,000, I believe, square feet of new pavement in addition to the 17,000 of pavement that will be fixed up. With that, obviously, storm water needs to be accounted for. This property was not drained in the past. Now, this is an opportunity that it will have storm water diverted. There is a 300 foot long swell on the north side of the building. Of course, also the parking lot will train into a detention area. It's about 0.71 acre foot. City engineering did take a look at that. As long as the railroad ditch on the Gibson Yard property to the north functions as it should, we believe that, city engineer believe that this should be sufficient. um you know this is going to be a metal clad building its coloring should match the existing building for its uh sandstone and for its terracotta colored trim as they stated it's going to meet all the other setbacks as required under i2 zoning the building will be 26 feet tall 90 by 125 for 11 250 square feet It's going to be a shallow roof, 112 slope, and it's basically going to be there for storage and repair of the semi-truck fleet of TC Transport. I believe their current site plan shows at least 34 new semi-truck parking spaces. There may be more when all is said and done. But so staff recommendation, I'll just skip to read. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request. Recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following condition. Final technical review and approval of building, site, civil, and stormwater pollution prevention plans by city staff. On the next page is a one page proposed findings of fact.

Since the report was repaired, have you gotten any additional information or any information regarding the fencing?

No, my understanding is that that fencing was put in in 2017, and I believe it's going to remain. I did at some point didn't want to talk to the owner, Chris, about whether he was open to maybe planting some trees or different things like that in the front. But I will say on the landscaping end, there's going to be about 30,000 square feet of open space left. PERVIOUS OPEN SPACE, MOSTLY PLANTED WITH GRASS SEED WHEN THIS SITE WAS BASICALLY DIRT, GRAVEL AGGREGATE, NO GRASS BEFORE THIS. SO NO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

I DON'T.

NO.

NOTHING FOR ME.

Do we have a motion to accept the staff report as written and the proposed findings of FAFSA as written?

So moved. Second. I'll second.

We have a motion and two seconds. And we have a roll call vote.

Cynthia Hassell.

Yes.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Roger Brock. Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak. Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

Bye-bye. Zero nays. Zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay. Do we have a motion regarding Z-26-10 for the developmental variance?

Motion to approve the developmental variance subject to the listed condition in the staff recommendations.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote.

Cynthia Hasso. Yes. Dan Faulkner.

Yes.

Roger Bob. Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak.

Yes.

Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Greer.

Thank you, Nancy. We'll be in touch.

Thank you very much.

Next item on the agenda, Z-26-11, petition of Raul Carrera for a variance of use regarding Title Section 8.11.6, conditional use in a C2 shopping center district in Title Section 3.10. permitted use in an R1U urban single-family residential district to allow an event space, general facilities in an R1U urban single-family residential district located at 1424 through 30 Michigan Street within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Have our requirements been met?

Yes, they have.

All right. Do we have any petitioner here for this? Yes. Want to sign in? Sure. And state your name and tell us if all requirements have been met. And tell us what you would like to do.

My name is and I live in 5535 White Oak in Chicago, Indiana. And I am only from the property of 1430 Michigan Avenue. So I want to see if they can be able to open a gateway hall. And who wants to see if that could be OK for the neighborhood. Most people, they sign the sheet. This will be okay to do the business up there. And also, you know, I have in 1407 Michigan Avenue, I have Las Brisas Hall for uh... around like five years and i don't have no issues uh... most of the time we have uh... police officers and state security so and we close by you know we open in the by three four uh... three or four and then we close by by twelve i wish to see you can help me to To open the other property.

And as you had stated earlier, you were implying how earlier last winter, I think it was, you had went around the neighborhood within 300 feet and spoke to the residents. Correct. To gauge their opinion, and you didn't have any negative responses, you're saying? Yes. Okay. And your current liver species hall at 1407 Michigan Street, it's a little bit northwest down the street here, same block. That's been operating for five years about, and as far as I'm looking into it, you haven't had any major complaints or incidents there, correct? I never was, no issues. Okay, yeah. And then this place, you kind of wanted to open up another event space facility for stuff like birthday parties. wedding showers, more family-oriented events, right? Correct. Yes. And you were kind of hoping to have something with a little bit larger of a capacity, maybe? Or about similar?

It can be like 80 to 90 people. Okay, yeah. Small events.

And we'll get into that. And this was formerly a Baptist church, right? It was a place of assembly, a Baptist church before this, correct? Correct. Yeah, okay. And so... The interior of the building, there's not a lot that needs to be done as far as you can tell, right? There's kind of a big open space inside, and there's already male, female bathrooms, right?

Yes.

Okay, yeah. I mean, would it be effective, you think, if I went through the A, B, C, D, E, F of the- Hang on.

Yeah. Okay. Can you speak to the parking lot, the number of parking spaces, the ADA spaces, the ramp that you're talking about putting into the building?

Yes. We're working on the drawings for the handicap ramp. We want to follow the regulations, whatever the requirements. For the handicapped, they have to be 288, handicapped. And the spaces, the architect, they pull out like 30 spaces total.

Okay, so when I looked at the site plan today, I think there's some adjustments that need to be made in the parking spaces when it comes to the ADA spaces and their arrangement and their proximity to the stairs and to where the ramp was relocated. So that's a question that needs to be addressed. One of the things that we really need to talk about is you talked about your hours of operation, and you were saying that when is the planned closing time on Monday through Friday or Monday through Thursday?

Can you repeat the question, please?

When do you plan to close the event space Monday through Thursday?

Well, most of the time, the events, they're like Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays.

Sorry. Yes, but you had indicated that on the weekend events, you're going to go with Friday, Saturday with the midnight closing as ordained by the event space ordinance. But if you do have events on weeknights, Monday through Thursday, you were going to close at 10 PM, correct? If you do have events?

Oh, closed?

Yeah. Yeah, Monday through Thursday, you would close at 10 p.m.

Yes, Monday through Thursday, I came close to 10 p.m.

Okay. That's going to be something the city will request. Okay.

Yeah.

Closing on Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m. Mm-hmm. Friday and Saturday, midnight.

Midnight.

And what about Sunday night?

11 p.m.

And is that match what we have in our information, Tom?

Well, we had it as 10 p.m., but I'm sure we can amend, yeah.

It can be 10 p.m. We have Sunday through Thursday until.

Yeah, we have it Sunday through Thursday. Fair point, Sunday through Thursday. But anyway, all right.

And then you guys would never start earlier than 9 a.m., right?

No, it's only people start like sometimes do only decorations.

Okay, you might open at 9 a.m. to let people get ready.

Yeah, but just do the decoration.

Typically, most event spaces, they close at midnight on the weekends for customers or for the event, and then most businesses have somewhere between a half hour and 45 minutes to clean up. That's the normal operation. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, I believe there's been discussion regarding the other big question is the occupancy. And there's a lot of questions that we've been talking about as far as the fire exits, the exiting, and the building code based on the capacity that is allowed based on the building code. And so we really need to discuss that more thoroughly.

Okay.

Yeah.

So, I mean, as we've discussed before, you know, right now you're working on getting the front ramp, an ADA compliant ramp to the front door so you have one emergency exit for sure. Now, my discussions with the fire chief of inspections, Phil Scheringa and the building commissioner, Bob Vail, If you want to have an occupancy of over 49, you have to have two emergency exits that are ADA compliant. Or one emergency exit that is ADA compliant is double door wide and anywhere the public will be is within 200 feet path of travel to that door. And then at that point, you could have more than 49 occupancy and it would be set more by your zoning ordinance, which as we discussed, for everyone's understanding, the zoning ordinance states that for every one off street parking space, you are allowed three persons for your occupancy. If you go with your original layout of 28, that's 84. If you are able to get 29 or 30 spaces with this new layout that you had submitted recently, then it would go up to as much as 90. But we need to understand whether those two conditions I mentioned will be met. Building Commissioner Bob Bale told me that a life and safety plan that shows the passive travel would be sufficient for him to meet that second condition. You had engaged with someone to get that drawing, but it's not ready. Yeah, they're working on it. But you're still working on it? Yes.

Do you have an expectation when we will see that?

Well, probably in two weeks or, yeah. Like two weeks.

Because I understand he's going to have to go on site if he has and take certain measurements. Yeah, he already went. Okay, he did good.

He already went, but, you know, there was kind of behind. So, yes, he make the drawings and still try to push it so he can make the safety plan. But he, you know, he was given enough time.

yeah and what he's referencing is that he did submit uh this architect did submit an updated ramp proposal that uh we haven't shared with you yet but um our first look at it bobville's first look at it was that this ramp is acceptable in the front but that was the drawing that he did submit but we still needed this other drawing as well okay um

So our staff's concern is without having a solid recommendation from the building commissioner because you have not provided the information that the building commissioner has requested, staff is concerned about whether we can go forward on this case. Okay.

Yes, as I'm sure you guys have noticed in your staff report, that's kind of one of the main points of discussion is the hours of operation and the occupancy. And we would like to have the occupancy cemented as a condition of approval, but obviously it's a little hard to do that with the information lacking without Bob Vail being able to comment on it. Okay.

Is the staff recommending that we table this until the next meeting?

The staff is not making that recommendation at this point in time.

All right, thank you.

The staff wants to, if there's no further comments coming from, I cannot say your last name. Correra. Correra, okay, sorry. And if we, I guess the question is, does the board have any questions before we go into allowing the public to speak?

I don't.

No. No questions.

I do have a question. I did notice in the information provided that it says that there will not be a liquor license at the facility and that anybody renting it would have to get their own through the through the state. But then it also says that security is only provided for larger events. So my question would be for a smaller event. Will there be somebody on site that owns it to prevent somebody from just bringing in alcohol without a permit?

Well, okay, I guess there's a, first of all, You can get a one-day event liquor license for facilities like this. That is typically what is allowed for people to bring their alcohol into the facility. That's normal. I guess if your question is more of in the absence of them having a liquor license and someone hides a couple bottles and sneaks it in, what kind of security issues arise from that? Is that really what your question is?

Correct, yes, like who would be there to, is there, because it does say, because it only says security be provided for larger events, so let's say there's an event with only 25 people, so security isn't required, so if they don't have that, what is going to prevent them from bringing their own liquor in? Will there be somebody from ownership inspecting during the course of the party, so that's not going on, or how will that be handled?

Yeah, are you on site at every event, or staff, or family?

Yeah, well, in the other place, right now most events have security, regular security, a police officer. So if somebody says they don't bring alcohol, And we have cameras, and I make to sign a sheet in case we find alcohol, the event that can be stopped in the time we can find the alcohol.

Oh, okay. So you manage it by knowing up front that, let's just say, a baby shower may not have alcohol because pregnant women shouldn't be drinking. Yes. Doesn't mean the people can't.

Yeah, that's true, too. Yeah, you know, we walk inside to the property, you know, even when there's an event, and then we're watching cameras, and, you know, and we make the, we have a sheet where the people, they sign, they bring alcohol, they say no, and then they sign to, they can stop the event. and the time we can. It's part of your contract. Yeah, part of the contract, yes.

But when you say you have security for the larger events, what is the number of people that triggers, from your standpoint, triggers them to have security? How many people have to be in there?

Well, we got like 70, 80 people in the place.

Right, but are you saying that if there's 50 people, you wouldn't require security?

No, no, no, no. Most of the time, they have alcohol. Any beer, they have to be security.

Okay, so you're saying that your contracts with the people that are renting from you, if they give you, say they're going to have alcohol, does that automatically mean they're required to have security?

Correct.

Okay. Does your agreement say that if you have 40 people, does that require security, or is it just only the alcohol?

No, this is for alcohol.

Okay.

Even like they're gonna be like 15 years event, there's gonna be so many people, most of the time we try to have our security there.

As far as you were mentioning parking, like if there is a carer that comes in to work the event, Does parking have to cover the caterers' vehicles and all that?

No, we do not make that distinction. Because if there's 30 spaces on the property, then it's 90 people capacity or maximum. It's hard to... anticipate how many caterers, because most caterers come, drop the food off, and then come back and pick it up. And some caterers stay through the whole event. It's not a consistent number that could be managed and kept track of. So we have to go by the raw numbers of 30 spaces, 90 people.

I have a question. Have they considered off-street parking? off-street parking? Since I know they have a parking lot there, but are they allowed to have off-street parking on there or no?

We will not count off-street park... Oh, excuse me. We will not count on-street parking. And if someone is parking on-street, they theoretically have a right to park in front of this property. It is going to be, if this event gets too large or too many cars, you're going to have issues with people parking in front of other people's houses, and then the complaints can arise from that standpoint.

Thank you.

To your point, they have a legal right to park on the street, but the hope is that with an occupancy in three to each space, it'll be handled. I also wanted to bring up, so you have fencing on all sides of the building. We had discussed before, you were willing to put some slats in, right? Yes. And make it so that the view is blocked for your neighbors? Correct. Okay. There's an existing chain link fence, and we had recommended putting some slats in to make it solid so that, you know, a little more privacy with the neighbors. Since this is nestled in a residential neighborhood.

Correct. And any potential debris blowing across the parking lot would be caught by the fence and the slats.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah.

At least it would help. This one would help.

You know, I'll also state, for the record, bring up the bathrooms. You do have two separate bathrooms, male, female. Each one has two stalls for a total of four toilets. My understanding is that is sufficient for the number of people that you would like. I did speak with Bob Vail, building commissioner. He did state that one of the ADA stalls, one of the partition walls should be moved over. On the north bathroom, there's a large enough stall, it's bigger, it's ADA compliant. He noticed in the south bathroom, depending on the exact measurements, you may need to move the stall wall over a little. Okay. To make the one stall large enough. Okay. That's rather minor, and I'm sure you guys can look into that. I just wanted to state that for the record, that do you look into moving over one of the stall walls to make sure that both the male and the female each have at least one ADA compliant stall? Yes.

Okay, Madam Chairman, I mean, I don't know if there's any more questions from the board. We don't have any more questions, but I think we suggest that we go into the public comment.

Okay. Do you like to sit down?

You can sit down. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak in regard to Z-2611? Yes. Okay. Please sign in and state your name.

Thank you all for being here. My name is Alfonso Salinas III. I'm currently our second district city councilman. So I speak as a representative of our community. Mr. Correa, I met him last year and he made mention while he was up here of a petition that he went around and surveyed the neighborhood. I obtained a copy of it from him because he beat me to it. I was going to try to get out there to see exactly what engaged the community as far as who was on board for it, who wasn't on board for it. He beat me to it, but by having his copy, it's kind of like a checks and balances. I was able to go to these addresses that he said already confirmed it. Let's see if they really did. And truth be told, they all did. And then the ones that he missed or the ones that he didn't get a reply from, they were also on board. I did come across one resident, the house next door to the current property that we're talking about, that is not in favor of it being anything other than what it was. But... With that said, I have gotten to know Mr. Correa, and I've checked into his business workings. And I can say that even the Hammond Police Department speaks highly of Mr. Correa. I believe he's provided maybe some type of letter of recommendation, I think, from the police department? He had mentioned one, but I don't think it was submitted to the BZA. Okay, I've seen a copy of it. I know that I went up our chain of command as far as sitting down with our administrative staff and seeing if this was something that made sense for our community, if this was something that we wanted in our community. And so I did see that letter from the police department. His establishment across the street has been without incident. And as he stated, any event that does have alcohol, he makes it required to where Hammond PD is the ones doing security there. So to me, that speaks volumes. I wish there was more of our current businesses that did the same, but... But with that said, I just want to say that I am in support of this business venture. I spoke to the community, and it's overwhelming that the majority does stand behind Mr. Correa and his idea for this space.

When this goes to the council, you will support it?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you. All right, have a good day.

Anyone else?

Hello, and I'd like to thank you all for being here as well. My name is Hector Rentas. I am a decorated war veteran, a God-fearing man. And I live adjacent to the property in question. And in the beginning, I introduced myself to Mr. Correa, shook hands. He told me what he wanted to do. I was like, that's great. I had no opposition to it initially. He started renting it out immediately or holding parties there, one of the two. And people were smoking marijuana outside, urinating outside on the side of the building, and drinking outside, playing loud music outside. And I was like, okay, this is the first time it's being used. There's some leeway. Well, when I tried to communicate with him, He told me it doesn't matter if they smoke, drink, or piss, excuse me, outside in public. It's his property. It doesn't matter. It's not on my property. Don't worry about it. I have a young daughter. My neighbor across the other way has several tender age children. My neighbor behind me cares for his wife and his grandchildren. I would like to see the petition and if you guys would like me to present you with a petition, I already know because they asked me to speak for them on their behalf as well. They are opposed to the change. Living there for several years now at 1438, I have clear sight of the other property. I have never seen Hammond Police Department at any party Even before he owned the property at 1430, they would park there sometimes. And being that I was managing the building for the church at the time, I had to ask them to not park there because the last time they did it, they left cases of beer in the parking lot. Like I said, I'm opposed to it. based on what I've been told already. And when several of the other parties that they did hold there, they're parking right next to my house. They're coming outside playing loud music. I have a child trying to sleep at certain times. And again, I tried to communicate so that maybe these change, okay, we'll make sure nobody's out there playing loud music these times, you know. but it is an ongoing thing. I was also made aware that when he was initially setting up Las Brisas that he started renting it as well before he was licensed. And all this to me is a pattern of misconduct, shall I say, for lack of a better term. And I don't believe that should be rewarded with yet another chance. There's other properties that he owns They've had multiple instances where law enforcement was called there as well. At the time, I didn't know these were his properties. But it's more of a pattern of misconduct, or like I said, again, for lack of a better term, that I've seen. And for these reasons is why I'm opposed to the change. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?

Wait a second.

Hang on. Anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone else? So we closed public comments and he speaks now, right? And he addressed it. Okay, we will close this period of public comments and you now may address the comments that were made. Now you can stand up and address the comments.

I'm sorry, you know. Most of the issue that come because, you know, he was using the parking lot, do mechanic work in the parking lot. Even he have a gate between the fence. He have a gate to go to my parking lot. So there's a picture with him, you know, do mechanic work. He was fixing cars up there. So I think this is part of the problem with him. Because I told him he cannot do any mechanic work in my parking lot. So that's where the issues start, but this is the only issue we have with him, okay?

Okay, all right, thanks.

May I ask a question of him at this point? He made a comment that you had opened up before you had gotten approval, is that accurate information?

We now open up the place. I make it one of my parties for Christmas, but we know people in the West are smoking and drinking, like he says. I don't allow any place like that to drink outside in pieces. That's why we have restrooms that people use.

But you open? You had parties before you had a license?

No, I don't. I make one party for my family.

Okay. Anybody else have any questions?

I don't.

No.

Okay. No questions here.

No, nothing for me.

All right. All right, we will move into the staff report. Right.

Okay, Mr. Westland? Mr. Westland?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I just want to make sure you were there.

I'm here.

Okay, thank you. As we alluded to earlier, we made the statement that there is an outstanding question regarding the occupancy of the facility. And this is based on the information that the building commissioner and the fire department needs to review and to make a recommendation back to our staff in order for us to make a recommendation to the board uh... staff is of the opinion that without this information that we are concerned that uh... this critical question of the occupancy is not being answered and therefore we would want to ask the board if they would consider continuing this case to the uh... next bc a meeting whatever the date is into june that in that time period, we would encourage the petitioner to provide the necessary information to the building commissioner and the fire department so we can get a proper recommendation from those two entities before we go forward.

Is that where you are?

Excuse me, recommending?

That is what we are recommending. I guess the technical question is, is that if the board does do that, does that trigger re-notification?

No, because you've now closed the public hearing. I guess my question would be, does that occupancy issue, is it one of the specific conditions for the conditional use?

It is, but we are concerned that without the building commissioner being able to give us a code-based determination of what that occupancy is, that affects whether or not the standard zoning ratios apply or not. Because it is subject to a life safety issue with exiting, and that is of great concern. from public safety standpoint.

Well, if the board agrees, then it can certainly be continued to next month.

Okay. Before hearing that, we have a motion to continue this until For the June 30th? June 30th enough?

I'm sorry.

No, it's June 30th enough. I said it would take two weeks or something like that.

I guess that's the question, is that I think the petitioner is saying that he was expecting something within two weeks from the architect, and that if we get that within two weeks, then that gives us an opportunity for the building commissioner and the fire department to review it and get their recommendation to us.

All right. We'll make a motion to continue.

Do we need to make a motion for a continuance?

It's your decision.

I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion for a continuance.

Continue table.

Continue. Continue Z-26-11 until for further discussion after June 30th meeting until all. Information is given to the staff.

Okay, Mr. Westman, I think there was a technical question of whether it's tabled or continued. Is it appropriately continued?

It is continued.

Yes, thank you.

Do we have a motion and a second?

I'll make the motion.

I'll second. Roll call vote.

Cynthia Hassell? Yes. Dan Faulkner? Yes. Roger Brock? Yes. Thomas Casimirzak?

Yes.

Kathleen Hill?

Yes.

Five ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions, motion passed.

Okay, and then again, to confirm, Mr. Westland, redodification is not required.

No, you will not be reopening. Well, I suppose you could, but I don't see a reason to reopen the public hearing.

Okay, all right.

Okay. And your staff is requesting that we keep this information until our June 30th meeting.

You can keep your information and we probably will give you a revised staff report based on the information that we have requested and the building commissioners and fire departments evaluation of that information. Okay.

And this is a variance of use. So any decision made by this board would have to go to the city council.

Yes, so your decision is a recommendation.

Right.

Yes, you will recommend favorably or unfavorably when it goes to city council.

Right. I just want to make sure everybody was aware of that.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the public comment.

Was that closed? Yes, it is closed.

We closed public comment. There will be no additional notification. If you still have any concerns or your neighbors have any concerns, I would suggest that you come to the June 30th meeting. Is it okay to say if he has any questions or comments to contact the staff? He has the right to do that.

Yeah, he has the right to review the materials.

You have a right to contact the staff if you have additional questions. We're the board. They're the staff. Okay. All right. All right. Any commissioner's comments? Nope.

Not for me.

Staff comments.

As we discussed, we will have a meeting at the end of June.

Okay.

We have other things besides what you've discussed tonight with the two cases. We have other new cases that we are working on. I think at least, well, some of the cases have multiple components to them. So it'll be another long night.

We've been here until midnight. Any public comments? Giving you another opportunity to speak. Okay? Okay.

Motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. See everybody on June 30th.