Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Will we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. We have a request from the staff, the table, the minutes.

Oh, roll call.

Oh, roll call, sorry. Do we have a roll call, please?

Roger that. Thomas Casimir is that? Here. Cynthia Hassel? Dan Faulkner?

Yes, or here.

Kathleen Hill?

Here.

Three present. We have a quorum.

And then just for the record, with only three present, I'll... actions have to be unanimous.

So in other words, if it's two to one, then it will not pass. So when we get to your case, if you would like to have it tabled for the next meeting, feel free to. Okay? Everybody understand? All right. We have a request from the staff to table the minutes for October 28th, 2025, February 24th, 2026, April 28th, 2026, June 2nd, 2026, and June 30th, 2026. Do we have a motion and a second to table these until our August 25th, 2026 meeting? So moved. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Do we need a roll call or can we just do it? All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right.

I'm sorry, it's a roll call vote.

Oh, I asked and nobody said anything. Okay, could we have a roll call vote then?

Ms. Kersmier is aye. Yes. Dan Faulkner. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays. Motion passed.

All right. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OLD BUSINESS Z-26-04 PETITION OF RAISE DREAM CASA INC. FOR DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE REGARDING TITLE SECTION 3.30 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM WIDTH AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENT. to build a single family home located at 2633, 164th Place in R1U Urban Single Family Residential District in the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana. Have all requirements been met?

Yes, they have.

Okay. Are you speaking for this? Would you state your name?

Lupe Ambrosio.

And your address, please.

1219 West 149th Street in East Chicago, Indiana.

Okay. We have a revised report.

Okay.

Good afternoon. We are seeking to reduce the minimum required with for a lot from 40 feet to 37 feet in order to construct a single family home with a two-car detached garage and a legally established parcel. The parcel is commonly known as 2633, 164th Place.

OK. And your petition also includes reducing the lot area to 4,750.8 square feet? Yes.

And why do you need to do that?

The lot that we purchased from the city is only 37 feet. And in order to be able to construct on it right now, the minimum requirement is 40 feet. So we're looking for that three foot reduction in order to construct the home.

And again, the reduction of the square footage also.

Yes, and the square footage also.

Okay, anything else you'd like to let us know about?

There's various properties on this block that are sub to the 40 feet and the square footage that already exist on this block. So it would fit in on the block.

All right. Any questions?

This is all just because the lot size isn't? Yes. Does it meet the? The minimum requirements, yes. Okay.

All right. Anybody from the public like this? Oh, you want a staff report? No, we want to have the public first. Or do you have comments?

No, I was letting her know that she could sit down because you called the public hearing.

Okay, you may sit down. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody in the public like before or against to make any comments in regard to this? Anyone in the public? Anyone in the public? We will close this period.

Anyone online?

Doesn't look like it unless they're hiding.

There's one person.

Oh, ping.

Just okay if you don't need to call them out individually, okay anyone online do we have somebody online Remember you'll have to unmute to speak Arden it's letting them know they'll have to unmute if they want to speak online Okay

Any other questions?

Do you have to close public hearing? I did.

Oh, I formally closed public hearing now.

Okay, thank you. All right.

Any other questions for board members? No. Do we have a staff report?

Yes, we do have a staff report. Basically goes over the same things that she was speaking of. This is Reyes Construction. They're based in Hammond. They've built a couple homes already in Hammond. I believe the model of home they have proposed is one that they have built already in other neighborhoods. So it's a proven design. You know, it's going to include a detached garage, three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, about 1,400 square feet of first-floor habitable space, and it's going to include an elevated crawl space. And all these things are to keep it, you know, kind of the same relative size, same relative first-floor height, things like that to match the existing neighborhood. And as she alluded to, all of the... 24 parcels and block 10 of Frank Hammond's edition on this block do not meet the minimums So it's you know not out of character Moving on to the 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 three conditions. One, technical review and final approval of all final building and site plans by city staff. Two, inclusion of an elevated crawl space, so finished first floor grade elevated. And three, removal of the non-necessary curb cut and driveway apron on 165th place. And that is due to the garage being accessed from the alley in line with the rest of the neighborhood. That's what proposed findings of fact on the next page.

Okay. Committee members, do you have any comments in regards to our proposed findings of fact? Any changes? Any additions?

I got them.

Okay. Hearing none. WE HAVE ANY BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THE FINDINGS AFFECT INTO MINUTES? APPROVE THEM?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to accept the proposed findings of fact as findings of fact And the staff report and the staff report And the staff report With the staff recommendation approval for the developmental variance subject to the conditions listed We have a second

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

Dan Faulkner.

Yes.

Thomas Kazimierzak. Yes. Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

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

Do we have a motion in regard to D-26-04 for the developmental variance?

Didn't we include that in the first part?

No, now we need to approve or deny it.

I'll make the motion. The developmental variance for Z-26-04, subject to the standards and conditions set forth. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimir is that? Yes. Kathleen Hill.

Yes.

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

Okay. Mr. Coleman, we have three that are very similar. Could we read them all together and take them with a separate vote?

Yes, there could be a single presentation and then separate votes. Okay.

Yes. So the first items under new business are Z-26-18-A, Petition of Davis Imperial Quoting, Inc., for Developmental Variance Regarding Title Section M.11.31-C, to allow a reduction of the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback in an I-1 light industrial district located at 1175 State Street within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Then we have Z-26-18-B, petition of Davis Imperial Coating, Inc., for conditional use regarding title section 10.11.31-C to allow a reduction of the 100-foot minimum building setback from residential districts in Iowa ONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED 1175 STATE'S FEET WITHIN THE CITY OF HAMMOND LAKE COUNTY INC. And then we have Z-26-18-C, petitioner Davis, Imperial Coding, Inc., for a developmental variance regarding title section 10.11.31-D to allow a reduction of the 40-foot minimum front yard setback for parking at 1175 State Street within the city of Hammond. Lake County, Indiana. Have all notifications been met?

Yes, they have. Yeah. Madam Chairman, it looks like there's some errors on the agenda.

Okay. And what are they, Mr. Perlman?

Okay. Z2618B is the condition of use, but It is referencing, I mean, Tom, help me out here.

It should be 11.30. So it should be title section 11.31 D. 11.31, are you saying D as in dog? Yeah, so Z2618A should be title section 11.31 C. Z2618B should be title section 11.31 D. V. D as in dog.

Like in boys.

And then 112618C should be section 11.40. 11.40?

Yeah, 4-0. Is that for title and section or 11.40?

Yeah, that's the title and section.

11.40.

Yeah, so they all come from title 11.

And that is not D, it's just 11.40?

I'm not sure what you said, but I misheard. 11.31 C for the first case. Second case is 11.31 D as in dog. And the third case is 11.40.

So they're correct on that?

They're correct on that. The staff reports are correct. The agenda is incorrect.

All right. All right. Do we have a petitioner?

Did you call for notifications? Pardon? Yeah, she did. She did. OK, thank you.

All right.

Good evening. My name is Jack Farino with 209 Development Services, owner's representative and developer consultant for Davies Imperial Coatings. We are requesting the three setbacks for the development of a $15 million redevelopment of the site for a thermoplastics plant for Davies Imperial.

Before you start, did you state your address?

7135 Indian Apples Boulevard in Hammond.

Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry.

No, not a problem. Sorry about that. But we're looking to redevelop this into a $15 million development for Davies for a thermoplastics plant, bringing 40 plus high quality, accessible, high paying jobs to the community. This will act as a screen and a buffer as well for a long abandoned site. For over 100 years it sat fully subdivided for a residential neighborhood. nothing has happened for some time and this will actually provide a nice screen for the neighbors across the street from the railroad track that's always have freight trains going to and from could you play further 1131c as to what the specific uh variance is requested for the rear yard Yeah, so for the first setback, the 20-foot rear yard setback, this is for an encroachment for one corner of the building as well as an overhead canopy to be able to load materials in the rear side of the site. This is right by and abutting the actual railroad track where there's no impact to any of the neighbors other than a railroad.

I'm sorry, but I think you said for the canopy in one corner of the building? It's actually two corners of the building.

Two corners. Yes, correct. It's two corners at the northeast side. The second variance is for 100 foot, less than 100 foot setback from residential districts. This is across the street from some residential, but again, this is a longtime site of not being able to be developed. So we are across from residential, but this is going to be a beautiful precast building. We've already coordinated and talked to many of the neighbors, and there's a lot of support in this neighborhood, along with Councilman Salinas.

Okay, and the case is actually a conditional use, not a developmental variance? for 2618B. And the specifics is regarding the setbacks from a residential zone for the building and the parking area. The building not to be closer than 100 feet, the parking area not to be closer than 40 feet. And then can you explain the dimensional differences, please? i'm sorry can you explain specifically what the setback variance is your or excuse me the conditional uses you're requesting yes to be allowed to construct the building within 100 feet of residential okay and for the benefit of everybody the first reduction is reducing it from 26.6 feet from tom help me out sorry from 100 to 70 feet yeah 73.4 to 73.3 and that um reduction of 58.6 feet down to 41.4 regarding the um west side of the building which is required to be 100 feet and then reducing the 81 feet down to 19 at the rear regarding um abutting of the residential zone, and then reduction of 15 feet down to 5 at the nearest point of the canopy.

Have I covered it correctly, Tom?

Yeah, I'm sorry. It's more than a reduction of 15. It's a reduction of 95 feet to 5 feet. So, yeah.

Okay, and then additionally, the petition includes a setback for the proposed parking area also, right? Correct. So that's what the collective conditional use is, making the adjustments in all of these locations.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Yeah. And for the parking lot, that'll be reducing it from 40 feet to pretty much 37 feet in the front. Correct.

And the third one?

That's the parking lot setback.

Pardon?

The parking lot setback.

Okay.

Actually, there's a difference. The reason there's two provisions, they are related to parking lot, but it is that one is adjusted from the zoning district and the other one is adjusted from the property line. And that's what C is for the property line.

Yes.

And so the numbers are the dimensional differences. There are differences in the dimensions because of the point of measurement.

Right. All right.

Right, so that third case, the reduction isn't to the residential district in front, it's just to the front property line. And so we're reducing it down to seven feet, which is a reduction of 33 feet from the required 40.

Right.

And so that would be, for reference to people in the audience, State Street. Correct. Which across the street is where the residences are located.

Right. And with that, we've got all of our screening and all of our landscaping along State Street as well. It's just a very tricky site to be able to maximize, get the investment, get the jobs to maximize the facility. We are requesting these variances, but we're doing everything we can. We've been working with the planning department to integrate and unify this corridor.

Very unusual. Nice lot. or what you have.

Yes, that is a factor because the property is not a square or a rectangle. It has a diagonal line on it that affects the placement of a building in relationship to the property boundaries, as well as the parking, et cetera.

Any questions from board members?

Well, the encroachment on the back side, we're talking about Logan Street, that's separated by the railroad tracks as well, correct?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear everything.

So the encroachment, the reduction we're talking on the backside in reference to Logan Street, there's a bunch of railroad tracks between Logan Street and the backside of this building as well, correct? That's correct. Yes. Okay.

The traffic flow for the area, is that going to be taken care of or there's a lot of traffic with... Building of the business so there's minimal traffic and we've already done a traffic study in collaboration with the city and that's all been addressed for the neighborhood Any other comments from staff Tom any clarifications, um We read through the setback so We'll open for public comments anybody in the public you may sit down.

Thank you.

Thank you. I Anybody in the public that would like to make any comments? Anyone in the public? Anyone online? Mr. Novak, anyone online?

It doesn't seem to be.

Hearing none from, any online?

Madam Chairman, I've just been informed, Jake, the feed is out, no Zoom link, and our attorney cannot get back in. So are you still broadcasting? Because based on what we're seeing here, it looks different. We are still streaming. According to our attorney, it is not. The Zoom link is out.

It looks like maybe the Zoom closed out due to some kind of update or something. Yeah, that was odd, thank you.

He's back.

Yeah, I think we got our attorney back.

Do we have anybody in the public online then?

Yeah, apparently we lost other people that were online.

Do we wait or do we continue?

Dave, can you hear us?

Yeah, the video is not working.

Okay, we can see you. Can you see me? My video is working.

So go to the bottom of that, Jake.

So Jake, do you have any suggestions on the technology here?

Yeah, go to the bottom of the screen, Jake, with your mouse. Yeah, okay. There you go. I don't know why that was off. Thank you.

All right.

You're back.

Okay.

All right. Anyone online? Still see no one. All right. I've given two only ones, so... We will, for the third time, anyone like to speak or against? We will close this period of public comment. All right. We will take each one separately.

Any comments now from board members?

No.

No, ma'am.

All right.

So we will go with Z26-18 brings A. This is for developmental variance.

Mm-hm.

All right, could we have the staff report on this one?

Yeah, so in this matter, we're looking at the rear setback in the light industrial district should be at least 20 feet. For background, this was a three parcel property that was recently combined into one through a subdivision process with the plant commission. That subdivision will be recorded along with the utility easement necessary for them to reach the sanitary pumping station next door. As well as a use restrictions document covenant that pretty much limits in case this changes in 10, 20, 30 years. There's certain light industrial uses that won't be allowed here ever. And that was kind of a safeguard. But that was kind of the lead up to this. For this specific case, we're looking at a setback of five feet for the rear canopy, which is covering the loading dock at the northwest corner, and then down to 19 feet and 19.9 feet, just a reduction of one feet or less at the two northeast corners of this building. And as stated before, this is the Gibson Rail Yards to the north of here. So I think the idea is to create a greater front yard setback by having a lesser rear yard setback to create more distance from the homes across State Street, while still giving trucks enough room to maneuver and go to the loading dock in the rear of the property. And so these are three encroachment areas, as shown in the encroachment exhibit that was supplied by DVG team of Crown Point. So staff recommendation in this case, 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. One, technical review and approval of final building site civil and stormwater pollution prevention plans by city staff. Two, recordation of the Davies Imperial Coatings Edition plat. of the sanitary district utility easement and of the use and restrictions covenant. Three, finalization of the sale of the property. Four, approval by BZA of conditional use case Z2618B and of developmental variance case Z2618C. Just for the record, Jack Farino is presenting as consultant for the Davies Imperial, who are the contingent purchasers. Hammond Fence Company is the current owner. But permission was given for all of this. And then attached to this is a two page proposed findings of fact.

Any questions, comments? deletions, additions for the proposed findings of fact?

None for me.

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve the findings of fact and the staff report with the staff recommendations and also the fact that Petitioner has met all the standards for the developmental variance. Do we have such a motion?

I'll make the motion to accept the staff report and the final.

Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. We'll call a vote.

Dan Faulkner.

Yes.

Thomas Kazmierczak. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay, does the staff have, or not the staff, does the board members have anything in regard to Z-26-18-B? No, we haven't heard that one. Oh, we have to vote to approve this, I'm sorry. Do we have a motion in regard to Z-26-18-A? Who approve, deny, the conditional, the developmental variance?

I'll make the motion to grant the developmental variance for Z-26-18A, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the staff report.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casmierzak. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay, then we'll move on to D-26-18-B for the conditional use.

Okay.

Is that it for the staff report?

Yes, thank you. So in this case, again, this is pulling from Title 11, Section 11.31 , lots of budding residential districts, which specifies for a light industrial district that any building or structures must be no closer than 100 feet. The parking area should not be any closer than 40 feet to a residential district. you know, and kind of went over the setbacks here. Again, kind of the same reasoning. They tried to move it as far back as possible to maximize these, but due to the shape of the site and the northern line being sloped, it wasn't possible. And while still meeting Davies Imperial coatings requirements for the facility they need. Which is separately 57,000 some square feet and 35 feet tall. So specifically this includes the setbacks on the south, which is the front, the west and the north side. And again, that's. Reduction of 26.6 feet down to 73.4 feet from the front of the building to the R1U district, which is at State Street in front. Reduction of 58.6 feet down to 41.4 feet between the west side of the building and the R1U district, which begins at the parcel next door to the west. This parcel specifically is the Ammon Sanitary District pumping station for Howard Avenue. And then three, reduction of 81 feet down to 19 feet at its narrowest for the rear of the building at the northeast corner, specifically from the R1U district, which is to the north. That parcel is known as Logan Street, but yes, it is basically feeder rail lines for the Gibson Rail Yards. And a part of that is also the reduction of 95 feet down to five feet at its narrowest for the attached canopy in the rear of the northwest part of the building at the loading dock. Additionally then, when we're talking about the parking lot, three feet down to just well 3.01 feet down to 36.99 feet between that front edge of the parking lot and the r1u district which you know it specifically begins at the midpoint of state street and again south of state street is where the residences are located and it is an r1u district so um As alluded to there will be perimeter landscaping some fencing in front at least six feet tall decorative fencing Throughout the whole site there will be over 24,000 square feet of landscaping So there is perimeter landscaping on both of these three sides in an attempt to help lessen the impact Staff recommendation, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the conditional use. Should the Board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following condition, approval by BZA of developmental variance cases Z2618A and Z2618C. And again, this one is a conditional use as opposed to the other two which are developmental variances. So with that in mind, there is three pages of a proposed findings of fact also attached addressing the nine conditions for conditional use requests.

Okay. Any questions, comments, additions, deletions for the proposed findings of fact?

I just have one on the second page of this where you have the second section three twice there, the second one. Yeah. It says a reduction of 15 feet. down to five.

That was a typo. I was going to say that should be 95. It should read 95. Yes, and I apologize. That was a typo. It should be 95 feet, not 50. I may as well also mention for now, on all three staff reports, accidentally it states at the very top of the first page, title 11, I-1 manufacturing district. On all three staff reports, that should read I-1 light industrial district. What does it mean?

Yeah, it does say line industrial.

Okay, so that was fixed. I'm sorry. I must have an old version. All right.

Any other comments?

None for me.

Okay, do we have a motion in regard to accepting the staff report into the record and that the petitioner has met all the requirements for granting a conditional use? So accepting that, the staff report, the findings of fact as amended, everything that has been amended.

The staff report is amended. The proposed findings of fact was not.

Okay. The staff report amendment into the record. So we're accepting the staff report with the staff recommendation and the amended findings of fact into the record.

I'll make the motion to accept the amended staff report. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimirza. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

We have a motion in regard to The conditional use for Z-26-18B.

I'll make the motion to grant the conditional use for Z-26-18B, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the staff report. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Kazmierczak. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay, then we have Z-26-18-C for the developmental variance and the setback from residential district. Can everybody in the audience hear us? Okay, all right. If we can't, just raise your hand and let us know. Thank you. All right, do we have a motion? Well, could we have a staff report, please?

So for Z26-18C, which is a developmental variance and distinction here, it's a developmental variance for the setback of a... parking area from the front lot line and the residential district obviously we already handled the residential district side of things but you know this specifically also addresses front yard so um in this situation obviously as discussed before in the way the building set up on the property you know there is still encroaching in that front yard setback specifically the uh front southern edge of the um uh the parking area would be down to 6.99 feet when it is required to be 40. So that's about 17.5% reduction of 33 feet, 33.01 feet. Everything else I said still stands as far as landscaping and all that. 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 condition. One, approval by BZA of developmental variance case Z2618A and of conditional use case Z2618B. And then following that is a two-page proposed findings of fact.

All right. Any questions, comments, additions, deletions from the findings of fact?

No.

All right. Do we have a motion to accept the staff report and the findings of fact into the records?

Okay, and to note, the staff report is as amended because of the citation on the first page.

Okay, staff report is correct, as amended. We'll accept the staff report as amended and the findings of fact into the record. Do we have a motion?

Yeah, I'll make the motion to accept the amended staff report and the findings of fact as findings of fact. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Roll call vote.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casmier. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

All right. Do we have a motion in regard to the developmental variance for Z-26-18-C for the developmental variance?

I'll make the motion to grant the developmental variance for Z-26-18-C subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the staff report. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

All right.

Good evening.

Wait, let me read it first. We've got to let everybody know what's going on, okay? Okay, next item on the agenda is Z-26-20, petition of Tamara Reyna Stevens. What? Reyna Stevens for conditional use regarding Title Section 10.10.11, Pringles 11, to allow an adult daycare center in a C4 general commercial district located at 7122 Calumet Avenue within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Now you may state your name and address.

Notifications.

Notifications have been met.

Yes, they have.

Okay. Now. You're ready to go then.

Yes. My name is Tamara Stevens, and I am here on behalf of Graceville.

Your address. Don't forget.

I'm sorry?

Give us your address.

7122 Calumet Avenue, and I'm here for Graceville Horizons.

Okay. You live there also. Yes. Oh, you live at 7122? No, I don't. You need my home address? Yes.

Oh, I live at 1037 Cherry Street here in Hammond.

Okay, thank you. Also, could you move the microphone closer to your mouth?

Okay, so let me just start over. My name is Tamara Stevens. I live at 1037 Cherry Street here in Hammond, and I'm here on behalf of Graceful Horizons that will be at 7122 Calumet Avenue to open up an adult daycare. Okay. I don't know a little bit about me. I'm born and raised here in Hammond, 3rd District, but I've been a constituent of the 4th District for over 20 years. I want to open this business because I take care of my mom, who's battling with dementia, and there's a need in the community, and it's necessary. So I got licensed through the state of Indiana, got my certifications, and I'm hoping to be able to run my adult daycare there.

All right. Okay, and how many clients are you proposing on having in the facility?

I'm licensed to have up to 25 adults in the building.

Okay, and is that correlated with the license from the state that you're only restricted to 25?

It's a ratio of one. You can have one per eight. It's a ratio. One caretaker and eight adults in there. It's a non-medical facility. which will be just Monday through Friday, 8 to 5. And we share the parking lot with Cathleys Forest. So, like, with the traffic flow, they'll enter in off Calumet, and then we'll leave the back gate open for the ease of traffic flow.

And you'll be occupying just the first floor, right?

Yes, I will occupy the entire first level. That is correct.

And so the Family and Social Services Administration of Indiana, they did inspect that unit already and gave the okay?

Twice, yes. In compliance with the state of Indiana, yes.

My only question is, you said 25.

I thought it said 20 here.

But it says 20 in the analysis, which is the correct number?

I'm licensed up to 25.

Okay, because the analysis here says that, unless it's incorrect, it says the FSSA set the maximum number of clients to be served at a single time at 20.

I don't know. Yeah.

But you don't intend to have 25 to begin with, right?

No. I think we'll be at a minimum, if that, of 20, and that's including with my staff.

Okay. Sure.

So myself, a staffed RN, and then an activity director.

I noticed you only had one restroom facility.

I only have one restroom at the moment.

Does the person, people who give you the ability or you've had as far as been expected for the use and everything else? Yes. They feel that one restroom is enough for up to 25 people?

They did.

Okay. and it says you will be giving breakfast lunch and snacks that is correct i know that the picture of the kitchen area are you planning on bringing food in i will bring food in and i can prepare food there i don't have a a stove but i have stuff to prepare the food there The restroom is large enough to put in a wheelchair?

Yes.

Any other questions?

Not for me, no.

Mr. Faulkner, any other questions? No, ma'am. All right. We'll open for public comments. Yes, you may sit down and you will answer any of his questions after we finish public comment. Can you come up, sign in, state your name and address.

A quick question before I begin. In terms of address, do you want me to list my business address or my home address? My home address is in Chicago, but I own a business in Hammond.

Your home address.

Home address. Thank you, sir.

If you want to add your business address, there's no harm on that. Okay.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak This evening and thank you very much for your dedication and work here that you guys do for the city of Hammond We truly appreciate it My first name is Thomas. Last name's Magano. I'm co-owner with me and my wife. We own MJ Polish Deli at 7112 Catamount Avenue. We've owned it for 18 years, previously owned it for 10, so we've been in existence for 28 years at that same location. I'm here on behalf that I received notification of a letter from Ms. Stevens of Graceful Horizons. regards to potential commercial authorization from the bza to expand her business at that location that was previously mentioned i do have a public comment that i'd like to make first and foremost i believe that businesses are the thriving engine for economics in any city town or locality okay I want to make that abundantly clear, whether it's a mom-and-pop store, a mega corporation. Okay, I want to make that statement perfectly clear. And I'm not opposed to businesses, okay? My concern is whether this particular property has enough parking and sufficient space to operate safely without negatively impacting or affecting businesses located next to this location. I'm two buildings north of where this location is at. I'm at 7112. And as previously mentioned, she's two buildings south of me. and a portion of the only has eight parking spaces available the parking situation changed over the years used to have street parking but now all the parking is behind the businesses whether it is the uh... dairy bell their parking lot is in the back the uh... counseling center their parking lot is in the back partners at a premium okay so this proposed business of graceful horizon they share a parking lot with christy floors and there are eight spaces there eight to ten if you depending which picture you look at from google maps so with that being said that if she's looking to inquire to have twenty clients at any given point in time and you're doing the math that's one caretaker for every eight so she's utilizing three spaces there not counting her own space so that leaves one additional space available for customers or for the elderly that she's planning to take care of as clients so that being said uh on a daily basis especially during the school season we're dealing with parents that will come into our parking lot park their car and run across the street to edison school because that's north of our property right on the next block and they politely say i'm just going to be a minute i'm just going to run my child to that school And the impact to that is that the other businesses, at that time of the day, we have deliveries coming in, whether it's from a van or trucks delivering our product, right? And they're on a time schedule as well. So they've got to meet their criteria to make that delivery for themselves and make sure that their drivers are on time every time for themselves, for their company. We hold the trucks and vans in place for a few minutes, which I think if the parents were not parking and utilizing our spaces, it would reduce the effect of any emergencies of an emergency vehicle needing to get back and forth to where they need to go. I know this is not the school city of Hammond window to voice that concern, but we have made that concern known. the expansion of having 20 to 25 clients attending this Graceful Horizons business that will basically have overflow parking to us and what's been happening in the past since we've owned the business there have been other tenants north of that building for example a barbershop was there lasted maybe a year and a half to two and as i ran into the former owner that was there he stated tom the parking was just atrocious all i had was three spaces and i had three barbers so the customers had no place to park in the back And they were respectful of the insurance company that had a parking lot. The sign says only for the insurance company customers should park here. So they were respectful. So that barber says, you know what, I'm just going to move to a bigger parking lot area. And he moved to outside of the city. Point being... that parking is very much at a minimum and at a premium there. It's just the business owners like to have their own customers having adequate space to go in there and do their shopping, right? And as they drive by, they say, well, there's no parking. I'm just going to take my business elsewhere and shop somewhere else. So that is a concern for us. And so the three businesses that we are joined with parking lots are You know, we fortunately had to contract with a towing company because at times the neighbors, even themselves, they utilize our parking lots overnight. And sometimes they won't leave until like midday and they're utilizing the minimum spaces that we have. So through verbal agreement, we've contracted with a towing truck. But what that does, that takes us away from our customers having to make the phone call to a towing company saying there's a car here that's been here for like basically 72 hours, starting from Friday night all the way through Monday. And sometimes they're even there till Tuesday morning when we arrive, when we open our doors. However, We're running our business almost seven days a week. We just finished doing the Pierogi Fest, and that was nonstop for us, right? And so getting in and out with people using our spaces, it becomes a challenge. So in closing... I respectfully request that this petition be continued until a complete parking and traffic plan demonstrates that the proposed facility can operate entirely within its own property without relying on neighboring parking lots or creating additional congestion around the school. I apologize if my throat is going hoarse. I was outside for three days in a row in the heat and the elements. So if the words are not clear, by all means, please ask me any questions you'd like to ask me now. So thank you very much. And thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here tonight.

Thank you. We'll have it addressed after we finish public comment. You will address your concerns.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone online? Anyone online? Anyone online?

Donna Medrano, did you wish to speak?

Hi, I'm sorry I'm joining late to the meeting, but I had received a notice regarding the property on 7122 South Calumet. Has that been already addressed or was that the gentleman that was just speaking?

That's currently it. He was the 1st to speak in public expression if you'd like to speak during public expression. Yes, this is.

Yes, so I, my residence, my property. Ms., would you state your name and address, please? Sure. My name is Donna Medrano, and my address is 7124 Woodlawn Avenue, Hammond, Indiana.

And Ms. Medrano, can you turn your camera on, please? Sure. Okay, thank you.

Mm-hmm. So I am the property owner directly behind the property of the 7122 South Calumet. And I understand that they are going to be using the storefront. And I was just wondering what type of storefront would they be having there? Since I'm directly behind them.

You said you're on Woodlawn? Yes, I'm on Woodlawn. So Jefferson would be- 7124 Woodlawn. Jefferson would be directly behind this property?

Oh, it's on the other side. It's on the other side.

And it would be an adult daycare center.

Oh, okay. All right. I thought it was the one right behind it. So it's the lots that are across the street then on the west side of Calumet. Okay. All right. Forgive me. We're talking about the wrong alley.

That's all right.

Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Thank you for the clarification. No problem.

Thank you. And just to clarify, it would have been an adult daycare center?

Okay, all right, yeah, I see that from the letter that I received.

Okay. All right, anybody else online? Anyone else in the public? Okay, would you like to state his concerns and how you will be addressing them?

So I will share, like I said, a lot with Kathy's floors. There will not be parking except me and maybe two other employees or maybe not even me or two other employees there. It's a pick up and drop off.

You need a direct board.

It's a pick up and drop off. So there wouldn't be, I don't think it would bother the flow of the business that's surrounding at all.

Yeah, so when you say that it's primarily, it's a pick up and drop off, so that means family members are coming by, dropping them off.

Sure, and picking them up. I mean, and that's just if they're, just like if you're dropping your kid off at a daycare.

Okay, that's the comparison you're making, just like, you know, parents dropping off their kids for a daycare.

It's not like an all-day parking. It's a flow of parking. Okay. Like moving traffic.

Can staff members ask a comment?

I'm sorry?

Can board members ask a comment to her? Well, right now, this is her opportunity to respond to the public.

Okay, go ahead. We're not at board member questions.

All right. Okay, any other comments?

So, I mean, basically, that's your, that's your, the point that you're addressing is that you only have, because of the one to eight ratio, you have three cards for employees, basically. And then your agreement is for how many parking spaces?

I have, Kathy has four and I, Kathy has four and I have four.

You have four, okay. And then your clients are dropped off?

Dropped off.

Okay, all right.

All right.

Okay, that's.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right. Staff does have one question and this is for the attorney. You know, one of the things that I wanted to get clarified is that the petition document was written as 20 clients and then there was a reference to 25 based on her license. And the one to eight ratio means that basically that would be three, I'm trying to do the math, I'm sorry. Three. Four, yeah. Because basically one to eight means that's 24 people, right? Right. Three spaces is 24 people. Okay, so then you got number 25.

Then it's five people.

All right, so from a technical standpoint, do we just, if she's asking for up to 25 based on her license, Do we need to amend anything in order to deal with that?

The petition states 20.

What is the notice? The petition specifically states petitioner seeks to follow unconditional use to operate an adult. No, no, that wasn't a question. That was a statement. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. What is the notice state?

Basically, the petitioner confirmed she will not approach the 20-client maximum, which says it was a 20-client maximum. Okay, that's what the petition says.

We don't have the legal notice. Janet, do we have that?

Have you received anything from the... Aye. organization.

I'm asking a very specific question. What is in the legal notice that went to the paper and the adjoining property owners? I'm looking for a number.

I don't believe it mentions it, and if it does, I would assume it mentions what the petition form says, which is... Well, we don't want to speculate.

He's asking for a definitive answer.

Okay, well, give me a moment.

Do we have the information?

Do we have a copy of what was sent to the public?

Please give me a moment. Just... I believe I may have it saved. Yes, I do.

Hold on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

He had it. Thank you. Oh, awesome, because that's the letter, yeah. Okay. I also have the legal notice.

That's the letter.

It's not the legal notice. No, I know, and I said I also have the legal notice, and I will read that next. does not mention any there's no mention of quantity in the notice that went out and in the legal notice it does not mention any level of quantity the only quantities mentioned on the petition form itself and it's couched in the fact that this may change

Okay, so the letter does not mention the number of people. The notice is going to the core question of can this be a conditional use for an adult daycare center?

Yeah, it speaks on that, but it does not give any kind of quantity of clients. Neither does the legal.

I would venture an opinion at Mr. Westland, but what would be yours?

Because the notice doesn't say anything, and the petition says it may change, I think you could grant the conditional use contingent on either 20 or 25 at the pleasure of the BZA.

Okay, can we also say 24 because of the mathematical calculation in the parking spaces?

Yes. Unless there is some part of the state statute that's not being specific and it rounds up to 25, I assume 25.

There's not.

20, 24, or 25, it's up to the BZA.

Okay. So staff is recommending to the BZA that should this go forward, that the number would be capped at 24.

Okay. But my question is, The state of Indiana says it limits the occupancy to 20, according to this.

So that staff report, I had received that information months ago from the petitioner that it was 20. And that's what I recall in your original cover letter.

And that's what the petition says, is that line three of the petition to the Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals, section three says the state of Indiana currently limits the occupancy to 20 adult clients at one time, though this may change.

Exactly. So I think Attorney Westland ventured that we don't necessarily have to change that form because it says this may change.

Has the staff received a copy of the license from the state?

No, we did not. And so I think to Mr. Kazmierczak's question, you know, you could word it up to 24 based on this statement. But there's clearly a flexibility in what the license allows for versus what she said here and the attorney said that we could adjust the number. So you can always say up to 24.

So we can say up to if the state comes back and says you can take four more.

we can say that if the state restricts her to less than the state super state rules supersede okay and i would also like to as my point i was making this but it states the state of indiana but this is what i you know what was written based on months ago so you know i don't know if information changed or if it was originally misstated as 20 you know so i i would not consider that as definitive okay it's all duly noted i think the point is

We clarify it based on all the discussion analysis as I have recommended.

So are we amending anything?

You are not technically amending anything. You are clarifying the issue.

Okay.

No more than 20. 20 maximum. That's our clarification.

The recommendation is up to 24. Up to 24.

All right. I have a question, though, as far as is there off-street parking for any of these clients or no?

Calumet Avenue does. Wait a minute. You asked off-street parking?

Off-street, on-street parking. And you park on-street.

Okay. First of all, she just explained off-street parking. And no, there is no on-street parking because Calumet Avenue does not allow parking.

Okay. Okay. I'm going to get a little personal since I know elderly people and I'm also one myself If you're going to be dropping off Maybe four or five people at the same time and you're going to coming into the back it's going to take a while to get that client out of the car and into the daycare and And that would be really a major congestion as far as traffic, because we tend to move a little slower than normal people. What's the solution to that?

I think that can only happen if you've got four clients coming together, which I don't think will really happen. I don't think everyone is going to be getting dropped off together at 8 o'clock. It's per family. I don't have a contract with anyone that's going to be dropped off together on a bus and coming in as a group together, not as of yet.

What is the typical drop-off or sign-off process? Do you just roll out of the car and go?

No, they will sign a man. If they can sign themselves in, they will, but if they have to have uh... decade their caretaker appeal a sign them and that's what we have to sign the mania less than five minutes one of these spots

As long as the client is. Let's just say technically no, but people do.

Yeah, if the client needs the service, yes.

Yeah, and I mean, let's not go down...

I guess it could be considered an accommodation.

Yeah, I don't think we should go down a rabbit hole here. And I don't want to, since I'm also getting to the elderly stage, I don't want to infer that all elderly people are needing assistance or have a disability just because of their age.

Sure.

But there are practical issues of how, you know... I'm sure if someone parks in the space for the short period of time of getting checked in, it happens. Those things are going to happen in this world.

And you also have the fact that the caretaker that is dropping them off at the daycare probably is a working adult who also then is going to be dropping them off probably as soon as they're open so they can get to work. So then you do have a great possibility that more than one at a time will be coming. That's what bothers me.

Yeah, my only question is if you effectively have zero parking spaces.

Really, that's it. How do people get in now?

I mean, if you want me to speak, I can explain the situation. There's nine off-street parking spaces currently striped. There may be room for more in the rear as well, but I'm not going to assume. We are requiring as a condition that one of these spaces are restriped to be ADA compliant, and there is space to do that. She will require three for her staff, and if we base things off, say, the daycare rules, one in ten. So she would have enough spaces. to accommodate under the zoning ordinance. I'll also state that Kathy's florist does have verbal agreement with the owners, but this is not Kathy's parking space technically. So I'm sure that the landlord will accommodate the adult daycare as necessary. But long story short, there's nine off-street spaces. She'll need three for staff. That will leave her with I mean, let's be honest, people probably aren't going to be necessarily using all the other available spaces, so that could leave her with one to six spaces available at any one time during drop-off periods. Now, it's going to operate 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Edison Elementary School, for example, is 9.15 a.m. to 3.45 p.m. So, I mean, the hope is that pick-up and drop-offs are a little staggered and that... Let's just say Kathy's florist doesn't have a rush while she's having a rush at the exact same moment. But I don't really foresee people parking next door or at other parking lots, given that these are people who do need care and they're probably going to want to park as close to the front door as they can.

we still on the public comment no we are no public comment is closed okay so my understanding is this was originally built as a grocery store if this was another grocery store looking to open at that location this meeting would not even this variance would not even be necessary and we would have Any other type of business would be able to move in their sight unseen and operate with the with the parking spaces that are currently there with no. They would not need to come in front of the BZA.

If another business wanted to open it, it would depend upon specifically what another business is. because the other, as in this case, some businesses have different parking requirements than others. And the standard commercial parking calculation is one space for every 250 gross square feet. So in that sense, if this was a grocery store, it would clearly, without even having the exact numbers, it's gonna be under parked. There's no question. That is a situation with any of the properties on Calumet Avenue. They are all limited in parking and there's no availability to remedy that because of the physical limitations of the space. So with a ratio of one to eight and then the only parking, which only dictates by code three spaces, and there's nine there. And even though Kathy's forest may have a shared agreement and all that kind of stuff on the surface of the calculations, there's adequate parking to meet the zoning requirements.

So, so basically what it comes down to is we have a business, a building there, and you have three options. It either never gets any business ever again, and it stays vacant on Calumet Avenue, which is obviously, not ideal we have a business that comes in that will utilize multiple parking spots and be under parked or we have a business such as this that is going to under utilize the parking in my son and the way i can see it it will be underutilized the parking lot because they're not going to be parking and staying if we drop off only yes in theory okay

But basically there's only one parking space for a handicapped person.

That would be typical for this size of a parking lot because if you have up to 25 parking spaces, you're only required to have one accessible space.

And it has to be a van accessible space.

I noticed the photos that you've included in your petition has Grace, Grateful Horizons on the window. Have you opened already?

Not yet. But I have to have a signage there for the state to identify that I have a spot.

All right.

And then I guess my only other question is, Your lease, is it just yearly?

Yes.

I definitely agree there's a need for this type of facility. I have to admit I'm very concerned about the parking.

we have their possibility of tabling listen to our next meeting maybe there will be more i don't think the circumstances are going to change entering differently and i don't see the value of continuing it for what purpose and if you do choose to continue you'd have to state the specific purposes to why and what information that needs to be gathered and i don't see any the additional information than what we have at the moment i will make the comment that uh... when we dealt with child care centers who were moving into the residential neighborhood. The one that particularly is by, if anybody was on the board at the time, it was by Edison School.

Or Edison Park.

Sorry? It was Edison Park. Edison Park, thank you.

It was a Sawyer Library.

Yes, it was the former library that was being converted into a daycare center. And we had a lot of discussions about the impact of a lot of children being there and dropped off. And they were also taking infants. And that also is something that requires a lot of hands-on, literally hands-on, taking a child from a parent to bring it in the facility. And so one of the things that we did as a remedy is to lessen the impact because the drop-off was literally on the street. There was no off-street area for the drop-off to occur. And they set up and presented to us basically a scheduling system in which parents are assigned a 15-minute window in order to drop their children. plays out several years later and and things like that that's certainly an open question but nonetheless I see some some analogy here that we're talking about in that case that was like forty to fifty kids you know we're talking about upwards of twenty four we're talking about adults who you know perhaps have some limitations but nonetheless you know are different than an infant I think as we're trying to make that point. And so, you know, it is a nature of most of, I don't, I know you can't guarantee this, but most of your clients will probably be more ambulatory than leading.

Sure, because it's non-skilled.

Right, right.

It's non-skilled, it's non-medical. So they'll be, they'll be able to pretty much move around, it's just maybe they may have some, I mean, I may get a couple of dementia clients, but It's a non-skilled facility. So for the most part, I think they'll be able to move around on their own. It's just basically getting out the house and being around other people, socializing.

At drop-off, would you have an ability? They would be dropping them off at the back of the building, correct?

To the rear, yes.

Is there any ability for one of your staff members to greet them outside and sign them in?

There can be an accommodation for that.

So they could not... with the parking area or anything like that? Sure.

I appreciate the question, but I think we're getting a little into micromanagement as opposed to what is the parking question. And so I think she's presented her information that she can accommodate her clients under those different circumstances. The question before the board is whether or not they can, she can, have an adult daycare center up to 24 people at this location. And so at this point, I'm going to kind of step overstep here. But I mean, if there aren't any more questions, then the staff is ready to present the report.

I have no more. No.

OK. You have no other questions?

We have a staff report then.

Yeah. So in the case of Z-26-20, conditional use in a C-4 general commercial district for an adult daycare center at 7122 Calumet Avenue, which will not be a medical facility and will not Offer overnight care, will operate Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at this time. I realize those hours may vary in the future. I do want to make note that given our discussion, an amendment to the staff report I'd like to make on page two when we mention 20 clients under the analysis, I think that should be changed to 24 clients. And, you know, the fact that her and herself, two staff, that'd be up to three staff. So when it mentions four off-street spaces, I would change that to five off-street spaces in the second paragraph of the analysis section. I think that would cover what we're discussing. As well as... If we look at the proposed findings of fact under 1E, I would say employee count at this time is limited to, it says two, it should now say three on duty at once, I think. And on page two, under 4D of the findings of fact proposed, maximum client count allowed at one time is 24 adults instead of 20. I think that would cover the amendments.

And, again, the phrase is up to 24. Yes, yes, change it, yes.

Let's change it from 20 clients to up to 24 clients.

I have a question on the staff report for the standard of granting the conditional use. Number three, the approval will not have an adverse effect on the density of the adjacent area, and the area will not be burdened by excessive number of similar uses. There are definitely no similar uses, but what does it definitely mean by the density of the adjacent areas? And number four, will not have an adverse impact on the transportation network.

Okay, so when you talk about the density of the area, you talk about whether or not this particular facility is being like a new construction situation and it's now a four-story building where that there is surrounded by one-story buildings. That's a density issue because you're increasing the three-dimensionality or the square footage of the building and therefore you are putting a greater burden on the footprint or the ground size and things like that. The more important part of that phrase is whether or not there is more than one daycare center or a similar use, whether it was a child daycare center or an adult daycare center or other type of thing, or a social service center in some respects. That's really what the pivotal question is from the staff's presentation.

Okay, and there's number four with the impact on transportation.

Well, we're talking about the transportation network, and in this case, this could be the streets, it could be the public transit, which is limited. And the fact that the amount of traffic expected in this property is not going to... increase or cause any excessive amount added to the existing high volume of traffic on Calumet Avenue. And that's kind of what we're saying because it's an arterial street. We know it's a high volume street. There's a lot of on the street, adding, I don't know, 10 cars coming through on a periodic basis is not an excessive burden any more than 10 cars going to Dairy Bell.

Has there ever been, as far as a petition where on-street parking can be limited for a 15-minute period? That's not a zoning question. Okay.

The question is whether or not an adult daycare center can get a conditional use on this property up to 24 people based on all of the criteria that we talked about.

And they meet all the criteria. Everything.

Well, that's why I question.

Yeah, from my understanding, all the criteria is met.

That is staff's position that they are meeting all of the zoning criteria. Okay.

Okay. So, in light of the amendments I made for page two and four and five of the staff report, reading on the Staff recommendation, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the conditional use should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. One, maintain all required licenses and permits from the state of Indiana, from the Family and Social Services Administration of Indiana, from Lake County, and from the city of Hammond. And two, stripe at least one ADA van accessible compliant parking stall on the property.

They have proposed findings of fact. Any questions, comments, concerns?

None for me.

No, ma'am.

Okay, do we have a motion to accept the staff report? And I believe we amended part of it. Yes. And the proposed findings of fact into the records.

which was also amended.

Both staff report and findings of fact were amended.

Okay.

I move that we accept the amended staff report and the amended findings of fact as findings of fact.

I'll second that motion.

Do you have a motion? I second. Do you have a roll call vote?

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Gazzanier-Zagg? Yes. Kathleen Hill?

Yes.

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

Okay, do we have a motion in regard to B-26-20 for the conditional use for the adult day care center?

I will make the motion to grant the conditional use And then again, are you clarifying up to 24? Yes, sir.

Okay.

And second.

Do we have a motion and a second? Do we have a roll call vote?

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Gasmier is that? Yes. Kathleen Hill?

Unfortunately, I'm going to abstain.

Mr. Westland, what do we do at this point?

It appears on your next agenda because there was no action.

Okay, all right. Ms. Stevens, basically, we needed three of five to vote one way or the other. And so we did not achieve that. So it'll be automatically on the next agenda. And Dave, I'm going to, again, there is no notification, re-notification necessary, is that correct?

No re-notification, no public hearing that's been conducted

And no public expression, okay.

Okay, all right. So those present, Shannon, what's the date of the next meeting? August 25th. August 25th is the next meeting, okay.

Ms. Stevens, I think you've heard some of the concerns as far as from the public. and maybe you can meet with them and maybe come up with a solution, but no, I can't say anything. All right, let's go to D-26-21. A, parens A. And we have an A, a B, and a C. So we will take all of them at once to hear what the conditional use developmental variance and the other developmental variance and take separate votes. So we have Z-26-21, parens A, petition of Marko Boricic. Close enough, okay. For a conditional use regarding Title Section 3.11, Paragraph 3, to allow a two-family attached dwelling with up to 30% of the dwelling units on the block in a R1U urban single-family residential district located at 1242 121st Street within the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana. and Z-26-21B, petition of Marco Borch for a developmental variance regarding title section 3.30B to allow a reduction in the minimum lot width of 50 feet in minimum lot area. That's both the area. It says R-E-S. 6,250 square feet, and the parents were a two-family attached dwelling in an R1U urban single-family residential district located at 1242 121st Street within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. And Z-2621-C, petition of Marco Boricchi for developmental variance regarding title section 3.31, parens B, parens 1, to allow a reduction in a three-foot minimum yard setback for a two-family attached dwelling in an R1U urban single-family residential district located at 1242 121st Street within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Have all the requirements been met?

Yes, they are.

Okay. I'd like to come up and state your name and your address and sign in, please.

Okay.

Good evening. My name is Marco Borsich. I live at 15712 87th Avenue in Dyer, Indiana. And under an LLC, I own the building located at 1242 121st Street. Whiting is the mailing address. Hammond is the legal address here in Lake County, Indiana. Unfortunately, on March 11th of 2025, there was a fire at my building. Luckily, Everyone was safe, but we had a lot of insurance delays during that time period. Had a lot of help from the city, did not get a lot of help from insurance. So early on this year, within the 12-month period, we began reconstruction, and I'm here to petition for Z-2621-A, Z-26-21B, and Z-26-21C for... A two-family attached dwelling, which it was before, for up to 30% of the dwelling units on the block. We fall within the 29% range, luckily. A minimum lot width of 50 feet. We have a 30-foot width lot currently. And C being setbacks on the side of the building. We have one side at 1.9 feet, the other side at 3.9, which reduces to zero due to an emergency exit for a staircase on that side of the building up to the second unit.

Anything else I can... Yeah. I... We need to establish some background that I'm not seeing in the staff report here. Oh, I'm sorry. I take that back. There is there. But I want to point this out as to part of the core issue here. The intent here is to reconstruct the building as a two-unit building. There was a lot of issues when it came to that the building had been converted at one point in time to four units. That triggered a whole discussion on legal nonconforming and illegal nonconforming. We went through a lot of analysis about the fair market value of the building and I wonder what circumstances a non-conforming building, a legal non-conforming building can be reconstructed. And so with the direction from the building commissioner's office or the inspection's office, they did not want the building reconstructed as a four-unit building. They wanted it reconstructed as a two-unit building. So that put us into a determination that it would have been legal non-conforming as a two-unit building. and it's in the second page of the report that we did this whole fair market value analysis and the limitation of reconstructing a legal non-conforming use is that the value of the reconstruction cannot be more than 75% of the fair market value that was there prior to the destruction. So it has met all that criteria. So that, just to state that for the record, that we are already at a point where this can be rebuilt as a two unit. What the first case is is that, based on the zoning, it's a question of how many two-unit buildings can be on this block. And so we're talking about that if it, under R1U zoning, only 20% of the lots can have an extra unit. And as a conditional use, you can go up to 30%. And that's where, based on all of our calculations, this is meeting the criteria of up to 30%. Just to briefly go over to the other two cases, is that what we are then doing is trying to eliminate any aspect of the non-conforming nature of this building. And the only way to do that is to deal with any zoning developmental criteria that doesn't meet the current standards. And that's what the other two variances are for, to address eliminating the nonconformity by means of a variance. So I want to just get the premise of what we're doing here, because this is something that I don't think this board has dealt with. So it's a unique approach than just I'm getting a variance, I'm just getting the conditional use. It's the premise upon which or the circumstances that this occurred. So nonetheless, now that I've overstepped, if you want to talk about the setback variances and all that kind of stuff to kind of help put that into the record more than I did.

Yeah, as far as what is conforming or what we're discussing here that's not conforming?

Yeah, because we're hearing your presentation is for all three cases, so just go on to the other two.

Yeah, so for Section B, which let me pull that back up. Oh. Z-26-21B, for the minimum lot width of 50 feet, as you're aware, the building is existing. It's still standing, as is the majority of the rehabilitation is on the interior. So we're asking for a developmental variance to accept the 30-foot width of the lot currently versus the 50-foot that's a normal minimum for a new build. I hope I stated that correctly. So that's B.

It also is to reduce the minimum lot, the area requirement.

Yes, and the area requirement from 6,250 feet down to 4,000. Let me see here. Down to 3,750 square feet of the lot.

And then you want to go on to C?

Sure. In Z-26-21C, I'm asking for a developmental variance regarding the side yard setbacks of the building. Normally, there is a three-foot minimum on each side. At face value, my building would hit that, but after a survey was conducted, I'm 1.9 feet on one side of the building and 3.9 on the other side. When you go to the 3.9-foot side, I do have that emergency staircase exit for the second unit there, so it reduces it to zero feet effectively from what's attached to the structure, which would be the staircase itself, but 3.9 feet from the actual building structure. So I'm asking for it.

On the side of the staircase, there's no building immediately adjacent, right?

No building immediately, yeah. It's an empty lot.

Yeah, and the fire that we talked about was actually the building on that lot.

Yeah, that owner tore down the house after the fire.

Okay, and then you don't happen to remember how close that building was to the property line before it was demolished?

I do not, no.

Okay, and then the other thing to point out is that this staircase that goes to the second floor, It only covers basically the north half of the building in that side yard. The rest of the back of the property meets the setback requirement.

Very unique building. And basically, it's just coming into conformance of what the law already is.

It's coming into compliance with the zoning regulations by means of a variance, not because they can't physically come into compliance.

You were mentioning as far as the insurance. And the percentage, what if it winds up going over?

Based on the information we have regarding the permits that have been issued, some of that was based on the four unit. And that is where that is less than the 75% value. With the fact that it is going to two units, they are having to remove some of the things that they had added to the building. So that is a calculation in reducing the value of the permit and the expenditure. And then the building commissioner is satisfied that it will all basically balance out in the end, and it will not be a problem with our 75% rule.

Any other questions?

None for me.

All right. We'll open up for public expression. Anybody in the public? You're with him. Anybody in the public? Anybody online? Mr. Novak, anyone online?

I don't see anyone. Do you?

All right. Anyone in the public? Anyone online? Anyone in the public? Anyone online? Anyone in the public? Anyone online? We will close this period of public comment. All right. Then we move right into the staff report for Z-26-21, friends A for conditional use.

Yes, so staff report for the condition of use for a two-family attached dwelling, which in this situation would be a two-unit, kind of a two-flat, one on each story, the two-story building. We looked into everything else because we wanted to make sure when he came to the board, he asked for every variance he needed. It does meet the lot coverage. It's at 45, about 46% under the 50% max. The height of the building is 34 feet 8 inches, which is under the 35 foot maximum. And actual roof edge on the sides I think is 31 point something. You know, it is listed in the 1996 Lake County Interim Report as a contributing building. So, you know, it does have some architectural worth, which it sounds like it will be preserved by your guys' work. And I will point out that this was a four unit, which is converting to a two unit. And so they will be able to accommodate the three off-street parking spaces that are required via parking in the alleyway. or off the alleyway. And you'll see that as part of our conditions reference that this area needs to be properly paved and drained, which he understands and will do so. Given the situation, there is no area really to expand necessarily. And pretty much almost very few dwellings on this block meet the requirement, if any, for the width and size. You'll find that often in Robertsdale. uh so moving on um staff recommendation staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the bza grant the conditional use of the board for the petitioners met the standards subject to the following conditions approval by bza of a concurrent developmental variance cases z2621b and z2621c Two, the parking area in the rear yard will be in compliance with the provisions in Title Section 20.32 for layout, servicing, and drainage. Three, approval and completion of all applicable building, electric, plumbing, and or mechanical permits that are deemed necessary to rehab the building to two units. Four, a final certificate of occupancy will be issued by the building commissioner upon completion of rehabilitation work and be for a dwelling of no more than two residential units. And five, compliance with Hammond City Code chapters 94, 96, 98, 101, 132, 150, and 160. And our particular sections enforcing litter, junk vehicles, overgrown vegetation, snow removal, and the harboring of a public nuisance as a maintaining sanitary, safe, and aesthetically pleasing property. On the next two pages, you will find the proposed findings of facts, which address the nine conditions for conditional uses to be considered. Thank you.

Any board members have any questions, comments, additions, deletions for the proposed findings of FAFSA?

None for me.

Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the staff report with the staff conditions into the record as well as the findings of FAFSA?

Ma'am, I'll make the motion to accept the staff report. Second. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casamires. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Do we have a motion in regard to the conditional use for Z-26-21 for MZ?

Yeah, I will make the motion to grant the conditional use for Z-26-21A, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in this act. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casmier. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay. Any board members have any questions in regard to Z-26-21A? That's 21 Prince B before we get the staff report. Nope. Okay, could we have the staff report, Mr. Novak?

Yeah, so in this second case, which is a developmental variance specifically asking for a two family attached dwelling in an R1U district to lessen the 6,250 square foot minimum lot area to 3,750 square feet and the minimum 50 feet lot width to 30 feet. Um, 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. One, approval by BZA of concurrent conditional use case Z2621A and developmental variance case Z2621C. Improvement of the parking area regarding pavement and drainage is required under title sections 23.32.05 and 23.32.06. I will make note that in the first staff recommendation it erroneously says conditional use case the 2621 B it should read a Following is a Proposed findings effect a one-page Proposed findings affair

Any additions, deletions, corrections, comments? Additions, deletions?

None for me. Just one question. What did you say should be A?

Yeah, if you look at the staff recommendation, under condition one, it says approval of BZA, by BZA of concurrent conditional use case Z2621B, I apologize, that should read Z2621A. Okay. BECAUSE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE B CASE.

SO WE HAVE A CORRECTION ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE Correction of Z2621A into the record and the proposed findings of fact into the record.

And the staff report was amended, correct?

Amended. I said corrected, amended.

So I'll make the motion to accept the amended staff report and accept the findings of fact. Second.

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

yes yes yes hey we will move oh we have a motion in regard to Z dash 26-21 parents be for the developmental variance I'll make the motion to grant

the development of variance for Z-26-21B, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the staff report. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimir is asked. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Now we have Z-26-21C for the developmental variance for the side yard step path.

Yes, so in this case, which is requesting regarding the side yard setback under minimum three feet, and side yard aggregate width under minimum 20%, which is six feet. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance such as the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following two conditions. One, approval by BZA of concurrent conditional use case Z2621A. Developmental variance case Z2621B. And two, improvement of the parking area regarding pavement and drainage as required under title sections 23.32.05 and 23.32.06. Followed by a one-page proposed findings of fact. Thank you.

All right. We have proposed findings of fact. Any additions, corrections, recommendations?

Done for me.

Okay, we have a motion to accept the staff report with their conditions, their two conditions, as well as the proposed findings of fasting to the record.

I'll make the motion to accept the staff report, except my name back as findings is back. Second.

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

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimirzak. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay, do we have a motion in regard to Z-26-21-C?

I'll make the motion to grant the developmental variance for Z-26-21-C, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the staff report.

Second.

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

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Casmier is there? Yes. Kathleen Hill?

Do we pass it then? Or do we all have to take care of it?

Do you like to vote?

What?

You have to vote.

Do we have to vote on?

You have to vote.

Oh, yes. We have to vote. We have... We have a motion. I called your name, so are you? Oh, I've voted in favor.

Okay, thank you. I thought we could vote. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Good luck. Have fun. All right. WE HAVE Z-26-23 PETITION OF HAMMOND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR A DEVELOPMENTAL VARIANCE REGARDING TITLE SECTION 21.26 TO ALLOW FOR PROGRAMMABLE MESSAGE SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS ONE THIRD OF THE SIGNED WHOLE AREA IN A C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DONATION DISTRICT LOCATED 116 Sibley Street, aka 5210 Holman Avenue, within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. And I think we have all notification requirements been met.

Yes, they have.

okay mr poland can you state your name and sign in please okay so this is some what's happening tonight can you state your name excuse me i will okay all right what is happening tonight is something that has happened at the plan commission several times and so the first Action is that you guys make a statement have a consensus that you have no objections for the staff to be presenter and reviewer I Have no objections You may need a motion I said consensus I Do we need a motion? No, just. Okay.

No, I have no problem. Do you have any problem?

Okay. All right.