Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Please stand for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisibley for all. [clears throat]

Do we have a roll call, please? Roger here. William Huden here. Cynthia Hassel here. Dan Faulner here. Kathleen Hill here. Five present. We have a quorum. Okay. And we need to table the minutes for August 26, 2025. Correct. I will make that motion to table the minutes of August 26, 2025. I'll second. We have a motion. A second. Do we need a roll call vote? Cynthia Hasso. Yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger Brock, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes.

Five eyes, zero nays. Motion pass. Um, under old business, we have Z-25-11 petition of R2M. What? Madam Chairman, um I do not see our petitioner here. Um it he's not online. Is that correct? Okay. So, um we would just ask that you um table it. Yeah, table it for now and we'll when he arrives uh he we can come back to it after the new business cases. Okay. Do we have a motion to table old dead? I'll make that motion to table. I'll second.

Are we going to table it just for this evening or for Yes. I we will wait for him to arrive. Okay. Well, I want to make sure the motion is correct. Right. So, so we'll table it till at the end of new business and then if he doesn't arrive then we'll table it again. Okay. So, everybody agrees to that motion? I do. I do. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Cynthia Hasso, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger Brock, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays. Motion pass.

Then we will move into new business. We have three items under new business that all relate. Does anybody have a problem if I read them all and we take them all sep take them separately then? Um I'd like you Yeah. You know what? We can hear everything but obviously all the motions have to be separate.

Okay. All right. We have D-25-16 petition of CRG Group LLC for developmental variance from zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size PN 5,000 square ft and minimum lot width PN 50 feet in R1 single family residential district located at 241 173rd Street within the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana. Then we have Z-25-17 Penins A petition of CRG Group LLC for developmental varian from zoning ordinance ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum front yard setbacks 25 ft in the R1 single family residential district located at 241 173rd Street in the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana. And then we have Z-25-517 Friends Betition of CRG Group LLC for developmental variance from zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum corner size yard setbacks 15 ft in R1 single family residential district located at 241 173rd Street within the city of Ham and Lake County, Indiana. Have all the notification requirements been met?

Yes, they have. All right. Do we have anybody before us that would like to present all three of them, but they will be taken separately? Mr. Rhodess, will come forward, state your name, address, and sign in, please. Hi, I'm Chris Rhodess with CRG Group LLC. Um, we put there was I believe it was an RFP for this property. Did you sign in? Oh, sorry. Yeah. And then if you could pull the microphone closer. No problem.

I don't have a There you go.

Thanks.

Yes. I I I bought the this partial and uh from the redevelopment committee and then uh we needed these variances to build the house. They wanted a a two-story house on there and we went through and uh came up with a nice house to put there and please asking the board to to prove the variance and uh to get a nice looking house on the corner. I remember when the old house was there. was uh I believe it was demoed actually, but there was a house there and uh I think the new house will fit in good with the neighborhood. Plus the new the new train uh the uh train station there. The city would really like to see a you know a newer development there with all the people passing by through the train. That's a pretty I was there today. That's a that's a pretty pretty big parking lot there. But that's that's the intention.

Would you like to explain why you need these variances to put this house at that location? because the previous house, I guess the zoning laws have changed that you need a width of 50 feet. And uh this isn't 50 feet, it's 40ish feet to put the put the new house there. And it's kind of angled a tad, so we needed to the side. And Thomas has worked closely with us to uh put this together. to appease everyone.

Okay. Um, Mr. Rhodess, I we kind of need a little bit better explanations of each of the cases. So, um, you have to put certain information into the record. Okay. Um, so Z2516, let me get this. The first case, you kind of started to talk about the fact that you're asking for um a reduction in the minimum square footage and you talked about that the um property currently is less than 50 feet. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. And you're seeking a variance to how much square footage and what is the the width at the widest point? I didn't have that with me, but I believe the width was 42 uh 42 feet believe at the back end. Um but it was it's 41t in the front 45.3 in the back. Right. That was a slight angle. Sorry I have that reversed but yes. Okay. So, you're you're asking for reduction of the 50 ft to 45.32 feet at the front. Yes, sir. And you're asking for 5,000 square ft reduction to a 40 4,757 square ft. Correct.

Correct. Now, so just for the record, um at the front building line of the home, that'll be about 44T 5 in. Just, you know, because of that diagonal you mentioned, the west line runs diagonally. It's shorter at the end. But we're talking about lot size right now. Yeah. So the lot width at the sidewalk is 45.32 feet. Correct? Approximately. Yes. Okay. Yes.

Okay. So the next case you're asking for is a reduction of the minimum front yard setback that's normally 25 ft. And can you describe specifically uh what you're having it reduced to?

We are asking for 17 ft. We were there and went to the similarly situated houses like next door next door, you know, the the row of five houses down that street and everything was approximately 17ish feet from the sidewalk. and uh to blend in, to fit in, to [clears throat] to appear, you know, to be similar to what's the adjacent houses are. Okay.

And I I I definitely measured uh a couple of the other houses. Actually, we uh we re rehabbed and sold like 10 years ago to 30570. It was right next to Gus's house from Legends, but I don't know. I measured that driveway too to the to the front and Okay. It's all similarly situated. Okay. But again, you measured from the sidewalk to correct to the correct walls of the building. Okay. Correct.

All right. And then the third case is for the sideyard and um required to be 15 feet, but you're asking it to be reduced to what? I believe we only needed like six inches or half 18 inches. 18 inch. Yeah, it was 1 foot6. Okay.

Okay. Now, if if I recall correctly, um part of the reason is the fact that the front wall of the house um had to be to had to match the property line at the at the along the street. It's parallel to the street and because of the narrowness of the property as you go back that really is why it triggered the sideyard variance because of the angles associated with the property versus the house. Correct.

Okay. And you're still maintaining the five foot on the east side of the of the house. Correct.

Right. Anything else you'd like to bring to our attention? Um, I just just look forward to having a a nice nice beautiful house there. [clears throat] We've done we've done six houses in the Millennium Estates at the corner of Calat and Michigan. And we have permits for three of the four lots. We're building four more lots there in addition to this one. So we should have five five new dwellings going up in Hammond in relatively the next few months.

Members of the board have any questions? No questions. I don't. Um as far as the um east side of the property, how close is that? How many feet is it away from the next house? We're going to do five feet. That would be fine. That would be correct. Her question are you, what is your question of of his house, the proposed house to the property line or are you talking to the next property line to the Yeah, it's five feet from his house to the property line to the east. And it is five feet from the front of the house and to the street. It would be

17 ft. 17 ft. It is it is a very narrow lot. Yeah. From the front of the house to the sidewalk, right? The right way. So, but it's similarly situated to the other houses which are around 17 ft also. Okay. Yeah. There's only two other houses on that block that are um further back and they're the uh you know the exclusion. They're not the norm. So, That's all the questions I had. No other questions? I have a question. Okay.

We don't know that at this point in time because he hasn't deterred where it's at. you know, his his task is to situate the house or excuse me, the garage to meet the three-foot minimum setback requirements. That's for a detached garage, and we don't know that at this point in time. Um, so we don't know if it's going to it could be something that would be administratively approved. It could be something has to come back to the board. In other words, the entrance to the garage could come off the alley or it could come lawn metal lane. Yeah. I don't necessarily want to speak for Mr. Rose, but what we're currently it would come off the alley.

Our current discussion has been off the alley, but we're also there's a power line and a guy with wire and and there's some things that could cause some issues with it. We just won't know until we see a site plan that shows it.

That's I think that's a good question. And Mr. Poland, I just want to be sure that he's not positioning his house that's going to cause him to have to come back because he can't get his garage on the property. Well, I think there's some comments that are in the staff report that addresses part of that issue. Okay. Thank you. Cuz I will state initially the original proposal was for an attached garage and it was going to be another setback issue and that's why he decided to go with maybe something smaller and off the alley. Smaller or possibly a carport. Yeah. I mean, off the alley. or no garage, but I I think there's space. Okay. Thank you.

All right. No other questions. We will open for public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak? Mr. You may sit down.

Thank you. for or against any of these three. Anyone in the audience? Anyone online? Anyone know anybody online that had not shown a picture or ID or anything? Okay, hearing none, we will close the period of public comments and there's no need to answer any of the questions. Um, any additional question for members?

I don't. No. Okay. Then we will take Z2516 the petition of the CR group for development developmental variance for zoning ordinance to allow for the reduction of minimum lot size and minimum lot width.

Yeah. So one thing I wanted to provide context before I read the uh staff recommendation because one of the conditions relates to it. Um if you look at the survey, you'll see when this was platted back in 1925. Um you know it actually extends all those homes on that block and that addition on that north side of 173rd Street extend into the right ofway. It's about a 10 foot wide strip. It's um 400 about 449.77 square ft. So, um, one of the conditions will be to formally and properly dedicate the right of way, that front 10 ft of the property, um, that covers the public sidewalk and the public parkway or tree lawn as it's known. Um, and just so everyone's aware, the 17 ft front setback measurement that is from the rear edge, the inside edge of that sidewalk. So, um, the measurements and the site plans and all this discussion is with the presumption that that 10-ft strip will be dedicated and, uh, we're going to work with Mr. Roads on getting that done. Um,

okay. And, and just for clarity, because I'm not sure if I heard you correctly, Tom, relevant to case 16 with the lot size variance, it is taking out this area that we expect to be uh, dedicated as right away. So that's what the reduction is specific to bring it down not only because of the width issues but the square footage is so we can get that that portion dedicated.

Yes. Yeah. That 4757 ft is without the right of way that will be dedicated and this is somewhat common occurrence for you know older platted properties. So we try to handle it when we come up upon it. So staff recommendation for Z2516. Uh staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BCA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioners met the standards subject to the following conditions. Approval of both concurrent developmental variance petitions under case number Z217A and B and all of their conditions. Two, technical review and final approval of all final building and site plans by city staff. and three, the preparation and recordation of the public right ofway dedication for 449.77 square ft 10-t wide strip along uh front edge of property. All right. There are no other additions or amendments to that. And we have some proposed findings of facts. Do we have any comments, questions from ST board members?

I don't. No. All right. Do we have a motion to adopt the staff report and their recommendations from the staff which are three recommendations conditions? Pardon? Conditions conditions and proposed binding the fact into the record. I make a motion to adopt.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Could we have a roll call vote? Cynthia Hasso, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger Brock, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero abstensions. Motion pass. Okay, we now need a motion to approve the developmental variance or deny the devel developmental variance for D-25-16. We have second motion. I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please. Cynthia Hassel, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger Bry, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero abstensions. Motion pass. So Z25-16 has been approved and passed. We will move to Z-25-17 B. Okay.

Oh, we have a first. I'm sorry. And that is the developmental varian for the front yard setback less than 25 ft at 241 173rd Street. Do we have any additional questions from board members? I don't. Hearing none. Could we have the staff report?

Sure thing. In the case of a Z2517A, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BCA grant the developmental variance or front yard setback should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. One, approval of concurrent developmental variance petitions under case number Z216 and Z217B and all of their conditions. and two, the preparation and recordation of the public rightway dedication for 449.77 square foot 10 foot wide strip along front edge of property. We have the staff report and the recommendations for the follow the conditions. We have two conditions and we also have proposed findings of fact. Any comments from board members with regard to the proposed findings of fact?

I don't. No. No. No. Hearing none. Do we have a motion to the adopt the staff report with the conditions that they stated and the proposed findings of fact as presented? I'll make a motion we adopt the standards and conditions in the staff report as findings effect. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kathleen Hasso. Oh, I'm sorry. Cynthia, [laughter] yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger Bry, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes.

Five eyes, zero nays, zero extensions. Motion pass. Do we have a motion in regard to the approval or denial of the developmental variance for D- D-25-17 for a I'll make a motion to approve developmental varian subjects. I'll second. Have a motion, a second. Could we have a roll call vote? Cynthia Hassel, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero attentions. Motion pass.

And now we have D- 25-17 Penins B, which is a developmental variance for a corner side jar setback less than 15 ft at 241 173rd Street. Any additional questions from members of the board? No, I don't. No. Do we have the staff report, please?

Yes. Um, and again, this is for a reduction to a 13T 6 in corner sideyard setback for the northwest rear corner of the home. Um, the front corner is actually at 15' 5 in. Um, but it is probably the northern 2/3. So staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends the BCA grant the developmental variance should the board feel petitioner met the standards subject to the following condition. One, approval of both concurrent developmental variance petitions under case number Z216 and Z217A and all other conditions. All right. Any comments from the board?

No, I don't. Okay. We also have a proposed findings of fact for D-25-17 Prince D. Any comments on the proposed findings of fact or any addition? No. No. No. Hearing none. Do we have a motion to approve adopt the staff report with with their conditions and the proposed findings of fact as presented? I'll make a motion to approve this standards and conditions and staff report as findings effect. You have a second. A second.

We have a motion and a second. Could we have a roll call vote? Cynthia Hasso. Yes. Dan Faulner. Yes. Roger. Yes. William Hudden. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero abstensions. Motion pass. Maybe you have everything you need with Oh, Wayne, will you start the construction on this? We got We got to do the final approval. Pardon? We did approve it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion to approve. I will. Seeing as we already met the other two conditions, I'll make a motion to that. Second. You second it. Roll call vote. Cynthia Hassel. Yes. Dan Faulner. Yes. Roger. Yes. William Hutton. Yes. Kathleen Hill.

Yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero extensions. Motion pass. Now you're official. When will I want to Thank you very much. When will you start? When we Well, how are you planning on starting construction? We're trying to get a foundation out there. All right. Good luck. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have anybody in regard to the old business? Why don't you actually call the case? Pardon?

Okay. Z-25-11 petition of R2M Property Investment Group LLC for developmental variance regarding title section 330 paren to allow a reduction in the minimum width and lot area requirement to build a single family home located at 4626 Johnson Avenue in a R1 single family residential district in the city of Hammond. Have all requirements been met? Yes, they have. Okay. And we have a petitioner. That would be me, right?

Okay. Want to state your name and sign in, please? My name is Travante Wallace. Okay. I have a question, Mr. Poland. Do we have to remove the motion for the table? It was tabled till after new business. Therefore, I don't think we need to remove that because we called it after new business. Thank you. Robert rules. The attorney can question me later. Okay. [laughter] Do you agree with Mr. Poland's decision? Yes. No, he [laughter] is an attorney.

Question is to our attorney. Yeah. We'll go with we'll go with we'll go with attorney Poland. Thank you. [laughter] I stand corrected. Did he take the borrow? My I'm I'm confused. Okay. Would you like to tell us what you're planning on doing? I don't know. I was just told to come here. See if you guys say yes or no. Oh gosh. Okay. Are you uh representing Yes. RM2 or R2M. Okay. So, you're working with Maurice? Yes, that's my cousin. Oh, okay. Good. Did your cousin tell you what you should talk about? No.

Oh, God. He goofed up that way, didn't he? So, that's kind of how the game is supposed to play is that you kind of need to make a presentation. No, he didn't say nothing. Do you know what? Do you know have any idea what he would like to do? Um, yes. This is what he said. We're trying to get an approval to build our house on our lot. Ex existing lot is 37 foot which is not minimum building requirement. So he would like to see a different differential variant. Developmental, huh? Developmental variants. Developmental. No, he said differential. Oh well. [laughter] Uh is that like auto correct?

Yeah. Well, that's the only thing he told me. Okay. So, what whatever it comes down to and so we're going to help you out here. Um because unfortunately this has been tabled twice before and we really don't want to table it again. Okay. So, you made reference to the 37 and half feet the width of the lot. Okay. So that's part of what the variance request is is that the um it doesn't it's less than the minimum 40 foot requirement.

The part that I don't think you really talked about is the square footage of the lot and the minimum requirement is 4,800 square feet and this is just shy of that by being 4781 square feet. So that is the nature of the lot size variance and I believe as you stated that he basically wants to build a house there. Yeah. Correct. Okay. Um if I remember correctly he also he talked about a garage also. You don't know. Okay. But there is

um for the record um Mr. Novak. Yeah I can. Would you talk about um you know because you did that chart of the lot size uh in the neighborhood? Yeah. Could you just briefly talk about that? Yes. So I analyzed both sides of the uh 4600 block of Johnson Avenue.

Um [snorts] long story, you know, it's across two different additions, but they were platted around the same time, 1886. Long story short, um 23 of the 28 parcels on this block uh have a similar lot size that is insufficient. 21 of the 28 parcels on this block have a similar lot width that's insufficient. Um only seven parcels on this property meeted minimum lot width in any kind of way. And five of those um seven are actually across the street. Um you know, right now there's only three vacant lots. It's one of them. those other two vacant lots are similarly insufficient in uh width and in size.

So it's it's definitely uh the preponderance of the neighborhood is is like similar size to this parcel. So So if the representative of the petitioner say I agree I agree. [laughter] [cough] Okay. Do we have any comments from board members? I don't. Mr. Novak did you say it's on two different addition. Oh, well, no. So, when you look at this street, this block of Johnson, each side of the street is a different uh subdivision plat, you know, done by a different developer back. So, the property is not the property across divided into two different it's on one parcel, but it's one and a half lots of this addition. Yes. Um,

and in essence, this particular neighborhood, it is common to have a 37 1/2 foot lot or excuse me, 37 and 1/2 foot parcel. Mhm. Yes. And this also this property used to have a house on it, but it's also the same addition in the city of H. That's what I was confused by. That's what he said. Okay. Yes. Yeah. So, this whole west side is a different edition. Right. The other side of the street doesn't matter. It's in a different edition.

Yes. I believe the house was demolished in January of this year, actually. So, it was recently. It was um an odd placed house on the rear edge of the by the alley. So, this will actually be a home that better complies with these setbacks as proposed and is more fitting. Yeah. The previous house looked like a garage. Yeah, it was, if I say so myself. Yeah, I think you're Yes, you are correct. I remember. Yes, thank you for stating that. [laughter] Yes. And so, they do propose a garage, detached garage facing the alley at the the back of the parcel. The site plan shows it as 22 by 20, right? Yeah. Yes.

Yes. And the house itself would be rather large. Five bedrooms with a full basement um around I believe 1,600,700 square f feet. Of course, that's that sounds like a nice addition to the neighborhood and part of we looked at architecturally and it is a kind of a craftsman feel for it. It's not, you know, a duplicate, but it's a has the feel Do you have any other comments? No, ma'am. Do members of the board have any questions? I don't.

I don't. All right. We will have open up for public comments. Anybody in the public like to speak for or against? You you can sit down. All right. Anybody online or remotely? I don't see any. So, we will close the period of public comments and any questions at this time from board members? I don't. So, could we have our staff give their report and recommendations?

Sure thing. Um, in the matter of case Z2511 regarding 4626 Johnson Avenue, 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, technical review and final approval of all building and site plans by city staff. And two, the removal of the non-necessary curb cut. Um that is in relation to the fact there is a ribbon style driveway right now on the south edge of the property. Since the garage will be accessed off the alley, they're just completely removing um the driveway.

All right. Any comments board members? No. Oh, I don't. Okay. And we have two conditions. And we also have a proposed findings of fact. Any questions, any comments, any additions, deletions? I don't. Hearing none. Do we have a motion to adopt the staff report and the proposed findings of fact? and a staff report with the condition.

I'll make a motion that we adopt a staff report with the standards and conditions as findings effect. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Cynthia Hassau. Yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger BR, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero extensions. Motion pass. Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve Z20-25-11 for the developmental variance? I'll make that motion to approve variance subject to condition. A second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Cynthia Hassel. Yes. Dan Faulner. Yes.

Roger BR. Yes. William Hutton. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Five eyes. Zero naysay. Zero extensions. Motion pass. Tell Maurice he owes you one. [laughter] Okay. Tell them Tell him it was brutal. Yeah. Tell him was brutal. Yeah. Yes. Tell them they grilled you for a job. They grilled you for two hours. Yeah. [laughter] No. Thank you, sir. He He didn't sign in, right? Yeah, he said. Thank you, Mr. Poland, for allowing him to do that. I'm sorry. Thank you for allowing him to do that. All right. Do we have commissioner comments? Any comments?

No, I don't. And any staff comments? Yeah, we have staff comments. Um, I want to um let the uh board know or at least initially reminder that the next meeting of the BZA is the first Tuesday of December, which I believe is December 2nd. you know, that's what we commonly do at this time of the year. Um, and the staff can remind me when after I say the numbers, uh, we're going to have a very long agenda. We have five petitioners and probably somewhere around 12 cases.

We start at five or three. Yeah. [laughter] Are they basically general type cases or anything special that will require much deliberation or presentations? There are some cases who's presenting them. Well, I think the there would depend upon who's presenting them. Number one. Number two, there are some cases that are similar to cases you've heard before. Um there is our favorite attorney who will be presenting

who will be presenting the case the project that has the most cases. Okay. How many sex are I about eight for him. You can hear them all at one time and then vote separately. Not entirely. They can't that can't quite be done. We will combine some but they cannot all be heard at the same time. Okay. And obviously each one has to be moved on separately. And then we have four other cases besides this. We're going to do the four other cases. Right. First,

right now it right now we're working on the agenda and we are anticipating that the four individual cases will be first. I think that would be a good recommendation. Yes, they may leave. I think so, too. Yeah, it's not my first rodeo. And then we can all get and go. Oh, yeah. The Picat dinner first.

I should make a comment, but I won't say it right now. Okay. Um, any public comments? Hearing none, I move that we adjourn. I I I Okay. I don't know if anybody's aware, but um where's