Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll call this January.

I'll call this January 13, 2026 board of zoning appeals meeting to order. Uh, pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mark, sure. Yeah. Uh we've had a request from one of our petitioners to amend the agenda to move item eight up to the top of our list of items um due to some medical issues and I would recommend the alteration to the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve that change. I'll second that. Motion second. All in favor? I I um roll call David. Vicky Gushowski here. Brian Cer here. Nate LS here. Pete Saunders. Mark Danielson. Three present.

Thank you. Um approval of minutes for December 9th, 2025. You guys had a chance to review? Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. I'll second. Motion and second. All in favor? I

and a um approval of minutes for December 18th, 2025, the special meeting. Mhm. I'll make a motion to approve those minutes as well. I'll second. Motion second. All in favor? I I I just go ahead and go to item A. Item number eight, the petitioner step forward, please.

Good evening, board members, and thanks for bumping me. I give steroid shots Friday morning and I can't wait. David Amber's office is 601 State Street here in Leaport, Indiana. As you might guess, I'm here representing James Shaner uh before you today. Um Mr. Schoffner lives out on 300 adjacent to the Brier Leaf Golf Course. He has approximately 13 acres. He is asking to build a side and rear privacy fence that would be wood or vinyl would be 12 ft tall and a front row iron fence like you see on a stage similar to what used to be in front of Bob Hiler's house on Boyd Boulevard. Um that one would be raw iron. As far as the standards for evaluation, the fence would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community because the fence will add privacy for not only Mr. Schoffner but the adjoining property owners, Mr. H. Schoffner's biggest concern is is as this property is developed for the R1D subdivision by Lonard, he has a swimming pool behind his home. He has a rather large pond. He doesn't want to be liable if some child comes across and winds up drowning in his pool or his pond. So, he's trying to segregate himself from that liability. Um with regard to the second standard, the use or value of the area to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the joining property owners and our mind mine their property value will increase because they will have added privacy for their subdivision and their new homes. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will continue and the unusual and necessary hardship is applied to the property for which the variance is

sought because the properties in what was previously a rural area again will increase privacy and safety for adjoining owner owners with the R1D behind him. It isn't it's an unduly burden. It's burdensome for him to maintain the privacy in that large of a house that he built when it was a golf course again in excess of a million dollars in that house. And you know he would like to maintain the privacy and the value of it. So with that I'll shut up and answer any questions you may have. for us. Can we have questions now or no?

Uh, Attorney Ambers, I have a question. What What can a What can a 12-oot fence do that an 8ft fence or a 6ft fence can't? You you're you're claiming that you want this to keep kids from the property and I don't know many children above 6' tall. Well, they can climb over, they can stick a ladder up against it if the taller he goes, the more secure his property is and the less likelihood that some child's going to come over. It's not going to be a cheap fence. You know how James builds, he builds everything nice. He just like as tall as possible. And if 12 won't work,

maybe we go 10. But

he wants to secure his property and protect the view from his residents looking out. I still don't see why though. I I guess forgive me. So So if I hear you right, you're saying a 12oot fence is going to prevent maybe be more preventable for our children to get child to get over,

right? Because it's just harder for them to scale. Most kids can jump up, grab the top of an 8ft fence, pull themselves up and over. a 10 or a 12, they wouldn't be able to do that. Okay. Well, and also you talked about privacy, but looking at the map, I mean, his house is only really on one quarter of that property. I mean, the remainder of that, I don't think having a, you know, a sixoot fence is going to I mean, as far as his privacy, like I said, the majority of that is is open area. So, I don't know what he is he would need it for as far as in that further section of his lot where there's really nothing there.

Well, if you recall the Lar Lonar plan, most of that will contain housing. On the um west side will be two retention areas, right? And I'm not sure if they're going to have walking trails in there or what, right? And then on the east side, there's going to be, if I remember right, that retention area is right down by the road, but there'll be houses up above. And that did have, if I recall, a labeled walking area or a pavilion where you could overlook the retention area. He's trying to, you know, there will be people all up and down that property line. They just won't be in back by his house,

right? But I think a six and a half foot fence would still provide that privacy that he's looking for in that section of his lot. So yeah, again I question the front. You talking the front or the side? I'm talking about the rear and the and the sides. So again, I I do question the six foot the you know the six foot fence as far as why that's necessary. So

anything else? Thank you. At this point, I'll open it up for public comment. With no public comment, I'll close this portion. Uh David.

Yeah. So, item number eight, variance of development standards 26-03 petition is to allow 12ft tall fence on the side and rear yard property lines and allow an 8ft tall fence on the front yard property line. Um the this property is located at 1797 West 300 North. Um is approximately 13.07 acres. The current zoning is R1B single family residential district. Um there is a single family dwelling and an accessory building on the property currently. Um just kind of going through some of the surrounding properties. To the south you have existing single family acreages or rural acreages in the um outside of the city limits. Then to the north you have the vacant land uh former golf course. Um to the north and then to the west you have just the same thing as the golf former golf course and vacant land. Um the petitioner is requesting a variance from the the rear and front yard v uh fence heights. Um the front yard is a maximum of 4 and 1/2 ft and the backyard is a maximum of 6 and 1/2 ft. Um the so the decision criteria of which you are to uh make decisions based on variance of development standards request um like this one is one that the approval will not be injurous to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. The approval of the variance. The approval of the requested variance to to exceed the maximum fence height from six and one half feet to 12 feet tall in the side and rear yard and to exceed the maximum fence height from four and a half four and 1/2 ft to 8t tall in the front yard will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because the proposed fence height is not compatible with the existing and future character of the surrounding residential

zoning districts. um around that site itself. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the residential zoning district adjacent to the property or I should say residential zoning districts adjacent to the property will be affected in a substantially adverse manner with the approval of the 12ft tall fence in the rear and sideyard and 8 foot tall fence in the front yard because it will not be consistent with the surrounding residential properties and it would create visual creates a visual environment that is non-residential in character. Fences this height are not permitted in any zoning district inside the city of in the city of Leaport. Three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to limit the fence height in the rear and sideyard to 6 and 1/2 ft tall and 4 and 1/2 ft tall in the front yard will not result in practical difficulties in the residential use of the the subject property. This subject property may still be used in a manner consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance for personal use and storage. The petitioner has not demonstrated a practical difficulty for a fence height of 8 and 12 feet tall to separate from the adjacent permitted residential uses. So staff finds that the the proposed fence height on the side, rear, and front yard exceeds the size of fences on similar properties in the surrounding area. Fences this height are not permitted in any zoning district inside the city limits of city of Leaport. Staff recommends denial of variance of development standards petition 26-03. And I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

I have a question for you, David. Um, so I think 12 foot is it's almost double the height of what a regular fence would be. I I get that Mr. Schoffner isn't thrilled about the subdivision. Um, is an 8ft fence doable? Is that for the city a little more amenable? An an 8 foot tall would be permitted in manufact or light industrial districts. Um, that's what's commonly seen in industrial districts. I just think 12 foot is comic mentioning that comically large. Yeah,

I can probably get him to work with eight. If you can go with eight, given the it's not industrial, but given the fact that he's got 13 acre parcel, I think it makes sense and maybe pacifies both parties. Yeah. So, city's okay with if he would do an eight foot. What I would suggest or what I I I know you can't guess or know this, but a a six I guess Vicky a six on the front with an eight on the side. Seems more not six in the front. Well, the front would be rowd iron. You can see through it. Yeah. You're saying six foot because he wants an eight in the front.

Well, but yeah, but again, that's against the city as far as being four and a half. four and a half and then eight on the side where neighbors are. I I don't David doesn't seem to be okay with the eight foot. I wouldn't say that we are for it because it's not consistent with residential properties of which this property is a residential property inside the city limits and what is common for properties within the city limits is 6 and 1/2 ft tall as a standard. We have not exceeded that for residential properties ever. We've never given a variance at all for a fence above 6 and 1/2 ft. Not not to my knowledge.

Wasn't that one on Ice Street by Beacon? Isn't that more than 6 and 12? That lady was here a month or two ago. Didn't she get more than I was thinking hers was taller because she was screening from Beacon. I don't think that was an eight foot. No, it was an eight. I think it was a standard six. Yeah. Yeah, it was. That wasn't an eight foot. Okay. Yeah.

I'm willing to to to to say if if my fellow BCA members are I am willing to negotiate with an 8ft fence around the side parameter with a four four and a half on the front. But I understand that Mr. Schoffner is not incredibly happy with the development that's going on there. However, I I do think the 12oot fence is laughable, quite frankly, and to bring it to a 12oot fence is silly. Um,

well, in my presentation, I said we may need to go down from that. I not saying I don't disagree with you, Mr. Lumps. Any comments from you, Becky? No. No, I I get the Yeah, I get the six and a half. Um, I I would be okay too with the eight four and a half in the front. Yeah.

Well, I'll make a motion then. Hold on. Okay. Um I I I believe maybe if if I may, Craig, uh on behalf of the city, do you have any input from I think that as far as I don't see the I don't see the hardship of the front because the front is no different than any other residential situation. So I agree with you

on the on the front. Um perhaps some minor flexibility in terms of the height because of the size of the property, the nature of the property. I I can't stand here and say I'm for it because it goes against the ordinance, but the board makes a decision. I think that that's a much fairer stance to take than what's been proposed originally and we can go from there. I think with the nature of this Lenar project and trying to I know with the other residents in that neighborhood, we're trying the city is doing a great job trying to get as many wins as possible with all the residents there and I think this is a fair solution to um a situation that Mr. has found himself in

to I I I think between the three of us I would propose that there's a like a twothirds approach going from 8 foot in the back side of the property down to the 4 and 1/2t up front

where not the entire sides are 8 foot because that's a drastic drop off. I I believe my personal thought is that the city is trying to keep the idea that it's a compound out of the uh neighborhood and if you have a 12ft tall fence around any house that looks like a compound. Um, so, um, I would I would be in favor of saying tapering off the 8 foot fence, like 2/ird of the sideyards, and then tapering down to 6 foot, 4 and 1/2 ft, something that is more appealing for any of the neighboring houses and any of the neighboring proposed.

How are you going to How are you going to define tapering? At what point in the at what point in the lot are you I mean you know you get then you're getting into all that. So if you said if he said 2/3 at 2/3 it has to start 2/3 eight and then a third six and then down to no from like so they could like a chalk line possibly run 8 foot 2/3 of the way out and then tapering down to the 4 and 1/2t at the front fence. How about just a little bit? Um sorry Dave.

Um if I could clarify. So typically these rules are based on front the front yard versus rear yard sideyard. So if anything I think what you're suggesting if I'm understanding correctly is within the front yard the portion of the lot in to the front of the home up to the street you'd like to see that um where the reduction occurs from that that point forward. And then that part would be the rear and side areas are where you might consider some flexibility if I'm understanding that correctly. That's fair enough. Sure. Sorry. Yeah. So particularly where there's going to be residents. Yeah, that are going to block some of his view and their view.

Just to make make sure I'm clear, here's what I'm picturing it. 8 foot across the back. 8 foot 2/3 of the way up whatever that measurement is. And then he tapers a straight line down to your six as if you imagine say it was wood and you literally put a chalk line on it at the 2/3 line down to the six, snap it and cut it. Is that what you're saying? I think you're I think you're what he's suggesting is 8 foot in the rear and 8 foot on the side to the point of the front of the house and then from that point 64 from that point 6 ft forward. I think that's what you're suggesting if I understand correctly.

I would be fine personally with either or but yes something of that uh variation. Yes, because if you yes if you consider the front of the house right so I'll shut up and let you make your motion. So forget the two I fear where you're at. I I think it's I think it's uh clearer to say to the the 8oot could be to the front of the house as in where the house front is and from that point 6 foot 4 and 1/2t. I don't think that's going to be 2/3 to the way of the road. Are we abandoning that? So obviously we can't right. Yeah, we can't see much on this small photo, but

yeah, I do like it if we're going to say up eight foot up to the front of the house. got to be something tangible. So I I would go with that. Do you want to make that motion then? I will make that motion to do the 8 foot in the back, 8 foot up to the front of the house, 6 foot, and then the four and 1/2 in front. Correct. I'll second that motion. Second. Yeah. Uh motion and a second. All in favor? I I thanks for working with us, folks, and thanks for bumping me up. lay down. Yeah. Hope you feel better. Thanks. Thanks for coming in.

Now, back on schedule with item number five. Um, operate maintain a wireless uh telecommunication facility. Petition, step forward. Please say your name, address, um, representation. Uh, good evening. My name is uh, Brian Moore and my address is 1553 West US Highway 20 in Leaport, Indiana. And I am here on behalf of the Towers LLC. Welcome, Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you for having me. Um, so we're proposing a uh 175 ft uh telecommunications facility located at 1301 Pine Lake Avenue. Um, just behind uh Drift back tucked there, tucked away in the trees back there. Um the reason that uh we're here today is because uh Verizon, who is going to be the the carrier on that tower is experiencing u some coverage object uh uh some capacity issues in and around Highway 39 and Pine Lake Avenue. And the only way to mitigate and alleviate those uh coverage issues is by uh constructing a new tower in that vicinity. We um we approached this project um with the mindset of the least intrusive means. So we uh we had a very small search ring approximately a quarter of a mile from the intersection of McClung and Highway 39. And uh we were fortunate enough to uh identify a property that's zoned uh B2, which does permit wireless telecommunications facilities. And uh we we we designed it in such a way where where we tucked it as far back into the trees as possible where we can comply with all the setbacks um stipulated in in the code. Um but even before we got to that point, we explored collocations of existing towers. So, we we looked at all the towers in the area and and given the the the objective of this particular site being that it's a capacity offload issue that Verizon's experiencing. Um, none of those sites um the 13 sites or so would work. Either

they were way way too far or Verizon was already on them. Um, so with that being said, that that's why we're in this location now. And that's further evidenced by the uh the coverage map that was submitted as part of the application. Um we are uh set back uh you know setbacks are important because it it it it shows the the distance from uh vantage points. We're set back approximately 700 ft north of Pine Lake, 400 feet west of Highway 39. um approximately a quarter of a mile from the Dodge dealership smoke shop um that's out there. Uh and again, it's shielded by uh some relatively large trees, so you won't see most of most of the the the tower. Um and it's about 200 feet behind the existing building on the lot. Um we there's no lighting involved on this particular cell site. Um it's designed it has a fall zone where it's designed worst case scenario if it were to fall uh it would fall um it would it would break off 100 feet so it would fall squarely within its um lease area or worst case scenario on the property. Um and uh yeah here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. on that property real quick. I'm sorry. What is that existing building? I'm not I'm trying to think what that is. What's that building on there? I don't know. I I almost want to say it's it's somewhat vacant. I don't know the plans of Matt with regard Matt, the owner of the partial MTC Investments. I don't know his plans for that building. It almost looks like a shop type of thing. There's Oh, okay. Oh, is that is that with the dealership?

Yeah. Yeah. So, the deal Matt who owns a dealership owns the majority of those parcels there. Um, so it's on the the farthest parcel to the to the north and there is a building there, but I don't know I don't know what's in it. It's a it's a singlestory structure that looks okay. Okay. And also I I think I saw maybe later but at the time did you get the um the determination for no hazard from the FAA? Yeah, I forwarded I forward the uh forwarded the determination to uh staff. So they have

Okay. So the FAA signed off on this every Yep. You're you're good with all the regulations. You're just waiting for us essentially. All right. Anything else? Thank you, sir. At this point, I'll open it up for public comment. Any public comment? I'll close public comment. Um, my personal opinion is I I've been with Verizon for 27 years or something. Johnson Road in Seavers. There is a horrible spot.

Yeah, I know. I Every time I go to the bottle shop, I drop calls. And and uh as a side note, if you guys could go just north or No, just Yeah, just slightly north of John Kind Park. That's another dead area. Okay. Yeah, we'll take we'll take that into consideration. Yeah, I I totally agree. It's going to help all the travelers in and around that area, businesses, emergency services. you'll see a substantial uptick in coverage in that area. Second, David.

Yeah. So, item number five, special exception use 25-04 petition is to construct, operate, and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility. Um, this property is roughly located at 1301 Pine Lake Avenue. And just behind that, um, kind of tucked back in the woods, closer to what is the edge of Pine Lake Cemetery to the north, um, there is no residential properties that surround the site itself. Just wanted to mention that um for the record because just going through some of the there are additional use regulations for um a wireless telecommunications facility of which I have included the anal both the analysis that um was provided by the applicant as well as the um kind of staff analysis and just the requirements itself of the application. Um not going to go through all of those. Um the applicant did provide notice uh minimum of at least 60 days to both the Leaport airport and the Michigan City airport um giving written notice as required by the zoning ordinance for a new wireless telecommunication tower as well as um also in your packet um was the recently revised determination of no hazard letter that was issued by the FAA that was just forwarded over um actually this morning or yesterday for that matter. that are which is um a requirement of the the new wireless communications tower um that no lights are required for the the height of the tower. Um and then as well as there are design standards that are listed as well there for your review um and looking at those and those pertain to fencing security fencing the the structures the pertinances that are on the site at the base of the tower um as well as pertaining to the collocation of um other carriers on the tower itself is

a requirement um height requirement it's not taller than it's 175t tall as was mentioned before. Um and so the next part I'm just going to briefly touch on the decision criteria for special exception uses. Um one that the general welfare of the proposal will not be injurous to the public health safety and general welfare of the community. Um this proposed telecommunications facility will not be injurous to the public health safety and general welfare of the community because the surrounding area is primarily commercial use. the proposed cell tower and associated maintenance building will be designed, constructed in and maintained in accordance with the all applicable codes and regulations that are required. Two, that the surrounding property, the special exception use will not be injurous to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the special exception use will not impede impede the normal and orderly development improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The special exception use to allow the telecommunications facility will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood because of the majority of the surrounding area are commercial businesses. The establishment of this proposed use will not impair the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for the uses permitted in the B2 general commercial district because it will improve the signal for businesses and residential properties within the surrounding area. Three, hazard. The special exception shall not be hazardous to the the adjacent property or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which which will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property. Um, this proposed use does not involve any uses, activities, materials, or equipment that will be detrimental to

the health, safety, or general welfare of persons or property in the surrounding area. Um, as was described in the narrative and documentation that addresses those specific additional use requirements for a new uh cell tower. Basically um four public facilities and services. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highway streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewage facilities, refuge disposal and schools. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Um this proposed facility as was mentioned will be accessed from an existing extension of the driveway of 1301 Pine Lake Avenue um which is directly accessible to um Pine Lake Avenue itself. Um five that the development requirements the development of the property will be consistent with the intent of the development requirements established by this ordinance for similar uses. The development will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained to be compatible with and not significantly alter the existing or intended character of the general vicinity based upon the county comprehensive land development plan. Um, this property, the development of this property is consistent with the development requirements established by the ordinance for similar telecommunications facilities in other areas as designed for a specific purpose to be narrow and not obtrusive to external properties outside of that. So um not overly not wide. It's just one singular poll itself. Um six ordinance intent granting the except the special exception use will not be contrary to the general purposes served by this ordinance and will not permanently injure or prop other property or uses in the same zoning district and vicinity. Um, the approval of this special exception use will not be contrary to the general purposes served by the ordinance and will not

permanently injure other property or uses in the B2 general commercial district and the immediate vicinity. Um, as was mentioned, the they're the primarily commercial businesses and a cemetery to the immediate north of the the proposed site for the cell tower. Seven, county land development plan. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the zoning district in which it is located and the recommendations of the countywide land development plan. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the B2 general commercial zoning district in which it is located and goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. And um the the second part of that is just that there are use regulations which I've already mentioned. Um, so staff finds that the approval of the special exception use petition to allow construction, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facility is consistent with the countywide land development plan and the general character of the surrounding commercial retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, and residential dwellings in the surrounding area. So staff recommends approval of special exception use 25-04, and I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you. We have any questions? No, I think uh it's important to have good telecommunication service around the city and this makes sense to me. So, um and I'm sure the ficuses will be happy to actually have some cell phone coverage around their neighborhood. Um so I will make a motion to approve this request. I'll second. Motion and second. All in favor? I I motion passes. Congrats.

Thank you, sir. Item number six, development standard uh allow five new industrial buildings to exceed the maximum building height from 45 ft and 60 ft to 65 ft. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening. I have a hand out. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Good evening. My name is Todd Leath. I'm an attorney with offices in Valareerezo at 2700 Valparezo Street. I'm uh appearing uh today to uh assist the petitioner, excuse me, in this matter uh Leaport One LLC, which is a special purpose entity created by two uh developers uh in collaboration uh to develop this site, which is approximately 110 acres. It's located in the Thomas Rose Industrial Park. uh and the proposed use of the property is for a data center. The petitioner is a sophisticated uh data center developer, both of them. This is not their first rodeo. It's not their first data center project even in northwest Indiana. The uh handout that I've provided to you has uh a couple slides uh that I wanted to uh walk through. The first one is the zone map. The 110 acres within the industrial park has split zoning. Uh the majority of it is M1 light industrial district and then there's a southern piece that is M2 heavy industrial and that is depicted on the exhibit uh uh the first uh first page after the index. We're here seeking a uh height variance for the five buildings that we're

proposing to be located on this site. This is not a use variance. The use that uh we're proposing, the data center use, is an allowable or permitted use under both the M1 and the M2 district. We're here simply to seek a height variance to allow those five buildings to be 65 ft in height. The M1 district has a height limit of 45 ft and the M2 has a height district uh a restriction rather of 60 ft. So only 5T more in that uh in that portion of the property. the um the height of buildings in my opinion and and I've done zoning work for a number of years is uh related to setbacks. In other words, if uh a a building is on the setback line and is the proper height, it has a certain scale or or visibility. If it is further set back, it appears to be smaller from that same property line or the street or the ride ofway. In our scenario, you'll see that our setbacks are well enhanced. Um the code setbacks for front uh along County Road 200 North is 30 feet in that M1 district. We're showing on slide two, the next slide over, a setback of over 600 ft, 400 ft from that Schwarzman parcel, the 5 acre parcel that um is kind of lies between the majority of the buildings and the county road. We're going to talk a little bit more about his parcel.

That's approximately 13 times the code setback. Um, so my suggestion to you is it that the further back that the building goes, the more inscale it appears. And so we believe that our 20 foot variance for that M1 district, if you set it back 13 times or 400 feet uh over a football field, including the endzones, um it it brings it more in scale. Why do we need 65 ft? These data center buildings, um, as you probably or may have heard and read, uh, have a, uh, need to, uh, address the generation of heat. And the 65- ft building is only two stories. And what that provides for is the ability for the design to uh air cool the uh generation the the servers within those buildings and the taller structures are needed for that uh in order to allow for the movement of air. Our side setbacks uh to the east is 370 ft and that's to uh farmland and is outside of the industrial park. To the west it's 250 ft on our concept plan and that's uh to uh already developed industrial property located within the industrial park to the south. We're showing again on our concept plan uh approximately 275 ft.

This is not the tallest structure uh in the uh Thomas Rose Industrial Park. We uh looked at some of the existing buildings uh none of which exceed the uh I think there's one that's 47 feet, but there is one that's 74t tall, at least a portion of it. That's the Keystone Automotive building has a a portion of their building is 74t tall. We don't think it's out of place in an industrial park with all of these setbacks. The last uh handout is a a blowup, if you will, of our concept plan. Um, we have, I think, a significant property owner that's impacted by this development. were on uh two basically two sides of his property, the Schwarzman property. And um the gentleman, the property owner did submit some questions for us. Um and and I'll be happy to to answer those. Um but I did want to address his concerns because again, I think he's the most impacted. So I kind of zoomed in on our concept plan and that's what I've shown you there. And as you can see, 400 foot setback from his property, which includes buffering, landscaping, and a detention pond again over a football field uh in in distance. Uh so I think with that setback, we've tried to address the concern that he might have with regard to our impact, whether it be uh a data center or a manufacturing facility, whether it be 45 ft or 65 ft. I think the impact is going to be uh addressed because of our setbacks because our because of our buffering. One of his concerns or questions uh that

he submitted was where is the primary access? And again, the concept plan and the zoom uh section shows the uh entrance to the data center once it's completely built out to be from uh County Road 200 North. You also probably know that data centers are light in traffic. Um we don't have shift change with um hundreds of employees that you would see potentially on 110 acres. There are employees um we don't know how how many employees that can range from 15 to 40 employees per building. Uh it depends on the tenant and how they choose to man and and staff their uh their data center. Construction logistics were a lot of his other questions. We simply don't know what that is. We're at the very preliminary stage of this project. This is the first step. There are many other steps to go. And once we know what uh our game plan is, what our direction is hopefully with your variance, then Kimley Horn, the uh engineering design professionals uh will be turned loose to design the data center and create all of those details. And then that has to go through your review process with the with the city, the city staff, engineering, all of those things. Storm water, those detention ponds are pretty blue pictures right now. We'll have to design those. They may be bigger, they may be smaller. Um but we we know in what area they'll they'll be. Uh topography tells us that. Um the concept plan is is just that it's what we think it will be. Um but again the engineering will dictate exactly how it's all laid

out. Uh and uh we we've got a a representative from Kimley Horn. Uh Andy Dean is here. Um Kyle Duna from the ownership is here. Uh and the three of us are happy to answer uh your questions or those that might come from the public hearing. So thank you. Thank you so much. Any questions right now? No. Thank you. Thank you.

At this point, I'll open up for public comment. Um, I do have three uh sheets that were turned in. Uh, if Jerry would like to step forward. Jerry. Jerry. Jerry. Yeah. Yeah. And Jerry, when you get up here, if you can give your name and your address, that'd be helpful. Thank you.

My name is Jerry Schwarzman. I own the property at 102 East 200 North, also known as Sever's Road, located directly north of the proposed industrial buildings. My property is called Six Pastures. I'm speaking to the distance this diagram that shows a 100 feet separating the building from my pop property line. I bought my property line in August 2020 after several visits to the area. Frankly, I was overwhelmed by the natural beauty of the property, the presence of wildlife, and the apparent respect that the residents of the area had for the surrounding land. But soon after I started working on my property, I realized that I didn't really own own it in the conventional sense. Rather, I was only a caretaker, responsible for the buildings and land until they would pass on to another caretaker after me, and hopefully even better condition than when I bought it. So, I set about making repairs and improvements, including bringing back horses to add to the land serenity. In fact, we had a young cult born on the property last winter. I know that there are people that look at this proposed development as progress. They see jobs and more tax revenue, but all this comes at a great cost. I look at the proposed development with sadness because it will bring the ugliness of the large industrial buildings and warehouses to this adjacent land. These developments create ugly scars on the land and replace Leaport's natural beauty with concrete and steel. Prime evidence of that is already happening about 3/4 of a mile east of my property where a pristine wooded area was cleared out for blockstyle housing units that are now being constructed. Let me remind everyone when you lose the

gift of nature's beauty in this way, you don't get it back. I don't know the reason why the 45 foot height limitation was imposed on the area where the industrial plants are planned. But I'd like to think that the people involved at that time felt what I am feeling now. that is that this industrial plant construction needs to be kept out of eyesight for the residents and those who pass by as much as possible so that the port's natural beauty can be preserved as much as possible. So today and going forward, ladies and gentlemen, you can make a difference by rejecting this zoning zoning appeal. you can lower the presence of these new structures and reduce the visible damage to our community that they will create. I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. And you've done a great job with your property. I've seen it. Uh Bert Cook. Uh good evening to the board of zoning appeals. Bert Cook, executive director of the Leaport Economic Advancement Partnership. Um want to touch on a few things uh that were were mentioned before and maybe a couple different as well. Appreciate your consideration of the height variance uh tonight. We've been working with uh what we call project cardinal for a little over a year uh on trying to determine um what might be the best site for uh our community. I think as we talk about data centers, I think we've all seen um the uh the discussion that that has occurred in the public on those. I hear a lot of or the things that rise to the top that we hear most often are concerns that the public has on electricity usage, on water and location. Um, as Todd mentioned, we're at the very beginning of this project and there are a ton of other steps that have to uh occur in order for us to better comment on the utility side of things. But I think we can comment on the location part uh in confidence here this evening. So, the Thomas Rose Industrial Park is uh one of the areas of the city that I am most proud of. I've been here for almost 20 years and that industrial park has built out significantly uh in that time. We have some of our largest employers um in that area and I think the Thomas Rose Industrial Park by the vast majority of people's um opinion would be the exact right location we would want development such as this. Much of the public outcry you see on other projects has to do with placing developments like this in areas

that maybe are not as ready for uh that development or is not or or are not as appropriate. On top of that, when we built out the second phase of the expansion of the Thomas Rose Industrial Park in 2015, uh the department heads for the city did a wonderful job of readying this area for future development. I'm not the right person to comment on it. I know we have department heads here that can do a better job, but the utility infrastructure that we put in place was put in place to ready this area for future industrial development. very familiar with the Whirlpool building as that uh has been a mainstay in our community for many years. It's a 610,000 square foot building. The High Bay area is 74 feet tall. I think some of you may have even been in there. I've been in there numerous times in my own. I do not think it stands out as unique in that area at all. To give you a frame of reference on size of buildings because we talk about the size often as if um it's something that everybody has a framework for. The two new spec buildings that were built in that area are both 150,000 square feet. So, very similar to the size of the buildings that are represented on that concept plan in front of you. Um, just to give you at least an idea of the size. Um, again, always understand there are multiple perspectives on any project. I feel like a broken record at times because I get in front of you guys and the plan commission, the city council and unfortunately I say something like, well, I wish everyone was fully supportive of every project, but that just doesn't happen. Um, that's not the reality of the situation. However, in this instance, give a lot of credit to uh the development team that is pushing this project forward because they've been very mindful. Uh, I know they are eager to invest in the city of Leaport and we're eager as well. looked at a lot of different sites and they took a lot of our uh feedback into account of trying to find the most appropriate

place uh to build this. Um I know you'll you'll talk about again I I think easily our conversations can spill over into site discussion and site planning and the effects of all the thing all of those things and those are all very important topics at the appropriate time. But I know tonight we're talking specifically about the high variance which again my own opinion but is very minor uh in the grand scheme of things when you look at the area that this is to be built in. Appreciate your consideration. Strongly encourage you to support their variance request. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

I appreciate the reminder of we're not voting on what the facilities are. We're voting just on the the size and the height. So I think that's important to remember. So thank you. And I'm not and I Vicki I'm also I wouldn't discount those are all very important topics that will be discussed at the appropriate times. Thank you. Um the last sheet I have is Mayor Tom Herby.

I'll be brief. Uh Tom Dery 1658 South Willoughben Drive. um just to say thank you for your review of this and obviously we're excited. You know when people talk about development they say boy what a great place to put is in the industrial park. Guess what? This is going into the industrial park. Uh the variance uh is being asked. We already have buildings that have exceeded uh and have been uh I think close to 100 foot. And uh all we say is uh I am very supportive. Our administration is supportive of this change. And I think to Mr. Kashowsk's point, this is just a reminder. There'll be plenty of opportunity to talk about electricity, water, and about this project by itself. Your only uh vote tonight uh is to review the height of the project. uh not whether it's a good, bad indifferent project and I would ask for your support of it.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public comment?

Please state your name and address for the record.

Hey, my name is Alicia Ferrenic and I live at 1306 Carriage Court Navy Homes. I was not prepared to speak tonight. I did not know that this requested variance had to do with the data center. I understand it's not about the use. It is about the variance itself. We're going from 65 or from 45 to a 65. It is the request here. Um what I understand after hearing some of that was part of the parcel is zoned M1 which would be light industrial and the other part of the parcel is zoned M2. And so, um, I'm just wondering if, um, that shift in variance is also that shift in what goes from light industrial to heavy industrial. And I think that makes a big impact, um, going forward. Um, and and what part of the property and everything. Obviously, I'm very glad it's still in the early preliminary stages so I we can do more research and and further that. But I do believe, you know, that that quite possibly might be one of the differences in in what differentiates the M1 and the M2 and the light zoning and the heavy zoning. Um, so I am not in favor of of approving the variance request because like I said, it kind of is that gray area um with M1 and M2 and ultimately what the end project will be. Um and I so I think it's important to keep them separated there. Where are our standards? Are we mixing them here? Um and where it involves with the M2 and the M1 and the differentials there because we have a pretty vague um code system when it comes to data centers and what they're included. And from what I understand with um everything going on with our governor and um you know projects that the Indiana Economic Development Commission is pushing is not normal data centers.

It's it's AI geared data centers. So that changes um dynamics as well. And I understand that that's not the variance we're talking about. It's about the the height limit there. But I think that that makes a big impact um as far as being the variable of what defines M1 zoning versus M2 and and the standards of the difference of what should be built on both. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Other public comment.

You give your name and your address, please.

My name is William Pierce. Um, the address of that property is close adjacent to the Rose Park. It's uh it's vacant farmland. Um my question is, you know, there's too many unanswered questions here. They just want to approve the um raising the height of the buildings, but yet then we don't know what else is going to happen after that. I want to know what's going to happen to my property value. Whatever they put in there, is that going to increase it, decrease it? What is it? Uh I there's way too many answered questions here just to approve going to 65 ft.

The only thing we're voting on tonight is the height change. If that's if that I I I I do not approve of that. Period. Thank you.

Any other public comment? So this At this point, I'll close public comment my opportunity. Thank you. Um want to make a couple comments or observations perhaps um with regard to the beauty the land. Um the height allowing the height at uh two stories or 65 ft allows us to have more data center capacity on the 110 acres. If you say no to the height, the data center is a one-story building and we have half the capacity on 110 acres, which means that when the system when the network when the next data center developer needs more capacity, he has to find another 110 acres. So I suggest to you that allowing the height variance is actually limiting the footprint of industrial development certainly data center development because we would need more land quicker if you deny the variance. The variance again the practical difficulty is we need to cool the capacity the servers. Um the

uh industrial park is the place for this kind of development in in my opinion and and I think in the city's opinion. I've been involved in I believe this is the fifth site in northwest Indiana for a proposed data center. Not all of which have been successful. I can tell you at every one of them they said to me and my client, "Go put it in an industrial park." Well, here we are. We we we have an industrial park now. Uh and I think this is the appropriate place. Certainly uh we're on the edge of the industrial park. We have some issues with regard to that and we've addressed those with the enhanced setbacks significantly 13 times your code. The industrial park without any variances could have a 45 foot tall industrial building 30 feet from the property lines. and we're providing 400 ft setbacks and that allows us I think the uh ability to buffer uh significantly all properties around us. Um there was a a cons a suggestion that there were too many unanswered questions, but we've talked about the fact that the only question is the height of the building. All of those other questions are unanswered. But that's our responsibility to come up with all of the engineering plans and submit those through just like any other project whether it complies with the height or whether it does not. You have storm water to be concerned with. You have access to be concerned with. You

have all of those u details of your uh zoning ordinance, building codes and so forth. And that's what we have engineers uh at the ready here to start designing this site. I think that uh I've tried to answer the questions that came up through the public hearing and were uh happy to answer any of your questions and look forward to your favorable action. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You have any questions? I don't want to make them. David.

David. Sorry. So item number six, variance of development standards 26-01 petition is to allow five new industrial buildings to exceed the maximum building height from 45 ft and 60 ft to 65 ft total area. Um this property is located on approximately um total acres is about 92.06 acres. Um I think that might be a little bit more than that because there's another parcel there. Um because there's two different parcels of zoning. And so there are three parcels um that they wish to exceed the maximum building height to 65 ft that are both zoned M1 light industrial and M2 light industrial with M2 being closer to the south or the railroad tracks um that cut through the community there. um this property and so let me back up here a second. Um so you are to take into account the decision criteria which I have mentioned before and I'll briefly mention them again. One, the approval of will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Um the approval of the requested variance to exceed the ma max maximum building height from 45 feet and 60 feet to 65 feet will not be interest to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because there are existing buildings um and I'm I'm looking at the the building in within the Thomas Rose Industrial. Um, wish I could show that. It shows the what was mentioned was the 75 foot tall building um directly from 200 North that exceed the 65 ft tall that the petitioner is requesting within the adjacent Thomas Rose Industrial Park area. The proposed 65 foot building heights are compatible with the surrounding buildings on land in the immediate vicinity. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the

property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the Thomas Rose Industrial Park area adjacent to the property and residential properties will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because there are other buildings in the surrounding area that are similar to the requested variance to increase the maximum building height to 65 ft. The majority of land uses in the surrounding area are manufacturing and warehouse businesses that all have building heights that exceed um that of the M1 and M2 zoning districts. Three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the the property. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to limit the maximum building height to 45 ft and 60 feet will result in practical difficulties in the use of the subject property because there are other similar buildings on on land in the M1 and M2 zoning districts that exceed the maximum building height in the surrounding area. So staff does find that the proposed building height is compatible with the surrounding properties building sizes and conforms to the goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. So staff recommends approval of variance of development standards petition 26-01 and I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Any questions for David? You want to make a motion? Yeah, I think this is obviously going to be an ongoing conversation. Uh again, as a reminder, this is just a height variance. Uh for those that might be concerned, as the mayor talked about with all the details that comes with data centers, it's a hot topic, I understand, but it's also a topic that the president of the United States has encouraged us to have and continues to encourage the buildout of data centers and the governor as well. And I say this as people are streaming right now on YouTube and Facebook and as I will probably stream lots of reels on Instagram later and I have all of my children's pictures on an iCloud and things like that. That data is important in data centers, but it is important for a community to talk about how it should get built, where it should get built and all these kind of things. I like the idea um and what you said about going up instead of going out. I think we certainly um want to protect as much of our property as possible and so if we can use a hundred and some acres instead of 200 and some acres

precisely that that is is certainly a good use of that. So with that I will I will uh make a motion to approve your variance your height variance uh for these buildings and I'll second. Motion and a second. All in favor I I I motion passes. Very good. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you, sir.

Item number seven, petitioner step forward, please. Hi there. My name is Bruce Young, Bruce Bill Construction, 106 Caroline Drive, Walkerton, Indiana. Welcome, Bruce. Apparently, these guys weren't here to hear you. I'm so sorry. That's okay.

So, I'm here today representing uh the petitioner Mark and Nancy Parkman at 410 Classer Avenue. Uh what we're looking for in the variance is to exceed your maximum square footage. Uh I think it the maximum right now is 720. We would like to do 1448 or 1488, I'm sorry. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have on that. Thank you. Um, real quick, I have Why?

So, if you're familiar with the property, if you I don't know if you had a chance to drive by and take a look at it on 410 Cluster, the house sits up on the hill and there's a very long walk down the hill to I think is at Orchard Boulevard, which is that access road to the front on the lake there. So they obviously own from 410 Clawser down there to the lake frontage. Um the addition on the garage is a the existing garage right now is 24 foot wide by 30 foot deep. They have plenty of room in the back. They would like to add 8 foot addition to the back. And then the remaining square footage that we're asking for is to extend the roof out over the driveway, which is about half the distance is what we're looking for for additional shade. They have an 85year-old mother that is still with them that they're very happy to entertain. Uh it's going to create more shade for them. That's we're going to I'm sure they're going to spend most of their time in the summers is down below by the lake. So your addition is in the back again. How how big is the addition?

8 foot extension on the 24 foot wide. Yep. Garage. And then the rest in the front is just a is just an extension of the roof which is 24T by 24T. Thank you. Okay.

Any other questions? No. At this point I'll open it up for public comment. Any public comment? I'll close public comment. David like give us staff review.

Yeah. So item number seven, variance of development standards 26-02 petition is to exceed the maximum accessory building areas requesting 1,488 square feet. It's located at 410 Clauser Avenue. Um the total uh size of the property is about.57 acres um acre. the there is an existing single family dwelling on the property and a detached garage that's 24 by30 or about 720 square feet. Um the zoning ordinance currently requires a variance for anything over and above um total accessory building area over 721 square feet. So a shed, a detached garage, and like a pergola structure. Um the petitioner proposes you included in your packet is the open-sided shelter on the front of the garage or the lakeside of the property on uh lakeside and then on the back of the building behind it plans the 8oot addition um enclosed edition on the back. Um and so staff has been to the property and inspected the site. Um show you the photo. I'm sure you've seen the property itself. Um just going through the decision criteria of which there are three that the approval of will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Um the approval of this requested variance to allow the expansion of the existing detached garage for personal use will not be injurous to the public health, safety, and morals and general welfare of the community because there are other similar accessory buildings along the southshore of Pine Lake. In the surrounding area, the petitioner is requesting approval to construct the covered patio um opensided covered patio and front garage and small enclosed building addition to the existing detached garage for summertime summertime usage. Two, that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner with the

approval of the requested variance to expand the building footprint of the existing detached accessory building because it will be used for personal use and enjoyment similar to the other accessory buildings in the immediate vicinity. The small enclosed building addition and open-sighted shelter will not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of other neighboring properties as well as any particular uh uh because we are in the the waterfront view protection overlay district won't impact the view because the property is set within and it doesn't impact the side setback property lines for the building itself. Three, that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to limit the size of the existing detached accessory building to 721 square feet on an approximately halfacre property will result in practical difficulties in the use of a lakefront property for personal use because the size of the property allows for a larger accessory building while also complying with the minimum building setbacks as specified in the waterfront view protection overlay district. So staff does find that the proposed accessory building size is compatible with the surrounding property's total accessory building sizes and conforms to the goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. So staff recommends approval of variance of development standards petition 26-02 and I'll answer any questions that you have.

Thank you David. Do we have anybody?

No. You have any questions? I'll go ahead and make a a motion to approve the variance of development standards for 26-02. I'm looking at it right here. It makes sense to me. Yeah, I'll I'll take a I'll second that motion. Motion and a second. All in favor? I I motion passes. Thank you so much, everyone. Yeah. Go IU. As a Notre Dame fan, I resin my uh

um item number nine. Yeah. Old business. No.

First meeting of the year. Okay. Um, item number 10 is new business and election. Hello the people. Oh, as far as positions. As far as position. Yes. I make a motion we leave as is. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I um other business. I have a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? I I motion passes. Thank you.