Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll start the December 9th board of zoning appeals meeting. Um item number two is pledge of allegiance. Get through there. 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.

Roll call. David, you please. Brian Cer here. Mark Danielson. Vicky Gushki here. Nate LS here. Pete Saunders four present. [clears throat] Approval of minutes from November 12th. I'll make a motion to approve. Seconded. Motion and second. All in favor? I I. Item number I'm sorry, Mark. I believe you're going to this. Yes.

Uh, Mr. Chair, I would like to um request that the board consider the reordering of the agenda for the purpose of notification of the public of some changes that we propose um and the efficiency of the meeting. So, we would propose to move items 8, 9, 10, and 11 to the front of the agenda. Um and then I can also give an an update at this time if you're okay with that change. Thank you. So, table going to request continuence. So are we going to take a vote? I'll make a motion to approve that. I'll second. Motion is second. All in favor? I I motion passes. Okay.

Thank you. So the reason for this request is as you received a memo to this effect in your packet. Um there was inadvertently a time uh a timing issue as far as the submitt of the required newspaper notice for the items 8 through 11, original items 8 through 11. And as a result of that, we can't hear that this evening. So we would request that those items be continued to the meeting that we have the special meeting we've um scheduled for uh Thursday, December 18th. What time?

6 PM here in the council chambers. So anybody who was here for the original items 8 through 11 8 9 10 and 11 all petitioner being the city of Leaport we're requesting continuence of those items to the special meeting on Thursday December 18th

and we would and we won't be we won't be handling any of those items tonight. So for clarification, further clarification, these are the items that are that include the use variance request at 128 box street um by the city of Leaport uh property owner dascese of the city dascese of Gary. Um item nine which was variance of development standards also at 128 box street also property owner being the dascese of Gary um Catholic Church. Item 10 um is the variance from developmental standards um for 111 Roosevelt Street um for setback variances at that location um owner Aurelio Mel Goza and item 11 variance of development standards um petitioner city of Leaport property owner city of Leaport um for what is uh shown as 100 West Allen Street which is also for location purposes the west or the eastern twothirds of the Scottfield field property. So, for clarification, if anybody's here tonight on those items, we're requesting continuence of those to that meeting. [clears throat]

Thank you. Thanks, Craig. I'll make a motion to approve uh that continuence. I'll second. Motion and second. [snorts] All in favor? I I motion passes.

[snorts] Uh back to item five. Um allow conversion to existing billboard to digital electronic message center. Um and allow 10 second uh intervals. Petitioner step forward. State your name and address, sir. Robert Miller. My address is 1335 Mishwalk Avenue, Southbend, Indiana. Welcome.

Thank you. I'm here to just after sitting through all of this, I'm going to make it quick. [laughter] Uh we agree with staff on the approval. Uh we're just going to take a current static billboard location asking to upgrade it to new technology, go along with closer to the state standards of a 8second flip. Currently in um report it's 20 and get it and have it move down to 10 seconds. [snorts] Thank you. You're welcome, David.

So, yeah. Item number five, variance of development standards 25-16 petition is to allow a conversion of existing billboard to a digital electronic message center and allow 10-second dwell message change time between signed messages. U petitioners Lamar advertising it location is at 1213 Pine Lake Avenue or um most commonly referred to as the automobile repair shop. There is an existing billboard that is located just kind of adjacent to the building, but on the the western edge of the the lot as shown in the map that is the property [snorts] is outlined in red. Um, a petitioner proposes to have a uh one-sided face change to allow the digital electronic message center facing the southeast towards the intersection of Pine Lake Avenue and North State Road 39. Um, as you can see, uh, the document that's provided is the image. Um, it's a 30-foot height. Um, is a smaller sign, um, than a lot of the billboard signs that are out there. Um, staff did, uh, go out and check out the property. Um, so just going through, um, just reading that the section 19.06G 6G requires a variance of development standards to allow the conversion of an existing billboard sign for your reference to an electronic message center sign because it's not currently allowed by the ordinance. Um, in addition, section section 19.06E also requires that the message on electronic message sign or in this case electronic message center shall remain static a minimum of 20 seconds and shall not take take longer than one second to change. the petitioner is requesting to cut that in half. Um and so staff uh going through the decision criteria that you are to take into account with variance of development standards is one that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Um the

change to allow a digital electronic message center sign and reduce the changed dwell time between the the messages that occur on that sign um will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because there are other smaller wellbe smaller electronic message center signs that businesses have um in front of the car wash further down Pine Lake Avenue. Um there's a ATM that has a sign a freestanding pole sign um for Horizon Bank. Um the be uh Board of Zoning Appeals just recently allowed a couple of years ago the conversion of an existing non-conforming sign at Faze Marina um which is located um not too far away from this location to allow a digital board on both sides um on the east side of Pine Lake Avenue. Um and so this proposed electronic message center will not negatively impact um the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because it is not near any residential dwellings um and is not facing any residential dwellings. 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 which is primarily commercial with exception of the city park to the south Konis Teladine Park um because it will not be viewed by any residential dwellings and is primarily visible to the users of the state highway vehicular travelers um along both state highways there at Pine Lake Avenue and State Road 39. Um, and again, it's it's similar to the existing businesses along Pine Lake Avenue. Three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Um, the strict application of the terms of the zoning

ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought because the proposed electronic message center sign faces the southeast and will not negatively impact the surrounding residential properties um around it. The approval of the requested variance to allow conversion of the existing billboard to an electronic message center sign facing Pine Lake Avenue and State Road 39 North Intersection is reasonable because it directly faces other commercial properties and there is no negative impact on any of the surrounding residential properties. So staff finds that the requested variance of development standards petition conforms to the goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. The requested variance to allow conversion of the existing billboard to digital electronic message center sign and allow 10-second dwell message change time between signed messages is compatible with the development of commercial businesses and adjacent and the adjacent major thoroughares. So staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request to allow the conversion of an existing billboard to digital electronic message center and allow 10-second dwell message change time between signed messages as a part of the variance of development standards petition 25-16 and I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Hey David, is the dwell time on the other electronic signs that are along is that is that 10 seconds as well for the other signs? And a lot you'll see a lot of the signs are very similar. Um, and just driving around you can see a lot of the signs are because I know with phase I think that was just a year ago. I thought with that one we said it had to be 20 seconds. So we're good with we're good with the 10 seconds then. I I can't recall off the top of my head. Um, but I that may have may have been the case. But but city is okay with the 10-second at that intersection. Yeah. Yeah. Are you with Sir, are you with Lamar? I am.

Are you Do you see in other communities a a common 10 seconds or 20 seconds? Do you see 8 seconds? 8 seconds. Okay. Yeah. INDOT allows 8 seconds. Most communities are eight. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions? No. At this point, I'll open up for public comment. Is there any public comment? Hearing none. I'll close public comment. We want to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I I motion. Thank you very much. Let's get this built. Thank you. Thank you.

Changed. [clears throat] Item number six, um, special exemption use 25-5 petition to allow salvage in recycling center. Petitioner step forward, please.

Welcome. Good evening. Say your name and address, please. David Shaw. I live at 7531 Lake Valencia Court, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Thank you. Welcome up to Northern Indiana. Did you say you're here? I'm here. I did. We're good to go. Yep. Yep.

My name is David Shaw. I'm the owner of Spectrum Recycling. I've been in the recycling industry for 52 years. I've owned scrap yards in Lake Station, Chesterton, and Leaport over several years. I've owned the recycling yard in Leaport for 26 years. The Leaport yard location has been accepting materials since 1950. For 76 years, that yard has been serving the community. For [snorts] the 26 years in which I own the yard, we didn't [clears throat] have one complaint from any of our adjacent neighbors for either traffic or noise. Also in the 26 years that we have we have assisted the local police departments in arresting thieves whom stolen material from the community by having videotaped them and bringing the material to us. In [snorts] the last three years, we have paid out over $17 million to our customers. $17 million to our customers who live in the community. You can assume that some of the dollars that were that were spent on gas and food and others came from our revenue that we that we paid for the uh scrap. And it also generated tax revenue for the town. By having a local recycling yard in town saves the city thousands of dollars every year by accepting material that might find its way to the landfill. In the last three years, we have bought over 51,000 tons of steel and 4 million pounds of non-ferris. The proposed location has an autorecking yard and a partially demolished factory adjacent to it. If you continue down Brighton Street, there are other businesses which store old cars and equipment. Our new location would be less than 200 ft from the old one which was there for

75 years. On a final note, let's not forget that the city forced us to move to make room for the new bridge. My profitable company was paid by the city to move to the Brighton Street location. It took several months to come up with an agreement. When uh we were asked by the city if they if if they could stretch out the terms of the payment for the reimbursement of the relocation cost, we agreed with the city not to be paid until March of 2027. Since we have closed, we have had hundreds of phone calls expressing sadness and disappointment that we are no longer accepting material. There is a lot of value for us to be in the tunnel of port.

[clears throat] We are we are not a burden but an asset to the community. Thank you. Thank you.

David [clears throat] would like to give your staff report.

Okay. So item number six, special exception use 25-05 petition is to allow salvage and recycling center. Um petitioner is DHS LLC DBA Spectrum Recycling Services Incorporated. 209 Brighton Street is the location. Property as you see on the screen is outlined in red. Um it's approximately uh 2.17 acres um and is currently zoned M2 heavy industrial district. Currently, the subject property is um basically a vacant industrial property um which they're requesting a special exception use to allow a salvage and recycling center uh on the subject property with a scale and small building for operations. Um as a part of this I I should mention um item six and seven. Item six is the special exception used to allow the Salvage Arden Recycling Center. Item seven, um, let me find it.

Is a reduction. Yeah. 2.1

is a reduction. Yes. Yeah. A reduction in the minimum number of acres from 10 acres to the current size of 2.17 acres and remove the minimum landscape setback along the southern property boundary. So southern property boundary, it's basically the whole southern property boundary. It's It's an odd shape, but it's all along the residential [snorts] uses there. Um, you can see that there's some houses kind of in that little cutout to the southeast of the property. Um, the property to the west is a commercial use, so it doesn't it's it's not a residential use property. So, it only applies to the residential houses um for the trees, which is a 10-foot setback that would include trees. So they're requesting to remove that landscape setback completely. Um I will mention in just going through the standards because there are um it is important to note that salvage and recycling centers do require additional use regulations that are in section 14.17 C um that sets forth additional requirements. There are nine. Um I can I'll briefly explain those. Um I've already touched on one of them and is that the minimum lot area shall be 10 acres. Two, a minimum setback of 1,320 square feet shall be provided on from any adjacent residential district. Three, the location, size and layout of the size in relation and its relation to the streets giving access to it shall be such that traffic to and from the use will not conflict with the normal traffic of the area. Four, the location,

size, intensity, site layout, and periods of operation must be designated to eliminate any possible nuisance that might be noxious to the occupants of any other nearby permitted uses, whether by reason of odor, dust, noise, fumes, vibration, smoke, or lights. And five, the entire site must be screened with a minimum 8-ft tall wall or solid fence. In addition to the green belt and buffer zones that are required by the the landscape section in 17.02, material shall not be stacked higher than the screening enclosure. All material shall be screened so as not to be visible from any public road. Six, an area any area used for parking or unloading materials must be located within the site. Parking of trucks and loading or unloading of materials in the public road rightway shall be pro prohibited. Seven, storage or disposal of any kind shall not pollute a water supply or contaminate surrounding land to the extent that public health is endangered. The surface water detained on the site shall be purified of contaminants before leaving the site or must be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the health department. All storage and processing and disposal areas shall be a minimum of a 100 feet from any wetland, drain, stream, or body of water. Eight, the site shall not be located within 5 miles of any airport. Nine, the county or city may impose such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare from excessive noises, excessive traffic patterns, obnoxious and unhealthy odors, and any detrimental effects from the

general operation of the use. Um, and kind of with that being said, um, I'd like I'll proceed into the decision criteria. Um and just giving a brief overview of those because it is important to note in following the additional use requirements. Um those specific requirements of which the board of zoning appeals is to take into account with a special exception use petition. One that the general welfare the proposal will not be injurious to the public health safety and general welfare of the community. The approval of the requested special exception used to allow salvage and recycling center will be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community because it is located within 1,320 ft of residential single family dwellings and zoning and a community garden site that is used for public use. Two, surrounding property. The special exception use will not be injurious 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 the normal and orderly development improvement and of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Sorry, that's a long one. Um the special exception used to allow a salvage yard and recycling center will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the the purposes already permitted such as the residential properties, the commercial properties and the public use of community garden and green space. um it will substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood because surrounding property is primarily existing single family dwellings. Um and I have a few photos that I took of the site just the surroundings just to kind of show the

neighborhood itself, the commercial use, the public use the the houses around it. Um and then the commercial use on the corner there to the southwest. Um, the establishment of the proposed use for a salvage yard and recycling center will impede the normal and orderly development improvement of the surrounding residential and commercial property uses that are already permitted in the immediate vicinity. Three, hazard. The special exception shall not be hazardous to adjacent property or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property. The special exception use will be hazardous to the adjacent property because it does involve uses, activities, materials or equipment that will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property. [clears throat] Number four, public facilities and services. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, 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 to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The subject property is served with essential public facilities and services and driveway access. Um, additional measures would have to be developed in order to minimize traffic congestion in the public street on Brighton Street and drainage structures on site for appropriate storm water management for the proposed use for the salvage yard and recycling center. Five, 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, and maintained to be compatible with, and not significantly alter the existing or intended character of the general vicinity based upon the countywide land

development plan. The development of the property as a salvage yard and recycling center will not be consistent with the intent of the development requirements established by this ordinance for the similar uses in the M2 district which are mainly warehousing and other uses like and the like. Um the proposed use for significantly will significantly alter the existing intended residential character of the general vicinity based upon the countywide land development plan. The current size of 2.17 acres on the subject property is significantly lower than the minimum 10 acres and does not allow for the adequate operations as required by the zoning ordinance for salvage and recycling centers. Six, ordinance intent granting [snorts] the special exception use will not be contrary to the general purposes served by this ordinance and will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same zoning district and vicinity. The approval of the special exception used to allow a salvage yard and recycling center in the M2 zoning district will be contrary to the general purposes served by this ordinance and will in permanently injure other property or uses in the same zoning district and the landscape screening could be provided between the adjacent residential properties. Seven, county land development plan. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the zoning district in which it is located in the recommendations of the countywide land development plan. The development of the property as a salvage yard and recycling center will not be consistent with the with the intent of the development requirements established by this ordinance for similar uses in the district. The proposed use will significantly alter the intended residential character of the general vicinity. Um in eight, the use regulations which were mentioned where there are specific use requirements.

Um the size itself is not meet the requirements. the property would not allow for the specific use for the salvage yard and recycling center to take place there without additional measures to be brought forth. So with that staff finds that the approval of the special exception use petition to allow the salvage and recycling facility is not consistent with the countywide land development plan and general character of the surrounding commercial businesses, community garden and green space open space and residential dwellings within the surrounding area. So staff recommends denial of the special exception use petition 25-03 as well as the um variance of development standards petition and I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you. Yeah, I have a question for either you or Mr. Phillips. Um I I thought I heard him mention or something that maybe the city was working with this petitioner on a location that maybe this was or I heard something about that this was not it. Huh? This was not it. thought there was a different location that I I don't know what the status of that uh negotiation is necessarily, but um it's not this location. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? At this time, I'll open up for public comment. If you would please step forward, state your name and address. Welcome.

Uh James Sullivan. I live on 402 Palaski Street. Uh I've lived there for 18 years. They've been across the street from me [snorts] for the entire time. They closed down briefly and then opened back up. And I've never had a problem with them. Uh I I know I'm within a thousand whatever feet it was. I live right across the street, so I've never had an issue. I have no problem with them. They've always been kind and courteous and friendly. Um and I think that yeah, they've worked with this city and I think we should allow them. I mean, that's just my personal opinion. Um, I've talked with the owner once before. I had uh one issue, talked with them, very kind, took care of the problem and never had an issue ever since. And like I said, I've lived there 18 years. I moved there knowing there was a recycling plant there. Uh, the noise never bothered me. They're always within the ordinance of not starting before 7 a.m. and I don't know what time it has to end, but they're always closed at 4. So, it's I've never had an issue with it. Uh, so I mean I just ask that you allow them to. I mean it's it's kind of a nice thing to have them there. Um, and I know people use it and um, there's one other thing I was going to say. I forgot what it was now. But yeah, so I I just ask that you guys allow them to be there because it is a benefit. Oh, that's what I was going to say. So, as far as the traffic goes on Brighton Street, well, when we build the bridge on Park Street, they're closing my crossing there on Park Palaski Street. Why couldn't they be allowed to have an access right there? Also, that would kind of get rid of a lot of the traffic on Brighton Street and that's going to be a dead end road anyways because the train wants them closed. So, that's also an option to think about could make an opening there. So, just my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Other public comment, please support.

State your name and address, please.

Nick Acriman, uh 405 Palaski Street. We live would have been east of the east of the old lot and then a little bit north of it. Um I opposed to the new scrapyard being there. The old scrapyard was grandfathered in. There's a lot of environmental stuff we don't think about when we're collecting scrap metal. I work in the heavy industry, you know, as you see my heavy work pants and stuff like that. At my shop, the any type of oil, any type of hazardous materials that are liquid that is improperly disposed of, my shop will get a $10,000 fine from EPA for improper disposal of that material of that waste, oil, and other chemicals. So our shop actually has to have a special trap, a water trap inside just so we so they contain all the potential hazards that might flow off in the municipal water supply. They buy material from places like my shop. And that material is covered in that same oil and and stuff that I cannot put down the drain. That current yard has no drainage. Has no way to collect any special runoff. has no way to collect any type of oil and separate it from the municipal water supply. So as the so as it rains and the water runs into our municipal water supply, that same oil and other hazardous chemicals is going to be going back into the municipal's water supply without any type of fil without any sort of groundwater filtration without any way to you know isolate that lot from the rest of it rest of the uh water collection. What's going to happen is that same stuff that I'll get fined $10,000 from the EPA will end up in our water supply. And like I said, we've been there. I've been living last street for over 30 years. It's I don't think anyone complained about the street, the noise because we're right next to a train track. We all kind of aware of that. But the I've always seen scrap over the yard, over the fence. I've always seen it my entire life. I'm 32. I've always seen it. And like I said, my biggest

concern is when it comes to health of not only our water, but then just hazardous materials when it deals with the heavy material and material, you know, handling. Sure. Thank you. Thanks, Nick. Any other public comment? Hearing none, I'll close this portion. Staff, do we have another now? Are we voting on both items six and seven together [clears throat] separately? I would do it separately. Separately. Separately. Okay.

Um, unfortunately, it it it really does not meet even one of the criteria for the location that is being asked for. Um, so I don't feel um that I can vote in favor of this. Yeah. with echoing that to go from 10 acres down to two acres makes me feel very uncomfortable, right? Um and then uh to go from such a small 10 to two and then do no setbacks is is really problematic to me. So So I would make a motion to deny this variance or this request for a salvage yard. So the special exception first deny the you're making a motion to deny the special exception request

to deny the special exception use. I'll second that. Uh motion and a second. All in favor? I I Craig, we we still have to vote on the second one. I mean, we've already said they can't do it. So, that's if he wants to. We can we can vote on it regardless, but yeah, he can either withdraw or [clears throat] he's there or you can Mr.

Shock. with item number six being denied. Do you want to withdraw item number seven? It's I guess I mean it's just if they don't if we don't get six, we won't get seven, right? That's kind of what it is. Yeah, I guess I will if that's what you want.

But you know, one thing I can I can I say anything else to this? Just I know I had my opportunity to talk. Basically what you're looking at in the new location is basically almost mirrored what we were what had been a yard for almost 75 years. Okay. We moved 200 feet because we were forced to move that over there. Okay. So that as far as the and as far as the setbacks we'll be agreeable to anything to make that you know make the accommodations. I just want that to be said and I understand your concerns but uh basically we're just we're moving 200 feet. Yeah. We're in the same neighborhood. Yeah, we're doing what we've been doing for years. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate your business and I do hope that the city continues to work with you on finding a a good suitable location. Item number 12, reduce minimum lot width from 50 to 45 ft. Reduce minimum sides uh yard building set back from 15 to 10 ft. Petitioners, please step forward.

Good evening. My name is Bill Nelson. I am an attorney with RA Nelson and James. I represent uh the applicant uh Lenar Homes of Indiana LLC. Uh this uh variance was uh consented to by the current owner, Recreational Properties uh US LLC. I got a couple housekeeping matters uh before we proceed and I'm going to make a suggestion that I think you'll all appreciate about how we can shorten this meeting. But let me first start with some requirements that I just have to comply with. and that is uh complying with notice. I will submit for the record an affidavit of notification signed by me that includes uh affirmation that I provided notice as required twice in the newspapers, individual notice to all property owners entitled to it based upon contigu contiguity. Um, and I have also uh with us the affidavit of publication from the regional news verifying that notice of this meeting hearing was uh published November or advertised November 20, 25. I have an affidavit of publication from the Herald Dispatch uh affirming that the notice uh was published in that periodical November 22nd, 2025 along with a list of all of the property owners that I certify uh were notified in based upon notice. I also am submitting for the record uh affidavit of my parillegal Christina M. Hilden uh where wherein she affirms her efforts to identify every property owner entitled to individual notice, cross-check that with the real estate office, uh and then send out the notices via certified mail as required. And finally, we'll submit

the adjacent property owners notified by mail list uh verifying certified mail. Um, and I will submit those for the record at this time. I will note that the green cards that have were returned were submitted earlier tonight at the plan commission meeting and the those apply to this as well. The reason being that we we did one notification packet to each individual entitled to notice for the plan commission meeting at six and this meetings also was noticed at six because you never know when it's going to start. Well, we're past that. Um, nonetheless, uh, I would ask the record to reflect those green cards that were submitted in the plan commission uh, be made of record in these proceedings uh, verifying that those green cards were submitted for this proceeding as well. Now, here's how I suggest we have an opportunity to shorten this meeting. Um, may I first I know for that uh Miss Kazowski and Mr. Saunders sat on the plan commission uh board tonight and heard the presentation. May I ask that President Cer and BCA member LS uh affirm verbally whether or not they were present for the plan commission meeting and saw the entire presentation related to this particular uh applicant Lenar Holmes.

I was I'd like you to do it all again. No, I'm just kidding. I was right there.

Is Is that a Yes, you were here, Mr. Lux. If if not, I'm gonna need to get my bulletproof vest. [laughter] Having affirmed that on the record, I would at this point move. Well, there's nobody to I guess there's no judge to grant that that motion. I am going to request that the record of these of the plan commission meeting tonight and the entire presentation regarding Lenar Homes of Indiana LLC be incorporated into the record of this proceeding such that the entire presentation is record here, no different than had it been recited here due to the fact that all of you have confirmed that you were either on that plan commission uh board and heard that or were present tonight and and heard that presentation. By doing so, that will allow us to skip directly to the relief sought, which is the three variances, without having to make the entire presentation again. That is that is why I'm asking the record to reflect and I would ask that either

I would ask that either Yes, that's fine, sir.

Okay. Hey, I was just going to say I was ask President Cer [laughter] or council confirm that and we have confirmation from President Cagger. All right, that allows us to move forward quickly. Um, what I want to do though real quick is just do this because it was a little a little bit ago. I want to I want to just summarize what was presented. uh Bert Cook, executive director of LEAP, uh stood up in support of the project, talked about the home studies, and presented a letter of support from school superintendent Dr. Wood. After that, I presented a history of the Brier Leaf Golf Course, the attempts to keep it a golf course, um and a and also provided a uh a synopsis of golf course closures throughout Northwest Indiana uh in the last seven years. Um, I I addressed some key points from the housing study reports that were submitted into the record by Mr. Cook, uh, clearly identifying the need for the type of housing LAR is proposing. Uh I also uh provided uh a presentation about the proposed development in the way of my summary and then Todd Cleven uh VP of land from uh LAR provided a much more detailed ground level uh discussion and and provision of information regarding the development itself. I then followed up with letting the plan commission know and you now through the incorporation of that record what the permissible alternative uses are that don't even require authority uh authorization or approval from the city many of which would be completely non-consistent with the residential nature of that community. I then talked about the impact of developments on surrounding properties and I gave I gave a uh example of the Irongate uh LAR development in Valparezo and the

concerns of the Brigata uh neighboring uh subdivision where people were concerned how would it impact their values and I provided data from the the records of Porter County government offices verifying that the assessed values of all those Bata properties continued to rise even through the LAR development. Uh finally, um we had an expert uh with 34 years of of real estate work in Leaport County speak to you about his history with developments in this community over 34 years. and he said that there hasn't been any in a while of of any size, but verified how properties around those those subdivisions that did get built historically tended to rise um and benefited. Um and he shared much more information about how impact uh could be negative for surrounding properties if Brier Leaf were to become an abandoned uh overgrown unsightly uh expanse. That's what the s that's there's my summary of of what uh is in this record now and that is the information I will be asking you to utilize when you consider the variances that we request. Here's the variance we request tonight and and we are requesting these to be finally approved tonight in final form contingent upon action by the city council uh with regards to the zoning request. So, we are asking for final approval, but we understand that they would have to be contingent. Here's the three variances requested. A reduction of the R1D lot from 50 feet to 45 ft to better suit homes offered with lower square footage. Let me uh make this comment about that. There will be no reduction in overall lot size. R1D minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. Minimum lot size in this development for

the core home product line will be approximately 5,625 square feet. Horizon home product line will not have lot width I'm sorry Horizon home product lines will have lot width at 61 feet so far in excess of the 50 foot standard and we'll have total lot size of approximately 7625. So the the lots the the lot width reduction will not affect all lots out there. It'll only be those homes of the of the smaller footprint. And in a minute, Todd Cleven will come and speak to these variances and how they impact the uh this proposed development. The second variance that is being requested for approval tonight are minimum setbacks total for both sides. R1D standard is 15 feet. Lenar is requesting a reduction in total both sides set back to 10 feet resulting in a reduction of 2.5 feet on each side. And the third and final uh variance that Lenar is requesting uh approval is a reduction in the minimum first floor square footage from 800 ft to 524 feet for the core home product line. Let me and let me make a comment on that. All homes if you saw the when you I know you saw it because you were all here. All homes you notice had garages. And I'm told by LAR that some will in fact offer three-car garages, but all homes will have garages. For the core home product line that has a [clears throat] smaller square footage footprint, that still allows the home to have a garage, but forces more of the living square footage then up to a a second floor living space. Standard R1D minimum total square footage is a,000 ft. So the home has to be a,000 square feet to meet R1D minimum square footage. All home product lines will be more than that. So the only request is a variance on the first floor square footage whereas total square footage will still

exceed the minimums. At this point I would invite uh Todd Cleven to come and speak on behalf of LAR as to how these three variants will promote this uh proposed development.

Good evening. As Bill indicated, my name is Todd Cleven. I'm the vice president of land for the NAR homes. And just for the record, our address um office resides at 1700 East Golf Road, Shamberg, Illinois. And I'm a personal resident of Lake County, Indiana, born and raised at 2550 East 123rd Place, Crown Point, Indiana. I do appreciate the opportunity to move the pre previous presentation into uh this petition uh for the sake of time. So, with that, um, I'm just going to from a 30,000 foot answer some questions that might be in your head. Why are we asking for these variances? As I indicated in the previous petition, um, LAR has been in business since 1952 and last year we closed, I think, just shy of 85,000 homes nationwide. 90% of our communities are PUDs. That's typically what we ask for, but Leaport um, the city of Leaport has a restriction against PUDS. So, we would not typically be here asking for variances. It would all be covered in our PUD. For those that are not familiar with what a PUD is, it's a plan unit development. And basically, instead of having a classified zoning uh ordinance that covers that particular community, we would have our own zone zoning. Um, so you get exactly what we present to you and can never be dev deviated upon uh without coming back in front of you or the plan commission for those minor and major changes. we do not have that flexibility. So that forces us into asking for these variances. Um the reason for the variances, as I indicated in the previous petition, these homes, um this current demographic, the buyer segment that we are anticipating targeting here has a certain attainable achievement and our homes will start at $350,000. How do we bring our homes into that price point is very difficult. As I

indicated, everything has gone up. Labor, materials, so on and so forth. Lenar nationwide is finding all kinds of ways to achieve that obtainable price point. And one way that we were able to do that is by redesigning our product. And that's what we're putting in here as a core. So therefore, we're building above the garage. More and more builders are doing that. And that's the reason for the floor um request the first floor from 800 down to 500. Three of our plans, three of eight plans, correct?

Three of six. Did that include the horizon? Yeah. So three of eight will be will is requiring that variance. So the other ones will not they'll surpass that current standard of that zoning. So that's the reason why we're asking for the reduction in the floor first floor square footage. the home site or lot width from 50 to 45 again is just to make it fit better with that core product. I consider these detached town homes. Gives the people a little bit of a yard. It allows us to maintain that 40% open space that I spoke to earlier. And then there's really no need for that product to have such a large sideyard. So that's the third variance we're asking for is down to from a 15 down to a 10. So what that means is in between homes you'll have 10 feet versus 15. Essentially, it's a five foot sideyard versus a seven and a half. [clears throat] So, those are the three things. Normally, that would be captured in the PUD. We would not have to be in front of the BCA, but we do not have that flexibility. So, that's the reason we're here. Um, I did not speak to our attorney about this, but just to be transparent and show you my honesty. If there's a way, council, uh, city council, if there's a way that you would be more protective and want to attach these variances to the product that was shown here and the concept plan, that concept plan may or will change as we get into the engineering. But putting myself in your shoes on the other side of the table, I would be concerned with, well, the developer is asking this, he's showing this, but he could turn right around and do something different. And I'm here to show you tell you you can include all of those plans for the record. Typically we call it a zoning commitment or variance commitment. Um again I'm just being transparent and honest with you. Um because that's what I would be saying on your side of the table. Making sure that we're not doing a bait and switch on you. That's all I have. Is there anything I didn't cover?

Real real quick.

I think we're okay. Real quick, one question. The 296 number you quoted in the plan commission for the number of homes, is that taking this lot size into consideration? If this is approved, that won't increase that number. Correct. Okay. Correct. Yeah. I have a feeling that number might go down once we get into the actual wetlands and the engineering side of things and the overland flood route. What is what is going to be the minimum of your twostory square foot homes? Everything surpasses the underlining zoning. Mhm. So I think the smallest is 113 actually 1137 they start Okay. So the core starts at 1137 and the largest plan is 2178. Mhm.

Their horizon which is the more uh larger home is on the border of the community. That starts at 1444T [clears throat] and maxes out at 2,607. Those price points for the horizon start at 410 and um top out at 462,000. And the core starts at 356 and maxes out at 393. And that's our initial price point. Those can change. Thank you. David, do we want to walk back through

just just really briefly? Yeah, just there's a couple of points of clarification that I'd like to make on a few things um rather than go through the whole thing, but variance and development standards 25-20 petition is to reduce the minimum lot width from 50 feet to 45 ft wide. Reduce the minimum sideyard building setbacks from 15t to 10 feet. Um and Mr. Cleven explained um that that's the total sideyard width. So 5 foot on each side um as he mentioned. Um just wanted to make that clarification for the record and reduce the minimum first floor square footage from 800 square ft to 500 square ft. Um because in the zoning ordinance it does require that the minimum first floor finished area is 800 square feet or above. Um they're applying for that 500 square feet to allow flexibility with the design with the twotory units. Um and so just wanted to there is an additional item um on top of uh these variances that are requested that I wanted to make of note and is section 22.04 of the zoning ordinance which requires a minimum building setback of 50 ft from the edge of wetlands or within a designated depressional area for all structures. Um just wanted to make that known. Um and just really briefly going through the decision criteria, you've heard them before. There are three of them for variance of development standards. Um the first one relates to not the approval will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Um the approval of this variance and development standards will not be interest to the public health, safety and morals and general welfare of the community because all of the proposed improvements related to the proposed residential dwellings will be built according to all pickable ordinance and ordinances and standards

for constructions um building codes ordinances things like that. Um as well as the zoning ordinance um in addition to what they're already requesting as far as the variances. Um, the requested variances, as I mentioned briefly, to allow the developer flexibility with the proposed reszoning to the R1 zoning [snorts] district contingent with city common council approval for the type of site single family dwellings and lot sizes as a part of the the preliminary subdivision concept that's been proposed. And two, that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Um and just so the development of additional single family dwellings will not affect the use and value of existing residential subdivisions because the subject property is already zoned within the R1B zoning district. Now a pending zoning for R1D zoning. Um R1B already currently allows single family dwellings at a minimum twice the minimum basically of what they're requesting with these variances. Um and so those are already allowed per the zoning ordinance. The proposed single family dwelling similar will be similar to the values of many existing single family dwellings in the surrounding area. The requested lot with minimum reduction allows the developer the the type of um single family dwellings that they're proposing to build um as a part of the subdivision concepts. um proposed single family dwellings will be at or above the values of existing single family dwellings in the surrounding area. And three, that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Uh the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variances are sought because the proposed residential subdivision would not be able to be fully developed um

without the need for requested variance as was mentioned um because of the zoning ordinance does not allow the use of plan development which would be typically approved by a plan commission. Um this hence requires the requested variances for the lot widths, sideyard building setbacks and the minimum first floor square footage in a reasonable manner. The overall square footage of most of the single family dwelling dwellings exceed the 1500 square ft finished floor area. But um due to the kind of the current market trends um kind of catering to more of the desires of home builder home buyers that are seeking quality home spaces that can be arranged in a manner that you have those two stories um with lower maintenance costs things like that. So staff finds that the approval of the variance petition to reduce the minimum lot width from 50 feet to 45 ft, reduce the minimum sideyard building setbacks from 15 feet to 10 ft total, and reduce the minimum first floor square footage from 800 square ft to 500 ft is appropriate for the surrounding single family dwelling land uses around the existing golf course. Staff recommends approval of variance of development standards petition 25-20 to reduce the minimum lot width from 50 feet to 45 feet, reduce the minimum sideyard building setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet, and reduce the minimum first floor square footage from 800 square feet to 500 square f feet. My comments

and I would just add to the staff report um just to add uh kind of reflect upon the comment made by Mr. Cook earlier that um there are suggestions being made by some of the consultants that we're working with in process of considering our zoning standards as a community of lowering our minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths and conforming more to the trends that are that are happening in communities all throughout the nation um where there's a need to kind of reflect what's actually happening in the market um a bit better. It doesn't it doesn't benefit us to subscribe to and adhere to um standards that no longer fit the you know the development patterns or the needs of our community. Um and it doesn't benefit us to um require something that the that the market won't bear in terms of reality of what's being built these days. So I just want to add that uh and reflect on that comment that was made earlier as well.

And if I might, Mr. cager. Um it's important that the petitioner have a chance to make a record how it views those three those three standards for your evaluation. It's important that we um consider the fact that that based upon the information that was submitted earlier tonight in the plan commission that's now part of your record here that you utilize that in the consideration of these and from the petitioner standpoint as to these three standards. Here's how the petitioner believes that all of that information and evidence that is part of this record supports these. Uh as far as the assurance that the approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. Uh we believe that the approval will not be injurious to those because all proposed home construction related to the proposed residential development will be built in compliance with all applicable ordinances and standards for construction. The proposed residential development will be engineered and designed in a manner that minimizes the impact on the existing single family dwellings in the surrounding area. The requested variance allows LAR flexibility with the proposed resoning to the R1D zoning district for the type of single family dwellings and lot sizes that are part of the plan development and consistent with LAR's longstanding success across the nation with the housing development just as proposed for Brier Leaf. I would say that as it relates to the the uh uh uh first floor square footage variance, keep in mind they could build they could they could build that with with the first floor minimum. They'd have to get rid of the garage. I think we'd all agree we want communities that have garages. If you notice there's nothing but twocar garages and some three. Uh this is this is a actually asking for this variance is saying because we're going to do a better job. we're going to give the homeowners a chance to park two cars in

the garage. So, we we really think that's actually a benefit, but yet we need to ask for the variance. Uh with regards to the the strict application of the terms of the ordinance, whether it will result in practical difficulties and hardship on the property owner. Oh, that yeah, I'll do that one now. Strict application of the zoning ordinance creates practical difficulties due to the property's unique size, odd shape, and historic configuration as a golf course. The ability to continue as an operational golf course has been eliminated due to long-standing and annual financial distress and unsustainability. These conditions are not self-created. They arise from a nationwide and northwest Indiana regional decline in the golf industry. And the current owner is part of this. They still own this property. So when we talk about hardship, the current owner's efforts to sell the property for continued use as a golf course proved to be unsuccessful. leaving the owner faced with little option but to seek sale of the property for an alternative use. The proposed alternative use is consistent actually with the surrounding properties. Denial of the requested variances places the existing contract for sale at risk, possibly forcing the current owner to find itself with little option for converting the property to a useful alternative in the community and struggling to find another buyer. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will also constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variances are sought because the proposed residential development would not be able to be fully developed without the need for the requested variances to adjust for minimum lot with sideyard building setbacks and minimum first floor square footage in a reasonable and consistent manner with the applicant's long-standing history of delivering this product in many communities over and over and over Again, finally, the requested variances are necessary to allow construction of

the Lenor Core and Horizon product lines, which rely on standardized trust packages and lot configurations that deliver attainable housing at price points competitive in today's market and needed in the city of Port as proven by multiple home study reports. Without these variances, redevelopment would be economically infeasible, likely leave the site vacant and deteriorating. Granting the variances preserves a substantial property right enjoyed by surrounding residential properties and enables the only realistic and beneficial use. And finally, the asurances that the uh land of the area uh will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The requested variance will not affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner. Because of this, this project is fully compatible with the current surrounding uses. Importantly, the variance does not authorize any use that is for the area, nor is it inconsistent with city's established development patterns. Instead, the variance will allow LANR flexibility to design a cohesive highquality neighborhood that continues residential character already present while offering buyers various price points to meet the needs and demands as affirmed by the real estate professional with 34 years experience who sat here and told you this is what the his buyers are looking for. Additionally, LA Lenar is providing new storm basins, maintaining existing wetlands, constructing new internal streets, and installing modern utility infrastructure, all of which will improve rather than burden surrounding properties. Finally, without the variance, the resulting project, the Brier Leaf Golf Course would likely remain, well, I'm sorry, will remain permanently closed and unused regardless, which presents a far greater long-term risk of deterioration and negative impacts on nearby home values than granting these variances possibly could. By contrast, the proposed

variances support reinvestment, stabilization, and improved aesthetics in the area. Having met all the standards for these variance requests on behalf of Lonar Homes of Indiana LLC, I respectfully request the BCA to grant final approval of the three variances requested contingent upon approval by the city council of LAR's request for reszoning the property to R1D. And that the entire LAR team is still here to answer any questions as is the real estate professional. So with that, we will be happy to answer questions. At this time, I'll open up for public comment. Anyone in front of the public?

My name is Tim Conowitz. I reside at 3199 North Bright Leaf Co Court. On December the 4th, 2025, I contacted uh Dave Heinhold requesting a u formal formally requesting a variance to the zoning change at the property. That time I was told I would be put on the agenda and I'm not.

Yeah, you can go ahead and you were told you have an opportunity to speak. You So that's what you're doing. Can I have that? [clears throat] Thanks, Tim. At that time, I asked if there was a form that I needed to fill out, and he says, "No, just just give me the email me the variance and I'll put you on the agenda." So, you're requesting a variance for the Brier Leaf Golf Course. I I'm requesting a variance, I guess, on the variance submitted by Lener Holmes.

Tim, if I'm hearing you right, you you want to edit their variance. I to a degree. Yes. And I want to bring a point to the board about the uh BMS and the green areas. That's that's there. Okay. So, uh, only a property owner or somebody that is affiliated with a business to that property can request the variance. And as a board, we can only evaluate the petitioner's variance request as presented and we can't we could we can address modifications and you can address that during your comments right now. But

that's that's okay. That's what I'll do [clears throat] then. Yeah, please do. Thanks, Tim. Excuse me for a minute. Yeah. Is there any other public comment? He's coming back with it for Tim's getting his stuff. Yep.

Thanks, sir. Thanks, buddy. What's um Okay. My my concerns regarding the buffer zone exhibit A. I'm urging the board to adopt a buffer zone type A outlined in the site development provisions of article 17 table 17.02 2 C2 the heading requirements for buffer zone located in the cities of Leaport or Michigan City and that would be exhibit A. And if we look at exhibit A, we'll see that one, two family residential in RD1 has none. There's no required buffer zone for RD1. Lener Homes tells us that there's going to be a 25 foot buffer zone with a walking path.

What I'm recommending is the city to do is in table 172C2 buffer zone landscape screening requirements is buffer zone type A a 50 foot buffer with one canopy tree and three evergreen trees without the buffer zone. I'm going to suffer the following but not limited to road noise as the main subdivision street adjacent to Progress Drive is within 130 ft of my property. Resident noise, that is barking dogs, domestic disturbances, loud parties, vehicle noises such as cars with special exhaust systems, construction noise, excavation traffic, construction worker foul language, construction traffic and machinery will destruct my daily life as will dust, dirt and during the construction. I will have to incur expenses to my property to protect my property and my privacy. The covenants of villa covenants of the villas of brighter leaf state no owner shall construct or erect or allow construction or erection of any building, shed, fence, or other structure. I can't even put up a fence between them. So, it doesn't leave me much recourse. Um, I'm not going to bore you with that. [sighs and gasps] During the community beating meeting held October 20th, 20, 2025, attended by approximately 30 representatives from Tiffanywood, Sharmmer Hills, and the village Brier

Leaf, as well as city official Tom Derm, Lener representative, and leap director Bert Cook. The following points were clarified. Now, this was in a email that was sent out to all the residents at Brierly. Sir, you just as before, you're approaching three minutes. We only have uh there may be other public comment and obviously this exhibit has been submitted so we can read through it but if you can summarize and also as far as the buffer are you planning on creating a buffer zone because each property owner has their option to create that as well.

Uh

I think I think what you're saying real quick government sometimes is needlessly complicated. um and who does what is sometimes hard to figure out. Uh we can't actually tell them what to do in this. What we can do is either approve or deny their zoning appeals. And so what you what your probably your next step, Tim, is to go to your city council. Go to city council meeting, talk to your city council rep. I don't know who it is out there. uh the mayor could probably tell you, but um talk to them and then come to the city council when they're debating this because they'll have a better chance of actually talking about these things and maybe talking to Lar. The best chance though is to talk to Lar and figure this out. Um because I think your your your concerns are are are absolutely something that should be taken into consideration. The next thing I would do is talk to your HOA because you should be able to put up a fence. So, um, in my opinion, so I don't know if your HOA person's here, but I could talk to them for you.

No, I have no HOA person. Um, but but we cannot approve. All we can do is just approve or deny the appeals that are brought before us. So, we cannot tell them to add or deny anything. So, I just wanted you to know. Okay. All right. Thanks, Tim. Thanks, Nate. Appreciate it. I appreciate you, buddy. My name is Paul Skiad. I'm at 3196 North Brier Leaf Court. I have two items. One of them just came up. Uh as a former board member of the Villas of Brier Leaf HOA,

out of the question. No fencing. None. Zero. Cannot happen. All right. because it just opens up a Pandora's box for a lot of different issues that uh would come up. So there will be no consideration given for anything. Certainly. Yeah. Within your also because of the way the the we are finding out now because of the way the property is being surveyed the property. Tim and I live right next to one another. We've got about five feet from our deck to where the property line is. We have no room for a buffer.

Yeah. Uh and I do want to say I'm get I had talked to Todd u had an opportunity to have a discussion with him and in general I just want to uh indicate from my position I had thought that this development was going to be part of what we would call a neighborhood uh the city of Leaport. We just got annexed. I told you my story about that in the beginning of of the other meeting. But now in talking with Todd, I'm he did not say this, but I'm getting an inkling. There's some exclusivity here. I'm even talking about the I'm thinking about gated community because I asked about the parks that they're going to be putting in. There's a very strong possibility the people at the Villas of Brier Leaf or Tiffany Woods will not have access to those.

Uh I'm not even sure we're going to be able to walk on their streets. Now, we share our streets with Tiffany Woods. Tiffany Woods shares our streets. We're part of the city. I'm concerned now. Uh I'm going to talk with Todd some more about this, but if we're going to be part of the city of Leaport, there needs to be an attitude that this is the city. I recognize they're going to have their own HOA. We do, too. Yeah. All right. So, I I'm concerned about that from an overall standpoint. Is this what we're talking about for the city of Leaport and the neighborhoods? Those are legitimate concerns, Paul. Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

I so wanted to mess with him and object to carrying over his comments from the plane commission, but I don't think my client would appreciate that either, and I'd like to carry mine forward as well. Sure. [laughter]

It's way past my bedtime, so [snorts] I'm not even going to repeat all of my comments. I stated before, you know who I represent. I Mr. Schoffner, he's got an over million dollar house. By taking this down to R1D was bad enough. Taking the lot size down any smaller, reducing the setbacks. It's just you can't say it's not going to reduce the property values of the surrounding property. Common sense tells you that. Tell them you gave them the R1D and they're going to have to live with that and it's five feet. They can make five feet work. Quite frankly, with five foot setbacks on each side of a house, if it's a two-story house, you can't even get a letter on your property if somebody builds a fence to be able to clean the gutters or um maintain your sighting. So, please tell them no. You've given them enough tonight. And um the only unnecessary hardship here is their business model. You heard Mr. Nelson say it. They do this. This is how they do them. They have to maximize the lots. You went from R1B to R1D. Tell them that's enough and they can live with 50 foot lots and they can still make a profit. That's not an unnecessary hardship. Thanks folks and good.

Thank you. Any other public comment? At this time, I'll close public comment.

As far as responses to the uh the folks that just uh spoke and and certainly offered uh as um member LA stated, legitimate concerns, um I'm going to have uh Todd Cleven from LAR address the buffer zone issues, the concerns about exclusivity, access to amenities, be the ability to walk down the street. All I want to address is Mr. Amber statements. That's what us lawyers do, right? [laughter] Uh as far as uh Mr. Amber's statements when he says this has to re reduce the reduction in value. Um I can't say that. I have a law degree. I practice law for a living. I'm not a real estate expert. I know I've known Dave Ambersh since we were kids. He's a darn good farmer. He knows that and he knows law. But I would posit that he doesn't know real estate anymore than I do. Which is why we brought someone who knows that industry who talked about the lack of the anticipated lack of impact on surrounding property owners based upon his 34 years of history and seeing developments like this new construction whether it be large scale, smallcale historically has actually improved. They sold out the the subdivision quickly and now people were looking to buy around it and prices went up. Um, the real estate expert is what you should be listening to on that. Not me, not Mr. Ambers. Um, we're just lawyers. Real estate [snorts] people know real estate. And you have plenty of evidence tonight along with the evidence presented factual data on how Irongate and Valpo uh did not have a negative impact on values on the surrounding property at Burgata next door. The final thing I would say is the unnecessary hardship. I I didn't just say there would be unnecessary hardship on LAR. I said there will be unnecessary hardship on the owner. I am authorized to speak on behalf of that owner tonight via their consent and their words to me.

They cannot sell this as a golf course. They pivoted because they had no choice. If we deny a residential community like this there, you heard uh Mr. Cleven say that part of this is economies of scale as well on the ability to the desire of a company like LAR to come in and do a development like this. If someone says well you got to build them on twoacre lots. Lenar's not here. I don't see any developers in our community standing up and saying uh let's let's build big homes on twoacre lots. We already have that. We have Legacy Hills. Thank God we have Legacy Hills because there's people out there that want those homes, but there's still empty lots out there. That's indicative of the market. Our real estate expert said that the market in in this area is demanding homes like this such that when he can't deliver them, they get in their cars and they go somewhere else. Probably to Irongate is one of those communities that they end up at. So the unnecessary hardship here is not Lenar. Lenar could pack up their bags and leave. They could. They won't do this development. Unnecessary hardship is what you put back on this owner who is a consenting party to this petition tonight who tried. I give them credit for trying to keep it a golf course. They couldn't do it. Couldn't even get a golf course broker interested in trying to list it for them. They just said, "No, we're not interested in listing it. Um it's just an unsustainable recreational use anymore." And to deny this absolutely will place an unnecessary hardship because now we got a residential project shut down. We can't sell it as a golf course. Do they start looking for the slaughterhouse? Do they start looking for the farmers who might want to convert it to agricultural use and bring in the cattle, the livestock, whatever they want to bring in? Um, does somebody

show up and says, "All right, put in a manufactured home site." There's restrictions. I'm not gonna I'm not going to say it's cart blanch. there's restrictions, but a manufactured home site could go in there. Um, but they're not there. Three years they've tried. It's an unnecessary hardship on that owner as well. So, those are my comments with regards to um uh council for for James Schoffer. At this point, I would ask uh Paul to come and address uh Mr. Conowitz and Mr. Skiat's concerns. Paula, you just you've been calling me.

Uh Todd, I Todd, before real quick, sorry. I do have a question for you. Um did you mention that the outer lots, not not the smaller inner lots, but are they going to your intention is to keep them at 50 ft and not go to 45? Are you going to do those at 45? That's what I was going to do and also address I I'm going to apologize. Am I saying that correct? Mr.

Kowitz. Um, luckily the older I get, my heartstrings get pulled a little little harder. That's why when I was young like these guys, I probably wouldn't commit to this. But he's definitely pulling my heartstrings. Can I commit to a 50-foot? I think it's too early in the game to tell if 50 foot will work, but to your point, I believe you could give us an approval contingent upon us satisfying a buffer behind Mr. Conowit's house. And so you have my commitment that we will definitely, we already show a buffer around his home. He's in the villas of Brierly. We're scaling it. It looks like 50 foot would work, but I hate to commit to a I hate to if I can approach it if you don't mind. Yeah, go ahead.

Mr. I can I can I can agree to providing a buffer if you so choose to move forward with an approval tonight. I would be fine unless my council feels I'm agreeing to too much uh contingent upon that we satisfy a buffer between how wide will the buffer be?

That's that's what I'm alluding to right now. I would love to say 50 feet, but I don't know if we're going to have that flexibility as we get into the actual engineering. And the I understand that you have a 50 foot buffer on the right now. It shows 50 foot. It shows 50 foot and it cuts down to 25 ft. Mr. Conowits. Well, I think it's 50 feet behind his house. Yeah. So, I mean again, hold on, hold on. One person at the podium. Again, just just for clarity, the minutes get really hard if we're not talking, but Sure. So, I I will uh defer to our engineer Matteline um with Mackie to answer that question and then I'll go back and let you know what I'm willing to agree to. Thank you.

Name for the record again, I would assume. All right. Maline Larman with Mackie Consultants, 9575 West Higgins Road, Rosemont, Illinois. Uh civil engineer. So, yes, I can't say the exact dimension that's currently shown on the site plan. Uh just the scale is large, but I I do have a little mini scale that I brought. And um even from that corner house, which is, you know, Tim's house, the pinch point there, it does look like we have a a decent dimension from the lot line. Um, and then, you know, don't forget that we also have, you know, some ability to provide a landscape buffer within the lot, but that still gets kind of restricted and landscaped um, out of the gate. So, we do have options to provide a buffer. Like Todd was saying, the exact dimension at this kind of illustrative level of design probably would be unwise to commit to, but certainly um yeah, landscaping and and there would be dimension, you know, don't forget of course to the home with uh rear yard setbacks, things of that that nature. Um so when we talk about buffers there's a distinction between to the lot line to the home there's a lot of room in between there uh where we have options from you know uh easements and things of that nature.

What kind of buffer do you usually put between that kind of you know residential you know area there? What does that look like usually? Uh I'll be honest sometimes none just because it's residential to residential. You know the most common thing we see in other municipalities has to do with type use changes. not necess if it's residential to res residential uh it's probably case specific. How long have have certain residents been there compared to others. Um but yeah, typically like buffer requirements that we see are between different uses, not necessarily residential to residential. Could you possibly when you're doing imp plotting this more keep in mind that they can't put a fence up?

Yes, absolutely. Like I said, um based on like just looking at it because this scale is so large that's a 300 scale drawing,

it looks like a very tight space, but in reality that that is actually, you know, a decent amount of space there. Like I said, I'm using like a little metal scale and it looks to be I would estimate 35 at the moment. So that's kind of why I'm saying Todd, you know, maybe we can agree to 35 with a 15 foot on the lot. things that does seem like we can probably work something out. Um, so I did want to, you know, that's what I was telling him and why he's feeling a little bit more comfortable. Um, and then one other thing I wanted to kind of talk about outside of that rear yard buffer topic um was with regard to the sideyard setbacks. I just want uh when we when we pick a minimum lot size, it is to fit the maximum lot or home width. Um so in the in almost all cases, that's typically the ranch style home is the wider one because obviously you have to fit all the square footage on the first floor. Um and still want it to be big enough and and livable. So that that setback reduction is is for one home or or more than one home, but like the main home it's for is for the ranch. So when you have that variety of home types, they have like six in the core product, maybe five or six. They're all different sizes. So it won't feel like every single home is 10 feet apart. Mhm.

Some will be 10 feet, some some will be 10 feet apart. Most won't because they've got a 28 foot wide, a 30 foot wide, things of that nature. So, it it does vary on um the home. We just set up the the variance to make sure that the ranch fits on the lot, for example. Um, and only one other thing I want to point out as we talk about the the actual property is you do have a pretty decent pinch point right in that central zone. If you can see um the lot numbering on that would be yeah kind of there. Right. If you go kind of north south if you were to draw a line you only have so much dimension. So that 45 ft specifically in that area allows you to give that buffer to those surrounding neighbors, right? So if all those homes had to be 50 feet, for example, where are they going to take that five 10? You know, it starts to you only have so much dimension, you can start to picture, well, I need to use this land. And so it's it kind of does provide you that that ability to give the buffers on the outer edge and keep it a little tighter on the inside. Um, so that was, you know, part of the, I guess, thought process there.

Thank you. Thank you, M. Thank you. So, that was a good point. Can I interject something here? I think we're getting a little bit off topic. I'm I'm growing increasingly concerned that we're deviating from the topic at hand in the fact that I want to offer up that if this was a standard single family subdivision that was 100 foot wide lots or 80 foot wide lots and um you know was platted was you know a subdivision plat was submitted we wouldn't be having this conversation about buffering or other requirements between homes or fence lines or anything like that they could build those homes as as of right without any variances whatsoever. So, I just want to offer that perspective. We're getting I think we're getting a little bit off topic in terms of the requests that are being made here.

Can somebody please at least address the comment about how people are not going to be able to walk on the sidewalks? Sure.

Okay. Um I just wanted one last point with the Matteline brought up about the 10-ft sideyard. That's a very good point. The only time you would have that 20 feet is if we did ranch ranch ranch ranch ranch and LAR is probably one of the anti- monotony hardest. We're harder on ourselves than municipalities are. And we make sure that we follow that as far as we're not building the same house in a row. So we might build a ranch and then next to it it might be something else or it might be reverse lefth hand garage so you have dogs in the house. So you would very seldom have two homes that are 10 feet apart from each other because we have smaller products that will be on the lot next door. As far as the amenities within um the [clears throat] gentleman that spoke about the roads not being a lot of use roads are the sidewalks. These roads will be public. So, the roads are public, the sidewalks are public, unlike the community that he lives in, those are private. So, I personally cannot walk in his community, I'm guessing, and he could have me um removed. Now, the amenities within our community, again, they can use the sidewalks, they can use the streets, that park, if the municipality would like that park to be public, by all means, we'll make it public and then anybody could have access to it. The walking paths within typically the municipality does not want that maintenance. They do not want that liability. So those are typically owned by the HOA. Are we standing out there policing it saying you can't use it? Absolutely not. This comes up in a lot of communities. So it would be private. It would be exclusive to our our residents. I spoke with the gentleman out in the hallway after the plan commission meeting. There might be a way that we could possibly capture the villa since they feel like they're part of that, but to go outside of the boundary and let somebody else in. Again, we're not going to police it, but if there were some sort of analism or some reason they needed to pull that mechanism and say, "This is private. You're not allowed here." That's typically how how it's governed.

Public comments been closed. Now, going back to the buffer again, if you wanted us to commit to that, I'm willing to commit. I just can't commit to 50 ft at this time because we do not know how that's going to lay out. I would say I'm 95% sure. It looks like this road curve is up and we could bring that down a little bit and gain some space there. But to your inquiry about how we develop our buffers, the main benefit of that buffer is that buffer is owned and maintained by the HOA. So that will be mowed and maintained sim simultaneously as all the other outlots. And therefore, if homeowner 35 wanted to mow his grass on Monday and the gentleman next door didn't mow it for two weeks later, you would have different maintenance taking place. And this will all be mowed and maintained at the same time. So it'll be aesthetically pleasing. Um, but I just can't commit to 50 feet, but I can commit to a buffer being being constructed behind his house.

Have any other questions? No. For me, you want to make a motion? Well, just to clarify, I mean, I feel like we negotiated [clears throat] a lot of more stuff in there that than we should have. So, we're just voting on the variance, not Yep. just the three. Oh, they actually cases. Yeah. No, but it is hard and where I take a little bit of issue with the city planner is that these variances do impact our neighbors over here, right? And so we want to be kind to them and make sure that we do have these conversations and and address our concerns, but correct. They're just these three.

So Vicki, you heard that they are that they're willing to condition the approval on a few concessions if you want to accept that. you're c can we clarify what the the concessions there was a lot of stuff going on. Can you clarify what those concessions would be if if this were approved? Sure. So, as you can see, the entire concept plan that is in front of you this evening and it was also submitted as part of the petition shows a buffer uh to the adjacent property owners. I'm willing to [clears throat] commit that we will build that buffer. Are you talking the buffer just around uh [clears throat] Brier Brier Leafly or

I apologize. I know it's clear in my mind. I've been looking at these for years. So [clears throat] between the home sites we're just talking about the the condos, right? Right. Yeah. Are you talking about all of the buffers? Yeah. I'm I'm So we've been here four and a half hours. So let's let's stick to what is on the agenda. Sure. I to your I'm talking about the entire development. Okay. You can see this buffer shown all the way around. All the way around. It butts up to adjacent properties. Either open space or some sort of landscape buffer is what I'm Okay. As shown on the current concept plan. [clears throat] Okay.

So, we can make contingent on that if we wanted to. Pardon me? We could make this approval contingent on that is what the Yeah. I mean, I I would make the the motion to approve the variance of development standards um all three of those and then with your um addition of the buffer zones condition. Yeah. With that condition and and being that that it's contingent on the city council approving the R1D obviously. Yeah, absolutely. And I would I would second that motion and second. All in favor? I I appreciate you very much. Sorry for keeping you guys late. Appreciate it. Looking very forward to becoming partners within your municipality and um looking forward to the next one. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Old business, new business, other business. I'll make a motion to dismiss. [laughter] I second. All in favor? I I Wow.