Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Voting for KCV-2026-4, Bob Gileana, yes. Pam, yes. Jim, yes.

Arvind, yes.

Motion carries 4-0.

Thanks, sir. Thank you. All right, next case, UB-2026-5, Carl and Angel Burglar, 165 West, five meter north, outracing Indiana 46385. This is an R-2 medium density sink family residential district. There's a request to sequence to continue the use variance permitting a small business with an existing accessory structure focusing on softball and baseball screens. Welcome back. Go ahead and tell us.

Yep. Yep. Yep. Thank you. This is our second year of being in operation and continue to enjoy it, continue to love working with these young people and watch them develop in sports. Really, just on our end, all we've received is positive feedback from the people that have been there and enjoy using the facility. Made the decision to invest a little bit more and pave my driveway just because a lot of times, you know, we're busier in the wintertime when there's nowhere to practice outside and that. And so did that just to make it a little bit easier to plow and things like that. But, yeah, no complaints. Enjoying doing it. Would like to keep doing it.

Thank you. So it looks like last time it was approved, the stipulations, no more than 16 cars in the property that are paying guests, no increased lighting, no business-related activities outside of the barn, hours of operation being 5 to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, no signage.

I believe the next approval on his next renewal, keep scrolling down, kept all the same conditions, but added Saturday by appointment only. I believe you see that.

Yeah, everything's still appointment. Yeah, everything's still appointment only. We just, you know, we don't want it to be a business that people just can come and go. We want to know who's there. And we keep operating it that way. So it seems to work well for us. I think the last time we met, initially, the plan was to either approve it for another three or another five years. And I did ask for Saturday. So you guys said, let's just do one more year. But maybe you'd extend it longer this round.

So it's been good for two years. Mm-hmm.

So this wasn't a public hearing. Gotcha. It was a public hearing, but it was just a brief.

Mm-hmm.

Do you have any comments from the board?

No. No, I don't. I think it's all good. I'll take a motion.

I'll take a motion to continue the provisions permitting a small business that focuses on softball and baseball skills.

Time period?

One minute.

You know, he's been, he's come back twice already, and we've gotten zero complaints by anybody there. Maybe we could extend it for three this time. Since it's been two years in a row, it's been just fine.

Does the first include the original condition, or does the motion include the original conditions of approval? Same stipulations.

Same stipulations. All right.

So we got a motion for a three-year, all the same stipulations. We got a second?

Second.

Motion to second.

All right. Thank you, guys.

No, one more. I don't.

Welcome back. Thank you. Everything's the same. Everything's been going great. We haven't had no complaints from anybody. Not keeping traffic backed up or anything. So it's been going great.

How many years has this been in operation?

This is our second year.

This is the second year. And we've had no complaints or anything? No.

Quick question, do you get inspections from the health department since you're mobile?

Yes.

Just surprise inspections or schedule?

Yeah, and then we have our permit with Porter County, plus we have our permits with Lake County for a seasonal. Okay, thank you.

So it looks like last time they were here, they did a two-year conditions. Why do you drive it by 10 feet?

Yep, we did it by 20.

Expiration Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.? Yes, sir. Any more questions or comments from the board? No.

Make a motion to continue with variance for three years. That's been good for two and with all the same stipulations that are on the original.

I have a motion for three years.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? All right, thank you. And I'll be going into new business before we start and read the rules of conduct. There will be public comment tonight. At a public hearing before the board, the petitioner or proponent shall first present the facts and arguments in support of the case. Those who oppose the petitioner shall follow. The petitioner shall have rebuttal time at the conclusion of those opposing the petition. Those opposed shall then be allowed a total maximum of 10 minutes to put any new statements made by the petitioner in this rebuttal. It should be within the discretion of the board to impose any time limitations on either the petitioner or respondent, and to limit public comment to those determined by state statute to be interested parties. Written remonstrances shall be accepted by the board, but need not to be read into the board's record. This thing concludes the public hearing. To maintain orderly procedure, each side shall proceed without interruption by others. All materials presented by the petitioner and or demonstrators or supporters of the petition, including photographs, shall become property of the board and part of the committee. First case we have is UV-2026-6, James Walker, 413 East Partial Way, Valparaiso, Louisiana, 46383, Zone I-2, General Industrial District. They're requesting, they're seeking to renew the use bans permitting the retail sale of radio-controlled hobby items and outside radio-controlled car track.

James?

How you doing? Good, how are you?

We're just looking to continue what we've been doing for the last 15 years. I think we've been Pretty good out there. The one main thing that's happened in the hobby industry for us is the other shop that was in Griffith, that guy had passed away and closed the business. So that brings a little bit more to us. But we're probably the closest hobby shop around for probably 60 miles or so. So, you know, just continue what we're doing. It's an up and down hobby, you know, so you never know what's going to happen. And, you know, we're fighting the Internet. So it's easy to get up from your bed and order something and to come in and see what we have. So we want to continue the racing. We don't do as much as we did probably prior to 2020. Just the whole industry's kind of faded in and out. It's a come and go thing. So it's come back this year. We got six races we're going to schedule to do, and we did one last Saturday, and everything worked out. So no complaints that I know of. We just want to continue another at least five years.

Yep.

Is there anybody here that's here to speak for or against this case? No. Public comment?

I have no issues.

Are they still doing gas engines, or is everything electric now?

It's electric. We get a few guys that may come out and just practice here and there, but we really never did any gas racing. It's hard to get them. Those guys want to have three, four, five hundred people at once, so let somebody else deal with that mess.

So no noise issues? Nah.

Nah.

Right. I think it was on Saturdays or something like that. Right. Yep. Now I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion to renew the variance permitting the retail sales of radio-controlled hobby items and outside radio-controlled car track with all the stipulations from last time for five years.

Is that a second? A second. Motion to second.

Well, like Daryl said, hope you're retired by the next five years.

All right, next up is case number UB-2026-8, Michael Bishop, 27 South 100 West, operation of the Air Force Spirit 5, zone R1, low density, single family residential district. Requests to allow the operation of a cabin.

I would just like to state that this case was done a year ago. So that's why we put the minutes from the last case so you guys can review what was approved.

Should we do the first one, which is dash eight, just to renew the variance, and then we'll do the move to the fence issue?

Yeah, two different motions.

But you can do them together.

Yeah, you can do it together.

Let's just say I have to do two separate motions. So you can call both cases. He can present both cases. We do public hearing for both cases. When public hearing's done and the board's ready for a motion, it's two motions. You guys good with that?

Mm-hmm.

Do I need to read that in? Just read both cases. Or read the next one in so that it's part of the presentation.

So as part of this, I'm also calling in the case number UB LTV-2026-9. Also, Mike Bishop, 27 South, West, 4-6-3-5. This request is to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard. Do you guys want to go ahead and tell us

Yeah, Christie stole most of my speech, so I'll keep it real brief and just give you a little bit more context. So we bought this business back in September of last year. During the due diligence process, we identified that they were operating illegally and not operating under a variance. So my counsel and our bank made a requirement to close that. the last petitioner go and get the variance. So he complied and went and did that as part of the variance. He all required that he put a fence up along one of the property boundaries because one of the neighbors came and spoke. We've spoken with that neighbor several times, but... um so we went to put that fence in and only in that moment did i discover that the variants actually followed the last petitioner after he sold it to us they failed to disclose that to us at all so now that's why we're here trying to get both the use variance and the development variance because we were originally just trying to follow the stipulations that you put in place and the reason that we want the variance on the taller fence is because we live on a country road and people are not very mindful of people living back there and we have three young children and we also have dogs on property so it's a safety concern where exactly is the fence in the front yard It's kind of a side yard. So it would be behind a very large row of bushes and plants and trees and stuff. So frankly, my opinion is it wouldn't even really be very visible. We're just concerned for our kids' safety. And it's a privacy thing, too, because it is an operating business and we live there daily and run our daily lives.

So would this be close to the house or is it closer to the road? Up to the road or is it closer? Both.

So imagine y'all are the road. I'm the house, the fence would be right here.

So the front of your house is what we consider the beginning of your front yard.

Correct.

So you're running down the sides of your lot. The fence is coming in front of the house, the front face of the house. That's technically in your front yard. Correct. Where does the fence stop? Does it then box in?

At the edge of the house, and then it'll just come and touch the house, and then it'll go also on the other side of the house, but in the backyard.

And long enough to cover for the neighbors.

Yeah, yeah. So our idea was to put a long fence along because the last petitioner was just going to throw up a couple wood slats along one of his kennels in the back just to satisfy the requirement. And then we said, let us take over and actually put a legitimate fence in to make the neighbor happy.

So what's the length of the fence going east to west?

East to west would be, I'd have to pull up the map, but it'd be about 200 feet to cover any visibility from the neighborhood to our property.

All six foot high.

Yeah, six foot. And then actually, no, east to west, that would be the front part of our yard. That would actually be, sorry, I had my direction wrong, maybe 80. We've got it. Yeah, we included our plan and the mock-up from the contractor was going to install the fence. I wish I knew off the top of my head. I don't. But it's all behind that large row of bushes.

And this is a cyclone fence?

It would be like a white vinyl fence, just so we have no opportunity for our kids to get their fingers or get anywhere near that road or anything like that. So what you're looking at right there... The large white building that is the closest to me and the house, which is to the left of that white building, that is the side slash front yard. And that's that we would fence that in essentially.

And then the long fence to like the field because the neighbor's yard goes all the way back to.

Exactly. So we would run the long one to satisfy the condition along the back there.

They just didn't want their dogs to bark when they see our dogs because walk dogs on the trail.

No, we've got nothing.

It's been running very smoothly on our end. Yeah, yeah. Yes, fair enough. I think it's been going very smoothly on our end. We've had a lot of positive reviews and a lot of very happy people in the community. And we've also gone out of our way to make good connections and relationships with our neighbors, all of whom have reported to us that they're glad. Let's just keep it simple and say they're glad we took over and we're there now.

But it's a lot of fun.

So there's no change in operations. It is a training center or was it?

It's the same thing. Yeah. So technically it has to be classified as a kennel, but it's a, it's a training and behavior modification facility.

So are you boarding dogs there or no?

Yes.

Yeah.

We do board and trains.

How many are boarded at any given time?

Just depends. 10 to 24.

It depends on the month. It really varies. And that's, that's been ongoing. Yeah. Ongoing for a long time now. We only board dogs that have been trained by us.

Let's go ahead and do public comment, and if there's any more questions, we'll go to that. Is there anybody here that's here to speak for or against this in regards to the use of variance? Is there anybody? So we're going to do public comment for the use of variance. Any more comments or questions from the board? I believe the last time we did a prove it, the only stipulation was that they didn't put a fence up. People need to stop and see them.

We're good with that.

We did it for one year. If there's no other comments or questions from the board, I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion to allow the operation of the kennel. Maybe this one we can go for two years since it has been in operation for some time, plus there was an owner previously that ran the same operation.

with the same stipulation.

I'll second that.

Motion and a second for two years. Same stipulation.

Give us an extra one.

Thank you.

2026-8. Bob Gilliana, yes. Sam, yes. Arvid, yes. Jess, yes.

Those in favor?

As far as?

For the business. As far as dv-360. 2026-9, we allow all events to open up public comment. So that is everybody here that wishes to speak for this case. Any amount of post-public comment? comments or questions from the board?

No. Is this, we're on a case of offense? Yes.

Yes.

I'd like to see exactly where it goes. Could you, could you? Can I go up here and point at it? Exactly where it's going to be placed.

Yeah, so this is our property right here. Originally, the last petitioner was planning on just putting some wood panels up right here because this is an outside run area. And I think it was this neighbor who requested it. So really, it's this that is a problem because we use all of this. You can see the trail coming through here to walk our dogs. And this is where their dogs would start yapping. So our intention was to just go above and beyond and put a fence all here, but then simultaneously to, like I said, establish some privacy and keep our children safe. We would go here, here, here. So it's all relatively hidden. I don't know if you can see it. It's here, but there's a lot of tree and bush that hide all the distance. It's pretty hard to find them just about anywhere else.

Okay.

it's coming out towards the road in the front of the house a little bit behind the lilac just a little bit probably about here if i had to guess about 20 feet is a fair assessment 15 to 20 feet yeah and all the way to your property line south this this way just stop a little bit shy of the property line because there's just shrubbery and stuff here because the farmer does use this to get back

Yeah, once you pass the front axis of the house, that's front yaw.

So he's allowed from the...

He's allowed to start a fence here, go all the way back, come all the way back to roughly here, not be in front of the house. The issue is when the fence does this. This portion.

Yeah, as I understand it, it's kind of like the front half of the house is where it's considered front yard.

I don't think anybody would ever come to our property and say, that's your front yard. That would be our side yard, but.

For varying purposes, it's that thing.

Yeah, for our purposes, when you draw this line right here, front yard, side yard.

Yeah.

At some point, there's a definition, and that's where that is.

Right. I think it's the smaller building. That's the house. That's an outbuilding. That's like a repurposed barn.

Yeah, that's the training facility.

Yeah.

That's the house, right? No.

Nope. Yep, that's the house. Correct. Yes. Yes.

The front of the house.

That fence could come to roughly here without a variance. It's when we cross this plane, that's when we get it to. The height restriction or just a total restriction, I think front yard limited to four feet without variance. So it's six feet from the house back, the front of the house, in front of the house is four foot.

So this overhead drawing we have on page six with the blue line, that's showing where the entire fence will be placed?

Would you remind me? Could you hold that?

I'm not seeing a blue line.

That just looks like a property line. That's green. That's blue. Yeah, that's actually what you're looking at right there. It's just two separate parcels. So this squared one right here, for some reason, at some point in the past, they separated the property into two parcels. So one is the house and one is the rest of it. But I did submit, I don't know if you have it, but I did submit some paperwork that showed exactly where those two parcels are. As you can see, that's one second straight. That's not good.

Is this it?

Yeah, that's correct. So that would be the house. It's an estimate. It's by a contractor. So this structure here is the house, and then you add this piece of wood. That's kind of how it lays out. Where's the road?

Right here. So this is the front of the house?

Correct.

And then this right here is their version, that bigger barn that you're pointing at. That's the house.

So this has roughly 50 feet in front of the house, correct?

I don't know what that number is. It's certainly not. I don't know if she was estimating this portion of the house as 50, but it's about enough to fit in eight, and then a couple of times per side.

50 inches, that is.

So that would be this one? No, it's this one. The road would be that one. That's it.

Yeah, because there's a spot right there that our children use a lot on that side of the house.

It's a sunroom that has become their playroom, and they dominate that, and that's kind of the only access out into the side of the yard. So we kind of need to connect there, or else we're going outside and defeating the purpose of keeping them safe from running into the yard or a dog in the business seeing them and charging them or something like that.

The regulations now are four feet in front, correct? Yes. I really don't like the idea of a fence at all in the front, but yeah, I think six foot's too much over here.

Yeah. Any other comments? I'm not excited about six foot in front of the house.

It would be behind 10 feet of lilacs, like the lilacs are 10 feet tall. So you wouldn't even really see it. But I understand.

Yeah, we could do that.

We just figured we'd seek the six because we have two growing boys who like to climb stuff, and we also have dogs who can jump pretty high. So if we could get it, we could get it.

It's not ever okay to front yard fence to be six foot tall.

It would have been a unique circumstance.

Right. I don't remember that at all. I mean, all the other fences by the separate front, I think it's just too tall.

And again, to be clear, you can go all the way to the front of the house. So is the sunroom not accessible to the fence? Is the sunroom on the side or the back?

Yeah, it's off the back. I suppose we could just bump it right up against that door right there, yeah. But that door, excuse me, the sunroom where we might be able to watch them from or her mother-in-law, my mom, who watches our children, would be able to see them from if they're in the yard would be fully blocked off.

All right, so what you're saying is if you motion to deny, it's not as if you're taking away their ability to go get a permit for anything four foot or less. You were denying the portion that would be six foot in the front yard. The rest of the fence doesn't need a barrier loop, so. That's what the board decided. If that's what the board decided. Right.

Where is it allowed to go? I'm confused on where.

As soon as it hits that front part, it has to drop to four. Basically, the front corner of the center, or like mid-sunroom.

Okay. It can be six foot right up to the front plane of the house, and it's either going to stop or drop to four.

So just like the one that goes along the road? Or is it where it is on the house?

It's two-sided.

Okay.

Four foot.

Okay.

Four foot, four foot.

Got it.

Six, six.

So going past the house is where you then cross the boundary. Okay.

Right. Any other questions, comments? Maintain motion.

make a motion to deny this six foot fence only in the in the front yard area the rest of the fence is always fine the motion to deny case 2026 action correct that's second got a second

Wait. We're good. Okay. Yes is to agree with me.

Right, right, right. That's it? Yeah. Oh, gotcha.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next case is SE-2026-18, Victory Christian Academy, Kevin Boros, with the Associates, 60 North, 22nd

I am he. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Kevin Coros. I'm with McMahon Associates, 952 South State Road 2, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Here representing Victory Christian, here I have Tracy Banker and Kevin Kegeman, who are representatives of the school. What we're here to do is ask you guys for septic and well approval for use on the site. These guys have been in operation utilizing septic and well since they began in 1995? Yeah. Approximately. If you guys have looked at our submittal projects, I offered engineers opinion on probable costs, showing the significant cost difference between having to install sanitary sewer and well systems from points of connection, which would be Valparaiso City Utilities, which is over Sanitary wise on, forgive me, I forget the name of the road that's directly west of Sparks road. I believe it is. And then water systems being located on. The very southern edge of 325, they're still 3000 feet away. So we saw for recommendation approval back in April. 23rd, I believe they recommended favorable opinion to you guys. I am here to answer any questions you guys might have. Soil Solutions is currently preparing a new septic system for submittal to, and I believe already has been submitted to Indiana Department of Health right now and is in review. I have also been in touch with Indiana Department of Environmental Management Water Division to verify if they had any issues with Uh, the well systems, the well is again existing on site. There would be 0 change to that. Well, they're aware of that. They have no problems with that. And I do believe that the school board actually sends. Quarterly statements to items for the quality management of that as well. So because we're going through a building addition on the west portion of the existing school, this is an institutional zone, the property that kicks us into being required to utilize municipal systems. Again, opinion and probable cost shows a significant difference. price difference between an existing well obviously and having to extend water system up and the existing septic system being replaced even with the three new presby systems that are being designed versus the improvements to run sanitary over a mile to get to the site so as you can imagine that's a pretty significant cost difference so We're here to ask or answer any questions you guys might have, but that is everything in a nutshell.

With that, I'll open up a panel. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this case? Go ahead and come on up to the microphone. Please state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Robert Nichols. I live at 352 North, 325 East. I actually bought up to their property, the south side of their property next to their soccer field. I'm against it for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons I've had issues for the past 14 years that I've lived there with kids prior to them putting a fence up in my backyard before I thread the suit, using it as a bathroom, using it as a garbage can, using it as a practice field. I've talked to multiple staff members during recess and even the principal multiple times. The multiple principals over the years, I was always advised that they would handle it, they would address the issue. It's never been addressed. Now they want to get more kids that are being supervised and watched, and that's the reason why I'm against it.

Thank you.

Anybody else speak for or against? We have a closed public comment.

That's fine.

That's fine. You want to speak specific to this case? Okay, go ahead and come on up. Please state your name and address in the microphone.

My name is Nelson Schoon. I live at 352 Deerfield Road, and I am on the south side, first house to west. You'll see that house that's right up against the woods there. but that's where I live. I know that this kind of shaded area in the very back of their property in the middle is a mountain system, correct?

Yeah, I can answer.

Ask your questions to the board. Ask your questions to the board, and you can answer it. Okay. And so my question is, if they're talking about expanding the home system, are they putting in some other type of system? What do they intend to do?

Thank you. Anybody else speak for or against? Go ahead and come on up. Same thing. Please state your name, address for the record.

Brian Stajak, 371 North, 325 East. I'm actually right across the road from that. My issue with this traffic right now with this school as it is, is bad enough. And they're

drivers aren't exactly going up the speed limit or anything like that.

So for them to add on additional kids, it's just a traffic nightmare and an issue of wait and tap. Thank you.

Anybody else? Yes, sir. Come on up, please. Say your name and address for the record. You can use that microphone right there.

Scott Stafford. I own the property at 341

Scott Stafford.

I own the property at 349 Deerfield Road. It's directly south of the school. I'm against it also. They don't police themselves. There's constantly garbage, lacrosse balls, any kind of sporting... equipment on my property that I run over with lawnmower constantly. They just don't police themselves. I've even had their bleacher benches in the middle of my property that I've had to move. So again, I'm against it also. Thanks.

Anybody else or guests?

sure so yeah obviously what we're hearing is and due to items that are certainly not related to what we're here to ask you guys today which is for the septic and well approval use of the site that being said the constituents of the property are here. They are hearing this, and I am sure they are taking this public comment into consideration in the overall running of the site here now. To address the one question that is why we are here tonight, which is, There is indeed an existing mountain that is there on the property now. It is being replaced by three presby septic systems, two to the north of it, one to the south of it, still all being in the northwest quarter of the property area. There will be one system that will be slightly south of the existing one. But yes, that one is being discharged and is being rebuilt as part of these three new septic systems to bring the whole site up to code.

And the septic systems, it's not like that's something you just do?

So actually, yeah, IDO, Indiana Department of Health actually dictates how we have to approve that. So there is some approval on the county's health side. I'm sorry, Scott. No, go right ahead. But IDO is the one that actually dictates the approval on that itself. So that all has to get approved on their side and in correlation with IDEM as well.

On a commercial septic, the state is much more involved than the county. On a residential septic, it's a county issue. When you get to a commercial size, there's much more state intervention than there is on the residential.

And with this being zoned institutional, it's treated very much on the commercial side of things. Correct.

It has to be.

It's a special exception based upon the fact that they don't have available...

City Service.

Correct.

And to be clear, we are still in the process. And Mr. Jabo and Ms. Hale can also attest to, you know, we are still in the process of getting approved through their side on drainage and on the Planning Commission. In terms of traffic, there will be a new dedicated right-of-way that's being added that won't help the immediate needs of the traffic, of course, but that extra right-of-way will be dedicated to the county so that if roadway improvements ever do get finalized in the future, that room is there for them to expand that road appropriately and as such. But even more and above, again, we still will be back, I believe, to the Planning Commission ultimately for the approval of this.

I don't know if it's a final, it will be a DRC.

But we are still being reviewed and have to still be internally approved at least on the county side, if not by public approval.

Correct.

Correct, correct. It is strictly the allowance of well and septic.

Any other questions, comments from the board? I'm just curious, what is the current enrollment and with the new addition, what is anticipated?

I'll let you answer that if you'd like to address that. As well as ages.

Ages, okay. Here, come on. You want me to come up here? Yeah, you can sit right here. My name is Tracy Banker. I'm the board chair over at Victor Christian Academy. I've been in this role for about a year and a half. And we are currently at 387 students. And in that building, we are, well, let me take that back. We are 387 students preschool through 12th grade. Our preschool through fourth grade is located at a different campus. So on this property, we are fifth grade through 12th grade. And we have 188 students approximately in that building. Does that answer your full question? And what do you anticipate? Oh, with the new addition, we are currently growing. We are double tracking our students. So our current fourth grade class has two sections each. So next year we would have, we would add 25 students to the north campus. And then the following year, another class of students as well. So total on that campus, I think we're looking at I'd have to add the math. I think another 100 and some 120, something like that to that campus without consolidating.

Another 120 in addition to the 188 you currently have?

Yeah, it would be 25 times fifth, sixth, seventh. Yeah. So.

That was not.

It would be in about sixth.

Was that this campus though?

No, overall.

Yeah, that's overall, not this campus. Campus. Just this one.

Yeah. I think we were looking at, I'm not sure on the numbers, because I have it all in my head for both campuses. But yeah, we're at 188. We will grow 25 a class until those kids reach 12th grade.

So over 200, well, well over 200. Okay.

Yeah.

For me.

Any other questions? Your soil borings are over three years old. Is that an issue for permits?

No, not unless IDO came back and said so. But to my knowledge, Soil Solutions did receive the first round of comments from IDO, none of which were about the soil borings. Soil classifications don't change much over a short period of three to five to 10 years, really.

Okay.

Questions? Comments?

Just so I'm clear, the neighbors who have issues, this is not the forum for them to address it. at this moment in time, is that correct?

Correct.

All right, thank you.

All right, if there are no comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to allow the septic and well for the proposed addition school at the Christian Academy.

Motion, do I have a second?

Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

All right. Next case is UD-2026-20, Indiana Steel Carriers, Incorporated, care of Matthew DeBatts, located at 447 North Polk State Road 2, operation Indiana 46383. It's a rural residential district. This request is to allow trailer sales and outdoors.

I'm Matthew DeBatts, President of Operations for the family companies, 447 North Old State Road 2, and the ASCO carriers.

Go ahead and tell us what you're looking to do.

Yep, so we're just looking to get the business variants so we could be able to sell trailers to ourselves as well as Cisco Foods. We have multiple terminals across the country. By allowing this variant so we could purchase our own trailers, it will save us a ton of money and allow us to hire more people inside of the county. On average, we pay 24%, but 30% more than industry standards for employees.

Is that it?

Yes, sir.

All right. We have a public comment. Anybody here to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'll post up a comment. Questions, comments, any comments?

The trailers that you're going to have on site, are they like display models or you just order them?

So we just order them. We're going to be selling them to ourselves as well as Cisco. So the majority of the trailers will be drop shipped to another terminal. We also have a DOD contractor. They're looking to have us add additional trailers across different bases as well as find a location here in Porter County for warehousing. So our goal is to be able to sell us our own. trailers. So it may add three, three to four trailers at any given time to the property that's already being used for an industrial truck terminal.

So all different kinds of trailers, refrigerated flatbeds?

Just flatbeds and refrigerated trailers once Cisco needs them. Primarily flatbed though.

What length of time, I guess I'll phrase it this way, what kind of inventory turnover or how long will the trailer be on site on average?

I would say two to four months, if that. We typically get the trailers rolling right away because as they sit, they incur expenses. So worst case scenario, four months. But I highly doubt that we just purchased two additional trailers two weeks ago. They were out within two days. Okay.

And if I read your drawing right, they're going to be stored way in that?

Yeah, and you can't see them if you've been down Old State Road 2. The only time you'd be able to see that part is when there's no leaves.

What's on this property now?

It's a trucking terminal, so there's semis there currently in trailers.

What does that mean, trucking terminal?

So a trucking terminal is a place where you park and store trucks, where drivers can get into them and move them somewhere else. Yeah, pretty much, yeah.

Really? There's no dispatching or anything going on from there?

We do, yeah. We have a whole office staff. We have locations in that building as well as Chicago and Laredo, Texas.

Okay.

But the staff is obviously housed inside the building.

All right.

It's been an industrial truck terminal in your guys' records for the past 20 years and was actually missed on rezoning.

It was Young's Brothers.

Any other questions?

I don't like the whole thing being there. It's his own rural residential. They're running a trucking company out of it now.

It's been that way for 20 plus years.

We may have to do some research to figure out. So moving forward, just so I'm clear, if this was approved, you would be allowed to sell trailers and have some outdoor storage?

We already have outside storage based on how it's listed. I mean, it'd be three trailers, you know, three to six trailers. We're selling them to ourselves. We're not selling them to customers. We've become a MAG authorized dealer, which would say it was 30% to 40% per trailer. And it's operated as an industrial truck terminal for 20 years.

And I'm not arguing that it wasn't. I'm just trying to piece together what would be the best thing to do at this point. But the trucking business that you are running would continue to operate. Yes. Do we believe we need an additional variance for that, for the use of it from that? Because that's not the same as trailer sale.

Yeah, that's kind of what it feels like. What even triggered this use variance? What even triggered the fear?

I think what Christy shared was that They came for a zoning verification.

That's not correct. Then you tell us. Yes, I put in a license application with the state of Indiana. They had to verify it with Port County.

Okay, so that's zoning verification, not from him, from the state. We came back and say whatever we said, rural residential, we verified it. And so then that is what eventually got in here. But I'm still stuck at if... We may have a genuine issue where this has existed. We updated the UDO. We updated and this got missed. And in that 20-year time period, that's not impossible. I mean, if it's going to happen, this would be that timely. But I think I think we need to figure that out first to see what, you know, if in fact this has been here this long, and I have no reason to disagree with, as I sit here with you, we can figure that out. And if it's been there, then we need to kind of figure out the underlying zoning first. And if in fact what he believes clearly to have occurred, then... He's got a legal trucking business and he's asking for an additional relief to have some trailer sales and some outside storage. And that plays differently than at the beginning of what are we doing here tonight? Is it to approve the trucking business and the inside? Because it's only clued up for the trailer sales.

Industrial truck terminals, the industry standard is they sell trailers to themselves. I mean, it's a pretty normal thing in the industry. But nothing would change the way it's been used for the past 20 years. It's just a lot of ourselves.

And to his point, if the underlying zoning was fine and the business changed and they became their own dealers, then most people, you just add that to the already existing permitted uses in your zone. This got caught up because when he was going through that at some point, he got the zoning verification. It's underlying zoning isn't recorded correctly or it is correct, whatever that case may be. So now whatever he goes to do, he's going to be buried because the underlying issue may not be correct. So. I may not be making it clear enough to make it clear, but ultimately I think we have to go back and figure out the original.

I think it sounds like we need to continue. Yeah, I was just going to ask you. Yeah, we can continue. What is in our best interest right now to do it? Does that give us enough time?

Yeah, and yeah, I don't think we have much of a choice at this stage. Because ultimately, if he's correct, then we're going to go back and amend what we need to amend and then have this before us properly.

Yeah, Christy and I are looking at a map from 83, and it looks like in that general area there is a triangle that is zoned to I1.

So, I mean, we have a crumb trail that we need to go down.

Yeah, we just need more information.

I'll make the motion for a continuous. I'll second.

I'll second.

Oh, yeah. What's the time? Okay, for the next agenda.

There's no way this could be dealt with today. I don't have another month with the DOD reaching out and wanting us to start ramping this up. I've already waited two months.

Sounds like no.

It's listed on the assessor site as industrial truck terminal. So why is that if it can't be used as much?

Well, the assessing, what classification of assessing is it matching zoning?

It's not the same thing. No, it isn't.

So you could have a residential zoned property with a residential house on it. You'll be in a different assessing bracket than you would be if that residential zoned property had no home on it.

Correct.

Underlying zoning would look the same, but the assessing would look different. You're in a situation where your underlying zoning doesn't match what the building is, so the assessing goes to the building, not with the underlying zoning.

As I was told, the usage, as long as the usage didn't change, it was fine.

I'm not telling you you have to close. Okay.

I said motion and second.

Well, before we continue, have we opened the public hearing on this matter? I don't think we have. We've advertised it. If people are here, we should allow them to speak while they're here.

I might have. I don't remember the answer. I think I did, but again, I'll public comment is now open for this case. I have a question. You got to come up, state your name and address, please, and please ask your question.

Mike Curley, 405 Deep Draw Drive. I was just wondering, would it be possible to just show the tax record to show what it's zoned as based on the taxes to clarify his statement?

If he's right, using the tax record as what it's zoned for.

That's all. Any other public comment? Public comment is closed.

the tax record is not going to reflect the zone. The tax record is going to reflect the type of building and use and the associated assessing bracket that goes with it.

I do have a proper motion and a second to continue. You can do it, Cole.

Okay. Or you can do a voice vote.

Any more discussion on this? No. All in favor? Aye. continue.

One month.

Alright, last case. Just three separate ones. KCDB-2026-25, UB-2026-26, and SD-2026-22. Applicant is NextEra Energy Transmission in Mid-Atlantic. Located at the northwest corner of County Road 125 West and County Road 1050 North in Chesterton, Indiana, 46304. Zone I-1, Life Industrial District. They are seeking to construct a 6,000 square square house with office space buried in the following. ... ... ... ... ... ... Tell us why you're here, what you've been doing, and please be specific exactly what you're looking for. Sure. Looks like there might be a few folks in here that are interested in your perspective.

Yeah. Good evening. My name is Sean Shortell. I'm the Director of Development for Nextera Energy Transmission Mid-Atlantic, or NEMA.

Matt Newman. I'm a legal counselor from Denton's.

And Dan, you're a civil engineer with a point.

So if it's okay with the board, I have a brief presentation and I'd like to just run through it, explain what we're trying to do. Okay, thank you very much. So as I mentioned, I'm here on behalf of Nextera Energy Transmission Mid-Atlantic. We are a subsidiary of Nextera Energy Transmission, a national transmission builder, owner, and operator. So tonight we'd like to provide you a quick overview of what we're proposing to do. the location, the purpose and its need, how the project will be used and the timing, conceptual site plan, and then the applications that we have before you. At the top, I'd like to note that after several meaningful discussions with county staff, we have decided to withdraw our development standards application for a sidewalk variance. We are going to include sidewalks in our build. of the site, so that is one of the first items, I believe, on the agenda. And we understand how important it is for the future development at this location, and we are going to go ahead and include that in our proposed project. So I just wanted to say that at the top, so we can get a little deeper into that later on. So as I mentioned, Nextera Energy Transmission is a national transmission company. We operate in 19 states and Canada. We have over 3,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines that we manage and operate, including an asset here in Indiana that starts in Lake County on the Illinois border and runs east into Porter County. This project is a 20-mile 345 KV transmission line that was rebuilt by Nextera Energy Transmission Mid-Atlantic in 2023. And we now need to have an operations and maintenance storage facility near the site of that transmission line. So what we are proposing to build is just that, an operations and maintenance storage facility to serve the transmission line. And the site location is approximately seven miles from the northern terminus of the transmission line. This is the proposed site. We are hoping to build this operations and maintenance storage facility. It's a 15-acre parcel located at the corner of 1050 North and Mineral Springs Road in Chesterton. NEPMA acquired this parcel in late 2024. So this is the proposed facility rendering from the southwest corner. This is a 6,000 square foot warehouse that would be used for equipment storage. This is going to include landscaping to provide some visual screening. It's important to note what this facility is not. This is not a generation site. It is not a solar site. It is not a wind site. It is not a gas generation site. It is not a site for battery storage. It is not a site for future data center or other commercial or industrial development. And it's not associated with any other Nextera projects past, present, or in the future in Porter County. One of the reasons this proposed project is needed is because NEPMA has a mandate from the North American Electric Reliability Council, or NERC, to maintain on-site spares in the event of an emergency. That's exactly what this warehouse storage facility is planning to do, store the spares that we are mandated to have in sight in the event of an equipment failure or emergency. So this site, this is again a rendering from the southeast corner of the property. And we are going to be, as I mentioned, using this for the ongoing maintenance and operations of the transmission line. It's a secure location to respond quickly to any maintenance or emerging needs. We're going to work with the county. As I mentioned, we're going to have sidewalks installed to support future development. We can add, as needed, additional screening to support visual mitigation at the site. We're going to work with the county on a road use agreement for the delivery of the spare equipment that I mentioned. And just to reiterate, there's no future development for solar, battery, et cetera, at this site. Just to give you an example, we have a similar facility in Western New York, and this is what the poles or structures look like. They come in typically three sections, and they're laid end to end in the back of the warehouse. There will not be regular daily traffic or activity. There will be certainly a delivery of this material, but once it's there, it's there until it's needed. Moving on to project timing, as I mentioned, we acquired the parcel in 24. We began the county permitting process late last year. We're hoping to break ground in Q3 of 26 with completion in Q1 of 27. And the first deliveries that I referenced will not be coming until probably Q2 of 27. For the site plan, as I mentioned, it's a 15-acre parcel, and we are going to take up roughly one-third of that site. As you can see here, we have the 6,000-square-foot warehouse building and an adjacent parking lot, and the balance of the area that we're developing will be the outdoor storage. Here are some elevations. This is a low-profile, pre-engineered manufactured warehouse. and we'll be storing what we can inside. There will be an office at this site, but there will not be a daily personnel activity, not like a high volume of cars in and out. In fact, many days of the week, it may not have anybody there. So here are the applications we have before the county. As I mentioned, the first one, the pedestrian network and sidewalks, we are withdrawing the request for relief on this, and we will install that with the construction of this project during the construction process. We're also asking for an ability to build an eight-foot fence around the perimeter for safety and security. This is needed because we'll have, again, spare equipment in the yard. Landscaping, we would like to have a buffer to adequately match the length of the warehouse and the storage facility footprint. That's within development standards. Moving on to use variance. Clearly, we'll need outdoor storage. The poles and the reels that we're planning to deliver to this site cannot fit inside a 6,000 square foot warehouse. So we're requesting a use variance to store this equipment outside, and we'll include that with visual screening. And then the final application before you is for sewer, or sorry, septic and well on site. There's no sewer water serving this location. Finally, I just want to note that we operate throughout the country. One of our core principles is operating as a good neighbor. So we interact with thousands of landowners all the time. We've got 3,000 miles of transmission lines. This comes with the territory. So everything that we put forward, everything that we build, we do it with the public and our neighbors in mind. And we want to be collaborative as we work through the process with the county to make sure that the final outcome is something that works for everybody. So appreciate your time and consideration tonight. As I stated at the top, this is solely related to the operations and maintenance of an existing transmission line. We are not building another transmission line. We're not building solar. We're not building battery storage. This is operations and maintenance of an existing transmission line. So appreciate everybody's time tonight.

I'm gonna go ahead and open up a comment. Anybody who's for or against the address for the record, and just before we get started, if you wanna come up and go ahead and say, with everything already being said. That's fine. Go ahead and say that just out of respect for everybody's time. We don't need everyone repeating stuff over and over in the same way as the previous comments. Looks like this gentleman here. Please state your name. My name is Larry Wright.

I live at 606 Castro Street in Albrazo. I do own the 52 acres that would be the solid base of this building here. And I... I'm a developer. I have a great respect for residential properties. I put in Westwood Manor a few years, 20 years ago, put in Saddlewood, Sprintdale not too long ago, and there's some out of Liberty Township. So I understand the challenges of developing land. This particular area has got a serious problem with water drainage. It is wet. Cattails and things are on this land, so... That's a problem. We don't have a legal drain to a service itself. I respect the fact that we need to be sensitive to energy requirements, and I'm sure that there's quite a company that does the right thing here. My concern here is I'm basically but overall opposed to this facility at this location. It's a mystery. This is surrounded by My residential properties, my subdivisions, I've got a couple of them myself. The biggest problem for a developer is drainage. The idea that they don't want to put in a, I don't know, sodas or water sodas is kind of a cheap way out, to be honest. So, my interest in this is, at some point in time, we'll see if they're left with that yellow box. That's part of it. It's 52 inches right there. So my vision is that that would be a subdivision someday. It would be a nice one. So we've got a nice residential apartment zone already. I actually am the guy that sold the Brassy Golf Course land in the middle of the golf course 20 years ago. So this is a misfit. for this location. It's surrounded by some quality sub-districts, some of which I've been in, others are in other states and other things. So this does not belong there. It's a, we have a desperate need for residential properties. We actually were working on this several years ago. and that's how the Cheshire was willing to service that, the sanitary service. We couldn't get these material surges. So control of surface water is critical for any development, whether it's a subdivision or a warehouse. So to put in parking lots and outside storage, number one, is extremely unattractive. This doesn't belong to this location. It's the wrong location for that. We need to be rather sensitive to the great need for residential properties. This would best be used, the best use of this project would be for that along with us. And 53% of the joint. So that's my concern. I'm basically, the variance is I understand, but I oppose the project in a general sense.

Thank you. Anybody else speak? Yes, sir. Just for the record, please.

Hello, my name is Spencer Smith. I live at 225 West 1050 North. I'm exactly one mile from this proposed site. I live there full time. I spend every dime that I have buying my property. I don't want to look at whatever they're trying to build. I've looked up your company. You're based out of Florida. You're not good. Morgan Township tried to sneak in a solar outfit. That's why you mentioned multiple times that you're not doing that. But I'm really concerned with these people. Also, I don't know why you're building lines here for Illinois when there's a whole group that you could build things from that are not in the middle of a farm field that, like you said, is flooded four months out of the year. It's going to be really hard to park trucks in heavy loads. And if you're claiming that you're going to fill it with soil, I would love to know what you're putting in my ground because I'm growing an orchard of my own. So I'm worried about all the chemical leachate. I'm worried about your well. I'm worried about your eight foot tall wall slash fence directly on the corner of a rather busy intersection. 1050 is increasing in traffic constantly. I've been there for about four years. They built a data center as soon as I moved in. Thanks, guys. The traffic is unbearable already. We have a gravel pit right at the corner of the next road over to 149. There's heavy trucks going up and down that road all day. The road is destroyed. I go to the Chesterton meetings biweekly, and they have no money for roads. So the idea of inviting a Florida company to drive big trucks with heavy loads to destroy my road that I have to... I'm wondering what kind of tax abatements they also give because they're an electrical company. I don't believe in good neighbor policy. I live a mile away, so he probably drove by my house. I'm your neighbor. I've never met you. So I work really hard, and I would really like to protect my property from all kinds of threats and invasions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else?

My name is Tim Chenoweth. I live at 155 West, 1050 North, which would be two doors down from where they want to propose this site. Like the first gentleman said, our watershed problem is terrible. We're underwater most of the spring. Another thing is we have wells. We don't have fresh water running through our properties where we could tap off of. worried about the leaching running off the equipment, all the wiring into the ground. And we have to drink that. That's a huge concern of mine. You never know anymore what pesticides are being put in the ground by farmers. That's a concern. And now we have a company like this going in with a large area of storage outside. And the leaching problem with chemicals into the ground I'm totally against. Plus, like the first gentleman said, it's unsightly. We have beautiful homes there. Our neighbors are right next door to the east. Beautiful home, which would be their neighbor. I'm just totally against it.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Please come up and state your name and address for the record, please.

Matt Carmichael, I live at 155 West, 1050 North. It's right where 150 T's and a 10's is the White Farmhouse. Back in 2018, I petitioned for a variance to put up an outdoor structure on my residence, and I was given a very hard time about having any type of business out of my residence because they want, I was quoted, wanted to maintain those properties in there as residential and burning more residential in. I feel that's also a very bad fit for that location of a warehouse. And to his point of leaching, As you guys stated, as storage, I'm assuming you're also including high-tension power equipment like transformers and what the chemicals are inside them. They are also hazardous to humans, and so groundwater is a major concern. heavy trucks down the roadway. And I know the heavy trucks through the gravel pit, stuff like that, are dump trucks, but these guys are going to be semis and trailers and heavy loads, not just above and beyond the dump trucks themselves. And I think there'll be open appointments for the roadways. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak before guests? Name and address for the record, please.

Evelyn Caminas, 1087 Pearson Road. First of all, they don't seem to know where they're located. They said Monroe Springs Road and 1050. And then they also said Pearson Road and 1050. So I'm kind of confused where this is located. Also, in the variance, I think it said northwest corner, talking about the southeast corner. So once again, where is this located? And it is correct, Mr. Smith commented, 1050 is extremely busy, extremely. And it keeps getting busier and busier. So to have an eight-foot fence would be very dangerous, I think. Also a concern, once again, there is a lot of water. They didn't comment about how they're draining anything. There is a big drainage problem. And it's a very residential area. FASC was, they are considering and have been considering putting in a subdivision. They've been working on this with Chesterton. And it's always... On the other side of the road, the Brassy, we have a very small little subdivision, I guess, or neighborhood. And there's only about seven houses, one less because one burned down. But... That's all there is. We've been there for 50 years, and we are always totally ignored. It is so quiet. You can hear the tow road, which is a half-mile away. And that's about it, except for one neighbor dog that barks once in a while. It is totally quiet. We have so much traffic. We don't need any more trucks going down our road because, like Mr. Smith said, part of our road is county, part of it is Chesterton, and neither one has any money to fix the road. I think I covered everything. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Come on up. Name and address for the record, please.

Hi, I'm Richard. I live 1,000 more north than 200 west, probably a mile and a half, maybe, or so. Maybe a mile. That's a crow fly. Is that too far? I've lived there for over 15 years. That area's always been a residential, beautiful area. This is not. I'm completely in line with the first five people that came up here and spoke. It's a beautiful residential area. It is a misfit for the area. The traffic on the corner of that intersection, again, it's getting busier and busier each year. It's definitely concerned with an eight foot high fence. We just denied someone from putting a six foot fence over some dogs in their yard. And we can't, we're gonna put an eight foot fence. It's very concerning. I'm also concerned about the water usage for a commercial property or an industrial property. Most of us in the area have well water. We need that well to take baths, showers, cook. We need quality well water. They're using and consuming a lot of water in the water table in the area. I'm very concerned about that. I don't even know how this got zoned for industrial in the first place, in the middle of this residential area surrounded by homes.

It just blows my mind.

And as I believe it was this last gentleman who spoke about electrical equipment, that's kind of my background. I know a little bit about that. In fact, you've got two degrees from Turkey, but I'll speak for that as well. Most transmission equipment uses transformers. That's how they bring the high voltage down to a lower voltage that's used in our homes. And most of those transformers are cooled by oil. We can't have that oil leaking into our well water. I mean, the other beach, I'm concerned about all these things. And I hope that this board is taking all those things into consideration. And I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak for it as long as it's something new? Yeah, it's okay. I just say I agree with everything. Thank you.

John Regal, 1560 Lotwage Lane. It's not quite new, but I'll be quick. It just seemed like with your other picture, we had a bunch of yellows surrounding the spot.

So it seemed like a pretty good definition of spot zoning, which is not supposed to happen. So I live in Dockwood State, so I'm nearby, too. So, yeah, that's the main idea. It just doesn't seem appropriate right here.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Serena Hurd. I live at 1001 North 200 West. We are 0.9 miles away as the curve lies. I actually just have one question for you guys. And I'm curious as to when exactly that property was rezoned as light industrial. It's been farmland for as long as I've lived here, which is a lot less time than my husband. So I'm just curious as to... when it was rezoned, as well as the property adjacent to it was rezoned to industrial also, when it was done, and why. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, just please restate your name. Is there anyone else? Restate your name. Sure.

Again, Richard Hardy, 1001. Just looking at my notes. If this corporation is such a good neighbor and they start this project in 2024, Anybody else?

Is there anybody else with a public comment for or against? Okay, public comment is now closed. Go ahead and rebut.

Thank you. So appreciate everybody coming out and asking these questions. I do think it's an important part of the process. I'll start with the obvious. This is zoned industrial, so that is what we were looking for when we were looking at sites for this facility. We did a survey of available land, and this is what fit in terms of available for sale, zoned, industrial, and conformed to the size and shape of a parcel that we needed for this site. I will defer some of the drainage questions to Dan, if that's all right. We've been working with the county engineer on that, and I'll go through some of the other concerns now. So as it relates to the solar project, Nextera Energy Transmission is a completely different business unit from Nextera Energy Resources. We all roll up to the same parent company. We're a big company. Our headquarters is in Florida, but we have operations throughout the country. So my business unit is solely focused on transmission development, operation, and maintenance. We do not interact with the team that does the development of solar projects. Traffic and roads, certainly understand that. We had a very positive and helpful discussion with the DRC and county staff last week. And we certainly understand that we need to manage how we deliver the equipment to the site. And we're going to work with the county as we go forward to develop a road use agreement for those deliveries. Those deliveries will happen in a very short period of time. It's not going to be like every month there's another truck and seven trucks coming down the road. As I mentioned, we expect the manufacturer to be done with the order. And at some time in Q2 27, we'll deliver most of the equipment at that time. And we'll plan that in advance with, you know, public safety, et cetera, and go forward in that manner. We are not receiving any tax abatements for this project, none whatsoever. Soils and chemicals. So this transmission line that we own and operate in Indiana is somewhat unique. Most transmission lines have a substation in the middle or either end. This is one transmission asset that Nextera Energy owns that has no substation affiliated with it at all. So at this time, there is no plan to have a transformer with the chemicals that, again, I understand that concern. There's no plan to have a transformer at that site because we don't own a substation. Therefore, we do not need a spare transformer. The visual issues certainly understand that. We're a transmission company. We build linear infrastructure. We hear about transmission lines. We work with landowners all the time with transmission poles that are in their backyard. And we work... in a very collaborative fashion to build the visual screening that is necessary. One of the first projects I worked with with Nextera was a project in western New York, and I was in charge of our management of 20 individual landowners and the visual screening we put in. And they were very happy with that outcome, and the report was filed with the state, and there was no comments. We'll build on that record and continue to do so here. Whatever type of screening is going to make this work, we're here to have that conversation and make it an iterative process. Quick note on notifications. So when we approached the county late last year, they described what the process would look like. And in an effort to get ahead of that, we went ahead and sent a postcard to approximately 20 landowners, I have a copy of it here if you'd like to see it, in January, that at a very high level described what we were trying to do. We did not have any visuals at that time, but we did know it was gonna be an operations and maintenance storage facility. We did know what parcel was going to be on, which is why we were able to pull a mailing list of the 20 or so butters within, I think it was 1,000 feet of that parcel. And it provided a phone number and an email address, and we received no comments. So that isn't to say that there weren't any, but we did make an effort to reach out to folks that were immediately budding the property. Could we have, should we have gone further? Sure. But we're open to have that conversation now about what's going to make this work. Water use. This is not going to be a site where somebody shows up every single day. This is not going to be a site where multiple people show up every single day. Yes, we will have a bathroom. Yes, we will have a sink. But the flows that we're expecting to be pulling out of the well that we're installing or hope to install are going to be extremely limited and I highly doubt will be disruptive to any of the abutting properties. And on the future development, the residential area, we hear you. We heard that from the DRC. We heard that from county staff. And that is why we are going to put the sidewalk in and make sure that there is some potential for future connectivity should future development come down the road to these abutting parcels. I'm sure I missed a few concerns, but rest assured, we hear you. We're here to work in a collaborative fashion. And if Dan, you want to just give a high-level overview of the conversations we've had with county engineering on drainage. Thank you. Yeah, again.

Oh, there we go. Thank you. Again, Dan Yerkes with Whiteman as an engineer for the project. We have looked through drainage calculations for this project. As was noted earlier, this has been used as farm fields in the past and currently. I know that this sounds somewhat counterintuitive, but the water runoff coming off farm fields is actually quite high because you've got a lot of bare dirt between the plants with row crops. And so actually... based on the calculations that we provided to the county already, the runoff from this proposed site is actually going to be less water coming off of it than what comes off currently because the area, and I don't think, any of the images showed the site as a whole, but it was described. The only area being developed for the building and the gravel storage is like the middle third, if you will. So there's about 300 feet either direction, east and west, that right now is farm field, and that's all going to turn into lawn space, which actually reduces the amount of water running off of it. So from one side, obviously we're gonna actually have more water that just stays on the site, hopefully soaks into the ground or gets taken up by the grasses. And then also we have been in discussion with the county and have made minor changes to our plan to make sure we've got culverts at the driveway and those types of things to allow drainage to flow around the outside edge. It was discussed last week that there may be a project that was done in the past. I haven't received any more information on that from the county surveyor's office, but But certainly that's something that would be reviewed in full detail as part of the development plan review. But overall, based on what we've got right now, this would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area with stormwater.

Okay. Anything else to add based on comments?

You might describe to them the volume compared to the case of the Empire State Line.

Okay, so just for a quick comparison in terms of the amount of traffic for the deliveries that you're going to see and how frequently we're going to be moving them in and out of here. We built the other project in New York that I referenced. It's actually the same length as this one. It's 20 miles. And they both have between 120 and 150 structures existing on the line. So therefore, we need to have roughly 15 spare poles, and they come in three sections each, so roughly 45 pieces. That's not the exact... Like, we're still working through with the manufacturer exactly how many are going to be delivered. But to assure you, that project's been in operation for five years now, roughly. Yeah, it went in service in 22, so four years. We haven't had any... structures coming in or out or any emergencies. So these spare poles, typically, if everything's going well, will sit there for decades. And it's not going to be like every quarter, every month, every year. We're bringing massive amounts of equipment in and out. It is stash it, store it, screen it, and make sure it's safe.

Anything else to add? You guys want to go to the comments from the board?

Maybe to bring some clarity to some of the comments made by petitioners and the public. As I said, on May 21st, a petitioner appeared for the Development Review Committee. As you guys know, it's the technical people of the county. No formal approvals were given. It was an informal meeting where they gave their viewpoints from a technical perspective in preparation of this meeting. As far as engineering goes, they'll have five items in which to respond to. We don't see that as insurmountable. They are requesting tonight a special exception use for the sanitary sewer and the water. My understanding is what they're going to do is they're not putting the septic system, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's more or less a holding tank that'll be pumped out as needed. because they feel the use is not going to be that great. Again, that will be approved by the state of Indiana, because anything that's a little higher has got to go to the state of Indiana, through the health department. The county engineer insisted that they enter into a road maintenance agreement. We've done this before. We did it with Pratt on Division Road as an example. And that's for the protection and maintenance of the county road in case they damage it with the equipment going in. We also let them know that the town of Chesterton has half the road between their point and State Road 149, and we have the other half. So we also told them they have to deal with the town of Chesterton. I talked to the assistant town engineer at Chesterton to let them know what was going on. They are interested in having the same agreement we have, but of course they've got to prove it too. But we also told them that they, in a lot of these things I'm saying tonight, if you make a motion, whatever you do, if you want to move forward, these could be conditions as part of your motion. But again, it could be the road maintenance agreement. Second, we told them the heavy trucks can only operate on 1050 North from their site to 149. They cannot go and traverse any other county or town roads to get to their site. They're limited solely to 1050 North. And that will be covered by a road maintenance agreement. And that agreement would be renewed every five years. They'll count for escalation. That's what that document would entail. Staff also recommended not waving the perimeter sidewalk, as was mentioned before, because to the north, you've got the grassy, which can develop some. The town of Chesterton kind of hops and skips 1050, but you get into Crocker. They've had some residential subdivisions going there. We expect that that's going to continue at Chesterton. So we feel that the sidewalk on both sides, both on 125 west and 1050 north, if you want to go forward, must be there planned for the future for that. Drainage, the county surveyor was part of that. And as he briefly mentioned, they were working with the staff and the county surveyor. The county surveyor recollects the plan and some drainage issues in the Brassy and the property getting there. They're willing to take a look at that and take off on that if necessary, if it solves the problem. So that needs to be ironed out yet. As far as he called Middle Springs Road, that was a document they produced and put out. trying to talk to the residents. If you look at certain apps, map apps, it does call that section of the road Middle Springs, because if you take a line due north, it is in line with Middle Springs, even though locally it's known either as Pearson Road or 125 West. So that probably explains the confusion, because some map apps do call it Middle Springs. It's not right, but it's out there in the public domain. As far as zoning, you see in the zoning map here, for everybody in the audience, their parcel is this parcel. You can see the flag right here. From there all the way to 200 West on the north side of the road, that is some form of industrial land. It was in 2007 when the UVO came and we checked the record during the meeting. It was industrial in 1983 as well. So it's been zoning for quite a few decades now. So technically speaking, Developments like theirs could go in as long as they didn't need the variances. They could build their pre-engineered building and do all other things. You're here specifically to talk about the variances for the outdoor storage, which isn't allowed in I-1, and some of the other things like the fence. When it comes to the fence, the other thing staff said, and we've heard comments from the public and other people, and We understand the security of protecting the equipment, keeping people from being where they shouldn't be. But the fence should be some kind of thing that's pleasant to be looked at from an aesthetic. So it could be a steel fence with pieces so you can't see inside and then soften with landscape, or it could be the chain link, but it's got to be something to soften it so you can't see. Those are comments we pretty much heard from various public people other than tonight. So in summary, that is what the Development Review Committee and staff had to report tonight. Thank you.

Any other board comments?

I had a question or two. I just want to be very, very clear. Is this 15 acres part of a larger next era development?

No.

And you used your words very carefully last time. And you said this site, meaning those 15 acres. So again, just to be sure, and for the record, you're saying this is not part of anything larger.

It is not part of anything larger related to XTERRA energy transmission. And I can only speak for my business unit.

See, that's part of the difficulty. And why there's a little suspicion, or I'm not going to say mistrust, but why it raises some eyebrows. Back in 2022, those same 15 acres sold for $330,000, which is $22,000 per acre. In 2024 next era paid 2.4 million for those same 15 acres, which is $160,000 per acre, so the question kind of logical question is why are you spending $2.4 million to warehouse and store electrical transmission equipment.

This was the site that was available on the market that met the standards in terms of size and configuration and proximity to the transmission line.

And nothing more than that.

That's all there is to it. And I will also say, even though it's not my business unit, I did check with the energy resources team. There's nothing even on the radar for them in Porter County. I know there was a project a couple years ago. I asked, are there any potential developments down the road? And there's no project we're even conceiving at this time. And those projects have a long ramp-up time, so you'll be hearing about it.

Well, the other thing that was interesting regarding site location is it's not a lot of easy access to the expressways or the highways to get large trucks in and out. I mean, it's a mile and a half from the school, which you guys have addressed, you know, as far as I know, the egress and ingress to those roads. So those were kind of some of the issues as far as why you selected that particular place.

Yeah, as I stated earlier, the market for the type of parcel we required in the area that we needed to have it so it was approximated to the transmission line was fairly limited in terms of available commercial property. And this was a site that fit the size and shape conformance.

Okay. I'll rely on your assertions.

I have a question. Approximately, how many employees do you have at the facility? It's what, 6,000 square foot facility? How many employees on a daily basis will be out there?

So in terms of a daily basis, there will be days that nobody will be there. There will be days when there's operations and maintenance activity where you'll have a small crew of maybe five to ten that will go get some equipment and go out to the line. So it's varied but also very limited.

You mentioned that There will be sidewalks. Correct. We'll go meet with the county for road use agreements.

Yes, we will.

I think the fence would be best if it was a solid fence with some plantings around that fence and also around the building some landscape just to try to make it look not so industrial, I guess. And then that's the sewer and water. Did I read it right? It's about 3,000 feet away right now?

Yeah, that's correct. I think one of them is, and I forget which one's which, to be honest. One is about 2,800 feet. The other is about 3,700 feet away. And I did... talked to the town of Chesterton a little bit about the sewer, and they reiterated their standard policy is not to extend sewer outside of town limits. So even if it was a, obviously it's a huge financial burden, especially for the use that they're talking about. But even if, regardless of that, the town's general policy is not to extend beyond their town limits.

I'm hearing something different. Okay. Who did you talk to?

That was Mark O'Dell.

O'Dell?

Is who I talked to. And I mean, it was a couple months ago, but that's what he, and again, this is our typical policy. I don't know that they have a state rule, but that's what I was told.

Okay. I think it's not possible tonight to follow up on that.

But what he said is fairly accurate. They're typical policy. It's not saline.

It's not said in concrete.

It's not said in concrete, but by and large, if you want utility growth, you've got to be at the extent of the town.

Regarding the cost aspect, last I saw Nextera's value was $287 billion. And to get that into context, write down 287 and nine zeros behind it, or phrase it another way, just over a quarter of a trillion dollars. And so to claim a financial hardship to run a sewer and water for 3,000 foot doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I think the cost for the sanitary sewer was an additional $400,000.

$440,000 sounds right. Right.

I mean, I... I understand your point that they're a large corporation, but, I mean, every project that you do, whether it's a cost benefit and out.

So how do we resolve the issue with the Chesterton folks tonight?

Which issue would that be, sir?

Well, I'm understanding that they can hook up. he understands that they cannot cost the site.

I imagine you can condition that, could you, Mr. Attorney? I don't understand the question yet.

My understanding is that the town of Chesterton would hook up to the next area of sewer and water.

With annexation, that standard?

Without annexation was my understanding.

Okay. I haven't seen that yet. It's pretty standard with the cities and towns that they extend their use. But they might. I don't know who you're talking to. But they're here for the variance. So I guess the board can deal with yes or no. And if we want to table the sewer issue, we can. But we're not going to call the city Mr. Odell at this point. I'm not sure whether or not they require any extension of it.

Well, we certainly have other issues.

Do you want to do those?

No, I think what I listed is pretty much what I think needs to be done.

I have a quick question regarding the fencing, bringing that up. What type of fence do you put around these types of facilities?

typically it's a chain link fence but understanding based on the comments we've we've heard from the public and from the board that is something that we can look at improving aesthetically whether it's privacy slides some type of tarping we're open to a number of options on the fencing solid fencing, that becomes another cost-benefit discussion. I wouldn't rule it out.

I believe also in the special exception, I think I'm going to have staff, I believe on the special exception in industrial, if you don't run your sanitary from the existing source, there's a cost-benefit analysis in the actual ordinance. Is that correct?

Yes, we believe it's 200% the cost of the septic systems.

If I think that's, that's the standard in the special exception is that if if the cost, I don't know if the cost. Did I hear 440,000 for the sewer?

Yes, we do.

Yeah, then that would be put within the code section of 200%. We're here tonight. 200% of what?

The cost of the septic is, we're looking up in the code, if the cost of the extension of the sewer is beyond 200% of the cost of septic, that is a guide into issuing the special use exception for a special exception unit.

Now, the district development standards, as far as sanitary sewer connection is required, regarding water, water utility connection is required.

Unless you get the special exception, which you are allowed to have and was put into the code with the equation to get the cost benefit to make sure the underlying idea in that code section is that if they were 100 feet from the sanitary, they would be putting the sanitary in. They would be putting the sanitary in all the way up, arguably, until we hit whatever the math is on the equation. Right. Ultimately, the code is set up to encourage the sanitaries to be put in. However, the code recognizes that we don't lose track of the cost to get the cost of the sanitary to the property on the special exceptions. Because a special exception is not a variance. It's not a developmental variance, and it's not a use variance. A special exception sits in between, has a different standard to meet than the other two. This means we understand you might have to have sanitary or you might have to have septic. We prefer sanitary. But if you are in a septic, here's the special exception. And if you meet the math equation, then that should be part of the evidence tonight of whether or not you should be.

Fair enough.

Yeah. If there's any questions on the cost, we have included it in the cost estimates in the packet, and it's $420,000 to $30,000. Okay.

The one, the other number is $30,000?

For what we're proposing to install.

I didn't hear that. And I'm still waiting here to make sure that Our memory codes, right?

We're looking that up. We think it's attached to the minor subdivision control. So it's not listed under special exceptions.

Okay. We got it right here.

The cumulative cost to install public sanitary sewerage to each lot or unit exceeds 200% of the cumulative cost of installing the on-site and necessary on-site waste treatment system to serve the same lots or units. The calculation for this determination shall be conducted by a licensed engineer, which is . A development of five or less lots shall be exempt from this requirement. And it's also driven by the development plan and zoning that they're asking for.

So what they are proposing regarding the septic is essentially a tank to be pumped out as needed? Is that correct?

As controlled by the state.

Okay.

And we're at a commercial lot.

Gotcha.

It's not downstairs. I mean, industrial lot. It's not downstairs. There's a part of it. But the lion's share of it is the state.

Gotcha. Thank you. And back to the fence, where were we at with the fence?

I think it needs to be solid, of course, and with landscape around the entire perimeter outside of it.

Solid, not chain link. Exactly.

Okay. Those two lots may be proposed industrial, but everything around them.

Right.

Future development. Right. So nobody's going to want to look at a chamber.

I just think it helps it blend in more with what's going on around the whole area. Yes, they are industrial.

This is not an industrial park by any stretch.

Okay.

So the fence is going around the entire park.

That's correct, sir.

Are you proposing solid fence with landscape on the outside?

Exactly. And landscape around the building. It's not the whole 15 acres. Right.

Sorry.

Right. Just the outside perimeter fence.

It's a square. It's a square. So the entire fence is getting put up just so it's clear. Solid fence. with, I'm assuming, the landscaping that really hides the entire fence.

It hides it somewhat. It doesn't have to totally cover it up. It just sort of dresses everything up around it, but encompassing all the way around it.

Correct.

Can I just speak to that quickly? Yeah. So the renderings I showed, I'm happy to put them back up, that they have the landscaping, and these are views from the southeast and southwest side of the corner of the lot. We can do a different type of landscape screen. We can do an evergreen. We can do something that is more full throughout the year. The cost benefit on a solid fence is a challenge. I can pull it up.

Do you want me to pull up the rendering?

Just a solid made fence without those strips and the maintenance and the wind that blows them apart and things like that.

Maybe bring some clarity. The variance, however, they're asking for is based on around the perimeter. And when they bring up their landscaping plan that they wanted to plug back in, they do show street trees along 125 west and 1050 north. What they don't show is around the other characters up north and the west. So maybe you would be granting them that variance for that in lieu of they would do heavier landscaping around their building or you'd want it all.

Well, part of the difficulty there is the next era, your predecessors with the solar. They also, in some of their other areas, agreed to put in plantings and trees and shrubs and blah, blah, blah. trees like this size in 20 years maybe would screen something. Additionally, no one maintained them, especially in the first year of growth, and they all pretty much died. So credibility is an issue, not by anything from you guys, but by your predecessors. So that's a big issue.

Sure. So as I mentioned, I was in charge of a visual mitigation project on a transmission right away in New York, and we have had No such issues in terms of the maintenance and health of that, what we put into screen. We did have to change out one tree that died, and we had planted over several hundred. So I have some personal experience on this matter, and we'll be bringing in local folks that know the nurseries here in this area and can source material that is going to be lasting and sustainable and meets the aesthetic burden that we want to meet. I can't speak to what NextEra Energy Forces did. So just to be clear. Yeah. So important point from Dan. And thank you, Dan.

Let me get to it.

The site plan is kind of like, we've got 15 acres. This is roughly one-third of it right in the middle. So you have one-third on either side, and the fencing would be around this site. You can see, yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

This is like, yeah, that's this site, but this is the whole.

Correct. So all your hardware is within this area.

So everything is in that area. Yeah. What are you doing with these? What are you doing? What are you doing with these other things?

So this is just going to go around. Yeah, I agree. Yes. I think what we're trying to look at here is, yes, we'd like to have the trees along the road, but also landscaping up at the fence area with smaller trees.

That is absolutely reasonable. What we can't, what I'm having a hard time committing to is the solid fence. So we can do some type of chain link fence or other type of fence of that nature with privacy slats or some tarping with added landscaping on all four sides.

I think a solid fence needs to happen there. I would agree.

I agree.

I would agree.

Yes, sir. It's not going into an industrial park. This is going into a residential area.

And it's just the fence that's going on.

Gotcha. So it's not your usual.

Okay.

It's a totally different scenario.

Understood. And I think that would need to go around the entire .

So we got to deal with this, this, and then this.

I think the comments we're getting, you could tackle it in many ways.

Sure.

The comments we've gotten is people want to see inside what's in the comment. And they don't want to see a chain link fence to fit the natural aesthetics. Those are the comments we got. So you can do that multiple ways. You can do it with vegetation with a chain link or you can go solid, shorten your vegetation. It's easier to take care of, et cetera, like that. So you can have other ideas you can think of and talk about.

Well, again, we have the street, we have two streets, we have streetscape. And then we have the square within the square property, which is what is actually being fenced. And then the conversation about what gets put around the actual fence, because we have the rectangle property, and then the proposal is a square in the middle. So if street, street, And that's the pictures he's showing. I'm sorry. Your streetscape. And then you can see the fence behind it. And so I think what the board is asking is vegetation in front of the fence as well.

Right.

And to the extent of whether that's all four sides of the fence, and then the same question, you know, what is at the street? I think that's when they're looking for that direction of that conversation.

But the... variance not that the variance is for the other two sides of the lot that don't face the street don't have the vegetation just just to set the record straight you could talk about aesthetics around the fence and the building and that's perfectly all right but keep in mind variances specifically for the north and west borders of property and also the front yard front yard, they've already included along the street. They've got street trees and along Pearson Road.

The north or the south border? I just want to be sure. You said north border.

I'm sorry.

South?

On the south and the east, they do have street vegetation.

So what should happen here, though? Should they... Do a new proposal to include all of it?

The board needs to tell us what we want at this point on each subject so that we can then move into a motion to deny the proof with whatever condition is in place.

Any more comments or anybody want to?

Well, from what I've heard, we're not just interested in the northwest corner. We're interested in the entire perimeter.

Correct. And maybe staff could read the variances and just encapsulate them for you so the record is straight.

Yeah. That would be a lot better.

All right. So you have three motions tonight because you have three different actions. One's for development standards variance. The first one is Section 725 of the UDO Pedestrian Network Standards. That's sidewalks, roads, they've pulled that. So you can strike that from the request. Next, standard, development standards variance of Section 518, fence and wall, increased mat, maximum front yard height, code is four foot tall, they want it. And keep in mind, you got two front yards because you got two street-facing views. And then the third development standard variance is landscape buffer yards. In other words, the buffer around the entire perimeter. They're doing it along the roads. They have not included anything on the north which faces the property of the north or to the west. So that is the variance you have to act on. You are also talking about what the thing looks like as far as up against the building and the fence. That is not that. That's just an additional condition you guys are talking about, okay, just to clear it up. Then you're asking for use variance, Section 5.32 with I-1 zoning. There is no outdoor storage allowed unless you get this use variance. The other higher industrial zones, yes, they can be allowed in certain cases. And then lastly is the special exception, sewer and water, to allow them to do well in septic as opposed to hooking up to Chesterton utilities. So those are the essence of what the three motions you're going to have to make and vote on tonight. If you want to talk about the condition of the road agreement, if you want to talk about how you want the fence landscaped and the building landscaped around, those are all plausible things that you can enter into the record and make a condition on your approvals. But I just want to make sure that we're addressing specifically the variances that he is asking for.

On Section 518 regarding the fence, I would be in favor of a solid fence. Anything other than that, I am not.

That's your decision.

Absolutely.

But not just for those two areas. You're talking about a solid fence for the entire room.

Correct. If I lived in the area, I don't want to look at the stuff that's behind it. I really don't.

So how do we work this?

This would be difficult.

Well, there's three different motions, okay? So you can do one at a time. First one has to do with the sidewalk, which is gone. The next one is the fence and any of the walls, and the other is the landscaping and bumper yards. So why don't you start there and do it in bite-sized pieces?

How about we start with the biggest question? Section 5.32, Outdoors 4. Do we have a motion one way or another on whether we're going to allow outside storage? And again, so if we do it piecemeal, that's what it's going to feel like. And then when we get to the developmental standards, that's when we would be putting in the additional requirements. Or we have to come up with a motion that would be something approving 5.32, approving 5.62, 5.18, 5.25 with the following conditions that list them all. That would be explicit in your direction as far as the landscape.

Peacemail it.

Peacemail it. Did you have a comment? It's up to you.

We're just waiting for a motion. I think it's easier to peacemail so everyone can understand what's going on.

Let's make a motion.

Scott's point 5.3 to the outdoor storage. Looks like you guys have a comment. Is it about that? The outdoor storage.

I'm sorry?

It looked like you were going to make a comment, but we're just going to talk about the outdoor storage piece right now.

Yeah, I was just going to point out, I think for purposes of a clear, complete, clean record, a portion of the code does reference outdoor storage being permitted in I-150. 5.34 OS4 outdoor storage. It identifies the sections I1's included and does allow width screening. So I'm just adding that because it seems relevant to the record.

It allows width screening?

Yeah.

Where was that site?

5.34 OS-04 I'm on. Chapter 5, page 5-33. 5.34 also said it's allowed to screen.

5.34 describes the screening standards if it's allowed via the . Does that make sense?

Well, should we just start by making a motion for each section?

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion with 5.32 regarding the outdoor storage. As long as we have a solid fence, no chain link,

with the trees all the way around the fence area along between the trees and the fence with other landscaping plantings.

Is that also contingent upon a successful negotiated road use agreement between the commissioner and the county?

Yeah, where does that fit in?

Yes, we definitely need to have a road condition agreement.

I would ask for it to be contingent upon that successfully being negotiated and approved.