Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, next we'll have roll call.

Jim Clarita. Bob Gillian?

Here.

Arvid Mertner?

Here.

Pamela Mishler-Fish? Here. Debbie Cook? Here. Present also, Attorney Scott Clark, Mike Jacob, Dale, and Monica. Do you have a quorum? Thank you.

Do we have any correspondence?

We do not.

Okay. All right, that gets us to old business and the first case. And if I might entertain comments from the petitioner, if you recollect, this was heard in July.

We decided to continue so that they could work with staff to work out certain elements. Unfortunately, terms like development plan were used, which has a different meaning in our problems at the UTO. What we heard in the pre-terrain meeting and our recollection is that a petitioner doesn't really need to do a development plan What we heard was that, which is a requirement in this case, but what we also heard shows the site plan shows where the elements are is that it didn't imply that they had to be hard scale engineering drawings, et cetera. There was also concern in the driveway because the driveway was put in to put the proper height and width and whatever stones. that there was a concern also of the wood chips and everything that they did, put in the runway, which went out into the roadway ditches and all that stuff like that. I'm not forgetting anything. I think those three had a question of some sheds, too, but that's not contributing to the reason they were asking for things. So it's important that it's not a development claim. We should not be using that term because I think after you've listened to the meeting. I know the two are interchangeable sometimes. So we've been talking with the petitioner. You know, development plan is quite an undertaking. It's very costly and all that. If it's not required, it would be unfair to ask the petitioner to do that. So tonight, what we're asking is that you continue the case until next month. We will continue to work with the petitioner and get those elements that you did indeed. asked for so that you could make that ruling on the experience.

Continue it to the next meeting or continue indefinitely or how long?

Whether it takes one meeting or two meetings before they finally come back, I don't know.

Just go meeting by meeting? Meeting by meeting. Great. Do we have a motion for that? I'll make a motion to continue case UB2026-35 until the September I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion carried. So it's continued to next meeting.

And then we will see petitioner. We'll schedule a time later this week or next. We'll work it out.

We'll all have power.

And also I want to add, just for clarity, we don't have to make a motion, but you also said in your previous meeting that they could I have relayed that also to the petitioner.

Do I need to put that in the motion? Or are we good?

You already made that motion until you decide.

Oh, okay. Okay. I see. Okay.

Okay. Anything further on that?

Unless petitioner wishes to speak to you.

The only thing we wanted to...

If you could come up to the front, please.

And we will need your name and address, please.

Nancy Calafate, 122 Lane, or this week, 154 Johnson, since it has power. And my husband, James Coleman, same addresses. We only wanted to bring up the two drainage concerns that have been brought up during this process. Both have been investigated by county staff. David Champion has come to our property, and he did not believe that degrading was responsible for drainage issues in the neighboring suburb. So he has stated that I have an email to record that. And Martin Bobchack Highway Department concluded that the turbid runoff calumet in 600 north that was brought up at the last meeting was isolated from our property it's actually from the property across the road okay that everything needs to be brought up at the next meeting though also with all of our requests right we will staff okay thank you thank you

Okay, our next case is U of E 2026-46 Audrey Lemire. Location is 248 East 250 South Valpo. The zoning is A1 General Agriculture. The acres is 10.09 and the request is seeking to continue the use variance to allow the operation of the full service maintenance repair business from the residents. Do we have it? Okay, if you wanna come up here, we need your name and address.

Audrey Lemire, 248 East 250 South, Valparaiso.

Adam Lemire, same address.

Okay. Can you tell us anything from last year that's going on? Anything new, any changed?

No changes? No.

No changes?

No.

Somebody said something, I'm sorry. Have there been any complaints or? Is there anything they want to say in support or against this? Okay. All right. Any questions from the board? No. No. All right. I guess we'll look for a motion then.

The last one was for you, is that correct?

We said we were going to do it for a year. Usually we do them for five years. We were going to do this one for a year to see how it went and then consider what we wanted to do.

I'll make a motion to go ahead and continue this variance for the next five years.

Okay. Same conditions as originally?

Yes, all the same conditions of the original variance.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Okay, motion carries. We've got five years. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much. Thank you. That brings us to new business where we have rules of conduct for a public hearing. 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 have rebuttal time at the conclusion of those opposing the petition. Those opposed shall then be allowed a total maximum of 10 minutes to rebut 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 interests of parties. Written remonstrances shall be accepted by the board, but need not be read into the board's record. This then concludes the public hearing. To maintain orderly procedure, each side shall proceed without interruption by others. All materials presented by the petitioner and or remonstrators or supporters to the petition, including photographs, shall become property of the board and part of the record. For those of you who do come up to speak, we have microphones at each end. We need your name and address before you start. I will call your name up and everybody who maybe didn't sign in will have an opportunity to be able to speak also. Our first case is Pam Leakey. The location is 567 North 400 East Falcon. The zoning is RR Rural Residential. She has 14.93 acres and the request is to continue the use or use, permitting a mobile home on the property to be used by the caretaker to maintain property. I think, hi. We need your name and address, even though you've been here a lot, we need your name and address. I'm sorry? We need your name and address first, please.

Pam Fliege, 567 North, 400 East, Valparaiso, Indiana.

We have a couple new members since the last time you were here before, so if you can just tell us what your situation is so that they understand. I'm a widow and I... Talk into the microphone, please.

I'm a widow and I have property that is high maintenance. And to be able to be there and maintain it, I need help. And so years and years ago, I got a petition and had the trailer put in and somebody stays back there and they mow and they help with snow removal and when a tree goes down and they just help me. Okay.

So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Jason, did you want to? The microphone, please. Thank you.

So hello. I can't hear myself, so I don't know if it's Jason. 548 North 450 East. I just had a question to the board about this, and I'm obviously all for it because without having someone there to be able to help her with the mowing and emerging tree trimming, I mean, obviously, with what we had go through, that's more than anybody can handle. It's more than I can handle. I got machinery over there and I'm working on it and I still have a huge mess to clean up. But the, uh, years ago when she was doing this uh we brought in the lawyer we didn't know what was going on and there was like a lot of scuffle about you know the board saying that they wanted the trailer out and but at that time and i kind of and i don't want to sound harsh in saying this but challenge the board and looking back in the records because at that time um It was passed to where she's like, as long as she's breathing and living in the house and or someone's living in the trailer, we didn't have to go through all this. And, like, you know, I'm just saying that because this is a rather large hardship for her as far as money with the going to the board and then mailing all the letters and stuff. And nothing's changed. And obviously... if something did change, if the property switched ownership, or if nobody's in the trailer, we understand the rules, like, okay, trailer's gotta come out. But the continuous stress and monetary hardship for doing all this stuff, I thought that that was over years ago because it was ruled like, okay, we understand the situation. If the property gets sold, trailer has to leave. And I was here and I said, well, if she's not there, then it's going to be my problem. So yeah, I understand that. And so I was just curious if we can proceed with this. I mean, we're doing it now, but proceed with this in the future to where unless something changes, we don't need to keep doing this every year because it's the same process every year. I mean, do you have any questions as far as what I'm asking?

No, I can address it. Thank you.

Yes. We'll let our attorney address you on that. Do you want to do it now or do you want me? There's nobody else that signed up. There's nobody else that signed up. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to talk on this matter? Okay, we'll go ahead.

So to address the comment, the issue, the original... struggle on getting any of these approved is to show and convince this board there's a hardship, a continuing hardship because the county significantly disfavors the temporary trailers on lots. So the original scuffle is to prove to this board that that need exists and that need can be appropriately buffered from the rest of the properties. Once we get to that stage, we then go into a review where we're able to go for up to five years in between. After that five years, we require all of the mailing, the cost, and the public hearing again, because it's our way of making sure that these that we have sprinkled throughout the county come back up. And frankly, I'm not saying anything about these individuals because they have been doing it. We all remember them by the rules. But most of these... don't get caught until the five-year renewal. And then we find out the property changed hands or whatever happened. So the system as a whole is set up that once you get to here, If it's still the petitioner, still the same circumstances, it gets renewed. We do that for five. And then after that, everybody gets another chance at the apple because that's how it's not an allowed use within the residential section. So it's really to protect the integrity overall. And it also highlights They are disfavored unless we have a very narrow corridor to go down, which she's met and continues to meet. And so we don't have a problem, but it's hard for us to go beyond that 5 years. If that's what the board is thinking, because the history that the county has with the rest of these and how we. don't always know or aren't always notified and things. People always don't do what they're supposed to do. So unfortunately, the system as a whole is set up to make sure we have the renewal every five and we make sure they still need to be there.

You could come up to the microphone, please.

And I understand that. One thing, though, I thought when reviewing, because I also have a variance for a firearms business on my property, And I asked this question, but I thought it could go even all the way up to nine years. When I looked in the laws and everything, or the rules on the... No, because even on your ATF license, you're the underlying... You guys do it from license to license. Right. I understand that.

Like, are you still getting it? Yep. Okay, here's another three years. Five years is the general rule we use.

Well, and the reason why I asked this, though, is because, again... Very fixed income, $580 to do all this. And not only is coming in here yearly for something that is always and has always been a good and valuable thing for her to have, but to fork out $600, that's a huge hardship on her.

So last year on the renewal, she had to pay $600?

No, this year.

Right, five years. For five years. Every year renewal is just to make sure, and that's at the hearing officer.

And yeah, well, no, I come here every year.

Yes, but the hearing officer's here during the day. That's where you were at last year.

Yes, yes.

I'm looking at, that's a renewal.

Yes.

And then every five years, we go through the whole process again.

And so I thought that every year, like he said, in the minutes, When we contested it, it was as long as I owned it and was living there. And so I needed that help.

I understand what your contention is. That is not what the motion was. The motion was for five, whatever your original motion when you met the burden was for one to five years. And then it's done. When you come back, the board is assuming because you're the same petitioner with the same circumstances, we're not having the entire presentation again.

Is this...

This isn't meant to be an argumentative thing. I just I wanted to come because I had that question when she was telling me how much it cost. And the fact that I mean, obviously, with what went on recently and just the fact that I can't be over there. I mean, I got two kids. We're running all over the country with all their stuff.

I mean, I understand.

It's about be over there. And so it's a very valuable thing. And no one's arguing.

I haven't heard anybody arguing that she's meeting the stand.

No, I get that. But that's why I just wanted to ask that question, because I do remember that. And so maybe when it was the motion was set and everything else, I missed that part of it.

Because if you if you go back and read the minutes, it was for a period of time, which then made her have to come in to renew. So that's why it's not just approved until she's no longer with us.

Okay. And I was just wondering if there's any chance or any way that we could, and that's why I wanted to come and ask you that, if there's any way that we could, you know, again, unless something changes with, you know, ownership or nobody's in there, we could just move on with this and kind of like, okay, yeah, we know it's there. That's what I was up here just asking. I'm not up here to try to argue with it.

I understand. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and declare the public hearing closed. Questions from the board?

As long as there's no changes, I'm good.

Okay. I agree. Okay.

No, I'm fine with it. I think five years would be the limit on it.

Yep.

But I think that'd be fine.

Okay. We're ready for a motion then.

I'd like to make a motion to go and continue the variance of the mobile home on the property to be used by the caretaker to maintain the property as long as the caretaker is there. And we will continue this for five years.

All the same conditions?

All the same conditions as the original one.

I'll second.

Beautiful piece of property. I'm sorry? Beautiful piece of property.

Thank you.

Everything's beat up right now. It's good for five and then she just has the non-cost renewal meeting once a year to make sure it's still the same. And that's the one during the day. But I guess let me say this, and this will help. Beyond the financial side, unless things have changed materially, she shouldn't be worried or due to renew it.

Right. I mean, I get the financial side is separate, but that's why I came in for this one. Because that was like, holy cow.

If it's anxiety about the underlying approval, if things have not materially changed, she shouldn't have anxiety about that. No.

And I think the record showed, wasn't there a change of ownership in 2023?

I'm sorry?

Oh, there was a change.

Her brother passed away, but there's someone in there. We found a friend of the family.

That may have been a trigger.

Yeah.

And they're doing a lot more than my brother was able to do. Great.

All right. Thank you, Martin. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. In the matter of case number UV-2026-25, the votes are as follows. Bob Gillian, yes. Pamela Fisher, yes. Martin, yes. And Debbie Cook, yes. Passes 4-0.

Thank you. Our next case is Anika Kornacki, 415 West Division Road, Valpo. Zoning is rural residential, the 85.2. And the request is to continue to use variance to allow a roofing and contracting business from the residents. Hello. If you just want to tell us if anything's changed, what's going on? We have new board members, so they might want to know.

Sure. Yeah, nothing with the property has changed, obviously. The situation going on in this area has been exacerbated by storms, and we still would like to continue to do our business from our home and be here to help everybody. Okay.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't you say that you needed to have it be listed from your home for the legal papers? You weren't actually doing the business out?

Yes, it's for the legal papers. Our team works remotely. Everybody works from their own home, so we need an address. We don't do a PO box because we are a local business. We want to stand behind our name and our address and a place for... As I explained last time, people write us checks that they get from their insurance. Some of those are very large checks. They don't want to be writing that to a PO box. And we don't want to force our team to come into an office. We really believe in a work-life balance for our people. So the business, yeah, it's just, you know, we have two offices within our house. I have my husband has his office. And so, you know, but other than that, the business is all done outside of the property at other people's homes.

Thank you. Nobody signed up to talk for or against anyone in the audience. Because nobody wants to talk. Questions from the board.

So you don't have vehicles or anything stored there?

No.

Other than the office?

Our personal vehicles, which do have logos on them. But no, there's not like sales reps vehicles or crew vehicles or anything like that being stored on the property. Thank you.

How long have you been at that location?

We've lived there for six years. Okay.

That's what I was going to ask. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, in that case, I'm ready for a motion. I guess I do have one question. Sure. Is it in one year? Is that what you mean?

Well, that's what I was going to ask. Was the last one one year? The last one was two. I was trying to find that.

The last motion was for three years with no employees, no storage. But typically we do. I think it was the same thing if we wanted to. Yeah, if we wanted to review it, see if there are any complaints. And there have been no complaints, correct?

Right.

Right.

I saw the . The last motion, yes, was three years of employees .

Okay.

I'll make a motion to it. Wait a minute. I'm sorry.

That's the question.

Okay.

No complaints. Okay. Thank you.

I think I'll make a motion since there's been no complaints in three years. We can go ahead and extend that to five years to allow the variance for the roofing contracted business from the residents and also the same stipulations as the original variance.

I'll second.

In the case of UB 2026-47, the vote is followed. Debbie Cook, yes. Mr. Parker, yes. Mr. Fish, yes. Bob Gilliam, yes. We have 4-0.

Do you guys need these? If you want to give those to Susan. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Okay, and our next case is APL-2026-16, James Freisinger, care of Kale Carlson with Millmar Buildings. Their location is 106 Hatton Lane. The zoning is R1, low density, single family residential, acres two. The request is seeking a development standards variance to allow for a proposed 74 foot by 35 foot accessory structure to vary from the following. To allow a place to be in the front yard, to allow an increase in maximum height. Code is 20 feet and the request is 25 feet one. To exceed the maximum floor area, the code is 1,742. Request is 2,590 square feet.

Before you start.

Yes.

Did everybody get this case?

Mm-hmm.

It's just not on the tablet.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Got the paper here also.

Yeah, it was in the email, in my email.

Yep.

You need your name and address first, and then tell us why you're here.

Cale Carlson, 7567 Indiana Highway 2, La Porte, Indiana, 46530. I'm here on behalf of James Friesinger to represent him in getting this variance passed, hopefully.

Okay. Explain to us what your variance is, why you want it, why you need it, what you're doing.

If we could. Right.

Right. But we still need to kind of know what they're wanting to do, right?

No, that's understood.

Okay.

Make it clear for the record they're in Brown.

Oh, okay. All right. Okay, I thought it means to be doing something different. No, okay. Are we good, Scott? Okay. I'm sorry. Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's what, that's why he's appealing it here. Yeah. Yeah. I knew that. Okay. Yeah. All right. So we need an explanation of much what you told the hearing officer or more or less or whatever you want to.

I'm going to go ahead and let the homeowner speak on behalf of, uh, yeah.

So, um, I've played sports my entire life. I grew up playing them. I actually played men's soccer at Upper Raisin University when they had the program. But it's always been a big part of my life. I have three little kids. We don't necessarily have in my immediate area where I live necessarily places to play sports year-round. When I say year-round, like inclement weather right six months out of the year here in Indiana the weather's pretty rough snowing rainy cold etc again like there's no really direct park immediate in our area and so it's honestly it's for the kids so it's not like to be like a car shop or like doing like any type of like workout of it it's really just a space to have for the kids to be able to play sports year-round more or less right and like the size and the dimensions are just right, to make sure it's a safe playing space so it's not just out of bounds in the wall. There's space in between there, right, the heights for, you know, I play a lot of basketball. You have to be able to, you know, have the appropriate height, otherwise you're going to be hitting the ceiling. And so, yeah, it's really, right, again, like outside of either having to drive across 30 to go to Westside Park or having to drive out to the courts out, you know, north of Alpo, it's, you know, kind of hard to do stuff year-round in our immediate area.

Did you have anything to add?

Specifically about the location of the building. So that's kind of the only spot that this can be placed on his property. And it is as far back as it can go, about three, maybe four feet after the back of this building. He has a very steep drop off in the land. So it would be. It would be extremely difficult and expensive to build in a way that actually complies with the county's rules about frontage.

We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Nobody signed in, and there's nobody left in the audience, so I'm assuming we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Staff, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Yeah, there is. Again, for the record, three points that vary from petitioner addressed one of them. They allow placement in the front yard. They claim that he doesn't have space. But the other two are allowing increase of maximum height. The maximum is 20 and requesting 25 feet, one inch. And the last one, he exceeds the maximum floor and allows Okay.

just refresh my memory the the the maximum floor area on this type of lot is that a math equation based upon two percent thing of the plot so that's taken into consideration with the house and the road and then whatever just the accessory on the two percent so the two so The 1742 might be the max you would have with no accessory structures is how we would look at that pursuant to the code. That would not be a variance. Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Okay. With the public hearing closed, Bob, do you have any questions, comments?

I'm by the area. With it being larger, taller, and in the front yard it it does not fit the area that is around the subdivision that they have there it was in the back it would be totally different but this is right up front by the road it's just it just doesn't fit the air it just doesn't work there in my opinion um the yellow flags that are in the ground were those the areas marking off where the building was going to go

It was like the orange one. It was like the orange postings. Correct. Yeah. Yes. Okay.

Yeah.

I don't know what they were called.

Pam?

I agree with Bob. I probably wouldn't have a problem if it was in the backyard. Right. But something like this in the front yard in Center Township, it doesn't fit. Carbine.

I admire what you're trying to do, but I think it's just too much over that location, to be very honest.

I mean, if there was a way to get it in the backyard, you know, if you had to build up an area or a retaining wall or whatever the county would allow for it to be placed back there, I really don't have any issue with that.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

My main thing is I don't like it in the front yard. I mean, we don't, we don't, we just don't allow it anywhere else. And that's, you know, if it's even, even with the house or behind it slightly, then it's all good. But you start putting it in front, you'll be running into trouble there.

Out of curiosity. Oh, sorry. Like, because I'm not familiar with like this, if I can. What, like, what denotes the front yard? Like, out of curiosity, because I, like, I'm not entirely sure.

Where your driveway comes from.

So, like, had my driveway been pointed?

On your particular lot, I would say that whole pie should be, the round pie is your front yard. It's a weird shape of it. If your house is set the way it comes off the back, probably my rough math is 80% of the buildings in the front yard. Yeah, okay. No, that makes sense.

Thanks for explaining that. But yeah, it's unfortunate.

If it were a smaller size, is there a way it would be able to go in the backyard?

I don't think so. I mean, if you're looking at it, the top part, of the paper, it's like a runoff creek on that one side, and the whole back, everything's sloped in the backyard, so it's basically just all runoff water that goes down there, which is why it's basically all forest back there, it's just runoff water from the hill. Our property sits basically on top of the hill, and all of it just runs down that way. Even our neighbor behind us, the yard, slopes down too and goes back into that same place where it's a runoff creek that whole way through. Yeah, I mean, that's unfortunately the only place that I think it would be stable to put.

Yeah, I mean, could a retaining wall be done there? I mean, technically, yes, but it would be enormous. It would be many, many, many loads of dirt. The steepness of that lot in the back is pretty significant. But would you guys be amenable to placing it in the front yard if we were to maybe reduce the dimensions? I did bring along a set of drawings where we have a reduced roof pitch offering a couple feet less in height.

How much could you fit in the backyard, size-wise?

Size-wise, I really don't think there's much of a way to go backwards any further at all. without... Oh, I may be able to put that building in half.

I think the question would be, how big could the building be if you were behind the front of the house?

Just so you're behind the front of the house.

I mean, is it 5 feet or 40 feet? That's what I think they're trying to figure out. Is it technically in the backyard?

I mean, I can make kind of a guess for you here. That would be about... Maybe 20 feet. So we could get a 20 by 35, which is not really enough to do what Mr. Griesinger is wanting to do.

So the other 50 or so feet would be in the front yard?

Yeah.

I think it's quarters. It looks like half the barn is in the front yard as it's presented today. And that is the dimension of 74 feet down to 37 feet.

Do you have any questions or suggestions, Ben?

I don't. I mean, it would be great. I mean, you've got a great idea there. It's just got to be in the back.

Do you need more time to maybe work a different scenario? Or is this a yes or no deal for you today?

Well, you know, I think we could probably move it back a little further while adding a small retaining wall, but I'm not sure that that would get the entire thing behind the house. If we could get the entire thing behind the house, could we get the approval on the height and the size?

or should we ask for a continuance?

Maybe just continuance until you have some time do some measurements or whatever. We can continue it for a month and go from there so you're not cut off completely now. Right. Absolutely. Okay. See what options you can come up with.

If we vote as presented tonight, you're probably not going to get where you want to be. If we continue it, at least you can look a little harder.

No, I was hoping to get something done tonight because I don't see the... I don't see you wanting to change the square footage or the actual ceiling height of the building, right?

Not really going to be feasible. Yeah, I mean, we can change the roof pitch. Then I'll drop it from 25 to 22.

Right, so we can get a... I believe... 23 foot 1, or no, 22 foot 1 height out of a 212 pitch. and I may be able to find a way to place the building further back. I'm very much hoping to.

So we can make a motion to go ahead and continue this for one month for you two.

You've indicated you want to go an extra month. I think he's indicated he would like to try to get some decision tonight if possible.

whether or not that's what you guys want to do but i just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here i know that i would be in favor i could go along with 22 feet for the height but not much more than that or not any more than that okay yeah 22 foot one is where we're at there i think it needs to be in the back right yeah that's the that's the that's a very big issue to that tonight or do you need to rework the plans or so i think we can push this further back and then maybe have a partial retaining wall out here and then or we can hit the constituents should we vote on this without plan in hand no

Yeah, I'm just not sure how far back we should go.

Right.

Right.

I think I'd rather have something in half.

So that's that. So we'd have to take it back about 30 to 40 feet. But you're retaining wall kind of up here.

All right. As you debate this, I mean, you've got three. Yeah. One is in the front yard. One is the height, and one may exceed the square footage. Now, your perspective could be different than mine, but it seems the height to me is the least of the three. I think the size of the front yard is...

It's the front yard, and it's the size are the main issues. And the character of the roof will have a lot to do with whether it ever winds. Exactly. At a 212. Yeah. We get height reduction, but then we have to live with the view. I just want to make sure that that's part of the discussion.

I can say that the steeper pitches end up looking much nicer. Right.

That's number one, is that

I think we need to see a plan. I would agree.

Actual, physical. Yeah, I'd like to see a plan with it on the lot. So that means a continuance. Yeah, I would say that would be best.

Could we do an approval conditional upon a plan being shown? No, I'd rather just continue. OK.

There's no one to show the plan to until they're back in the . That's the problem. I see. But I would say that you've probably heard that the height isn't necessarily the biggest. It's somewhat. Does it fit? And does it look right? And is it in the backyard? And I think that gives you a pretty good indication of how they feel with what you can get done with that.

Yeah. No, thank you. This gives us a direction to head.

Because also with the accessory structure, does it not need to somewhat match at least color of the house? Yeah, I would just like to bring it up now just so they're aware anyway, you know?

Yes, sir. The plan is very much to match the color of the home and the home's roof.

When do you need to break ground in order to be in before winter? I guess, I'm assuming that's what you're trying to do.

This will probably happen after winter.

Okay, okay.

Yeah. Yeah, we would need to break ground very early in October to make that happen.

Yeah, I think there's, like, we would have to have, like, the gas line moved. So that's up to, like, NIPSCO, whatever. They're a little busy, right? I know, right. So, next year.

Yeah, so I think I'd like to make a motion to continue this request for the construction of a 74 by 35 accessory structure that would vary from being in the front yard, the height of 25 feet, and the 2,590 square feet request. We'll continue that for 30 days.

Second? I'll second. You can do the roll call. Roll call? Roll call vote is good.

Do you want to do the roll? Sure. Bob Gillian? Yes. Arvid Markman? Yes. Pamela Mishore-Fish? Yes. Debbie Cook?

Yes.

Passes.

All right, we'll see you next month then.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any follow-up that's on the agenda? Monica does have one thing. Did you want to go first or?

No, let Monica go first.

Do you want me to say it, Monica? Yes. Okay. Next month, we're trying to make sure that we have a form. We do have business, and we know we're one person short. So we're kind of asking, is everybody going to be here next month? Yes. Yes. 16. All right.

Is that what it is? Let me throw it on the calendar now so I have it. Okay. All right.

Appreciate it. Yeah. Okay. Mike, did you have something?

Yes.

Go ahead. You all got an invitation. We're having a joint training session. Planning Commission. I also have. That training session is on the first Tuesday. September 1st.

September 1st. That's what I think I've got on my phone right now.

And we'll meet at 530. We're going to meet down at the stickers in the classroom. It'll be a lot more comfortable for you. It's a chair or table type situation like you'd see in a presentation at school or something.

Where is this room? Downstairs?

It's downstairs, all the way down. Not all the way down, but it's like the second door from the end. You can't miss it. It's like training. It's comfortable, so you'll be comfortable there. And that way, you get to sit and rest your own table. The day is not that big for all of you. But I really encourage all of you to come. I think Jim told me he's got a conflict that day. especially for our instructor. She's been pretty good . And she's going to talk a little bit differently and then we'll ask how to rationalize reasoning when you guys . You've got to speak, you know, think from here . Yeah, no, I got it on my calendar already. Okay. I'll see you in a couple weeks. Anything else from anybody?