Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay. Roll call? Sure.

Jim Clarita. Bob Gilliana. Here. Arvid Merkner. Here. Pamela Mishler-Fish. Here. Deb Cook. Here. Christy Murko is on other duty. Attorney Scott McClure is here. I hear Mike Babo, Susan Hale, Monica G. from staff. You have a quorum.

Mike, we can't hear you with the microphone, though.

Can you hear me now?

There you go. Okay. We have minutes from February 18th, May 28th, June 17th, and July 15th. Does everybody receive those, and do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Opposed? Do we have any correspondence?

No, ma'am.

Thank you. Okay. Our first case is Nancy Safotsky. Calafate. The location is just south of Lakewood Terraces subdivision on Calumet Avenue of Elkhorn. The zoning is our one low density and single family residential. Acres is 4.05 and the request is to allow the operation of a farmer's market.

Chairman Cook. I'm sorry. Maybe before they start, I can help. Staff can help with this one. Okay. We met with a petitioner.

Oh, we don't have anything to say.

We'll just be here in case you have questions. Oh, Nancy Calafati, 122 Phillip Lane. James Coleman. Can you say my address?

James Coleman, 122 Phillip Lane.

Thank you. Okay.

This has been continued twice in our last meeting we kind of straightened out what it is that you required of them as far as a site plan in a loose terms, they just had to prove that they weren't creating any stormwater problems. It really came down to they got to get a driveway permit and do that to the requirements and meet with the county highway engineer. Two was to clean up the ditch out front because they put wood chips, which they said they've already done. And third was, you know, it wasn't a development plan. We just wanted a plan showing where everything sat, that the stormwater drainage was not a hindrance or a nuisance to anybody. So we had another meeting in between, and they met with the appropriate technical staff, the development engineer, the highway engineer, and the planner. And I'm here to report we're all satisfied, provided they follow through with the promises of the driveway permit. And they've already applied for the building permit for their small structures. Okay. So if you wish to quiz them on hours of operation, days of operations, or anything else, that's your prerogative.

Thank you. Did you have anything you wanted to add before I turn it over to the board to ask you questions?

What are the hours of operation and days of the week?

Alternate Sundays, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Mother's Day or Halloween.

Approximately 13.

Eight to three every other season. About 65 hours a year, yeah.

And are these structures permanent? Are they temporary? And what happens in the winter?

They can be moved. They're on skids. But if we're going to permit them, we'd rather just leave them in place. Just leave them over the winter? Yes.

Okay. That's what you've done in the past?

We only got them May 1st. Okay. Right.

Okay.

That's all I have. Pam? I'm good.

No, I think my question answered.

I had two I wanted to ask. How many vendors do you expect to have?

We have space that we've allocated a maximum of 26 vendors with parking for them next to their tent with 26 parking spaces for customers.

Okay.

We have no intentions of expanding. We have no intention of expanding beyond that.

What about lighting? Do you expect any lighting?

No. Is it just daylight? No. Okay.

All right. If there's no other questions, we'll be ready for them.

Would this be a renewed variance every so often, or are we just allowing it and it's done?

It's done. Okay.

But we can make it a commitment that runs with them, can't we? If the use changes and...

You can make it a certain amount of time, and I suppose you could put a condition of the use to as well, if you so wish.

It's up to the board. Okay. Motion?

I make a motion to allow the operation of the Farber's Market. Let it go for five years, and then come back to reassess it at that time. Second.

Would the motion want to add the business hours and days and how many vendors? Do you want to add how many business hours and days and how many vendors?

There's strict business hours along with the amount of vendors you'll have. And we'll keep with that. And then just ensuring that you... Do what the county has asked you to do to correct anything.

We're already in the process with the driveway and meeting with Allied Asphalt tomorrow.

Perfect. Very good.

If you could, for the record, or maybe wrote them down, could we quantify those parameters that Bob made?

I would second.

What's the hours of operation?

Just quantify the different restrictions.

Eight to three every other Sunday, 65-hour max per year.

And 26 vendors, right?

Correct. 26 vendors.

Okay. So the motion second agree on the changes. So do we, is this bound?

Yes.

Case number UV2026-35. The votes are as follows. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Arvid Merkner, yes. Debbie Cook, yes. Bob Gilliana, yes. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next case is APL 2026-16, James Preisinger, care of Kale Carlson with Millmark Buildings. The location is 106 Hatney Lane in Galco. The zoning is R1, low density, single family residential. There's two acres, and the request is seeking a development standards variance to allow for those 94 by 35 accessory structure to vary from the following. To allow placement to be in the front yard. I want an increase in maximum height. I want to go from code is 20 and request is 25.1. To exceed the maximum floor area, code is 1742 square feet and request is 2590 square feet. Okay, do you have anything you want to add?

Yes, yes, I do. I'm not sure if you guys got the updated site plan I sent over to Monica. I'm not sure if she's been in, but I did bring extras for the entire board showing that we're no longer placing this building in the front yard. Okay, please.

Did you have anything else you want to add?

Is the building smaller? No, sir. I don't think it's in the front yard anymore.

No, it is not.

Okay.

However, there is quite a bit of site prep to do.

Okay. No change in the height. You're still wanting the 25?

Yes. I just have a quick question. Does it comply with the on the property edge, like how many feet from the? The sidelines . That's all good? Because I'm trying to look to see what it is.

They're asking if they're of the appropriate amount from the side yard setback.

Yeah.

We are assuming they are, because if they're not, they don't have approval to be in the side yard.

They do meet that criteria. 15 feet, Susan says is the distance.

We're here just on the five, one inch extra height and the exceeding floor maximum allowed 1742 and the request is 2590. They don't believe they need the variance replacement in the front yard according to the concept plan handed out tonight.

That's the first time I'm seeing it. I'm glad it's not in the front yard anymore. I'm fine with the height. I'd rather it be closer to those 1,742 square feet for that size lot in that subdivision area. But I'd like to see what others think.

Is there any way you can make it any smaller?

Yeah, so it's essentially going to be like a recreation slash sports bar. And so those are kind of like the dimensions. So it's safe for kids not running to the wall in front of basketball and soccer. If I recall from last time, too, I think we had mentioned that you guys seemed to be OK with the height and size. And it was the location.

What did you have to do to the property to make that fit there, or what will you have to do?

So we're actually not finished with our site prep quote for him, but it's pretty significant. There's going to be a lot of trees that need to come down, and there is going to need to be quite a bit of dirt brought in.

And what is the height difference between the proposed building and your home? Which is taller?

I believe my home is taller. You've got a two-story, right? Yeah, it's a two-story, and it's a...

I hate to sound like a broken record, but can you talk closer to the mic, please?

Yeah, so I guess my house is a two-story house, and the roofline is very bolted or peaked.

I do have a question. Has this been brought up to the neighbors or anything like this?

The change of the position? Yes. No, because the change of the position wouldn't require new notice because they're taking a request off the table instead of adding. So there would have to be a new. Correct. This isn't a request that anyone isn't aware of. We've just taken one off. So they got notified of three. They're only here for two now.

Okay. Is this going to match the house in any way?

Yes. Match the siding colors. Yes.

Picture of the elevation, frontal view. Absolutely.

I did not bring enough copies for everyone on this one. Sorry, guys. We can share it. Thank you.

Oh, no, we do not have anything for the home.

I was out there to see it before our last meeting. And I'm not having a little bit of a hard time now visualizing with you moving it back behind the house, how visible will that be from the street now? Do you know that answer?

Probably downhill. I mean, the way that the property line sits, right? So I live in like a corner and it's also like, it goes down and goes up the hill, right? So when you're coming from, I don't know whether it's Windridge Drive. I don't know which direction it is. Right. There's like a tree line in front and then there's a tree line that goes all the way down. The only time you really see it is either when you're like actually driving past the house, like in the front, like going up the hill. And that's like really the only spot it really stands out because there's a tree line right there and it's going around the curve.

Okay. Thanks. I'm unsure, as far as the visual, without seeing a scale diagram, what it's going to look like next to the house.

Kind of what I was getting, I didn't know if landscaping was questioned around our realm of requiring.

No, as long as he's asking for relief in one of our designs, if you guys thought that landscaping would make it more palatable, that's within your authority.

Given that you're hauling dirt in, can you drop the elevation of the building so the height isn't so tall from the outside? Do you follow what I'm saying?

Are you saying build the building on a lower elevation?

25 foot high, but maybe three or four foot in the ground or something like that.

Well, yeah, so compared to the road, I'm not exactly sure how far down that is, but it's a significant slope back there. We would definitely be four, five foot lower than the road there. I mean, if that is what you mean. But building it into the ground?

Yes.

No, no, that's not possible with a post-framed barn like what we're doing.

Okay.

Staff, did you have anything to add on this?

No additional comments.

Well, we'll take some more questions or a motion.

It seems even the first time we don't have any neighbors or anything that works. seemed concerned or opposed to it also when it was in the front yard. I guess now with it being in the backyard, the more I think about it, I guess it's all right.

Are you proposing a motion then?

Yeah, I'll go ahead and make a motion to allow the increase in maximum height from 20 feet to 25 foot 1 inch and to exceed the maximum floor area. Otis, 1,742 square feet. We'll go ahead and go with the 2,590 square feet. And the siding match? And the building siding color to match the house.

I'll second that.

So just to be clear, matching the siding of the house is an additional condition?

It was already a requirement.

It's a requirement anyway. Right, right, okay. I just wanted to clarify.

Okay, thank you.

Case number APL 2026-16 looks as follows. Arvid Merkner, yes. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Debbie Cook, yes. Bob Gilliana, yes. Passes 4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

All right, that brings us to the new business. With new business, we have public hearings, so I'll read the rules of conduct for those hearings. 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 rebut any new statements made by the petitioner in this rebuttal. They 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 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 demonstrators or supporters to the petition, including photographs, shall become property of the board and part of the record. We have microphones on both ends of the DS here. When you come up, when your name's called, if you come up to one of the microphones, we need your name and address first and then tell us what it is you want to say about the case. Our first case is UB 2026-55, Keith Dougherty. The location is 356 East, 100 South Valparaiso. Zoning is A1, General Agricultural District. Acres is 1.25. And the request is seeking to renew the use variance permitting the operation of a custom woodworking shop out of a home. Hi.

Hi.

You can tell us a little bit. We've got new board members up here, so if you can talk about what you're doing and why you need the variance.

I build custom furniture out in the country.

We need your name and address first. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry?

Your name and address.

Keith Doherty, 356 East, 100 South, Valparaiso, Morgan Township. Yeah, I use my pole barn to build custom furniture. I've been doing that for 31 years. Actually, I've been doing it my whole life, but in my location for 31 years now. I'm mostly surrounded by farmland. I only have one near neighbor to the west that I haven't had any issues with him or the previous owner that lived there. So we'd like to continue that, doing what I do best.

There's nobody that signed in to speak. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to talk in this case?

No.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

I read here you have no employees. Are you the only one that does the work?

I'm sorry, what was that again?

I read here that you have no employees. Are you the only one that does the work there?

I do have an occasional helper that comes in. I'm 66 and I need another hand in a while. Okay.

So it's not like the people are always pulling into your driveway to buy the furniture or anything like that?

No, it's not a showroom. Occasionally a customer might stop by to approve a sample or drop off a check, hopefully. But things like that. It is open in that regard. But like I said, there's no showroom, no reason for people to just browse there.

And is the work done primarily during the day?

yes roughly my hours at roughly 7 30 to 5 that i'm out there thank you do you store any materials outside or is everything confined inside a bar everything's inside yeah no seems clean staff do you have anything comments on this case

In your staff report, you saw they've been here previously for the same variance. Reading from this, every year they continue the approval with these conditions. No signage on the property. To indicate a business, no traffic. And then they were granted five years here in 2021, 26, 16, and then 21. And the motion generally had the conditions that, let me find it, compared to five years. No sign, no employees, no parking lot. Hours of operation, is that true 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.? 7 to 5. 7 to 5, whatever. I was giving you a little slack there. Yeah, so if you want to add that as the same stipulations as before, that's up to you.

Yeah, I can make a motion to go ahead and... to approve the request for the use variance for the customer working shop out of the pole barn with the stipulation being that there's no signage on the property to indicate the business, no traffic, customers. Usually no customers. You usually go to their home to see how it's going. And you said you do have an employee every now and then. Then your hours are 7-5 or 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And we can grant this for five years and then come back for renewal.

I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second.

Case number UV-2026-55. The votes are as follows. Albert Merkner, yes. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Debbie Cook, yes. Bob Gilliana, yes. Passes 4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Five years.

You probably will. I don't think I can retire. Okay.

Our next case is DP2026-53, Family Express Corporation, Curitiba. The location is U.S. Highway 6. It's the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 6 and Calumet Avenue, South Brazel. The zoning is CH High Intensity Commercial District. Acres is 15.6. Quest is seeking for the following development standards variances. One, to allow accessory structure canopy and pumps on both sides of Highway 6 front yard and the corner of Calumet Avenue front yard. To allow the building to be outside of the 50 foot to 80 foot envelope of the U.S. Highway 6 overlay building. The building envelope being approximately a 145 foot setback from existing U.S. Highway 6 right of way to eliminate the sidewalk requirement for both Calumet Avenue and U.S. Highway 6 frontage.

Yes. Did you want to read the second one and we can address both of them simultaneously?

Right. We'll combine the two since it's the same particular. The next one is SE 2026-54, Family Express Corporation here at Todd Leith. Location is US Highway 6, southeast corner of US Highway 6 and Calumet Avenue, Valpo. zoning is ch high intensity commercial district acres is 15.6 the request is seeking for a special exception to allow a septic and well development within the high intensity commercial district very good thank you so much um

My name is Todd Leith. I'm counsel for the petitioner, Family Express Corporation, this evening on these two matters. Patrick Lipp is general counsel for Family Express, and he joins me at the table. Also with us is James Huss from DBG Team. They are the design professionals for this project. And tonight we have our first step of two main steps in order to develop this project. The first two are development of standard variances and the special exception, the two cases that you read. I understand that we're going to present on both. We'll hear comments from the public interested parties tonight. We'll do our best to answer those questions and yours as well. And then hopefully there'll be two votes in the affirmative following the public hearing. So with that, I'm going to go through my PowerPoint as I typically do. So the red boundary is the property in question, 15.55 acres. I think we round it to 15.6 for the petition. 15.55 acres. There's actually two parcels, a north parcel and a south parcel. And that blue line kind of divides the two. That's the GIS screenshot, but that line is kind of the dividing line between the two parcels. The two parcels also form a line on your zoning map. The northern parcel is the CH, high-intensity commercial, and that extends for the entire Highway 6 frontage on the northern parcel. The southern parcel, if you will, below the blue line that has frontage on Calumet is zoned residential RR. So we're here to establish a new Family Express filling station and convenience store. This is their new trademark branded You've seen a similar store at Division and Highway 49. This is not nearly that size. This will not have any truck bays. It'll only be automobile gas, just as you kind of see in this instance. I've represented Family Express for far more many years than I would like to admit. And I was reading in preparation for tonight's hearing that they have 87, maybe even 88 by now, sites throughout Indiana. But they started here in Valparaiso in 1975 and have grown from here. And I think Family Express does a great job. They have a thousand employees, and they're responsible corporate citizens. We had a hiccup here, and we're going to talk about that. But Family Express is, I think, a great organization, and they're well involved in our community. It's a hometown business, if you will. Convenience stores are not the same convenience stores that I remember when I first started representing Family Express decades ago. They're seating now to eat. They have all sorts of coffee options and food options throughout. the entire store. If you've been in one, it doesn't look like, again, what I think of as a convenience store when I first started going to Family Express. This is the overall site plan. And when I say overall, I mean all of the 15 acres that we're going to be developing. I took a ruler and did a calculation. This is that corner, if you will, of six and Calumet. And I measured the length and width of this corner. site within our 15 acres and it was 5.2 acres out of our 15.5 acres. So we're really only talking about developing a third in round numbers of what we purchased earlier this year. And what we're going to do with the rest of it is completely unknown. We had to buy all 15 acres. The owner would not sell us what we needed. He wanted to sell all of it. And so we acquired all of it. The site has two entrances, one on Calumet, one on Highway 6. I saw an earlier email from James that the highway department permit has been filed as recently as today. But that is just kind of the starting process of the formal work. James and DDG have been working with the Highway Department for weeks, if not months, leading up to the filing of the formal petition to make sure that staff was looped in and understood what our concerns were, what our desires were, and what their requirements would be. There is no car wash at this site, though we would like to have one, but we cannot have one because the second part of our request tonight is to allow for septic and well for this site, and you can't have a car wash with a well and sanitary or septic. In the future, if that does come, we would likely add a car wash to the site. The front parking, the site is very consistent with Family Express design in those other locations. We have a landscaping plan. Detention pond is going to be on site. Plenty of plantings to comply with your ordinance. You'll note that when we get to talking about the needed variances, landscaping is not one of those. Stormwater is not a variance we're seeking. No architecture, no height requirements. All of the other development standards we're complying with. And this landscape plan will be important when we get to the last step, which isn't before you tonight, but that would be the development plan. So we're going to have to do that as well. So what we are asking you tonight is to grant three variances, one to allow for the fueling pumps and the canopy over the top to protect the customers from the weather, to allow that to be in the front yard. canopy is considered a structure and as you know you can't have a structure in the front yard in front of the principal building our convenience store is the principal building so the canopy can't under your ordinance be in the front yard that's one of the variances we're asking for i believe that it is um extremely common for fueling stations, gas stations, to have the pumps in the front. Customers kind of expect that. We think it's the safe way to ingress and egress from the traveling public, in this case Highway 6 or Calumet, to the pumps. Pay at the pump is obviously what most all of the customers do, and then exit out. Those who come for coffee and other food items in the store have the parking along the front of the store as well. And the setback allows them to safely get to those parking spaces and avoiding the conflicts with those who are pumping and fueling up as well. The second variance has to do with the overlay ordinance and to allow for our building to be outside a band that is 50 to 80 feet wide that runs parallel to Highway 6. Oops, I missed the last one. The last one is We do not want to build any sidewalks the sidewalks if we were to build them would serve no other properties So let's talk about each one of those three a little bit more. I touched on all of this. The canopy, I've circled on our zoomed in site plan to show this location in the red oval. Again, out in front, we think that that's the safe place to do it. It allows for the traveling public to find the pumps. First of all, to see the pumps, see our signage, see our store, and stop. Not every one of our customers is local and comes there as a destination. Fueling gas is not a majority, but sometimes is an impulse purchase. My gas tank is on E or I'm below halfway. I need gas. Oh, there's a gas station. So We have to be very concerned and safety-minded to make sure that those folks who haven't been to this site before can safely navigate to the gas pumps and not have any conflicts with other visitors who are in the store for food items. design with the gas pumps in front is kind of the typical gas station design, if you will, and your ordinance doesn't allow that because it determines those canopies or structures. The second variance has to do with this band. Your ordinance wants the buildings to be out front closer to highway six uh in the overlay ordinance in the 50 to 80 foot band we want to be set back to allow for those gas pumps to be out front just as the first variants talked about and in doing so we're 145 feet back That triggers another variance. And so that's variance number two. And it allows us to put those pumps in the canopy out front. And we think it's the best thing to do. We've got... 15 acres, we're using five. And if we complied, we don't believe that it would be as safe of a design and we would be on a lot less acres on the corner squeezed up top. And that's kind of what your ordinance is anticipating. At least that's what I gather by looking at it. The third variance is sidewalks. We're not against sidewalks, but we're against sidewalks that don't have any benefit. It's, in our opinion, just a cost that is not beneficial to anyone. DBG did a great job. They looked from our site. Those two red lines, Highway 6 is the east-west line. Calumet is the north-south line. No sidewalks in any of that for miles in either direction. So, again, it truly would be a sidewalk to nowhere. So we don't think that it's... fitting to have a sidewalk in this location because of that. The second part of our request is a special exception. Special exception in this case talks about, well, first of all, your ordinance requires that in the CH, High Intensity District, that all development all development be connected to sewer and water. And this is a remote site away from those utilities and your ordinance provides for relief in those circumstances. And that relief is found in 5.62. We went to DRC and we talked a little bit about 5.62 and it was agreed upon that we should follow that. And in 5.62, the Board of Zoning Appeals, you folks can grant relief where the sanitary sewer connection and or the water connection is not available and would otherwise be permitted. The connection to utilities is simply not feasible. McMahon Associates, a local engineering firm, provided an estimate for connecting to a sanitary sewer. They found that that letter, which Mr. Jabo has, has two options, the least of which shows a cost to connect to Coffee Creek of $1,240,000 is their estimate. Obviously, we think that that's not feasible. Then DDG provided us with an estimate for the water connection, and that would be all the way to the town of Chesterton, $2,910,000, over $4 million to connect to utilities if you take both of those. So it's economically not feasible to develop this property. It's zoned high-intensity commercial district in your ordinance. Every development, not just a family express, not just a gas station, would have to connect to utilities and conceivably spend that $4 million to bring those utilities. Soil Solutions has provided an estimate for what the cost of commercial septic and well would cost, and their range was $75,000 to $125,000. If you take $125,000 and you divide it by the 4.1 million, it's 33 times the cost of a septic and well. We believe that requiring any developer, certainly this one before you, asking for relief to connect to sewer and water and spend $4 million is not an economically feasible matter. So we would respectfully request that the special exception be granted as well. I want to talk a little bit an unfortunate hiccup and I don't mean to say a hiccup in a glancing way. It's more than a hiccup. An unfortunate situation developed when Family Express acquired this property. They did so in April, excuse me, in actually two deeds. We had those two parcels that came in two separate deeds. Family Express engaged a contractor to clear trees and prepare the site for development after they acquired the property. And the contractor, who was responsible for securing permits and doing the work, didn't secure the permits and went out and clear cut the property and did a... terrible job in doing so. There was soil disturbance and the staff was contacted and a stop work order was issued in June, June 9th. We received the stop work order. Family Express notified the contractor, immediately stopped work. All work stopped, and the design professionals then prepared and secured permits on July 6th from the county, and the state issued a construction stormwater permit on the 13th the following week, and then work resumed. Family Express was assessed and paid a fine. So it's very unfortunate that that happened. Family Express is responsible. We're responsible for our contractors and Family Express apologizes. Patrick is, I understand Family Express has contacted some of the neighbors that have been put in touch with us and we're willing to certainly continue to do so. We have the permit that was issued from the county. I mentioned that Our stop tonight is our first stop. We have another stop that's called the development plan. We can't get the development plan until we have permission to build in accordance with our site plan. Our site plan requires the variances that we've outlined tonight. The special exception as well because we're not bringing sewer. Once we receive your hopeful variances tonight then we'll finalize our site plan all of the engineering and we file and then the process as you know your stormwater engineer excuse me your stormwater engineer will review dbg's drainage calculations the size of that pond the shape of that pond the depth of that pond the clay or not clay on the bottom of the pond, all of those engineering detail of stormwater will be reviewed by the stormwater department. And then the planning staff will review the site plan to make sure that we comply with all of the development standards. Well, we know that we're not complying with three. That's the variances tonight. So that gets reviewed a second time, and then we have to get approval of that development plan from the county. And that circle around the CH is showing that we know that it applies to us, and that's our next step following tonight's hearing. So with that, Patrick and James and myself are happy to answer any questions that you might have or those that come from the public. Thank you.

Thanks. Patrick, you didn't want to add anything, did you?

Not this time, no, but thank you.

Okay. We've got one case that nobody signed in on, so I assume everybody just went to one. one of the cases nobody signed in on everybody signed in on one so we'll just go after that the first one is todd mantich and if i said that wrong i apologize

Good evening. My name is Todd Matnich. I reside at 808 North Calumet Avenue, Valparaiso, which is the second residence on the northwest corner of 6 and Old 49. A little history. I lived there 70 years, born and raised there. My family started, of course, back then, five acres of land right there. So we used to have a gas station at the corner. Actually, there's been one pretty much since I remember. Not a problem with any of that. I've known Gus Olympus. since 75 when he got his first express. No problems with him or anything he builds. He's, from what I remember, an awesome guy. Does good work, has nice businesses, keeps them up. My problem is this. I have two acres now on that corner, and every drop of water, every cigarette butt, every cup, everything that's ever thrown on the ground at that corner which, if you guys know it, it's a bowl. Everything that comes into that bowl of that intersection goes north, and somehow the people that designed it have a drainage that comes right to my driveway and opens up into my yard so i have all the water all the trash everything that comes from that intersection which is a used car dealership a pool supply place luke's gas station and now potentially another gas station which i assume is going to be paved uh bottom line is more drainage from that intersection as far as i can tell it's going to be coming north because there's nowhere else for it to go which means i'm not sure from their plan how much pavement is going to be included i assume it's going to be quite a bit and what that means is more water in my yard which I find it interesting they're here for septic and well, but pretty much my septic field is under a pond every time it rains, any consequence. The county knows, drainage boards knows, county highway knows. I hate to say it, I wish there was somebody here from her. Two years now, they've done nothing. So I look out every time it rains to a pool that's covering my septic field. It does drain out with time. Within a day or two, it goes. But it's burying my septic field with water. It runs to my driveway, and I put a 15-inch culvert in. I even paid for it. The county put it in. That 15-inch culvert in my driveway is insufficient to handle all the water from the paved intersection down. So it comes over my driveway, down the driveway, 30-some feet from my well. So all the contaminants, whatever comes out of those vehicles, is coming 30-some feet from my well, which I haven't had it tested. So I don't know anything about the contamination part. But I don't think any of you folks would like to live with a well that has gas stations feeding to the proximity. Bottom line is, it's ruining the landscape. The drainage is a massive problem. All I can see from more pavement, more gas contaminants, more garbage that I have to clean up from my yard every time it rains, I asked the county to tell me one other property in this county where the intersection dumps into somebody's yard crickets or something. I'm not sure why I'm gifted, and I understand their issue is not with their drainage, I guess. They're just wanting to tie in current drains. My problem is they're doing everything proper for them, but it's putting additional... burdens on me, which is going to eventually render my property useless if I can't use a septic well in my own well as an issue. So anyway, I'm asking you just to consider when you pass this, or if you do, that even though it's not next to their business, it's everything that comes from them comes right into my earth, their side yard. And that's a problem. So you're basically granting a septic and well for a business, and you're taking away a septic and well for a private citizen. That's the tradeoff, as far as I can see. And thank you very much.

Thank you. The next name, it looks like it's Paul, but it's 168 East on Highway 6. I apologize for not being able to reach you.

That's okay. Paul Davis. 168 East US Highway 6. As Mr. Lee so eloquently put it, their hiccup has created a lot of problems for myself, excuse me, and my neighbors in terms of it's going to destroy our property values, number one. Number two, they've taken and the hiccup clearing property has created a tremendous burden, not only on 168, 170, and the neighbors adjoining 168. They took out all the tree break, and now we've had this windstorm that came through, and everybody's out thousands of dollars right now moving trees around, and we're going to have a gas station in our backyard. My question is, where is the retention pond going to be? Because it's going to From what I saw, it's going to back up right to my driveway. So there needs to be some real consideration. And the neighbors at 168 East, they're completely exposed. The tree service cut a tree, and they realized they got across the property line, left it, and it fell in the neighbor's front yard. Fortunately, it didn't hit one of their kids. So there's some real issues here that need to be addressed. before we start building gas stations.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Caitlin.

Hi, Caitlin Starnowski, 170 East US Highway 6. I'm one of the neighbors directly adjacent to the property line. As mentioned, when they cleared out all the trees, they cleared out everything. So any separation between the gas station property and our residence is pretty much gone at this point. where before you couldn't see property from the road, you can see not only our house, but the neighbor directly next to us, that's all been cleared out. Storm damage also happened because there are no trees left, and not just the derecho that happened, the storm prior to that two weeks earlier. We had telephone lines come down that haven't happened in the 10 years that we've lived there. So there's a lot of damage because of the lack of trees. Also, I am concerned about the lack of trees. We are on a slight incline, our home, compared to the commercial property. All the trees are gone, and so there are now no roots in the soil, and I worry that it's going to have an impact on the property and maybe uh erosion i'm not sure if there's been any studies done on that because of how many trees were truly removed it is all dirt now there's been some growth back with grass but it's all the trees are gone that's been there forever and i'm not sure if any eroding will happen which would cause structures that are up on the hill to be damaged so that's a concern that we would be interested in knowing more about as well And so we wanna know if there is going to be any type of rebuilding of a separation between the houses and the commercial property, because right now what has been cleared is literally in our yard, both front and backyard. We had talked to the builders, not builders, the people who are clearing the trees and asked them to be careful of the property line. We've never spoken to anyone from Family Express. They said they notified people about the trees and we have not received any information about that. And again, we are one of the closest property lines on that, that shares the edge of the property line. So I'm not sure how that contact was made because as far as I know, we did not receive any contact about that. So we are hoping to get more clarity on the structure. This is the first time we have seen any type of building plans or anything because no one has spoken to us about this at all. So we hope that you will maybe consider further review before approval. And I want to thank you guys for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, no one else has signed in. Is there anybody in the audience? Okay, if you want to come up, we need your name and address first, please, with something new, if we haven't heard it already.

Hi, I'm Cheryl Abreu at 178 East US Highway 6, and my concern is the intersection, US 6 and North Calumet. It's a mess. It's a mess after school, and so my question is, is there any traffic studies that are being done? Is there going to be any improvements at that intersection if this gas station goes in? And I also agree. Them taking out all those trees did a lot of damage from the corner all the way down to the seasons. All of us on that site has major, major damage from the storms.

Thank you. Anyone else that hasn't signed in that wishes to talk? Okay. Mr. Leitha.

Let me first suggest, because there has been the failure to follow the ordinance because we had a contractor who got out over their skis and removed the trees without a permit. And we haven't, we, Family Express, have not been able to be in touch. Patrick, I think you had conversations or your company had conversations with perhaps one property owner. What I'm suggesting is Patrick's got a stack of his business cards. We need to, the folks here certainly, I would encourage to take a business card, reach out to Patrick tomorrow or at any time in the future so that Family Express can look, view, see what the damage is. I believe Family Express will do the right thing. I also believe that at this point, I got to pull my lawyer hat firmly on my head and tell you, I don't think that today they violated, they are in violation of anything. Removing trees is not... against the law your ordinance doesn't say that we can't remove trees it just says in doing so if you disturb more than an acre then you have to get a permit in advance and we've now done that and we've paid our our fine and today i think we sit in compliance with the law because of that that doesn't mean that we want to just wash our hands of it. That's why I'm offering and Patrick has offered to meet with the folks so that we can better understand the impact.

And Todd, if I could just add to that. Please. So when we first became aware of the permit issue, I worked with county staff there. There was one gentleman who did reach out to the county. We immediately, with permission of that individual, received that individual's name. He's the property owner, our first property owner to the south of Calumet. We reached out immediately, explained the situation. Actually, Dimitri, with him at his home, a long conversation there. We were able to explain what it is we were doing. And I don't want to speak for the gentleman, but I think he was satisfied with the exclamation and satisfied with the project and moving forward there. Again, as Taz mentioned, I'm not here to blame the contractor. Ultimately, they're a Family Express's contractor. It's on us. But what happened there is not representative of who we are and how we do business. And in hindsight, I wish there was some way we could just put it in reverse and not have taken down any of those trees, but we did. And as Todd mentioned, the business cards are here. I'll give it out to the general people who spoke or anybody else that I've met or who spoke. We'll meet with them either at our corporate offices, at their home, at some other location there. And I know this is not as specific as one would want to be, but we'll make it right. Ultimately, what happened there should not have happened. And I can commit that Family Express will make what happened right for each of those individuals there and talk more holistically about going forward. As Todd mentioned, and I will confirm, we have no plans for the property beyond what the Family Express footprint of the store will be. The property owner owned those two parcels. The only way to acquire the property that Family Express needed was to buy all 15 acres. We have a significant amount of excess property To a certain degree, no different than a situation we have where our most recent store across from Fairgrounds is going to buy about 20 acres to get essentially the four acres we needed. So we're looking there to sell the property there. Several years ago, you may be familiar with the store in the city of Valparaiso we called Valpo Viking, the one at the five-point intersection there. that situation, we have to buy a significant amount of more property. So it's not unusual for us occasionally to have to buy excess property. But we treat that same property in the way that we treat our own stores. We will make sure that if we do decide to sell a property off, it goes to appropriate users and obviously through all the appropriate approval process the county has in place there. If the meeting is done, regardless of what happens, I will hand out my business card and say I don't work with property owners.

Thank you. Go ahead and close the public hearing.

Debbie, I'm sorry, Madam Chairwoman. May I? Yes. I want to make a couple other points. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. The first speaker talked about drainage, and as I indicated, this is not where we talk about drainage. The next step is the development plan. That's when DVG is going to submit their engineering, and all of the drainage is vetted at that point in time. So it's coming, and we can't put a building up or develop the property without having that done. Mr. Davis asked about where the detention pond was. This is the location of the detention pond. This is the corner. This is approximately 535 feet. and i am estimating because i can't read the small survey but if you continue on it's another 500 feet to this property line so i believe that there is some distance between the detention pond and the property line please um

My name is James Huss. I'm with DBG Team 1155 Troutwine Road. I'm the consulting civil engineer for the project. What Mr. Mantich, what I gathered, I was taking notes very fast. I surmise that he lives on the west side of Calumet Avenue, north of Luke. While I certainly feel for what his difficulties are, I can't say definitively this property It takes a lot of water from off-site to the south. It comes basically into the property right at the south end of the detention pond that we're proposing. Currently, there is a 36-inch culvert underneath US-6. You'll see that little strip of blue across US-6. This plan, separate from the detention pond, we need to get our water that way. We determined that that culvert was actually a little bit too small, but needs to be upsized. That's a little overkill on the answer, but what I can say is that the area that Mr. Mantz was discussing, I gather, is on the west side of Calumet Avenue. This site's ultimate drainage path is not to him. It's to the agricultural field due north on the east side of Calumet Avenue. So while I feel for his problems, I believe I can definitively say that this development will not exacerbate them. And of course, we will be providing stormwater detention appropriate with the county's ordinance.

Where there is more detention today. Correct.

Exactly.

And admittedly, there's no store and parking and all of those things. But we think that the design and your county engineer is going to verify will certainly manage our water where it's not managed today. It will be more of it, but we think it'll be managed in a responsible manner. With regard to, James, the distance between The pond and over here, this is Mr. Davis, I think, and Caitlin and I lost your last name, are over in this area. So what's the distance here in ground numbers?

No, you had it pretty close to accurate. So the driveway we're proposing on the U.S. 6 is 400 feet from the eastern property line and 400 feet to the western property line. So we're in that 450 range. Very accurate.

So it's not next to your property, I guess is my point. Caitlin, I don't think they're going to rebuild the entire forest that we took down, unfortunately, because the future of this, while unknown, It's zoned CH, so I can anticipate that it's going to be something that CH would have. So, trees are not consistent with developing of the CH. Spent the money to take those trees down, just being brutally honest. We haven't gotten to, you know, development plan. The development plan is going to look at the entire 15 acres. While I've said we're only really touching 5.2 acres in the corner, development plan looks at the whole site. And so, anyhow, we've got that. The last comment, and I believe it was Cheryl, asked about the intersection. I mentioned to you that just today DVG filed the permit application with NDOT. We've been in touch with NDOT, James and his team. I believe you're a traffic engineer.

I am a traffic engineer.

Yeah. So he's got all of the alphabet that ends with a T, which I assumed meant traffic. So we do have traffic in mind and have recognized that the state controls pretty much ingress and egress to the site. And to answer the question of the speaker, yes, there is a traffic study. Has it been submitted? No, because that's a development plan process. It doesn't have anything to do with utilities. It doesn't have anything to do with the three variances that we're asking for. Anything to add to that, James?

Todd is absolutely right. That has been prepared and will be submitted should we receive these variances tonight. But I'll still address it very briefly. We have submitted that study to the Indiana Department of Transportation. We will submit it with our development plan. This intersection specifically, despite what the last commenter stated was a mess, I can say that as far as intersection goes, this does not have a lot of traffic. It actually performs very, very acceptably today. I think everybody has their own. of what a busy intersection is. This intersection performs at an acceptable level of service today during its peak hours and will continue so after this development is built. I'll leave it at that. Okay.

The last thing I wanted to say, I have to put that lawyer hat back on and firmly snug. Of the speakers tonight and the things that they had to say, did not address the variances that we're asking for. Nobody talked about front yard differences. structure. Nobody talked about sidewalks. It was all about the trees. And I regret my choice of words referring to the tree clearing as a hiccup because it's not. It's a significant matter and I didn't mean to make light of it by using that word, that choice of words. And as Patrick said, we can't unwind the clock and go back to what it was before. All we can do is address what might be in the future. And so Patrick is certainly willing to talk with the folks and do what we can. in that regard. But as to the variances that we're asking for that I put on the back up on the slide, as to the utility connection special exception request, there was no evidence tonight on those issues. And I think that the variances are well planned and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you have in that regard. Thank you for your time.

Any new comments from the audience? Something new? We need your name and address again.

Paul Davis, 168 East US Highway 6. The map that was shown previously, I'm talking about the 535 feet, does not address my question because my property is directly south of Budding. would be the backside of where the station is going to be. So he was throwing the east barrier up into the southern barrier. That's what I want to know.

Thank you.

Can I ask Mr. Davis to return and help me understand where he's at on the slide that I have now?

Go back to your picture of the corner with the renders. Okay. I'm down here. The Cernowskis are here on the east side.

The Cernowskis are over here.

I'm directly behind this.

Okay. So let me go back to the other one. You're down here, Mr. Davis? Is this you back here?

That should be me right there, yeah.

Okay. So our fueling station is in this location here. with the detention pond in this location, that's got to be over 1,000 feet away, Mr. Davis.

That's what I want to know, because where they cleared to is almost right at the red line.

This red line down here?

Well, the two there on the corner, yeah, the one that goes east and west. Okay. Goes north and south.

All right. Well... This property is zoned RR. This is the residential zoning. This is the CH zoning up here.

So, Todd, what you're saying is your development plan isn't going past that line into the residential zone?

The blue. It is absolutely correct.

So the proposed storage or this proposed pond will be north of that blue line.

It'll be in this area right there.

That's what I think the gentleman's attempting to ascertain.

Yeah, but Mr. Lee, where will the septic field be?

Yeah, so the proposal is to have the septic field in this general area where my... Marker is now. And it will be crossing the line. And so we'll have an easement into the residential area. But the septic field will be in this area.

And to the right there, do you see the 232.67? Is that the, do we think that is the line up to that next line of the property, the south end of that property, or is that about, I'm trying to give the gentleman an idea of how many feet from your blue line down to what I believe is his northern property line. I'm thinking that's about 200 feet. I don't, I don't. I think your engineer's nodding yes.

I showed 193.83. Okay.

So it is about 193 feet. So it's about 200 feet to his north property line is where your proposed septic would be. And to the north of that would be your drainage.

Correct. Correct. Yep.

Okay.

I see.

Anything further? Go ahead and close the. Need your name and address first, please.

My name is Walter Sarnowski, 170 East US Highway 6. I'm at the property directly east. of the proposed plan. My question is, you have to put in a septic and well, which I understand you don't want to pay $4 million. How is that going to affect my groundwater? Because Family Express is going to use considerably more water and utilities than my house or my neighbors. And it is not infinite. So how is that going to affect my well? Because if I have to try and dig another well in five years because all the water's gone, that's an issue for me.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Attorney Lee.

The commercial septic systems in Indiana are permitted by the state. So DVG, along with Soil Solutions, prepares a plan for a commercial septic system based upon the soil types. They've already done their soil borings.

And has that been filed with the health department?

Yeah, they're close. Again, Soil Solutions handles that. A very well-known company in name. John McQuistion's been doing it for many, many years. He and his company will file the permit with the state health department for a commercial septic system. The requirements for that are environmentally vetted. We will do what the permit requires us to do. And when it comes back issued, then the local health department inspects the construction to make sure that we're following the requirements of the state and the conditions imposed by the permit. So I can only assume that the answer to the question is yes, it's going to protect the community and the neighbors. As far as the aquifer, I can't believe the drawdown is going to affect the ability for that aquifer to recharge and provide for what's needed. I have a friend who's a geologist and works in this field. He's from Wyoming. And I asked him one time, knowing what I do and so forth about aquifers and so forth, and he laughed and he said, Todd, we got Lake Michigan that's, you know, 15, 20 miles away. You've got more water available here. I'm from Wyoming. That's where water scarcity is an issue. again um i just don't think that's going to be an issue again it requires a permit and we'll secure that permit and follow all the conditions required by it thank you all right ready to close it now yes thank you sorry close the public hearing go to staff

Thank you. One thing to keep in mind as you deliberate all this, it's currently zoned CH for that particular parcel. So had they not need the variances or anything, they could come in and develop as long as they followed all the rules of the Unified Development Ordinance. It's just that you've got the U.S. 6 overlay, which is the predominant overlay. There is also an arterial overlay on Calumet Road, but the U.S. 6 covers the vast majority of the property. So, by and large, that's why they're here tonight to get the variances. The reason we had the overlay is because we wanted the aesthetic quality, the space, the uses and everything else like that to be consistent, because this is a very important arterial route to the county. So, again, they are here for those three design standards variances and the special exception that's what before you today. So I just want to reiterate, someone can go in there and do commercial high intensity. And if they follow our book to the T, they would not be in front of you for any variances whatsoever. On September 10th, they did appear to the Development Review Committee. And for those that need to know, the Development Review Committee is various technical people in the county staffs. that sat and we gave informal comments to their development. Mr. Lee did touch on many of the things that we took note on and took book on. There's a couple to remember, I want to say. It is probably a fair statement to say that any other variances, if they can get it all done, but we haven't seen the technical drawings yet. You know there may be an opportunity they may have other variances, but they'll probably try to design to avoid those variances But variances could occur again. I'm not saying they will but that was discussed at the meeting Again as I said on in our UDO. When it comes to US-6 overlay, there are going to be specific architectural treatments. That's not to say you're dealing with that tonight. As long as they adhere all to that and it's within the UDO, we can proceed without any further board action. We talked about when it came to the water and the sewer, sanitary sewer. They indicated at the meeting that if it ever got close by to them, yes, they would like to to that because maybe a car wash or maybe other development they had planned to do there. We broached the concept of would they be willing to commit to that if it got to some certain distance to there. That by and large is all the comments that I think were left unsaid based on what staff said at the DRC meeting.

Thank you. Questions from the board, start with you Bob.

I don't. I'm pretty much fine with what they're asking for, to tell you the truth.

Okay.

That's fine for tonight. I mean, I appreciate the public coming out and making comments, but once the development plan is presented, that would be the ideal time to come out with those questions. Tonight, we're just doing these three or four different appearances.

I'm sure those canopies are going to be having some very bright lights well into the evening, and I recognize that you have the right to cut down those trees. But hopefully, we will do something to have some kind of a buffer zone between those homes and those huge canopies of lights that will be blazing until, I don't know what time, Family Express closes their business in the evening. I know I would not like to live next to that.

So I threw up on the screen the photograph of the current architecture. The lights, as you can see in the canopy, are down facing. We don't have the post lights or the pole lights. The lights on the building are canister kind of lights that also face down. There's no flood lights that are on the rough line that shine down on the parking area. So the design is I don't know if we would meet what is called dark sky standards, but there is certainly a design element that is sensitive to light, fugitive light that might escape off of the site. I will tell you that I've been doing this a long time and neighbors will see this even if the trees were up they would see it because light has has a way of going through the fields but it's not bright but it's visible and sometimes folks make it an error by saying it's too bright when they really mean they can see it and i i don't have an answer for You know, we can't make it invisible. And the lights, quite frankly, have to be there for safety, safety of our employees and the safety of the public and our customers who are coming in and exiting as well. So we are sensitive to the issue of lighting and fugitive lighting.

And we might, oh, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

On your topic of the lighting, we do require buffering around the perimeter. So as far as any residents in this case to the east and the south, they'll have to put some buffering in. Usually it's by vegetation. And then the U.S. 6 overlay just simply makes that a little more stringent within the zone as well. So that is a dumb, and I failed to mention before, there is many tasks, and that will be one of them.

I do have a question, and it's regarding the well and septic. I don't know how much water a car wash draws on a regular basis, if it draws a lot of water or not, but is that possibly an issue for that area if you're going to eventually put in a car wash and affect water?

We will not have a car wash. We cannot have a car wash without a connection to utilities. So on well and septic, there will be no car wash. Won't be an issue.

Okay.

That is correct. Yes.

Thank you. That's it for me.

To follow up on the light pollution, what were the hours of operation expected?

Patrick. Yes, sir. So essentially, depending upon the customers, usually between 5 and 5.30 we open, and somewhere around 10 to 11 is when the stores close. We have, of the 88 stores that Todd mentioned, we only have about 2 or 3 to 24 hours, and those all tend to be along Highway 65.

And that could alter depending on traffic studies?

Less so, more so customer usage of our store there. If we find that towards an evening, that location, 10, 30, 11 o'clock, there's very few customers coming in. We will adjust our hours of operation.

Okay. Regarding the acreage, it's 15 and a half acres total. How much of that is under the CH, the northern section?

It's about 8.75 acres, the calculation.

Okay, and how much of the property, I guess the term is impervious surface. How much asphalt and building are you guys planning on covering?

I haven't seen the...

I haven't run the calculation. Actual hardscape on your acre.

Okay, significantly less than the 75%. Yeah, oh yeah. Okay. That's all I have at this moment. Oh, last question on the detention pond. Approximately the size of that?

Again, the pencil tells the DBG team how deep and how wide it is. Do you have any idea?

Even gallons, how many gallons? Come up to the microphone if you please.

So detention ponds are made acre-feet. Is that the number that you would have, James?

Yeah, so we are, we obviously, the pond itself that we're proposing is substantially larger than is needed for this family express. We only want to dig a hole once. Obviously, there's a remainder parcel that may or may not be developed by family express or another party, but it may develop because it's zoned CH. So we estimate the CH parcel will require about 2.5 acre feet of stormwater detention. The pond has a capacity of right around three, just to have some buffer there.

I apologize. I can't relate to acre feet.

Okay, so acre feet is if you had a detention pond that was one acre in size, it would be one foot deep. If it were a half acre in size, it would be two feet deep, one acre foot.

Gotcha. This specific pond is actually five to six or even seven feet deep just because the topographic features of the land and the fall in the land allow us to get more bang for our buck and have more acre feet of storage on a smaller footprint.

Okay and that detention pond is behind the store southeast so the drainage should not go towards Todd's property or anyone else's property should draw back?

It will be piped to the Route 6 to that culvert should it overflow it will Sorry, it's controlled release. We'll go through that culvert and slowly, if it should overtop in a torrential downpour, we'll spill over into a settling base and then go into a much larger storm pipe and still go through the same culvert.

Now, part of the challenge is a lot of times in the spring when the ground is too frozen to absorb the water, that overflow will still function at that point in time?

Yes, it might function more frequently in a situation you just described, but... In no condition will the water go east or go south or go west. It will always go north to the east of the parking spaces and the air and vacuum station.

Okay, so this will not improve any of the neighbor's drainage, but it's not going to make it worse.

Correct.

It's a fair statement?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Thank you.

One of the things I understand what you were saying, Attorney Lee,

about the sidewalks.

But one of the things that we've recently been taught was that we need to be consistent with our decisions. And one of the things that this board has been doing lately is requiring the sidewalks, even though they're going to nowhere. In a worst case scenario, are you amenable to a commitment of putting them in? when there's others in the area or if we make that a condition that you do have to put the sidewalks in?

I think, Patrick, you want to?

Yeah, so as to the sidewalks, a couple things. One, we certainly would consent or to commit to the fact that if and when the county requested the sidewalks to be put in, we would put them in. I'm not sure how the county feels. I know some communities have a payment in lieu and whatever the calculation is for, today's dollars for what it would be to put the sidewalks in uh the petitioner that would contribute that and basically honor or have the uh the commitment uh fulfilled there um i think to todd's point the map does suggest i don't disagree that at some point you have to start um and if you keep on giving you know uh excuses or whatnot that you will never have the sidewalks there but i think in terms of what you see at that corner Again, outside of my expertise, the safety of having just that small portion of a sidewalk there along a obviously a traversed Route 6. So if it pleases the BCA, we would commit that upon request or upon there being critical mass or other developments further east, west, north, south, where our portion would complement or add to that, we're willing to commit to that.

Did you, Scott, do you have any comments on that? He mentioned in lieu of.

yeah i think to sharpen the consent i i would say that the consent the commitment if if family express was willing to commit to put a sidewalk in i would set the standard as when an adjoining property owner has a sidewalk that like that's the indication that family express put theirs in and then under those circumstances we don't have this amorphous And I don't mean I'm not being critical. It's just difficult 10 years from now to say we think this is a critical mass or there's one coming down here. We think it's coming. It's just easier to say when and if an adjoining property owner has a sidewalk because neither do now. That's when the commitment kicks in. So if we do find that circumstance, we haven't left our trail of saying we don't need one because there isn't others. If this area begins to change, then that allows Family Express to go in. And frankly, if sidewalks were adjoining, they would want sidewalks.

But subsequent builders can make the same argument. There's no existing sidewalks, and again, it's the sidewalk to nowhere. And then my second point, to be consistent, several sessions back, we held Nextera's feet to the fire and made them put sidewalks in Chesterton with the understanding that that area was probably going to develop fairly quickly. So I can go either way, but...

Well, to respond to your first one, if a neighbor came in, they would have to come in and get the same variance to remove the sidewalk. So, first of all, they're compelled to put it in unless you granted them a variance, too.

They're going to make the same argument.

Yeah, but now we're seeing that the site is developing.

But the difference is when the neighbor comes in, Family Express has a commitment, the argument that it's a sidewalk to nowhere no longer exists. And that is when the metric changes.

so we can get a commitment that it will be done under certain circumstances. Correct.

Yeah, OK. Any further questions or a motion, please? And since we did hear the two cases together, but we do have to do them each their separate motions.

electronic motion on case DV-2026-53. To allow the accessory structure can be slashed bumps on both sides of US 6 front yard and the corner of Calumet front yard. And to also allow the building to be outside of the 50 to 80 foot envelope of the U.S. 6 overlay, building enveloping approximately 145 feet setback from the existing U.S. 6 right away. And also to eliminate the sidewalk requirements for both Calumet and U.S. 6 with one stipulation being if other adjoining properties are built there, that they would need to, those properties along with this property here would need to have sidewalks built at that time. Is that okay?

So the commitment would go into effect when either adjacent property owner put in sidewalks?

Correct.

Do we have a second? I'll second.

I'd like to make a motion on case SE-2026. I'm sorry. No, go ahead.

Go ahead. We can read them both.

On case SE-2026-54, to approve the special exemption to allow aseptic and well development within a high-intensity commercial district.

Is there any contingency that when and if water and sewer became available that they hook up? Or is that not part of your motion? yes we can make part of it being that if it is available in that area city water and or city sewer that they are required to tie onto it at that time is there a distance how close is close i think the way to make the motion be when the either the sanitary or the water is offered to the property by a municipality or a municipal unit of government that family express would accept that

I want to be clear on the condition. Go ahead. I'd like to pattern or use the sidewalk analogy the same. If the utility is adjacent to us, then we would tie on. Is that the condition or...

We're getting to the same issue. We're saying, I think, we're trying to say the same thing. I'll make a correction. Indiana American Water may not be a governmental unit, but if Indiana American Water was on the adjacent property and or a sewer, a proper sanitary connection was available on either adjacent properties, that would make it available.

And I just the engineer in me would like to correct. Sometimes utilities are across the street, not an adjacent property.

And that's OK, too. I mean, if that's the case, I just I don't I don't want a utility to be granted a CTA for this site. And all of a sudden the county says, knock, knock, knock.

And to be clear, that's I don't mean a letter. We're planning on coming and someday we'll be there. You have to sign up. I mean, I did not mean it that way. I meant it. were adjacent or across the street, that is available.

As long as the condition is that way and stated in the minutes that the trigger to connect is adjacency or across the street, we're fine with that condition.

Yes, that's correct. As long as it's adjacent or across the street, that would be the time.

Then that is fine.

at that point is when you'd consider a car wash?

Yep. Exactly right.

Case number DV-2026-53. These are the development standards variances. The voting is as follows. Debbie Cook, yes. Arvid Merkner, yes. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Bob Gilliana, yes. Passes 4-0. Case number SE-2026-54. This is a special exception to allow septic and well development in the district. The votes are as follows. Pamela Fish, yes. Arvid Merkner, yes. Debbie Cook, yes. And Bob Gilliana, yes. And both of these do carry conditions to commitment. passes 4-0.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you as well. Thank you.

That is all that's on the agenda. Does anybody have any other items they need to bring up?

Okay. Motion to adjourn.