Development Review Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, everybody, we're ready. So it's 9.02 a.m. here on April 23rd, 2026. This is the Development Review Committee meeting. For us today, we have five cases to be heard. The first case is DP 2025-11, which is a continued case, Krins 5, LLC, Care of McMahon Associates, Inc., 550 North, 625 West, Wheeler, Indiana, Union Township. It's currently zoned CH, which is high-intensity commercial, 2.08 acres. The request today is from this body is to get development plan approval for the proposed two commercial buildings. And you did appear before, so if you could introduce yourself and your other colleagues and state your case.

Sure. Good morning, everybody. My name is Kevin Koros with McMahon Associates, 952 South State Road 2, Valparaiso, Indiana. Here with me are the controlling members of CRIMES. Grimes LLC to help answer any questions that you guys might have today. So a quick backstory on this project. Most of you guys have heard this many times so far. Now, there was some improvement work done on the property that was not permitted for. We got involved, helped them to permit the process as part of that. We got review comments from engineering and planning. both of which we now have the substantial conformance letters to. Just on Monday, we officially got our approval for the drainage board regarding the pond that is in the west side of the property that drains out to the ditch in this area. We have also appeared before VZA for a multitude of different variances to cover kind of the the improvements that were done on the property without a permit. So, so we are now adhering to all of that with the BZA approval. So now we're just in front of you guys now to get our final DRC approval, answer any last remaining questions we might have on this. I'm open it up to you guys to ask the questions you need.

If you have the BZA variant that you were successfully get, could you read those in?

I can. Yeah. You guys settled in. So on January 27th, we were in front of the board as case DB2, 2026-2. We had a handful of variances. Section 2.34, side yard setback of less than required 25 feet. Section 2.34, impervious surface coverage exceeding maximum allowed 75%. Section 3.06 C1A, buildings that do not match each other in design style. Section 3.06 C1CI, use of fewer than three-of-a-few façade materials. Section 3.06 C1CI, 5 relief from meeting facade standards on all sides of the building section 3.06 c1d a building designed with fewer than eight corners section 3.06 c1g relief from specific roof standards section 3.06 f1a a building height of less than 26 feet or two stories section 3.06 g2a relief from specific language or from specific landscaping and the 100 foot green belt requirement section 3.06 k2 relief from standard setback requirements section 5.04 f placement of accessory structures within the front yard section 5.06 c accessory structures with a cumulative square footage exceeding 50 percent of the primary structure sections 3.07d 5.22f 7.27 relief from full landscape plan requirements section 7.25 relief from the requirement to provide an interior and exterior pedestrian network want to take a break yeah thank you anything else you want to I think the only thing I did not mention is that we did also, and I think it's completed right now, so you can verify the deed of dedication for the additional right-of-way on 600 there. Or 625, I'm sorry. Throw that in there as well. It's with him.

No, it is not.

But we'll get that taken care of. Thank you. David?

Yes. This is a project that initially it started with a violation related to the work that had already taken place. Our office and McMahon Associates have been going through a development plan approval. Initial applications were received in late October of 25, and after a series of pre-engineering reviews, conformance was found in a letter dated February 10th, 2026. Those issues that took place over the three letters have been resolved over the course of the application process. I did just also want to state for the record, I don't know the details about this, but it was brought to my attention, I believe last week, when other members of our staff were on site, did the issue with the fence get resolved?

I don't believe I knew about an issue about a fence.

There was a fence that was seen that it was believed that there wasn't any submitted permit for it.

Did you guys know if you had a permit? I don't know.

That has not been brought up to us as of yet.

Okay.

So, yeah, somebody was on site. I've been hearing them.

I don't recall why they were on site, but somebody came to me and said, hey, you were doing the review for this. Do you know anything about this fence that was added? When was the fence put in place?

Last fall.

Last fall. Okay. And it's a chain link fence. Is that correct?

A fence with a little slant. It was just for the existing tenant.

Okay.

That was the fence for the lawless auto body, right, that is currently occupying. So the fence was installed for them specifically and their multiple vehicles and stuff that were on site.

Is the fence on the property that we're discussing right now?

No. It's on the first part of the property.

Okay.

But there's going to be some more fence that we're going to put around the perimeter.

That's what we have a permit for. That's what I was going to lock it off in. Okay. I can get a permit and maybe lay that all in the same one if you want.

Okay. Yes, please.

You know, it's just going to seal the entire area to make it secure.

Okay.

To clarify, the fence is not on the parcel in this development?

No.

Oh, it's not? It's not on the parcel. Yeah. It's not on the development.

Gotcha. Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Yeah, that was brought to my attention. I hadn't seen it. I thought that you all had already been made aware that there was a potential issue with defense.

Okay. Regardless, is that the same owner for both parcels? Well, it's not on this development plan.

You own both of those parcels?

Yeah.

Yes.

Then get the permits. I'll get them. Okay. Thank you. I'll rectify that regardless.

Anything else, David? Not at this time. Dan.

um i think prior wouldn't hear here uh everything on here is on white oak conservancy if there's bathrooms and stuff it's not on correct and to my knowledge and you guys can double check this but there there are no bathrooms on this parcel correct no no yeah there are no but if there were in any in the future they would all be tied down to the conservative and through why not the septic system so i don't have any further kevin thank you dan

You're out of room for a septic build here. You kind of filled the space. I assume this is going to be the last structure going on this, but it's pretty much filled up this small area. As long as you get the permits for the beds, I think we're in the final throes, although you have to go to the commissioners one last time. That's it.

Thank you, Kevin. Is that it? Okay. Martin?

No, after dedication right away, that's the only comment I would have.

Okay. Thank you, Martin. Susan, anything else to add? Rich? Okay. Any final comments by the petitioner?

No, we'll definitely look into the fence issue, and they'll correct that on the other property as needed.

Okay.

Thank you, guys. So would anyone, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve this development plan subject to them getting the fence permit and outcome of the final committee.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any other further discussion? Voice vote, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you very much. And for correction, going to the commissioners is for the deed of dedication.

Right. Thank you very much.

Okay. Before we read in the next case, I've used myself as a family interest in this next case. Kevin, I'll turn it over to you.

Okay. This case is MI-2026-6. Patricia J. Jabo, revocable trust 33. care of Rich Piazza with Corolla Avenue Marsh. This is Jabal Miner Subdivision, 241 South, 300 West, Belbruse, Indiana, zoned A1 General Agricultural District, 38.59 acres, primary plot approval for proposed three-lot miner subdivision.

Mr. Piazza. Good evening, Rich Piazza with Pearl Avenue Marsh, 111 East 3rd Street, Fort Worth, Indiana. Here seeking primary plant approval for J-Bone. minor subdivision county road 300 west of upraising indiana i have with me mr michael jabo who represents the owner of the property the subject parcel is located in the northwest quarter of section 16346 in porter county indiana as a toast gross acreage of 38.8 acres The property is currently consistent, consists of three residential parcels that result in the same three residential lots plus one residual lot. I know that increase in parcel counts. The property density is proposed to be 0.1 unit acres, which is a very low density consistent with the surrounding agricultural characteristics. For zoning and compliance, the current zoning is A1, general agriculture. The Board of Zoning Appeals heard and approved the qualified or required developmental standard variances on March 31st, 2026 as case number DV-2026-10. The variance is addressed for minimum lot setbacks minimum lot area existing structures not meeting setbacks maximum number of driveways existing structures located within the front yard setback minimum lot width of 240 feet three lot access not via public road and a minimum driveway separation all the lots comply with a lot coverage of 18.35% on lot 1, 14.5% on lot 2, and 9.5% on lot 3, which are all within the minimum standard of 35%. As for infrastructure and utilities, no sanitary sewer is located within 300 feet of the property. They will utilize the private septic systems that are already in place. Easements and drainage utilities are reserved on the plat for the county UTO requirements with maintenance responsibilities as addressed. There is a 40-foot right-of-way dedication along County Road South 300 West, and the post is being limited to 40 miles an hour, as you guys are aware. The agricultural use disclosure statement is also posted on the plat as required. The wetlands have been identified per the National Wetland Inventory and the soil types have been mapped out as per the USDA. As I started this conversation off with, we are looking for the primary plan approval for JBO minor subdivision. And any questions that we heard to answer.

And maybe it can add some context. My mom and dad bought the property in the mid-60s. They built their house with the barns. Back then, we didn't have rules. Hence, that's why one of the barns is in the front yard. And over the time, starting in the 80s, as my siblings started their families, they gave property to each of the siblings. They built their houses. I was the only one that didn't do that. So as my mom gets into her golden years, we felt it proper before she's no longer with us is to straighten out maybe years of sins, if you might say, or... It was parceled out. It never went through subdivision control because you didn't have it at the time. And so we're here today to straighten all those out, get the appropriate variances to make them right. And there is going to be no more new buildings today. If my siblings want to do something later, then they'll have to come back. So this is just simply an exercise straightening out property lines because there were septic fields that encroached on other properties. Barns were in the front yard. My mom wants to give the barn in her backyard to my brother, which puts it in his front yard. And that's simply what we're trying to do here is straighten everything out.

Okay. Do we have a public hearing process for this today or? Okay, so if anybody's here for it, I just... We have to wait 30 days before it's finalized after the notices. Right. I'm aware of that. I'm just asking for the moment in case we need to recognize anybody in the audience, but they can make comments at a later time or talk to us in the hall afterward. Okay. Let's go ahead and start with questions from the data, David.

Okay. We initially received application of the primary plat in the engineering division on February 23rd of 26, at which point we made a quick response seeking confirmation of something that Mr. Jaba just indicated. that this project involved the construction of no added impervious surface, no earthwork, and the creation of new, new lots. A letter of no earthwork impervious surface was received from Mr. Piazza on April 2nd, 2026, at which point the conformance letter for engineering was sent on March 3rd, 2026, with the caveat that it's understood that this conformance does not apply to any future development work on any of said lots. So again, that letter is signed by myself, dated March 3rd, 2026, with the understanding that no development is related to this subdivision. That's all.

So all the septics are going to be on the same parcel now with the houses that they go with.

With the exception of my mom's parcel, which is the one in the northwest corner, about five, eight feet of her, one of her lateral lines goes into the parcel behind her. And I believe we do have an easement, access easement for that small.

Okay, so as long as it's in a septic easement, that should be fine.

Good.

Mom's still lot one. As long as it's protected by an easement, then it's not an issue. It's just they have to be on the same parcel property as the house or be an easement.

That's all I have. Is lot 3 going to be accessed via that ingress-ecress easement? The existing one currently? Okay. I guess my comment would be make sure within the right of way. So this wouldn't be a privately maintained roadway, correct? Or it is?

It's not a roadway. It's a driveway. Okay. There's an existing, it's lot three, the back one. There's already an easement covering that.

Right.

That was put in.

About the width of it to make sure it meets the standards, just to make sure two cars can pass on it. At least within the right of way, if it is going to be, I'm not the best at the UDL language, but per the private roadway, a 16-foot wide 8-inch process stone. Certainly. Private roadway, making sure that it meets those standards or at least having enough. If it is just a shared access driveway, making sure it has adequate passing distance so two cars can pass on it.

I'm told it's wider than 16 feet in the right of way.

Okay, excellent.

No other comments? I think this is a good way to resolve the estate issues. If anybody's been through estate planning or post-estate planning, which is worse, it's a major problem and could take many years to resolve. So I applaud the petitioner for getting in front of it, at least at this time, albeit late. later than we're used to. I'm sure there's a few more of these out there. My question is, what is going to happen with the residual, to your knowledge, or?

Part of it is agriculture. It's the farm they rented out to the Maxwells. It's just going to stay in its current state until, I don't think my mom is going to do anything. It may be something that the state, the heirs will decide.

We just have to be mindful of somebody putting together driveway agreements so the residual has full rights to that private way, even if it's an agricultural use. Future owners of lot three, which is the back that uses this private drive, may have some issues with the residual owner of the future. Likewise, is the house at the southwest corner, although it's not part of this development, are they currently using the...

They are, and they're going to be party to the maintenance and access agreement.

Well, and make sure they have rights to get in and out of that so we don't have another driveway out on County Road 300.

No, that's exactly what we're going to do. And then we'll pro rata share the cost of the maintenance based on the share of the driveway that they use.

But just as important, we don't have another driveway out there that we can help with.

I don't think he wants another driveway.

Well, it could be somebody else living there the day.

No, you're exactly right. That's why we're doing what we're doing, to make sure it's all nice and neat and tidy.

So, Rich?

I had the same question about the lot that's not included.

Well, it's still a relative, so I just happen to be privy to that information.

Well, it's a relative today.

Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. They're all relatives today, and that's why they didn't do it. Mike's father, Bill, didn't feel it was a problem because he owned it all. It's old school.

Oh, they didn't know there were property lines up there. Everybody lived everywhere.

So in the long run, for everybody out there, it's at a time where you can get everybody together and hopefully an agreement.

They did. And it takes time to identify that. Yes, it does. Susan?

To reiterate what Richard said, to Martin's comments, there were several basic grants regarding access. It is a shared driveway, not a private road. And it does provide access to the residual parcel. They did achieve substantial conformance for planning and servicing as of April 23rd.

Okay. Any other comments? If not, do I have a motion? Move to approve. Any conditions?

Second. I'll second. Conditional upon, I guess, incorporating the additional language into the ingress, egress, easement for the accepted parcel.

And you can bear that in mind for the secondary plan.

So moved.

Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Go on back. Good job, Rich.

Thank you, Kevin. You're welcome.

All right, the next case is MJ2026-3, Ron O'Connor, Care of Tiemens Land Surveying, Inc.,

We're at Major Subdivision, located at 603 East 400 South Valparaiso, Indiana, in Morgan Township, currently Zone A1, General Agriculture, acreage 10.22. The request is an informal review of the primary plot of the proposed one-lot subdivision.

Introduce yourself, name and address, and state your case. David Tiemans from Tiemans-Lancering, 223rd Court in DeMonte, Indiana.

Ron O'Connor, 36 South Segar Road, Valparaiso, Indiana.

As you mentioned, this is a major subdivision. We were here last month for informal review prior to going to the Planning Commission to request design waivers, which were read off on the record at that last meeting that we had in March. We have since March 25th received the approval from the Planning Commission for those design waivers and we've also subsequently received staff approval for both planning as well as engineering on this one lot subdivision plat and so now we're Back to being on the agenda for the Planning Commission for primary plat approval. And so we're here again for the informal review of the primary plat. This is for one house, if you recall from last month, this was originally an 80 acre parcel that was split up by auction at the request of the original owners divided off the existing buildings and left farm ground as well as one 10 acre parcel which is what we are proposing as a major subdivision because of the way it was split out so it's one house one driveway that's all i have okay dave

Yes, where major subdivision was initially submitted on April 7th of this year. And the engineering conformance letter signed by myself was dated April 14th, 2026. This was a rather simple one to review because the runoff and quality issues were resolved by the conversion of currently agricultural land to lawn scaping. And the area in question was denoted on the site plan. So we'll be able to check after the fact to verify that that ground conversion did take place, which is what this was contingent. So engineering has no other comments.

Is that it? That's it. Thanks, Dave. Dan?

Soil borings were completed on the property. We've done it on site. It will support a system. Drainage is questionable. So most likely it'll have to be an above ground system. I don't see anywhere on the property that you're going to be able to get a drain outlet to daylight. Correct. So yeah, that's, but otherwise, yeah, they've gone through our process. They would just need to submit a site plan once it's done for you.

Thanks, Dan.

Kevin? No, it's just a one-lot subdivision. Looks like he's got everything. And just to answer my question about what they're going to do with it, I think because it's so flat.

Yeah.

I'll leave it to Martin to comment about the right-of-way.

Thanks, Kevin. Martin?

I saw I was there by being dedicated. I see 40-foot dedicate. Was there anything in particular you were talking about, Kevin? The curve coming into it from the west to see if that site. Oh, for site distance? Yeah.

Does that work for you?

So the one comment I did have was... for the driveway position, making sure that you have adequate sight distance to see any eastbound traffic as you're pulling out. So I would refer you to the INDOT design manual and make sure to verify against that for the position of your driveway. I think shifting it to the east might help you. That's the only comment I had for that.

For clarity, for the other side. Because that road curve's coming from the west.

Yes.

That was, and I'm not sure what the sight distances are. That's... I'll leave it up to him.

Yeah, if you're pulling out of the driveway going towards the south, if you look, it's forward of you how the county road turns. So you can see it very easily. Can they see you? Yeah, I can see them.

It's got to be two ways.

I guess my comment is it's not rear of you, it's forward of us. If you look at the alignment on the drawing, yeah, I think when you're at the edge of the driveway, the car would be hidden by that curve. So at least it wouldn't be directly in line with it. So you want to make sure that that sight distance is adequate.

Okay.

Yeah. And then shifting accordingly, just make sure that you can, again, meet that, I'd say, the intersection sight distance per end of the second manual. Mm-hmm. That's the only comment that I have.

And the only other reason I brought it up is because speeds, we have no way of really monitoring or controlling the speed. Right. So your new owner needs to be aware of that.

Yes. Thank you, Martin. Susan, any comments?

Yes.

Rich?

Good.

You're good? You can form this letter's date in April 1st. It'll count.

Okay. Just make it clear for the record. And what was it in March? What was the date? The 25th. That was for the BZA?

That was for the plan commission.

Plan commission. Okay. Waivers.

And again, this has to be a major subdivision between the improper split from

You refreshed my memory. Thank you. All right. Anybody else have any comments? Do you have any comments? I don't know. So is it your intention you want to appear at the May 27, 2026 plant commission? Yes, it is. Very good. Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. next case sc 2026-18 victory christian academy inc 360 north 325 east valparaiso indiana washington township zoning inst in institutional district total acreage is 12.16 today we're doing an informal review to allow septic and well for proposed addition to a school Can you introduce yourself name and your.

Business. Good morning Kevin Coros with McMahon associates 952 South state road to here with Kevin, a representative of victory Christian Academy. Also with Tanya Coleman with soil solutions. The purpose of our meeting with you guys today is to specifically allow septic system on this property. This property is zoned institutional, which is by UDO required to attach to water and sewer municipalities. I have submitted with the application a couple of probable opinion costs sheets, one for well, one for septic, and their comparison against the cost it would take to connect to municipal utilities. As we can see from those costs on the water connection side, I am anticipating roughly just over half a million dollars on water connection to the nearest point, which is the intersection of Forgive me, I don't know the road names, but it's on the north and west of this site for the water connection. And the sewer connection, which is located south of the site, is just under half a million dollars. The comparable cost with the water is $0. There is an existing well on site already in use for the building and for the septic. Again, very minimal cost. There is... an existing septic system on site now. However, Tanya has just informed me that the submittal to IDO for a new septic system has just been submitted. So they are going to construct a new septic system for this new proposed area, just to handle the new classroom area, as well as upgrade the existing systems that they currently have. So I have that valued at roughly $91,000. So still just over you know, five times the cost of a sewer connection versus the septic connection. And then obviously on the water, which I know we're not here for, but as I've already done them, they're well over half a million difference there. So we're here to get your guys' approval specifically for the use of the septic on the site. And I look to get comments from you guys to see if you have any questions for us.

Okay. Maybe to correct the record, we won't give you approval today. It's just an informal reason. Oh, understood. You'll be appearing before the VCA, which we'll discuss at the end. So, David?

Yes, these folks have been in our office for pre-application meetings for the improvements that they're looking to do. And this particular matter that we're discussing today is not related to my review. So, you know, the septic and well is not related to the stormwater review that would be being done. So whenever the package is, there's no formal package that's going to receive our office. But once it is, I'll conduct my review. And in my role, I have no comments on the allowance for the septic and well.

So in the two and a half years I've been here, Dan, it's your show.

So as you stated, there is an existing sand mount, elevated sand mount out there. It's kind of back in the wooded area. we've been out to look at it. It's not doing so hot. It's, um, it was originally put in, I think it was right before I was here, but then there was an addition, um, done to it. And there was some modification done to the septic, um, like in 2012, somewhere in that area. They have had soil borings done. Those were submitted to the state. The state has given back specs for a system, an on-site sewage system for taking in account the existing building and the addition they want to do. And then Soil Solutions doing the design and been in contact with Tanya with Soil Solutions, answering some questions and stuff. And they submitted it to the state for review. State will do review on this. It will get kicked back to us for permitting and inspection. So we will issue the permit on it. We will do the inspection on the installation. So you see nothing wrong with it?

I don't have any issues with it. And how about the well? No one's discussed the well.

If it's an existing well, they can continue to use that. Most likely, it's going to be a public water source through IDEM, so they should already be doing testing and submitting that to IDEM as is. If that's not being done, that probably needs to be done, but that would be something I would assume that it's... I think we do get reports on those that it is being submitted, but I'd have to double check that. Very good. Thanks, Dan. Kevin?

Yeah, it absolutely must be done, but... That comes to mind. I'm glad that you did the engineering studies on it because when you have public spaces, it's always in the best interest to have some connection to public water supply for fire flow. You don't have that here. You just need to be kind of working with your local fire chief and my advice is to have some kind of plan in place for fire suppression because I doubt that you have that in your building. You don't have fire flows with the well typically. You just need to be thinking in advance for your safety and the protection of your infrastructure building. You've got a lot invested. You're going to invest more. My advice would be have some meetings with your local fire chief tonight. And I have no doubt the state fire marshal probably does an annual visit or does some kind of certificate for you. Yeah, I was struck by the number of borings that you have on this side. At first I'm thinking, what structure is going in here? But then I saw they weren't the type of borings I think about in terms of as an engineer. But the layout was very similar to as if we were putting a structure on the filings. So you did a large number of borings. Did they exclude certain areas doing the septic field or? I can let Tanya, you and Tanya can answer that.

You could come to the microphone.

Please come up here.

There's a seat next to Kevin.

Kevin, you thought you were safe. You can sit next to us, Kevin.

Can you name an address for the record?

Tanya Coleman, Soil Solutions. Six, Michigan Ave. You moved. We moved, yes. And I forgot it. I almost thought I got it. Yes, I was like, what is it? Yeah. Valparaiso, Indiana. The borings were done in undisturbed natural soil. So they avoided areas where the original field is. So they were looking. to get the septic in an area where it's native ground, not disturbed.

For the borings you have, though, were any of those areas excluded as far as future septic, or were they all approved by the state?

They were all approved by the state. Okay. Yep.

So you just had more than you really needed?

Yes. The state determines how many borings have to be done based on a pre-application form.

And that was basically my question related to that. Why so many warrants? So I'm satisfied with that. I'm glad to see that they're approaching the issue. Do we have enough parking spaces for the addition?

I guess there was no here.

But it doesn't say whether we had enough. And we adopted a long time ago the idea of having a maximum number, not a minimum number of spaces, which is contrary to a lot of planning guidance. But I guess you reach the necessary parking spaces for the building, including the addition.

Yeah, so so we that calculation is 2.0. We do have enough parking spaces with that per for the UDL, which was based off of. Either number of students or. Total. Total population of the Assembly Hall, I believe, whichever is greater.

My drawing had required parking in three spaces per seat, but the proposed parking has no number with it, so I'm not sure where you ended up.

Yeah, so note number nine, yeah, and you are right. So yeah, three spaces per classroom or one space per three seats, whichever is greater.

So if you can finish, and maybe you did, maybe I just have an earlier drawing, but you need to go down the line and put in the total required spaces, total provided spaces.

Yeah, maybe you have an old version. That's on item 9 on our C2.0. That's all scaled out. Requiring 72, showing 72.

Thank you, Kevin. Martin?

Okay, no comment.

Susan? Rich? Any other comments by any of the members? Okay. Anything else, Kevin?

No, we'll obviously be in more discussions as we move through the approval of the review of this plan. So we'll hit that a little harder as we go.

So your next step is at the BZA meeting. Please take note, it is not on the regularly scheduled date of the third Wednesday. It'll be on Thursday, May 28th. And that's because we got various members on and off, and we had to reschedule and make sure we got meetings in May. So, May 28th. It's a Thursday. Same time, same place. Yep. Okay? Good luck, guys. See you. Thank you, guys.

The next case we'll hear is UV 2026-20. The applicant is Indiana Steel Carriers.

Mayor of Michael W. DeBatts. Did I say that correctly? DeBatts. DeBatts. Close. Close. Location is 447 North Old State Road 2, Valparaiso, Washington Township. Current zoning is RR Rural Residential. The acreage is 83.69. We're here today for an informal review to allow trailer sales and indoor storage. So if you could state your name and address and your reason to appear before the board today.

Sure. First name's Matthew. My last name's Pat. I'm with Indiana Steel Carriers. I'm the president of operations for all the families' companies.

The address is... You can pull your microphone and speak right into it.

447 North Old State Road 2 in Valparaiso, Indiana. And we're looking to be able to sell trailers to ourselves as well as Cisco. It will have no changes to what's currently there. It has an industrial parking terminal classification right now. And so we're looking to be able to have permission to sell trailers.

Okay. Before we really get to the board, Susan, could maybe you explain some of the processes? Very good. Then we'll wing it. What is the property being used? Let's set the tone for the members here. What is the property being used now for?

It's an industrial trucking terminal. So we run it from MPI East and we're going to purchase it next year. So we have our trucking operation there, and Cisco then rents from us, and Cisco's going to plan to expand that.

So there's already trucking on the property, even though it's a real residential? Yes, sir. Okay. And then what's the size of the operation right now?

So we have 50 trucks. 65 trailers. We have multiple terminals, so at any given time as the trucks come in, it could be 20 tops.

Is that today or tomorrow that you're going to have 50 trucks?

We have currently 50 trucks, but they're not all there. We have a Laredo, Texas terminal as well. We've moved steel for Cleveland Cliffs. U.S. Steel, one of our larger customers. So we actually take steel from Portage, Indiana, or Gary, Indiana, to Laredo, Texas, and then do the cross-border movement into Mexico.

And what is it then is going to, can you describe in words and quantity, what is it that you're changing to?

We're just looking to add, to have permission to actually sell us the trailers so we could have a more cost-effective manner to operate.

So you're going to bring more trailers onto the site to sell, or...?

Only to us. It may be two to four trailers at any given time, and they'll be stackable. They'll be in the backside of the property. Really, I don't foresee the trailers ever, maybe two trailers tops, but I don't want to say two and it's four, right? But how it normally works is, so we place an order with Mack Trail on Ohio. We pick the trailer up from Ohio, or they drop ship it to La Morada. And then those trails actually go to other customers as well from dropship. So we have Marina where they do steel studs. They're out of Chicago. We send trailers to them so we could have them preloaded so that we could take them wherever they need to go. and that we have the Sierra Nevada Depot will be staged and trailers out there. That's on the California-Nevada border for the Department of Defense.

And are you going to add any more paving buildings, et cetera? No. Anything with driveways or anything?

No.

Okay. Everything's preexisting. So this is more or less the use, what you're going to use it for? Yes. Okay. Very good. David?

Yes. So that was going to be my first question. With you at the site, have you developed the land either in terms of impervious surface coverage or done earthwork to the property to support what you're doing?

It was previously done as we rented it from the Marshalls for MPI East, which is one of their rental companies. Okay. So it's completely graveled, packed down. You know, I don't see any additional...

space needed really okay gravel is considered an impervious surface by our code but if it's not a part of what you're here applying for today i wouldn't have any further questions at this point on that my next question does this isn't this doesn't really pertain to my role but as you know kind of being in the lead-off batter spot here on the drc i'm typically the one to ask this um how How did we find ourselves here today? Are you here? This sounds like an operation you're already doing, right?

Correct. But since it doesn't have the proper variance to be able to sell the trailers, we can't get the license without the VZA variance from what I was told.

Understood. Okay. And so we're not here today as a result of public complaint related to noise or lighting or... No. No. You're proactively coming and trying to get this...

Well, we didn't realize that there would be an issue, so we applied with the state to be able to sell trailers, and then our application was denied here because it didn't fit the conformity of the product.

Okay. So we're not here as a result of public complaint? No. So this is the next series of questions that we typically ask the folks if they're doing some type of commercial operation. What are your current hours of operation where activity is going on on-site?

So we're open from, the office is open from 7 to 5 every day.

Including weekends?

Just Saturdays.

So Monday through Saturday.

And the traffic for the trucks could vary. Our office has six employees here, so really that's the traffic. We have trucks that come intermittently to drop off paperwork and things like that. It just really depends.

Is there lighting on site related to the operations you're doing?

There's previous lighting that's on the buildings that illuminate the entire parking area.

So the noise action was also just going on through regular business hours. You said six employees. In addition to the six employees coming and going for their shift, what does an average day look like as far as vehicles entering and exiting the site? And is it scattered or is it one particular time of day?

It's kind of scattered since Cisco's there. They could leave at 3, 4 in the morning to do deliveries.

Okay.

Also, I guess I probably should add this. They also come and, you know, pair up the trailers together and take them to Michigan to load them back up. And that could be at night. So their operations are a little bit different. They operate from, you know, almost 24 hours a day it seems like. But it just, when they're coming and going, it's just variable.

Okay. So that can be more sporadic.

Yeah.

All right. At this point, I don't have any other questions.

I do have a map of where the trail you can go that helps you guys.

Okay.

If you maybe give it to Dave. Yeah, I can pass it down.

Oh, okay. Great. Thank you.

Is that it, Dave? It's on the back side.

Yes, no other questions at this time.

Thank you, Dave.

Dan? So there's an existing septic system out there and everything. There is. And how long have you been utilizing? Since August of this 2025. Okay, so just recently. Yeah. And you said you're going to purchase the property?

Yeah, next year. That's the plan. Okay. I've already got the approval to do so. It's just a matter of dividing out the parcel because the marshals want, obviously, eight plus acre. Right. And that spot where the buildings are.

But to clarify, before Dan goes on, this operation's been out there long before you were here. Is that correct?

Yes. It was Young Brothers, and then Cisco has been there for three or four years. And then MPI East, the marshals, put it up for rent as a trucking terminal. That's why we came from Maryville out to Porter County, because we wanted to develop and build out here.

But it's always been like a trucking terminal. Yes. Okay. I'm asking because if it's a change of use and you're doing other things with the property, we usually want you to submit down to the state the information on the septic to see if what you're doing now is different. If the system can handle what you're doing now, but since it's been the same thing, you don't have to submit a change of use. Okay. And then the new building...

the new structure is that going to have any kind of plumbing or anything in it or there's not going to be any any structure so it's just going to be parking the trail okay it's just parking okay there's not a structure and then there's always okay yeah i saw the box and i thought it was going to be oh oh is this just a show where we're going to put them you know off to the side that's fine yeah not to scale by the way that's just it's probably gonna be right uh it could be 80 by 100 i would say okay yeah um i don't have any other questions thank you dan kevin

Yeah, that use has been in existence a long time, but not for as much land. In fact, I was surprised. I sent a crew out looking for a USGS marker that's in the middle of the parking lot west of the buildings. But I was kind of surprised because not only was it gravel, but also brining were put down. And it's pretty deep. for the amount of material they put down, obviously, for the trucks. But it seems like that area has kind of expanded over time. And I'm not sure if we ever went through a site review for this particular site. I don't recall. But, yeah, certainly it's expanded, particularly to the west and south with the gravel area over time. But I don't know when that happened. I was kind of surprised to go out there. The thing is, it's got some pretty nice natural shielding and buffer from the neighbors to the southwest, even to the north because that's Old State Road 2. And I was just talking to Mark about that because I didn't know if that was ours or if it was still the state's or kind of an argument about it. Part of that was... impacted years ago crop subdivision was done dave croft he's a friend of rich and i uh owned locally he no longer lives there but that's what kind of brought this in mind and i because the trees i don't recall ever seeing anything on that side to other than the the building group right there going back to the site now it's a used for trucks. Do they wash trucks there? No, there's no truck wash. Let's make sure that doesn't happen at all because we have some sensitive streams in the area. We just need to make sure that it doesn't create water quality problems. Are they dispensing any fluids? No. Doing any repairs? No, not in that aspect. Because... The gravel and especially the gravel combined with the grindings are very impervious surface right, but the bad news is it doesn't.

Okay, it washes off and I go off into the adjoining yeah we don't want to go in the field, I actually have my pesticide license through the state, so I use all you know i've checked all the. All the environmental ones, we don't want to hide them and complain. And I noticed that there was a beehive that's about a mile away. But my thing is not destroying the land that's in the area. We don't want anyone else. We don't do any washing, any sort of anything that's going to leach the ground because the marshals, I don't know how that works with them. They're renting it out to be farmed, but we definitely don't want it to destroy the land. So there's no washing or any chemical transfers.

Yeah, we want no impact if we can help it. Right. That's our ultimate goal.

I think a point of clarification, I was peripheral to this. I think someone else in the office reviewed this. They're going to the BZA, and they highlighted Chapter 5, our outdoor storage standards, because he's storing trailers and everything outside. Those are prohibited, though it seems to me that's the variance he's going for. Is that correct?

Yeah. I assume that it would be

all right because it's already you know it's a trucking terminal um i didn't realize that it would be so much of a headache to i don't think it's been there long enough for a pre-existing non-conforming use if that's what you're but yeah this we're after that but also easier because the state for selling the vehicle license or the trailer license requires them to be zoned appropriately

But being historic, what he's doing, he's going to be storing equipment outside. That's the variance he's going to make. Well, the trailers. Yes. Because it does say any building machinery, building materials, waste scrap materials. So it says machinery, et cetera.

And to that message, you know, he could store salvage trailers and stuff like that if he's given carbon. The problem is we want to make sure that these are – saleable trailers that they're not salvaged. They're brand new. They're brand new.

They're coming from back. So they're 100% brand new.

That's what you're doing now, but when they're granting variances, that's one of the things that we need to watch out for.

Understood.

We're not going to have title licensed trailers that are saleable. And there's a big difference between storing scrap metal eventually as we could end up with a scrap yard out there. I understand. That's not our plan? Right. Well, hopefully we're just meeting informally to send a message or ask the questions for BCA's benefit, and they'll be asking probably similar questions. Understood. Do we have signage out here? signage is there a sign out here there there is a sign already existing it was yeah we just we we replaced the wood and put our sign up but you know you probably should have come back to the department for a new permit but i'll leave it up to you and them to sort out i bring up that and lighting do you have security lighting out here there there is lighting there's no lighting on the signs No, I'm talking about the site itself. Yeah, there is a light. Around the post. We need to watch out for future lighting. Okay. Here again, albeit it's for the sale of trailers, but as long as it's here, we should be discussing some of these things. Anything else? That's all I have. Very good. Thank you, Kevin.

Martin?

Just kind of diving in quickly into the statement.

Diving into the records for Old State Road 2, I don't have any documentation that says that we did accept it into our inventory. I can't say that we have maintained it historically, but that doesn't mean that we've accepted it into our inventory. So it's something I'd want to do a deeper dive on and just give further comment later. Anything else? As far as their driveway goes, I would like the opportunity to kind of correct the current configuration. It's got one big sprawling driveway off of the Old State Road 2. Good. I'd like for, at the time of a development plan, to have the opportunity to revisit that.

That is a limit to access, so it's not all the way across, making the road near parking lot 1.

I understand. The way that it is now, I think they did it because they had a lot of traffic, so they just, you know, the one building is where Cisco's at, the rest, you know, kind of drive around the place.

Mm-hmm. Because you kind of got to catch 22. It's not Old State Road 2. It's not a county right-of-way.

Exactly. And it's one big casting blister.

It's huge.

Yeah. Yeah. So really, it's unknown the ownership or the responsibility of that road. Correct.

Correct.

It's not in the INDOT inventory either. Any other comments, Mark? Nope. Susan?

I think they just updated the board right now also. That's a problem a lot of times. It sounds like you need to go back and get a sign permit if you made changes to the sign recently. With that said, no development plan is required right now unless there's a condition of the use variance. And one will be required if slash when the applicant expands their parking lot further or adds on the building or anything like that.

Well said. Thank you. Rich?

No, that's really interesting in there for the state highway. We did a couple surveys up for them. That's quite a beautiful trip off of two on north to where it comes back up to again. So just a comment.

I think it bears, I agree with Martin, I think it bears looking into. Yeah.

That was done quite some time ago.

Mm-hmm.

We do things differently today.

Anybody else have any questions?

I do have one.

You have one?

Go ahead. The sign permit, even though that we just replaced the existing wood and put our sign up, we still have to get a permit. So there was an existing sign there. It was completely rotted. So we just, you know, it wasn't cemented into the ground. It was literally just in the ground. We didn't, when we replaced the wood, we didn't cement. These just the posts? Yeah.

Oh, yeah, we definitely did that.

Okay. You can follow up with that. Okay. No, sir.

We actually maintain that area. Yes.

across there and other... Let us look into that.

I mean, maintenance is maintenance. Oh, good.

Maintenance is maintenance, but a face change requires a sign permit. Now, if your sign is existing and legal non-conforming, a face change is allowed with a sign permit. So you don't have to bring the sign into conformance or anything if you're just changing the face or doing some maintenance. But if you wanted to, say, expand the size or make it lighted now or something, then you wouldn't need to bring it into conformance. But what you did is okay to show that permit.

Okay. I'll correct you. I apologize. That's all right. I wasn't aware about a sign. I've never heard of a sign permit. I'm sorry. No.

And as I said, let's bring it up now and be done with it.

No apology necessary. You'll be able to get that all squared away before you show up at BCA. Okay. Okay.

Where do I go for the sign permit?

Third floor. Same place you go. Oh, okay.

Talk to Susan.

No, talk to Tammy and Tracy. Anybody else have any comments? All right. I'll say the same to you. The regular meeting is not on the third Thursday. It's on the fourth. You have an appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 28th, 26th. They start at 5.30 p.m. You make your case there, and we'll go from there. Good luck. I appreciate it. Thank you. This room here, then? Yes. Okay. All right. Anybody else have anything for the good All right. Nice job today, gentlemen, lady. We are adjourned.