On the advice of its attorney and a request from the petitioner, the Porter Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-1 Wednesday to postpone a decision on Raymond Cahnman’s Porter Beach variance request because the location of his east boundary line at 3030 Dearborn St. is in question.

Following a lengthy discussion, the petition was continued until Oct. 21. The BZA had recessed briefly so Cahnman could confer with his attorney, Bob Welsh, who then concurred with the postponement.

During a public hearing, comment from five Porter Beach residents in person and by letter was divided.

Member Greg Stinson voted no on the continuance saying, “I thought we had sufficient grounds to move forward and no reason for delay.”

At one point town planner Jim Mandon said the BZA was focusing too much on the fence location when it likely would vary only by inches. “I don’t see where the whole discussion is germane.” He said location was the building commissioner’s concern, and more BZA consideration should be given to the fence’s positive or negative impact.

Cahnman wants to replace an existing 6-foot-tall wood fence in poor condition with a new wood fence at the same height and in approximately the same location but extend the fence 8 feet beyond its current terminus on the north end; at one time, said Cahnman, the old fence extended 20 feet farther than it does now but washed out, a risk he’s willing to take.

The fence by ordinance definition is in the front yard and would be limited to 42 inches in height without a variance although Welsh said because of how the home is oriented, the fence is in what is used as the sideyard.

Welsh himself raised the issue of the uncertain east property line. He said a full survey is being done along it to avoid confusion or disputes, but that’s no reason for delay now. Cahnman also initially urged the board to act. “Just tell me what you want. I just want a 6-foot fence on my property line. I’m not extending it to the shoreline or obstructing any views.”

Welsh said Cahnman needs the fence to prevent litter and trespassers, who Welsh said other beach property owners have to chase out. Welsh also said it’s a double standard because some homes at Porter Beach are situated farther forward than the terminus of Cahnman’s fence will be. Welsh noted no one objected to the fence under the property’s previous ownership, and neighbor Frank Firestone has a fence, too.

Stinson asked, “Wouldn’t a 42-inch fence send a message it’s private property?” Welsh said 42 inches doesn’t shield Cahnman’s property from activity on adjacent Dearborn Street, where some property owners park to access their homes. According to Cahnman, “I will not put this fence on 1 inch of Town of Porter property.”

BZA member Elka Nelson said everybody adjacent to public right-of-way doesn’t have a right to ask for a fence to shield activity on it, and she questioned why it isn’t practical to replace the old fence where it is. Welsh said people using Dearborn Street have no right or expectation to use Cahnman’s property, and since he owns it he should be able to utilize all of it.

Associate Plan Commission attorney Ethan Lowe said legally he hesitates to advise the BZA to act when Cahnman doesn’t have a clear east boundary line. Nelson asked if Cahnman could propose replacing the fence in the same position without the 8-foot extension; Lowe said that’s not his request.

During public comment, Jeff Renterghem said Cahnman has made significant investment and done a good job improving his property; the fence has been a visual component of the area, promotes public safety and will continue to be an asset, he added. David Keats supported the fence as long as it stays in its current position and doesn’t interfere with existing uses.

By letter Michael O’Connor objected to a non-conforming use in the front yard and said Cahnman demonstrated no practical difficulty or no unique circumstances to warrant a variance. O’Connor maintained the changes Cahnman has made regarding his property have been detrimental. A second letter from Roger and Stephanie Carnell concurred with O’Connor’s remarks and cited no other fences along beachfront property.

The Porter Plan Commission, which was slated to begin at 7:30 p.m., didn’t convene until 8:48 p.m. due to the length of the BZA. During the commission meeting Mandon presented the final draft of a Porter Beach Overlay creating a Lakeshore Preservation District under the town’s zoning ordinance, and the commission set a public hearing on it for Oct. 21.

Copies of the overlay will be available shortly on the Town of Porter website, and a copy is available for inspection at the town hall.

The overlay was not on the published Plan Commission agenda Wednesday although in August a committee charged with developing a draft indicated it would forward one this month. The Overlay Committee met Wednesday prior to the Plan Commission to fine-tune the final 13-page document.

Omitted for the time being was a builder’s checklist that failed to reach a committee consensus how detailed it should be. Mandon said the committee didn’t want to delay action on the overlay district any longer; two previous attempts at better regulating future development at Porter Beach failed over the past 12 years and the current effort’s taken 10 months.

Mandon stressed that the new overlay regulations establishing both development and performance standards won’t take the place of the town’s zoning ordinance, only add more conditions to it specfic to the Porter Beach area due to its unique nature.

At the Overlay Committee meeting, member and Porter Beach resident Jamie Hogan supported hosting a public meeting for beach residents prior to the formal public hearing to explain what’s in the overlay proposal. “There’s so much misunderstanding already and people are on edge. I don’t want to be naive to the concerns of the residents,” said Hogan.

Town director of engineering Matt Keiser said, “Nobody’s suggesting this will be rammed through. We’ll set it for public hearing and see what happens.” Mandon recommended waiting until at least the Nov. 18 commission meeting before taking an overlay vote.

In a related matter Wednesday, Plan Commission members with Lorain Bell absent agreed unanimously to readvertise and conduct a public hearing Oct. 21 on changes to the town Subdivision Control Ordinance. The hearing had been slated for Aug. 19 but that meeting was canceled following a loss of power due to the Chesterton tornado.

The commission also voted 6-0 to accept a new letter of credit for Mineral Springs Villas on Beam Street. The planned unit development for the residential project expired when infrastructure deadlines were not met and developer Larry Gough is preparing to submit a new PUD for consideration.

The BZA, with Bell absent, advanced three petitions from preliminary hearing to public hearing Oct. 21.

Miguel Santos requires a variance to build a shed at his home at 829 A Johnson St. The shed will be on a larger concrete pad. Cynthia Maddox’s petition to complete a deck at 228 Rankin St. on a non-conforming lot advanced as well; a side-yard variance also is needed.

Bill Chase of Q.T. Sign Inc. representing Comfort Inn & Suites is seeking permission to erect a 12-foot tall monument structure displaying a sign 7 feet tall and 6 feet wide at the motel entrance on U.S. 20 east of Babcock Road. There’s already approval for the sign on the building and a 50 foot-tall pylon sign requiring the variance for a third sign.

Posted 9/18/2009