Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Lake County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – September 17, 2025

County Boards & Commissions — Wednesday, September 17, 2025

BodyLake County, Indiana

SessionCounty Boards & Commissions

DateWednesday, September 17, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:02:13

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:06

2025.

0:12

Would everybody rise for the Pledge of Allegiance?

0:17

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

0:22

And to the Republic, which is one nation under God.

0:28

Liberty and Justice for all.

0:34

The following is the emergency exit announcement in case of an emergency.

0:37

Exit the commissioner's courtroom.

0:38

Proceed to the stairs, go to the second floor, and exit the building.

0:41

Do not enter an elevator in an emergency.

0:44

You require assistance, a plan condition employee will escort or assist you.

0:48

Please silence any cell phones during this meeting.

1:01

Everybody received their July minutes.

1:05

Yes.

1:06

I'll make a motion to accept minutes as read.

1:09

I have a motion.

1:10

Oh second.

1:10

Everybody in favor by saying aye.

1:13

Aye.

1:14

Anything on the communication statement.

1:16

Communication got a couple of adjustments to this evening's agenda.

1:19

Item number one and two.

1:21

Item one is petition number 25-B-33.

1:24

Christopher R.

1:24

Smeton is the owner and Sword Law's petitioner.

1:28

The property is located approximately two tenths of a mile east of Sheffield Street on the north side of West 93rd Avenue, also known as 14902 West 93rd Avenue in St.

1:36

John Township.

1:38

The first grace request is varies from development standards from the unincorporated county unified development orders title 154, Article 9.

1:44

Accessor uses instructures, chapter 20, detached accessory garages and storage buildings, Section E, area and height.

1:50

Maximum employer, 1525 square feet permitted.

1:53

2592 is what's requested to allow a 72 by 36 accessories, square foot.

1:59

I'm sorry.

2:00

72 foot by 36 foot accessory building for personal use, and then item number two.

2:04

Same order, same petitioner, same property.

2:07

This is also a variance for development standards of the unaccorporated kind of unified development orders, title 154, article nine.

2:13

Accessory uses and structures, chapter 20, detach accessory garage and storage buildings.

2:17

Section E, area and height, maximum building height, 20 feet permitted.

2:20

21 feet seven inches requested.

2:22

First of all, an accessibility over a height of 21 feet seven inches.

2:56

I don't know if we want to take any action since they didn't advertise property.

3:00

Yeah, we're just gonna remove it from the agenda and replace it upon proper advertisement.

3:04

Okay.

3:05

Um to think we can jump right into this under old business.

3:10

Um I believe it's the span of petition.

3:14

We need to address under old business the findings of fact for this.

3:17

I'm gonna turn it over to our attorneys and the board to address that at this time.

3:22

Yes, uh good evening.

3:24

We are here to uh under report order that uh remanded this back to the board to update our revised finance of fact this relates to petition number 23 SC07, and we had uh there's ongoing litigation and we had a or argument in a hearing uh last August, and the result of that is the uh court wants to get a re revised findings of fact entered into and then resubmitted to the court for this matter.

3:53

Um there is a proposed draft uh proposed revised findings of fact that is for the board's review, and if we choose to do so, approve and we would also note uh that uh we're we're seeking votes from the people that uh voted on the original petition because we're we're not reinventing the wheel, we're just providing additional details uh to the court.

4:18

So if you did not vote on uh the original petition, um then uh we we want to refrain from uh having uh new votes on the matter, and that would be uh uh Mark, uh Jim, Frank, and well we've got uh a Jim and a James.

4:37

So uh those are the four folks that uh we're looking to uh to have vote on the new findings presented.

4:48

So Ms.

4:48

Chairman, so one of them we need to all sign in agreement.

4:53

Or do we each sign?

4:54

Or we sign one copy.

4:56

I think to have one copy that everyone has signed.

5:00

Okay.

5:01

Okay, you want that or pencil?

5:05

I'm sure.

5:05

And pen would be best.

5:08

You guys want to pass around the start dead in June.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Licensing And Permits█████████████████████████████████████████████74%

Procedural████7%

Pending Litigation████7%

Public Engagement███5%

Traffic Management██3%

Public Comment█2%

Zoning Regulations█2%

Summary of Proceedings

Lake County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – September 17, 2025

The Lake County Board of Zoning Appeals convened on September 17, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. to hear eight petitions, including a set of five related variance requests from Lamar Advertising for a billboard upgrade, and one request for an accessory building. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance, emergency exit announcement, and approval of the July minutes.

Consent Calendar

Minutes from the July meeting were approved by a voice vote (motion, second, all ayes).

Old Business

Petition 23-SC07 (Remanded Findings of Fact): The board addressed a court remand requiring revised findings of fact for a prior special exception. A draft was presented, and the four original voting members (Mark, Jim, Frank, and James) approved it by a voice vote (all ayes). The revised findings will be signed and submitted to the court.

Public Comments & Testimony

Joe Bortz, owner of the neighboring property at 10107 W. 109th Avenue, spoke against the Lamar Advertising petitions (items 3–7). He expressed concerns that the proposed digital LED billboard would reduce his property value, cause light pollution (flickering, changing colors) toward a planned home, and create traffic safety hazards. He urged the board to uphold existing ordinances and not allow the LED upgrade.
Sean Pennant, Real Estate Manager for Lamar Advertising, presented the company’s case for each variance. He noted that the existing static sign is non-conforming under the new UDO, that Lamar is willing to offer free public service advertising to the county, and that the new digital units have automatic dimmers to reduce light spillage. He also stated that the sign would be a safety improvement over the current tri-vision sign.

Discussion Items

Items 1–2 (25-V-33 & 25-V-34 – Smetana): These two petitions for an accessory building variance were removed from the agenda because the property had not been properly advertised. The board agreed to reschedule upon proper advertisement.
Items 3–7 (Lamar Advertising – Hanover Township): The board considered five related petitions for a billboard at 10007 W. 109th Avenue in a Highway Service-2 (HS-2) zone. The requests were:
- 25-UV-03: Variance of use to allow an off-premise advertising sign (prohibited in HS-2).
- 25-V-35: Variance for sign height (40 ft vs. 24 ft permitted).
- 25-V-36: Variance for dynamic display area (752 sq. ft vs. 48 sq. ft limit).
- 25-V-37: Variance to allow back-to-back digital LED panels (only one contiguous display allowed).
- 25-V-38: Variance to place a dynamic display within 200 ft of an R-3 residential district. Mr. Pennant explained that the existing sign (circa 10–15 years old) is structurally outdated and that Lamar wants to replace it with a new V-shaped monopole, maintaining the same location and height. He provided light meter readings (Daktronics) showing minimal light spillage at 200 ft (values of 0–2 foot-candles). Board members questioned light intensity, dimmer calibration, and safety. Mr. Bortz reiterated his opposition, noting that his planned home would be within 200 ft of the sign. The board discussed the light readings and noted that the sign’s orientation (facing east-west) minimizes impact on adjacent properties.
Item 8 (25-V-39 – Schaap): The petitioner, Ron Schaap, requested a variance to build a 42 ft x 64 ft accessory building (3,264 sq. ft) when 2,178 sq. ft is permitted. The property is 2.7 acres with an existing attached garage. No public comment was offered. The board asked about lot size and existing structures and then approved the request.

Key Outcomes

Items 1–2: Removed from agenda; will be rescheduled after proper advertisement.
Item 25-UV-03 (Variance of Use): Motion to approve (including findings of fact) passed by voice vote (all ayes, no nays).
Item 25-V-35 (Sign Height): Motion to approve passed by voice vote (all ayes).
Item 25-V-36 (Dynamic Display Area): Motion to approve passed by voice vote (all ayes).
Item 25-V-37 (Back-to-Back Panels): Motion to approve passed by voice vote (all ayes).
Item 25-V-38 (200 ft from Residential Zone): Motion to approve passed by voice vote (all ayes).
Item 25-V-39 (Accessory Building): Motion to approve (42 ft x 64 ft building for personal use) passed by voice vote (all ayes).
The petitioner for items 3–7 was instructed to apply for site development permits following the variances.
The meeting adjourned without a separate public comment period (similar to the planning commission).

Meeting Transcript

2025. Would everybody rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. And to the Republic, which is one nation under God. Liberty and Justice for all. The following is the emergency exit announcement in case of an emergency. Exit the commissioner's courtroom. Proceed to the stairs, go to the second floor, and exit the building. Do not enter an elevator in an emergency. You require assistance, a plan condition employee will escort or assist you. Please silence any cell phones during this meeting. Everybody received their July minutes. Yes. I'll make a motion to accept minutes as read. I have a motion. Oh second. Everybody in favor by saying aye. Aye. Anything on the communication statement. Communication got a couple of adjustments to this evening's agenda. Item number one and two. Item one is petition number 25-B-33. Christopher R. Smeton is the owner and Sword Law's petitioner. The property is located approximately two tenths of a mile east of Sheffield Street on the north side of West 93rd Avenue, also known as 14902 West 93rd Avenue in St. John Township. The first grace request is varies from development standards from the unincorporated county unified development orders title 154, Article 9. Accessor uses instructures, chapter 20, detached accessory garages and storage buildings, Section E, area and height. Maximum employer, 1525 square feet permitted. 2592 is what's requested to allow a 72 by 36 accessories, square foot. I'm sorry. 72 foot by 36 foot accessory building for personal use, and then item number two. Same order, same petitioner, same property. This is also a variance for development standards of the unaccorporated kind of unified development orders, title 154, article nine. Accessory uses and structures, chapter 20, detach accessory garage and storage buildings. Section E, area and height, maximum building height, 20 feet permitted. 21 feet seven inches requested. First of all, an accessibility over a height of 21 feet seven inches. I don't know if we want to take any action since they didn't advertise property. Yeah, we're just gonna remove it from the agenda and replace it upon proper advertisement. Okay. Um to think we can jump right into this under old business. Um I believe it's the span of petition. We need to address under old business the findings of fact for this. I'm gonna turn it over to our attorneys and the board to address that at this time. Yes, uh good evening. We are here to uh under report order that uh remanded this back to the board to update our revised finance of fact this relates to petition number 23 SC07, and we had uh there's ongoing litigation and we had a or argument in a hearing uh last August, and the result of that is the uh court wants to get a re revised findings of fact entered into and then resubmitted to the court for this matter. Um there is a proposed draft uh proposed revised findings of fact that is for the board's review, and if we choose to do so, approve and we would also note uh that uh we're we're seeking votes from the people that uh voted on the original petition because we're we're not reinventing the wheel, we're just providing additional details uh to the court. So if you did not vote on uh the original petition, um then uh we we want to refrain from uh having uh new votes on the matter, and that would be uh uh Mark, uh Jim, Frank, and well we've got uh a Jim and a James. So uh those are the four folks that uh we're looking to uh to have vote on the new findings presented.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com