Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 26, 2021 MEETING ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and the assemblage was invited to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chairman Nick Nochevich, Vice Chairman Jeremy Taylor, John Marshall, Dick Sauerman, Daniel Rohaley Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mayor David Uran, Chief of Staff Greg Falkowski, Commission Attorney Joe Irak, City Attorney Alex Kutanovski, Executive Secretary Anthony Schlueter, Assistant Planner Grace Roman, IT Director Adam Graper, Recording Secretary Jenni Pause APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Nick Nochevich asked if there are any corrections, deletions, or modifications to the March 22, 2021 meeting minutes. John Marshall motioned to approve minutes as presented. Dick Sauerman seconded the motion. With 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions, the minutes were approved. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 21-09 Larry N. Hall, Petitioner/10940 Delaware Pkwy, LLC, Owner Request: Special Use Purpose: Allow a private recreational facility for Pickle Ball Location: 10960 Delaware Parkway Larry Hall, 10716 Maloian Drive St John, IN, came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Hall detailed the history of how he became interested in pickle ball and what research he performed. Hall detailed the space and square footage of the proposed site. Hall reported on the Finding of Facts. Hall reported that every employee will be First Aid, CPR and AED trained. Executive Secretary Anthony Schlueter asked Hall to verify that the only area that has a large enough building for the proposed use is in an Industrial zone. Hall confirmed. Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, surrounding properties and proposed recreational facility. Schlueter reported on the parking, operating hours and number of employees. Schlueter reported the petition has been properly advertised and all public notices were sent out. Schlueter reported the Planning Dept has not received any letters of support or remonstration for this petition. Page 1 of 9 Jeremy Taylor asked the petitioner what the duration of a pickle ball game is. Hall stated they are going to run by the hour, and they will shut down each court for 30 minutes between, for each court, for proper cleaning and disinfecting. Taylor asked Hall how many employees they will have. Hall stated they will have 12 total employees, with 3 on a shift. Taylor asked the petitioner if they will hold tournaments. Hall stated not at this time, they want to keep it very community oriented. Marshall asked what pickle ball is. Hall explained the game of pickle ball. Sauerman asked about the parking. Hall stated they have separate employee parking and there will be at least 49 regular parking spaces. Sauerman asked if there will be spectators. Hall stated they are not looking to have a large number of spectators. Rohaley stated he feels good on the parking. Rohaley asked if there will be food & beverage, specifically adult beverages. Hall stated they are not going to serve alcohol; they will only have non-alcoholic drinks and maybe snacks. Nochevich asked what the hours of operation will be. Hall stated they will be 7am-11pm, with the last game booked at 10pm. Nochevich opened the public portion of the meeting. Mike Moran, 10665 Alabama St., came before the Board and asked what the area is zoned. Schlueter reported the area is zoned Industrial. Moran asked if that is the proper zoning for this. Schlueter reported that is why the petitioner is at the meeting seeking a special use. Mayor David Uran came before the Board and stated that this will be a great compliment to the sports climate of the community with the indoor courts. With no other public coming forward Nochevich closed the public portion of the meeting. Nochevich entertained a motion. Jeremy Taylor motioned to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition #21-09. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #21-09 received a favorable recommendation. Nochevich informed the petitioner that they would need to be present at the next City Council meeting to receive the final determination. 21-08 Chester Inc., Petitioner/Lake Kragon, LLC, Owner Request: Variance from Development Standards Purpose: Allow the building addition to encroach the front setback Location: 1181 East Summit Street Steve DeBold of Chester Inc., 555 E. Port Center Dr., Valparaiso, IN, 209 W State Road 231, came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. DeBold detailed the proposed design and layout of the addition including the access. Schlueter reported the Finding of Facts were included in the packet. Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, and history of approvals. Schlueter reported on the proposed addition and layout of site. Schlueter reported the petition has been properly advertised and all public notices were sent out. Schlueter reported the Planning Dept has not received any letters of support or remonstration Page 2 of 9 for this petition. Schlueter reported that the Planning Dept. does not see this proposal causing a line of site issue and or having a negative effect on neighboring businesses. Schlueter recommended approval. Rohaley stated he has no issues with this petition and the trade-off is a good one with need being real estate related. Rohaley stated he does not feel the petition is obtrusive. Marshall stated the petitioner is a victim of their own success and he has no issues with the petition. Taylor asked the petitioner if there are any entrances off Industrial Blvd. DeBold stated there is an existing drive off Industrial Blvd. Taylor asked if that drive will be used to bring vehicles into the site. DeBold stated most of the time it will be used to stage vehicles in the rear. Nochevich opened the public portion of the meeting. With no public coming forward, Nochevich closed the public portion of the meeting. Nochevich entertained a motion. Taylor motioned to approve Petition #21-08 subject to Staff comments. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #21-08 received a favorable recommendation. 21-09 Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc., Petitioner/CapGrow Holdings JV Sub V, LLC, Owner Request: Variance of Use Purpose: Operate a Group Home Facility Location: 1741 East 106th Place Mark Crandley, Attorney from Barnes & Thornburg, 11 Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN., came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Crandley introduced Tom Delgado Executive Director for Pinnacle Treatment Centers. Crandley stated this petition is part of the Fair Housing Act. Crandley provided a history of Pinnacle Treatment Center. Crandley stated none of the occupants of the home are currently using drugs. Crandley stated Pinnacle has rules that no one under their care can use drugs, if they do, they are generally asked to leave. Crandley stated the individuals in this home are transitioning to get back out into the world. Crandley stated none of the individuals are at the house 7 days a week 9:15am – 4:30pm they are transported to treatment during that time. Crandley stated none of the individuals have cars they are all transported by vans driven by employees of Pinnacle. Crandley stated no one is allowed to have visitors. Crandley read from the Fair Housing Act which includes a reasonable accommodation which is what they are asking for. Crandley stated the house is 4 bedrooms and there will never be more then 8 individuals in the house at one time. Nochevich asked the petitioner if they submitted the Finding of Facts. Crandley stated he had not but would be happy to do so and submit them to the lawyer for the city since they are in litigation. Nochevich stated the Finding of Facts are part of the process for Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, and surrounding properties. Schlueter reported on Pinnacle Treatment Centers operations. Schlueter reported on the R1 zoning and what is allowed in that zoning. Schlueter reported Pinnacle did not seek a variance or request any kind of accommodations from the City before leasing and moving into the residence. Schlueter reported that around May 2020 the city was made aware of the home being used as a recovery residence and issued a notice of ordinance violation. Schlueter reported on the complaint filed by the city in the Lake County Courts against Pinnacle & CapGrow. Schlueter reported on the complaint filed by Pinnacle against the City in US District court alleging no more than 8 people reside in the home at any given time, no outside visitors are allowed at the residence and there are staff members present at all times when residents are home. Schlueter reported on the ongoing litigations as well as the history of the litigations between the city and petitioners. Schlueter reported that the judge ordered the Page 3 of 9 cases should be stayed for 60 days in order to allow Pinnacle the opportunity to pursue a variance with the City of Crown Point’s BZA and the Board to reach a determination. Schlueter reported on the Fair Housing Act. Schlueter reported in this petition, all public notices have been properly sent out by Certified mail and published in the newspaper. The Planning Department has received several written communications of remonstration regarding this petition and have been forwarded to the BZA members. Taylor stated in the application this home is referred to as several things and asked the petitioner to verify what they are seeking. Crandley stated it is a residential home for individuals undergoing treatment. Taylor asked how many of these type of homes does Pinnacle operate. Crandley stated he is not sure throughout the country. Delgado stated in Indiana they have 3 homes and another one coming. Taylor asked how many residents in this specific home. Delgado stated it is a 4 bedroom with 2 beds in each room so it will accommodate 8 individuals. Taylor asked if that number varies. Delgado stated that number sometimes goes down but rarely goes up. A member of the public stated they have videos that proves that at times there are way more than 8 individuals. Crandley stated to the Board and the Public that the videos and pictures violate HIPAA and should not be considered. Crandley stated the reason that the petitioner never filed for a variance is because they simply did not know they needed to. Crandley brought up the Fair Housing Act and stated it is unclear how much is enforceable because of that. Taylor addressed the number of occupants again and asked the petitioner to verify that there is no more than 8. Delgado confirmed. Taylor asked how many of the 8 are employees. Delgado stated the employees are not included in that count because they do not sleep at the house. Taylor asked how many employees are there at any given time. Delgado stated 1-2 employees. Taylor asked where the employees park in the driveway. Sauerman stated he is still curious how they got here. Sauerman asked the petitioner to verify that they have 3 or 4 homes. Delgado stated they have 3 in Lake County with 2 currently operating and one more coming. Delgado stated they have a 4th elsewhere in Indiana. Sauerman asked if this home was the first one. Delgado stated it was the first one in Indiana. Sauerman asked if they have gone through a variance process in other areas. Crandley stated is fairly uncommon for restrictions on unrelated individuals living because of the Supreme Court case. Crandley stated they have not had resistance for this type of home. Sauerman asked the petitioner to verify that it is a maximum of 8 people living in the home with 2 workers. Delgado stated 1-2 workers. Sauerman asked if the residents can have vehicles. Delgado stated they cannot have cars and are transported by the van. Sauerman asked where the van parks. Delgado stated in the driveway. Delgado stated the van is not always there. Sauerman asked if any other individuals work. Delgado stated no one is allowed to work because they are in a treatment program. Rohaley asked the petitioner how many locations they have nationwide. Crandley stated neither him nor Delgado are aware of that number. Rohaley asked the petitioner to verify that they have 4 in Indiana and asked how many are operational. Delgado confirmed that there are 4 and 3 of them are operational. Rohaley asked for clarification of where in Indiana the 4 homes are. Delgado stated they have 2 in Merrillville, 1 in Crown Point and 1 in Cambridge. Rohaley asked the petitioner how they go about determining a location for these homes. Delgado state the decision was based on a need from their clientele. Rohaley asked Delgado to verify that they have a certain criteria internally based on need that they look at when searching for these homes. Delgado confirmed. Rohaley asked if standard policy is to approach the municipality when coming into a community. Crandley stated he is not aware of that. Delgado stated to his knowledge no but cannot speak for the company. Rohaley stated then their standard operating procedure that they do not approach the municipality/. Crandley stated he would not say that. Rohaley asked if they have ever gone through this variance process with any of the other homes. Crandley stated they have not. Rohaley asked the petitioner to Page 4 of 9 verify that they just go into municipalities and open these types of homes. Crandley stated they do that because they have a right to do that. Crandley stated he cannot answer for the company nationally. Rohaley asked if the staff is on site 24 hours. Delgado stated there is staff there as long as there are residents there. Delgado stated no staff is there during the day when the residents are at the treatment center. Rohaley asked what happens if someone is sick or cannot go to treatment that day, is there a staff member home with them. Delgado confirmed there is staff present if someone is home. Rohaley asked how long staff stays onsite. Delgado stated they have staff that works 3-11, staff that works overnight and someone that comes in at 7am. Rohaley asked if it is one staff member. Delgado stated sometimes it is 2. Rohaley asked the petitioner to verify that there are four bedrooms with 2 beds each for a maximum of 8 people. Delgado confirmed plus 1-2 staff members. Delgado stated when this began the city had concerns that they had an extra bedroom and there were things that were not in place, so the petitioner installed fire alarms and complied with all the city’s requests. Rohaley asked if they had a city inspection and if everything was brought into compliance. Delgado confirmed. Rohaley asked if this home has a full basement. Delgado stated it has a full finished basement. Rohaley asked the petitioner to verify that there are no bedrooms in the basement. Delgado stated there are no bedrooms in the basement and they were told by the city there could be no bedrooms in the basement. Nochevich asked the petitioner how the rules for the residents are enforced, how behavior issues are managed. Delgado stated if the staff on site cannot handle the issue, they contact the Administrator on call or Supervisor and they sit down with the individual and talk about what the violation of the rule was. Delgado stated they discuss whether the individual should be allowed to continue. Delgado stated it is all on a case-by- case basis and depending on the severity of the issue the individual may be asked to leave. Nochevich asked what the duration of a stay is. Delgado stated generally it is 2-4 weeks. Nochevich asked what the impact of something like this in a residential neighborhood having is to property values. Crandley stated he does not have that information. Nochevich asked the petitioner to verify that 8 is the maximum number of residents allowed at the house at one time. Crandley confirmed. Nochevich asked if there are any other visitors allowed. Crandley stated no other visitors are allowed at the house. Taylor asked the petitioner how they classify their patients under the Fair Housing Act. Crandley stated the law does that; it is determined by someone that is not an active drug user but has a drug addiction. Taylor asked the petitioners if they have had any relapses in the home. Delgado stated they have not had any relapses in any of their homes. Taylor asked what happens if a resident does relapse. Delgado stated they will first take care of the patient and then from there they would not be allowed back at the house because they would need a higher level of care. Delgado stated if there was a relapse, they would search the house and drug test all the residents. Taylor asked if there is any medical treatment that is administered on site. Delgado stated there is no medical treatment onsite. Sauerman asked the petitioner what kind of training or licensing the staff has. Delgado stated the counselors are licensed but the staff simply go through a training but do not necessarily hold a license or certification. Sauerman asked what the process is if a staff member sees something amiss at the home. Delgado stated it is their job to address it and if the resident does not comply, they have to call a supervisor that will come out. Delgado stated the state does not monitor the homes, but they do monito their other programs. Delgado stated the company is in the process of going through an accreditation for their homes but that just started. Sauerman asked the petitioner to verify that there are no site visits. Delgado stated there is no other than an internal team from Pinnacle that comes in quarterly, but no external agencies do. Taylor asked if Pinnacle would be willing to lessen the total number of people in the home. Delgado stated he is not prepared to answer that. Crandley stated he feels under the zoning ordinance if it were 5 or less unrelated people they would not be here. Crandley stated the need is there. Taylor asked the petitioner if they have a list of their house rules that the Board can see. Crandley stated they would be happy to provide that. Page 5 of 9 Sauerman asked how the residents get into the program; are they self-proclaiming themselves to be drug addicts. Delgado stated the residents that are living in the home have completed treatment in the primary program in Merrillville. Delgado stated Pinnacle has a residential treatment center in Merrillville that is a detox residential service and then step down to a partial program which involves living in the house, so they do have an official diagnosis by a medical doctor, by a licensed clinician master level therapist. Delgado stated while they are in treatment there is an insurance reviewing their need to be in treatment. Sauerman asked if something does happen do, they have some type of error of omissions. Crandley stated he believes they do but they could not confirm 100% that they do but they would be happy to provide it. Sauerman asked if they keep statistics on recidivism. Delgado stated they do not keep records on that. Delgado detailed their process and program. Sauerman asked what happens if they relapse. Delgado stated if they relapse in the home, they go back to a higher level of care and then they may come back to one of the homes. Rohaley asked if this house is co-ed. Delgado confirmed it is co-ed. Taylor asked what a typical stay cost. Delgado stated that is covered mostly by an individual’s insurance. Taylor asked what the insurance typically costs. Delgado stated it varies with insurance companies. Taylor asked if there is a set rate. Delgado stated there is a set rate but very few people pay because they utilize their health insurance. Delgado stated if the resident can afford it, they charge the individual $75 per week. Nochevich opened the public portion of the meeting. Daniel Bajda, 1761 E. 106th Pl, came before the Board and stated he has a petition signed by all the residents in the subdivision against this petition. Bajda voiced his concern with the fact that the owner of the property, CapGrow, is not even present at the meeting. Bajda stated the petitioner is using the Fair Housing Act and manipulating it and taking advantage of a true disease. Bajda stated he finds it funny that they have a lot of questions that they cannot answer as a large corporation. Bajda asked if there is a limit on the monies that CapGrow can collect before they would have to go get a storefront. Bajda voiced his concern with Pinnacle self- policing. Bajda stated the federal protection is done if someone is caught not following the rules or relapses. Bajda stated the neighbors have had to put up with people walking up and down their street in sock acting very erratically. Bajda stated he was a police officer for 23 years, has an outstanding record and was in the drug unit for most of his career. Bajda stated on 4th of July there were residents up on the roof of this home watching the neighbors. Bajda stated he does not feel there is adequate supervision. Bajda stated that because this home is self-policed the vans are not driven by individuals with cdl’s or chauffer’s licenses and no one enforces that. Bajda asked if the petitioner is so protected by the federal act why did not, they come into the city and let them know what they were going to do instead they slipped in and caused a whole mess. Bajda stated he would guarantee the Board that from the time this home opened, the average stay is 7-14 days; it is a constant rotation. Bajda stated they do allow visitors and since they are self-policed, they can say whatever they want. Bajda stated he has a video of an argument on the front porch with a resident and a visitor that lasted 3 minutes. Bajda stated with that violation federal protection is gone. Bajda stated they have had several ambulances and 2 or 3 individuals brought out on stretchers. Bajda stated before they came to the meeting, they had a woman run out of the house with a garbage bag threw the bag in the van and took off. Bajda stated the federal act has not been amended since 1984. Bajda stated no one is really staying there, its just a stopover. Bajda stated the relapse rate is 2-3 in weeks after treatment. Bajda voiced his concern with the fact they have 27 children under the age of 10 on the block and do not feel safe. Bajda stated in the 9 years he has lived at the residence he has had no police calls; since this home has started operating h has had three and the neighbors have had several more. Bajda stated he has never entered the property and all videos have been taken from the sidewalk. Bajda stated his ruing doorbell has picked up residents from this house in his Page 6 of 9 backyard. Bajda voiced his concern with grown adults playing ball like children. Bajda stated at one time one of the houses flooded out and there were more than 15 people staying at this home. Bajda stated he has communication with an ex-employee that informed him that the residents at this home can self-medicate with the staff having no training. Bajda claimed the person told him they had to do drops on the residents and personally do drug screens which were positive for various drugs that he listed. Bajda read from the letter he received from the ex-employee. Bajda voiced his concern with the fact that Pinnacle does not screen for sexual predators. Bajda stated everything is so secret with Pinnacle and the home is a revolving door. Bajda detailed some of the other issues his family has experienced that all have to do with safety concerns. Bajda stated if there is a violation at the home the Fair Housing Act no longer applies, and the house gets shut down. Bajda stated he feels the City of Crown Point has a responsibility to the other residents of the subdivision for some accountability for these companies that manipulate federal acts and take advantage of individuals. Bajda stated he found out that if there is federal funding or grants, they no longer have that privacy and are subject to state and local inspections. Bajda stated the vans constantly block the sidewalks. Bajda stated the neighbors all use to sit outside and congregate and now no one does that anymore because they don’t feel safe and feel like prisoners in their own community. Jon Nealy, 1740 106th Pl. came before the Board and voiced his concern with the fact that the home has a gym in the garage and constantly has the door open. Nealy stated most of the times the 2 (12) passenger vans are parked in the grass and no one else in the subdivision parks in the grass they take pride in their houses. Nealy stated he moved to Crown Point to make better things for his family. Nealy stated he feels Pinnacle is not there to help people but just to make money. Nealy begged the Board to not let this happen because it is a family- oriented neighborhood. Nealy stated he heard a resident ask for his meds early. Nealy asked who drug is testing these individuals and who is taking care of them. Nealy stated this house is a disgrace to the neighborhood. Nealy stated his wife and every female on the block is scared because the men work out in the garage with their shirts off like they are showing off. Nealy stated this type of home should be somewhere that is not residential because of the safety issues. Nealy voiced his frustration with the fact the petitioners have no answers. Carol McConnell, 17502 E 106 Pl, came before the Board and voiced her concern as a senior citizen the safety issues that this type of home can cause. McConnell stated neither Crandley nor Delgado live anywhere near this subdivision, so she doesn’t know what vested interest they have in this subdivision. McConnell stated her and her neighbors should not have to worry about their safety. Mike Moran came before the Board and stated he wanted to make sure they were zoning this property correctly. Moran asked the Board and Staff if it was ok if they put a half house next to any of their houses. Adam Graper read the comments from Zoom and Facebook: Graper stated Elizabeth Belami asked why the petitioner did not apply for the variance prior to residents moving in like the rules state. Judge Strictlin asked what kind of training the staff will have. Stated he has provided legal counsel with a study by university professors that this type of homes brings a 17% reduction in property values. Jon Drobzinecki stated he watched a resident walk down the street and get picked up by a car of young adults. Karen Wistowski stated it was not mentioned that one of the residents was standing naked in an upstairs window and was witnessed by a 5-year-old. Bajda came back before the Board and stated there are cities that have these types of homes and put restrictions on them, Boca Raton and Palatine both do. Bajda stated the Fair Housing Act and ADA is open for interpretation. Page 7 of 9 Nealy stated they did not bring up housing values because the neighbors true focus is the safety of their children and senior citizens in the neighborhood. Nealy voiced his concern with the sidewalks being blocked and the safety for all individuals especially blind individuals. Nealy stated his wife called him one day scared because one of the residents was walking up and down the street in their socks in the rain. Nealy stated these residents are not contained inside the house. McConnell stated Crandley and Delgado stated the residents are not allowed any visitors, but she witness a car of three ladies come with gifts and a cake, so it looked like they were having some kind of party, so she feels its not true that they are not allowed visitors. Mayor Uran stated there is a process that they must go through. Uran stated he will ask questions of the petitioners at the City Council where he is a Board member so that the petitioners must give a direct answer. Uran stated if it were not for the city listening to its residents bringing it to their attention that there was something going on at this house that the city did not know about, they would not be there tonight. Uran stated it has taken a year just to get through the courts system to try to find out what they are doing at that house. Uran stated the petitioners have not been up front with information. Uran stated leaving the meeting he will have more questions than answers. Uran stated he does not want to get into any further details because they are in the federal court system and he wants to reserve some of the rights as the mayor of the city to represent their citizens in proper fashion. Uran stated he appreciates the fact that the residents have come out in person and are following on Facebook and zoom. Uran stated his disappointment in the fact that the petitioners were not able to answer a lot of the Board members questions because when you are filing for a special use you should be able to answer those questions for Finding of Facts. With no other public coming forward, Nochevich closed the public portion of the meeting. Crandley stated he wanted to let the Board and public know that he represents CapGrow as well. Rohaley stated he agrees with the Mayor that they have more questions than answers. Rohaley stated they still do not know what is going on at that house. Rohaley stated he would like to commend Mr. Bajda on his research, and he has written down 5 or 6 things he would like to investigate. Rohaley motioned to defer Petition # 21-09 for 30 days to allow the Board time to look into the things the neighbors have brought to them and give the petitioners time to get the answers to the Board’s questions. Marshall seconded the motion Marshall stated he wants to visit this property because he has been on the Board for 13 years and every BZA variance he has ever voted on he was able to visit the property. Marshall stated they have not been given the opportunity to visit this house and he would like to. Crandley stated that is the first he has heard of it, his inclination would be they could work something out, but he would need to talk to his clients and legal. Marshall stated his retort to that is if they are not hiding anything there should not be any problem. Crandley stated it is not so simple for patients that have HIPAA rights, so they have to look into it. Taylor agreed with Rohaley that the Board needs time to look into this and the petitioner has agreed to provide the Board with additional documents. Uran stated on the idea that they are under HIPAA compliance, as the mayor of the city, he has had his Life & Health license for over 13 years, and he would be willing to visit the home as a representative of the Board and the city. Uran stated he would be willing to stay there for 7 days as a HIPAA compliance officer for the state of Indiana. Uran stated he could do that and not share the patient’s information but the operation back to the Board. Nochevich stated none of the Board members nor the Mayor are interested in seeing a patient in respect to their privacy they just want to know about how the facility is ran. Nochevich stated that type of information is what the Board needs to make an educated and informed decision. Nochevich stated not all of them have to go but a representative like the Mayor could report back to the Board. Crandley stated he understands their need to see everything and will do everything he can to Page 8 of 9 facilitate the request in the next couple days. Rohaley stated the Finding of Facts should be submitted before the night of the next meeting to provide the Board time to review. Nochevich reminded the petitioner that they will need to submit the Finding of Facts in a timely manner. Nochevich asked for a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #21-09 was deferred for 30 days. Schlueter informed the public that the next meeting would be Monday May 24, 2021 at 7pm. Attorney Tim Oaks came before the Board as a representative of the City of Crown Point and informed the public that if they have any written information or documents that has not yet been submitted and want that information considered it has to be submitted to the record by giving it to Schlueter before they leave. MISCELLANEOUS AND PUBLIC COMMENT No Public. No Misc. ADJOURNMENT At 8:53 pm, Nochevich entertained a motion to adjourn. Sauerman motioned to adjourn; motion was seconded by Marshall. ATTESTMENT OF MEETING MINUTES. The above minutes were approved and adopted by majority on the _______day of ___________ 2021. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Nick Nochevich, Chairman Anthony Schlueter, Executive Secretary Page 9 of 9