The Porter Board of Zoning Appeals on June 24 approved a variance for a fence and decorative columns at 330 State Street, subject to numerical limits on height and lighting and a septic clearance before a final permit is issued.
Attorney Swordon, representing property owner Joshua Snider, told the board the lighting fixtures would use low-output bulbs. "They're only going to be 40 W bulbs just to illuminate that little column in that area," he said, framing the fixtures as decorative safety lighting. Planning staff described the house as essentially a "glass house," meaning most alterations require variances because of lot siting and window placement, and said visual impact to neighbors is limited.
The board set precise conditions in its approval. The decision allows 12 columns at approximately 91 inches with 24-inch fixture caps and two front gate columns at approximately 120 inches including the 24-inch caps; the side-yard relief was treated as a zero lot line (a 15-foot variance equivalent) for the lots where the fence stands, and the front setback was fixed at 30 feet from the house. The board also limited lighting to "40 watts regular incandescent or an equivalent LED." The approval includes a condition that the applicant provide a septic release or other verification from Porter County or state public health authorities before the building permit is finalized.
Board members discussed emergency access concerns after staff reported a May 24 call involving the fire department and parked vehicles near the property; the board did not add a parking-specific enforcement condition but discussed alternatives, including asking the applicant for a written commitment about removing work vehicles once construction is complete.
The motion passed on roll call 4-1 (Mr. Krimpkkey voted no). The board directed staff to prepare written findings for adoption at the next meeting.
The continued hearing had included two written remonstrances read into the record from Melinda Mette (316 State Street) and Heather Higgins (3006 State Street), both citing code height limits, concerns about after-the-fact construction and illumination that might affect neighbors. Those objections were part of the board's deliberations but did not prevent approval under the conditions the board adopted.