It's funny how things work out sometimes in local government.

Just this past week, the Warsaw zoning board, despite the protests of virtually everybody in a residential neighborhood, approved an industrial use on property zoned residential.

LRC Products bought several lots in Rolling Hills, a residential neighborhood.

LRC wants to store wooden rafters on the property.

I think the people involved are good people. I don't think there is any ill will or malicious intent. I believe they are trying to operate in the best interests of the community.

None of the people involved - those asking for the variance, those protesting or those on the board - are bad people.

But I must admit I was surprised by the zoning board's decision.

Usually around these parts, boards operate under the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" philosophy. That's where they vote based on how many people show up to complain.

The side with the most complainants wins. I've seen that quite a bit.

But in the case of the industrial use on property zoned residential, the board went against the will of dozens of residential property owners.

One writer of a letter to the editor noted that he was under the impression that this was a democracy and that the majority rules. I understand his point, but you have to be careful with that majority rules talk or you'll be getting nasty letters from the ICLU.

One of the basic tenets of this great nation is individual rights. The right of an individual is supposed to be held above the will of the majority. As long, of course, as the individual isn't breaking any laws or infringing on anybody else's rights.

The question in this particular zoning case was whether the business owner's right to do as he pleased with his property infringed somehow on the rights of the adjacent property owners.

That is not an easy question to answer.

These questions pop up frequently in areas where residential and commercial/industrial interests collide.

In the case of LRC, I can sympathize with the residential property owners. I know they probably feel betrayed by their local government.

But on the other hand, I drove by that property. There already are rafters stored around there. I guess I wonder how much different things will look after LRC constructs its 4-foot high earthen mound and plants its required pine tree buffer and stores the rest of its rafters.

Will it look significantly different? Will it look lots worse? Will it look better?

Is how it looks an infringement on the rights of Rolling Hills residents? There are 60-some homes in Rolling Hills. My guess is that not more than a dozen are situated so that LRC's property is visible to them.

Of course all the residents have to drive by the LRC property to get to their homes. Does a Rolling Hills resident have a right to not drive by a pine-tree buffered pile of rafters? Does that right supercede the right of LRC's owner to store his rafters on property he legally purchased?

A real estate agent says the project will affect property values. A real estate appraiser says it won't.

Who do you believe? How do you decide?

If I was on that board I would have asked myself, who's hurt more based on my decision?

Is it the Rolling Hills residents who have to drive by the rafters if I vote yes, or is it the LRC owner whose business suffers if I vote no?

But the LRC owner knew the property was zoned residential when he bought it. In fact, there are several covenants on that property that still need to be vacated, covenants that limit the land's use to single family dwellings and forbid business or commercial activity.

Even though LRC got the zoning variance, it still needs to get all these covenants vacated.

The issue of the covenants will come up in the February plan commission meeting.

So the LRC issue isn't dead, but one must assume that the plan commission will go along with the vacations. The zoning board's variance serves as an endorsement of LRC's plans and the plan commission is unlikely to vote the other way.

It is also noteworthy that two members of the zoning board - Richard Keeven and Alan Clingan - also are members of the plan commission. Keeven and Clingan both voted to approve the zoning variance.

And after all is said and done, it's not beyond the realm of probability, in fact, it's pretty likely, the Rolling Hills residents will appeal these decisions and they may even prevail.

Perhaps storing rafters isn't the best use for that land. Perhaps the zoning board should have voted no.

It's too late to second guess them on that.

But if I were a Rolling Hills resident and really felt strongly about it, I would get all my neighbors together and put my money where my protest is. I would pool resources from all the neighbors and make the LRC guy an offer.

For a few hundred bucks each, the Rolling Hills neighbors could own the land and turn it into a neighborhood park.

Of course the LRC guy might not be interested in selling. But then again, nobody likes to make enemies. He could probably store rafters somewhere else. Maybe an offer like that is just the chance he needs to be the good neighbor the Rolling Hills folks want him to be. [[In-content Ad]]