[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=54902.62

home : local news : local news
6/21/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
'It's A Crying Shame'
Ben Ross’ tower comes down — with some effort

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - After all the semantics and lawsuits and threats, all the name-calling and all the wrangling, the tower that has been at the center of so much controversy the past four years is coming down.

"It's an injustice. It's so unfair," said the tower's owner, Ben Ross, as he watched a 100-ton crane attempt to lift the cupola off the observation tower at his Shawmut Avenue home. "They're making me do all this for that little room up there.

"It's a real injustice."

Ross and his neighbors have been fighting over the structure for four years, since he was given a permit by the city's plan department to build the tower, which rises 25 feet above Ross's home, in apparent violation of city code.

City Planner John Pugh, though, said his department granted Ross a permit because the structure met the city's code definition of a tower. He doesn't agree with a La Porte Superior Court 2 decision forcing Ross to remove the tower, but feels doing so is the right move.

"He's complying with a court order. I think that's basically good, because it's a court order," Pugh said. "I think we were in the right (in granting the permit), but I don't think he has any other options."

A group of Ross's Lake Shore Drive-area neighbors have opposed the tower since it was built more than three years ago, and filed suit looking to have it torn down.

La Porte Superior Court 2 Judge Steven King ordered the tower taken down by Aug. 1, and the decision was upheld by an Indiana appellate court.

Ross had maintained that he'd continue to fight the order, but said Friday he just felt he'd reached the end of the line. The city council last month voted down an ordinance that would've "grandfathered in" Ross's and any other tower that broke code.

"I fought as long as I could, and I lost," he said. "I ran out of real estate. I had nowhere else to go. What else am I going to do?"

Workers from Grand Davo Crane Service in Kalamazoo, Mich., brought a 100-ton crane to lift the cupola, but fought issues with welds and mortar that made the disassembly difficult.

The plan was to bring the top of the tower down and set it in a side yard where Ross said it will be dismantled and "thrown away." As of 3 p.m., though, the company was still struggling with the job.

Don Flotow, who built the tower and was on hand Friday to aid in its destruction, simply said "it's a crying shame," when asked how he felt. "That's really all I can say right now. It's a shame."

Contact Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Roger Kaputnik]

He was told from the get-go it could come to this. I hope he sues and all the ugly 'towers' come down.

[Dan]

Land of the Free, huh?

[JHeath]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=41417.61

6/25/2008 10:00:00 AM
New Panel Planned For Tower Ordinance

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Plan Commission on Tuesday assigned the decision on shoring up the "tower ordinance" to a committee to include members of the plan commission and the city council.

Plan commission President Wallace Hook assigned members Tim Smith and John Carr to the committee. The two will be joined by two city council members, including 1st Ward councilman Rich Murphy.

Council president Ron Meer will assign a second member.

Attorneys from both boards will also sit in on committee meetings, as will plan director John Pugh.

Hook hopes the group will come up with a solid ordinance regulating the erection of observation towers in Michigan City. The city is likely to face lawsuits from Ben Ross, a Colfax Avenue man who built a tower on his home with a valid city building permit. Ross was later told by a local judge to tear it down in the face of opposition from Ross's neighbors.

Ross is trying to bring down the structure which rises 25 feet above the roof of his home. Pugh maintains the permit is legal, but has admitted it's vague because the definition of the tower is vague.

"This is another thing we have that's just long overdue," Hook said. "I'd like to get it done, it's been going on long enough. Let's just get it done."

Several plan commissioners said the group will have to look closely at the definitions of a tower and of a penthouse. With a great deal of new development on the horizon in Michigan City, the commission doesn't want to stifle that development with overly strict definitions, officials said.

Murphy, an advocate of North End redevelopment, said Tuesday he'd like to see the city overhaul its entire zoning system by implementing Smart Code, a uniform, overlay zoning system in which zones are set according to use.

"If development is coming, we have this thing in front of us and all the work is done," he said.

Hook said the subcommittee will likely take a look at the Smart Code.

Contact Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Land of the Free does not mean that one can do what one wants. Ross was told the likely outcome of his proceeding with the addition to his house (not a tower, by the way) before he built it. His arrogance brings him and his "tower" down.

[Dan]

Call me a Libertarian, but I think government is way too intrusive when it comes to property rights. His neighbors have the right to move.

[Roger Kaputnik]

That is patently absurd. I will not call you a Libertarian when you take so little heed of the liberty of others.

[Dave]

Zoning, planning and land use regulation are the government being too intrusive? Sorry, I'm not buying that. If you want to avoid zoning and such, move yourself to some unincorporated area without zoning, but don't complain when your next door neighbor starts a waste transfer station, or opens a truck stop with 100 gas pumps.

My impression of this whole dispute has been that Ross wanted to put in this tower which would violate zoning ordinances, and somehow tried to sneak it in using some outmoded rule having to do with fire observation towers. That monstrosity he put up was pretty obviously not a fire tower, and his reaction to his neighbors was essentially a hearty "Screw you!"

Some people have this view that "it's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission." I personally enjoy it when they discover that the forgiveness is not forthcoming, and they end up getting squashed like as an insect.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Amen, amen.

[Southsider2k12]

Zoning, planning and land use regulation are the government being too intrusive? Sorry, I'm not buying that. If you want to avoid zoning and such, move yourself to some unincorporated area without zoning, but don't complain when your next door neighbor starts a waste transfer station, or opens a truck stop with 100 gas pumps.

My impression of this whole dispute has been that Ross wanted to put in this tower which would violate zoning ordinances, and somehow tried to sneak it in using some outmoded rule having to do with fire observation towers. That monstrosity he put up was pretty obviously not a fire tower, and his reaction to his neighbors was essentially a hearty "Screw you!"

Some people have this view that "it's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission." I personally enjoy it when they discover that the forgiveness is not forthcoming, and they end up getting squashed like as an insect.

Interesting insight on the story. I had not heard those details before.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Much of the case actually hinged on the definition of a tower. He (Mr. Ross) used an extreme case of the definition, but it was the zoning folks who dropped the ball. Aren't they bonded, like corporate directors, so if they mess up and get sued, the City doesn't wind up holding the bag?

[kharris]

Zoning, planning and land use regulation are the government being too intrusive? Sorry, I'm not buying that. If you want to avoid zoning and such, move yourself to some unincorporated area without zoning, but don't complain when your next door neighbor starts a waste transfer station, or opens a truck stop with 100 gas pumps.

My impression of this whole dispute has been that Ross wanted to put in this tower which would violate zoning ordinances, and somehow tried to sneak it in using some outmoded rule having to do with fire observation towers. That monstrosity he put up was pretty obviously not a fire tower, and his reaction to his neighbors was essentially a hearty "Screw you!"

Some people have this view that "it's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission." I personally enjoy it when they discover that the forgiveness is not forthcoming, and they end up getting squashed like as an insect.

I am sorry but I do not think that the fault lies with Mr Ross. He went to the City and was granted permission to build according to the plans he presented. Whether he knew those plans violated any building restrictions or not I believe is irrelevant. The City grtanted permission for the structure. Regardless of definitions or interpretations of the word "tower", I cannot conceive of how the owner can be held responsible when the he was granted permission by the City. If his "tower" (whether anyone likes it or not) violated city building codes, then his building permit should have never been granted.

[Roger Kaputnik]

If the permit was granted but incorrectly, it is an invalid permit. I have heard that Ross was warned that this exact thing could happen.

[Ang]

I could understand if he presented one set of blue prints then built from a different set. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm going to have to stand with Mr. Harris on this position.

[Dave]

Ahh, but because some folks at the city don't know have the reading skills of the typical sixth grader, should Mr. Ross's neighbors have to roll over and spend the rest of forever looking at that thing?

I don't think so.

However, Roger has a point. I have no idea about liability of city employees, but Mr. Ross may have some kind of recourse there.

I was looking at the pictures of the crane taking the top off that tower and wondering how that was constructed. Was it all built in place, or did they somehow truck in the top room and plunk it in place with a crane? I'm imagining one of the neighbors going to work one morning with a nice view of the lake and coming home in the evening to see that thing instead. I can guarantee that would tick me off.

This post has been edited by Dave: Jun 27 2008, 12:42 PM

[kharris]

Ahh, but because some folks at the city don't know have the reading skills of the typical sixth grader, should Mr. Ross's neighbors have to roll over and spend the rest of forever looking at that thing?

I don't think so.

However, Roger has a point. I have no idea about liability of city employees, but Mr. Ross may have some kind of recourse there.

I was looking at the pictures of the crane taking the top off that tower and wondering how that was constructed. Was it all built in place, or did they somehow truck in the top room and plunk it in place with a crane? I'm imagining one of the neighbors going to work one morning with a nice view of the lake and coming home in the evening to see that thing instead. I can guarantee that would tick me off.

I in no way want to indicate that the neighbors of Mr Ross have to roll over and accept that which they are opposed to. Of course they have the right to appeal. And I agree with Roger that a permit issued incorrectly is most likely an invalid permit ... but ... is it my responsibility as a home owner to know that the permit was issued incorrectly. I request a permit, it is issued, I can only assume that the permit is valid. As far as Ross being told to expect this sort of backlash and opposition, I would think that those issuing the permit had an idea it was being issued incorrectly and hence should have issued it at all. Once again, I believe it comes back to the city.

[Dave]

Once again, I believe it comes back to the city.

Or some individuals who work for the city who need a serious job performance review, and encouragement to "retire". Encouragement on the order of "retire now or you're fired."

[lovethiscity]

Or some individuals who work for the city who need a serious job performance review, and encouragement to "retire". Encouragement on the order of "retire now or you're fired."

Fire the plan commission and planning dept.? Just because these groups have had a few bad decades does not mean they are incompetent. Give them a chance, maybe they will figure out how to learn from their mistakes. We have gone almost the first decade of the new millennium without progress, for crying out loud there are still nine more. After all what does a few screw ups really hurt? Elston Grove and the planned homeless shelter, the gas station at the skate park in a residential neighborhood, tower in a residential area, truck stops at the end of runways, garbage dumps down the street from the National Lake Shore. I am sure if we look hard enough we will find something they have done right. It is not like somebody is going to sue the City for having an illegal plan commission, just because one of the appointed members lives outside the city limits, shoot lives out of the State. that would be hard to prove, come on it is not like this person shows up to plan commission meetings in the family car with Michigan Plate "STOP 38". Nah that would never happen.

[Roger Kaputnik]

It won't happen--tho' I have been railing against them lo these many years.

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.wndu.com/localnews/headlines/25610914.html

Michigan City man begins removal of controversial tower Save Email Print
Posted: 5:45 AM Jul 18, 2008
Last Updated: 5:45 AM Jul 18, 2008


A Michigan City man is following a court order and taking down a tower he built on his home.

Ben Ross built the tower in order to gain an aerial view of Lake Michigan, and he got a permit from the city to do so.

But a neighbor sued, saying it was built higher than code allowed. A judge agreed, and ordered that it be taken down.

The room has been taken off the top of the tower, and Ross is in the process of bringing it down under the 30-foot limit.